Is there a God of atheism?

[Unknown Soldier]

Here's my 'face of atheism'.

View attachment 44623

Look at that guy. Check out that smile! How could anyone be afraid of atheism with this guy as the high priest advocate?

I really like Carl Sagan too. It is he who set me on the road to appreciate science, mathematics, and critical thinking. Here's what else I like about him:

• He championed legitimate science and exposed pseudoscience.
• As far as I know he treated well those who disagreed with him never cursing at them, nor calling them names, nor threatening them.
• He never advocated suicide, and even though he suffered and died of cancer he continued to value life as long as he could pursuing his life's dreams.
• He had a sense of humor and was able to laugh at his own imperfections.
• Sagan was an independent thinker knowing full well the pitfalls of group think and never bowed to authority when it demanded he believe what he was told.
• Finally, Carl Sagan had a love for humanity warning it that it faced grave dangers that needed to be guarded against lest we all perish.

Almost everything you read in my posts has been either directly or indirectly influenced by Carl Sagan.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Trust me--I'm a mathematician.

Trust you?
You don't know some of the elementary concepts of geometry...

That's demonstrably wrong, of course.

...and you think you're a mathematician?

I know I am although you're obviously hoping I'm not.

Circles and squares are kinda like God. They only exist as abstract concepts. They're two dimensional things humans invented for their own purposes.

Yes. I know that.

Because they're both two dimensional...

Yes, I know that too.

...it isn't possible to put one on top of another.

Here's where you're going wrong. The possible positions of a square relative to a circle depends on the space they're in. On a plane in R2, yes, it isn't defined for any point on a figure to be "on top" of another point. However, in R3 a point in a sense can be on top of another. For example, P = (1, 2, 3) is above the point Q = (1, 2, 0). In a similar way, the circle having all points at z = 3 is "on top of" the square whose corner points are (3, 0, 0), (0, 3, 0), (-3, 0, 0) and (0, -3, 0).

One who doesn't understand that might think that drawing a picture, superimposing two shapes, represents the reality, but it doesn't.

You need to admit that you are wrong here.

Any more than superimposing God onto nontheists represents reality.

You need to consider all possibilities and not just what you think advances your beliefs.

 

[DBT]

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.

Anyway, this lesson isn't just about geometry; it's a lesson about opening the mind to all possibilities and giving up the strictures of absolutist thinking. We appear to limit ourselves unnecessarily both in insisting that circles cannot have corners and that atheists cannot have Gods.

A square within a circle does not make a circle with corners...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Anyway, this lesson isn't just about geometry; it's a lesson about opening the mind to all possibilities and giving up the strictures of absolutist thinking. We appear to limit ourselves unnecessarily both in insisting that circles cannot have corners and that atheists cannot have Gods.

A square within a circle does not make a circle with corners...

So if I put a hippopotamus inside a circle, that means a circle can be a hippopotamus. I love this place. I learn new things all the time!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anyway, this lesson isn't just about geometry; it's a lesson about opening the mind to all possibilities and giving up the strictures of absolutist thinking. We appear to limit ourselves unnecessarily both in insisting that circles cannot have corners and that atheists cannot have Gods.

What you've demonstrated is that any argument can be viewed as persuasive... you just need to really want to believe it is so.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Anyway, this lesson isn't just about geometry; it's a lesson about opening the mind to all possibilities and giving up the strictures of absolutist thinking. We appear to limit ourselves unnecessarily both in insisting that circles cannot have corners and that atheists cannot have Gods.

What you've demonstrated is that any argument can be viewed as persuasive... you just need to really want to believe it is so.

And if you just redefine all the words.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Trust me--I'm a mathematician.

Trust you?
You don't know some of the elementary concepts of geometry...

That's demonstrably wrong, of course.

...and you think you're a mathematician?

I know I am although you're obviously hoping I'm not.

Circles and squares are kinda like God. They only exist as abstract concepts. They're two dimensional things humans invented for their own purposes.

Yes. I know that.

