Funny, very funny. However, I tried to show this to three different people in my office and none of them thought it was funny.

Am I weird?

I like your sense of math. One question though.

On the voucher equation, I'm either an anomaly (hold your tongue) or I misunderstand. I think government schools underperform, I vote Republican, which puts me squarely in AB. I support vouchers for all children, black or not, poor or not, to attend the local school of their choice, public or private. So for the equation, you could say the intersection approaches zero, but is a non-zero result, or perhaps you meant their is a high affinity between AB and C.

Can you clarify and straighten me out?

Thanks.

Steve,
It is more correct to say, as you note, that AB + C approaches zero, but is saved from that unhappy finality by a few good souls like yourself.

And Gray, you are weird, but in good company here.

Sasha Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy once explained to me the appropriate math for ordering food at an Asian restaurant.

Where (Q) = the quantity of food you wish to order and (N) = the number of people at your table, Q = (N - 2) + appetizers.

The probability that my wife will want to talk can be represented by 1. Yes dear, almost done...

The number of false religions is N-1, where N represents the population of all religions.

If you're gonna get this technical, to make this mathematically correct the statement should read;

number of false religions = N-1 ^(or) N - there is no mathematical proof that there is any true religion.

Isn't that what faith is - something that is beyond proveable cold hard fact?

Ah, Palmer, but the contention that no religion is true is itself, at base, a matter of religious faith (and considerable fervor among many of its adherents).

Are you suggesting that atheism is itself a faith?

Are you suggesting that atheism is itself a faith?

Atheism fits into the "religion" model quite well - depending on how you define things, it may either represent zero or the empty set.

In fact, it might even be said (again, depending on the way you define things) that everyone has a religion - atheism fits in that slot.

Taking a slightly different angle, it may be said that atheism has several articles of faith, they just don't involve a "higher power".

Black is commonly referred to as a color - even I do it - but it is really the absense on color.

I have a hard time believing Atheism is a religion - religion generally has doctrine, beliefs, rituals etc. Atheism does not. As far as what might be said that everyone has a religion even atheists, well then your asking for a one way pass into semantics hell if you step on that landmine.

What are the articles of faith in atheism? I don't know of any and never heard of em.

And just because murderous fanatics claiming to be atheists (Stalin in USSR, Mao in China, fill in the rest) have reeked as much havoc as murderous fanatics claiming to know the will of God/Jesus/Allah/ Yaweh (Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, whatever they called it when Mohammed created the caliphate, 9.11.02), that in of itself does not make atheism a religion, only anther piss poor excuse to justify killing innocent people.

Atheism has only one doctrine: that there is no God. But I would argue that that doctrine is unprovable, and contrary to all my proof that God is. Quite the quandry.

I don't know if either is provable, and personally doubt it is - but let's hear it, prove God exists.

Atheism seems a bit short on rituals, but otherwise, it does have doctrines and beliefes ("There is no God" being chief among them). I would certainly classify atheism as a religion before agnosticism.

Atheism's articles of faith:
-There is no god.
-The vast majority of other human beings ever to have existed are wrong (which is certainly possible on many issues, but many groups site numbers as a method of proving "rightness" - atheists don't [unless they're scientists!]).
-The Theory of Evolution (yes, there actually is scientific evidence that does not fit into [and practically breaks] the theory of evolution - see CILIA - or was it FLAGELLA? I forget which now... anyway, it has 3 proteins that are all required for it to function, etc. Look it up.)

Beyond that, it diversifies a bit, but there are some that are still very common (different denominations, you might say):
-Religious people are stupid and/or weak and/or gullible (and often need to be patronized)
-Religion is evil (or maybe just bad if "evil" is too absolute - see next)
-There are no absolutes (and yes, they are absolutely sure of that)

I could go on, but you get the idea. I grew up in the Church of Christ, whose creed is "No creeds - we speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent." Of course, that is a creed, and it is also essentially impossible, so they have several other articles of faith. They are just unofficial, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

As to the existence of God, scholars (many of them smarter than myself [some of them dumber than a box of rocks]) have attempted to prove or disprove the existance of God for centuries. Recently, there is one new thing to ponder, which I don't have the "answer" for, so just think about it a bit.

Physicists are nearing consensus on the very beginning of the universe (what caused the Big Bang). Basically, through something called a "false vacuum", the math works out to cause the Big Bang. Anyway, the theory relies on the fact that matter sometimes spontaneously comes into existance (relying on "dark matter" or gravity [depending on who you talk to] to balance out to zero in keeping with the... 2nd law of thermodynamics? Forget the number now - "Matter is neither created nor destroyed.")

Anyway, all matter that comes into being for some reason follows certain laws - no one has any idea why. If matter is created spontaneously, why would it have to follow any pre-existing laws? One theory is that God wills it to be so.

Anyway, food for thought.

I can't respond to all of this at once, but here's a good start - Webster's Dictionary online definition of the word religion -

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious (a nun in her 20th year of religion) b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

As far as your articles of faith listed on your post the only one that holds true 100% is there is no God. Everything else is a generalization on your part.

The Theory of Evolution is still just a theory, still lacking an absolute proof, but it has more scientific evidense going for it than Creationism. Atheism and Evolution are mutually exclusive.

All religions are evil? I'm not really an atheist, more of an agnostic, but I know plenty of people who would disagree with you. I don't think all religion is evil, or even mostly evil.

One of the more formative experiences in my life was talking to a religion major I used to work with. He (and most religion majors I've met and he told me about) are fascinated with religion and yet religion majors are generally atheists (with exceptions of course). And if you asked an atheist religion major I'd bet they wouldn't say that all religion is evil.

Just because people have used/manipulated religion and religious followers for their own selfish or zealous purposes under the guise of the will of God doesn't make religion evil - it just shows that religion can be a vassal for evil (or good) acts by human beings.

