Talk:Atheism/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

criticism on atheism

Some contend that atheistic philosophies inevitably lead to nihilism. Atheists do not share a comprehensive moral code, and few atheists would claim that the entire body of moral decisions they make are absolute and true for everyone. Many atheists, however, have developed moral principles based on secular philosophies such as utilitarianism, deontological ethics, and virtue ethics. On the other hand, Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil argues that these newly developed moral systems have no basis and are totally arbitrary; they are one person's idea of what rules he wants everyone to follow.

This is not grammatically correct, which we have already changed for you. You do not introduce a subject; nihilism, then give the opposing view, then give a counter argument to that. for 1, that's not NPOV and 2, it makes little sense to support the original claim only after the opposing view has been stated. You are giving a claim, that comes first.

There is no real grammatical problem with it, and you should really stop talking about grammar since it took you until now to be able to spell it correctly. If there are any problems in coherency, then blame those who hacked up what I originally wrote. 67.187.9.149 01:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Next, please read how to cite an article. I already gave you a citation, matter of fact, a direct quote that supported your argument, and you reverted it. It is fine to give opposing view points, we editors are not opposed to this, we are simply looking for neutrality.

I have already stated numerous times that the citation IS Nietsche. Your supposed citation was incorrect as that was not the work in which Nietsche argued what I am talking about. And again, there is NO such thing as a "neutral point of view", not even in the world of scholarship (since people seem to want to appeal to authority... You can find a scholar for just about any position you wish to support.).67.187.9.149 01:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explan to me how this Nietzsche states that the death of God will lead not only to the rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order but also to a rejection of absolute values themselves; to the rejection of belief in an objective and universal moral law, binding upon all individuals. was not good enough. If you address the issues at hand and stop belittling and accusing people of cutting you down, perhaps we can get somewhere. I want to make this a good article, and I hope you're in the same boat. Somerset219 01:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Nietsche did not state what you write. Please read him and then maybe we'll have something to talk about. I do not like it when people act as if they know a subject when they do not. 67.187.9.149 01:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to reason with you, you still make personal attacks and don't address the issues.

You may have tried to reason, but you failed miserably. You are awfully good at being hypocritical when you tell me that my writing stinks. You address the issues instead of avoiding them and not reading the necessary sources. 67.187.9.149 12:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You give no examples and refuse to go to the links I provide.

This is pure bull. It is in Nietzsche as I have said over and over and over again and you refuse to go read it. The links you have supposedly provided were irrelevant. 67.187.9.149 12:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to help and it seems as though you are unwilling to come to a consensus.

You are not trying to help anyone. If you were trying to help, you wouldn't post stupidity on my Talk page in order to get me banned. You wouldn't have reverted my changes like a coward after you knew I had been banned and couldn't do anything. Finally, you would have read the source and left my good information alone. 67.187.9.149 12:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You did not even go to the citation I provided you, which is obviously why you feel Nietsche "did not write it". I have done all I can. I am trying to help you not get banned, obviously you want to. Sorry, I tried to help. On a side note; please sign all your statements and try not to write in between paragraphs of the same post. Thanks :) Somerset219 01:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read what you provided and I have commented on it. I can do little to help you understand. That must come from your own enlightenment. 67.187.9.149 12:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As of right now,the nilhism part isn't NPOV. And .149, please be mature. He asks you for examples and you say "It's in there." That is NOT an example.Tuesday42 21:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Shut up the both yous

I don't understand. How is it that Atheism inevitably leads to Nihilism? I, myself, have been an Atheist for some time now and uphold a set of strong moral principles. On a similar note, simply because I am an Atheist, in no way does that mean I don't have spiritual beliefs. I think it's being terribly biased to say that Atheism leads to Nihilism... 68.42.37.75 22:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I believe this discussion should be happening on a wiki page about Nietzsche. This page is about Atheism, if it is insisted that Neitzsche's comments about Atheism be mentioned, they can be directed to the wikipage, which is where the issue of citing him should be resolved.--Edy52285 02:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

On the Genealogy of Morals

I see nothing about this coming from Beyond Good and Evil or On the Genealogy of Morals, which is a revised version of the latter:

On the other hand, Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil argues that these newly developed moral systems have no basis and are totally arbitrary; they are one person's idea of what rules he wants everyone to follow.

This is a controversial statement, which is why we need an exact source where we can find this, like a scholarly essay or quote. coming up with your own meanings and paraphrasing does not substantiate a proper citation, especially in the context you are affording it. Simply stating "well, Nietzsche said it!" is not a good enough counter argument, nor is telling somebody they should know more about philosophy; because thats the whole point of proper citation! You have done original research, and wether you're right or wrong is irrelevant. It needs better citation. I would love to include something like this as a critism, however it is controversial and it gives no opportunity to the reader to look up your source. This also does not forward the argument that atheism ultimately leads to Nihilism, which was the purpose of it. It simply states that morals are subjective, which does not lead to nihilism. If this is not changed in 24 hours I will edit it myself. Somerset219 04:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

matter of fact I can't find anything by him that renders the statement that "Atheism leads to nihilism" to be true, especially considering his consistant references to christian morality. Atheism is the lack of thiesm, it is not nihilism, which is an ideology. An atheist can be a nihilist, but atheism does not lead to nihilism. just like it does not lead to humanism, naturalism and materialism. Somerset219 04:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• 67's argument actually sounds more like Dostoevsky than Nietzsche, & then he just adds some nihilism stuff --JimWae 05:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen two more obstinate people who refuse to look at the sources before simply eliminated good information. Of course, apologists will do such things in order to make their own beliefs look good. In addition to that, you both go and whine to high heaven on my Talk page in order to get me banned. Talk about unfair mob rule and unreasonableness. Well, since neither one of you had the brains to go look anything up, allow me to spoon feed you just a few relevant quotes from Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, Article 5: "All the philosophers, with a pedantic and ridiculous seriousness, demanded of themselves something very much higher, more pretentious, and ceremonious, when they concerned themselves with morality as a science: they wanted to give a basis to morality - and every philosopher hitherto has believed that he has given it a bases; morality itself, however, has been regarded as something 'given'. ....It was precisely because moral philosophers knew the moral facts imperfectly, in an arbitrary epitome, or an accidental abridgement - perhaps as the morality of their environment, their position, their church, their Zeitgeist, their climate and zone - it was precisely because they were badly instructed with regard to nations, eras, and past ages, and were by no means eager to know about these matters, that they did not even come in sight of the real problems of morals - problems which only disclose themselves by a comparison of many kinds of morality. ....What philosophers called "giving a basis to morality," and endeavored to realize, has, when seen in a right light, proved merely a learned form of good faith in prevailing morality, a new means of its expression, consequently just another symptom of a given morality, indeed, in its ultimate motive, a sort of denial that it is lawful for this morality to be called into question - and in any case the reverse of the testing, analyzing, doubting, and vivisecting of this very faith. ....There are systems of morals that are meant to justify their author in the eyes of other people; other systems of morals are meant to tranquillize him, and humble himself; with others he wishes to take revenge; with others to conceal himself; with others to glorify himself and gain superiority and distinction - this system of morals helps its author to forget that system makes him, or something of him, forgotten; many a moralist would like to exercise power and creative arbitrariness over mankind, perhaps Kant especially, gives us to understand by his system that "what is estimable in me is that I know how to obey - and with you it shall not be otherwise than with me! 67.187.9.149 12:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that you have been thoroughly shamed, I hope that you will put my good information back. I can see that if I attempt to, the mob will rule the day. If you still don't see it, there are yet more quotes from Nietzsche and philosophy books that will demonstrate that you are simply rewriting philosophy. However, because of the very reasons Nietzsche mentioned above, I rather doubt that you will recognize that your morals are quite arbitrary, as I wrote. You will still probably not understand that the law itself is arbitrary, so why should you take it as a "moral" guide? If you wanted to speed, would you break the law because it was impeding what you desire? Uh, huh. If you wanted to do pot for happiness and don't consider it any worse than alcohol, would you break the law because it was impeding what you desire? Likely. Do you guys really not get it? Atheism leads to nihilism, not the belief but the unavoidable fact. Oh well, I don't have time to explain the intricacies of your unthoughtout beliefs and faith, I can only hope that you'll continue to investigate for yourself now that you are perhaps a bit more enlightened. Of course, I feel that you should put my good information back and stop your mob rule tactics, but I will obviously not be able to make that happen as one lone voice of enlightenment. So, you do what you like. At least you have some of the information you wouldn't bother to find on your own. 67.187.9.149 12:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• There is still no reason to give Nietzsche the last word - especially since neither the word nihilism nor the word atheism appear in the quote. Nietzsche (including the mention of Kant) could just as well be talking about the morality of theists - and does often. --JimWae 14:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• His comments are very much historical - hence empirical - and say nothing about necessity. --JimWae 15:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

didn't you just prove us right? Somerset219 19:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No. I have no time for this kind of ignorance. Have your article the way you like, apologists. I will condemn wikipedia's ignorant information to everyone I meet, from now on. 67.187.9.149 14:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• The criticism is still in the article - it just is not endorsed nor given the final word --JimWae 19:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Religious atheists

I no longer can find any discussion in article on religions that are atheistic, nor on atheists who are still religious. Much has been removed on these topics recently--JimWae 05:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

User Somerset believes that Atheism vs. Religion already has a subcategory, but did not stated where they are nor why they were really removed. I'll wait for his words to make clear of this deletion of some sections before any/no actions is to be taken. Monkey Brain_(untalk) 06:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Under each sub-category it explains how each religion deals with and relates to atheism; ie. Judaism, Christanity, Islam, and Asian Spirirtality.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Religion_and_atheism

Somerset219 19:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see "article length" above to understand why I am cutting down on redundant info. Thanks! Somerset219 19:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see it buried in there now - I think that section needs a short intro - and could be trimmed. I still do not see any mention of atheists who are religious & do not belong to any church/temple... --JimWae 19:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

umm.. how are you atheist and religious? Somerset219 19:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Atheist Spiritual person is a someone who does not believe in the existence of God/gods or rejects the notion of God/gods. Nor worship them, nor worship anyother person/thing. They may simply be living a spiritual life (to understand nature/yourself). That is loosely defined as a "religious." And please understand that Atheism is not a system of beliefs, it is simply the rejection of the notion of the existence God/gods/dieties. So there you have it, a religious atheist. :) Monkey Brain_(untalk) 21:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there we almost have it. What exactly is meant by "spiritual" here? siafu 21:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Spiritual, here, is defined as notion of understanding nature/yourself. Monkey Brain_(untalk) 21:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a reasonable stretch to call that "religious" as stated, though. Do you mean a supernatural understanding of nature, or one based on faith alone? siafu 22:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither. Not supernaturalistic(unseeable to the normal eye) nor faith(dogma). Monkey Brain_(untalk) 22:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think in that case, there's no reason to label this outlook as "religious". siafu 22:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

But then not everyone would be happy (from both sides(either from ignorance or from what they believe to be harmful to their POV)) because "spiritualist"(as defined) can/do also follow some religion (for example, Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism) that does not require(or in some cases reject the usefulness(or uses) of ) faith, supernatural stuffs, (either rejects or rejects the notion of the existence of) God/gods, immortal soul, and some more unlisted. And as a note:These religion are sometimes associated with spiritualism(aka asian spiritualism in the Atheism article) because they do not endorse the normal religious views held by western theology. Monkey Brain_(untalk) 22:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand atheism is not a system of beliefs, which is why I asked the question. Ironically, you are attributing a system of beliefs to an atheist i.e.; living a spiritual life (to understand nature/yourself). Somerset219 21:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too hard to understand the apparent contradiction - one can believe in a spirit, or immortal soul, or supernatural beings without worshiping them or believing they are "gods." I'm sure there are plenty of New Agers out there who are spiritual but technically are atheists. MFNickster 22:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You must, understand that "living a spiritual life(to understand nature/yourself" is not attributed to atheism, but to the spiritual atheist. Therefore the Spiritual Atheist/Atheist Spiritual. Monkey Brain_(untalk) 21:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So is naturalism materialism, and humanism, but we do not discuss those here. Perhaps you should start an article :) Somerset219 22:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm.. Are you suggesting materialism, naturalism, and humanism have aspects of religion? But from my pov, they are belief systems and not spiritualism/religion. Monkey Brain_(untalk) 22:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, they are ideologies which is a "belief" system, and are not religious. Hence why I stated them. It sounded as though you were attributing "spirituality" as atheistic, which it isn't. As you said [ideologies] are belief systems and not spiritualism/religion. which is right. The debate was about stating that religions are atheistic, which they aren't. Somerset219 01:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

But at the same time, you can't say that all religions are not atheistic. If what you're talking about is theistic religions, then by all means, you are correct. (theistic)Religions are not atheistic. Monkey Brain_(untalk) 03:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of material on religious atheists in the "religion and atheism" section. I renamed this section to "Compatibility and incompatibility of atheism with religion and spirituality" to highlight this fact, but this is a very wordy title and I don't like it much. But there is certainly more material to add about philosophy. I would propose creating a short new top-level section which answered questions like, "Do atheists have ethics?" and "What do atheists think about the meaning of life?" Most of the discussion on both of those points can be farmed out to other articles. For example, meaning of life clearly separates atheistic and theistic views. Ethics has some interesting material and also links to potential background material articles like is-ought problem, secular humanism, moral skepticism, etc., but perhaps the question deserves substantial direct treatment. If the new section grows very long, it can spin off into a subarticle. -- Beland 01:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Reading the above conversation again, it seems that people disagree over the definitions of "religious" and "spiritual". It's not really necessary to make broad judgements about what "counts" for either of these terms, though we could present some arguments from famous writers by way of introducing the controversy. We are already doing what I think is the best way to handle this sort of situation, which is to talk about specific traditions by name, and use appropriate terminology for each. -- Beland 02:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may just say, for clearity, that I think what was being originially suggested here was that not all religions involve deities. This might be what was meant by a religious atheist. It might be better phrased as an Atheistic Religion. Meaning just what i said before, a religion which has no god. I am personally not versed enough in religious matters to provide any citation. However if presented with a citation regarding a non-deistic religion, it would be very POVish of me to reject the concept. I hope I helped clearify the issue for someone.--Edy52285 03:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Archiving...

So does anyone know the process of archiving talk pages? This talk page is too long, about 228+ kb. Monkey Brain_(untalk) 22:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Create a sub-page called Talk:Atheism/Archive01, copy over the text to archive and then leave a link at the top of this page so people can view the archive. I belive WP:ARCHIVE has tips as well. ---J.S (t|c) 22:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it would be "Talk:Atheism/Archive_27" to stick with the current format. See the box at the top of the page. ---J.S (t|c) 23:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I did it correctly, check. Monkey Brain_(untalk) 23:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Time to make subarticles?

This article is currently 72k, and there have been recent complaints (which I agree with) that this is too long. One easy partial solution would be to create a subarticle, "Demographics of atheism", move that huge demographic section there, and leave behind a summary. -- Beland 01:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll move the the relations between atheism and religon/spiritualism to a new article. And the demographics too. That will reduce the size to about 1/2. Monkey Brain_(untalk) 01:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, 42 kb is not too bad I guess. Monkey Brain_(untalk) 02:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

These are important topics, so we'll want one-paragraph summaries for each. Working on that now. -- Beland 21:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I finished a quick first pass at that. -- Beland 18:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

References cleanup

We have two sets of references, one of which has pointers to and from the places in the text that need them, and the other of which doesn't. It would be considerably easier to read and edit the article if all the references were matched up. We don't want to miss any that need to be moved or copied to subarticles, and we don't want unneeded references from piling up. -- Beland 01:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

AWESOME!

Ive been waiting for this, never knew how to do it. good job guys! Somerset219 02:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

religion and atheism

Although atheism is often accompanied by a total lack of spiritual beliefs, this is not an aspect, or even a necessary consequence, of atheism. Indeed, there are many atheists who are not irreligious or secular. These are most common in spiritualities like Buddhism and Taoism, but they also exist in sects of religions that are usually very theistic by nature, such as Christianity, especially in some Liberal Quaker groups. Essentially, these people embrace the moral values of these particular religions; however, they do not acknowledge the existence of any spiritual entities.

"accompanied by a total lack of spiritual beliefs": is an aspect and necessary consequence of atheism. The first statement is untrue and misleading. Irreligious is an "umbrella" term that has atheism under it; all atheists are irreligious. Secular is simular but by no means theistic, spiritual or religious. The statement that those specified religions do not acknowledge the exsistance of any spiritual entities needs to be cited, otherwise this is doing your own research. "Atheistic" aspects of these religions are presented in some of the religions, however, they are religious; by definition.

An intro that may be better suited for Religion and Athesim may be : Atheism is defined as the lack of theism. The historical context of how each religious sect has defined and dealt with Atheism is significant; with some religions embracing skepticism (a similar attitude of atheism) as its core values.

Please tell me what you think. Somerset219 00:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a significant number of editors that differ from your opinion on this. The article defines atheism as the absence of theism, not the complete lack of spirituality. Somebody might believe, say, in reincarnation, or the teachings of Buddha, or that humans have a sacred duty to take care of the planet, without including any deity into their worldview, and such a person may consider their beliefs spiritual but be atheists according to the article's definition. Whether the article's presently very broad definition of atheism is the best choice is another debate (see archives), but as long as it does define it this way, we had better be consistent. I would therefore suggest reverting your change to Religion and Athesim. Mglg 01:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see discussion on "religious atheists" for terms of what "spiritual" is. humans have a sacred duty to take care of the planet; these are ideologies, not nessesarly religious, although some religions may incorporate them, that doesnt make them atheistic. I think my argument is very clear and to the point, I do not see any discrepancies nor a valid reason to revert anything. The teachings of Buddah are characterized in the "asian spirituality" section, plus the intro touches on them specifically. Somerset219 03:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

additionally; such a person may consider their beliefs spiritual but be atheists according to the article's definition the articles definition was a cut and paste from the Atheism definition. If their is such a person, perhaps they should re-evaluate what their "beliefs" actually are. Somerset219 03:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Consider this quote:

 The gods are all eternal scoundrels
 Incapable of dissolving the suffering of impermanence.
 Those who serve them and venerate them
 May even in this world sink into a sea of sorrow.
 We know the gods are false and have no concrete being;
 Therefore the wise man believes them not
 The fate of the world depends on causes and conditions
 Therefore the wise man many not rely on gods.

Does it look like non atheistic? Monkey Brain_(untalk) 03:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

depends on the context: Every religion considers the opposing or different religion atheistic. In other words; what gods is the person talking about? Somerset219 03:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I asked whether it is considered atheistic or not... I did not stated the other stuff because you have a strong view that being a religious makes a person theistic. So by doing this annonymously, does this quote seem atheistic or theistic? Monkey Brain_(untalk) 03:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I can not say; this is not a straight forward question; you are asking me to determine wether this person believes in any dieties based on him/her "bashing" who knows what god. please see the logical fallacy;False dilemma. Somerset219 03:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Also please see religion and theism Somerset219 03:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

bah... There is no need to discuss this issue anyfurther. You cannot state solidly what your belief is about, when in question. Using fallacies to throw away the argument is bullshit. See bullshit.

You believe religions are/entails theism, yet when asked whether a religous statement is theism or not, you back hide behind logical fallacies. WTF? I mean, stop hiding and answer the stupid question. It was a simple question whether the quote was atheistic or not, by your belief. Meh, if you cannot answer such simple questions, then please check your definition of religion and/or expand on your definition of religion. Monkey Brain_(untalk) 04:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• for one, you never asked me what I believed in. Calling into question your rationale when you use a logical fallacy is not unacceptable behavior or ludicrously false representations. I answered your question, I fail to see where I am hiding. Simply because I don't give an answer you want does not mean I'm "hiding". I question you to please check your definitions. What exactly do you mean "expand" my definition. My definition is here, how am I able to expand this? Somerset219 01:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If, by chance, you are refering to Buddhism as a philosophy, and not the religion. Then it does not belong in Atheism and Religion to begin with. Somerset219 03:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• There are some atheists who believe in reincarnation &/or some other "spiritual" realm. Many of these do not belong to any "religious" group. There are also branches of Eastern religions in which theism is not a doctrine. The point being that being an atheist (even a positive, explicit atheist) does not automatically mean one has no "religious" or "spiritual" beliefs. Atheism is about not believing in deities - it is not necessarily about not believing "all things supernatural". Btw, see irreligion - it has several meanings, and is really not a precise enough word to unravel anything here. I also think saying some atheist are not secular does not make the point very clearly: some atheists do believe in supernatural things - not all atheists are atheists because of their scientific attitude --JimWae 04:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

theism:Theism is the belief in one or more personal deities. More specifically it may also mean the belief that God/god(s) is immanent in the world, yet transcends it.

I understand that secularism may not nesessarily be a quality of an atheist. However In the context that it was being used : Although atheism is often accompanied by a total lack of spiritual beliefs, this is not an aspect, or even a necessary consequence, of atheism. Indeed, there are many atheists who are not irreligious or secular. These are most common in spiritualities like Buddhism and Taoism, but they also exist in sects of religions that are usually very theistic by nature, such as Christianity, especially in some Liberal Quaker groups. Essentially, these people embrace the moral values of these particular religions; however, they do not acknowledge the existence of any spiritual entities.

It makes it sound like atheists aren't atheists, and atheists can be religious, which they can not. They can't because atheism is not a system of thought or a group of beliefs or attitudes that is considered supernatural, that would be an atheist subscribing to an ideology, philosophy, or religion (w/o deities).

I don't understand how these are incompatible. Atheism doesn't take a position on the supernatural, only on god(s). If you don't believe in any gods, you are an atheist - regardless of whatever else you believe in. MFNickster 04:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Also the statement goes as far as to say those religions are atheistic, even though they have some sort of deities, the ones that don't are considered philosophies and not religions anyways.

I understand what you are trying to say, however the above statement for Atheism and Religion is just wrong. Somerset219 04:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• SOME Atheists do beleive in spiritual entities. Not all "spiritual entities" need be considered deities - they could just be "human souls" in some kind of afterlife that may or may not reincarnate. Many of these people do not belong to any religion at all - unless one considers "New Age" a group one can "belong to". I agree that it is hard to imagine these beliefs are very consistent - but these people are not agnostic or skeptical by nature, and just accept belief in an afterlife. According to http://www.wordnews.org/most_americans_believe_in__after_death.htm HALF of the atheists and agnostics surveyed believed they have a soul, that heaven and hell exist and there is life after death. --JimWae 05:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  Although atheism is often accompanied by a total lack of spiritual beliefs, this is not an aspect, or even a necessary consequence, of atheism. Indeed, there are many atheists who do believe in a spiritual realm. Many of these do not belong to any religious group, but are also common in some sects of Buddhism and Taoism in which theism is not a doctrine. Religious atheists also exist in sects of religions that are usually very theistic by nature, such as Christianity & Judaism.

I am saying atheists can not be religious. Atheism is not a system of thought or a group of beliefs or attitudes that is considered supernatural. How is this unclear? Somerset219 05:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• SOME atheists do not represent all atheists --JimWae 05:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

fair enough; however I would like to see cited sources on religions that have no deities, and perhaps a counter view of shared skeptism in the paragraph? whould this be fair to ask? Somerset219 05:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the point? Won't you simply label them 'philosophies' instead of religions? I don't think you'll be able to support an argument that Buddhism is theistic. MFNickster 05:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

ok, hows this:

The historical context of how each theistic sect has defined and dealt with atheism is significant and although atheism is often accompanied by a total lack of spiritual beliefs, this is not an aspect, or even a necessary consequence, of an atheist's attitude of beliefs. Indeed, there are many atheists who do not believe in a spiritual realm and share an attitude of skepticism towards the supernatural. However, others do not belong to any religious group but do believe in the supernatural, and are common in some sects of Buddhism and Taoism, in which theism is not a doctrine. Somerset219 05:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Although atheism is very often accompanied by a total lack of spiritual beliefs, this is not an aspect, or even a necessary consequence, of atheism. Indeed, some atheists do believe in a spiritual or supernatural realm, even in an afterlife. While many of these religious atheists do not belong to any religious group, they are also to be found in some sects of Buddhism and Taoism in which theism is not a doctrine, and even in some religions which are overwhelmingly theistic. The historical context of how each theistic sect has defined and dealt with atheism is also significant. --JimWae 05:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the stuff about the actual context of the article should be stated first, then a description of religion vs atheism. oh, and here is God in Buddhism Somerset219 05:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps - but from the intro here, it is a separate topic. How an institution deals with non-conformists is a separete topic from the beliefs of those non-conformists. I am sure some sects of Buddhism do include deities - but there are many sects --JimWae 05:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

religion atheism

example:

The historical context of how each theistic sect has defined and dealt with atheism is significant and although atheism is often accompanied by a total lack of spiritual beliefs, this is not an aspect, or even a necessary consequence, of an atheist's attitude of beliefs. Indeed, there are many atheists who do not believe in a spiritual realm and share an attitude of skepticism towards the supernatural. However, others may or may not belong to any religious group but do believe in the supernatural, and are common in some sects of Buddhism and Taoism, in which theism is not a doctrine.

yours:

Although atheism is very often accompanied by a total lack of spiritual beliefs, this is not an aspect, or even a necessary consequence, of atheism. Indeed, some atheists do believe in a spiritual or supernatural realm, even in an afterlife. While many of these religious atheists do not belong to any religious group, they are also to be found in some sects of Buddhism and Taoism in which theism is not a doctrine, and even in some religions which are overwhelmingly theistic. The historical context of how each theistic sect has defined and dealt with atheism is also significant. --JimWae 05:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

the only thing is that an afterlife is a supernatural realm, and I don't understand how an atheist can be a theist too. Somerset219 05:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• belief in afterlife does not necessarily entail belief in deity. They just think that's the way the universe "works" --JimWae 06:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Actually I was refering to this: and even in some religions which are overwhelmingly theistic. Somerset219 06:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• You are right by saying, atheist can't be theist(they are opposing views). However, the way you present that all religion are about theism is a messed up analysis. Fix the error in your part, please. Plus since when did supernatural realm mean afterlife; Did you know that not all religions have Christian(supernaturalistic+theism) approach on life? Please, again, expand on your outdated definitions. And please before you make any changes, make sure you know the general case for the subject. Please do NOT just edit out of your own belief of an outdated definitions.