Because they're both two dimensional...

Yes, I know that too.

...it isn't possible to put one on top of another.

Here's where you're going wrong. The possible positions of a square relative to a circle depends on the space they're in. On a plane in R2, yes, it isn't defined for any point on a figure to be "on top" of another point. However, in R3 a point in a sense can be on top of another. For example, P = (1, 2, 3) is above the point Q = (1, 2, 0). In a similar way, the circle having all points at z = 3 is "on top of" the square whose corner points are (3, 0, 0), (0, 3, 0), (-3, 0, 0) and (0, -3, 0).

One who doesn't understand that might think that drawing a picture, superimposing two shapes, represents the reality, but it doesn't.

You need to admit that you are wrong here.

Any more than superimposing God onto nontheists represents reality.

You need to consider all possibilities and not just what you think advances your beliefs.

That's not on-top of, that's over.

That's like saying, if your mom is in Australia and I am in the US, I'm on top of your mom.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Here's where you're going wrong. The possible positions of a square relative to a circle depends on the space they're in. On a plane in R2, yes, it isn't defined for any point on a figure to be "on top" of another point. However, in R3 a point in a sense can be on top of another. For example, P = (1, 2, 3) is above the point Q = (1, 2, 0). In a similar way, the circle having all points at z = 3 is "on top of" the square whose corner points are (3, 0, 0), (0, 3, 0), (-3, 0, 0) and (0, -3, 0).

One who doesn't understand that might think that drawing a picture, superimposing two shapes, represents the reality, but it doesn't.

You need to admit that you are wrong here.

Any more than superimposing God onto nontheists represents reality.

You need to consider all possibilities and not just what you think advances your beliefs.

That's not on-top of, that's over.

That's like saying, if your mom is in Australia and I am in the US, I'm on top of your mom.

He did put quotes around “on top”. So maybe that’s the answer here.

“Atheists” believe in “gods”. Circles have “corners”. “Bachelors” are “married”. Atheism “is” a “religion”.

That way we don’t confuse these terms with their normally understood definitions but allow for expanded, non-limiting definitions too.

 

[ideologyhunter]

It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here's where you're going wrong. The possible positions of a square relative to a circle depends on the space they're in. On a plane in R2, yes, it isn't defined for any point on a figure to be "on top" of another point. However, in R3 a point in a sense can be on top of another. For example, P = (1, 2, 3) is above the point Q = (1, 2, 0). In a similar way, the circle having all points at z = 3 is "on top of" the square whose corner points are (3, 0, 0), (0, 3, 0), (-3, 0, 0) and (0, -3, 0).

One who doesn't understand that might think that drawing a picture, superimposing two shapes, represents the reality, but it doesn't.

You need to admit that you are wrong here.

Any more than superimposing God onto nontheists represents reality.

You need to consider all possibilities and not just what you think advances your beliefs.

That's not on-top of, that's over.

That's like saying, if your mom is in Australia and I am in the US, I'm on top of your mom.

He did put quotes around “on top”. So maybe that’s the answer here.

“Atheists” believe in “gods”. Circles have “corners”. “Bachelors” are “married”. Atheism “is” a “religion”.

That way we don’t confuse these terms with their normally understood definitions but allow for expanded, non-limiting definitions too.

Note he used quotes in rebuttal. The original phrasing re corners on a circle had no quotations around on. Moreover, even if the op does have quotes, it is a bit of a pretense to go from -ism to a diverse population of -ists, cherry-pick behaviors of individuals and call it evidence of a "god of atheism." Atheism is a position on its own merits that can be discussed as such, but shifting to vague individuals is an ad hom trap.

 

[TomC]

Note he used quotes in rebuttal. The original phrasing re corners on a circle had no quotations around on.

Prolly because he's a mathematician, and therefore very precise.

Trust me.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Note he used quotes in rebuttal. The original phrasing re corners on a circle had no quotations around on.

Prolly because he's a mathematician, and therefore very precise.

