Talk:Atheism/Archive 27

Intro change
"is an absence of belief in the existence of deities." seems to imply that there should be a belief in a diety, but it is lacking. I'm going to change it to " the belief in the absence of a diety.   Nevermind.

Draft 1.0
Since there's been so much discussion of this recently, I thought I would put the text I've worked out for the intro here first for comment. If no one registers objections, I'll put the text up tomorrow.


 * {| style="Background: #EEF"


 * Atheism, as usually defined in the context of philosophy, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. The definition is construed broadly: covering not just those who deny that any deity could exist, but also those who, without making any claim as to the possibility of such entities, are simply unconvinced by (or indifferent to) current arguments for their existence. It is also a formally negative definition, in the sense that it makes no assertion as to what any given atheist does believe, nor does it entail any specific rationale for their lack of belief.

While some self-identified atheists also favor this purely descriptive definition, atheism, in common parlance, is more often defined normatively. While this definition takes varying forms, often depending on a given person's religious sensibilities, it is generally anchored in two perceptions: first, the sense that atheists reject the concept of deities and many of the accompanying religious norms of their culture, and second, that atheists are motivated in this rejection by their adherence to humanist or rationalist principles. As this article is part of the Wikipedia philosophy project, it seems important to provide the fully qualified formal definition up front. As the common usage definition can be fluid, I've tried to describe the factors from which it coalesces rather than try to specify the specific forms it takes, the latter being probably too unwieldy a task for an intro. While I think the language I've chosen for this is neutral, for some reason I'm not sure it comes off as neutral – but I could be imagining things. I think the distinctions descriptive/normative and formal/informal are more useful for the purpose of distinguishing the two definitions than the former broad/narrow, which, while strictly accurate, seems to miss the point. Any suggestions? (And anyone got a better term than 'religious sensibilities' to use in that spot?) --Plover 03:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * }


 * Thanks for working on this, Plover. I think the first paragraph is brilliant. I do not believe the second paragraph accurately captures the common ways in which atheism is regarded by the public. Frankly, I don't think most members of the public think enough about such things to even have as developed a view as you present in the second paragraph. I think a better approach to the normative definition(s) of atheism would be simply to list the two most common ones: (1) conscious rejection of belief in God, and (2) the doctrine that there is no God. These are the top two meanings I've found in my survey of dictionary definitions (see below), and this conforms with my own experience and readings on the topic.


 * I also think that, though the atheism article is part of the philosophy project, the normative definitions should not be given secondary treatment, since this is a resource for all people, not just philosophy majors. Due respect ought to be given to how most people use these words in everyday language, and I think one consequence of this respect ought to be that we list the most common definitions first, followed by the more specialized descriptive definition with which you lead. Defining atheism as a mere lack of belief in deities--such that infants and people who don't even consider the matter qualify as atheists--is a very small minority usage of the word, and I'm not sure even most self-identified atheists use it this way. I certainly don't. For this reason, I think it ought to be listed after the other two, following the convention of listing definitions from most commonly used to least commonly used.


 * Also, I don't believe the definitions will fall neatly into the categories of "descriptive/normative" and "formal/informal" you propose. For example, one common understanding of atheism is that it is the belief that there is no God. While this might be considered in some philosophical circles as an informal understanding of the word, it has been formalized by at least one atheist philosopher (Theodore Drange), who uses it primarily because of his belief that this definition has greater utility (it more closely conforms with standard public usage, saving much misunderstanding, and it preserves a unique meaning for another word--"nontheist"--which would be rendered superfluous if atheism were defined in the broadest sense). Rohirok 05:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Draft 2.0
So, here's a new proposal. Again, I expect I'll put this up tomorrow if no one registers objections.
 * {| style="Background: #EEF"


 * Atheism, in its most general sense, denotes disbelief in deities. However, while all definitions contain an element of absence of or rejection of theistic beliefs, there are wide variations of emphasis, inclusiveness and specificity.

In cultures with strong traditions of monotheism, atheism is often defined as disbelief in or denial of God. The use of the monotheistic term "God" indicating that atheism is often conceived as a departure from the assumed baseline theism of the culture. While this definition is in common use by both atheists and non-atheists, some atheists with a commitment to rationalism or humanism reverse the implications and assert that theism is a departure from a baseline of rational and scientific thinking. There is also in common use a second, more narrow, definition of atheism: the belief that no God exists. This definition denotes the explicit assertion on the part of some atheists that no God exists or even that no God could exist, and is similar to the formal term strong atheism.

In the context of philosophy, atheism is usually defined as an absence of belief in the existence of deities. This definition is construed broadly: covering not just those who deny that any deity exists, but also those who, without making any claim as to the possibility of such entities, are simply unconvinced by (or indifferent to) current arguments for their existence. It is also a formally negative definition, in the sense that it makes no assertion as to what any given atheist does believe, nor does it entail any specific rationale for their lack of belief. (Some atheists also prefer this definition.)

Historically, strongly monotheistic cultures have considered atheism as a form of apostasy, with those who publically professed atheism often being put to death. While few nations currently treat atheism as a capital crime, widespread discrimination against atheists exists in many places. Since, as Rohirok noted, this isn't just a philosophical article, I thought I'd try sketching some of the social issues around atheism.
 * }

Any reactions? Anything missing? --Plover 05:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Leave the 2 definition up front, then discuss them. Anything else will result in repeated edit wars--JimWae 05:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I completely understand. I assume the 2 definitions you refer to are the one currently in the article and whatever the proposal might be? And by leave them "up front", do you mean put both together on the article page itself? Is that a common procedure for significant edits on controversial pages? This is probably one of the more difficult intros to do justice to, but, well, I might as well try. And I have invited discussion – I'm actually a little surprised there hasn't been a greater response. I don't have much experience here, so suggestions about how to proceed are appreciated.
 * --Plover 08:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

LEAVE the 2 defintions up front:
 * Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This definition includes as atheists both those who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions, however, often only qualify those who assert there are no gods as atheists, labeling the others as nontheists or agnostics.

--JimWae 08:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, at least when I misconstrue someone's post I do a thorough job of it... :)


 * Anyway, one of the reasons I started doing this in the first place is because I think the dichotomy represented by those two definitions determines too much of the structure of the current intro and is misleading about how the word is used overall. AFAICT, atheists (or at least atheists who chatter online) take those as the two most important definitions, and more to the point take the distinction between the definitions to be important – something which people who haven't considered the subject, for the most part, I would guess, don't. The standard definitions of an atheist as someone who 'disbelieves in God' or who 'doesn't believe in God' do a fairly good job of semantically punting that distinction, and, I think, indicate fairly well how most people view the question. For most people – certainly most theists, but a good number of atheists too, I would guess – the only important distinction is whether or not someone derives their morality and sense of meaning from belief in a deity. In fact, the distinction isn't even necessarily that precise: many people would probably take some convincing that a Buddhist could be an atheist, because, after all, Buddhists are religious. This is what I was getting at above about normative and descriptive terms. The terms, as used by atheists who worry about the difference between implicit and explicit atheism, are a descriptive taxonomy of what a person believes. In common usage, an atheist is just someone who not only doesn't go to church, but doesn't think they need to, and doesn't even feel guilty about it.


 * There is nothing about this intro that is easy. Among the things that need to be balanced are: the common usage definitions, the descriptive definitions, how these definitions fit into more formal philosophy, recognition of how atheists self-identify, and recognition of how atheists as a group fit into society. I doubt my current proposal really succeeds at all this yet, but I've done my best to incorporate the different issues everyone's raised. To me it seems that to privilege the descriptive definitions is to adopt an atheist POV rather than a neutral POV. The atheist POV needs to be described not assumed.