• CALM DOWN! you are abviously misreading me here. Please do NOT just edit out of your own belief of an outdated definitions., everyone edits out of their own belief! A supernatural realm encompasses an afterlife, I am not stating everyone has this approach, just that its an example, which in fact JimWae wanted to include. Try to be civil. Somerset219 23:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Religion is an "umbrella term" that encompasses theism; so more specifically all theism is religious. Please reread where ever you are taking my statements from, I feel they are out of context. Somerset219 23:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

About Somerset219's beliefs

As you can see, I am clearly frustrated by your lack of knowledge in this area. It annoys me that people are confused/ill-informed about some subjects; maybe it's not your fault; for this confusion could be because you haven't been exposed to many different subjects/views; and for that I apologiize. And also if you do not know about a subject, then please don't write about your views.

And please do not state some obvious lies; my edits were not vandals; pov, it could be, however, they were made to clear up (your) misunderstanding of certain views. I had specifically removed the Christian sects that was attributed as atheistic. What I found was "God is in you/Christ(their god) in you" belief; the belief that "god is in you" is not atheistic. If that seems POV, then you have also misunderstood what atheism is about. And for that please also get a clear understanding of what is atheistic and what is not. Monkey Brain_(untalk) 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not find the above message to be particularly respectful or civil, though I realize the sentiment is born of frustration, not ill will.

The substantive argument that we are having is a over the definition of "atheism", of which two are proposed:

1.) Atheism only requires a lack of belief in a concrete deity of some kind

2.) Atheism necessarily requires a lack of religious or supernatural belief of any kind

The latter view implies that e.g. Buddhists should not be classified as atheists. I find both definitions to be perfectly reasonable, and I'm sure that a significant number of readers would endorse either as "correct". The definitions of words are a matter of usage and convention, not absolute fact. The fact that some people use a word in a certain way is what gives the word that meaning. This definition is especially slippery because it depends on the definition of "god". There are some Christians who would consider themselves monotheists, whose definition of "God" could be reasonably considered by others to be supernatural but not actually referring to a diety with a personality or other anthropomorphic attributes (for example, God as the universe itself, or God as the collective life force of all living things, which has been manifest in prophets and Jesus, etc.). This really blurs the boundaries between the two definitions.

What has happened in this discussion is that supporters of both definitions are claiming that their definition is the only correct one. The article needs to be written to reflect the fact that different people have different understandings of the term, and may disagree as to what qualifies. -- Beland 18:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the summary in this article by way of proposing a concrete solution. It struck me as I was doing so that many adherents of these Eastern traditions would probably reject the notion that they are atheists, even though by other people's definitions they certainly would be. That's important to note so that both POVs will be represented fairly. The subarticle needs some expansion to cover ideologies, and some missing info I hinted at in my rewrite. -- Beland 18:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Beland for clearing out the issue. From my understanding, the second definition of Atheism only applies to Theistic religion (as atheism is opposed to theism, not nontheistic(as it either denies or does not acknowledge god/s)). But if it(def#2) is speaking for all religion(regardless of theistic or nontheistic), then the definition would be irreligious(without religion/against all religions), not atheism. But anyway, I apologize for my lack of civil manners; sorry I get carried away, sometimes. Monkey Brain_(untalk) 20:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from and I have the upmost respect and faith in you. I just want to point out where this can get hairy; irreligion: an umbrella term which, depending on context, may be understood as referring to atheism. This is a definition of irreligion. however this was not part of my debate, and i apologize if it came across that way. I feel we have ultimately came to a compromise on the discussion above. The statement is of NPOV and makes a good intro stating what the topic is about. I apologize again if you felt threatened or thought I was attacking you in any way. I try to be as civil as I can, I guess that may come across as arrogant sometimes. Sorry again. Somerset219 02:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The second definition fits virtually all atheists, but it isn't accurate. The first one is great, though. Tuesday42 19:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

criticisms of atheism section

This section is very poor. Bullet point 4 duplicates bullet 1, and bullet 3 is completely illiterate. Perhaps someone could improve it. Or I will have a go.

Go for it! Be bold! Somerset219 19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, have done. Apart from this section the article is very good I think. Though perhaps a bit dull and formal.--Poujeaux 13:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Many references to the subject of god are mistakenly capitalized. Capitalization should be reserved to its use as a name (i.e. God/Yahweh). The atheistic use of god is simply a noun much like tree or cat. Obviously a direct quote should be kept in its original form. But otherwise there is no reason to capitalize the word god. 129.115.251.184 21:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Nick, August 24, 2006 16:47 CST

"gnostic atheism"

I realize the term can be googled, but it was apparently not coined by a 'gnoramus'. It is an ad-hoc back-formation of "agnostic atheism", it would seem by people with limited lexical competence. The actual counterpart of "agnostic atheism" would be "positive atheism". Unless a notable author can be quoted as using the term, I see no reason to list it. 20:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

i agree Somerset219 04:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

utilitarian

*the utilitarian sociological argument that theist societies are more stable. This doesn't propose so much that atheism is wrong, but that it affects the fitness of a society. Theist societies have evolved by natural selection and proven successful because of the increased cohesion of a group sharing religious beliefs. This may be countered by the observation that such beliefs need not be theist, and that the same effect may be achieved for example by personality cults. Empirically, officially atheist societies (notably communist ones) have indeed appeared prone to the development of such surrogate cults.

where is this argument? This doesn't propose so much that atheism is wrong, but that it affects the fitness of a society. so does theism... why is this a criticism. having an effect does not induce that not believing in a diety can "hurt" a society. A cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream, does not indicate atheism, considering atheism is not a religious movement. Communism, under this pretext (see cult) doesn't even adhere. Some of the article's contributors need further explanation and perhaps a citable source for this controversial statement. Somerset219 03:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I should have said "negatively affects the fitness". I have no idea what you might mean by your further comments ("a bit shakey" is in the eye of the beholder I suppose, maybe you should read it again),

A [cult] does not indicate atheism, considering atheism is not a religious movement. – yes? what is the relation of this to the point at hand?

Communism, under this pretext doesn't even adhere. – not parseable English to me, adhere requires an indirect object, and I cannot guess your intended meaning

otoh, I admit I cited no source for the point, so I have no case. I like the argument because it is essentially an atheist's criticism of atheism (i.e. an argument against atheism that theists would be uncomfortable with endorsing). I might try to add it back with a source one day. I find it important that after the criticism focussing on private or individual aspects ("moral", "nihilism"), the effect of theism (and, consequently, absence or gradual decline of theism) on society as a whole is at least alluded to. dab (ᛏ) 05:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have re-added the section about the "utilitarian sociological argument." A "criticism" is not necessarily a "criticism" of the logical validity of a philosophy... in could also be a criticism of the effects of a philosphy or a number of other things. I do not think it's controversial to argue that a widespread belief exists that atheists are a threat to the well-being of society; therefore, I think the statement should be left in, for at least a while longer. Add a "citation needed" tag if you like, but I don't think it's really necessary. Dave Runger^(t)⁄_(c) 11:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This, while it is a criticism made by some, is not a very sound argument if it is based on evolution. New characteristics are what leads to new species - often better equipped to survive. Focussing on the atheism in communist societies is selective research. There is not even any presentation on what features of atheism MIGHT lead to less survivability. The more common argument is that while some atheists may be able to be moral, the vast majority of people require the threat of eternal punishment to be moral -BUT, it still needs a reference -JimWae 18:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The use of the word cult implied atheistic view points lead to cult like structures. Like why would you associate, or rather single out, communism to a cult. Please see Billy Graham. The use of the word "successful" implies that evolution is a "progressive" change for the better, but it isn't. The reason I took this utilitarian sociologial argument out was because I could find no such argument, not nessesarily because it wasn't cited. "A "criticism" is not necessarily a "criticism" of the logical validity of a philosophy": you are right, however, the criticism sounded more like original research. It would be like me saying a valid criticism for christianity was that all christians smell bad. this is illogical, and not an encyclopedic criticism, hence why you'll probably never see it. Somerset219 05:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, this statement is controversial:"Theist societies have evolved by natural selection and proven successful because of the increased cohesion of a group sharing religious beliefs." I have never heard of this. I have heard that sharing a religious belief may be beneficial in some ways of cohesion, but not that we are still here because without theism we would have all died out. Thats why there should be a citation, in other words, this is an actual scientific argument, that may not be right. If it is right, this is a very detrimental statement for atheism. Somerset219 05:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

the statement:"the observation that such beliefs need not be theist, and that the same cohesion may be achieved for example by personality cults or by everyone being atheistic." Is insinuating that atheism is a cohesive ideology, which it isn't. It is a position to a claim that there are supernatural deities. Also, I feel you are stating the benefits of like-mindedness, and proposing thiestic religions are the only thing able to contribute? Somerset219 05:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, this is a poor example of something being of Utilitarianism. The example isn't even utilitarian, but rather an insinuation that atheists are unhappy, and can ultimately lead to the unhappiness of a whole society. Which in itself doesn't make sense, considering the statement is relating this to the fitness of society, as opposed to the "happiness" of society. I can not find anything stating notable utilitarians proposed this idea. Somerset219 06:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Utilitarianism is

a theory of ethics that prescribes the quantitative maximization of good consequences for a population.

so the proposition that people should believe in a god because it is good for society, even if there is really no god at all is an excellent example of utilitarianism (provided, for argument's sake, that we have established that there is no god, and that it is advantageus for a society to be theist). I don't know how you can possibly come to the conclusion that the argument supposes that atheists are unhappy, it really appears you didn't understand. Atheists may be ecstatic as individuals, and even as a society. So happy, in fact, that they cannot be bothered to go on huge imperial conquests. Which in the end leads to their being conquered by grim, unhappy, anally retentive theists with pointy sticks. After a session of 'be baptized or beheaded' everyone is theist once again: natural selection of types of society, and hence of prevalent memes. Does that make sense now? Nobody said "without theism we would all have died out", how did you get that idea? That's like saying that without the evolution of carnivores, all herbivores would have died out. Look, I don't mind your removing an unsourced statement, but I would prefer you wouldn't do it out of poor understanding and naive preconceptions. dab (ᛏ) 15:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think your'e thinking about like-mindedness, as oppossed to theism. There have been many atrocieties from theism, which is not a quantitative maximization of good consequences for a population. The argument you presented may qualify as part of an evolutionary scenario, however this does not mean it's a good consequence for a population. To make the argument, you would have to jump to radical conclusions: like atheists "cannot be bothered" with imperial conquests; see antitheism, American Atheists, Mahatma Gandhi and and other reasons Atheists are in low numbers. Perhaps reading up on evolution might help you out. Natural selection is an objective consequence of ones environment, considering atheism tends to be on the rise, you could say (by your argument) that natural selection favors an atheist outlook, which would be niave. In other words, the criticism is arguing a poor understanding of evolution rather than Utilitarianism; which was my point. Evolution has nothing to do with "good consequences for a population", that's just a pick and choose argument, please see autism and The Outsiders (A look at the genius condition). My case about "unhappy atheists" was going off of the criticism, which made it sound like atheism was not beneficial, I was simply trying to find a more "logical" argument than was presented. That's like saying that without the evolution of carnivores, all herbivores would have died out. The statement about theism being more beneficial from a "fitness" aspect is why I brought up "without theism we would have all died out". Which could be a logical conclusion of your fitness scenario. By the way, I never said without the evolution of theism we would have all died out, I said without theism we would have all died out, which is in fact your argument. Because, if we did not believe in a deity and hence not bonded with cohesion, that would have had negative consequences for our "progressive" development (died out). if you think I'm being naive, it is simp[ly because I'm making the loop-hole in your criticism more obvious. In other words, it's not me being naive, I'm simply restating what you wrote. Somerset219 01:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's common to hear the argument that religion is necessary to maintain social morality (and that's mentioned in the article). There's often an implication that without morality, social order in general would also fall apart. The idea that religion is an effective social control can also be a criticism of religion - e.g. that people should be free to think for themselves and do as they please, rather than be taught to conform to some arbitrary moral code or ordered around by the powerful religious ruling class.

Certainly if a certain organizing force is necessary for social cohesion now, you could argue that it was necessary in prehistoric times as well. Likewise, if freethinking or atheism is good now, you could argue that we would have been better off as a species without religion in prehistoric times. I can't really find a Wikipedia article that covers what is known about the early history of religion, so I've requested the creation of Timeline of world religion and History of early religion. The debate over whether or not religion is an evolved instinct or arises from other sources is covered in the article Development of religion. The topic does need further improvement, but I would say it's better to do that there than here. I added a link to that page from the "Personal and social reasons" section on this one.

People occassionally make arguments that such and such is favored by natural selection because it is good for the community as a whole, rather than the individual. I was taught in college that this has rather firmly been shown to be an erroneous interpretation of the theory. The elemental unit of evolution is the gene, and genes are carried by individuals. Thus anything that favors the individual is favored by natural selection. The reason "social" genes are not selected for is that they are out-reproduced by those genes which cause the individual to "defect" against the society and favor themselves. Hence the idea of the "selfish" gene. There are some commonly cited cases of apparently altruistic behavor in hive creatures like ants and bees. Interestingly, these species have a different genetic inheritance system which makes sisters more closely related to each other than their own offspring. The apparently altrusitic behavior of these species is simply a result of the "selfish" genes acting to protect copies of themselves which are carried by closely related individuals. See eusociality for more info.

Just because arguments about "social selection" are disfavored by the scientific consensus does not mean they are not worth noting in the encyclopedia, but I think some references would be in order, and any such additions should probably be made to development of religion and not this article. -- Beland 01:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of atheism: nihilism

The article currently includes this text, in reference to Blaise Pascal's argument that without a God, life would be meaningless and miserable:

Being an atheist isn't usually associated with depression, however, suggesting that this doesn't apply to most people who are atheists, although it is possible that most people who would be affected this way chose not to be atheists.

I am concerned that this may constitute original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. It's not a bad point, though. A rewrite may be in order. Any thoughts? -- Ec5618 22:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that, but I agree, it should be rewritten.Tuesday42 23:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. -- Beland 03:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That's better.Tuesday42 14:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Pascal's argument that an atheist life is meaningless and miserable actually equivalent to claiming that atheism is nihilistic? If not, then the criticism should be described in the specific terms that Pascal uses "Criticism: atheism is meaningless and miserable" or something, rather than imposing the "nihilistic" label on him. --Dannyno 07:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so; feel free to check Pascal's original text. In any case, it seems POV to list as a critisism "That atheism leadds to nihilism", since that clearly implies that nihilism is in everybody's mind a Bad Thing. I have removed the reference to nihilism for these reasons. Mglg 23:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That makes no sense. A criticism of atheism for allegedly being X, Y or Z does not involve any illegitimate POV stance at all with regard to whether X, Y, or Z are inherently Bad. It's a matter of opinion. After all, the main criticism of atheism is that it rejects belief in God. Is that POV? Not everyone thinks that rejecting belief in God is a Bad Thing. The issue is whether, faced with the allegation of nihilism, atheists have rejected the allegation or have defended nihilism against the attack. --Dannyno 09:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of atheism: Nihilism (removal)

why were the following sentences recently deleted from this section: "Without being able to disprove the existence of god, it is necessary to accept the possibility of god. Atheism is irrational." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.82.1 (talk • contribs).

Your wording was a little biased. You're basically talking about Pascal's Wager as though it is valid. -- Ec5618 09:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also not specific enough, since not all atheists would say that the existence of a God is impossible. They might only hold that the existence of God is improbable. --Dannyno 07:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

See Russell's teapot --Andrew Ross-Parker 20:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Without being able to completely disprove the existence of Hitlers magic powers and pet tooth fairy, it is necessary to accept the possibility that Hitler may indeed be magical and possessing of fairy pets. Thus, any belief in the non-existence of Hitlers magical abilities and pet fairies is irrational." I dont see that in the Hitler article, so why should your sentence be blighting the Atheism article? --203.59.166.123 17:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Intro changes Aug 26

Atheism, in its broadest sense, is a lack of belief in a deity or deities. The opposite of theism, it encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions of atheism typically include only those who assert the nonexistence of gods; they classify other nonbelievers as agnostics or non-theists.

In general, this is not an improvement - except for removal of colon - which could easily be fixed by a dash. The 2nd sentence speaks as if the broader def is the only true one. THe use of "they" in the last paragraph sentence is without reference - one definition does NOT define other definitions. Leave it as it has been stable for many, many months - with perhaps a dash instead of a colon--JimWae 20:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I beg to differ. I will fix the "they" problem, but am not sure a hyphen would fix the colon one. Most Wikipedia articles I come across contain obvious errors that have not been edited for months -- the colon is a case in point -- so the length between edits doesn't necessarily indicate a passage's correctness. And I was trying to fix more than one problems, including IMHO the overuse of the passive voice; verbiage such as "and/or" and "those who consider themselves to be"; parentheses; and other awkward wording such as "societies'..."

I welcome changes that improve upon my edits. I don't believe my version is the best; that's why this website exists. Xiner 00:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"...leaving others to be classified as..." is awkward wording IMO. Xiner 02:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

One definition does not force the other definitions - there are still "decisions" to be made --JimWae 02:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, I do appreciate your correction of my errors. Xiner 02:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

emblems etc.

Since atheism is neither a religion nor a political position, I see no reason whatsoever why it should need an emblem, any more than relativism or idealism (or, indeed, theism itself). Particular atheist associations may of course have a desire to choose a logo representing their organisation. If this article is perceived as lacking images, I suggest that portraits of notable atheist thinkers or book covers are added. There might also be a section for atheist organisations or movements, where thumbnails of logos may be presented. (ᛎ) qɐp 14:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

However, is atheism not a philisophical position? I have always seen and used the cut atom symbol as a symbol for atheism, as a marking of my core "belief." That is, my stance on the god concept is represented by that same symbol. WarringSerenity 02:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I have also seen the circle as a symbol for atheism. WarringSerenity 02:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverts vs. Edits

With all due respect, I find the number of reverts on this page disheartening. I am by no means infallible and accept that some of my edits have been less than exemplary and should not have been made. However, it seems to me that Wiki etiquette is not being followed in reverts. Both times when my edits have been reverted, the passages in question underwent other, IMO more substantive changes as well. According to Wikipedia:

• Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism.
• If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.
• Do not revert good faith edits.
• Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate.

I have yet to see anyone who deserves a revert except myself in my early days on this website. Xiner 16:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Is [1] official Wikipedia policy? It's not on the usual Wikipedia space. An older version (still at Help:Reverting) says "However, sometimes a revert is the best response to a less-than-great edit, so we can't just stop reverting." which I think somes up my point of view here.

I also don't feel the "revert vs edit" distinction applies here - much of this seems to apply when someone adds new text, and ideally we should improve it rather than revert. However, sometimes when an edit has changed existing text from one way to the other, the "improving" distinction doesn't apply, because no new material has been added, and editors may feel the original was the better version.

My first edit [2] did improve rather than reverting. With my second edit [3], I apologise in that I didn't intend to revert all your changes, just the first paragraph one (and didn't notice this until later). As for that first paragraph, your comment suggseted you intended to "improve the language", but in doing so you had changed the actual meaning. There's no way to "improve" the edit other than going back to the original, if that's what I thought was better. With my third edit [4] again I thought the original was better, and I can't think how one could possibly "improve" rather than reverting here.

If you were to revert one of these changes again, I'd bring it up on Talk as that's better than edit wars - but I feel it's pointless and time-consuming to have to do everything on Talk. A first step in my opinion is to Be Bold: make an edit, with an explanation in the comment. And then if you disagree with my reasoning, it obviously needs to be discussed more.

Edit wars are bad, but it seems rather too strong to me to say that Reverts should never be allowed in the first place. You appear to be suggesting a Zero Revert Rule, but this is not Wikipedia policy, just something which some editors follow. See Wikipedia_talk:Revert_only_when_necessary#What.27s_so_bad_about_a_revert.3F for some discussion on this issue. Mdwh 18:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Newer versions of documents usually supersede older versions. I'd rather not argue over an outdated statement.

As you mentioned, your second revert fixed one problem, which I agree. Same with the third revert. But you could have easily done the same through an explanatory Edit Summary. And that is my point exactly.

What's the difference, you may ask, between an edit that reverses a change and a revert? The difference, my friend, is explained in the newer version of the Wikipedia document. Xiner 19:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed from article

I'm not sure what this recently added text is trying to say, but it isn't sourced, in any case. -- Ec5618 14:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

==Atheism and Paganism==

When the monotheisticreligions began to emerge, many pagans would accuse them of "atheism", as they did not believe in the many gods of accepted tradition.

FWIW, in the etymology section is already a mention that early Christians and pagans accused each other of atheism. Xiner 18:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted reference to USSR being 'officially atheist'

I've not waded through the 27 pages of archives, but hopefully this factual correction won't spark a flame war - 'officially' the constitutions of the USSR and most of its bloc promised freedom of religion. Duncan Keith 21:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Males and females

Is there any data on the ratio of male:female atheists? Can we assume it's about 1:1? --Burbster 02:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know.. when I was younger I always was under the impression that women were more religious than men, just from personal expirience, but as I got into my late teens and college age I saw more religious men as well (much to my chagrin - i'm antireligious as I see irrationality at that level harming society everyday). I really don't know. I have a feeling if there is a difference it's somewhere between 50% men:50% women and 60% men:40% women (remember women are 54-56% of the population) Lordkazan 02:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC), but that's just a snap reaction and is probably wrong - though my fiancee (se is also atheist) would probably agree with me Lordkazan 02:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

One data point that I happen to have handy: New Zealand's 2001 Census showed 53% of those saying they had "No religion" (which could include some agnostics) were male, compared to 48% of the population. -- Avenue 08:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Propose section for Bhuddism etc.

A section should be added to speak about certain religions that are technically atheist, such as Bhuddism. Bhuddism is a religion with many philosophical beliefs, but most forms do not assert the belief in a god, and it is therefore and atheist religion.

Feel free to add useful sections to any article. Xiner 21:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

pessimistic response

Is it safe to remove this text from the criticisms of atheism section?

"The pessimistic response that the human race is so prone to poor decision-making, especially in large groups, that the entire species would have driven itself to extinction in a fairly short time (no more than two centuries) without some form of (admittedly subtle) intervention by an external intelligence."

It seems biased, starts with weasel words, and assumes that humans are idiots( if this were true, did this intervention also help every other animal of lower intelligence humans survive.) Originally I was just going to deleete it, but I figured I should take it to the talk page. It at least needs a rewording. Any thoughts? Tuesday42 20:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC) On second thought, I decided just to delete it. If you want it back, put it back and discuss it here.Tuesday42 20:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I know I have been complaining about reverts on this page, but there are times when they are necessary. Please use warning templates on identifiable vandals' talk pages. Thanks for your vigilance. Xiner 00:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As for shy vandals hiding behind numeric IPs, it'd be nice to compile a list of the IPs as shown by Wikipedia here and someone could trace the addresses? I understand that IPs are easy to fake, although I'm not sure some of these people would know how to or would bother. Xiner 02:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you've all seen the vandalism on this page recently. I've added a request for investigation on the relevant page and would like to ask for more ideas in combatting the cowards, for that's what they are. Xiner 19:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have run whois checks on a few of the IP addresses...while many of them seem to be a single individual using "SBC Internet services", a number of other edits have come from IPs as far afield as the UK and Germany. This makes me think that there is possibly a post on a forum or a blog somewhere out there encouraging people to come and attack the article. A quick Google led me to this. Now I am not sure that this particular rubbish is responsible for it — if someone could make a detailed survey of the edit history, and see if the cowards have been more active since 29/7, I am sure that some light could be shed on the matter. If not this one, the Internet is filled with similar hives of stupidity...

Putting up a request for semiprotection might help, if it passes the bureaucracy. Other than that, I don't know. Byrgenwulf 19:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, I'd always thought that it was just a common thought among arrogant bigots to vandalize with nonsense and find it funny, but this really does make it seem like some kind of conspiracy. Semiprotecting sounds like a very good idea - also, would it be totally outside policy to put some kind of message at the top of the article about how it's a very frequent target of vandalism and nobody's been amused since the 100th time? --Ted 20:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone tell if that page is genuine? I mean, does anyone find this believable:

Wikipedia logo. Notice the occult symbols within the globe, which has been blasted apart… Clearly a coded message about the Wikepidians’ own intent to destroy our planet. Notice also the promotion of Un-Godly foreign languages and decadent pornography obsessed cultures like Sweden (”Svenska”, as they would have it).

