Is there a God of atheism?

[Shadowy Man]

A corner of a polygon does not have a well-defined tangent

In calculus we learn that a "corner" on a curve has an undefined tangent--it's not just a case of not being well defined. For example, if we graph the function f(x) = |x|, the curve has a V-shape with a sharp corner at x = 0. The derivative is f'(x) = x/|x|. The slope of the curve at x = 0 is then f'(0) = 0/|0| which is undefined. In other words, the tangent line to the curve at x = 0 is undefined.

...whereas each point on a circle has a well-defined tangent...

That is correct depending on what you mean by "tangent." The equation of a circle on the Cartesian plane with its center at the origin and radius r is x^2 + y^2 = r^2. The function for the upper-half of this is f(x) = √(r^2 - x^2), and its derivative is f'(x) = -x/√(r^2 - x^2). Note that when x = r, then f'(r) involves division by 0. That means that the derivative and hence the slope of the tangent line at x = r is undefined. The tangent line is vertical.

A vertical line is a well-defined geometric figure and there is only one line tangent to the circle at that point. That the mathematical slope is undefined because of the divide by zero is immaterial to my point. You can always rotate the coordinates to a frame in which that tangent has no divide by zero.

Just more obfuscation of the meaning with meaningless pedantry.

...therefore a circle doesn't have corners, like a polygon does.

Yes, circles don't have corners,

Thanks for at least admitting that, which was my point back in post 2. You got stuck on the word “on” and here we are a couple hundred posts later finally getting to my point.

but like I've already explained, the set of points that make up a circle can include points that are vertices on other curves. In fact, you can trace out an entire circle using vertices on right triangles.

Sure. You can. You can draw all kinds of things. But that has nothing to do with whether a circle has corners itself.

So it seems that you have the basic concepts about right, but you're not adept at communicating what you mean. To say there are no corner points on a circle is not the same as saying a circle has no corners.

Yes, in the most annoying pedantic way you are correct. I concede I did say “on”. If you did not understand what I meant back in post 2 then you are either utterly blinded by your own pedantry or were jerking me around all these posts for your own entertainment.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

A corner of a polygon does not have a well-defined tangent

In calculus we learn that a "corner" on a curve has an undefined tangent--it's not just a case of not being well defined. For example, if we graph the function f(x) = |x|, the curve has a V-shape with a sharp corner at x = 0. The derivative is f'(x) = x/|x|. The slope of the curve at x = 0 is then f'(0) = 0/|0| which is undefined. In other words, the tangent line to the curve at x = 0 is undefined.

...whereas each point on a circle has a well-defined tangent...

That is correct depending on what you mean by "tangent." The equation of a circle on the Cartesian plane with its center at the origin and radius r is x^2 + y^2 = r^2. The function for the upper-half of this is f(x) = √(r^2 - x^2), and its derivative is f'(x) = -x/√(r^2 - x^2). Note that when x = r, then f'(r) involves division by 0. That means that the derivative and hence the slope of the tangent line at x = r is undefined. The tangent line is vertical.

A vertical line is a well-defined geometric figure and there is only one line tangent to the circle at that point. That the mathematical slope is undefined because of the divide by zero is immaterial to my point. You can always rotate the coordinates to a frame in which that tangent has no divide by zero.

Just more obfuscation of the meaning with meaningless pedantry.

...therefore a circle doesn't have corners, like a polygon does.

Yes, circles don't have corners,

Thanks for at least admitting that, which was my point back in post 2. You got stuck on the word “on” and here we are a couple hundred posts later finally getting to my point.

but like I've already explained, the set of points that make up a circle can include points that are vertices on other curves. In fact, you can trace out an entire circle using vertices on right triangles.

Sure. You can. You can draw all kinds of things. But that has nothing to do with whether a circle has corners itself.

So it seems that you have the basic concepts about right, but you're not adept at communicating what you mean. To say there are no corner points on a circle is not the same as saying a circle has no corners.