 * In warning about edit wars, I assume you are referring to some of the discussions that took place a few months back. I may not have read enough of the archive yet, but so far I haven't seen that anyone was making the same argument that I am now, so I'd at least like to see someone argue against it before I switch tacks. I appreciate the warning though – part of me has been wondering when this is all going to blow up in my face.
 * --Plover 14:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the current first sentence ("Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of gods.") is better than: "Atheism, in its most general sense, denotes an absence of belief in deities." Most importantly, "absense of belief" is more clear than "disbelief" which is a bit ambiguous. The rest seems reasonable however. Mdwh 17:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This ambiguity is deliberate, and is intended to follow from the change from "broadest sense" to "most general sense" i.e. rather than the definition which applies to the largest number of people, I have tried to choose the definition which reflects the largest number of other definitions. This is the theory anyway (some of the reasoning behind this is included above). The term 'atheism' is often used imprecisely (though correctly, as opposed to the more usual case (I think) of words that are used precisely but incorrectly), and so I'm not sure the article is best served by starting with a precise definition – or at least this is my current notion on how to implement NPOV. That said, I don't think the phrasing is particularly wonderful, and I'm open to changing it. Though I think it is important to keep 'deities' rather than 'gods', I wouldn't object too much to using the 'absence of' phrasing, but I would prefer a solution that better reflects the intent I was trying for.


 * Does this make sense? Or do you still want to change it? Any other suggestions?
 * --Plover 06:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But surely, "an absence of belief" does cover the largest number of definitions? When I say "ambiguous", I do not mean that it covers several definitions, but rather that it is ambiguous to the reader which of those definitions we mean - for example, it might be implied that we mean one of the less general definitions. Furthermore, I'd say that "disbelief" at the least implies explicit atheism, and therefore isn't really the most general way of defining it anyway.


 * I agree with the rest of what you say (and I have no opinion on whether deities or gods is used), but I feel that "absence" satisfies the requirement of being the most general definition, whilst also being clear exactly what it means. Mdwh 06:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In my response to JimWae above, I discussed how I think the common usage definition works. In particular, I think it elides the difference between the two definitions that are important to some parts of the atheist community in more or less precisely the way that the wording 'disbelief in deities' does. Yes, I realize that this distinction is important to some atheists, and I think it is important that the distinction be described. However, even if the distinction were important to all atheists, I'm not sure I would think that starting the article with the distinction would make sense, as it is not an important distinction to everyone who uses the word atheist. This is what I was getting at above by the difference between describing the atheist POV and assuming the atheist POV. You and I see the term as being ambiguous because the distinction is meaningful to us, but my working assumption is that for most people, the distinction is not important. Thus, start with the generic definition that is most widely recognized, then show how that definition is ambiguous, and outline the specific uses of term that are important to the people who identify as atheists. Again, this is my current notion on how to implement NPOV.


 * On your point that "disbelief" at the least implies explicit atheism: yeah, I thought of that, it's one reason I wish I could think of better wording. I decided I cared more about the POV reasoning above. I also thought of using 'unbelief' instead of 'disbelief', but that just sounded icky and awkward to me. If it's just me and doesn't sound that way to other people, it might be a good choice. However, what you're saying also makes me think that the phrase "most general sense" probably doesn't quite work the way I intended.


 * My intent in making these arguments is less to protest the change you've suggested, than to make sure the reasons behind the choices I made are clear. If you or others are going to object, I just want to make sure the objections are to what I actually did.
 * --Plover 08:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So why do you object to "absence of belief"? I can see what you're saying about disbelief not being ambiguous to most people, but we both agree that we want a definition that includes implicit atheism, and that "disbelief" doesn't really cover that. I agree that "unbelief" is awkard (and a rather vague too, perhaps), but "absense of belief" is quite clear. Mdwh 17:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not so much that I want a definition that includes implicit atheism, but more that I think a wording where the ambiguity extended to cover implicit atheism would be more semantically elegant overall. My arguments above are intended to convey why my first choice is to err on the side of using the common form of the definition (i.e. why I think this choice better implements NPOV), and it's this rationale itself rather than any particular wording per se to which I've been hoping for a response. My reading of your statements is that you think a wording that includes implicit atheism is more important than one reflecting the most common definition. What I'd like to know is: why? How are you applying NPOV (or maybe some other principle I haven't taken into account) to arrive at your choice? My assumption is that reaching some consensus on how NPOV and such apply to the current situation may be the easiest way to minimize contention over word choice.


 * Also, FWIW, the 'absence of' language does appear in the second sentence. The purpose of the second sentence is basically to indicate the inadequacy of the common definition at conveying the range of meaning covered by the term.
 * --Plover 00:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily think that a definition including implicit atheism is more important. The article doesn't start with "Atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of gods.", it includes the words in its broadest sense, and it then gives the narrower definition (though I note we don't distinguish between implicit and explicit weak atheism - but is that important to do in the introduction?). I don't think it's a problem that we have to put one definition first - I don't care whether the order is broad->narrow or narrow->broad. I don't think it's solved by putting an ambiguous definition in front of them all.


 * Another thought I had was to consider that this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. The important issue here is an article about atheism, and not how people use the word "atheism". In that sense, I'd say that (a) the philosophical definition of atheism, and (b) how people who self-identify as atheists use the word is more important than (c) what non-atheists think atheism is.


 * Of course, we could still start off with the narrower definitions, talking about the common usage of the term, and then say "but" before going into the issues of philosophy, and of atheists. Mdwh 23:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I still think the intro should begin with "Atheism is characterized by the absence of belief or disbelief in the existence of god(s)." MFNickster 08:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, thankyou Plover for your work on this, and for engaging in careful dialogue here. I've seen the article go through many changes, many of which have involved controversies over the "proper" definition of the word, and the "proper" classification of its many subspecies. As has happened with such words as Mormon and humanism, atheism has been subjected to many tussles over ownership from all sides, and it seems that the moment when it will dawn on everyone that no single individual or group or dictionary owns this word and can fix its meaning once and for all is yet far away. In the case of atheism, where there are many definitions being used by many people at once, it's hard to know how to make an accurate, comprehensive and neutral article on the subject. My inclination is to keep this complex issue as simple as possible in the introduction. I am in favor of restricting the intro to statements amounting to: (1) a list of the most common definitions (please see below) for atheism, with a note that not everyone is in agreement on the proper definition, (2) a statement that the article treats as its subject all positions encompassed by those definitions, without taking a stance as to the proper definition, and (3) a note distinguishing atheist as a taxonomic classification in philosophy and atheist as a chosen self-identity that might carry with it certain attitudes, assumptions and significance within a given culture. I don't think the entire intro should be changed at once, nor do I think that every change to it ought to be discussed in depth here and voted on before being made. We want to avoid constant reverts, but we also want to avoid catatonia brought on by perfectionism. I think the intro right now is a pretty good start, and that we can start to build on it and tweak it. I propose that we avoid major overhauls as too contentious, and that we instead go ahead and make small changes--perhaps no more than one sentence per day per editor--keeping in mind the opinions expressed here both now and in the future, and responding with constructive criticism if we ever feel compelled to revert someone else's edit, and also taking such criticism in stride, explaining our changes if we ever feel our edits have been reverted to the article's detriment. Rohirok 08:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Draft 3.0
So, I finally got around to finishing a new draft. This is definitely closer to what I've been trying for, and should better illustrate some of the structural ideas I've discussed above. Everyone's feedback has been very helpful – my thanks to each of you.


 * {| style="Background: #EEF"


 * Atheism can be characterized, in a general, inclusive sense, as an absence of belief in deities. While this characterization identifies a chief element common to the various definitions of atheism – both current and historical – definitions of atheism are often strongly affected by social and cultural perceptions and exhibit wide variations of emphasis, inclusiveness and specificity.