-- Ec5618 21:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it is. Never underestimate the depths of idiocy to which that kind of arrogance can take a person. --Ted 22:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That's very good work, Byrgenwulf. I think the edit[5] made by User:A7X 900 on 9/12 started the current vandalism wave. If someone could draw a connection somewhere, that'd be awesome. Xiner 22:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

So we're probably looking for something more recent then. I was wondering if that site I linked to is not, perhaps, a parody, but then it struck me that there really are people who think like that, and that they do come here to Wikipedia to try to tout their foul POV. The only reason I think it's a blog or something like that is because the IPs are geolocated so disparately, and there does seem to have been a recent upsurge in vandalism...but it could be someone being clever with proxies and what-have-you: I haven't the time or the inclination to do a detailed dig at the moment. Byrgenwulf 22:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Your theory sounds probable, and I've thus requested semiprotection. Anyone who disagrees can talk here. Xiner 22:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

POV in criticisms of atheism section

The criticisms of atheism section is somewhat biased, mainly the "poor ethics" part. It seems a criticism is prevented and then excessively shot down (I know I'm guilty of said crime.) I'd like people to look through it and see what they think. It could be that NPOV seems supportive of atheism here.< That last sentence seems pretty arrogant, I know.Tuesday42 21:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess what you are trying to say is that there is undue weight in the article. As far as the article about atheism goes, I think the emphasis to criticism should be left to the Critique of atheism article. All the same, about keeping balance, if there are indeed excessive arguments against said criticisms, they should be presented as such, as you wouldn't want to present them with more validity than they actually hold outside the encyclopedia. Personally, I'm fine with it the way it is. I commend your attitude though, feel free to keep probing on the subject and looking for more input, I am liking your edits and consider the article to be improving. Starghost (talk | contribs) 16:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd say my main issue is that in the "poor ethics" portion it seems like the same point is said multiple times with the major difference being the source.Tuesday42 20:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

removed passage

Removed "This applies to the broader definition of atheism given above. The narrower definition of atheism is a particular belief, not a lack of belief" from "Lack of reason or default position" paragraph, which explains its point well enough IMO. That this conforms with weak atheism can be inferred. Xiner 23:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Atheism and Science

In addition to the points made in the section called "Atheism and Science" I would like to add to it reasons that an atheist would have for preferring scientific explanations and thus ignoring any given supernatural explanation that would be provided by a supernatural religion.

As an atheist one may observe that:

1) there is a universe.

And as an atheist one might also observe:

2) there are many that desire to explain it.

And one might also notice that:

3) there are many and varied explanations, including but not limited to those proffered by supernatural religions.

If one looks at the human enterprise called Science one notices that over the course of history many explanations have been presented for the same phenomenon. And that eventually the explanation that did the best at predicting before the fact new phenomenon that could be and were eventually found were preferred over other explanations. That when science began to use this particular preference for one explanation over another over time the explanations improved.

It is not that supernatural religion is relegated to "the-god-of-the-gaps" but that it has not withstood the test of time as a source of good explanations of the universe. That using the criteria of preference for the explanation which works better the scientific explantions have replaced the supernatural explantions for just about everything but comfort from fear of death.

Also I would like to remind theist critics of this point of view that "god" is an explanation of the universe.

Somebody 65.41.3.49 00:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

History

I am not an historian but I have heard that in the very early years of Christianity, Christians were referred to as atheists by Romans. Supposedly Romans of the time referred to anyone that would not accept their gods as heritics or atheists. Does anyone have any references on this to source historical documents?

Somebody 65.41.3.49 00:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Atheism and Ockham's Razor

"arguments against a deistic God are Hume's dictum and Occam's razor. These are philosophical arguments, but they also constitute the bedrock of all of science, and cannot therefore be dismissed as non-scientific. The reason we put our trust in these two principles is because their application in the empirical sciences has led to such spectacular..."

Ockham's razor is not a scientific principle. Its application in science is trivial.

As a philosophical principle it does not eliminate god. A god advocate can use the "principle" just as a supposed advocate of science can. Most people find "god" to be a much simpler explanation than Quantum Electrodymics and General Relativity. And of course most people that advocate god find it much easier to use and apply than Quantum Electrodymics and General Relativity. And as for number of entities god has them beat. The god advocates only need to start out with god whereas the scientists have to posit several things which have yet to be completely determined. And lastly the god explanations and the scientific explanations do not exactly predict the same things. As far as I know there is no scientific theory that predicts heaven or hell. Atheists that think that Ockham's razor is some sort of reasonable argument against god do not understand science, god or Ockham's razor.

An actual scientist would not find the simplicity of the god explanation anywhere near as compelling as how well the explanations worked before the fact. And in that case Quantum Electrodymics and General Relativity have god beat. That is because a given scientist may prefer what they personally think is simpler but the scientific community is more concerned with which explanation works better. And god explanations have been shown to stink when compared to scientific explanations. And many brilliant and simple scientific expanations were found to be wrong. So much for Ockham's razor.

Somebody 65.41.3.49 00:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ockham's Razor is not a scientific argument, so that should be removed. People are under the delusion it is.

I don't think it should be removed from the article because many self-professed atheists think that Ockham's razor is a scientific principle. Perhaps the article should be amended to indicate that theists are not the only people that may hold beliefs that are not founded.

I don't think it's not founded. The concept of parsimony is present in both science and Occam's Razor. To me it looks like a case of misguided Metonymy. Starghost (talk | contribs) 22:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

However, a lot of people don't understand what Ockham's Razor is; some people think that it states the simplest explanation is the correct one, which is absolutely wrong. It is the simplest explanation which accurately explains the situation; thus, when a lot of people are like "God did it" or "X Y Z", if "X Y Z" does not accurately represent reality then it violates Ockham's razor, even if it is simple. Most of the God arguments don't work simply because they don't match reality, and as such, violate Ockham's Razor, and others are highly contrived, also violating Ockham's razor as the scientific explanation is much simpler and more concise. However, the real reason for rejection in science is that God explanations are either not verifiable or easily verifiable as false, as well as their total lack of predictive capability.

Yet another version of Ockham's razor: "(T)he simplest explanation which accurately explains the situation". God explanations would certainly qualify. Because religion is perfect when it comes to predicting reality after the fact (given enough time just about everyone is). However in science as opposed to "Ockham's razor" world, in a choice of explanations between those that are better at predicting reality verses those that are worse, scientists over time will prefer those that do a better job at predicting reality before the fact, not just accounting for reality after the fact. It has nothing at all to do with Ockham's razor no matter how you wish to state it.

It is a somewhat legitimate argument against deities, as deities involve high orders of complexity, but it is only a philisophical argument, not a scientific one, and should be fixed to reflect this. Titanium Dragon 02:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said it should be kept in the article but it should be pointed out that invocation of Ockham's razor as some sort of a philosophical incantation to refute the god argument is as much magical thinking as those that think god is the only possible explanation of the universe.

Also you well illustrate one of the major problems with Ockham's razor as any kind of a principle. And that is that even advocates of Ockham's razor do not seem to be able to agree as to what it is and how it should be applied.

There are dozens of variants that advocates such as you argue for. And of course Ockham's razor is of no use in allowing any of them to come to agreement on which one it should be. It is nonsense because it is a presumption of reality. An honest person would not claim such a presumption as a "principle". In those ways it has the hallmark of nonsense. I would bet that even William of Ockham would have agreed that the so-called principle attributed to him would be a great reason to think that there was a god. It amazes and baffles me why any atheists would think it was any kind of a rational argument against god.

Somebody 65.41.3.49 19:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It amazes me you are amazed. To mention William of Ockham is an appeal of authority, but I guess he isn't even relevant in the discussion anymore, as the concept is greater than the man. If you look at the the nature of scientific knowledge, you would see it is as magical as any kind of philosophical statement, I don't see why to you there is such a clear distinction.

Now for my point. For the sake of argument, take following set of hypotheses as an example:

1:The universe created itself.

2:The universe was created by a god, who created himself.

3:The universe was created by a god, who was created by god2, who created himself.

4:The universe was created by a god, who was created by godn, who was created by godn+1, who created himself.

Surely it's not so 'amazing' that Parsimony would have a preference for the first hypotheses, if merely for making use of the least elements to provide an explanation? I don't think it is 'amazing' at all. Starghost (talk | contribs) 23:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Please look at the context you're citing. You are actually looking at a part of a quote, not a declarative statement by the article. A better quote would be nice though. Titanium Dragon 02:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Occam's Razor is not a scientific principle? Highly debatable. At very least, Occam's Razor is a guiding aesthetic principle that all scientists follow. There is one school of thought (that I follow) that says Occam's Razor is the guiding principle/goal of science, Occam's Razor being roughly paraphrased as "the simplest explanation for the observed universe is the best explanation". The Scientific Method of hypothesis, prediction, testing, re-hypothesis, is the means by which science seeks to find simple explanations. Science in no way denies the existence of a god (although many scientists do deny the existsnce of a god). Science itself has virtually nothing to say on the subject. In Philosophy of Science terms, the Theory of God is a "poor scientific theory", but that does not in any way imply that the Theory of God is not in fact true. Being a poor scientific theory simply means that there is no prediction that we can make that we could use to test the theory, and therefore this theory simply does not fall within the bounds of scientific scrutiny. But even those who don't follow science can be swayed by the power of Occam's beautiful Razor. Which is a more elegant solution? "God has always existed and created the Universe", or "the Universe created itself"? I know which one sounds better to me ;-) Leeborkman 06:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

An atheist is only someone who claims to be an atheist?

Some recent edits were made based on "people cite wikipedia as evidence that you can't be an atheist without _claiming_ to be an atheist".

I won't revert Wiploc's edits as I think it doesn't matter which way we say it, but I'd note that if people are doing this, they simply weren't reading Wikipedia correctly. Claiming/asserting that God doesn't exist isn't the same thing as claiming/asserting that you are an atheist. "(Strong) Atheist" is the label given to people who claim God doesn't exist - it doesn't logically follow from that statement that an atheist has to assert that he is an atheist. Mdwh 22:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just like you don't have to assert (or even agree) that you are a vertebrate to be a vertebrate. In fact, I can strenuously deny being an athiest, but if I believe no gods exist, then I am in fact an athiest, and my denials are irrelevant. Leeborkman 04:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

List of famous atheists (or not)

I was about to add Joss Whedon to the list of famous atheists, but stopped when I saw that the current list is already dominated by Americans. I confess to knowing too little about the topic, and thus would like to ask, does the current list deserve to be there and are there missing ones that do? Xiner 02:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss the .en? This is an english wiki, after all. Nothing wrong with putting in Americans imo. --Karafias 03:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think he was worried about a certain guideline that says that some viewpoints are underrepresented in the wiki. However, I dont see a problem with adding that man, the way to solve that would be to add other famous international atheists. However, if the case is that there are more famous american atheists than in the rest of the world, there isn't much else that can be done. Denying people information is not a valid way to keep balance imho. On the other matter, I don't see why the list wouldn't deserve to be there? Unless you meant the small list, as it appears to favor a dozen atheists over the hundreds of others for no apparent reason, then I can see where you are coming from. Starghost (talk | contribs) 15:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There is already a far larger List of atheists, which is linked from that section. At a glance, that list appears to include plenty of non-Americans. Joss Whedon is also already on that list. So the question is, what purpose is this smaller list in this article for? If it's the most famous ones, then yes we should reevaluate whether these are the most famous ones. Does it just so happen that the most famous ones are also mostly American? Should we include a few from other countries anyway? Maybe it's better we just drop this smaller list unless there is a clear purpose for it? Mdwh 15:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I meant by my earlier comment, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I agree with dropping the smaller list since defining who is the most famous is too subjective. Starghost (talk | contribs) 17:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that mini-list isn't particlularly useful or appropriate here, I think. And there's the unnecessary risk of POV in keeping it trimmed down to just a handful of entries, too. The link to list of atheists in "see also" should suffice. I say remove the section entirely. Bryan 18:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you guys have ironed out a solution to my concerns, whether they were presented as well as I could've. I think the argument for removing the list is the best suggestion so far. Xiner 22:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Recommended Rewording of Atheist Definition

On the Humanities Reference Desk we got a question entitled ["All muslims are atheists"] in which the reader was confused over the defenition at the top of the page. It should be reworded to make it easier to understand for the layman. Second of all, the italicized accent should be on truthfully, not "can" and "cannot" IMO. The can/cannot part doesn't need the emphasis. I know it will clutter the defintion, but maybe break reword it into "A person who can truthfully assert they do not believe in either a God or gods." I dunno.

Hi, can someone explain how the current definition could be construed as meaning that all muslims are athiests? If you can explain this, then would would be in a better position to fix the problem. Thanks. Leeborkman 01:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, how about this, which is the simplest, clearest version I can make that that doesn't have the annoying mono/poly problem:

An "athiest" can be defined as either:

• A person who could truthfully assert "I believe that no gods exist"; or
• A person who could not truthfully assert "I believe that at least one god exists". Leeborkman 02:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but I don't think assertion has anything to do with it. It just adds a layer of needless complexity (Occam's Razor anyone?). Why not leave it as a matter of belief, where it belongs? MFNickster 02:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, is that the problem? In that case, how about:

An "athiest" can be defined as either:

• A person who believes that no gods exist; or
• A person who does not believe that at least one god exists. Leeborkman 02:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a lot easier to understand. I think the issue on the reference desk was more of a misinterpretation of the definition due to lack of clarity. As was said, it was needlessly complex. If no one comments before tomorrow afternoon, I'll make the change. --AstoVidatu 02:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Done! Leeborkman 02:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As one may have noticed the defintion has since been altered again. It now reads, "Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of deities". I recently edited this to read "Atheism is the absence of belief in the existance of deities". I cited two articles on the about.com website http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/whatisatheism_2.htm and http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/dict_online.htm. My edit was reverted on grounds that both definitions are POVed and should be disputed on grounds of neutrality. I do agree that both definitions are POVed, but, as per the examination in the about.com articles, i think the definiton that infers Atheism is the absence of belief rather than the diselief in deities is more neautral. I say this because the absense of belief provides for a wider definition that does not just include those who consciously reject theisim, but also those who have never heard of any theistic beliefs. The use of the word disbelief (see about.com articles above) can suggest, when implied actively, the act of not accepting the truth. This is obviously not the most neautral statement and as such i propose that the introductary definition be changed toAtheism is the absence of belief in the existance of deities, or something similar such as the second definiton as suggested by Leeborkman, that is, A person who does not believe that at least one god exists. -- Jarryd Moore 14:08, 22 October 2006 (EST)

Bad link - Godless March on Washington

There is a bad link in the Atheist gatherings section, "Godless March on Washington".

There is a page Godless_Americans_March_on_Washington and at least two redirect links point to that page namely; Godless_March and Godless_American_March_on_Washington (no "s" in American(s)). I suppose "Godless March on Washington" would also be a useful redirect or should the link be changed? As an aside the Brights Movement page also has a link to "Godless March on Washington" Vamptoo 05:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that "Godless Americans March on Washington" was the proper name for the event, so I think the links should be updated to reflect that. Urania3 10:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is fixed now, thank you.Vamptoo 01:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

famous atheists??

Well there is something wrong with the title, since the names cited would have to be famous because they are atheists.. It is fishy, we are not talking about footballers here. But even if it was the case, as a fellow atheist, I only recognize one of the names on the list, is this a joke?? Isn't Karl Marx, Engels, Jean Paul Sartre much more famous atheists?? They were pretty much famous because they were atheists by the way.. What is the rationale for excluding them and including these people (who are nearly exclusively all American btw)?? Baristarim 08:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see #List of famous atheists (or not) above. -- Ec5618 09:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I had just come across this article, I wasn't aware that there was a discussion beforehand, my bad.. :)) Baristarim 16:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No Foxhole Atheists - a classic strawman

I've read those television quotations and it appears to be used as a 'cheap shot' against atheists, as the translation implies reticence or cowardice in combat. There is no questioning it's validity, since it is an absurd phrase. It is also disrespectful to the thousands of atheists who have sacrificed their lives valiantly in war. Having thought about it's meaning further, I have come to the conclusion that in early 20th century, the phrase was a kind of joke, meaning, "One must have faith to occupy a foxhole for any length of time...." The use of the phrase is coupled with nervous, light laughter at the thought of a foxhole, amidst shelling/bombardment and trenches lined with machine gunners.....The idea behind the phrase is, the situation *ironically* would force you to believe in a God... But today, it seems to be taken literally and out of this context, which is a shame and very insulting. (this was also posted in the athiests in foxholes discussion).-A101

This is classic strawman rhetoric. You invent a "criticism", and then you prove it false. What you actually need to do (for this encyclopedia we are writing) is show reputable support for your claim that this actually is a criticism of atheism. It is obvious that there are indeed atheists in foxholes, but so what? And if we are going to take this trusism so literally, then surely we should choose counter-examples that apply literally (unlike Joe Simpson). Anyway, let's keep the initial unsupported claim if we must (or possibly even supply support for it), but let's leave out the detailed counter-examples; otherwise I will be forced to disprove the infamous slander about dog trainers: "You can't teach an old dog new tricks". See ya. Leeborkman 13:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is taking it literally. What it means is that in times of extreme stress or fear, atheists will turn to God and forget their rebellious affectations of independence, much like the prodigal son. As such, it is a criticism because it implies that atheism is not what atheists say or think it is - not a rational conclusion, but an immature act of rebellion. Also, it isn't a strawman because Christians in the U.S. continue to use it. --Yath 14:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Yath. Actually, I do understand what the expression means. That is why I was wondering why you insist that this is a criticism of atheism, when it is simply a truism about human nature when confronted with death. And the reason I say it is a strawman is because it is not a criticism, so it does not need to be countered. So yes, it does indeed appear that you are taking this saying literally. Why else would you think it can be disproven with counter-examples? Leeborkman 15:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not a truism of human nature. That is simply false. The aphorism is however a commonly help misconception, particularly amoungst Christians. You can find other examples of current mis-usage and alternative counter examples at http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_urb_foxholes.htm. - Solipsist 15:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Taken literally, it means: there are no atheists in foxholes. It is not intended that way. No one takes it that way. I think we can all agree that an atheist could dig a foxhole and hop in. Thus, it is not taken literally.

And if you feel that it's a truism, you ignore the fact that atheists have faced death and not turned to God. --Yath 15:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I call it a "truism". I do not say that it is true ;-) It is obviously not literally true. Nor is it obviously a criticism of atheism. But it seems that some people want to take it as such, and that is cool, but this is an encyclopedia, so they should support that view with reputable references, etc. Thanks. Leeborkman 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is obviously not literally true. ... erm, why did you say it was being taken literally, then?

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)

tru‧ism  /ˈtruɪzəm/ –noun

a self-evident, obvious truth.

Forgive me, but my assumption of your good faith is wavering. Or perhaps my confidence in your command of the English language. A truism is something that is not only true, but obviously so.

At any rate, I commend your call for references. But deleting the material is not the answer, at least not yet. One day Wikipedia will be referenced enough for that, but at the moment, deleting all unreferenced material would leave too little material behind. Until that time, editor consensus will have to do. --Yath 15:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Now I must apologise for my apparent misuse of the word truism, which I take as a synonym for "proverb, banality, cliche, etc". Anyway, please believe in my good faith, if not in my command of the language. To answer some of the above points... 1) I say that you all are taking this saying literally, because you keep trying to disprove it by using counterexamples, ie because you take the "there are no atheists" part literally, so much so that if you can cite just one relevant atheist, then you have disproved and discredited the saying. Unfortunately, that can only work if we take the "there are no atheists" to be an absolute, dogmatic statement. But surely the saying just means that men, faced with death, are will often clutch at theistic straws, not that this is an absolute incontrovertible rule. In other words, you would need statistical evidence to disprove the intent of this saying. Furthermore, the existence of athiest veterans is of little relevance to the saying. The saying is about people "in foxholes", ie at the moment of ther closest encounter with death, not about what happens when they are out of the foxhole and back at home. 2) And I deleted it, not because it as unreferenced, but because I considered it to be incorrect (and unreferenced). If I see something written in wikipedia that I consider incorrect, and there are no references for it, especially something as insubstantial as this (ie, not fundamental to the article), then deleting it while engaging in discussion about it seems quite appropriate. To sum up, I think that there is only a very weak case for calling this a criticism of atheism, a case that can be made strong only by providing evidence that some reputable people consider it such, and furthermore that your counters to this "criticism" are also weak. No affence intended, just considering this all by encyclopedic standards. Anyway, thanks you for your perserverance and tolerance. Leeborkman 21:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the entire article dedicated to this: Atheists in foxholes. That article contains some more references, and discusses the issues in greater detail. Do you disagree with what is written there? Mdwh 22:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Mdwh. I'm leaning on doubting Leeborkman's good faith. Xiner 22:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sad to hear you say that, Xiner. Do you have any responses to my arguments, apart from doubting my good faith? btw, I am looking at that article, Mdwh. And no, I do not particularly disagree with that article. That article has lots of good information, although it does appear to have the source of the phrase wrong (it is usually credited to WWIII journalist Ernie Pyle), but it still doesn't address the question of how TANAIF is a criticism of atheism. That claim is repeated (unreferenced) in the article, and we actually have one reputable quote that denies TANAIF is a criticism of atheism. What we can say is that TANAIF offends some atheists. So, let me suggest a more precise form of words. WWII journalist Ernie Pyle famously commented "there are no atheists in foxholes"{citation needed}, a claim that many atheists find offensive {citation needed}. Not only is this phrase untrue in a literal sense {fact}, but there is also evidence to suggest that many who serve on the frontline may actually experience the opposite effect, ie they lose their religious faith.{citation needed}. In a recent and famous incident, mountain climber Joe Simpson was pleased to find that his atheism was strengthened by his horrific ordeal, and that that this helped affirm his will to live. That would certainly satisfy me. Leeborkman 23:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sad to have to doubt a fellow Wikipedian's good faith, too, Leeborkman. Would someone's use of the word nigger, as is in the news today, require a citation to stay on Wikipedia, in the state that it's in, as a criticism of a human race? Indeed I had more reactions than to simply doubt your good faith, one of which being to look at each of your edits more carefully. I will say that some of them were good and beneficial to the article, but I still do not see a good explanation of the deletion of the whole foxhole argument. I do not wish to argue ad nauseam about this issue, but wish that you take better care next time when deleting something. Again, I thought some of your other edits were good. Xiner 01:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the word "nigger" has to do with any of this. All I have said is that it is not obvious to me that "There are no atheists in foxholes" is a criticism of atheism, any more than "beware of Greeks bearing gifts" is a criticism of Greeks. I am an atheist, and the phrase certainly doesn't bother me. As for your advice about taking better care, I won't bite. Have you any comment to make about the suggest re-wording of the paragraph (see my edit above at 23:56)? Thanks. Leeborkman 02:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

But it's known that "beware of Greeks bearing gifts" is not meant as a criticism of greeks. I presume that "There are no atheists in foxholes" on the other hand *is* meant to refer to atheism, as opposed to merely using it as an analogy. Mdwh 22:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As you say, you presume that this saying is about atheists, and not merely a generality about human nature (as I presume), but you offer no support for this presumption. Leeborkman 23:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you think they are referring to, if they aren't supposed to be referring to atheists and belief in God? Mdwh 00:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I take the saying to mean that men, faced with death, will clutch at whatever feeble ray of hope they can. It's a pithy, poetic, succinct aphorism, much more elegant than saying "many men, when faced with death, clutch at any glimmer of hope they can find". I'm an atheist, but that doesn't mean I won't send up a pointless but desperate prayer at the last moment. Anyway, I have edited the article to indicate that the phrase is considered offensive, with verification, and included factual, verified information that counters both the literal and figurative meaning of the phrase. I hope that satisfies. btw, I note that this phrase is not included on the main Critique of Atheism page. Intriguing! See ya. Leeborkman 00:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If you think it should be included, and belongs in that article, why dont you add it? Although that would make 3 articles about this thing, maybe you could add that to the see also section there? Just a suggestion. Starghost (talk | contribs) 05:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is a citation issue the relevant citations from the main foxhole article should be brought over here. JoshuaZ 02:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak vs. Strong Atheism

This is a poor distinction/definition. Atheism is not defined by the absence of religion. It is the natural state of all humans when they are born and before they are indoctrinated with false belief. Indeed, in secular societies esp. where religion has not heavily invaded most facets of life, the belief in God is an additive. Athiesm is not a negative property. It is the *base state*.-A101

One of the objections raised against making this a featured article was an apparent preference on this page for weak atheism as a definition for "Atheism", when it is more often used to mean the strong kind. I believe that's a valid point. Xiner 14:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Where do you find this "preference" in the article? MFNickster 14:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is the prime example. Not only does it place the broader definition before the more common one, there is no hint which is the more usual definition. Xiner 17:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that the broader definition comes first because it's more inclusive, I don't see that as preferential. We've been over this before, and there is no compelling reason to put the narrower definition first (although I don't think it would be any more or less preferential if we did). What exactly is the objection? What kind of negative effect does this have on the reader? MFNickster 17:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I beg to differ. The first sentence, for example, should give the most basic definition, and that should be the narrower definition, since that is what most people refer to when they discuss atheism. As it stands, someone who has no knowledge about the topic will not know about that difference, and that effectively presents a POV. Xiner 17:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so you have an opinion, and that's fine, but that's entirely based on what you believe other people will think when they read it. The definitions follow one immediately after the other, so I find it hard to believe that someone with not knowledge will have a problem understanding or appreciating the difference. If putting the broader definition first represents POV, can you give a reason why putting the narrower definition first does not represent POV? Do you have any figures to back up your statement that strong atheism is what "most people refer to" when discussing atheism? MFNickster 18:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Dictionaries and other Wikipedia articles on complex topics routinely put the more common definitions first. I believe that is common sense, because someone with no knowledge of the topic should know which definition is more commonly used. As for which is more common in this case, I'll move the argument below. Xiner 21:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

How would you support which is the more common?--JimWae 18:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If you do a search for the word on Answers.com, encyclopedic sources there, including Encyclopedia Britannica's entry[6], state specifically that atheism is the active denial of the existence of god. Xiner 21:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel that what you say is a bit misleading: You actually mean that currently there isn't a preference, but you feel there should be a preference towards strong atheism. Personally I don't care which order they go on, but I strongly object to favouring one over the other. It's not clear at all that strong atheism is the one which most people mean.