Yes, in the most annoying pedantic way you are correct. I concede I did say “on”. If you did not understand what I meant back in post 2 then you are either utterly blinded by your own pedantry or were jerking me around all these posts for your own entertainment.

Briefly, that "annoying pedantic" you are complaining about here is how math is done. Mathematics tends to be very precise and detailed and involves terminology that is designed to be commonly understood. What you say tends to lack sufficient detail to properly describe what you're referring to. For example, you used the term "well defined." I know what defined and undefined means in the context of mathematics, but I've never seen the term "well defined" in that context.

So getting back to your question about circles from post 2, the way you phrased your question is way too vague. You should have asked: "Do circles include points that make up the intersection of the endpoints of line segments on the curve that traces out the circle?" Then I would know just what you're talking about, and the answer is no.

Finally, let's try to solve the equation x^2 = -1 for x. What is x?

 

[bilby]

Briefly, that "annoying pedantic" you are complaining about here is how math is done.

How would you know?

Your degree in Business Administration isn't likely to make you an authority on the subject, and there are people here who are actually mathematicians, as opposed to Business Administrators who like to describe themselves as "mathematicians".

Do any of them concur? I hadn't noticed any such thing happening here.

 

[Shadowy Man]

A corner of a polygon does not have a well-defined tangent

In calculus we learn that a "corner" on a curve has an undefined tangent--it's not just a case of not being well defined. For example, if we graph the function f(x) = |x|, the curve has a V-shape with a sharp corner at x = 0. The derivative is f'(x) = x/|x|. The slope of the curve at x = 0 is then f'(0) = 0/|0| which is undefined. In other words, the tangent line to the curve at x = 0 is undefined.

...whereas each point on a circle has a well-defined tangent...

That is correct depending on what you mean by "tangent." The equation of a circle on the Cartesian plane with its center at the origin and radius r is x^2 + y^2 = r^2. The function for the upper-half of this is f(x) = √(r^2 - x^2), and its derivative is f'(x) = -x/√(r^2 - x^2). Note that when x = r, then f'(r) involves division by 0. That means that the derivative and hence the slope of the tangent line at x = r is undefined. The tangent line is vertical.

A vertical line is a well-defined geometric figure and there is only one line tangent to the circle at that point. That the mathematical slope is undefined because of the divide by zero is immaterial to my point. You can always rotate the coordinates to a frame in which that tangent has no divide by zero.

Just more obfuscation of the meaning with meaningless pedantry.

...therefore a circle doesn't have corners, like a polygon does.

Yes, circles don't have corners,

Thanks for at least admitting that, which was my point back in post 2. You got stuck on the word “on” and here we are a couple hundred posts later finally getting to my point.

but like I've already explained, the set of points that make up a circle can include points that are vertices on other curves. In fact, you can trace out an entire circle using vertices on right triangles.

Sure. You can. You can draw all kinds of things. But that has nothing to do with whether a circle has corners itself.

So it seems that you have the basic concepts about right, but you're not adept at communicating what you mean. To say there are no corner points on a circle is not the same as saying a circle has no corners.

Yes, in the most annoying pedantic way you are correct. I concede I did say “on”. If you did not understand what I meant back in post 2 then you are either utterly blinded by your own pedantry or were jerking me around all these posts for your own entertainment.

Briefly, that "annoying pedantic" you are complaining about here is how math is done.

Uh. Trust me…That wasn’t what I was complaining about.

So getting back to your question about circles from post 2, the way you phrased your question is way too vague. You should have asked: "Do circles include points that make up the intersection of the endpoints of line segments on the curve that traces out the circle?" Then I would know just what you're talking about, and the answer is no.

Sure. But I was going for pithy.

Finally, let's try to solve the equation x^2 = -1 for x. What is x?

Not relevant to whether there is a god of atheism. Unless the answer to this one is also “no”.

 

[Gospel]

x^2 = -1 for x. What is x?

In keeping with the topic X is the imaginary God of Atheism?

 

[steve_bank]

What is with this misogynistic god of atheism?