In cultures with strong traditions of monotheism, atheism is commonly defined as disbelief in or denial of God. While this definition is in common use by both atheists and non-atheists, and often serves the normative purpose of identifying atheists as a social group, many self-identified atheists consider it too ambiguous to accurately characterize the diversity of attitudes toward belief among atheists.

One approach taken by atheists is to adopt the inclusive characterization given above – that is, to define atheism as an absence of belief in the existence of deities. As a definition, this is construed broadly: covering not just those who deny that any deity exists, but also those who, without making any claim as to the possibility of such entities, are simply unconvinced by (or indifferent to) current arguments for their existence. It is also a formally negative definition, in the sense that it makes no assertion as to what any given atheist does believe, nor does it entail any specific rationale for their lack of belief. Another common approach is to adopt a more restrictive definition of atheism as the explicit denial that any deity exists – or, in its more common form, the assertion there is no God – and label other positions covered under the broader definition as agnosticism or nontheism.

These approaches provide definitions of atheism that function descriptively rather normatively. However, among atheists with a strong commitment to rationalism or humanism, it is common for these definitions to be accompanied by a view that theistic beliefs are a departure from a baseline of rational and scientific thinking, reversing the more common notion which views atheism as a departure from a culture's assumed baseline of theism.

Although atheists often share common concerns regarding empirical evidence and the scientific method of investigation and a large number are skeptics, there is no single ideology that all atheists share. Additionally, there are atheists who are religious or spiritual, though many of these would not describe themselves as atheists.

Historically, strongly monotheistic cultures have considered atheism as a form of apostasy, with those who publically professed atheism often being put to death. While few nations currently treat atheism as a capital crime, widespread discrimination against atheists exists in many places. Sometimes this arises from a confusion of atheism with antitheism – a position which goes beyond just the rejection of theistic beliefs on the part of the individual atheist to active opposition to others holding such beliefs. While this is not an uncommon position among atheists, the majority do not directly oppose theism.
 * }

I don't think I really have a good sense of what would be important to include from the standpoint of philosophers as opposed to the atheism community, so if anyone thinks I've missed anything on that score, please let me know.

Any thoughts? --plover 05:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a thought I may have mentioned before: leave BOTH definitions in the 1st paragraph. --JimWae 05:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I wrote an answer explaining what I was doing to which you never responded. What I've tried to do this time is actually have no definition in the first paragraph – I've stated the unifying factor among definitions without giving it the status of one, and waited until later to show how the same wording can function as a defintion. My goal is to illustrate the fluidity with which the word is actually used. The audience for this article is not atheists; it's everyone. And this goes double for the intro, since atheists who argue about what the word means obviously already have some sense of the different ways people use it. I think it's more important to find a way to introduce the subject to people unfamiliar with it than to worry about what definitions come first.


 * It would help if you would actually explain the problem. Do you find this first paragraph offensive for some reason? If not, who would? Why? There's obviously something going on here.
 * --plover 14:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That piece is fantastic. Only one point of contention from me - the second sentence of the final paragraph seems to imply that one does not need to look far to find discrimination against atheists comparable to, say, discrimination against blacks in the 50s and 60s. I know some states still have laws that prevent atheists from holding particular positions, but if a challenge ever came up they probably wouldn't even need to go through the full appeals process before someone just put a stop to the madness - beyond that, not much comes to mind, as atheists tend not to flaunt their atheism (in my experience). Then again, I've always lived in a relatively liberal part of a relatively liberal country. Did you have something specific in mind to back up that statement, or am I misinterpreting it? --Ted 20:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A survey of definitions for atheism
Here's a survey I made of definitions linked by One Look, supplemented by the definitions I found in my own print dictionary. I found basically 4 definitions, having the following frequency:

A. Lack of belief in God = 5 B. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God = 12 C. Belief that God does not exist = 11 D. Godlessness or immorality = 8

Note that definition B is pretty ambiguous. If disbelief is defined in the weak sense (of lacking belief without necessarily having consciously rejected belief), definition B extends into the territory covered by definition A. And if denial is defined in the strong sense (of asserting the contrary of a belief, rather than merely refusing to accept it), it extends into the territory covered by definition C. Note also that definition D was generally listed as an archaic meaning.

This should give us some idea as to the frequency of the various usages of the word. Obviously, this is a very rough survey, by no means random, no doubt skewed by plagiarism between the sources, and premised on the assumption that the frequency of word usage by the public is reflected in the frequency of such definitions in dictionaries. Also, those dictionaries that are purely online are probably not as authoritative as those that are in print.

Encarta World English Dictionary, North American Edition
 * 1) unbelief in God or deities (A)
 * 2) disbelief in the existence of God or deities. (B)

Compact Oxford English Dictionary
 * 1) the belief that God does not exist. (C)

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition
 * 1) ungodliness, wickedness. (D)
 * 2) a disbelief in the existence of deity (B)
 * 3) the doctrine that there is no deity. (C)

The Wordsmyth English Dictionary-Thesaurus
 * 1) the belief that there is no God. (C)

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.
 * 1) Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. (B)
 * 2) The doctrine that there is no God or gods. (C)
 * 3) Godlessness; immorality. (D)

Infoplease Dictionary
 * 1) the doctrine or belief that there is no God. (C)
 * 2) disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. (B)

Dictionary.com
 * 1) Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. (B)
 * 2) The doctrine that there is no God or gods. (C)
 * 3) Godlessness; immorality. (D)

UltraLingua English Dictionary
 * 1) A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (A)
 * 2) The doctrine or belief that there is no God; (C)
 * 3) godlessness. (D)

Cambridge Dictionary of American English
 * 1) the belief that God does not exist . (C)

Online Plain Text English Dictionary
 * 1) Godlessness. (D)
 * 2) The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. (B)

Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition
 * 1) The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. (B)
 * 2) Godlessness. (D)

Rhymezone
 * 1) a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods (A)
 * 2) the doctrine or belief that there is no God (C)

AllWords.com Multi-Lingual Dictionary
 * 1) The belief that there is no god. (C)

Webster's 1828 Dictionary
 * 1) The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being. (B)

Columbia Encyclopedia, Six Edition
 * 1) denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence. (B)

1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica
 * 1) Denial that there is a God. (B)

WordNet 1.7 Vocabulary Helper
 * 1) godlessness (D)
 * 2) the doctrine or belief that there is no God (C)
 * 3) a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods (A)

LookWAYup Translating Dictionary/Thesaurus
 * 1) a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (A)
 * 2) the doctrine or belief that there is no God (C)

Encyclopedia.com
 * 1) denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence. (B)

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Fifth Edition
 * 1) Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God or gods. (B)
 * 2) godlessness. (D)

Rohirok 06:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC) [I messed with the definition formatting --Plover 14:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)]


 * The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has: ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. What is more interesting from that page though is this prefatory remark:
 * these words [atheism and agnosticism] are what Wittgenstein called ‘family resemblance’ words. That is, we cannot expect to find a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for their use. Their use is appropriate if a fair number of the conditions are satisfied. Moreover even particular members of the families are often imprecise, and sometimes almost completely obscure. Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic.
 * --Plover 07:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say that disbelief is equivalent to lack of belief by definition - it's not clear why Encarta is making a distinction - I'd say that "disbelief" implies concious rejection (so it can still be weak atheism, but it's explicit atheism), where as unbelief would include implicit atheism. Denial is more ambiguous between weak and strong, I agree.


 * I'd say the most important increasingly-narrower definitions are (a) Implicit weak atheism, (b) Explicit weak atheism, (c) Explicit strong atheism, which we should try to define without possibly ambiguous words like "disbelief", "deny", "reject".