If we are going to suggest that one is the more usual definition, firstly it needs sources (and not simply quoting another encyclopedia - instead we should be looking at where they get their information from), secondly it would be better to say how the definitions may vary depending on the person or context - e.g., I suspect that weak atheism is far more common amongst those who actually identify as atheists. It's a bit like saying that the most common definition of a witch is someone who flies on broomsticks, wears pointy hats and practices black magic - that may be true, but it would be missing a very important point to not mention that most people who self-identify as witches do not mean that.

As for dictionaries, the first one at [7] gives weak atheism first. As for denial, this means "A refusal to accept or believe something" - that's weak atheism, not strong! (Although I think we should avoid the word "deny" - it's somewhat POV, as it often implies that the thing is true, and the person refuses to accept it.) So that makes two more which include weak atheism. That leaves 2 which favour strong atheism, and Brittanica which is ambiguous (it mentions "positive denial", but that could instead mean explicit atheism rather than necessarily strong). From [8], all 3 mention both meanings, although 2 have strong first. So I disagree with your claim: from these two links, dictionaries and encyclopedias mostly seem to cover both definitions, and there is no clear consensus as to which is more common. Mdwh 23:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• "You actually mean that currently there isn't a preference, but you feel there should be a preference towards strong atheism" - This is a clear strawman. Xiner said that he wants to minimize this article's bias toward the broader definition of "atheism"; he never said that he wants to replace that with bias toward the more specific definition. The disagreement is that Xiner thinks that we shouldn't be biased toward one or the other, and thinks that the article is currently biased toward the broader one; whereas you, Mdwh, also believe that we shouldn't be biased toward one or the other, but think that the article isn't currently significantly biased toward either one. Therefore the real difference of opinion is not over whether the article should show undue bias towards any one definition, but over whether or not it currently shows undue bias; the disagreement is over the article's current state and whether or not it is already acceptable, not over what the ideal state should be. Your attempt to mischaracterize the dispute as being "I think we should be biased towards Y rather than towards X" (your strawman of Xiner's view) vs. "I don't think we should be biased towards either" (your view) is quite misleading.
• "If we are going to suggest that one is the more usual definition, firstly it needs sources" - Just about every major dictionary in existence lists "disbelief in/denial of the existence of deities", or some variant thereof, as the chief definition of the word atheism. The overwhelmingly vast majority of dictionaries don't even include "lack of belief in deities" as a definition for atheism. We do not need a specific secondary source to attest to which definition is more common, because it is so immediately and uncontroversially obvious; to require the inclusion of a source explaining what is self-evident simply from looking at any high-profile dictionary of the English language, would be like saying that we can't use a word to mean something unless we cite a secondary source confirming what the dictionaries state. If we had such absurd requirements for simple common word-usage, we would need a cite for every word we used in every article, from "hand" to "the". (However, if we do find such a citation in this case, we should certainly add it, as it would indeed be helpful; it just isn't necessary for such a clear fact.) Note that noone is arguing that the more common definition ("disbelief in/denial of the existence of deities") is the better or more useful definition; we are simply pointing out the self-evident fact that the more common definition is more common, and should be treated preferentially only inasmuch as any dramatically more common definition or view is treated on Wikipedia. To do otherwise would be applying a double standard for the sake of artifically inflating a quasi-obscure (at least to the mainstream public, if not to philosophers specializing in the field) alternative definition (that is, "lack of belief in gods") just because we like that definition, which is clearly unacceptable favoritism.
• "I suspect that weak atheism is far more common amongst those who actually identify as atheists." - And upon what do you base those suspicions? Do you have any non-anecdotal evidence that this is the case? In particular, do you have any evidence that this is the case for a majority of atheists offline as well as online? I find it ironic and strange that you are so quick to dismiss sources like Britannica and Webster's and the OED on the grounds that we need to know where they're getting their information (although I agree with you that this would be ideal, it's hardly a top-level priority; I'm pretty sure Britannica isn't just making this stuff up out of thin air...), yet at the same time can't provide even marginally credible sources to substantiate your own opinion. This is hardly fair; we can provide dozens of widely-used, mainstream dictionaries that attest to "disbelief in/denial of the existence of gods" being the only (relevant) definition of atheism. Can you provide any such sources? Or any sources at all? It is hypocritical to demand that we have better sources at hand than encyclopedias and dictionaries to justify the notion that definition X is much more common than definition Y, when you lack any sources at all for your own view.
• "it would be missing a very important point to not mention that most people who self-identify as witches do not mean that." - And we have hundreds of reliable sources which point out that most people who self-identify as witches in modern Western societies make such a distinction. Do we have even one reliable source which specifies such a distinction between atheists and non-atheists? If not, then it would be a violation of WP:NOR for us to include your speculation on this issue.
• "As for dictionaries, the first one at [9] gives weak atheism first." - An outright falsehood. The first definition there is "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.", not "Lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." Weak atheism is never once even mentioned on the page you just linked to, except by WordNet (and even they list it as "Meaning #2", acknowledging that it is much less common than the less broad definition). Weigh that against the countless other dictionaries (including dozens of infinitely more reputable and widely-used ones than WordNet's database) which never once even acknowledge that it is correct English to define atheism as "lack of belief in the existence of deities" (or anything remotely similar), and it becomes clear that while this is not an incorrect definition per se, it is certainly a vastly less common one, and we should not misinform our readers by mischaracterizing it as being otherwise. Also, unlike reputable dictionaries and encyclopedias, answers.com is obviously not a reliable academic resource which we could cite to justify a claim like this; we might as well cite Wiktionary as evidence that one definition or another is more common, if we're going to sink that low in which sources we find acceptable!
• "As for denial, this means "A refusal to accept or believe something" - that's weak atheism, not strong!" - Nice try. Read the dictionary more carefully: the first and third definitions of "denial" are "an assertion that something said, believed, alleged, etc., is false" and "disbelief in the existence or reality of a thing"; it almost looks like you went out of your way to seek out the second definition, and completely ignored the first and third ones, exactly because you knew that the second one supported the equivocation you were trying to make, while the others directly contradicted it. Hopefully this wasn't intentional.
• Also, weak atheism is clearly not mentioned in these dictionaries. If anything, "disbelief" is strong, not weak: you're thinking of "unbelief"—which is simply "lack of belief", not explicit rejection or denial; if any of the dictionaries or encyclopedias had mentioned "unbelief" or "lack of belief" in the existence of gods, you'd have a case, but as-is you're just deliberately skewing word meanings in an amazingly flimsy attempt at making it seem like a definition is included which clearly isn't even mentioned. -Silence 08:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A fine rant, but unfortunately you didn't seem to look up "disbelief" in any dictionaries. If you had, you would see why it is justifiable to say that most dictionaries, if they define atheism in terms of "disbelief or denial", are defining atheism *inclusively* (see: [10] - defined primarily as "inability or refusal to believe..."]. It is perfectly true to say that it is common to find atheism defined exclusively. But it is also common to find atheism defined inclusively. And, by the way, the full Encyclopedia Britannica article, says: "Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons..." and then goes on to list some. In philosophy, atheism has indeed commonly been defined as "rejection of theism", and that encompasses most of what is meant by "lack of belief" as opposed to the stronger formulation. What it doesn't do is include those who simply don't have a belief in a god or gods but have not actually rejected theism. George H Smith, for one, includes people like this under the atheist umbrella). Obviously philosophers aren't much interested, professionally, in that. Anthropologists might be, however. The point is that "lack of belief" comfortably describes how many "weak rejectionist" atheists feel. The article as it stands addresses these controversies, and goes some way to explaining the situation. --Dannyno 21:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a strawman - he clearly stated that he thinks we should state that "strong" is the more usual definition, where as at the moment there is no indication of a more common definition. So I do not see any current preference towards one defintion or the other, but the proposal is to introduce one. But anyway, onto the main point:

Go and read the article, and take note of the definitions "implicit" and "explicit". You are using "weak" when you should be using "implicit":

• Implicit weak atheism is simply a lack of belief, but no conscious rejection (e.g., a baby).
• Explicit weak atheism is someone who states that they don't believe in God. So there is a conscious rejection - they disbelieve. But this is not strong atheism.
• Explicit strong atheism is someone who believes/asserts there are no Gods.

What you and Xiner are actually saying (correctly) is that the 1st definition is rarely used. But you then jump to the conclusion that only the 3rd definition is covered, ignoring the fact that most dictionaries also include the 2nd definition.

I provided dozens of widely-used, mainstream dictionaries which included (explicit) weak atheism. I didn't dismiss Britannica - on the contrary, I pointed out how it includes weak atheism. So does Mirriam-Webster [11].

Disbelief means "Refusal or reluctance to believe" - this is "explicit weak". It does not mean "believing that the thing isn't true". Meaning #2 at WordNet is implicit weak.

As for deny - I'm not ignoring definition 1, since I'm happy with strong atheism being included. You however are the one ignoring definition 2, by claiming that weak atheism isn't covered in the dictionaries!

But even if you say that deny implies "strong", that still leaves "disbelief" meaning weak. That's why so many dictionaries use "disbelief in or denial", to include both weak and strong! It would be redundant if they both meant strong... (The same for Mirriam-Webster - since "b : the doctrine that there is no deity" clearly covers strong atheism, why would they include "a : a disbelief in the existence of deity" if that meant the same thing?)

I suggest people take note of the difference between implicit vs explicit, and weak vs strong, otherwise we're just talking past each other.

Now yes, there is a genuine point here that the current definition is broad enough to include implicit atheism. I have no problem with rewording appropriately - but let's be clear that this is not a case of weak vs strong, but implicit vs explict. We should not rewrite the intro to suggest that strong atheim is the more common one. Instead, if we want to say that implicit atheism is rarely meant by "atheism", we need to still keep explicit weak atheism and strong atheism. Mdwh 21:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think all these arguments over implicit/explicit/weak/strong are unnecessary. An atheist is someone who doesnt believe in a god. It sounds like the bickering between catholics and protestants or sunnis and shias. Trying to define the position of a baby is just silly. Atheists unite! Also, please keep your posts on this page short, and please sign each post. I cant follow the discussion above because (a) its too long and (b) I cant see what is written by whom. Poujeaux 17:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there are so many confusing issues whether you get into it, I can't help feeling "someone who doesn't believe in a God" would be simpler (at least for the intro). Mdwh 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What is being described as weak Atheism is actually much closer to Agnosticism then Atheism. This is the typical argument for what is called weak Atheism "I have disbelief in gods, that's NOT the same as a belief that gods do not exist". That bucket holds no water because: 1. A person could have disbelief in gods but believe in God, god, and/or deities or many more similar combinations. 2. Trying to group people that believe in the supernatural with those that don't believe in the supernatural is disingenuous. 3. If someone believes that gods exist they are relying on faith whether they have "disbelief" or not. 4. Faith, belief, and disbelief are a condition of the subject, which is God, god, gods, or deities. If people believe that their belief or faith is more important than the God, god, gods, or deities that they believe in then they have elevated themselves above the subject of their belief or faith. 5. There is no good reason to use adjectives to define Atheism, especially if adjectives are not used to define people that believe in God, god, gods, or deities. 6. Categories of what people believe should be made based on the subject of the categorization not on a condition that is placed on a subset.

Before reading this section of the Talk:Atheism page, I have started similar sections on the Talk:Theism and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Atheism pages and I see that it has been a subject of contention in the past. Trying to push religion into Atheism is simply wrong. I commend those that are fighting against it.Vamptoo 18:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

I find the opening paragraph less than ideal. Maybe it is just me, but the two definitions given there need some extra thinking to understand their separateness. And thus, I find it doubtful if they should be explained at this point (entry paragraph) at all.

However, all my attempts to either simplify or better explain get reverted.

I think we either need to ditch this for later in the article, or explain that the one is a 'lack of belief' and the other is a 'positive belief in the absence of god'. I'll try to change it thus in my next try. MadMaxDog 14:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what's the difference between "belief" and "positive belief"? MFNickster 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am using it / it is used in the sense of 'certain' / 'sure' belief. I.e. beyond reasonable doubt. MadMaxDog 21:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I also don't understand why people keep using the plural form in the denial. There only needs to be one god for atheism to be proven false, so an atheist must believe that no god exists. Xiner 21:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless we can define "positive belief", I suggest "belief" is simpler. And "A person who has a belief" just seems a more wordy way of saying "A person who believes". Unless you can explain why it is clearer, I'd prefer the original wording. And I agree with Xiner - if no god exists, then it follows that there certainly isn't more than one god either. Grammatically, I can't help thinking "no gods" is better - when declaring that "no X exist(s)", people tend to use the plural, except when it is certain that there can only be at most one of them. But we can't know that that is true (and of course, polytheists would say it isn't). Mdwh 23:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There's more going on than this. There is the exclusive notion that atheism is only the belief that there are no gods. There is the inclusive philosophical definition of atheism as a "rejection of god", for whatever reason - and this can be cast in weak/negative and strong/positive terms. Those on the weak/negative side might characterise their position as a "lack of belief" in preference to any stronger formulation. Then there is the even more inclusive definition which includes anyone who lacks any form of theistic belief, even if they haven't actually rejected it - so this includes children, animists from pre-theistic cultures, etc etc.

Also, I think the reason for including plural gods is to emphasise that atheists reject (or know of no) all gods, not just any particular one. Anyone who rejected the polytheism of ancient Greece was an atheist, so long as they didn't pick up a monotheistic alternative. Historically, monotheists would have been considered atheistic, but we need to be much clearer here. --Dannyno 21:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just thought that I'd add my two cents. The difference between weak atheism and strong atheism is this:-

Weak: Believes there is no proof for the existence of God(s). Strong: Believes there is proof of the non-existence of God(s).

As you can see, weak atheist are closely related in belief to agnostics - the difference being that in the absence of evidence, agnostics see the affirmative and negative propositions on the existence of God as (equally?) possible, while weak Atheists choose the negative as the correct default position to take. 202.80.176.90 07:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Silence

I can't accept you definitions, 202, or the conclusions that you draw from them. By your definition, almost all atheists are weak atheists, as we are all aware you can't prove that gods don't exist. I, for one, fall in between your two types of atheist. I believe that there are no gods. But I know that this cannot be proven. So what kind of atheist am I? Thanks. Leeborkman 07:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct, almost all atheists are 'weak' Atheists. You too are a weak Atheist by your description (and so am I for that matter). You don't fall between these descriptions - you're an Atheist first of all, because you believe there are no gods, and a weak Atheist, because your 'know' - *believe* that there is no possibility of proof - thus you believe no proof exists, or can exist. Which is exactly what my definition says. You believe that no evidence exists to determine the question either way. This is the direct opposite of a Strong Atheist, who believes - 'knows' that evidence exists that disproves the existance of God.

Can you see now how this neatly divides all Atheists into Weak or Strong? They both disbelieve, but some do so because they see no proof (or they see no possibility for proof, either way) while others disbelieve because they see direct evidence against. Cheers - I'll have to remember to start signing these things.

202.80.176.90 11:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Silence

i disagree with your definitions - do you have any sources to support them? Also, what about someone who doesn't believe there is or isn't proof of God's existence? By these definitions, I am neither weak or strong. Basically I think you have just redefined weak to mean agnostic (of the "strong" kind - i.e., not just someone who doesn't know, but who believes we can't know), and strong to mean someone who isn't an agnostic. But I don't think that helps us categorise different types of atheism. Atheism is about belief, not knowledge. Mdwh 11:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Anonymous user, your definitions are entirely incorrect. Using your versions of the word would make the terms protologisms, and thus impossible for Wikipedia to use and a direct violation of Wikipedia:No original research, an official policy. If you can't cite reputable sources to back up your usage, then you are just wasting everyone's time trying to advocate it here. What you are actually describing is not weak atheism or strong atheism (which refers to the negativity or positivity of the belief), but agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism (not believing in God, and either not believing or believing that we can have knowledge of God), or open atheism and closed atheism (not believing in God, and either being willing or unwilling to possibly be proven wrong in the future). Other dichotomies commonly confused with the weak/strong one include explicit atheism and implicit atheism (whether or not the lack of belief in God stems from conscious rejection). -Silence 11:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite right, they would fall under the category of original research, given that I have no idea of the original source where I got those definitions. My deepest and sincerest apologies for wasting your valuable time chief.

That's not weak atheism at all.

"Weak or negative atheism is the absence both of the belief that gods exist and of the the belief that gods do not exist. In other words, anyone who is neither a theist nor a strong atheist is a weak atheist."

First of all, can we lose the redundant "the"?

Second, that definition basically states that a weak atheist is someone with no beliefs at all. What would be the point of being a weak atheist? How do we differentiate him from a weak theist? A more accurate description would be that a "weak atheist is one who, while admitting that the possibility of the existence of gods cannot be disproven, nevertheless does not believe that gods exist", i.e. the weakness is basically a matter of admitting that the existence or nonexistence of God is unprovable, therefore a strong atheist position is avoided; nevertheless there is a bias towards the belief that gods do NOT exist (he IS an atheist, albeit a weak one).

Put another way, a weak atheist is one who has the position that "it is his belief that gods do not exist" (subjective non-existence), while the strong atheist has the position that "gods do not exist" (objective non-existence).

Thirdly, it seems to me that someone who is neither a theist or a strong atheist could be a LOT of other things besides a weak atheist... like an agnostic who believes that the existence of gods is unknowable, or an apathetist who basically doesn't care about such issues and has no opinion on the matter; or an ignostic who basically thinks the whole question is absurd and without meaning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.58.50.75 (talk • contribs).

Yes, weak atheists hold no belief at all. You should read the discussion up to this point that this has been said time and time over that the definition of atheism is lack of belief. What is wrong with that? And just because you think it's pointless doesn't mean it is for them. Is there even such a thing as a defined "weak theism"? Have you also stopped to consider that agnostics can be atheists at the same time? While atheism says something about the existance of god, agnosticism says something about whether it can be proven, they are two different matters. I think it's pretty clear that the difference with strong atheism is that positively affirms that there is no God. Lastly, sign your comments and refrain from inflamatory edits such as your previous edits to the article. Starghost (talk | contribs) 20:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it states that a weak atheist is someone with no beliefs in a god. I'm not sure what you mean by "What would be the point"? And how are you defining "weak theist" - surely the difference is that the theist believes in God?

I disagree that "admitting that the possibility of the existence of gods cannot be disproven" is inherent in the definition.

I'm not sure how "it is his belief that gods do not exist" differs from "gods do not exist" - the latter is still his belief. Anyhow, the former is certainly not weak atheism.

Lastly, you're assuming the these terms are mutually exclusive. Yes, those three could be weak atheists as well: those are different reasons for not believing. Mdwh 22:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just love the idea that there should be some point to being an atheist. Leeborkman 23:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, can we lose the redundant "the"?

You put a lot of effort into this talk page comment. Some of it could have gone to fixing that error.

Second, that definition basically states that a weak atheist is someone with no beliefs at all.

No beliefs regarding the existence of deities. Don't overreach.

What would be the point of being a weak atheist?

As in, a goal? There is none. This state does not involve goals.

How do we differentiate him from a weak theist?

A theist believes in one or more gods. Seems like a pretty substantial difference.

A more accurate description would be that a "weak atheist is one who, while admitting that the possibility of the existence of gods cannot be disproven, nevertheless does not believe that gods exist"

A weak theist need not have formed any opinion on the question of proof. The definition is simple, and there is no need to extend it.

, i.e. the weakness is basically a matter of admitting that the existence or nonexistence of God is unprovable, therefore a strong atheist position is avoided; nevertheless there is a bias towards the belief that gods do NOT exist (he IS an atheist, albeit a weak one).

Actually, it is quite possible to be a strong atheist, ie one who believes that gods do not exist, while still maintaining that the non-existence-of-gods is an impossible position to prove. As it is impossible to prove a negative (unless there is some compelling logical contradiction), this should actually be the position of most (if not all) strong atheists. That is certainly my position as a strong atheist, ie I believe that no gods exist, but I accept that this cannot ever be proven. btw, there is nothing inherently unprovable about the existence of gods - a simple demonstration of a god would suffice - unless we are into extreme Cartesian doubt. Leeborkman 02:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The word "weak" may not be the best word to use, because it leads to confusion like this. It would be more proper to call it "implicit atheism". It doesn't involve weakness.

Put another way, a weak atheist is one who has the position that "it is his belief that gods do not exist" (subjective non-existence), while the strong atheist has the position that "gods do not exist" (objective non-existence).

This is incorrect. You don't seem to have understood "lack of belief".

Thirdly, it seems to me that someone who is neither a theist or a strong atheist could be a LOT of other things besides a weak atheist... like an agnostic who believes that the existence of gods is unknowable, or an apathetist who basically doesn't care about such issues and has no opinion on the matter; or an ignostic who basically thinks the whole question is absurd and without meaning.

You are correct here. Luckily, the article discusses such matters ad nauseum already. --Yath 02:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Discrimination of atheists

Why nothing about discrimination against atheists in the USA?

See Discrimination of atheists. I've added a link to the article. Mdwh 19:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I added this in the arguments section.

• The conscious mind is self-aware in the individual. It is arguable that the existence of a self-aware conscious mind points to the existence (or strong possibly thereof) of a greater consciousness which either scientifically or spiritually gives each individual this capacity. A logical argument can be made that the universe itself is far more complex than an individual human, and the complexities (whether discovered or not) dwarf the capacity of humans to comprehend. Because of this, the fact each individual is aware of their existence even if explained purely as a byproduct of physics and biology gives reason to suspect that a greater existence and consciousness functions, whether or not it is (or they are) bound by the laws of science.

Even if it is not worded clearly enough, the ideas are clear. Each of us, each of you are consciously aware, (yet are not aware of the minds of the others). This attribute, this fundamental function of the human mind, whether caused purely by physical and chemical reactions or not, is an indicator that the universe itself has this capacity. The greater complexity of the universe lends credence that a greater consciousness functions from it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, that makes about as much sense as this. It's entirely POV, and not a very rational one at that. Too opinionated and too abstract/nebulous to be relevant to this article. --Karafias ^{Talk • Contributions} 04:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Your doing a non-sequitor. How about you explain your position against it. the concept of God or any Being is related to the capacity of consciousness. If we ourselves recognize our own consciousness, and if athiests regard it as purely the result of physics, how then can that attribute not be possible in a greater capacity of the universe? I am not stating an argument in such a way to discredit this article, but an argument worthy of adding to the section. It certainly has more philosophical merit than "That atheism doesn't exist." or the obvioulsy idiotic "That atheism makes life meaningless and miserable.", which merits your link to the mouse and pancake. In fact, i think you know where I'm coming from, but your drawn more to having your position than seeking some philosophical continuity. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

oh and so you know, your response does not illustrate your intellect, experience in the subject, nor does it show any kind of proof that you have mastered this subject matter. It shows your lack of clarity on the issue and your refusal to intellectually discuss it. (Perhaps you feel you've been there done that). Never the less, I'll make this clear: The disagreement between atheists and non-atheiests centers around the belief in a omniscent or theistic conscious mind that is either a product of the universe (created with), created by the universe, or the creator of the universe. Our irreducable consciousness is not something to dismiss with your comment. I am not here to argue with someone whose mind is already closed off, but instead of see how much insight this is. It deserves to be in the section you removed it from and I am going to press for it to be placed in. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this argument? This is not the place for Original Research. This is not a place for people to list their 101 pet flawed arguments for God, instead it's to list notable criticisms that many people have made. This talk page should be for discussions on the article, not discussions about trying to prove the existence of God. Mdwh 14:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of criticisms

The criticisms section was in really bad shape, and most of it relied on no sources, activism web sites or weasel words for both sides of each topic. I parred it down, and hopefully, others can expand the section with some of the many excellent sources that exist out there. -Harmil 20:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I restored the section.. a better idea than simply blanking it is rewriting it - remember weasel sources, nor sourcing, applies to quotes. The entire idea is we're quoting criticisms, those criticisms may not (and don't have to) conform to wikipedia policies, only the citations that such criticisms are common have to confirm to wikipedia policies Lordkazan 21:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what is the problem with linking that section to the main article and leaving it at that. We did it to the list of atheists section and it worked just fine. Starghost (talk | contribs) 21:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So, Lordkazan, if you want to re-write the section here are the points on which it fails to measure up to the standards of Wikipedia:

• "atheism is logically equivalent to all other religious positions" - No citation given at all. Presumably OR.
  • "Some atheists refute this criticism by claiming that the burden of proof falls to those who assert the existence of a deity" - Not only uncited, but couched in weasel words.
• "lack of belief in a deity who administers justice may lead to poor morals or ethics." - No source given, presumably OR.
  • "Atheists counter by pointing to the lack of morality in many [[religious terrorism|acts inspired by religion]]" - Horribly weighted link piping is clear POV and the citation is Atheism Web which isn't exactly WP:INDY material, but better than most citations in this section.
  • "Similarly, a study by Gregory S. Paul published in the Journal of Religion and Society has claimed to show" - Good cite, and good refutation, but in response to an unsourced claim in the first place.
• "atheism makes life meaningless and miserable. Blaise Pascal made this argument in 1670" - Good one. This is the one I kept as an example of the arguments, and left the rest up to the "main" article.
• "atheism doesn't exist. This claim is based on..." - No source at all. OR.
• "atheism is defined by ... the belief by others in a god or gods.{{fact}}" - citation was requested and never given before I even got here. Another OR.
• "The saying "there are no atheists in foxholes" is considered offensive by some atheists." - The title of the citation here is "NBC, COURIC AND TODAY SHOW NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU NOW OVER "NO ATHEISTS IN FOXHOLES" CLAIM, LACK OF BALANCE IN "GOD, AMERICA AND WAR" SEGMENT." This is clearly an activist announcement, and doesn't even come close to meeting WP:INDY. This is a citation that demonstrates that there is an interest group that feels this way, but doesn't tell us if this is a notably broad sentiment at all.
  • "many who serve on the frontline may actually experience the opposite effect, according to Chaplain Major John Morris" - This is a good cite, and might actually stand on its own if it fit in this section, which (unless we can cite "no athiests in foxholes" as a serious criticism of atheism, rather than a simple platitude) it does not. Perhaps this should go in some other section?