Trust me.
Tom

We are all mathematicians here. Trust me, too.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

The apparent point of this thread is to find a definition for “is” for which the statement “atheism is a religion” becomes a true statement.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

Anyway, this lesson isn't just about geometry; it's a lesson about opening the mind to all possibilities and giving up the strictures of absolutist thinking. We appear to limit ourselves unnecessarily both in insisting that circles cannot have corners and that atheists cannot have Gods.

The correct response is there are an infinite number of infintesimal corners on a circle. Trust me, I'm just making this up as a go along

Circles sound very mysterious now. Makes me wonder how many atheists can stand on the corner of a circle.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

Anyway, this lesson isn't just about geometry; it's a lesson about opening the mind to all possibilities and giving up the strictures of absolutist thinking. We appear to limit ourselves unnecessarily both in insisting that circles cannot have corners and that atheists cannot have Gods.

The correct response is there are an infinite number of infintesimal corners on a circle. Trust me, I'm just making this up as a go along

Circles sound very mysterious now. Makes me wonder how many atheists can stand on the corner of a circle.

We haven’t even established yet what an “atheist” is let alone what a “corner” of a circle would “be”.

 

[pood]

Atheism is a bachelor with a wife? A square is a circle with four corners?

 

[ideologyhunter]

If Christianity can have one deity with three distinct entities, I guess you can rewrite geometry as well. (Bachelor with a wife I don't know about, but pregnant woman with no baby daddy, no probs.)

 

[gmbteach]

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.

Anyway, this lesson isn't just about geometry; it's a lesson about opening the mind to all possibilities and giving up the strictures of absolutist thinking. We appear to limit ourselves unnecessarily both in insisting that circles cannot have corners and that atheists cannot have Gods.

The correct response is there are an infinite number of infintesimal corners on a circle. Trust me, I'm just making this up as a go along

Circles sound very mysterious now. Makes me wonder how many atheists can stand on the corner of a circle.

Hey maybe we can confuse him by putting him in a round room and tell him to sit in the corner….

 

[TomC]

Atheism is a bachelor with a wife? A square is a circle with four corners?

Every time I hear this it reminds me of a couple of L A Law episodes about a married bachelor.

Young Californian dude marries a hookup. They both realize their mistake in a couple of months. They don't have much money, he goes to Mexico to get a cheap quickie divorce. It's an amicable breakup.

Then he meets his real wife. They get married and start a family. He works long hours at a demanding job to provide for his family, so his wife can stay home and take care of the three children.

Then the mom gets run over and killed by a huge truck. The corporate owners don't have much in the way of maintenance records, because nobody cared enough to maintain the brakes.
Seemed like an open and shut case, dude has a million dollar payout coming. He needs it.

But at the trial, a corporate lawyer shows him a paper and asks if he recognizes the signature. He does. It's the quickie divorce from Tijuana.
California recognizes marriages performed in their state. It recognizes divorces performed in any state in the USA. But if a marriage is performed in California, it doesn't recognize a divorce from another country. The guy was screwed. The owners of the truck owed him no more than they'd owe the friend of anybody who got run over by a truck.
Nothing. Because he wasn't legally married to the mother of his children. He was, according to California law, still married to his wife still living in Pennsylvania. Because that's the law. He was a married bachelor.

Perhaps the reason I still remember this is because, as a gay man, I couldn't get married legally anywhere in America. Depending on your attitude towards American law and culture, I'm still a married bachelor.


Human opinions and attitudes don't have the simple clarity and precision of mathematics. Regardless of what religious mathematicians say, or how much they bleat "Trust Me!"
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

Atheists can defend their faith with tenacity at least as fierce as theists defend their beliefs. Atheists have some unproved ideas that are upheld not with valid reason or strong evidence but with anger, abuse, and if possible, forced silence.

How about some examples?

What do you consider to be the "faith" of atheists?
What "unproved ideas" do atheists uphold without reason or evidence?

Unless you can provide some actual meat for us to chew on, I'm going to consider this yet another attempt to troll.