 * It's also important to indicate the definitions common only among non-atheists. It's like saying that many people think a witch is a evil person who rides on broomsticks - clearly this has no relevance on those who self-identify as witches. Another example would be anarchism.


 * Another point is that the people who only use definition C tend to use "agnostic" to refer to weak atheists (and similarly, plenty of dictionaries include the "weak atheist" definition for "agnostic). But I don't believe this definition is covered over at agnosticism - there we stick with the strict definition, rather than the popular misconception of the word. Perhaps we should follow the same example here? Mdwh 23:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is one of the problems here. One of the things that should perhaps be reflected by the articles on atheism, agnosticism, nontheism, etc. is some consistent philosophical taxonomy of the various positions. However, the system of terminology that is AFAIK the most prevalent in philosophy does not map especially well onto the common usage of the terms. Secondly, unlike most philosophical terms people other than philosophers care about what the term 'atheism' means, and so the conflict between the different meanings can't be made a side issue. In other words, in addition to a philosophical categorization, being an atheist is also an identity, and each person who adopts the identity has a specific definition in mind under which they choose that identity, and people often get upset if anyone uses a definition that is too distant from the one their identity is based on – especially if that other person's terminology puts them in a different category. Note this obviously holds even more strongly for those who define themselves against atheism, i.e. those equating atheism with immorality. This is what I was getting at above in the Another intro proposal section when I was talking about common use definitions of atheism being normative: the definitions are motivated by factors other than providing a consistent (or sometimes even a coherent) taxonomy.


 * I think this problem mostly only arises for agnostics and atheists, as this is a case where there are too many concepts for the commonly known terms; weak atheism being the stance worst served by the terminology, but also, I've tended to assume, the most common. I like the term nontheist as a better inclusive term to cover weak and strong atheism than atheism, but according to the article here on Wikipedia, even that has a technical sense which is distinct from any of the standard categories (and I have no idea whether the technical definition used in that article is more or less common than the use I'm suggesting which I'm assuming is the same (or nearly) as the one used by Drange that Rohirok mentioned above). Theists don't worry about the exact definition of theism too much because, their identity is associated much more with the specific kind of theism they adhere to, so while a theist may be very incensed at being identified as a member of the First Church of the Reformed Immaculate Whatsihoozer rather than the Second CotRIW, they are unlikely to care whether they are lumped together with deists or not under the label 'theism'. I suspect even deists and pantheists (though I could be wrong about this) aren't terribly concerned about whether they're lumped under some appropriate definition of theism – obviously as long as they aren't lumped under monotheism.


 * Ok, um, shorter more coherent version of the above: 'atheist' and 'agnostic' are the categories that most commonly act as both top level taxa in the classification of religious sensibilities, and as identities for individuals, and are thus the most contentious to define. (And this is in spite of the fact that, under their technical definitions, the two terms don't even categorize the same aspect of belief.)


 * One thing that probably needs to be decided in organizing some of these articles is whether there should be any attempt to present any of the terms as constituting an exhaustive classification system. Theism and atheism are at least exclusive under (probably(!)) any set of definitions, but are not exhaustive under most. Theism/deism/pantheism/atheism is probably not much better. The theist/agnostic/atheist system as it exists in commmon usage is geared toward social realities of Western culture where agnostic and atheist serve most often to indicate attitudes to some perceived baseline of monotheism, but quickly becomes inadequate when complications are introduced. Most of the articles I've seen on Wikipedia on such terms seem to emphasize that the term under consideration actually answers a different question than any related terms. Is there some set of terms that can be established as a set of top of level categories? If there is, is it prevalent enough to form a basis for organizing a section of Wikipedia articles? And if no such categorization is reasonable, should Wikipedia address the concerns of those looking for such a categorization? If so, how and where?
 * --Plover 04:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As an athiest myself, I do not believe in the "denial" definition. It seems that to "deny" a deity, would somewhat acknowledge existence. I will not revert this article any further, but I don't agree with the new definition. I was more comfortable with "absence of belief". DakPow  e  rs  ( Talk ) 04:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Afterlife and karma consequences
This article talks a lot about God. For me the key issue in Atheism is the denial of an afterlife (belief in non-existence at death) which implies a rejection of the view that actions (karma) have consequences after death. I started looking in google but was scared of it coming up with offensive material. I would like to encourage atheists to be clear about their views about these issues.Dhammapal 08:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright then Dhammapal, let me clarify the views of me and my atheistic brethren: Most of us do not believe in an afterlife or karma, and consoquently, do not believe in punishment after death.

This does not mean however that we have no sense of ethics or morality as we believe that karma, or the threat of any other divine punishment, is not necessary to stop us from comitting murder, assault, genocide, or other inhumane acts, as we have little desire to do this in the first place, or that we would not be able to live with ourselves afterwards (Atheism does not equal sociopathy).

I hope this clarifies our views a bit more for you,

Sincerely,

--Loki Laufeyson 03:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, atheism does not imply adherence to any moral code, and, in my own usage of it, amoralism is a logical extension of atheism - God is morality, and morality requires an absolute judge to be of interpersonal significance. --Ted 03:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Take a look at situational ethics for an alternative view - in that framework at least, morality does not require an absolute judge. MFNickster 07:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Perfectly valid statement (going by the last line of the first paragraph, at least) with a name that makes no sense. What does this concept have in common with the sorts of concepts that have held the name 'morality' in the past? Even if there is no human-ish entity, any concept of good and evil that is somehow inherently different from concepts like red and walruses will do the job of judge.


 * Anyway, back on topic - does anyone object to the statement that atheism, being a negative position, makes no inherent statements about belief in morality (or anything else, for that matter)? --Ted 20:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that would be fair to say, with the caveat that any God-derived morality (see: Divine command theory) must logically be invalid to an atheist. To say that you don't believe in God, but do believe that he is the source of morality, is nonsense. Granted, some people have no trouble believing nonsense! MFNickster 19:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's not necessarily so. The concepts of God and morality certainly exist; you can talk to anyone and see that he knows what it is. The fantasy of the big man in the sky is the source of the fantasy that there are inherent truths about right and wrong. All semantics aside, though, that's quite right. If it makes the world nice and fuzzy and easy to understand, and it's always been true in the past, how could it not be fact? --Ted 20:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Please take Dammapal seriously. He (she?) didn't ask for a personal lesson, but had a suggestion for the article: that we do not only discuss disbelief in deities, but also whether disbelief in other "religious" concepts such as an afterlife, reincarnation, etc. is or is not implied by the term. Mglg 01:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Phrasing it like that, you may be on to something, but does that go beyond the scope of the article? Atheism purely by its definition speaks not of religion as a whole but of theism specifically. Now, I personally feel that the entities or ideas required to govern things like that (and morality, yay) fill the exact same role as God and therefore must be discarded in order to be consistent with atheistic thinking, but my experience is that this is not that common a viewpoint. --Ted 00:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I caused any offence. I am from Australia and atheism is mainstream (my parents are atheists and I am a Buddhist) I gather that in the US bible-belt people are often scared of being zapped by lightning if they say that believing in a omnipotent Creator God is like believing in Santa Claus. If atheism is more human-centered and the moral fear of God is replaced by a belief in one’s responsibility for one’s actions then atheism is a good first step. Dhammapal 10:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I sounded a bit defensive, it's a side-effect of being an american atheist surounded by people who would burn you for heresy if federal laws weren't in the way. I told you my opinion, and the opinion of all atheists I know, and I never intended to be scolding in anyway. --Loki Laufeyson 02:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that, like god, atheists would disbelieve any supernatural entity/reward/punishment. A strong atheists would even go so far as to deny any supernatural afterlife. Neither would use such frameworks as the basis for decision making or morality. E Warnke 13:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Atheism, as disbelief or unbelief in deities, does not necessitate any beliefs other than itself. You can be an atheist and believe in Santa Claus, or leprechauns, or the Loch Ness Monster, or whatever else you want, and you are no less an atheist for it. However, with that technicality in mind, in practical terms, the majority of people who self-identify as "atheists" hold a naturalistic worldview, and reject all sorts of supernatural, mystical, etc. forces and entities. This is a logical consequence of the fact that the atheism movement is widely based on rationalistic, freethinking, secular humanist, etc. grounds, even though this is not a necessary characteristic of atheism. And even self-identified "atheists" who are not naturalists are almost always irreligious; I've met a fair number of atheists who hold spiritual views, but who prefer to avoid strictly-defined or dogmatic beliefs, and often lean more towards New Age than New Testament. :) I think you'll find a fairly large number (even if it's a minority) of self-described "atheists" who believe in the soul and in the afterlife, but you'll find very few who believe in everlasting torture in Hell. :) -Silence 15:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "I think you'll find a fairly large number (even if it's a minority) of self-described "atheists" who believe in the soul and in the afterlife..." No. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Somerset219 (talk • contribs).
 * Closing your eyes to a fact does not make it go away. Atheists are not the homogenous, tightly-nit group you seem to imagine. They hold a diversity of political, philosophical, and, yes, in some cases spiritual, beliefs. -Silence 13:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * so Silence, your saying that someone's still an atheist if they have religious beliefs coming from the New Age religions? If an atheist believes in an after-life and a soul, then he/she is not an atheist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Somerset219 (talk • contribs).