And there you have it. Not much left when you analyze what we have. -Harmil 01:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Harmil, I agree with much of what you say, but I think the most obvious problem with this section is that it is much too verbose, given that there is a page dedicated to Critiques of Atheism. I have no problem with citing activist atheist groups for counter-arguments, as long as the Wikipedia text does not suggest that these counter-arguments are in fact correct. For the most part (as I have tried to point out with respect to the "foxholes" phrase), the problem is that there is no evidence provided to show that these are in fact significant critcisms of atheism. So why don't we cut this section to a couple of succinct example, direct the interested reader to the dedicated article, move this content to that dedicated article, and restrict the dedicated article to those "criticisms" which can in fact be shown to be "criticisms". For example, it is not at all clear how "atheism involves an act of faith" is a criticism of atheism - it's interesting and ironic (if it is in fact true), but how is it a criticism? etc. Thanks for your analysis. Leeborkman 02:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Harmil has a point. Note that there is no criticism of religion section on the religion page! Lets discuss it and come to a concensus. What do thers think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poujeaux (talk • contribs) 17:22, 3 October 2006

If the pages for religions don't have criticisms then get it the fsck out of here and don't worry about rewrites. PS remember to sign your posts Lordkazan 18:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Christianity#Controversies and criticisms, Islam#Controversies and criticisms, Hinduism#See also includes Criticism of Hinduism, Scientology#Controversy and criticism -Harmil 20:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So, there seem to be three options: 1) someone can come up with citatons, remove weasel words and generally clean up the section in a way other than I did 2) The section can be restored to the version that I edited 3) The section can be deleted. Simply leaving the section as it is now has no defense in Wikipedia policy or guidelines, as it is far below the standards of WP:V among others, as I pointed out above, and no one has yet refuted (not that you really can refute a lack of sources). So, what's the plan? -Harmil 20:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Plan? How about this... 1) Cut this section to a couple of succinct examples; 2) Direct the interested reader to the dedicated article; 3) Move this content to that dedicated article's TALK PAGE; and 4) Restrict the dedicated article to those "criticisms" which can in fact be shown to be "criticisms". Leeborkman 23:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Leeborkman's plan, only I would cut the text of the article completely on numer 1. Starghost (talk | contribs) 05:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'd support Leeborkman's plan. Cut back to a few very brief points and refer to the other article. There has been much discussion of this on the critism page, or rather the critique page. No need to duplicate here. similarly no sources needed here, refer to other page. IMHO none of the criticisms are valid criticisms. Poujeaux 12:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Criticisms section has now been trimmed right down (by me and by others). I have moved the detailed foxholes par to the Critique of Atheism page, where the saying was not previously mentioned.

Types of Atheism: Agnosticism, etc

Under the section heading "Types of Atheism", agnosticism, ignosticism and some others are included. It seems that this section is intended as a "clarifying distinctions between different but similar idealogies" but it seems to suggest that, for instance, agnosticism is a form of atheism which it strictly is not.

Even if the view taken is that agnosticism is a refusal to give assent to any proposition which we don not know (roughly what Huxley had in mind) then it still raises the question of whether or not "God exists" (or some likewise varient) is a known proposition. As such is not strictly incompatible with either theism or atheism and so should not be classified as a "type" of atheism. It's possible for an agnostic to also be a theist in this context but here the agnostic believes himself to have sufficient reason or justification for believing in God's existence (or what have you) and so classifies as a thiest.

Other definitions of agnosticism (such as "one who does not know if God exists) are also compatible with theism. One can "not know" something but at the same time believe or give assent to that proposition. So it's possible to have "agnostic theists" in this context as others have argued elsewhere and as such it seems confusing to list agnosticism as a type of atheism.

Yeah, I agree a section describing agnostic atheism specifically would be a better idea. Starghost (talk | contribs) 17:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

To the extent that an agnostic lacks a belief in a god, they are certainly an atheist under the broadest definition of atheism. Some agnostics would also qualify as *rejecting* belief in god. It all depends on what you mean by "agnostic" and what you mean by "atheist". If the article doesn't make this clear, then it should. "Agnostic atheism" as a label, of course, has a pedigree stretching back to the nineteenth century. --Dannyno 20:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Will Durant and Atheist Indigenous People

Could someone please add to the article mention of indigenous people who have no recognizable beliefs in a god or gods, and are thus atheist (i.e. without god(s)), yet probably never had disbelief in a god until exposed to god-believing cultures. I believe that Will Durant would be a good reference for this. Such an addition to the article may help to put to rest the edit warring between positive "disbelief" and "absence of belief". Thanks. --BostonMA 20:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

these aren't atheists, they are animists. dab (ᛏ) 20:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I lack a reputable source, so I am hoping someone has further information. However, according to internet reports:

"As Durant explains, certain Pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no gods, no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers' reports."

I would say that lack of belief in spirits would rule out "animism". However, even if they were animistic, animism seems to be orthogonal to the question belief in gods. --BostonMA 20:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

atheist definition

Uh guys, do we really want one of the definitions of atheist to include almost every person on the planet? An atheist needs to not believe in only at least one god!? A little too broad don't you think? Atheism... without god... I don't think of a person who believes in 1000 gods but lacks belief in one to be an atheist. [User: Some dude] October 11 2006

the person is an atheist inreguards to that religion, its all perspective. Just like people don't like the concept of evolution because of what is supposes our ancestors to be. It is broad, because it's taking the broader, or default, stance. It is the stance of not recognizing the claim of a deity.

If a person believes in 1000 gods, and it's acknowledged w/o bias, then he/she is not atheist. However, if you believe there is only and can only be one god, and he/she doesnt believe in that god, then anything else they believe is irrelevant, and they are an atheist. Just like I can say, "I'm awesome at soccer", but not "I'm awesome at professional soccer." Somerset219 00:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying something like Christians should be called atheists by Muslims and vice versa because of perspective? A person might believe in 1000 gods, but as long as one of them is not the Muslim god, Muslims would call this person an atheist? "A person who does not believe that at least one god exists;" Well, a christian doesn't believe the Muslim god exists, is he an atheist? I don't know if the definition of atheists should be that inclusive. It sounds more like atheists can believe in god, but they are only atheists if they don't believe in "your" god. I can see how Some dude might be raising a point here. Starghost (talk | contribs) 17:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

In my not so humble opinion, anyone who believes in any god is not an atheist. An atheist is someone who does not have any belief in any god. --BostonMA ^talk 17:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Then you agree that the way it is phrased could lead to an interpretation that would be wrong by your opinion (which I share by the way)?Starghost (talk | contribs) 05:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It took me a while to figure out what you guys were talking about here, but I think I understand you now. If I believe that Allah does not exist, then I believe that at least one god does not exist and so I am an Atheist. Is that right? Okay, that being the case, I have amended the definitions, placing quotes around the phrase "At least one god exists" to identify it as the atomic, indivisible proposition that a person believes or does not believe. That should eliminate the interpretation that was bothering you. Does that work for you? THanks. Leeborkman 05:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Precisely. And thank YOU.Starghost (talk | contribs) 05:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a question about direction for all these articles

I've noticed a rather odd thing about many of these Atheism, Agnosticism, or Theism type articles, for some weird reason, they almost always mention each other over and over in each article, not often drawing connections with each other either. I've been looking at, for instance, the Theism article, and right now it lists the Theism part, then defines Atheism, (albiet poorly, but i'm not willing to edit war over it) then defines Agnosticism, without drawing any connection to the topic of Theism. It's just also looking at the Atheism article here, the Agnosticism section seems ill placed, because it doesn't seem to show how exactly you learn more about the topic of Atheism itself, just Agnosticism alone. Then, the Agnosticism article only deals with Agnosticism, so really, i'm just rather confused as to why these articles aren't consistant with each other like this, and i've only started editing the Theism article much recently, so I just wanted to know, is there a reason for this i'm not getting? Homestarmy 19:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you would read just a few sections above, you would see that we already mentioned a couple of things about the agnosticism section on this page and how it should deal with Agnostic-atheism instead. I don't think there is a particular reason or conspiracy for it to be the way you see, if that's what you're implying. Starghost (talk | contribs) 05:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

definition

Currently

an "atheist" can be defined as either:
A person who does not believe the proposition "At least one god exists"; or 
A person who believes the proposition "No god or gods exist".

should it not also include

A person who holds no beliefs about the existence of god or gods.

'having no beliefs' subltly not being the same as 'not believing' which would be / can be interpreted as conciously holding the contra belief JohnShep 13:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I presume you are drawing a distinction between implicit and explicit (as described later in the article). If we do, I think we need a clearer way to word it than "no beliefs about" versus "doesn't believe in any". Mdwh 14:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting aspect of atheism. If we believe that god/gods and the nature of what is deemed a supernatural is simply cultural then any people who are ignorant of that culture for whatever reason must be deemed atheist too as opposed to only describing those who have not been deluded by religion. We can thus make the statement that all children are atheists until they are taught the words for god or supernatural entity and the doctrines involved with a specific religion that advertises that particular god or supernatural entity. We could also make the statement that all people are atheists unless they have learnt the name for a god and do not question what it is that they have been taught. The basis for this is what Dawkins says about child abuse and religion. This would be a way of introducing someone notable as a owner for this definition, else it would just be WP:OR on our part. I've only just ordered a copy of The God Delusion where I think this is presented in more depth. Ttiotsw 20:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

How about an atheist is a person who lacks belief in the existence of god or gods I think this covers both bases JohnShep 22:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Just found an article [12] which states active disbelief is strong atheism and no belief is weak atheism - I quite like these definitions, since we now have a reference for them can they be used in the introduction ? JohnShep 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• An important distintion in the use of the word atheist which, I think, is currently being neglected by this article, is the distinction between atheism as a simple designation of belief, and atheism as a loose social movement of irreligious freethinking skeptics. As an anthropological term, the negation of theism, atheism simply describes any individual or culture that lacks beliefs in deities. It is in this sense that Buddhism is often described as atheistic, and this sense is perhaps better conveyed with terms like nontheism, which are both clearer and less loaded terms for this context. On the other hand, as a self-identifier (something someone might call himself), atheism describes an almost invariably irreligious, loosely-affiliated (and growing) body of individuals who commonly share skeptical, secular, humanistic, and scientifically-minded philosophies. Confusing or conflating these two very different uses of atheism (the formly purely neutral and applying to absolutely anyone who lacks belief in deities, the latter a form of self-identification often conveying certain implications for a person's overall belief system) is probably generating a lot of the confusion and conflict here, because many people who can quite clearly fit into the former group (such as certain tribal peoples who have never even heard of the concept of a "god") might strongly object to self-identifying as atheists because of the overarching social, political, and ideological implications (be they accurate or inaccurate) associated with the "atheist movement" of the latter group. -Silence 00:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I absolutly agree that there should be some mention of what silence seems to be describing a subculture of atheism. Silence, if you can find some balanced sources (since I expect most of the references to such a "movement" would likely be from the opposing side and sharply slanted), I would certainly like to see that added. However you seem to suggest that some of the existing definitions for atheism be moved to nontheism. I disagree, thats trying to redefine existing terminoligy, and its not what were doing here.--Edy52285 07:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

As per my contribution to the above section on the definiton of Atheism... As one may have noticed the defintion has since been altered again. It now reads, "Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of deities". I recently edited this to read "Atheism is the absence of belief in the existance of deities". I cited two articles on the about.com website http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/whatisatheism_2.htm and http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/dict_online.htm. My edit was reverted on grounds that both definitions are POVed and should be disputed on grounds of neutrality. I do agree that both definitions are POVed, but, as per the examination in the about.com articles, i think the definiton that infers Atheism is the absence of belief rather than the diselief in deities is more neautral. I say this because the absense of belief provides for a wider definition that does not just include those who consciously reject theisim, but also those who have never heard of any theistic beliefs. The use of the word disbelief (see about.com articles above) can suggest, when implied actively, the act of not accepting the truth. This is obviously not the most neautral statement and as such i propose that the introductary definition be changed toAtheism is the absence of belief in the existance of deities, or something similar such as the second definiton as suggested by Leeborkman, that is, A person who does not believe that at least one god exists. Athiesm does include A person who holds no beliefs about the existence of god or gods. -- Jarryd Moore 14:08, 22 October 2006 (EST)

• "It now reads, "Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of deities"." - Just like mainstream dictionaries do.
• "I recently edited this to read "Atheism is the absence of belief in the existance of deities"." - Can you cite any mainstream dictionary that actually uses this definition, even secondarily? If not, then surely it cannot qualify as the #1 definition for this word on Wikipedia.
• "I cited two articles on the about.com website" - Are you arguing that about.com is a more reputable reference tool than the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Oxford English Dictionary, and every other major general-use encyclopedia and dictionary in existence? Surely you can do better than that. I cited about.com articles too, where it added information, but I didn't let a single person's opinion outweigh thousands of other sources, unlike you: such articles should be treated as a well-expressed encapsulation of a certain POV on the various issues, not as the ultimate and final authority on all matters atheism-related.
• "I do agree that both definitions are POVed, but, as per the examination in the about.com articles, i think the definiton that infers Atheism is the absence of belief rather than the diselief in deities is more neautral." - Irrelevant. Wikipedia's NPOV policies are absolute and non-negotiable; a single user's judgments regarding which of two conflicting POVs is "more neutral"-seeming does not magically grant Wikipedia the right to favor that POV. Wikipedia reports on external disputes between POVs; it does not itself have an opinion on these matters, and hence cannot say, without qualification, that "atheism is the absence of theism": I provided multiple mainstream sources which directly contradicted this claim. This is the same reason that it cannot say "atheism is the belief that no gods exist" without qualification: allowing the "absence" definition to be used without qualification while refusing to allow the same for the "belief" definition is applying a blatant and unacceptable double standard to definitional POVs.
• "I say this because the absense of belief provides for a wider definition" - Beyond irrelevant. There is no Wikipedia policy that states, "when there is a dispute between two POVs, support whichever POV is wider or more inclusive". Wideness is not a virtue or benefit. Moreover, it could be argued that treating both definitions equally is vastly more "wide" and inclusive than restricting ourselves to one or the other at the get-go.
• "that does not just include those who consciously reject theisim, but also those who have never heard of any theistic beliefs." - Ah, but a majority of people would disagree that such people are atheists: the vast majority of people in the world would never describe a newborn baby as an "atheist". Consequently, stating it as fact is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Although it is true that "absence of theism" is a necessary characteristic of atheism, it is very, very much a different thing to assert (as you are doing) that it is a sufficient characteristic for someone or something to be atheistic, in and of itself. Consider how many people would believe that the following are all "atheists": a permanently braindead person; a human embryo; a gorilla; a dog; an orange; a chair; a rock; love; heaviness; Santa Claus; the French Revolution; the number 7; ice cream; September; hair. All of the aforementioned things "lack belief in deities", yet most people would not consider any of them to be atheists. So clearly your definition is unsatisfactory: at the very least, it has the potential to be misinterpreted due to its vagueness, and at worst it is outright false to define atheism so broadly. In either case, your assumption that "absence of belief in God" is the indisputably correct definition for atheism just because it's the broadest or most general definition in significant use is entirely unwarranted.
• "The use of the word disbelief (see about.com articles above) can suggest, when implied actively, the act of not accepting the truth." - And it can also suggest the act of not accepting falsehoods; it all depends on context. I fail to see your point, and I fail to see how this is Wikipedia's problem to resolve. Wikipedia's job is not to choose the best definition out of a list of disputed and controversial ones; its job is simply to neutrally report on the usage of each, without treating any one disputed definition preferentially. (And "disbelief in deities", unlike "belief that no deities exist" and "absence of belief in deities", is not significantly disputed: even the sources you provided concede that the definition is a correct one, even if it isn't ideal.)
• "Athiesm does include A person who holds no beliefs about the existence of god or gods." - A majority of people would disagree with this definition. Therefore Wikipedia should report on it (with reputable sources backing the reporting up), but not endorse it, as you are arguing that it should. -Silence 06:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the way it's now been changed to cover both "the disbelief in the existence of deities" and "the absence of belief in the existence of deities". However, the sentence "It is commonly defined as the explicit (i.e., conscious and deliberate) and positive rejection and denial of theism;[9][10] however, numerous atheistic philosophers and groups prefer to define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities (cf. nontheism), thus designating people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well." now seems rather out of place - it needs rewording so it flows better with the previous two definitions. It reads to me like it's just saying the same thing rephrased with more details, but Silence says that it's meant to list Strong and Implicit Weak (apparentely leaving out explicit weak altogether). If we're going to cover strong and weak, I feel it needs to be reworded better to fit with the previous two definitons - we need to make it clear that this is a different way to categorising atheists, compared with the explicit/implicit distinction. Mdwh 13:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Explicit/Implicit is not the same distinction as strong/weak

The article currently opens with two definitions:

• "It is most commonly defined as the explicit, positive rejection of theism"
• "the simple absence of belief in deities"

Now I would say that the former is explicit (which can be strong or weak atheism) and the latter as implicit (which is always a form of weak). Is this agreed?

But later we have "In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong atheism for the former and weak atheism for the latter to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief or of negative unbelief." where, as far as I can tell, "former" and "latter" still refer to the two definitions given at the start.

Strong atheism is not synonymous with explicit atheism - yes, all strong atheists are explicit, but not all explicit atheists are strong; many weak atheists are explicit (indeed, everyone who calls themselves a "weak atheist" must be explicit!) (And indeed, this article covers this issue later on, so if people are saying they are the same, we need a rewrite).

I agree entirely with Silence's edit comment of ""believing no gods exist" is strong/positive, not explicit. "not believing in gods" is weak/negative, not implicit. explicit is "not believing due to conscious rejection"; implicit is all else.", yet he used this when reverting my change. So I'm not sure where the disagreement is, and why strong/weak is incorrectly being used to label explicit/implicit respectively?

If the former definition is supposed to be strong, then we now have a fundamental problem in the introduction in that explicit weak atheism is not covered. Also it is not true that atheism is most commonly defined as strong - rather, it is most commonly defined as explicit (as I have stated above). Mdwh 02:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I see the link [13] equating strong/weak with explicit/implicit, but that's just a case of confusingly using the words explicit/implicit differently to the way coined by George H. Smith, and the way they are used in this article. The point is that strong/weak is not the same distinction as the two definitions initally given. Mdwh 02:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Now I would say that the former is explicit (which can be strong or weak atheism) and the latter as implicit (which is always a form of weak). Is this agreed?" - You are mistaken. The former is both explicit and strong. "Positive belief" (i.e. "I believe that no gods exist", as opposed to "I don't believe that Gods exist") is the very definition of "strong" in this context. And all strong/positive atheism is explicit, so saying "positive, explicit" (i.e., "both positive and explicit") is just a way of making it clear to readers who aren't familiar yet with strong atheism (because it isn't introduced until later in the paragraph, and we shouldn't assume an omniscient reader) that the definition of atheism being discussed is both explicit (it requires a conscious decision) and strong/positive (it requires a belief, not just the lack of one).

"and the latter as implicit (which is always a form of weak). Is this agreed?" - You are again mistaken. The latter, "absence of belief in deities", is the very definition of "weak atheism", just as the former is the very definition of "strong atheism". Implicit atheism is not "absence of belief", it's "absence of belief without conscious rejection"; "absence of belief in deities" can either involve or not involve a conscious rejection, which mean that it can, by definition, be either implicit or explicit (for the same reason that weak atheism can be either implicit or explicit).

"Strong atheism is not synonymous with explicit atheism - yes, all strong atheists are explicit, but not all explicit atheists are strong;" - You are correct. Your error was in misdefining explicit and implicit atheism earlier, when what was clearly being described was strong/positive and weak/negative atheism. Strong atheism isn't synonymous with explicit atheism, but strong atheism is synonymous with positive atheism.

Also, you are correct that the link in question is mistaken on that issue (because it's repeating the extremely common misconception that explicit=strong and implicit=weak), but that link is not the source for any of the information we're discussing right now. You simply erred in your interpretation of the initial two definitions. -Silence 02:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm glad we agree that strong/weak is not the same as explicit/implicit, but please note my last paragraph in what I wrote. I now think the new introduction is far less clear than what we originally had.

• It is misleading to use the word "explicit" in the definition for Strong, when this is a different usage to that defined later in the article.
• The latter definition focuses on implicit atheism, so as I stated, we now have a major problem in that explicit weak atheism is ignored in the introduction.

Lastly, it is false to suggest that atheism is most commonly defined as Strong. Whilst [14] defines it as a denial, numerous references have been posted in this Talk page defining it as also as things like "disbelief". What is most common is explicit (as opposed to implicit).

What do others think? I'm happy with an introduction which focuses on explicit versus implicit (as defined later in the article), but if we want to focus on strong versus weak, I vote we go back to what we had before. It is far clearer to introduce the concept of Strong atheism by something like "Someone who believes there are no gods". Mdwh 13:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively I feel it could be improved by:

• Changing "explicit, positive rejection" to "explicit, positive denial" - after all, I reject theism, but I am most certainly not a strong atheist, instead I am an explicit weak atheist.
• Include a reference to explicit weak atheists - we must note that many define atheism to include weak atheism, but not so broad as to include all non-theists. So something like "or explicit disbelief"? And then later make it clear that "strong" refers to only the first, whilst weak refers to the other two.

Does that make sense? Mdwh 13:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"I'm glad we agree that strong/weak is not the same as explicit/implicit," - Of course we agree, I was one of the very first people to change this article (and the strong atheism and weak atheism ones) to make very sure that we didn't blur the distinction between those terms. If not for my changes, explicit and implicit atheism might still be listed as synonyms for strong and weak atheism on various pages. :)

"It is misleading to use the word "explicit" in the definition for Strong, when this is a different usage to that defined later in the article." - I fail to see how this is misleading. The fact that one word is used in a definition does not imply that the entire definition is encompassed in that word. Assuming that "explicit" is the entire definition when it is specifically noted that "explicit, positive/strong" is is as silly as saying "The penguin article says that penguins are aquatic, flightless birds, so does that mean that all birds are penguins?!" You can't ignore half of the definition and retain meaning. And the reason "explicit" is noted here is because it is very important to note that the common-use definition is invariably explicit (because it is strong/positive). In other words, implicit atheism is not (directly or explicitly) acknowledged as true atheism by mainstream dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc., even if one wants to believe that it is by reading too deeply into words like "disbelief". And that's something very important for our readers to know about, so they won't be confused when they see an arbitrary, unexplained contradiction between their dictionary of choice and Wikipedia. Our job is to describe what the common definitions of atheism are, not to prescribe what the definition of atheism should be.

"The latter definition focuses on implicit atheism," - How so? The latter definition is the exact definition of weak atheism: "absence of belief in deities". You are simply mistaken if you believe that this is the definition of implicit atheism (or anything close to it). Implicit atheism is defined by whether the disbelief was a conscious decision, not by whether the disbelief is positive (belief) or negative (absence of belief).

"Lastly, it is false to suggest that atheism is most commonly defined as Strong." - So is it your assertion that "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" could possibly be weak atheism (i.e., the mere absence of belief)? [15] Just about all mainstream dictionaries and encyclopedias in existence specifically describe atheism as a "belief" or "doctrine". Not a single one describes it specifically as an "absence of belief" or "lack of belief", the necessary characteristic of weak atheism ("disbelief" is too vague to be assumed to refer to this specific interpretation, especially in lieu of supporting evidence). Moreover, I added references supporting the notion that atheism is much more commonly defined positively in mainstream, popular culture, whereas the "absence of belief" is more restricted to specialized philosophical circles and atheistic groups (who are, obviously, very much in the minority, and whose view therefore should not be treated preferentially to the mainstream view, per WP:NPOV, no matter how valid their reasons are). My insertions are thus both referenced and accurate; if you wish to dispute them, you would do well to cite a source of your own that directly contradicts the claim that atheism is most commonly defined positively in mainstream society.