Atheism is a goddess.

 

[Shadowy Man]

x^2 = -1 for x. What is x?

In keeping with the topic X is the imaginary God of Atheism?

It could also be the imaginary god of theism.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Finally, let's try to solve the equation x^2 = -1 for x. What is x?

Not relevant to whether there is a god of atheism. Unless the answer to this one is also “no”.

That's odd. Why did you raise a presumably irrelevant issue only to complain later that it is irrelevant?

But my question is relevant to the topic of the thread. Let me explain. What is the solution to x^2 = -1? As it turns out, this question is too vague to answer because we are not told what set x belongs to, and what set x belongs to determines the answer. So if x is a real number, then there is no answer; no real number squared is -1! On the other hand, if x is a complex number, then x = i, the base of imaginary numbers, is the solution.

In a very similar way, if we ask if there is a God of atheism, then the answer depends on what we mean by "God." What "set" does God belong to? If God is an element of the set of Gods from religion and mythology, then the answer is probably no. But if God is an element of some other set, then that God might well be something atheists believe in.

So I hope you can now see the pitfalls of simplistic thinking. What the truth of a matter is often depends on the details.

 

[James Brown]

I wonder who started this thread without properly defining "God" and the "faith" of atheists?

 

[Gospel]

While I personally find your analogy between mathematical sets and concepts of God thought-provoking, it oversimplifies the nature of atheism. Atheism fundamentally lacks belief in any gods, making the idea of a 'God of atheism' a contradiction. In mathematical terms, this is like seeking a real number where none exists within the defined parameters. Redefining 'God' outside of its conventional religious or mythological context (which would be required to establish a god of atheism) only leads to semantic territory rather than addressing the core philosophical aspects of belief and non-belief.

I do enjoy the analogy though.


Disclaimer - I'm no mathematician, in fact I'm allergic to mathematics.

 

[abaddon]

The "truth of the matter" is that theists often frame their criticisms of atheism in theistic terms due to the limits of their experiences and imaginations. So "god substitutes" is just a way of framing things from a biased theistic POV.

Unknown Soldier, in mimicking theists, has compounded his own inability to imagine other minds with their difficulties with it.

Theists talk about "god-substitutes" and "religion-replacement" because that's the bias of their own minds. They imagine what emptiness they'd experience in life if they didn't believe in a God and religion. They figure they, as atheists, would need a "substitute" for God and religion. So, because they're kinda limited in empathic imagination, they figure other minds must be the same. In short, they're projecting.

Also, to protect their beliefs from criticism, they will sometimes try to level everything to beliefs. In effect saying "I'm a believer, you're a believer, we're all believers, so you're hypocrites for critiquing my beliefs when you have beliefs too".

There's no good reason to treat religion as the default and present their one-sided way of framing things as "the truth of the matter". From the atheist perspective, whatever it is they value the most isn't a "god" nor "god-like" nor a substitute to fit into some alleged "god-shaped hole" in their hearts. We all need to feel there's meaning in our lives, and we all have beliefs we can get "tenacious" about. Framing that in religious terms is just biased, one-sided, simplistic thinking.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Finally, let's try to solve the equation x^2 = -1 for x. What is x?

Not relevant to whether there is a god of atheism. Unless the answer to this one is also “no”.

That's odd. Why did you raise a presumably irrelevant issue only to complain later that it is irrelevant?

But my question is relevant to the topic of the thread. Let me explain. What is the solution to x^2 = -1? As it turns out, this question is too vague to answer because we are not told what set x belongs to, and what set x belongs to determines the answer. So if x is a real number, then there is no answer; no real number squared is -1! On the other hand, if x is a complex number, then x = i, the base of imaginary numbers, is the solution.

You mean +/- i.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Finally, let's try to solve the equation x^2 = -1 for x. What is x?

Not relevant to whether there is a god of atheism. Unless the answer to this one is also “no”.

That's odd. Why did you raise a presumably irrelevant issue only to complain later that it is irrelevant?