 * What about JME McTaggart? He was an atheist and also believed in immortality. --Dannyno 11:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Presumably you realized that this statement was simply untrue, hence your retracting it, Somerset? Atheism only necessitates lack of belief in deities, not complete naturalism. -Silence 13:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong and weak Atheism
Isn't strong atheism a sub category of weak atheism? weak athism can be summed up with the statement "I do not belive in a god" and strong as "I belive there is no god" a strong atheist is therefore also a weak atheist, but a weak atheist is not neccesarily a strong atheist. I recomend revising the diagram. 24.237.198.91 08:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's correct. What's wrong with the diagram? Mdwh 03:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The diagram shows a clear separation within the circle, as if to say that "strong" and "weak" atheists are all atheists, but "strong" atheists are not also "weak" atheists. IMHO, the diagram isn't very helpful and should be removed or replaced with one showing the differences between the categories instead of trying to diagram the categories themselves. MFNickster 03:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't see any separation? There's a purple circle inside the blue circle, with no gap in between. If you mean that "purple" is separate from "blue" - well, this is the correct way to indicate a subset in a Venn diagram. If someone can make a better diagram then that's fine, but I don't see how the existing diagram is wrong. I think it helpfully shows the distinctions between weak/strong and implicit/explicit. Mdwh 03:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I see I've read it wrong - the labels at the bottom gave me the impression that the center dividing line was for both "implicit/explicit" and "strong/weak," although the colors should have clued me in. But that itself is an example of why the diagram is problematic. Worse, it doesn't serve to explain anything about the distinctions... you might as well show a simple table with the terms in it (perhaps with some shading as well). MFNickster 08:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, I agree with you here. It would be better if the weak/strong labels were closer to their respective regions, possibly with arrows, rather than on either side of the dividing line. Mdwh 22:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Question
Hi. I haven't been following the discussion, so please excuse me if this has already been addressed. I'm afraid that due to the current layout the casual reader will gain nothing from this article. What can be done? (FWIW, I'm facing a similar problem over at Drug abuse). A quick solution would be to eliminate most split sections and replace them with a top right-aligned navigation template. I would also like to move the "Reasons for atheism" as well as the "Distribution of atheists" and "Atheism studies and statistics" between "Etymology" and "Types and typologies of atheism". &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 04:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the page needs a lot of work too. There's a lot of good material, but there are consistency problems regarding definitions and so forth, and a lot more organization is needed for it to read like an article rather than an organic accretion of topics. So far I've only pursued rewriting the intro, and I haven't decided yet whether I'm going to continue after that. One thought I had though is that "Distribution of atheists" and "Atheism studies and statistics" should actually be moved to their own page (i.e. both sections as one page not two different ones) called "Atheism (demographics)" or something. The article is far too lengthy, and that seemed like one of the easiest bits to separate out.


 * I'm not sure that really answers your question though. I'm happy to see anything that makes the page more navagable. Changes to this page are often controversial, but off the top of my head, I don't know why the type of changes you're proposing would particularly upset anyone. Several people here have a lot more familiarity with the history of page than I do though. Intuitively, I would push the "Distribution" and "Statistics" sections to the end of the article rather than the top (if they remain on the page), but, like I said, any real attempt at organization will probably be an improvement over what's there now.
 * --plover 08:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What about implementing a roadmap, or at the very least, a to-do list? I tried posting an outline on Drug abuse, but the trolls showed up before I was finished with the lead. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 23:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Absence of belief?
What does this mean? Are Atheists now non-cognitivists? Since when has this been the case?--Ben 22:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * cross-posted by Ben from Talk:Intelligent_design/Townes_RFC


 * Hey, all. Benapgar's been adding spurious WP:OR notices to a variety of articles on atheism, either without explanation in Talk or with a misleading explanation. Given the lack of proper explanation and his track record here, I felt that the best response is to simply revert these additions. Just wanted to kee you all in the loop. Alienus 22:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What? I posted an explanation on talk on all three pages, and not only that, I also directed the talk to my concerns on the primary page (here). And why is what I said "misleading?" You think I'm trying to pull something on you? By all means, tell me what it is. -Ben 22:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. The reason you tagged this article as OR is because you do not understand what 'absence of belief' means? It doesn't sounds like you posted an explanation on the talk pages... oh, and you didn't post "all three pages" like you said, you missed the talk page on existence of god--Andrew c 23:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm asking a question. I don't know exactly what is meant by "absence of belief." Why is it written that way? And it seems like original research to say "[Atheism] includes as atheists both those who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not." I've never heard of Atheism being non-cognitivist, and I can't find any dictionary that defines Atheism this way. Is that what the intro is supposed to be saying? That Atheism is non-cognitivist? Check out Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism and there are quite a few references in there and none of them say Atheism is non-cognitivist. Atheists, in my experience with the word, and every reference I can find, means "those who do not believe in a God," and it only means that.


 * (And yes, I realize now that I did miss that page, but the notice is gone now anyway so it's not like I can go back in time and fix it :/). --Ben 23:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * says "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods", which is where absence of belief comes from, and there is nothing in that dictionary definition that says that atheists are only those making an assertion. It also contradicts your claim that atheism can only mean "those who do not believe in a God". And I'm not sure where it's implied that atheism is non-cognitivist.


 * Atheists consider "God exists" to be a proposition - they just don't assert that such a proposition is true (they don't necessarily state it false, by the way - many people use atheism in a way different to the link you gave, and the definition given for agnostic there is incorrect; agnosticism is about knowledge). The point is that we need to cover all the main usages of the term atheism, not just your personal opinion, or the usage as it appears on one random webpage. Mdwh 23:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is inappropriate to tag an article as either OR or not verified just because you are unfamiliar with or misunderstand a single phrase. Please google "weak atheism". The editors of this article are not making up this position, or the language used to describe it. I am unfamiliar with the term "non-cognitivist". Looking through its wiki entry, I do not see how it applies to an absence of belief. Just because you have only experienced one definition of the word, does not mean that "weak atheism" is OR on behalf of wikipedia editors. Are you making a philosophical argument against the position of 'weak atheism', or are you making an argument that 'weak atheism' should not be included in wikipedia (for whatever reason)?--Andrew c 23:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe we can clear it up this way. Is "having a lack/absence of belief in God" the same as "not believing God exists?" And if it is, let's substitute that instead. I think it would be a lot more understandable. And if that's not what the article is getting at, please explain the difference between "having a lack/absence of belief in God" and "not believing God exists."