"What is most common is explicit (as opposed to implicit)." - This is also true, but only half the picture. Explicit is more common than implicit (which is why Britannica and the OED and the AHD and Webster's and Random House and all those other references don't describe atheism as "absence of belief in God, with or without conscious rejection of such belief"), but strong is also much more common than weak (which is why Britannica and the OED and the AHD and Webster's and Random House and all those other references don't describe atheism as "absence of belief in God", period).

"Changing "explicit, positive rejection" to "explicit, positive denial" - after all, I reject theism, but I am most certainly not a strong atheist, instead I am an explicit weak atheist." - This is a perfectly fair point. I'm fine with making this change, it's a good clarification to make.

"Include a reference to explicit weak atheists - we must note that many define atheism to include weak atheism, but not so broad as to include all non-theists." - Like who? Provide a reliable source that defines atheism as "absence of belief in deities due to conscious rejection" (i.e., as explicit atheism) and I'll agree with adding it to the article. Remember to avoid statements like "many define..." without references to back such claims up. I'm hoping to fix a lot of other weasel terms in this article the future by adding more inline cites and specifically attributing some of the claims to noteworthy figures.

"And then later make it clear that "strong" refers to only the first, whilst weak refers to the other two." - That sounds a bit too confusing and elaborate for the lead section. Perhaps this specific distinction would be better clarified in the "Types and typologies" section? It doesn't seem vital: we've already defined strong and weak atheism, which seem to be the two most commonly-used (and divergent) definitions. We can deal with the other noteworthy definitions in the article proper. -Silence 14:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with labelling strong as explicit - but it's misleading because we don't mention that weak atheism can also be explicit, so the way it reads to me is that only the former definition (strong atheism) can be explicit.

The latter definition is the exact definition of weak atheism: "absence of belief in deities". - Well, that's implicit weak atheism. Many people and dictionaries define atheism as explicit disbelief (weak or strong) - so that's not a simple absence of belief, it requires a conscious disbelief (e.g., someone who explicitly says "I do not believe in God" - such a person is an explicit atheism, but not a strong atheist).

So is it your assertion that "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" could possibly be weak atheism (i.e., the mere absence of belief)? [15] Just about all mainstream dictionaries and encyclopedias in existence specifically describe atheism as a "belief" or "doctrine". - Of course not, but there are plenty of dictionaries that define it as disbelief. Typically they cover explicit strong and explicit weak. They don't cover it as "absence of belief", because that's implicit. It is not clear to me that explicit strong is more common than explicit weak - I fail to see how we can claim that without some comprehensive study (which would be OR). But even if it was true, that doesn't matter - what matters is that many of these dictionaries include any explicit disbelief, without specifying only "the doctrine or belief that there is no God".

What you think disbelief means doesn't matter if we quote the word directly. Furthermore, it is ludicrous to claim that disbelief is vague, whilst "denial" isn't - you can't have it both ways and say we should reproduce what the dictionaries say when it suits you, but not when it goes against your POV!

That sounds a bit too confusing and elaborate for the lead section. So let's leave out strong and weak entirely, and leave that to later. I fail to see how including misleading or wrong information is better. Mdwh 13:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Now having said all that, it's now changed to [16], which I strongly agree with - let's just reproduce the definitons rather than putting in our opinions of what it means.

However, it still needs to be fixed, because it's not true that "strong" refers to the former, whilst "weak" refers to the latter. Mdwh 13:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

By saying that strong/positive atheism is explicit, we imply that it cannot be implicit. By neither saying that weak/negative atheism is implicit nor saying that it is explicit, we imply that it can either be implicit or explicit. Thus both actual implications of the stated and unstated information are accurate. Moreover, anyone who actually reads the article will quickly learn (in the "types and typologies" section) that strong atheism is always explicit, and implicit atheism is always weak. Going into that level of detail in the lead section will just confuse our readers.

"Well, that's implicit weak atheism." - No, "absence of belief in deities" is weak atheism. You can have absence of belief in deities and have consciously rejected theism (which makes it explicit), or have not consciously rejected it (which makes it implicit); in either case, it's still just as much an "absence of belief in deities" because it's negative nonbelief, not positive belief. Talking about "absence of belief" is exclusively dealing with the positivity or negativity of one's view, not with the explicit or implicit nature of it.

"Many people and dictionaries define atheism as explicit disbelief (weak or strong)" - As I said: Cite one. Provide me with a dictionary that explicitly acknowledges that weak atheism ("absence of belief in deities") is atheism as long as it is explicit.

"They don't cover it as "absence of belief", because that's implicit." - A blatant and unequivocal falsehood. "Absence of belief in deities" is weak atheism. It's the very definition of weak atheism. Implicit atheism is absence of belief in the existence of deities without conscious rejection of the existence of deities.

"It is not clear to me that explicit strong is more common than explicit weak" - Because plenty of mainstream dictionaries define atheism as a "doctrine" or "belief" (which is necessarily and exclusively strong), and none define it as the "absence of belief" (which is necessarily and exclusively weak). Therefore, the implicit/explicit issue aside, it is extremely clear that such dictionaries immensely favor defining atheism as "strong" over explicitly acknowledging that it can be "weak", even if they don't rule out weak atheism, necessarily (due to the vagueness of a word like "disbelief").

"what matters is that many of these dictionaries include any explicit disbelief, without specifying only "the doctrine or belief that there is no God"." - In other words, mainstream dictionaries explicitly provide a definition of atheism which applies only to strong atheism ("the doctrine or belief that there are no gods"), and provide another definition which probably applies to strong atheism, but could also possibly be applied to weak atheism as well ("disbelief in or denial of the existence of deities"). And they provide no definitions at all which specifically acknowledge that weak atheism is unequivocally a genuine form of atheism (which would require them providing a definition like "absence of theism" or "lack of belief in deities"). Not a single one. That's pretty conclusive evidence that weak atheism is much less favored than strong atheism in mainstream, general-use resources for the definition of atheism. If they provided "absence of belief in deities" alongside "the doctrine or belief that no deities exist", then I'd agree with you 100%; but if all you're basing your assumption on is a dubious and disputed interpretation of the "disbelief" word (which is itself only half of the definition in question, the other half being "denial"), then you're standing on very shaky ground indeed in arguing that dictionaries acknowledge weak atheism as atheism. It's certainly possible, but it's not especially likely.

"What you think disbelief means doesn't matter if we quote the word directly." - Exactly. Depending on one's interpretation, "disbelief" could either be strong or weak; it could even, conceivably, be implicit (check the Random House dictionary's definition of "disbelieve": "to have no belief in"). That's why it's the perfect definition to start this article off with. And that also frees us from having to have Wikipedia itself weigh in on what the correct interpretation of "disbelief" in: instead we can simply present the facts and other parties' POVs and let the reader decide who to agree with. Plus it's clearly by far the most common definition, considering its wide usage in many different mainstream and general-use reference works, which also makes it by far the most NPOV definition by virtue of its ubiquity and mainstream acceptance.

"Furthermore, it is ludicrous to claim that disbelief is vague, whilst "denial" isn't" - Disbelief is vaguer than denial. Is that such a ludicrous claim? I'm not saying that "denial" isn't open to some interpretation, but it's clearly a much less contentious term than "disbelief", in this context.

"So let's leave out strong and weak entirely, and leave that to later." - I'd be happy to do that if it were possible, but it doesn't seem to be possible because we have to discuss "belief that no deities exist" and "absence of belief in deities" as the two common definitions of atheism either way, so we might as well mention that those two definitions can be described as strong (positive) and weak (negative), respectively. There's no way to get around having to provide those divergent definitions of atheism in the lead section that I can see, so we're forced to describe what essentially amounts to strong and weak atheism either way; adding the common names for those concepts just makes things a bit clearer for our readers when they delve further into this article.

"let's just reproduce the definitons rather than putting in our opinions of what it means." - Where on earth did any part of the lead section I proposed "put in our opintions of what it means"? I provided references for just about every statement, and much more reputable ones than just about.com—which amounts to three of the five citations, all from the same non-academic newsletter, being used for the current second definition of atheism, with the only other two references being an anonymously-written atheist website and a 250-year-old text!: not a single mainstream or modern dictionary or other printed reference work is provided to support the "absence of theism" definition, yet five low-quality references are provided in rapid succession to give the illusory appearance that the definition is strongly-justified!! Very dishonest.. And there are many other problems with the current version of the essay, not least of which is that it violates Wikipedia's lead-section conventions by using unnecessary bullet-points where prose would look just fine (which will ensure that this article doesn't become an FA if it gets nominated again while its opening sentence is so grossly inadequate). Paragraph format, people. We can't reproduce bullet points on the main page. -Silence 19:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"It is not clear to me that explicit strong is more common than explicit weak" - Because plenty of mainstream dictionaries define atheism as a "doctrine" or "belief" (which is necessarily and exclusively strong), and none define it as the "absence of belief" - but there are plenty of dictionaries which define it simply as "disbelief", and not "doctrine" or "belief".

They don't cover it as absence of belief, because that would cover implicit and explicit..

In other words, mainstream dictionaries explicitly provide a definition of atheism which applies only to strong atheism ("the doctrine or belief that there are no gods"), and provide another definition which probably applies to strong atheism, but could also possibly be applied to weak atheism as well ("disbelief in or denial of the existence of deities"). And they provide no definitions at all which specifically acknowledge that weak atheism is unequivocally a genuine form of atheism (which would require them providing a definition like "absence of theism" or "lack of belief in deities"). - Yes, they provide one definition which is "explicit strong" and one definition which is "explicit (which could be weak or strong)", and they don't provide a definition which would include "implicit and explicit". What I object to is the claim that "doctrine or belief that no gods exist" is the most common definition. It isn't, because just as many define it also as "disabelief".

Where on earth did any part of the lead section I proposed "put in our opintions of what it means"? - You are doing this when you label some definitions as strong, and some as weak.

which will ensure that this article doesn't become an FA if it gets nominated again while its opening sentence is so grossly inadequate - In my opinion it's a lot worse and more confusing than it used to be, and I would object to it getting FA in its current form. The problem here is that there are two ways of categorising atheism: explicit/implicit and strong/weak, leading to three possible ways of defining atheism (each "level" more broader than the previous), but the introduction confuses them as if there are only two. In the current form, the first bullet point defines it as explicit disbelief (either strong or weak, in my opinion), and then the second is a broader definition which would include any absence of belief (so both explicit and implicit).

But later on, the former is labelled as "strong atheism" - that's not true. I disbelieve in gods, but I am certainly not strong.

One proposal would be to expand this to the three levels of belief: The doctrine or belief that there are no gods; then disbelief and then absence of belief. If that's too confusing, then we need to come to a consensus whether we focus on the first "narrower" definiton as being explicit atheism, or strong atheism, because at the moment it mixes the two, and different editors seem to have different opinions on what the "narrower" definition should be.

Should it be "explicit disbelief"? Or should it be "belief or doctrine that no gods exist"?

As for bullet points being bad, I don't mind if it's rewritten in paragraph form. Mdwh 19:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you to Silence for combining two definitions into the fist scentence in prose rather than my bullet points, i appologise for my slightly poor Lead Section styling. And also for the rewording of absence of belief to nonbelief, as it is more concise and although the world is often not listed in dictionaries (it is only in some), most dictionaries do attribute the prefix non to have the meaning "absense of such as in nontoxic, that is absense of toxicity. I would also like to propse that the other definition suggested by Mdwh be included, that is, The doctrine or belief that there are no gods. This definiton agains gives a slightly different interpretation that is asserted by a very large number of prominent dictionaries (just google it see). The users would again benifit from a differing definition in being able to see that the term Atheism had different interpretations. Jarryd Moore 09:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please will you lot stop bickering over the definitions of weak/strong/implicit/explicit. It's very tedious and its been discussed at length many times previously and it now leaves the article looking messy, confusing and pedantic. Poujeaux 17:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I know it's been discussed many times previously, but that doesn't help matters, as the introduction has been changed from what it was since those discussions. I'm more than happy to go back to an older version of the article - I'd much prefer not to have these same old arguments again and again, but all the while the article gets changed again and editors are in disagreement, I'm afraid there's not much we can do except to discuss - or "bicker" as you call it - the matter.

Also to my knowledge there has yet to be a consensus over the definition problem - if you can find a solution in the "discussed at length many times previously", then please put it on the article so we can finish once and for all ;) Mdwh 00:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The introduction.

I have not yet even read the entire article, but a small section in the into struck me as very POV so I quickly removed it. "and more specifically in the monotheistic Judeo-Christian God". I see no reason at all to say that atheism is more specificlly about the Christian god oppose to any other god.--Edy5228503:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the term atheism was created and propagated, and continues to be predominantly used, in an overwhelmingly Christian environment? The very reason that people equate atheism with irreligion is because of this Christian-centric bias (which associates not believing in God, something Eastern religions would be vastly less likely to do do). And that's the same reason that people commonly define atheism as "not believing in God", even though technically this is a 100% incorrect definition if the real definition is "not believing in deities". The reason we don't bother to correct people who define atheism as "not believing in God" is because the primary users of the term atheism (including us) live in such a Christianized culture and society that a word which has the theoretical meaning of "not believing in deities" will have, for all practical intents and purposes, the practical meaning of "not believing in God"—because polytheism as an actual belief people have is such an out-of-the-mainstream concept for us Westerners. It may not be fair, but it's indisputably present in the word's connotations and usage, and ignoring or attempting to cover up this Judeo-Christian focus will have absolutely no effect except to more poorly-inform our readers about the topic, which runs contrary to our encyclopedic task. Also, in case you didn't notice, the statement in question was cited. You removed the statement, yet didn't remove the citation, thus leaving a dangling and irrelevant footnote. That was exceedingly sloppy of you. Rather than worrying about excising information which you happen to disagree with (which isn't our job: our job is to represent the POVs of noteworthy and reputable sources, not to represent our own POVs), how about excising dubious information which is unsourced? Adherence to WP:NOR is a much more pressing concern for this article than censoring POVs we find repugnant (such as the mainstream Christian one). -Silence 06:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You haven't convinced me; I agree with Edy. Christians may try to define atheism however they want, but that doesn't mean their bias has any validity, and I don't believe that the introduction should be giving the definition the standard Christian gloss. Claiming that users of the term live in Christianized culture reveals your own western-centric bias. Sorry, that argument doesn't work. Have you ever visited other non-Christian cultures, say, in Asia, Africa, or the Middle East? Stating that atheism refers specifically to the Christian god adds zero value to the article, because Christians will still interpret a simple "Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of deities" to mean a disbelief in their deity. =Axlq 06:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have amended the opening par to reflect the guts of that interesting citiation, ie the specifically Judeo-Christian usage is archaic. I trust that that coincides with our experience? Leeborkman 06:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me, although the parentheses were unnecessary, so I just removed them. =Axlq 07:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now that I see that that interesting citation, which calls this use of atheism "archaic" comes from the 1910 edition of Britannica. In other words, we have an encyclopedia from almost 100 years ago and even it thinks that this use of the word is archaic. I recommend that we move this old, old usage to the footnotes or rigt out of the article. It has not documented modern relevance (unless somone can find a modern reference), and appears to be at odds with our own understanding. Can it go? Can I move it to a mere footnote? THanks. Leeborkman 07:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I like the current rephrasing as archaic to be much better. Moving this detail might be a good idea if no modern citations can be found. As Axlq pointed out to Silence, in modern day usage, to suggest that atheism is more about the Christian god is obviously from the POV of someone who lives in a "Christianized culture and society". I appologize for my sloppy editing, Im still very new to Wikipedia I'm doing what I can to help.--Edy52285 07:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Leeborkman, the 1910 Britannica did not assert that the word is archaic, it simply presented the word plainly, and thus revealed the implicit assumption at the time that atheism was specifically understood to be disbelief in the monotheistic God/Supreme Being. The word is now presumed to be archaic or obsolete because the current version of Britannica does not define atheism in the same way, or reference adevism. I apologize if that was unclear, but that's why that paragraph of elaboration was not included in quotations: it's an explanation of the Britannica reference to adevism, not simply a repetition of what the entry itself says (which interested users can find out by clicking on adevism). Perhaps we should note the 20th-century shift from the Eurocentric "believing there is no God" to the more worldly and inclusive "believing there are no deities" at the end of the "etymology" section? (We can also note that in some circles the word is undergoing a second redefinition, to the even more general "absence of belief in deities". That will provide a nice segue into the types/typologies section.)

"As Axlq pointed out to Silence, in modern day usage, to suggest that atheism is more about the Christian god is obviously from the POV of someone who lives in a "Christianized culture and society"." - In other words, every English-language dictionary and society? :) And thus every usage of the word atheism, since we're specifically talking about an English word? Mmhmmm. Closing our eyes and ears to our own Christian bias and pretending it doesn't exist won't make it go away; neutrally reporting on it when presenting words whose meanings have been unfortunately influenced by this bias (which is also the same reason why many dictionaries provide a definition for atheism as "immorality" or "godlessness") is the encyclopedic (as opposed to Politically Correct) thing to do, because it actually informs our readers about this undercurrent of monotheism in just about all English usage of the term. This is also why, incidentally, the majority of "reasons for atheism" provided in this very article are specific rebuttals to the Judeo-Christian conception of God. And there were even more of them before I removed some of the more unnecessarily specific references, like justifying atheism on the basis of the implausibility of the Great Flood. For example, the problem of evil, one of the most famous and effective justifications for atheism, is only meaningful at all if one accepts the Judeo-Christian notion of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent Creator God. Ignoring facts like these is doing nothing but deceiving our own readers, and making them falsely think that atheism's Christian bias is a necessary characteristic of it, as opposed to being a simple product of its environment.

In other words, if there isn't any specific importance of the Judeo-Christian God (as opposed to Zeus, or Shiva, or Thor) to atheism, then we should remove most of the "reasons for atheism" section: the references to the ontological argument, cosmological argument, and teleological argument (arguments for the existence of the monotheistic "Supreme Being" God of Christianity); the block quotation rebutting characteristics of the Christian God on empirical and philosophical grounds; the problem of evil is only a problem for Christians, not Pagans; the argument from nonbelief likewise applies only to the Christian God; theological noncognitivism explicitly refers only to the singular Christian "God", not to deities in general; the transcendental argument for the non-existence of God explicitly and specifically argues against the tenets of Christianity, not against religion or theism in general; the entire paragraph describing atheism justified by rejection of Christian beliefs like "faith over good works" and the Christian Hell. I've been working hard to try and make the atheism article more globally-inclusive (I added details about Eastern atheism to the "history" section which were previously lacking in the exclusively Western coverage, for example), but the bias is clearly there, whether we admit it or not. Admitting it is just the more honest and constructive (and helpful for our readers) thing to do, even if it's not as easy as pretending that Christian theology has no special relevance to modern discussions of atheism. -Silence 15:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Whew. For someone names "Silence" you sure have a lot to say! :) I do appreciate your most recent edit to the article, and I have no problems with it.

It's true that many arguments for atheism are essentially responses to challenges from Christians; that's to be expected and hardly creates a "bias" which necessitates defining atheism in Christian terms. Atheists who live in Judeo-Christian societies will naturally formulate arguments to defend themselves from the dominant local religion. Atheists live in India too, a decidedly non-Christian culture; it is interesting to see what their arguments look like (see http://www.positiveatheism.org/tocindia.htm for a wealth of information). In some respects the arguments are remarkably similar. =Axlq 16:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fair enough, and I never said the focus on the Judeo-Christian God was unexpected (just important to tell our readers about), but it's still very important to note when atheism is being defined in Christian ("God" rather than "gods") terms, which is remarkably common in all atheist literature I've ever seen; and even more important to denote when the "reasons for atheism" are arguments against Christianity rather than against all deities, which is also remarkably common. Either the term atheism is biased toward the Christian paradigm because of its European origins, or the current atheism article (and, indeed, almost every Wikipedia article) is woefully inadequate in providing a worldwide perspective on atheism (or both). If the latter is the case, then I recommend citing some of the atheist literature from non-Christianized regions in the article, especially where it differs significantly. -Silence 16:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so your ref from Britanica was not a direct quote? My mistake then. Okay, looking at the Britannica 1911 article on atheism I see this: "and most usually, it is applied to a purely intellectual, metaphysical disbelief in the existence of any god, or of anything supernatural." You say that it is remarkable how common the Judeo-Chrstian-specific definition is used in atheist literature, and I'm intrigued, because in my decades of being an atheist I have never heard or heard of this usage. That's probably just my ignorance, but could you help us out by providing some modern examples that illustrate this usage, eg an example of a Muslim being referred to as an atheist? I believe that this is the reason people are fighting so hard against this definition, ie because we find it completely outside of our experience. Thanks heaps. Leeborkman 22:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, see my problem is not with pointing out the history, and any existing biased use of the word, rather defining it by that biased usage. Saying something like "Atheism is commonly used to describe the lack of beleif in the Judeo-Christian God specificlly." Something like that is perfectly acceptable as long as its cited. Furthermore I would tend to assume it true, however the only problem I had was that the original phrasing was something more like "Atheism is the lack of beleif in deities, and more specificly the Judeo-Christian God." The difference there is that one shows a different usage of the term, while the other attempts to define what Atheism IS in an incorrect way. I doubt most atheist lack beleif in any particular god more than any other. It makes perfect sense that a Christian would regard someone who is not a Christian as an Atheist since to that person there is only one god, there are no other gods to not beleive in. So obviously if you dont beleive in that god, you are godless, hence atheist. The 1911 source is sufficient I beleive to show that it was used at least back then in that manner, however some modern citations are needed to suggest the usage is still current. On a seperate note, I would argue that the Problem of Evil argument is not Christian specific. If any god were benevalent and omnipotent then that god would not alow evil to exist. I do not see how the argument refers to Christianity specificly, the arugment works for everything from Christianity to Q.--Edy52285 07:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Should we link to the nontheism page?

There's a link to nontheism in the second line. The nontheism page is incoherent and misleading. We'd be better off not having that page at all, but if we're going to have the page, we'd be better off not linking to it from here as if we expect people to find something sensible by following the link. The nontheism page says, among other things, that only weak atheists are nontheists, not strong atheists. It also says that while agnostics think evidence is relevent, nontheists think evidence is irrelevant. If we can't take it out behind the barn and kill it with an axe, the least we can do is not link to it from articles that make sense. Wiploc 02:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If nontheism merits an article at all (which is a matter of its noteworthiness, not of the quality of its contents), then it hardly matters how high-quality it is for the purposes of this article: we should link to it in the same way whether it's a stub or an FA, because we should worry about optimizing this article independently (at least to an extent) of what shape other articles are in, in order to not have to later reorganize it entirely when other articles change in quality. So I don't see any reason not to link to as clearly-related an article as nontheism.

On the other hand, if you want to rally together a good effort to improve that article, so that it's less of an embarrassment and has more value for our readers, then I fully support such an endeavor. Our aims should be constructive, not destructive. -Silence 03:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Atheism and the notion of the impossibility to prove a negative

There is no section that discusses or looks at Atheism's links to the notion that it is impossible to prove a nagative. Many Athiests, including myself rely heavily on this notion in asserting their position as an Athiest, and shifting the burden of proof the theist. This can often form a major part of Athiesm, especially when considering it as a neutral state of belief. Should this be included? and if so, should it be a section unto itself or incorperated into one or more other sections? Jarryd Moore 07:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What a strange notion to think that there is any burden of proof on anyone in such a discussion! Why do any of us need to prove or even persuade? Are we some weird sect looking for converts? No burden of proof!... that's my motto. Scepticism is an attitude, and if you happen to adopt that attitude, then atheism is a likely result. Belief or unbelief is not a matter that comes under the Rules of Debate ;-) Leeborkman 08:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

And on a purely pedantic philosophical note, it is not necessarily impossible to prove a negative or more specifically to prove that seomething does not exist. It is, for example, simple to prove that "There is no rational number that when multipled by itself gives 2". The trick in such a proof is to prove that the existence of whatever leads to a logical impossibility. Easy to do for many classes of negative assertion, but probably not possible in the case of "there are no gods". In other words, you can get yourself into philosophical hot water and lose debating points if you self-righteously proclaim "it is impossible to prove a negative". All good fun though ;-) Leeborkman 08:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well this is probably not the place for agruing the notion of proving a negative. I am simply saying that many athiests do believe that this notion is true. Some Athiests do stand by this notion as a major part of their argument for Atheism (and again this is not the place for arguing whether or not we should argue for and against Atheism) , but the fact remains that some Athiests do hold close ties between this notion and their Atheism, and the mere existance of such links between the two should warrent its inclusion. We aren't debating our POVs on what we believe or dont believe. Were just reporting a neutral state of facts. Jarryd Moore 13:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Jarryd, there used to be a section that linked to Russell's teapot and the IPU to make this point. maybe put these back. Poujeaux 17:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Nontheism Portal

I have included the Atheism Category in the portal i have recently founded, Portal:Nontheism. I thought it would be worth discussing here as portal links can be added to the side of the page using the Portalpar metadata command. Comtributions to the portal would be greatly appreciated, as it is very bare and its is Under Construction phase as of yet.

What about Jean Meslier?