It was an analogy.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Finally, let's try to solve the equation x^2 = -1 for x. What is x?

Not relevant to whether there is a god of atheism. Unless the answer to this one is also “no”.

That's odd. Why did you raise a presumably irrelevant issue only to complain later that it is irrelevant?

But my question is relevant to the topic of the thread. Let me explain. What is the solution to x^2 = -1? As it turns out, this question is too vague to answer because we are not told what set x belongs to, and what set x belongs to determines the answer. So if x is a real number, then there is no answer; no real number squared is -1! On the other hand, if x is a complex number, then x = i, the base of imaginary numbers, is the solution.

You mean +/- i.

Yes--I erred. The solution set to x^2 = -1 when x is a complex number is {-i, i}. Thank you for that correction.

See that? It's not so hard to admit a mistake like I just did. It sure beats going on thinking I'm right when I'm wrong.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

See that? It's not so hard to admit a mistake like I just did. It sure beats going on thinking I'm right when I'm wrong.

Don't be so hard on yourself. In your defense, it is much simpler for you to admit error when simple mathematics is involved than when it is a vague op post or you can retreat into the world of semantic ambiguity.

 

[TomC]

See that? It's not so hard to admit a mistake like I just did. It sure beats going on thinking I'm right when I'm wrong.

Let's try a harder question.
There is no God of atheists because atheism is the lack of a God image.
Get it?

Tom

 

[Unknown Soldier]

See that? It's not so hard to admit a mistake like I just did. It sure beats going on thinking I'm right when I'm wrong.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

I just said that my admitting a mistake isn't so hard. I'm a truth seeker and not an egotist.

In your defense, it is much simpler for you to admit error when simple mathematics is involved than when it is a vague op post or you can retreat into the world of semantic ambiguity.

Sheesh--I can't win. So when I'm right by admitting I was wrong, then I'm still wrong. But to make your case that I'm wrong in the OP, you'll need to offer evidence that's as clear and commonly accepted as -i as well as i is the solution to x^2 = -1. In other words, you'll need to show that atheists can have no Gods regardless of the categories those Gods belong to.

Please correct me on this issue too.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

See that? It's not so hard to admit a mistake like I just did. It sure beats going on thinking I'm right when I'm wrong.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

I just said that my admitting a mistake isn't so hard. I'm a truth seeker and not an egotist.

That statement "don't be so hard on yourself" was not in reference to the current mistake and one can see that you are taking it out of context by splitting the paragraph in two. It was in reference to the latter part where you wrote "It sure beats going on thinking I'm right when I'm wrong" which is a great dichotomy between what you did with your recent mistake and what you've done with other errors. Perhaps, therefore, you should take your own advice.

In your defense, it is much simpler for you to admit error when simple mathematics is involved than when it is a vague op post or you can retreat into the world of semantic ambiguity.

Sheesh--I can't win. So when I'm right by admitting I was wrong, then I'm still wrong. But to make your case that I'm wrong in the OP, you'll need to offer evidence that's as clear and commonly accepted as -i as well as i is the solution to x^2 = -1. In other words, you'll need to show that atheists can have no Gods regardless of the categories those Gods belong to.

Please correct me on this issue too.

In order to mathematically prove you are wrong, you'll have to be very rigorous, unambiguous and formal in your op communication. Otherwise, just like I wrote, refusal to admit error can be accomplished by retreating into semantic ambiguity.

Besides that, I've already discussed problems with the op in the thread, but you chose not to respond.

 

[Emily Lake]

A corner of a polygon does not have a well-defined tangent

In calculus we learn that a "corner" on a curve has an undefined tangent--it's not just a case of not being well defined. For example, if we graph the function f(x) = |x|, the curve has a V-shape with a sharp corner at x = 0. The derivative is f'(x) = x/|x|. The slope of the curve at x = 0 is then f'(0) = 0/|0| which is undefined. In other words, the tangent line to the curve at x = 0 is undefined.

