LG: Look again. Garth and Oakspear did so, at least. 2 != 0. As for flexible interpretations of the First Amendment, I was being facetious to make a point. Sorry if it was lost on you. The establishment clause cannot justify establishing atheism as the state religion any more than Catholicism.
Oakspear: I was trying to be precise in my wording. I'm sorry if you took offense at my use of "degenerate", but the concept is quite applicable to this debate. (well, if you can call this a debate, that is.) A better example of the definition of a degenerate case is the Pythagorean Theorem, namely:
For any planar right triangle, the square of the hypotenuse, c, is equal to the sum of the squares of the two adjacent sides, a and b.
Or c^2=a^2 + b^2.
However, if the triangle does not contain a right angle, (like an isosceles or equilateral triangle), the formula fails to produce the correct answer.
The Pythagorean Theorem is a degenerate case of a broader law that encompasses all triangles, not just right triangles. (All planar triangles, that is. Spherical trigonometry requires an even broader law, but I won't go into it here.)
The broader law is called the Law of Cosines, and can be stated thusly:
For any triangle with sides a, b, and c, the square of the length of side c is equal to the sum of the squares of sides a and b, minus 2 times the product of a, b, and the cosine of the angle, theta, between a and b.
Or c^2 = a^2 +b ^2 - 2ab*cos(theta).
In the case of a right triangle, the angle between a and b is always a 90-degree right angle, and the cosine of a 90-degree angle is zero. That makes the final term of the Law of Cosines, 2ab*cos(theta), equal to 2ab*0, or zero. Which leaves us with the degenerate form, c^2=a^2+b^2, the Pythagorean Theorem, QED.
Now, it should be obvious that "a belief system containing n or more Higher Powers" will therefore be descriptive of any religion, even if n is zero. (In the strictest terms, n=0 is not even sufficient for a religion to be a degenerate case, but that's discussion for metaphysics, I suppose.)
Anyone who stayed awake during grade-school math should know that zero is a number, the empty set is still a set, and defining a condition by its absence is perfectly logical (cf. absolute zero, etc.).
Apparently you still miss the point I made earlier. If you are strictly talking from a numerical standpoint (ie., number of gods: range 0 - n) then you'd be correct in atheism being a religion. However, since the dictionary definition encompasses far more than dealing with number of dieties, your usage falls short.
In atheism, it isn't simply "we believe in x=0 number of god(s)", it goes further. Atheists don't believe in *any* kind of supernatural world: ie., no devil, no angels, no 'sprites', no elves, no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny, no spiritual entities of any kind. It goes beyond simple numerics. Its the whole field of supernatural/spiritual/beyond the laws of physical nature that atheism rejects. Ie., if you can't prove it by scientific means, then it just ain't there or we just don't believe it.
And who here made any point as to atheism being or trying to be made a state religion, hmmm? Not me or anyone I've noticed.
LG: Look again. Garth and Oakspear did so, at least. 2 != 0.
You're saying that Garth and Oakspear are among what you earlier called "the number of GSC atheists who immediately jumped into the thread posting their dogma," which number I said was zero. Neither they nor any atheist has posted a word to this thread that remotely resembles dogma. No atheist has even stated an opinion about the existence of god(s). 2 != 0, but 0 = 0.
As for flexible interpretations of the First Amendment, I was being facetious to make a point. Sorry if it was lost on you. The establishment clause cannot justify establishing atheism as the state religion any more than Catholicism.
You were not previously arguing the point you just claimed you were. Also, no one has suggested that the state should promote an atheistic position on anything, much less establish atheism as a "state religion." To my knowledge, no one at GreaseSpot has ever suggested such a thing, much less argued in favor of it.
_______________
Now, it should be obvious that "a belief system containing n or more Higher Powers" will therefore be descriptive of any religion, even if n is zero.
...
Atheism is a religion.
"Descriptive" is not "definitive." Even if it were, atheism is not a belief system.
_______________
Zix,
If you are strictly talking from a numerical standpoint (ie., number of gods: range 0 - n) then you'd be correct in atheism being a religion.
No, he wouldn't. There are religions, including Buddhism, that have zero gods but "zero gods" does not constitute a religion.
Well, there are born-again or evangelical athesits, as well as the garden vatrieties. The former is consciously and continually aware of his atheism, and many times wears it kinda like a TWI name tag. When the topic of God, the bible, or anything spiritual come up, even within or among a group of theists, he usually feels the need to inject some kind of anti-theism into the conversation.
The garden variety atheist probably doesn't gives his atheism much thought at all. This kind of atheist wouldn't even know he was an atheist, except for the theists around him. This kind of atheist, wouldn't be interested at all, in for example, a doctrinal discussion among Christians.
When born-again, evangelical atheists harangue and hassle theists for their beliefs, atheism becomes a "religion" of anti-theism. When they organize, congregate and proselytize, it becomes even more of a religion.
Oakspear: I was trying to be precise in my wording. I'm sorry if you took offense at my use of "degenerate", but the concept is quite applicable to this debate.