The first openly atheistic thinkers, such as Baron d'Holbach, appeared in the late 18th century,... Quite true but it might be interesting to talk of the first enlightment atheist(s) who couldn't reveal their opinions or philosophy at the time for fear of direct sanctions. Holbach was particularly influenced by Jean Meslier, a priest who was the first of the French renaissance to state unequivocaly his atheism and to demonstrate it. Jean Meslier (1664-1729) was a priest (hurray!) from the north of France who left two volumes of writings to be published after his death that have been pivotal in the formalisation of atheism in the 18th C. Usually know as the Testament of Abbot Meslier it demonstrates point by point the fallacy of all religions and why God(s) cannot exist (his opinion). He is the first of that era to positively state the fundamental non-exitence of God(s). The full title of his Testament contains the whole program: << Memorandum of the thoughts and feelings of Jean Meslier, priest of the parish of Étrépigny and Balaives, on some of the errors and abuses of human behavior and government where can be seen clear and obvious demonstrations of the vanity and fakeness of all divinities and religions of the world, to be adressed to his parishioners after his death, and to serve them as a testimony of truth, to them and all fellow men >> Many clandestine copies circulated before any 'official' edition between the proponents of french enlightment notably Voltaire, Holbach, Frederic II, Rousseau, Diderot, Alembert and all the encyclopedists. The first edition of extracts of the text sanctionned by the censoring authorities was made by Voltaire in 1762 but he severely changed the content so that it lost its radical atheism. I don't know what kind of mention it could be made of that fundamental text in the article on atheism. I have never yet participated in the Wikipedia project appart from being an avid user.

here is a picture of him: http://monsite.orange.fr/meslier/images/0-picture.jpg?0.06378708517722886

here is picture of the first page of the manuscript: http://monsite.orange.fr/meslier/images/1-picture1.gif?0.24138339041531376

I don't know if there is an english edition of this text.

--Keria 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

edited spelling mistakes not sure fakeness is a word

See http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/17607 for Superstition In All Ages (1732) by Jean Meslier. The fact that the Gutenberg project has it scanned in makes it as notable as any other thing in this weird realm of faith verses reason. Ttiotsw 15:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like valuable information. All or most of it would probably be a fantastic addition to History of atheism. I'm not sure, though, of whether it merits inclusion in the top-level Atheism article, and if so it could only get a very brief mention, since we have to keep the section in question in strict summary-style. -Silence 16:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference Ttiotsw. Superstition in all ages is a summary by d'Holbach of all of Meslier arguments. I think you're right Silence, it seems a mention of Meslier would be more appropriate in the History of atheism sub-article. Maybe it could be best mentionned between these 2 §s

"... a case that became celebrated because Voltaire tried unsuccessfully to have the sentence reversed.

Among those accused of atheism was Denis Diderot (1713–1784) ..."

It might go something like this: The parish priest Jean Meslier (1664–1729) was the first to formalize the systematic rejection of all deities and religions in the early 18th Century. In a dense book written to be published after his death he clearly states the fallacy of all religious organizations and the imposibility of the existence of god. The full title of his testament is:

"Memorandum on the thoughts and feelings of Jean Meslier, priest of the parish of Étrépigny and Balaives, on some of the errors and abuses of human behavior and government where can be seen clear and obvious demonstrations of the vanity and fallacy of all divinities and religions of the world, to be adressed to his parishioners after his death, and to serve them as a testimony of truth, to them and all their fellow men."

What came to be know as The Testament of Priest Meslier circulated in underground circles of thinkers and had a huge influence notably on Voltaire, d'Holbach, Emperor Frederic II, Rousseau, Diderot, d'Alembert and all the encyclopedists. Baron d'Holbach summarized the priest's dense and sometime confused arguments in Superstition in All ages.

There isn't any quotes but I have a lot of them, all in french. I'm not sure how to reference quotes that might not have been published in English. I can translate them though. English is not my first language so any correction would be appreciated. It still reads a bit quirky. Also I'm not yet familliar with Wikipedia's use of punctuation so any advice on that is welcome too. I'm not sure how to add alink to the Project Gutenberg edition of "Superstition in all ages"

User:Keria 08:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Etymology section

The wording of the etymology section might be misread as suggesting that the origin of self avowed disbelief in gods is to be found in late 18th century Europe.

Originally simply used as a slur for "godlessness", atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Judeo-Christian God.

Encyclopedia Brittanica notwithstanding, it might be more correct to say that the practice of self-awowed disbelievers referring to themselves as atheists began in late 18th century Europe. I have my doubts about even this more restricted assertion. Perhaps even more accurate, but perhaps less flowing,

the earliest attestation available of self-avowed disbelievers referring to themselves with the English word atheist (or similar European words) is from late 18th century Europe.

--BostonMA ^talk 16:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the very meaning of "self-avowed" necessitate that it be used as a self-description? It is meaningless to speak of "self-avowed use" of a term being prior to the term being used by people to describe themselves, and it is thus redundant to speak of "self-avowed [X]... referring to themselves [as X]". -Silence 16:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A good question, and one that I think helps to illustrate the confusion wrought by the paragraph. Prior to late 18th century Europe, there were individuals who asserted the non-existence of gods. See for example Carvaka. There is no attestation that the followers of Carvaka used the English word atheist (or any similar European word). It is conceivable that they they were at some point familiar with the Greek equivalent for atheism, but again, that is not attested. However, Christians who referred to "godless" people as atheists, would undoubtedly, to the extent to which they were aware of this school, have referred to the followers of Carvaka as atheists. It is important to bear in mind the distinction between the etymology of a word and the history of an idea, which may or may not be expressed in the language of that word. I hope this helps to clarify. --BostonMA ^talk 16:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

See also Mimamsa school of philosophy. --BostonMA ^talk 16:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

But surely the etymology section of this article should be discussing the history of the word, not of the idea. Consequently, what is significant is the first "self-avowed atheists" as in the first people to describe themselves as atheists, not as in the first people to openly hold beliefs which we would today recognize as atheistic (which relies to a certain extent on our interpretations of various figures and their beliefs). -Silence 01:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Major revisions

I've made a number of major revisions to the article recently, and only a few have generated much comment. As such, I'd like to ask if anyone here has any comments, criticisms, suggestions, or observations regarding the atheism makeover. My hope is that, once this article is a bit better-referenced and the remaining patchy parts (such as the bloated "external links" section) have been fixed, we can submit it to Peer Review and get some good ideas to help eventually bring this article up to Featured quality. -Silence 03:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Overall I like the revisions you made. -Axlq 03:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

Also, since we haven't had any vandalism or disruption in a while, I'm unprotecting the page for now. -Silence 03:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me, there hasn't been vandalism or disruption because the page was semi-protected. I could be wrong. All I know is, nearly all the vandalism I revert on Wikipedia comes from anonymous IP addresses, and semi-protection prevents that. Semi-protection should be standard policy for controversial articles that attract vandals. -Axlq 03:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, and so does our official policy at WP:SEMI. Semi-protection runs contrary to our principles and interests as an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone; it should never be used, as WP:SEMI points out, "as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred" or "to prohibit anonymous editing in general". Furthermore, vandalism is exceedingly easy and simple to revert, whereas an anonymous editor's productive contributions might be invaluable (they might never have occurred if not for that specific user), meaning that it is worth it to have to revert 9 (or even 29) anonymous vandals if it means that 1 anonymous contributor will improve the article, resulting in a clear and significant net gain for the page, even if it takes more work than simply prohibiting all anons from editing. -Silence 04:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Disbelief?

Defining a term with somewhat ambiguous boundaries in terms of another word with an obviously great degree of ambiguity is not helpful (http://www.onelook.com/?w=disbelief&ls=a ) and seems to trying to make a distinction between disbelief & nonbelief - which does not exist apart from original research --JimWae 17:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% that there is no evidence of a distinction between disbelief and nonbelief: if anything, nonbelief is one possible definition (and thus a subcategory) of disbelief. I would support changing the first sentence to simply "disbelief" (which safely encompasses bith "nonbelief" and "belief in the untruth of", in part thanks to its vagueness), which is what I originally had as the first sentence before Jarryd Moore forced me to change it based on his mistaken assumption that "disbelief" can only apply to the narrower definition, when in reality (as at least one of our citations, the "Definitions" one, attests) it is broad enough to include either one of the popular definitions, and is thus ideal to start the article with, so long as it is followed by more specific and thorough explanations of the various definitions in the subsequent sentences.

However, some of your other changes to the article are more dubious: you provided only one, relatively obscure and non-mainstream (and thus potentially unreliable) online dictionary to provide any citations of dictionaries affirming "absence of belief" as a definition of atheism, and then made the original-research leap from that single dictionary to the misleading assertion that "many dictionaries" agree, which, even if true, gives a very distorted image when one considers that probably less than 5% of all dictionaries (perhaps even less than 1%, especially if we restrict ourselves to general-use or mainstream or printed ones) with atheism entries give "absence of belief in deities", or a variant thereof, explicit recognition.

Additionally, just as I encourage you to discuss with Jarryd whether we need to say "disbelief or nonbelief" where just "disbelief" would suffice, I encourage you to discuss with Mdwh—that wasn't my idea either, but was a result of a compromise in response to Mdwh's insistence that atheism is more commonly defined as "explicit atheism" (either strong or weak) than as "weak atheism" (either explicit or implicit, and encompassing "strong" as well). -Silence 17:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to say that I don't mind whether we go with "disbelief" or "disbelief and nonbelief", and I have no desire to emphasise that any definition is more common or not. My point is that if we are going to state that one is more common, then it is true that "disbelief" is just as common a definition as "belief that Gods don't exist". Mdwh 20:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Look again & find anywhere I used the term "many" --JimWae 19:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nitpicking and wordplay. You specifically added the phrase "a number of dictionaries also include a broader definition in which", where "a number" is defined as "a certain collection, company, or quantity not precisely reckoned, but usually considerable or large: I've gone there a number of times". It's essentially a vaguer synonym of "many". Please address the substance and meaning of my comments rather than fixating exclusively on the letter. If I said that "a number of" atheists hate God and want to destroy America, would you consider that acceptable? Just because a statement is technically true (there is indeed an unspecified "number" of each of those things) doesn't make the rhetorical implications acceptably accurate or NPOV. -Silence 19:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Utter nonsense - I am not suggesting a one-sided presentation (as your "analogy" would be), I am suggesting a counterpoint to one view already presented - a counterpoint that does not attribute a description of language usage solely to advocates of atheism - and it does not appear that you are assuming good faith either --JimWae 07:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)--JimWae 09:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• I never assumed bad faith on your part, I simply didn't assume inerrancy: everyone makes mistakes. Your error in suggesting "many" or "a large number of" by using the phrase "a number of" wasn't necessarily deliberate—your motives, in fact, are irrelevant here. What matters is correcting the problem. I would not object to pointing out something more like "Although atheism is commonly defined as an explicit denial or rejection of theism in general-use references, some sources, particularly specialized and online dictionaries, define atheism as the absence of theism" somewhere in the article—perhaps we could have a whole paragraph clearly explaining the dictionary issue later down the page, such as in the "Positively defined" section. What I objected to was the misleading implication that a significant percentage of dictionaries describe atheism (one has to look long and hard to find one that explicitly accepts weak atheism as atheism), or the POVed implication that "disbelief" necessarily (as opposed to possibly) encompasses weak atheism in every dictionary that defines atheism as a "disbelief". Just because we like the "absence of theism" definition doesn't mean we should mislead our readers into thinking that it's a mainstream view among laypeople. -Silence 13:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• In fact, every dictionary that uses the word disbelief provides support for the broader view --JimWae 19:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Very, very debatable. Wikipedia should not weigh in on which specific interpretation of "disbelief" the dictionaries intend, though it is a compelling argument against such dictionaries accepting implicit atheism as true atheism that the dictionaries use "disbelief or denial" rather than "disbelief or absence of belief" or the like for that definition. "Disbelief" can, potentially, either apply exclusively to the broader view (if "disbelief" is taken as merely an absence of belief), or exclusively to the narrower view (if "disbelief" is taken as a kind of belief involving the rejection of a belief); which one it is doesn't matter, what matters is simply presenting the facts in a well-referenced matter, without interjecting our personal opinion regarding what the dictionaries "really mean", or what we think they should mean. -Silence 19:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• if one assumes disbelief does not also include non-belief (you yourself indicated disbelief was an encompassing term) then one is "weighing in" on what dictionaries "really mean" - and suggests some Original Research is being attempted --JimWae 07:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree entirely. That's why I changed "disbelief or nonbelief" back to "disbelief" in my recent edit. If I have any say in it, it will stay that way, too: the word is a perfect mix or being both informative enough to give people the gist of atheism in a very compact and accessible format, and vague enough to avoid stepping on anyone's toes unduly by ruling out one or the other of the popular specific definitions. -Silence 13:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's another: Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd edition): "the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism..." Do you really doubt there are several others that include the broader definition? Presenting this usage as just a "preference of some atheists" smacks of disingenuity--JimWae 07:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• I never doubted that there are several others. I disputed the implication of "there are a number of others", which implies that there is a large number of others (relative to the ones that don't explicitly acknowledge that definition). -Silence 13:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • you seem to be reading into things that are not there. It is not our job to weigh in on how large a number take one position or the other unless we have reported statistics we can cite. Some is neutral on the amount, few is not. A large number and a small number are not neutral, but A number (especially when following an "is commonly defined as..." is neutral. All it commonly implies is "more than one".

I think we will make more progress if we drop the notion that there should be a single definition of atheism & that there are 2 "schools" propounding that theirs be used exclusively. "Some" will suffice, after we drop the "atheists prefer..." deprecation --JimWae 17:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

and Another: "Thus, defined as a doctrine, or theory, or philosophy formally opposed to theism, atheism can only signify the teaching of those schools, whether cosmological or moral, which do not include God either as a principle or as a conclusion of their reasoning." -- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm --JimWae 07:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

A number of dictionaries and encyclopedia specifically include "absence of belief" within the definitions they give, while an even larger number indirectly include nonbelief by their use of the term "disbelief" --JimWae 08:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It should not come as a surprise that there may be an overlap between atheists & agnostics. While both positions are often characterized as philosophical ones, they are not within the same branch of philosophy. Agnosticism is an epistemological position, whereas atheism and theism are ontological positions. Before Hume & Kant it was thought that the existence of God(s) could be known via metaphysical reasoning. Now, nearly all scholars admit to a certain amount of agnosticism, with regard to knowledge.--JimWae 09:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Agnosticism too can have more than one meaning. It can be the epistemological position about lack of knowledge, and it can also include the psychological "feeling" or state of being in doubt about something & inability to decide whether or not to count 'god' among the words with a referent--JimWae 09:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know who you are replying to with your above few paragraphs, as I agree with you on essentially every point, and nothing I've said contradicts any of that. I removed the "agnosticism" sentence from the first paragraph because it was too long, and moved it to the end of a paragraph further down the article. -Silence 13:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If person X sincerely tells us he disbelieves proposition P, what conclusions below (or elsewhere) are we entitled to validly draw?

• X denies he believes P
• X denies the truth value of P can be determined to be true
• X denies "P is true"
• X asserts "P is false"
• X denies "P is false" is false
• X believes "P is false"

Btw, there is some debate over whether existence is a predicate, and thus whether "X exists" is a proposition --JimWae 22:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If we are looking for a single sentence that encompasses all atheists, I can think of none simpler than "Atheists do not count the word god among the words that have a referent." --JimWae 22:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I always thought that single sentence was "atheists are people who are not theists." MFNickster 22:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Invalid dichotomy, as it excludes deists and agnostics. ;) Justin Eiler 22:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't exclude them, it just doesn't explicitly include them. :) MFNickster 23:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't explain my objection very well. The definition "atheists are people who are not theists" lumps deists and agnostics in with atheism, as these people are also not theists.

Frankly, I don't think there is a "single-sentence" definition of atheism. You have folks who actively think God doesn't exist. You have folks who think that whether or not God exists is undeterminable. You even have folks who think God exists, but that his existance is irrelevant to their lives. and there are probably more categories. It's a complex concept that doesn't readily fit into any single pidgeonhole definition. Justin Eiler 23:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so maybe theism/atheism is a false dichotomy, but agnosticism is not a third individual category. Agnostics may be either theist, atheist, or deist (if that can be considered an individual category, which I'm no explicitly disputing at this time). -FrostyBytes 01:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I'd still consider agnosticism to be a third category. If I claim that it is impossible to know if God exists (or, at least, that I did not know that God exists), then the differences between theism and atheism become irrelevant. *shrug* Or at least that's the way I see it--I'm not an agnostic, but that's what it looks like from "outside" that point of view. Justin Eiler 02:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Theism/atheism regards statements of belief, agnosticism regards statements of knowledge.

Agnostic theist: professes not to know whether a god exists or not, but chooses to believe.

Agnostic atheist: professes not to know whether a god exists or not, but chooses not to believe. -FrostyBytes 13:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, Steve Allen considered himself an agnostic theist. MFNickster

I don't know about that, Frosty--I've never met an agnostic who says "I cannot know, but I choose to believe/disbelieve despite the impossibility of knowledge." But that's only my personal experience--YMMV. Justin Eiler 14:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Justin, keep in mind that absence of belief is not the same as belief of absence. Either an agnostic believes in a higher power, or doesn't. If the hypothetical agnostic in question doesn't have that particular belief, he either believes in the god's absence (a position which seems a bit absurd to me given the statement of lack of knowledge, but I'm only speaking hypothetically), or he simply lacks any belief on the matter. In either of these two cases, the agnostic would also be classified as atheist.

Sorry for being so pedantic (and pigheaded, perhaps?), usage of the term agnosticism is a bit inconcistent with definition. -FrostyBytes 00:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't mind pedanticism--it's a vice I'm guilty of myself, and more than occasionally. :) But a majority of the agnostics I have met are of the "I cannot know or do not know, therefore belief is speculative at best, irrelevant at worst." One could term this as an absence of belief, but if one then defines atheism as "belief of absence," then agnostics are definitely a third category.

It's a tough call. Me, personally, I'd define the three separately and give agnostics the (pardon the pun) benefit of the doubt, but if consensus agrees with the "Atheism is a lack of theistic beliefs," I certainly won't pitch a snit. ;) Justin Eiler 01:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is a tough call. How about the following compromise: the primary definition is the definition of the word itself (describing agnosticism as a stance regarding knowledge, and atheism as a lack of belief in deities, thus including both strong and weak atheism), and including a secondary definition describing colloquial usage (which popularly holds agnosticism as a noncommittal stance).

How does that sound?

Also, if this discussion becomes any longer than it already is, it should probably be split. :P -FrostyBytes 10:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds cool to me. :) Justin Eiler 18:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How are you guys figuring deists are not theists? They are not fideists, but they surely believe in God. Are you suggesting they are so sure, it is not belief as far as they are concerned, but knowledge? They are not alone in that either. Pantheists are a bit problematic because they do not believe in God as a distinct entity - and some deists do wander there. And agnostics - I guess some of them have wavering belief --JimWae 01:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Jim. You're probably right--I'm using the more narrow definition of Theism. Deism definitely fits in the broader definition. Justin Eiler 02:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• JimWae, here are the problems with some of your changes:

• "however, others — including several dictionaries, encyclopedia, and atheistic philosophers &mdash" - Since we didn't mention dictionaries or encyclopedias for the first definition, this implies that all or most dictionaries and encyclopedias which address this article. Similarly, since giving a laundry list of violates WP:NPOV since we did nothing remotely similar for the first definition, and implies that there is a much greater number of supporters for the latter definition than the former. We should avoid such misleading and POV implications in how we present each definition. Also, this is unnecessarily detailed for the lead section: we should address the dictionary (and other references) issue later down in the article, if anywhere, since it's a complex one. What's important here is that we note that the latter definition is the one favored most by atheists, as affirmed by pretty much all of the sources we're currently using in this article. And now that we've changed it to "including", there's no risk of implying that atheists are the only ones who favor this definition, so your earlier concerns on that matter have been resolved.
• "explicitly list as one definition of atheism'" - By not directly addressing the "dictionary" issue in the first paragraph of the article, we don't need to address potentially speculative or original-research interpretations of whether or not mainstream dictionaries implicitly define atheism as "absence of belief in deities": all we need note is that some people prefer definition A, and other people (including most atheists) prefer definition B. Adding more information than that risks bloating the lead section, which should be as concise as possible.
• "thereby including among atheists many" - This is awkward wording. There is no reason not to use "designating ... as atheists as well" here. It is simpler and clearer. Your version also blurs the fact that we're discussing definitions and word use here: "including among atheists" makes it sound like a membership drive, not a word-usage dispute.
• "some scholars have" - "Some scholars" is misleading and misinformative. "Some atheists" is accurate and informative. See also Talk:Weak and strong atheism, where it's been brought up that "weak and strong atheism" are actually used by almost no atheistic scholars: the terms "negative and positive atheism" are vastly preferred, especially in offline writings.
• "to distinguish the two positions" - This is too vague to be very informative or useful to our readers. "clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief or of negative unbelief" is more accurate (since atheists do use the dichotomy to clearly explain whether they are weak or strong atheists), more informative (since it specifically hammers home for our readers the fact that weak/strong is a dispute between "negative unbelief" and "positive belief"), and just better-written.
• The See Also section is currently depracated here. We are using Template:Atheism instead: any link that is not important enough to be included in that box is not important enough to be included in the "See also" section anyway, and should either be incorporated into the article or abandoned. (What about considering adding Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief as a reference for one of this article's claims? That would certainly make including a link to it acceptable, and would have the added value of actually contributing useful support to some part of this article, rather than just being an add-on unrelated to any part of the article.) -Silence 14:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This never-ending section seems to be more like a growing linguistic debate than anything else. I ask the question as to why we are trying to get ONE single definition, when the one thing we seem to agree on is that we cant agree completely on one when different sources cite different things and the sources themselves have their bias and flaws. Even the dictionaries have MULTIPLE definitions, why shoud we not follow suit. Trying to attain a single diffiniton for the purpose of it being simple should be less important than presenting to readers all the information. Jarryd Moore 06:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

External links

So, let's start going through the external links section and determine which links are necessary, and which are not, and trim off the latter. Our goal should be to have no more than 10-15 external links in the "external links" section of the article. Things to keep in mind are: many of these links can be moved to daughter articles; many contain redundant information; and Wikipedia's job is not to popularize our favorite atheism sites, but to provide the most important and necessary ones. Also, we don't need to provide links to most of the ones that are already linked to from references, like the BBC site. -Silence 23:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the quantity of links, as long as they are well-organized and not a hodge-podge list. And they are well-organized, so my inclindation is to leave them alone. As a first cut, however, I would eliminate or drastically reduce the "Miscellaneous" and "Web communities" sections and leave the rest alone. Many of the sites mentioned in those sections aren't notable enough to warrant a link. =Axlq 03:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia convention is to use absolutely as few external links in an article as possible. Note that if this article is ever submitted to become a Featured Article anytime in the future, it will be summarily rejected if it has more than around 15 external links; I have seen dozens of articles (such as Jesus, which used to have as many external links as atheism does before it was forced to be trimmed down in order to meet Wikipedia's general standards; now it only has 14 links) be rejected on exactly the same grounds in the past. This is strongly indicative of the general consensus of Wikipedia editors: having a well-organized linkfarm does not resolve the essential problem of linkfarms, which is not that they are disorganized, but that they link to an excessive number of non-Wikipedia sites, even though Wikipedia should only link to outside sites when absolutely necessary. That certainly applies here. -Silence 11:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Reasons

Comment re Reasons for atheism: Pointless, and a misunderstanding of what atheism is - it does not need reasons. Do we need 'Reasons for not believing in fairies'? Reasons for belief in god might be needed. Emeraude 22:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. It is not our job to prescribe whether people should have reasons for not believing in deities, merely to describe what reasons people do use for it. -Silence 22:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

American Atheists atom a commonly used symbol?

The article currently displays an atom symbol, heavily based on the American Atheists logo. The caption reads: "One common atheist symbol is the atom, used by such organizations as American Atheists."

Are there any references to back up the claims in this caption? What is the evidence that this is a "common atheist symbol?" The caption implies that more than one organization uses this symbol, but can anyone list an atheist organization other than American Atheists that uses it? This article explains that the symbol was designed by and for American Atheists. While they might have intended it to be adopted by all atheists, regardless of organizational affiliation, I am unaware of any evidence that it has widespread use among atheists not affiliated with American Atheists.

I believe the image ought to be replaced with an image of the American Atheists logo, and the caption modified to reflect what is verifiable about use of the symbol. It also more properly belongs in the section on atheist organizations. 69.23.115.197 04:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

II'm going to go ahead and "be bold" and remove the symbol. I would hazard the guess that there hae been far more atheists in history than not affiliated with American Atheists than those who are. Justin Eiler 04:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You have, quite simply, misunderstood the caption. The caption said that the atom is often used to denote atheism (including the AA), not that the AA symbol is commonly used to denote atheism. The AA symbol has an A (for "American") in the middle, like so: Image:American Atheist Logo 1.jpg. The linked image does not: Image:Atom of Atheism-Zanaq.svg. Your comment above, and your edit description, indicate that you did not take the time to actually check up on the two images or their circumstances before hastily removing the illustrative and useful pic (for a potential problem with the caption, not the image itself); I recommend more careful fact-checking in the future. That the symbol is used to denote atheism in significant contexts entirely unrelated to AA is exceedingly easy to verify.[17]

Also, the AA symbol is not free-use, unlike the more generic atom image. Hence the latter is preferable: we've done a great job so far of avoiding relying on fair use while still keeping the article well-illustrated. Why abandon that here? -Silence 05:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Silence. You said:

The caption said that the atom is often used to denote atheism (including the AA), not that the AA symbol is commonly used to denote atheism.