...whereas each point on a circle has a well-defined tangent...

That is correct depending on what you mean by "tangent." The equation of a circle on the Cartesian plane with its center at the origin and radius r is x^2 + y^2 = r^2. The function for the upper-half of this is f(x) = √(r^2 - x^2), and its derivative is f'(x) = -x/√(r^2 - x^2). Note that when x = r, then f'(r) involves division by 0. That means that the derivative and hence the slope of the tangent line at x = r is undefined. The tangent line is vertical.

A vertical line is a well-defined geometric figure and there is only one line tangent to the circle at that point. That the mathematical slope is undefined because of the divide by zero is immaterial to my point. You can always rotate the coordinates to a frame in which that tangent has no divide by zero.

Just more obfuscation of the meaning with meaningless pedantry.

...therefore a circle doesn't have corners, like a polygon does.

Yes, circles don't have corners,

Thanks for at least admitting that, which was my point back in post 2. You got stuck on the word “on” and here we are a couple hundred posts later finally getting to my point.

but like I've already explained, the set of points that make up a circle can include points that are vertices on other curves. In fact, you can trace out an entire circle using vertices on right triangles.

Sure. You can. You can draw all kinds of things. But that has nothing to do with whether a circle has corners itself.

So it seems that you have the basic concepts about right, but you're not adept at communicating what you mean. To say there are no corner points on a circle is not the same as saying a circle has no corners.

Yes, in the most annoying pedantic way you are correct. I concede I did say “on”. If you did not understand what I meant back in post 2 then you are either utterly blinded by your own pedantry or were jerking me around all these posts for your own entertainment.

Briefly, that "annoying pedantic" you are complaining about here is how math is done. Mathematics tends to be very precise and detailed and involves terminology that is designed to be commonly understood. What you say tends to lack sufficient detail to properly describe what you're referring to. For example, you used the term "well defined." I know what defined and undefined means in the context of mathematics, but I've never seen the term "well defined" in that context.

So getting back to your question about circles from post 2, the way you phrased your question is way too vague. You should have asked: "Do circles include points that make up the intersection of the endpoints of line segments on the curve that traces out the circle?" Then I would know just what you're talking about, and the answer is no.

Finally, let's try to solve the equation x^2 = -1 for x. What is x?

You really need to shelve your hubris, dude. I'd say that 90% of us here know the answer to your "gotcha" question, because all of us took fucking high school calculus. Most of us took significantly higher level math classes as well. Seriously, if that's you "Oh I'm a smarty smart smart mathematician" go-to line, then I feel pretty confident saying I've forgotten more math than you have ever learned.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

See that? It's not so hard to admit a mistake like I just did. It sure beats going on thinking I'm right when I'm wrong.

Let's try a harder question.
There is no God of atheists because atheism is the lack of a God image.

That's a tautology. You might have posted: "There is no God of atheists because atheists have no God." That sentence is a repetition of an assertion and so has little if any truth value. A much better response would be to post that there is no God of atheism because scientific tests performed by independent psychologists in accredited scientific institutions demonstrate that belief in anything resembling a God is actually absent in those individuals who avow atheism. This same absence of belief in Gods has also been shown to be lacking in groups of atheists as well.

I did manage to find some evidence that atheists might well have at least some belief in God in the article Do Atheists Believe in God After All? From that article we have:

"According to the skin-conductance tests, the atheists found asking God to harm them or others to be just as upsetting as religious folks did. The researchers also compared the reactions of the atheists when making statements like 'I wish my parents were paralyzed' and 'I dare God to paralyze my parents.' Atheists were, like believers, more bothered by the latter statement, if you believe the skin-conductance tests, even though both declarations would be, in theory, equally empty if there were no heavenly overseer."

Note that atheists like theists were more bothered by daring God to paralyze their parents than simply wishing that their parents would be paralyzed. In other words, the addition of God into the nefarious mix made a difference for atheists as well as theists.

So why does daring God to do harm frighten atheists if they're so sure there is no God?