# How is it possible to be an athiest? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2002, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-it-possible-to-be-an-athiest/116799 "2002-07-01T07:42:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-it-possible-to-be-an-athiest/116799/121 "2002-07-04T14:31:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > \*\*Even if the universe did need an intelligent force to start it off (and that is hardly proven), that doesn’t necessarily have to mean that the intelligent force was omnipotent or even that it’s still around today. \*\* My honest reaction to the tread title is, “how is it possible to NOT be an atheist?” That is, what would lead anyone to give any credence to the doctrines, dogma (whatever the correct word is) of any of the organized religions? I have no idea how the universe started. Maybe some force beyond our comprehension got it going; maybe it just happened. I don’t know, and I don’t see any way TO know. But if some incomprehensible force started the universe, why would that force have to have been the God of the Christian Bible, or any other specific God of any other human religion? And, as Mangetout pointed out, why assume that the universe-starting force stayed around? Maybe it’s role was to start this universe, then cease to exist. Or maybe it went on to start other universes. There isn’t necessarily anyone “minding the store”. If there is someone minding the store, some incomprehensible force keeping an eye on the universe, it isn’t necessarily the same force as the one who started the univese going. it might be a separate being. It might be an automated system set up by the universe-starter. And, if there is a force keeping an eye on the universe, I see no reason to assume that it is any one of the Gods of the various human religons. To me, it seems VERY unlikely that such a force would be paying any attention at all to individual humans, or would want to be beleived in or prayed to. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-it-possible-to-be-an-athiest/116799/122 "2002-07-04T14:45:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Urban Ranger \* > \*\*No, pi is a transcendental number. \*\* So defining it as 3 or 3.14 or 3.1415926535897932384626433832795 is not a matter of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, but one of precision? ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-it-possible-to-be-an-athiest/116799/123 "2002-07-04T14:53:06Z")
> [@](#): > > So defining it as 3 or 3.14 or 3.1415926535897932384626433832795 is not a matter of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, but one of precision? Defining pi as 3 is wrong because 3 is an integer. Pi is the ratio of circumference to diameter, and it requires a minimum of 3.14 to be correct. Refining the value of pi to a greater degree of precision eventually becomes less useful for practical computing, but is still correct. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-it-possible-to-be-an-athiest/116799/124 "2002-07-04T15:09:28Z")
3.14 is not ‘correct’, it is merely more accurate than 3. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-it-possible-to-be-an-athiest/116799/125 "2002-07-04T15:41:38Z")
But wouldn’t it make more sense to round the circumference to 31 cubits instead of 30? Unless back in those days people rounded to units of ten. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-it-possible-to-be-an-athiest/116799/126 "2002-07-04T16:02:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Urban Ranger \* > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by Bryan Ekers_ > > Second Chronicles 4:2. If a giant bathtub is ten cubits across, perfectly round and has a circumference of 30 cubits, then either pi=3 or the guy who wrote the passage (or the builder who designed the thing) just rounded off the numbers in the record. > > **is there any other interpretation to said verse?** Here is the text of 2 Chronicles 4:2 (NIV translation): “He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.” Possible interpretations that would not require pi to be exactly 3:[ul][li]The Sea was only _roughly_ circular in shape, not exactly circular.[/li] [li]The rim-to-rim measurement was made between the inner edges of the rim, while the circumferential measurement was made around the outside of the rim.[/li] [li]Cubits were only defined as the length of a man’s forearm, and varied depending on who did the measurement; the “cubits” used to measure across the rim were slightly larger than the “cubits” used to measure out the circumference line.[/li] [li]It actually took a line of a little more than thirty-one cubits to measure around it, but the Chronicler rounded off to one significant digit.[/li] [li]The diameter was actually only 9.5492965855 cubits, but the Chronicler rounded it off to 10.[/li] [li]Thirty-cubit-long lines were the longest lines available. The measurers actually had to cheat by measuring 30 cubits around, then marking the spot and moving the line over and measuring another 1.4 cubits. But they still took a line of 30 cubits to measure around it.[/li] Thirty-cubit-long lines were the longest lines available. By saying “It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it,” the Chronicler wasn’t trying to be accurate so much as he was trying to impress the reader. (“Wow! It took a 30-cubit-sized line just to measure around the thing! It must’ve been really really big!”)[/ul] ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-it-possible-to-be-an-athiest/116799/127 "2002-07-04T16:06:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rsa \* > \*\*But wouldn’t it make more sense to round the circumference to 31 cubits instead of 30? Unless back in those days people rounded to units of ten. \*\* You miss the obvious. What if it were the **diameter** that was rounded off, not the circumference? A perfect circle with a circumference of exactly 30 cubits would have a diameter of 9.5492965855 cubits. It is wholly reasonable that the author should round 9.5492965855 off to 10. I know that ancient Hebrew did not have a decimal system, and I doubt that ancient Hebrew even had a term for “and a half” that was used numerically. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-it-possible-to-be-an-athiest/116799/128 "2002-07-04T16:13:17Z")