And how does atheos, "without gods" turn into "lack of belief in gods????" It says nothing about belief at all. This is why I am concerned about original research in the article, especially concerning this "lack of belief" nonsense.--Ben 00:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Lack of belief" is the same as "Not believing", as far as I know. I don't really mind what is put there, but I guess lack/absence was chosen to make it more explicitly clear (a lot of people confuse "don't believe in God" and "believe God doesn't exist", the latter being closer to an assertion that God doesn't exist).


 * Ok, so then explain the difference between "don't believe in God" and "believe God doesn't exist." This is something I don't understand and the article doesn't explain the difference.--Ben 01:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * By the latter, I mean people who assert that God doesn't exist. There are many things I don't believe in (unicorns, ghosts, etc), but I wouldn't necessarily assert that they don't exist. The distinction most likely came about in response to people criticising atheists, saying that they need evidence/proof/faith for their claims - the point being that many atheists do not make any claims. Does that help? Mdwh 03:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And are you really disputing that atheism comes from atheos? This is backed up by many sources (e.g., the answers.com link I gave), and certainly isn't original research. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it OR. Mdwh 01:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, of course not. I am disputing that atheos means "lack of belief in Gods." That seems to be a stretch from "without Gods" of the original research kind. --Ben 01:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a fair point, I didn't see that bit. I'll remove it unless anyone who knows more about this objects. Mdwh 03:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Lack of belief" nonsense? Did you google weak atheism like I asked? You can play semantics all you want, but this is an actual term that wikipedia editors did no make up. And it is very commonly defined as lack of belief, disbelief, or absence of belief in deities. None of this is remotely controversial. Just because you have never heard of weak atheism does not mean it should be excluded from wikipedia. Are you now convinced that weak atheism does exist and is defined in these terms, and therefore its ok to be included in the articles, or did you have another concern?--Andrew c 01:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I realize there something called "weak atheism." But when someone says it means someone who "doesn't believe in God" then goes on to say it does not necessarily mean they "believe God doesn't exist" I do not understand what that means. I'm not saying the entire article is original research. --Ben 02:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I just read through the section this article about weak and strong atheism. Could you quote me the part that is confusing you? Or maybe you could edit it yourself to clear things up? I think your problem is a dualistic outlook, where someone either positively believes in the existence of deities, or they positively believe in the non-existence of deities, with no other options. Weak atheism is a third option that is not a positive belief either way (so what is something that is not a positive beleif if it isn't an absence/lack of belief or disbelief). I believe you are saying "disbelief in deties" is the exact same thing as "positive belief in the non-existence of deities", where this article (by explaining the difference between weak and strong atheism) differentiates between the two. Does this help at all? If not, could you please be specific about what content in the article is concerning to you?--Andrew c 02:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I read and I don't understand it. "they only refrain from assenting to theistic claims?" What does this mean? --Ben 02:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A theistic claim would be something like "God exists" or "there are [1, 7, infinite] gods". If you assent to such a claim (i.e. accept it as a true proposition, establishing theistic belief) then you are a theist. If you do not assent (concur, believe, or justify) such a claim, you are an atheist - whatever the reason for your position. MFNickster 03:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This is from Encyclopedia Britannica:

"An atheist denies the existence of God. As it is frequently said, atheists believe that it is false that God exists, or that God's existence is a speculative hypothesis of an extremely low order of probability." 

This is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"'Atheism' means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." 


 * Yes, and? These definitions are included in the article. Mdwh 01:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Included is not the same as being the actual definition. Defining words can also be original research.--Ben 01:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've already posted dictionary definitions showing other usages of the term. Those two Encyclopedias are not the only ones in existence; there are many sources showing the word being used in other ways. There are no words being defined here by us. Mdwh 03:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As I noted in another section above the Stanford Encyclopedia also says:
 * {| style="background:#EEF"


 * [Atheism and agnosticism] are what Wittgenstein called ‘family resemblance’ words. That is, we cannot expect to find a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for their use. Their use is appropriate if a fair number of the conditions are satisfied. Moreover even particular members of the families are often imprecise, and sometimes almost completely obscure. Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic.
 * }
 * There are several different meanings of 'atheism' in use with varying descriptive and normative shadings. 'Agnosticism' poses a slightly different problem since, while there are fewer definitions, some use it as position about knowledge and others as a metaphysical position. In addition, the position taken on 'agnosticism' affects which definition of atheism is used. There are thus two incompatible taxonomies covered by the terms. IMHO, this is the one of the main issues that needs to be addressed.


 * --plover 02:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Me too. I understand there are several different meanings, apparently, but I don't understand what those meanings are. --Ben 03:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This page may help clear up the distinction for Ben. --Andrew c 02:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly I didn't understand that page either. What is the difference between not believing in the existence of God and believing God does not exist? It means exactly the same thing to me, it's just a different way to say exactly the same thing. It's switching the words around.--Ben 03:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you believe in unicorns? If not, is that "disbelief" in the same sense as atheism? You believe unicorns do not exist, AND you do not believe that they exist. Now, do you believe in zorgs? If you don't know what they are, does that constitute "disbelief" or just a "lack of belief" in zorgs? MFNickster 03:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This has left the realm of dealing with content of this article, and is entirely about your inability to understand the difference between the type of atheism. I'm only continuing the conversation because I want to try to help you understand. So, in case you missed this, I'm going to quote a portion of the link above:
 * The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses 'atheist' to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distiniction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that the term 'god' has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.
 * Is there anything in that passage that confuses you?--Andrew c 03:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the difference between not believing in the existence of God and believing God does not exist?
 * One can find the God (or gods) defined by various religions unconvincing, and thus not believe in any of those ideas of God, without necessarily also thinking there is any certainty that some entity is not inextricably entwined with the existence of the universe (and which thus may as well be called God). It can also be a matter of whether any definition of God is sufficently specified and internally consistent – for someone who feels no such definition has been proposed, the current ideas of God are not so much disbelieved as dismissed as logical absurdities. Often these positions are called agnosticism, but when agnosticism is defined as an epistemological position, they are often called weak atheism.


 * Also, the 'lack of belief' definition of atheism can be used purely descriptively, that is, with no normative component – for example, it covers those types of Buddhists who consider the question of God entirely irrelevant or nonsensical. In such cases, it simply registers that an individual does not hold certain types of belief, without any implication as to why that is so, or as to whether the individual would identify with any normative idea of atheism.
 * --plover talk 03:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps another example might help to illustrate the difference between "lack of belief in something" and "belief that something does not exist". Before the advent of modern chemistry a commonly held belief amongst alchemists was a belief in the existence of phlogiston.  Modern chemists deny the existence of phlogiston, yet the average layman probably merely has a lack of belief in the existence of phlogiston.  --BostonMA 18:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed - before the theory of phlogiston was formulated, it was impossible to "believe that phlogiston does not exist." MFNickster 03:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I came to this talk page precisely because the first two lines of this (otherwise very clear) article confused me, which is a pretty bad sign whatever position you take. The problem, I think, is that 'absence of belief in god(s)' broadens the definition of atheism so much that it includes agnosticism (in all its forms). Here are, as far as I can see, are the seven attitudes I can have towards the proposition 'God(s) exist(s)' (which have not been clearly separated in the comments so far):


 * 1) I believe the proposition is true.
 * 2) I believe the proposition is false.
 * 3) I have never encountered the proposition, so I 'lack belief' in it. This is the sort of lack of belief in the above examples of one's lack of belief about 'zorgs' or the common man's about phlogiston and would apply to people in a culture (if one ever existed) that simply never considered the question of a God or his existence.
 * 4) I have encountered the proposition, but think it is meaningless. This is being a 'non-cognitivist' about the proposition and covers the position of philosophers such as A. J. Ayer and the example given of Buddhists who consider the question nonsensical. Such people (I think) could also be described as 'lacking belief' in God, insofar as they think formulating such a belief is impossible (since it includes a nonsensical claim).
 * 5) I have encountered the proposition, but take the stance that the article defines as 'weak atheism': 'the absence of belief in the existence of deities without the positive assertion that deities do not exist'.
 * 6) I am 'agnostic' about the proposition in the first sense (in WP agnosticism): I think the truth or falsity of the claim is 'unknown or unknowable' (the article adds 'or incoherent' (i.e. 4.) but I think this is questionable)
 * 7) I am 'agnostic' about the proposition in the second sense (in WP): those 'who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion'.

