DEFINING Atheism.

[AlAyeti]

Is it not fair to say that atheism thought of in terms of mathematics is:

0 x 1 = trillions x trillions x trilloins x trillions?

Something from nothing.

The zero, denoting nothing, and the one, being the person who states they are an "Atheist."

Where did the individual believer come from?

[bernee51]

Is it not fair to say that atheism thought of in terms of mathematics is:

0 x 1 = trillions x trillions x trilloins x trillions?

Something from nothing.

Fair of not is not the issue. Accuracy is the issue.

Atheism per se does not speak of 'something from nothing'.

Atheism is, by defintion, a non belief in god(s),

Where did the individual believer come from?

The same place as the believer.

[ST88]

Is it not fair to say that atheism thought of in terms of mathematics is:

0 x 1 = trillions x trillions x trilloins x trillions?

Yes, it is not fair.

Here is the correct way to think of it in mathematical terms.
The Believer states that X=4.35632111111...
The Atheist states that X can never equal 4.35632111111...
The Agnostic states that we can never know what X equals.

Now for the big question: What is the equation?

[AlAyeti]

What?

[ST88]

You gave your example of atheism expressed as an equation, I gave mine. Yours doesn't adequately address the situation. You're using mathematics as a metaphor, but it's incomplete at best.

So, the answer to your question is: Yes, it's not fair.

[Cathar1950]

what if X = 3.1416
or something else?
What if X keeps changing?
what if there are many Xs?

[AlAyeti]

Please what other numbers can be used?

Bernee,

Whether or not we call the first thing a one or a zero, there had to be something, a one, or there was something, a zero, that was the place that it all "started."

Atheists do not believe that "all" just happened by some kind of an accident? Random means accident. No god means accident.

Is there another kind of definition of "Atheist," other than that Atheists do not believe everything started without a prime mover? Without a cause to the effect we observe even in our sleep?

A prime mover, or logos or god.

Even in a nothingness, something, somehow, some "where," got "it" all moving.

How can something come from nothing? Ironic that those that have created things in a lab do not realize that the word "laboratory" is a place. An origination.

I will not push the word "god" but I will go back to claiming the correct question to defining Atheism is not metaphor but reality.

0 x 1 = 0.

"Trillions," is the metaphor.

We see far more than "trillions" of things all around us. And even more numbers unseen.

You cannot subtract the numbers back to zero.

0 x 0 is not logical.

Can the human brain even conceive of that equation?

If it attempts to do so, it proves that the equation, is really illogical as the brain being used is an origin.

This is wrong "thinking."

[Cathar1950]

0 x 0 is not logical.

Can the human brain even conceive of that equation?

Seems logical to me and some one did conceive it.
0 x 0 = 0
0 x 1 = 0
I bet I could go on forever maybe even skip a few.
It seems to me that any kind of atheism implies a god to be rejected.
If you reject all gods then you would be a panenathiest.
The question should be what is god? should it be a little "g" or a big one?

[ST88]

what if X = 3.1416
or something else?
What if X keeps changing?
what if there are many Xs?

Since there is no single equation that can lead exactly to Pi, then the answer itself is irrational and transcendent at the same time. Kind of makes sense.

The nature of X would depend on the equation you are trying to solve for. But if you don't know what the equation is, how can you know the solution?

[ST88]

Whether or not we call the first thing a one or a zero, there had to be something, a one, or there was something, a zero, that was the place that it all "started."

Atheists do not believe that "all" just happened by some kind of an accident? Random means accident. No god means accident.

Not necessarily. No god can also mean a strictly mechanical universe. The word "accident" itself implies that there was some sort of design going on and then WHAM! something unexpected happens -- by accident. I doubt you will find many atheists who actually believe this.

Is there another kind of definition of "Atheist," other than that Atheists do not believe everything started without a prime mover? Without a cause to the effect we observe even in our sleep?

A prime mover, or logos or god.

Even in a nothingness, something, somehow, some "where," got "it" all moving.

You're assuming that the universe started with a 0, when there is really no need for that. It is possible that there was an existing pre-universe condition, of which we might know absolutely nothing. You're also assuming that this generation of the universe from the pre-universe required some kind of intelligence to make the transition. There is no need for this, either.

0 x 1 = 0.

"Trillions," is the metaphor.

We see far more than "trillions" of things all around us. And even more numbers unseen.

What makes you think this transaction should be multiplication? The singularity at the moment of conception, if you will, should at least be a 1. After this, everything else came from that sigularity, therefore the correct transaction should be division. If the universe = 1, then everything in it should be somewhat less than 1 -- and all of it adding up to 1.