…the rim was exactly 30 cubits around and the 10 cubit line used to measure the diameter was allowed to sag into the basin. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-it-possible-to-be-an-athiest/116799/129 "2002-07-04T16:16:56Z")
Anyway, I’m not going to try to defend a literal interpretation of the passage (although it’s fun trying); I think it was probably just that dimensional accuracy wasn’t terribly important to the account. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-it-possible-to-be-an-athiest/116799/130 "2002-07-04T17:40:26Z")
> [@](#): > > 3.14 is not ‘correct’, it is merely more accurate than 3. Ahem… 3 is not merely “more accurate”; it’s wrong. 3 and 3.14 are **different numbers**. 3.14 is a greater quantity than 3, ya dig? Because pi is a transcendent number with (as far as we know) no end, we will never have a 100 percent correct representation–3.14 is workable, but not completely accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-it-possible-to-be-an-athiest/116799/131 "2002-07-04T20:46:13Z")
well of course they are different numbers, I never claimed they were the same - 3.14 is a greater quantity than 3 - 3.14159 is a greater quantity than 3.14; if you’re saying that 3.14 is the accuracy to which everyday calculations need be done, I’ll agree, but there are some applications where 3 will do, particularly when estimating. Your point that we will never get it 100 % accurate is the one I was trying to make! ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-it-possible-to-be-an-athiest/116799/132 "2002-07-04T21:00:48Z")
This always reminds me of **Star Wars**. Just as we are starting to think that Darth Vador is the bigest, baddest dude in the entire universe we are introduced to the old wrinkled guy - whatever his name is - and goddammit if Darth Vador doesn’t start sucking up to him, kissing his ass, and getting on his knees doing the old “Oh, my lord” thing. What a pussy! This always made me wonder if the old-wrinkled-guy is sucking up to some higher level bad ass - or lower level bad ass if you prefer - and where does it all end. So where did God come from? Well, maybe he’s just a middle manager on a hierarchy of gods. Some higher level god made “Big G” God and some higher level god made that god and so on until you finally get to … . . . . . . . . … the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It’s all starting to make sense isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2002, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-it-possible-to-be-an-athiest/116799/133 "2002-07-05T05:20:06Z")
I remember a short story. (Spoilers follow.) I don’t remember it very well. I think was by Lord Dunsany. It involved a man who discovered that the god his people worshiped, worshiped a higher god. But then, after more study, he found that that god also worshipped a higher god. Who, in turn (you guessed it) worshiped a yet higher god. Who was the original god, the one the guy’s people worshiped. I suppose it’s possible that one of these gods was the invisible pink unicorn! ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2002, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-it-possible-to-be-an-athiest/116799/134 "2002-07-05T16:08:16Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by tracer \* Possible interpretations that would not require pi to be exactly 3:[LIST][li]The Sea was only _roughly_ circular in shape, not exactly circular.[/li][/QUOTE] Interesting wild ideas 😃 Isn’t it true though that some fundie group tried to pass a law to set pi equal to 3? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2002, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-it-possible-to-be-an-athiest/116799/135 "2002-07-05T20:55:25Z")
From what I understand, the group who wanted to legally make pi 3 were doing so as a satirical jab at creationists demanding that evolution and creationism be presented as equally valid. ---
**Author:** ![djbdjb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a87d85/32.png) [@djbdjb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/djbdjb)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2002, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-it-possible-to-be-an-athiest/116799/136 "2002-07-05T21:40:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by HubZilla \* > Quetzacoatl, Ahura Mazda, Osiris, Zeus, Pele, Vishnu, Valar, Odin, Yahweh, etc. > > “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” –Stephen Robterts I liked this quote when I first saw it, but besides the fact that most Christians don’t want to think deeply about the issue is another problem. What do you say to a person who thinks that all other descriptions of gods are just mistaken worship of the “One True God”? Since it is hard to show the existence of any member of the set shown above, it is hard to debunk someone who claims “You say Zeus is a true god with thus and such characteristics, but you are mistaken; you are in fact worshiping my One True God and to the extent that your description of Zeus’ characteristics match what I say you are correct, and where different you are in error”. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2002, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-it-possible-to-be-an-athiest/116799/137 "2002-07-06T01:28:45Z")
—Isn’t it true though that some fundie group tried to pass a law to set pi equal to 3?— I think you’ll find this one on snopes. I don’t think the reality is as juicy: or as slanderous, as it seems at first. ---