So 2-5 are the possible candidates for types of atheism. 2 is clearly atheism (and I think it is the primary and most commonly used sense of the word). 3 could indeed be seen as a sort of atheism (most definitely if we are thinking etymologically). 4 is difficult – I don’t think it is agnosticism as the WP article on agnosticism suggests, but it is also quite different from denying the existence of God, so it is perhaps safest to say it is a third, separate attitude to talk about God (as A J Ayer believed; see also http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism). On the other hand, it certainly includes a lack of belief in God and a refusal to assert that God exists, so some might want to call it atheism.

5. is even more difficult. Now this is most definitely an important part of the discussion of atheism and should have a place in the article. However I do not think it should be part of the primary definition of atheism that the first lines of the article represent.

First, it is a special notion of atheism and not how the word is normally used. Most people who argue for negative atheism recognise this point. Anthony Flew, perhaps the most prominent modern proponent of weak atheism, introduced the terms negative and positive atheism (synonyms of weak and strong atheism), noting that 'nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is "someone who asserts that there is no such being as God"' and that 'the introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be … going arbitrarily against established common usage' (God, Freedom, and Morality). Furthermore, in pretty much every reputable source that I have at hand (the OED, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Oxford Companion to Philosophy, and Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy Online) 2. is given as either the only or the primary definition of atheism. Finally, as a special notion, it is subject to debate; many thinkers think 5. is not atheism at all and many thinkers believe that it is - nonetheless, as far as I am aware, no one has ever denied that 2. is atheism.

Second, and most importantly, the reason I think it should not be part of the primary definition of atheism is that it includes agnosticism and is, thus, confusing. As defined in the article, weak atheism makes atheism a broad concept indeed, covering both senses of agnosticism: if one believes that the truth or falsity of ‘god exists’ is unknown or unknowable or is noncommittal on the question, then one (a) lacks belief in God and (b) does not assert that God does not exist. Flew also recognised that the idea of negative atheism will overlap with the common understanding of agnosticism (and accordingly he offers a special definition of agnosticism).

Thus, the first line of the article ('Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of gods') makes atheism, first, an umbrella term that includes all forms of agnosticism (sacrificing consistency and making it fairly confusing) and, second, a term partly determined by a specialised sense of the word that is a matter of debate (thus defining it in a less than neutral way that takes a position in modern controversies). Dast 18:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But you're assuming that atheism is mutually exclusive to agnosticism - I see no reason why this should be true. Atheism is about belief, agnosticism is about knowledge, and therefore there will be stances which come under both. Also, I disagree that this definition makes agnosticism a subset of atheism - it is possible that someone could believe in God through faith alone, even though they also believed that this was something we could not know through evidence. Trying to list all possibile categories is a lot easier if we simply ask "Do you believe in God?":


 * Yes.
 * No.
 * Then other ones such as "I think the question is meaningless" or "I don't know if I do".


 * But I don't see why number 2 should be subdivided in such a way that only some of those "No"s count as atheism.


 * As for sources, many dictionaries include one who "disbelieves" under atheism. I see no reason why we should exclude a definition that is both covered in dictionaries, and used by many who identify as atheists. Mdwh 18:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Atheism: a·the·ism   ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (th-zm) n.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. Godlessness; immorality.

It doesnt state it is an absense of belief. It states it is a disbelief or denial. Saying that an absense of belief is the broadest interpretation is misleading and untrue by the word's definition. Another one could say in its broadest interpretation Atheists believe a god does not exist.


 * Your edit is inaccurate in the context of the article, which describes traditions in which people have never developed a belief in a god to reject. Please stop changing this.--Birdmessenger 17:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * most broadly, that is, most inclusively, atheists do not believe in the existence of god. however, that also includes agnostics, who also do not believe in the non-existence of god. I think that the definition of atheist has to be narrow enough to exclude agnostics. Kevin Baastalk 17:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a personal pov, and it's covered in the intro. Others consider agnosticism to be about knowledge rather than belief, and do not consider them to be mutually exclusive. Mdwh 21:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How do you think that "absense of belief" differs in meaning from "disbelief"? And I'm not sure what you mean by "Another one could say in its broadest interpretation Atheists believe a god does not exist" - clearly that's not the most broadest interpretation. Mdwh 21:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Going by the definition better defines the broad aspect of the word. It would be more accurate by definition to simply say in its broadest sense it is a denial in the existence of deities as the definition states it is disbelief or denial than to say an absense of belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.213.218 (talk • contribs)


 * There is no such thing as THE definition of atheism - dictionaries disagree on the meaning. The paragraph gives BOTH meanings. What you (whoever you are) are adding makes no sense - it makes both the wider & narrower definitions pretty much the same --JimWae 04:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a definition. Going beyond the definition to apply a broad interpretation innacurately describes the word. Best stay true to the definition for credibility and accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.213.218 (talk • contribs)

There are multiple definitions. That's the point. The intro explicitly gives the "broadest" definition, which is absence of belief. Disbelief (in the "denial" sense) is a less broad definition because it refers specifically to people who believe God does not exist, as opposed to those that don't have a positive belief that he does exist (but don't assert that he must not exist). Therefore, you cannot claim that atheism "in its broadest sense" means "disbelief". That's innacurate. You either have to remove the "broadest sense" wording, or leave it as is. I vote for the broader one, since it quickly clears up misconceptions about atheists all being of the "disbelief" variety. --ConnSmythe96


 * Since you are an anon IP & not registered, you could be new (I wonder). You ought to check WP:3RR. Even if you think your edit is a "correction", 10 reverts in one day is not allowed --JimWae 05:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not know 10 edits in one day is not allowed. Saying the broadest interpretation is an absense of belief is narrow in its very wording, as such it is misleading and does follow definition. The line should probably be removed since people cannot agree on the appropriate way to word it. I have done so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.213.218 (talk • contribs)
 * Excuse me? We had pretty good agreement on how to word it, before you came along. MFNickster 06:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 4 reversions in one day merits a day's ban. Otherwise we get edit wars, like with you now.
 * Are you Clandestin?
 * Are you Dot 6?
 * THe broadest sense is the most inclusive sense. Whatever do you think that means?
 * YOu were informed of 3RR over an hour ago
 * Please restore the paragraph to what it was before you came along --JimWae 05:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There is clearly not agreement (look at the above comments) and neither case - that atheism is a denial of the existence of God or a an absence of belief in God - is obviously right. I side with the denial definition for the reasons outlined in my post above, but I can see that many people reasonably disagree with this. When we have fairly intractable disagreement like this, it seems to me to be a good idea to reflect it in the article - for example, to mention that some people do not think agnosticism is a subset of atheism and their reasons why and the reasons for the other side. What is not helpful is repeatedly reverting or, on the other side, claiming your case is obvious or widely agreed upon. Dast 10:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But this disagreement is reflected in the introduction, surely? Mdwh 22:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Atheism, Non-theism, and Buddhism
I reverted this sentence because it seemed a bit confusing and didn't seem to belong in the opening paragraph, though it is true that Buddhism is (generally) agreed to be a non-theistic religion.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Something new for intro?

