Are there corners on a circle?
There can be four corners on a circle! (See the attached graphic.) In fact, you can put as many corners on a circle you want.
Nope. The square has the corners not the circle.
You asked if there are corners (corner points)
on a circle. I created a diagram that demonstrates that sure, you can place corner points on a circle.
Though pedantically you are correct that is not what I meant.
I don't know what you meant
That’s not my fault you couldn’t think past a strictly pedantic and literal interpretation of what I said. Others here seemed to understand what I meant.
but only what you posted, and what you posted, at least within the context of standard plane geometry, is wrong. Sorry.
so circles do have corners then? How do you define a circle and how do you define a corner?
A circle by its definition is not a geometric figure that has corner by their definition.
The standard definition of a circle is that it is the infinite set of points on a plane that are all a distance r from a single point which is the center. See that? Contrary to what you say the standard definition of a circle used in mathematics says nothing about the circle having no corner points.
As you may also know mathematics starts with axioms and makes proofs from there. The geometric consequence of that definition of a circle is that it has no corners.
You need to think past the first literal reading of the word.
You were either being intellectually dishonest in your response or simply obtuse.
I won't accuse anybody of intellectual dishonesty, but your statements about circles (and other issues, for that matter) sure do reflect ignorance of the subject matter. It does appear, though, that you made up a definition of a circle to save your position. Is that true?
No. It is not.
Either way it is not going to be constructive to argue with you.
It can be very constructive to argue with me if you would let go of your dogmas and be willing to learn.
Which dogma do you believe I have? I have not found it constructive to argue with you yet. If you let go of your pedantry we might get somewhere too.
You need to understand that the meanings of words are not absolute. They don't fall out of the sky to be forever preserved without changes. People make up words and the definitions of those words. As such, word definitions can and do change all the time as people change them.
Really? I guess I didn’t know that sorry.
But the way you were arguing it certainly did look like you were ignorant of those basic facts. For example, you were arguing like a "definition fundamentalist" insisting that there can be only one understanding of what an "atheist" is.
I have never heard the phrase “definition fundamentalist”. Did you just make that up?
I have not insisted there can be only one understanding what an “atheist” is? Can you point to where I said there was only one understanding?
Do you think there are other understandings of what a circle means that results in a circle having corners?
Do you believe that if a word has too many understandings it becomes a meaningless word?
If I came up with a new word for people who don’t believe in gods would you agree that there are people who don’t believe in gods? Does it matter what word is used?
So getting back to the OP, what we mean by "atheist" can change and in fact has changed from time to time and from person to person. No word perfectly describes what it refers to, and the word "atheist" is no different. It is then simplistic to describe an atheist as being something and then expecting all atheists to conform perfectly to that description.
So yes, an atheist can have a God like a circle can have a corner point.
So I can place a god on an atheist like I can place a corner point on a circle. Got it. Thanks again.
Yes, you can "place a God on an atheist." Which of your Gods commanded you: "Thou shalt not dare to think that atheists can believe in God"?
That’s a weird question. No god commanded such of course. But in my definition of atheist believing in a god moots the word.
I believe that words should have meanings that allow for their use to accurately communicate ideas. Yes the word atheist has been used in different ways but you are trying to muddy the accurate communication of ideas by insisting the word can mean something that no one here agrees it means. So you are making it harder to communicate rather than easier.
And even if there are people who call themselves atheists who are not (just like there are many who call themselves Christians who are not) doesn't preclude that there are some who call themselves atheists who are. We covered this in the other thread about whether there are "true" atheists, which there are.
Sheesh--it looks like I've come full circle (along with some points if not corner points). Those points are that I became an atheist thinking I left God and religion behind only to find that atheists have Gods and a religion of their own.
if you stretch the words atheist, god, and religion as much as you have then that likely could be true. But then you will have stretched the words to the point of uselessness in their ability to communicate the ideas. You are making a categorical assertion where it is not warranted.
It seems you are just trying to be contrary and rile up people here.
At the very least it sounds like you were not successful in leaving your god and religion behind.