The exact test of the caption was "One common atheist symbol is the atom, used by such organizations as American Atheists." "Common" is a very imprecise word, and if it is applied to any time period before the early 20th century, is anachronistic. Additionally, the grammar of the caption indicates that other groups besides American Atheists use an atom symbol: I know of no other groups that do so.

You also said:

the AA symbol is not free-use, unlike the more generic atom image.

Silence, if (as I suppose above) the atom symbol is not used by an actual majority of atheists, and if (as you say) the actual symbol for American Atheists is nonfree and we are using a similar (but not identical) symbol, then why bother to have a symbol at all? The use of the trademarked symbol applies only to American Atheists, and I honestly do not see that it contributes anything of value to the article.

I would propose that instead of including the symbol at this time, we give some time for community consensus to determine if a symbol for atheism is necessary, or even desireable.

Thank you. :) Justin Eiler 05:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny enough, the Bohr Model for the atom is not even correct. But I don't think a "symbol" for atheism is necessarily needed. I've expressed my criticism for the 'invisible pink unicorn' to several people (not on Wiki) before, and beyond the fact that's it a bad graphic design anyways, it ignores the fact that atheism is not necessarily a belief in something, but a lack or belief of lack of any deities. Not all atheists agree with science (funny enough), and there is no specific link between not believing in any gods and atomism. The same problem comes up with the Darwinian "Evolve" fish.GravityExNihilo 07:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• "'Common' is a very imprecise word," - Which is part of the reason why it was chosen. I'm fine with removing it, however.
• "and if it is applied to any time period before the early 20th century," - The caption uses the present tense, and thus it should be assumed to apply to modern atheism, not past atheism, especially in light of the "History" section pointing out how recently avowed atheism manifested. Noone would assume that the caption applies specifically to pre-20th century atheism, so there is no substance to this objection.
• "Silence, if (as I suppose above) the atom symbol is not used by an actual majority of atheists," - Strawman. No one ever suggested that the symbol is used by a majority of atheists. The caption said that it was used commonly (which it is, especially relative to the other symbols for atheism), not that it was used by a majority, which is blatantly false. If I said that "men commonly wear toupees" in the toupee article, would that mean that a majority of men wear toupees?
• "if (as you say) the actual symbol for American Atheists is nonfree and we are using a similar (but not identical) symbol, then why bother to have a symbol at all?" - Because, as has been noted several times now, we are not illustrating the AA symbol, but the generic atom symbol. The caption does not say "This is the AA symbol, which is commonly used by atheists", it says "This is the atom symbol, which is commonly used to denote atheism, including by the AA organization". Please do not conflate these two very different captions, the former of which has not been proposed or suggested by anyone and is essentially a strawman. The value of the atom symbol is that it (1) illustrates one of the most common symbols for atheism, used by both one of the largest and most influential atheist groups in the world, and one of the largest and most influential countries in the world; and (2) that it illustrates the popular understanding of atheism as being more scientific than religious (hence the U.S. government replacing crosses with "atoms" for atheists).
• "give some time for community consensus to determine if a symbol for atheism is necessary, or even desireable" - Irrelevant. Please review Wikipedia's WP:NOR and WP:NPOV policies: whether Wikipedians personally feel that atheism does or doesn't merit a symbol is entirely irrelevant to whether we acutally include any atheism symbols in the atheism article. Personally, I think that the atom is a very poor symbol for atheism, and I don't see any need for atheists to use any specific symbol to denote their disbelief; but that doesn't mean that I don't see how clearly valuable a well-made, informative, free-use image illustrating such a symbol and explaining its significance is. My personal opinions on whether atheists should use symbols is entirely irrelevant: what matters is what symbols atheists do use.
• "Not all atheists agree with science (funny enough), and there is no specific link between not believing in any gods and atomism." - Irrelevant on both counts. The caption doesn't say that "all atheists use this symbol" or that "all atheists agree with science", nor does it mention atomism or suggest that belief in atoms somehow cause atheism. Rather, it correctly explains the significance of the icon and what it tells us about the popular understanding of atheism: that it values science strongly. Whether this understanding is accurate or not is completely irrelevant for our purposes, unless some reliable source addresses this issue directly: it is our job to report on the popular beliefs and understandings about issues, not to rely on our original research to judge them.
• I propose that the image description be changed to "American Atheists and the U.S. government represent atheism with an atom, symbolizing the importance of science to many atheists." This makes more explicit the usefulness of this image in the "Scientific and historical reasons (for atheism)" section. We can even add references to the changed caption. This should resolve all of the issues of ambiguity with the original caption. -Silence 14:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with the new proposed caption, though I am not aware that the US government uses the atom to symbolize atheists and would prefer to see a citation. However, Silence, I must disagree with your claim that community consensus is irrelevant to the use of a symbol. We are not discussing an issue where NOR or NPOV are significant: we are discussing whether the addition of a symbol--ANY symbol--is a positive contribution to the article. That specific decision is, and must be, a subjective one, and therefore the consensus of the community is not only necessary but (IMO) optimum.

However, please be aware that the objections I offered above are not in the form of an "I'm right, you're wrong" argument: I am offering my point of view, with an eye towards improving the article in a way that both you and I (and the Wikipedia community at large) can agree with. This is not a Zero-sum game--my personal preference is for a Win-win game arrangement, where all involved parties can be satisfied with the results. Justin Eiler 18:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In what sense does the U.S. government represent atheism with an atom? I've taken that out until anyone can explain. I have never seen that symbol used. Looks like another example of wikipedia being too US-centred (note spelling!) Poujeaux 18:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Community consensus is relevant in one way, and irrelevant in another. It is relevant in that if the Wikipedia community determines that the atom image and/or its caption does not appreciably benefit the atheism article, the image and/or caption should be removed; it is not relevant, however, in that if the Wikipedia community determines that the atom image isn't a good, fair, or useful representation of atheism, the image and/or caption should be removed. Note the difference: the former is an editorial consideration regarding the article, while the latter is an original-research judgment on the quality of a certain icon. I am fine with discussing the image on the former grounds (whether it meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines, whether it contributes productively to the article, etc.), but it is an irrelevant non-sequitur to evaluate it on the latter (whether we personally feel that the image is a good way to represent atheism or atheists).

"We are not discussing an issue where NOR or NPOV are significant:" - Yes, we are, as long as users like GravityExNihilo are arguing against using the image because they feel that the icon itself is a bad idea, rather than out of any considerations relevant to the article (such as whether the image is noteworthy, informative, relevant, free-use, etc.). Our own POV regarding the atom image is not at issue here, and should not be used to justify removing the image.

"we are discussing whether the addition of a symbol--ANY symbol--is a positive contribution to the article." - Which depends, of course, on the symbol. Whether a symbol adds new, relevant information to the article, and whether it is noteworthy enough, depends on the specific image being discussed. Remember that this image is currently in the "Science" section, not at the top of the article or in the "organizations" section or anywhere else where it could be miconstrued as Wikipedia advocating a certain symbol to represent atheism. The functions of the image are to show a certain symbol used for atheism in order to illustrate the association of atheism with science; it is not to endorse that symbol, or any other, as a good representation of atheism or atheists, hence the image not being used in "organizations" or, potentially much worse, at the top of the article.

"That specific decision is, and must be, a subjective one, and therefore the consensus of the community is not only necessary but (IMO) optimum." - I agree entirely. I have no problem whatsoever with discussing the image, as long as we're discussing its suitability and value for the article in question, not how we personally feel about the image, which is what this discussion was heavily veering towards.

"In what sense does the U.S. government represent atheism with an atom?" - The atom is a symbol provided by the government for the tombstones of atheist soldiers, much like a cross is provided for Christian soldiers.[18]

"Looks like another example of wikipedia being too US-centred (note spelling!)" - Your request for a reference was entirely fair. This statement, however, is entirely unfair, and even hypocritical: you had no problem at all with leaving a reference to a U.S.-centered atheist group, the American Atheists, yet objected to us referencing an infinitely more noteworthy source for the association, the United States government and military? Both are equally "U.S.-centric", but that doesn't make them non-noteworthy. The problem with this article's bias towards the U.S. (and the West in general) is systemic throughout the page, and no worse on this image than any other. In fact, the image caption in question is one of the least biased and U.S.-centric statements on the entire page, if one considers that many of the other statements in the article are plain-facedly and factually made despite applying only to a specific part of the world (e.g., the multitude of references to God demonstrate our bias towards atheists in monotheistic cultures), whereas this specific reference at least makes sure to say, essentially, "in the U.S.". That sort of qualification is sufficient for now: it is more important to note where a hasty generalization is being made (from a certain part of the world to the whole world) and clarify where the situation in question is occurring than to simply cull all the informational value from this article and make it uselessly vague. Expand the global scope of the article before we worry to much about trimming off any of the Eurocentric details. -Silence 19:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Gosh. Thanks for answering the question but if you could keep your comments briefer then (a) there's more chance of someone actually reading them and (b) the structure of the talk page is easier to follow and (c) there is less need for archiving. :) Poujeaux 17:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was attempting to be thorough to avoid any more ambiguity. -Silence 01:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The caption is much better now. Thank you. 165.173.82.86 15:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the IPU logo better than the american atheists logo? It's about atheism per se, not about some particular atheist organisation.

1. It's a more generic atom logo, not the AA logo, which has an A in the middle of the atom.
2. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is much less noteworthy than American Atheists, and immensely less noteworthy than the U.S. military, both of which use atoms to represent atheists.
3. IPU is not about atheism per se, it's about a specific satirical representation of theism used by certain atheists. AA is closer to being "about atheism" than a certain popular Internet meme among atheists from Usenet. Trying to symbolize atheism with the IPU would be even worse than symbolize atheism with a depiction of Russell's teapot.
4. The purpose of the atom image is to illustrate the link between atheism and science in popular understanding, not to represent all atheists under a single image, which no individual logo (especially the IPU one!) could possibly come close to doing. That's why it's in the "Science" section. IPU, on the other hand, would have no real informative purpose whatsoever, except to tell people about the Invisible Pink Unicorn joke, which is of very limited interest to the general public. -Silence 00:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This will be specifically in response to Silence: ""Not all atheists agree with science (funny enough), and there is no specific link between not believing in any gods and atomism." - Irrelevant on both counts. The caption doesn't say that "all atheists use this symbol" or that "all atheists agree with science", nor does it mention atomism or suggest that belief in atoms somehow cause atheism. Rather, it correctly explains the significance of the icon and what it tells us about the popular understanding of atheism: that it values science strongly. Whether this understanding is accurate or not is completely irrelevant for our purposes, unless some reliable source addresses this issue directly: it is our job to report on the popular beliefs and understandings about issues, not to rely on our original research to judge them." You can't expect me to take you seriously. I was simply noting there is no link, thus, there is no universal connection between atheism and atomism. The popular understanding of atheism is not atomism, nor should it be "evolution," which is exactly why Darwin is not an atheist symbol, and neither should the American Atheists symbol be a symbol for atheism (unless the article is surprise surprise, an article on the American Atheists.

"Yes, we are, as long as users like GravityExNihilo are arguing against using the image because they feel that the icon itself is a bad idea, rather than out of any considerations relevant to the article (such as whether the image is noteworthy, informative, relevant, free-use, etc.). Our own POV regarding the atom image is not at issue here, and should not be used to justify removing the image." My own POV about the atom did not make my decision, I merely included it because I didn't think anyone was so tense and bitter enough to care for a little irony. I argue that it is not noteworthy because this is not something encompassing atheists on whole. It is non-sequitor, to conclude that it is relevant for the article, because it's a symbol of an organization. Whether it is in the article or not has no bearing on me, if I actually took the time to look into this, I probably would suggest having the atom symbol (the non-rights protected one) in there somewhere. I just do not appreciate being an example of your "as long as users like," to make an invalid conclusion.GravityExNihilo 17:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I cant see why this symbol has been used in this article. Are there any sources that directly state that this is a commonly used symbol to depict atheism? This isnt the place to be debating the image itself, this isnt an opinion blog thats voting on whether to elect a symbol for Atheism. If its not cited somewhere its either not noteworthy or wrong. Jarryd Moore 17:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Leet guy

why do you ppl make everything sound so complicated all u have 2 write is an atheist is someone who doesnt believe in god done. y do u have 2 make it sound lyk a super scientific article i cant understand it at all. it reminds me of this guy who used to go according 2 my calculations he was the biggest nerd ever

because this is an encyclopoedia, not a dictionary

i think u hav a valid pt. 2 much of the articl is Rguing over defns of weak/strong/explicit/implicit (which makes it read like a dictionary not an encyclopoedia). Speshly the top section should be kept simple. As it stands it makes us atheists seem like a bunch of pedantic nerds! Poujeaux 14:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This isnt attempting to promote or riddicule Atheism, its just presenting the information; its not about making us Atheists seem like anything. The article its dealing what is essentially a complex issue that has a range of interpretations. And i have yet to find a mainstream dictionary that specifically defines different types of Atheism. Atheism doesnt just mean "someone who doesnt believe in god"; that is one particular meaning (mind you an extremely narrow one that typically only relates only to the Christian' god) but there are many others. Don't simplify something that isnt simple in its nature; it leads to things being incorrect and less informative. Jarryd Moore 17:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There is, too-often, a desire in communities to simplify a person's religious stance (or should I also say, a lack of religious stance?). Agnosticism has the same problem, people desire to over-simplify it. You should keep things as simple as possible, but not too simple. With that said, there is a lot that goes along with some people's atheism, while others may not even feel the need to be noted with anything in particular (such as those who call themselves inherently atheists). There are different reasons why people categorize themselves into atheism, and concluding one universal "atheism" is just going to ignore another group of people.GravityExNihilo 17:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Reasons For Atheism (Types of Logic)

What do people think having a mention that the logic used as a reason for Atheism can be inductive or deductive. Possibly under the "Philosophical and logical reasons" heading ... "While explicit Atheism uses inductive logic, implicit Atheism uses deductive logic as the basis of belief or non-belief." ... and with the logic references linking to the relevant wikipedia article. Just thought it might be good to mention as it explains the process of reasoning and it might be good to put a more formal name to it. Jarryd Moore 18:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

SERIOUS IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED

why do you ppl make everything sound so complicated all u have 2 write is an atheist is someone who doesnt believe in god done. y do u have 2 make it sound lyk a super scientific article i cant understand it at all. it reminds me of this guy who used to go according 2 my calculations he was the biggest nerd ever —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeansandtshirtsux (talk • contribs) .

If you dislike indepth commentary on philosophical subjects, may I suggest that you head over to simple.wikipedia.org?

Otherwise, yes, this article does need to be simplified a bit, without removing any pertinent info on the subject. What's that word again? Oh yeah, clarification. -FrostyBytes 10:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Complaints vs. Congrats

Well, I'm not sure who to thank for the rewritten intro, but I love it (bonus points for knowing why). So whoever did it, thanks! Xiner 03:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that was User:Silence - someone please correct me if I am mistaken. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought so too after (trying to) read the discussions since I was last here, but I couldn't really keep up. So thanks, Silence. Xiner 22:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Intro as of Nov 4

The intro, inasmuch as it presents 2 definitions, weighs in on the validity of the 2 definitions

"It is commonly defined as the explicit (i.e., conscious and deliberate), positive rejection and denial of theism;[5][6] however, others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as..."

• characterizing one as common & presenting 2 sources for it, one of which is Britannica Concise Encyclopædia 2002 (the other is a QuickStudy guide)
• characterizing the other usage as being promulgated by proponents with an agenda and giving 3 sources - BBC, Cline, & Stein - none of which are reference works.

In fact there are plenty of reference works which include & acknowledge a definition that includes "absence of belief"

• Dictionary of Philosophy - Peter A Angeles, 1981

  1. the belief that gods do not, or God does not, exist

  2.The disbelief in any kind of supernatural existence that is supposed to affect the universe

  3. the lack of belief in a particular God

• Dictionary of Philosophy - Dagobert D. Runes, 1962 edition

  Two uses of the term: (a) the belief that there is no God (b)Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic". The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term though widely current in the history of thought - entry by Vergilius Ferm

• Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd edition), 1999, Robert Audi editor:

  "the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism..." entry by Louis P Pojman

• http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Atheism

  atheism

  Disbelief in or denial of the existence of deities.

  Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or a supreme being.

  The doctrine or belief that no deities exist.

  The absence of belief in deities.

  Godlessness; ungodliness; immorality.

• http://www.ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/index.html?action=define&ignoreaccents=on&wholewords=on&searchtype=stemming&text=atheism&service=english2english

  atheism

  1. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

  2. The doctrine or belief that there is no God

  atheist One who denies the existence of any deity.

  atheistic Rejecting any belief in gods;

• http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?Word=atheism

  a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

  the doctrine or belief that there is no God

• http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Atheism

  ATHEISM (from Gr. a-, privative, and O€6, God), literally a system of belief which denies the existence of God. The term as generally used, however, is highly ambiguous

  ...

  But dogmatic atheism is rare compared with the sceptical type, which is identical with agnosticism in so far as it denies the capacity of the mind of man to form any conception of God, but is different from it in so far as the agnostic merely holds his judgment in suspense, though, in practice, agnosticism is apt to result in an attitude towards religion which is hardly distinguishable from a passive and unaggressive atheism. The third or critical type may be illustrated by A CandidExamination of Theism by"Physicus" (G. J. Romanes), in which the writer endeavours to establish the weakness of the proofs for the existence of God, and to substitute for theism Spencer's physical explanation of the universe, and yet admits how unsatisfying to himself the new position is. "

• http://poets.notredame.ac.jp/cgi-bin/wn?cmd=wn&word=atheism Kyoto Notre Dame University *:English Vocabulary Assistant

  The noun atheism has 2 senses (no senses from tagged texts)

  1. atheism, godlessness -- (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)

  2. atheism -- (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

  Synonyms/Hypernyms (Ordered by Estimated Frequency) of noun atheism

  2 senses of atheism

  Sense 1

  atheism, godlessness -- (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)

  religious orientation -- (an attitude toward religion or religious practices)

  Sense 2

  atheism -- (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

  unbelief, disbelief -- (a rejection of belief)

• http://lookwayup.com/lwu.exe/lwu/d?s=f&w=atheism
• http://lookwayup.com/lwu.exe/lwu/d;w=atheism/n/4586639

  LookWayUp

  1. [n] a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. More...

  2. [n] the doctrine or belief that there is no God. More...

• http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia

  Atheism is that system of thought which is formally opposed to theism. Since its first coming into use the term atheism has been very vaguely employed, generally as an epithet of accusation against any system that called in question the popular gods of the day. Thus while Socrates was accused of atheism (Plato, Apol., 26,c.) and Diagoras called an atheist by Cicero (Nat. Deor., I, 23), Democritus and Epicurus were styled in the same sense impious (without respect for the gods) on account of their trend of their new atomistic philosophy. In this sense too, the early Christians were known to the pagans as atheists, because they denied the heathen gods; while, from time to time, various religious and philisophical systems have, for similar reasons, been deemed atheistic.

  Though atheism, historically considered, has meant no more in the past critical or sceptical denial of the theology of those who have employed the term as one of reproach, and has consquently no one strict philisophical meaning; though there is no one consistent system in the exposition of which it has a definite place; yet, if we consider it in its broad meaning as merely the opposite of theism, we will be able to frame such divisions as will make possible a grouping of definite systems under this head. And in so doing so we shall at once be adopting both the historical and the philosophical view. For the common basis of all systems of theism as well as the cardinal tenet of all popular religion at the present day is indubitably a belief in the existence of a personal God, and to deny this tenet is to invite the popular reproach of atheism. The need of some such definition as this was felt by Mr. Gladstone when he wrote (Contemporary Review, June 1876):

  By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole unseen, or to the existence of God.

  Moreover, the breadth of comprehension in such a use of the term admits of divisions and cross-divisions being framed under it; and at the same time limits the number of systems of thought to which, with any propriety, it might otherwise be extended. Also, if the term is thus taken, in strict contradistinction to theism, and a plan of its possible modes of acceptance made, these systems of thought will naturally appear in clearer proportion and relationship.

  Thus, defined as a doctrine, or theory, or philosophy formally opposed to theism, atheism can only signify the teaching of those schools, whether cosmological or moral, which do not include God either as a principle or as a conclusion of their reasoning.

  The most trenchant form which atheism could take would be the positive and dogmatic denial existence of any spiritual and extra-mundane First Cause. This is sometimes known as dogmatic, or positive theoretic, atheism; though it may be doubted whether such a system has ever been, or could ever possibly be seriously maintained.

• http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/books/concise/WORDS-A.html
• http://www.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/concise/WORDS-A.html

  ATHEISM: originally used in Greece of all those who, whether they believed in a GOD or not, disbelieved in the official GODS of the State: SOCRATES was the classic instance. In the Roman Empire the term was applied to CHRISTIANS but sometimes Christians, like POLYCARP, would turn the term against their persecutors. Until the expression "AGNOSTICISM" came into general use in the nineteenth century, the term "ATHEISM" was popularly used to describe those who thought the EXISTENCE of GOD an unprovable thesis. -- from Irving Hexham's Concise Dictionary of Religion

  AGNOSTICISM: the doctrine that all knowledge of such entities as a divine BEING, IMMORTALITY, and a supernatural world is impossible. The word is attributed to the nineteenth century SKEPTIC, T. H. HUXLEY and is used by people who wish to avoid professing dogmatic ATHEISM.

AND, since many definitions include disbelief, they too include by implication all who have considered the notion of a deity and do not believe. Thus they include a great many agnostics. Some definitions of disbelief

Each time I have attempted to include a statement that reference works do include this definition, it has been reverted, with the main comment being that these might not be authoritative. I suppose it is not impossible that Lyngzeidetson's summary for a one-page QuickStudy guide to religion may one day be regarded as a highly regarded authority on the matter, but a search for his name+atheism reveals all but 2 references are mirrors of Wikipedia. Can you imnagine any other encyclopedia using QuickStudy as a reference?

Furthermore, it is not our task to weigh in on which definition is most common - unless there is some evidence to support it.

More later - --JimWae 05:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

---

While the word disbelief is not incorrect, it does not clarify the definition - it sidesteps making one.

Where to from here? I think we need to go back to presenting both the narrowest (easily sourced) definition (belief that there are no deities) and the widest definition (easily sourced) (absence of belief in deities). Then discuss the problem of definition & how it affects who gets included.

• agnostics - who typically either do not characterize themselves as atheistic and/or object to being included
• children who have never heard of deities
• adults who have never heard of deities
• religions that are non-theistic
• those who disbelieve in some deities (& are accused of atheism)

then let the reader decide

Atheism is the opposite of theism, and thus the opposite of belief that at least one god exists. Atheism has been defined both narrowly and broadly, depending in part on whether the opposition is to belief in any gods or to the existence of any gods. The narrow definition includes as atheists only those who believe no deities exist, and who would be willing to assert "There is no god". A wider definition includes people who hold no belief in any deities, some of whom would be willing to state "I do not believe in God/gods". An even wider definition would include also anyone who has never heard of gods.

Whichever definition is chosen affects who gets included as an atheist. Many agnostics express doubt and disbelief about deities, but since their position is one about uncertainty and absence of knowledge about whether or not any deities exist, few if any would assert "There are no gods at all". Some atheists would readily assert "there are no gods at all", but many people who identify themselves as atheists would not so assert, while still being prepared to assert they do not believe in any god at all.

--JimWae 05:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your proposed introduction is a good one, and much clearer than what we currently have. It lists the three definitions, without introducing ambiguous (like "disbelief") or undefined (like strong/weak) terms.

In my opinion it's simplest to give the three definitions. Previously I've been happy to consider the first two as more common than "absence of belief", but I'm equally happy to not mention how common the definitions are at all, especially as you've now provided these sources.

The current introduction lists three definitions in sequence, without any indication of how they relate, instead jumping one to the other. First it says "disbelief" (does that cover all three definitions, or does it excluse absense of belief?), then it jumps to listing only the narrowest and the broadest definitions. It then labels the latter as weak which, whilst correct, ignores that weak atheism also covers the middle definition (people who have heard of God, and state "I do not believe in God").

So I'm all in favour of your introduction. Just to pick though, I'm confused by "depending in part on whether the opposition is to belief in any gods or to the existence of any gods"? Mdwh 16:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the new intro is problematic because it seems to give precedence to the allegedly "more common" definition". I'd like to point out that this is wikipedia, not wiktionary. Including every use of a term is not the most important thing to do in an intro. If this article is about the philosophical position of atheism, we should define that from the get go. There is nothing wrong with using self-definition here. It is acknowledged in the current version that the scholars who discuss atheism and/or identify as atheist do not use the 'common' definition. It seems at best cursory to include a 'common' definition so close to the opening, when this article isn't about that concept.--Andrew c 02:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that the intro poses problems. We cannot be giving precedence to certain definitions (as is done currently), nor be asserting how common a definition is. If the philosophical concept of Atheism holds three definitions then we are obliged to include those three definitions free from unwarrented emphasis; unless for a specific reason one or more definitons is universally considered common (which is obviously not the case here. For sake of clarity it may be helpful to have three distinct definitions, each that are clearly associated with their respecitve terms (weak, strong ,etc), as the intro may appear slightly confusing to those who are not familiar with the topic. Jarryd Moore

Just a clarification

"including most atheistic philosophers and groups"

The statement above appears in the first paragraph. If there is any convincing statistical evidence to show that greater than 50% of "atheistic philosophers and groups" accept that particular usage of the term then please cite that source. If not then perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that "...'A' claims that most philosophers and groups..." rather than a blanket statement of fact.

GuyIncognito 15:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)