**Author:** ![JamesCarroll](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@JamesCarroll](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JamesCarroll)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2002, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-it-possible-to-be-an-athiest/116799/138 "2002-07-11T07:18:09Z")
But in an attempt to save the OP I offer the following: 1. Like most, if not all, discussions of God this has decayed into an argument about religion. I would have thought the TM would be smarter than that. ☹ 2. To Urban Ranger Every argument you made against me was based on the notion that I supported the Christian God. This is wrong, because nothing in any of my posts inidcatied that. Sad that you had to make an assumption about my beliefs in order to support yours. 3. The “watch maker” idea has a name. Its called [Deism](http://www.deism.com) . It has nothing to do with some schmuck walking down some path. It has everything to do with the creation of basic laws for life, the universe, and everything. To move the discussion closer to the OP I’d like your comment on the following: 1. Again, I present the “First Cause” argument. Science tells us that for every action there is a reaction. Now, “action” and “reaction” can become confusing (ie: my girlfriend left me because…) so confine it only to the current realm of Science. In this respect even the Big Bang is merely an artifact. 2. Borrowing from Mendal I believe that Science is nothing more than finding out God works. Sometimes we’ve missed the mark, but we have always strived for a better Understanding. In our searching we’ve discovered Laws, or more precisely we have postulated Theory. Any decent scientist recognizes that what he has discovered may be supplanted by others. That’s why Newton has his “Laws of Motion” and Einstien has his “Theory of Relativity”. Anyways, we have discovered lots of Laws and Theories. And one is called Entropy; the ultimate decay into a “gray” energy. From a macroscopic perspective we can confirm this. And the 2nd Law of Thermdyamics confirms it. And yet Life exists. Consider: if we have discerned a fundemental “law” of the Universe what “power” could possibly ignore it? God, maybe? What separates Life from Death is whether something is growing or decaying. Everything that is alive takes in chaos and creates order, in defiance of the “law” of entropy. A tree takes chaotic molecules of CO2 and H2O and creates ordered structures of protiens, then cells, branches, and leaves. Life creates Order from Choas. And when a tree dies, its Life gone, Order decays to chaos. Or Mulch, if you prefer. And then there’s Gravity. While our “law” of Entropy throws everything away from itself, gravity draws it back. A little interesting maybe? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2002, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-it-possible-to-be-an-athiest/116799/139 "2002-07-11T13:09:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JamesCarroll \* > \*\*1) Again, I present the “First Cause” argument. Science tells us that for every action there is a reaction. Now, “action” and “reaction” can become confusing (ie: my girlfriend left me because…) so confine it only to the current realm of Science. In this respect even the Big Bang is merely an artifact. \*\* If every effect has a cause, then we must provide an explanation for the ‘effect’ known as God, and an explanation of the cause of the cause and so on. Furthermore, the idea of cause and effect is something that exists because of the nature of our universe; there’s no particular reason to believe that it existed ‘before’ that universe came into being. Science and Mathematics does things like this all the time; there are functions that can be treated as linear because in practical application, they are linear (or nearly so) but the linearity breaks down at the extremes. ---
**Author:** ![dreamer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6bbea6/32.png) [@dreamer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dreamer)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2002, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-it-possible-to-be-an-athiest/116799/140 "2002-07-11T15:31:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gobear \* > \*\*And yet another fundamentalist slinks out of the room after failing to convert the heathen. > \*\* Having complete understanding of **gitfiddle’s** statement - > [@](#): > > \*\*I feel like my brain is trying to crawl out of the front of my skull. \*\* I don’t think it’s fair to say he/she left because no one was converted. He/She seems like an awfully nice, young, college kid who started this thread with a question \*to you]/i] and somehow it got turned around. (Wonder how that happened :D) So while I go make **gitfiddle** , a nice, healthy, full of carbohydrates breakfast, and a cup of tea, give the kid a break 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-it-possible-to-be-an-athiest/116799.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-it-possible-to-be-an-athiest/116799.md?page=8)