I'm still failing to see you prove that atheism is a religion, and the proof of God is still circumstantial at best.

See definition number 4 of religion - atheism fits just fine. "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" You quoted it yourself, you just decided to bold the part about God.

As to the articles of faith I mentioned - if the first one is true, the second one is also true. That vast majority of all people EVER believe(d) in a god (or gods).

As to the Theory of Evolution, in my experience, people who don't (atheist or agnostic) believe in god believe the scientists who say the Theory of Evolution is correct. And it's not "just a theory" - in scientific jargon, a theory is essentially taken as truth. What the rest of us call "theory", they refer to as "hypothesis".

Now as to it being true, science also has religious aspects (in the sense of definition 4), and things that don't follow the "creed" or current fad get pushed to the side (there are other instances of this besides evolution - some things that were eventually proven to be true, once enough scientists were willing to be "heretical" and consider them). Darwinian evolution has been the PC thing to believe for a long time - well before there was even nearly enough proof. It simply HAD to be true - it was the best possible explanation of life that didn't require the existence of God. Evidence that was counter to that belief got marginalized and discounted. Yes, scientifically, the theory of evolution matches up pretty well, but there are a few things that completely do not fit - since you don't want to look it up, I'll tell you what I remember.

First, I can't remember is it's cilia or flagella, so I'll use cilia (it's shorter). Anyway, Darwin himself said that if there were a single irreducibly complex organ or organism, the theory was wrong. Cilia are irreducibly complex.

There are 3 distinct compounds required for cilia to work - take any one of them away, and cilia fail. This is a structural dependency, meaning that the shape or structure of the compound is what makes it work, not it's composition. The kicker here is that these 3 compounds are PROTEINS - any change in chemical composition results in major structural changes. In short, cilia could not have evolved by any mechanism covered by the Theory of Evolution. Does that mean the theory is wrong? Not necessarily, but until scientists get off their butts and explain this, I think it is dishonest of them to claim that it is a Theory instead of a hypothesis.

As to atheism and Evolution being mutually excllusive... ?!? I think you must have meant to type something else. Atheism almost DEPENDS on the theory of evolution to explain how life came about without God, and they certainly don't contradict each other in any way that I know of.

Those other "articles of faith" I mentioned - as I said, they aren't universal, but they do seem to apply to large portions of the atheism population - in my experience, it does seem to be rather analogous to religious denominations. Atheism is majorly de-centralized, so each "believer" reaches their own conclusions, but many religious denominations are also de-centralized and vary from one group to another, yet they are still rather accurately categorized as one group.

Here's an example - "non-denominational" churches. What's so funny about that is that "non-denominational" is practically it's own denomination. With few exceptions, they all have exceedingly similar theology and doctrine. Most of them even use similar styles of music and worship.

As to my "proof" of God - as I said, smarter people than me have been trying to prove or disprove God for centuries (probably longer). I was just providing some food for thought - it's not what I would call "proof".

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

The same could be said for people who believe Elvis is still alive or the earth is flat. Neither are religions.... unless you want to debate that one too.

More is coming.

Actually, many things can (and do) fall under that definition. You may wish to conveniently leave that definition out...

Ever heard of the Church of Body Modification?

As I said, some aspects of science (corporately speaking) are strikingly "religious" - in fact, if you raise that point with someone on the inside looking for a word to describe it, that sometimes strikes them a very appropriate.

Some of those peoplpe that believe in Elvis, etc., are also the "black helicoptors" and tinfoil hat crowd, and that certainly fits as a religion - it's what they believe, practice, and build their life around.

Terraphilliacs? Even the ones who don't explicitly worship "Gaia" or the "Earth mother" are often described as zealots - Tony even referred to that in a recent post.

Buddhism and Shintoism certainly don't involve any form of god, yet they are classified as religions.

In short, I think "religion" is best defined by definition #4.

That would make being a Democrat or Republican a religion too. I can't agree with you on this one. But I was the one who clipped and pasted webster's def. so I can only blame myself for the direction the debate has gone.

Science is an ever evolving thing - religion generally is not. Bhuddism was way more of a philosphy but generally gets pegged a religion because it's been modified to incorporated mysticism and symbolism over the years that has very little to do with Bhudda's original beliefs/theories/philosphies on life.

Evolution IS mutually exclusive from Atheism; If science were to prove a totally different explaination for the existence of man and nature, one that is not Darwin's or Creationism, it would not affect atheism one bit. They are mentioned in conjunction but they are in fact mutually exclusive. Atheism in of itself requires no explaination for the origin of humanity. They just have a tendency to go hand in hand because currently there is no other convincing theory that explains why we exist.

Then you obviously misunderstand the term "mutually exclusive" - it means that only one can be.

For instance, if I say that I am in Kentucky, and then I say that I am in Alaska, then I am obviously lying about one of them - they cannot both be true at the same time. They are mutually exclusive.

If I say that I am male, and then I say that I am Hispanic, then I may or may not be lying - there is no correlation between the two.

So, the Theory of Evolution IS NOT "mutually exclusive from Atheism" - you yourself say they often go hand in hand.

And there are some people about whom I would call Republican or Democrat a religion - they vote straight party ticket, no matter what. There arean't many people that I would say are that extreme, but they exist...

Of course, by straight definition number 4, almost anything can be religious. But requiring some form of god is far too narrow - there are many groups that claim to be a religion that have no god (the Church of Body Modification, Scientology, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc.) - where do we draw the line? Tough question. Personally, I think Atheism even fits the definition of religion including god if you fiddle with it only a little - belief, etc, concerning god. Just a thought... even agnosticism would therefore being included ("we can't know if god exists or not").