No offense taken, I was just expressing my admiration of your use of a usually offensive word in a different context...well done!
Regarding the rest of your post, while I can't argue with the math, I disagree that your analogy is valid. Arguing from analogy can be tricky sometimes.
...and I can't speak for the others, but I'm not an atheist
Recommended Posts
Zixar
LG: Look again. Garth and Oakspear did so, at least. 2 != 0. As for flexible interpretations of the First Amendment, I was being facetious to make a point. Sorry if it was lost on you. The establishment clause cannot justify establishing atheism as the state religion any more than Catholicism.
Oakspear: I was trying to be precise in my wording. I'm sorry if you took offense at my use of "degenerate", but the concept is quite applicable to this debate. (well, if you can call this a debate, that is.) A better example of the definition of a degenerate case is the Pythagorean Theorem, namely:
For any planar right triangle, the square of the hypotenuse, c, is equal to the sum of the squares of the two adjacent sides, a and b.
Or c^2=a^2 + b^2.
However, if the triangle does not contain a right angle, (like an isosceles or equilateral triangle), the formula fails to produce the correct answer.
The Pythagorean Theorem is a degenerate case of a broader law that encompasses all triangles, not just right triangles. (All planar triangles, that is. Spherical trigonometry requires an even broader law, but I won't go into it here.)
The broader law is called the Law of Cosines, and can be stated thusly:
For any triangle with sides a, b, and c, the square of the length of side c is equal to the sum of the squares of sides a and b, minus 2 times the product of a, b, and the cosine of the angle, theta, between a and b.
Or c^2 = a^2 +b ^2 - 2ab*cos(theta).
In the case of a right triangle, the angle between a and b is always a 90-degree right angle, and the cosine of a 90-degree angle is zero. That makes the final term of the Law of Cosines, 2ab*cos(theta), equal to 2ab*0, or zero. Which leaves us with the degenerate form, c^2=a^2+b^2, the Pythagorean Theorem, QED.
Now, it should be obvious that "a belief system containing n or more Higher Powers" will therefore be descriptive of any religion, even if n is zero. (In the strictest terms, n=0 is not even sufficient for a religion to be a degenerate case, but that's discussion for metaphysics, I suppose.)
Anyone who stayed awake during grade-school math should know that zero is a number, the empty set is still a set, and defining a condition by its absence is perfectly logical (cf. absolute zero, etc.).
Atheism is a religion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Zix,
Apparently you still miss the point I made earlier. If you are strictly talking from a numerical standpoint (ie., number of gods: range 0 - n) then you'd be correct in atheism being a religion. However, since the dictionary definition encompasses far more than dealing with number of dieties, your usage falls short.
In atheism, it isn't simply "we believe in x=0 number of god(s)", it goes further. Atheists don't believe in *any* kind of supernatural world: ie., no devil, no angels, no 'sprites', no elves, no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny, no spiritual entities of any kind. It goes beyond simple numerics. Its the whole field of supernatural/spiritual/beyond the laws of physical nature that atheism rejects. Ie., if you can't prove it by scientific means, then it just ain't there or we just don't believe it.
And who here made any point as to atheism being or trying to be made a state religion, hmmm? Not me or anyone I've noticed.
Try again. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
You're saying that Garth and Oakspear are among what you earlier called "the number of GSC atheists who immediately jumped into the thread posting their dogma," which number I said was zero. Neither they nor any atheist has posted a word to this thread that remotely resembles dogma. No atheist has even stated an opinion about the existence of god(s). 2 != 0, but 0 = 0.
You were not previously arguing the point you just claimed you were. Also, no one has suggested that the state should promote an atheistic position on anything, much less establish atheism as a "state religion." To my knowledge, no one at GreaseSpot has ever suggested such a thing, much less argued in favor of it._______________
"Descriptive" is not "definitive." Even if it were, atheism is not a belief system.
_______________
No, he wouldn't. There are religions, including Buddhism, that have zero gods but "zero gods" does not constitute a religion.
Edited by LGLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Well, there are born-again or evangelical athesits, as well as the garden vatrieties. The former is consciously and continually aware of his atheism, and many times wears it kinda like a TWI name tag. When the topic of God, the bible, or anything spiritual come up, even within or among a group of theists, he usually feels the need to inject some kind of anti-theism into the conversation.
The garden variety atheist probably doesn't gives his atheism much thought at all. This kind of atheist wouldn't even know he was an atheist, except for the theists around him. This kind of atheist, wouldn't be interested at all, in for example, a doctrinal discussion among Christians.
When born-again, evangelical atheists harangue and hassle theists for their beliefs, atheism becomes a "religion" of anti-theism. When they organize, congregate and proselytize, it becomes even more of a religion.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Regarding the rest of your post, while I can't argue with the math, I disagree that your analogy is valid. Arguing from analogy can be tricky sometimes.
...and I can't speak for the others, but I'm not an atheist
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.