 * Much of the literature on atheism discusses how it can be distinguished from agnosticism, and on whether or not atheism is itself a belief system. These issues are briefly addressed by pointing out that while agnosticism, focusing on what can be known, is an epistemological position (dealing with the nature and limits of human knowledge); both atheism and theism are ontological positions (a branch of metaphysics that deals with what types of entities exist). In this account, atheists do not need to assert "There are no gods" (which some would call a statement of belief, since it has yet to be proven), but rather simply do not count words referring to deities as among those having any referent or denotation. Some atheists and agnostics, pointing to inconsistencies in concepts of deities, go further and also maintain that the term "god" has no clear connotation (meaning) at all.

-- only problem I see is that it might be too much original research --JimWae 20:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * On one level, I like the approach that your proposed text takes in avoiding some of the definitional issues that have been raised previously. However, as it stands, I think it makes far too many assumptions about what the audience knows, that is, it appears to be addressed to philosophers rather than the average reader. Also, in common usage, agnosticism is not always used as a strictly epistemological term. (Also, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy skirts the issue in such a way as to imply a strictly epistemological usage may not be the consensus among philosophers either.)


 * Because this article has to serve so many functions, I think the important question to ask when writing the intro is, "What information does the average reader need in order for the article useful?" In my proposals, I've trended toward putting more into the intro rather than less, but I've realized this is at least in part due to the poor organization of the overall article, or at least poor organization for the purposes of a general reader. The "Typologies" section starts well, but wanders off into the kind detailed taxonomy that probably is not the most helpful thing for someone new to the subject, and the "Reasons for atheism" section, which probably is important for general readers, is stuck at the end of the article. A very minimal intro that mostly directed readers with different purposes to good places to start would be fine if the rest of the article supported that. Since that is not the case, it seems to me that more attention should be accorded to the needs of non-specialist readers who are not currently well served by the body of the article.
 * --plover talk 01:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Spiritual and religious atheism" section
"Although atheistic beliefs are often accompanied by a total lack of supernatural 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."

Uh...what? Isn't the very definition of atheism the disbelief in God or a higher power? IMO, you cannot be religious and atheist at the same time; there's just no way. The first sentence in that section is in blatant contradiction to the crux of atheism. If someone thinks they are a religious atheist, they are just ignorant, and/or confused. Perhaps they should research agnosticism and other related schools of thought. The term "religious atheist" is an oxy-moron though, plain and simple. King nothing 2 17:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly support. I've hidden section for now. If no decent reasons to keep it will be provided, we should delete it. --tasc 17:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I attend a Quaker meeting, and this is actually an issue. My understanding of it is that some people believe that reality is simply spiritual. In fact, New Age philosopher Ken Wilber has defined his conception of divinity as "The simple feeling of Being". Famous protestant theologian Paul Tillich defined god as the ground of being. This, of course, does not entail any belief in a seperate theistic being. Tillich was called an atheist by most Christian who understood his beliefs, but he called himself a Christian theologian. The holders of such views, which exist in Zen Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, and among Quakers, generally decline to label these views as either theism or atheism. It seems appropriate to discuss or to link to a discussion regarding this phenomenon in this article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * am i right that the one who calls himself "Christian theologian" might be considered an atheist according to the article? --tasc 17:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well at the very least, it needs to be revised quite a bit. King nothing 2 18:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You can certainly be religious and/or spiritual, and an atheist. Atheism is simply not believing in God(s) - nothing more. You can believe in supernatural things in ghosts or telepathy. Also, whilst most religions are theistic, not all of them are - you can certainly follow a religion such as Buddhism, which does require believe in any god.


 * The first sentence is true. I think the entire paragraph is correct, apart from the Christianity bit which I have no idea about. "Religious atheist" is not an oxymoron. Mdwh 23:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In respone to the unsigned comment above: "religious" is defined as "having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity."  The definition of "atheist" is the exact opposite of that.  There is really no way you can be both. King nothing 2 00:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The section should be added back in with revisions.  This is not as cut and dry as one might think.  See also: . &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 01:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that Buddhism isn't a religion then? The definition of religion is not so simple as that. Another common definition is "A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader." . Mdwh 02:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In all honesty, no, I wouldn't call it a religion. I'd call it an agnostic philosophy. King nothing 2 17:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not all religions are theistic, King... this is hardly a controversial point. You might define religion that way yourself, but if you do any research in the philosophy of religion you will find that you are in error. MFNickster 17:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

On a similar topic, we have the sentence "Additionally, although atheism is commonly equated with irreligion in Western culture, atheism is not equivalent with antitheism, the active opposition to theism or God." which has been edited about recently. I think that somewhere here we should summarise the idea that atheism isn't necessarily the same as irreligion, as covered later in the article (e.g., atheists who are also Buddhists). This could be done by putting in "some atheists actually hold spiritual and religious beliefs" (i.e., what it said at one point, but with "many" downgraded to "some", or is there a better way? Mdwh 22:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the current version that says "Although atheistic beliefs are often accompanied by a total lack of spiritual beliefs" is at odds with what the Royal College of Psychiatrists says on this From a mental healthcare point of view they imply a "universality of spirituality" which extends across all creeds and culture. It is extremely unlikely that an atheist would be totally devoid of spirituality if the Royal College of Psychiatrists opinion of what is spirituality is accepted. Given being religious may simply have a biological basis as a side effect of activities related to various serotonin receptors (Studies with Psilocybin have shown that people who consumed this drug have had "experiencing profound religious experiences" ) then they are probably on the right track. I propose that the first paragraph is simply set to...

''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 supernatural entities.'' Ttiotsw 09:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not as odds, it's a different definition of sprituality - they define it as "spirituality is identified with experiencing a deep-seated sense of meaning and purpose in life, together with a sense of belonging. It is about acceptance, integration and wholeness." I'm not sure that this is really a definition that is found in dictionaries. The Wikipedia article uses it in the sense of "supernatural", I presume - "spiritual" is a very vague word, perhaps we should change it to explicitly say "supernatural"? Mdwh 18:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization
Why does this article not capitalize Atheism and Atheists as I see that Christianity and Christians are capitalized in the Christianity article? --Revolución hablar ver 20:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Because 'atheist' and 'atheism' are not proper names (although technically 'Christ' isn't either). MFNickster 21:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * define "proper" names, please. --Revolución hablar ver 23:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Take a look on Wiktionary MFNickster 00:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Atheism isn't capitalized for the same reason theism isn't capitalized: they're philosophies or beliefs (or "lacks of belief", if you prefer), not religions. In general (though there are exceptions), the only times philosophical views are capitalized is in cases where they're named after proper nouns. Christianity is capitalized because Christ is capitalized, and the Christ in Jesus Christ is capitalized for the same reason the Queen in Queen Elizabeth is. The only difference is that the word Christ (originally meaning "anointed", a direct Greek translation of the word messiah) has survived and flourished in English only in the "Jesus Christ" name, whereas queen (like god) can be either capitalized or uncapitalized. Though religions and political parties are conventionally capitalized (which is why both communism, the economic philosophy, and Communism, the political party, are valid capitalizations), philosophies and worldviews like atheism, existentialism, and materialism are usually not. -Silence 00:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of atheism
-snip-


 * As no one objected to the suggestion, this discussion has now been moved to User talk:Alisyd on the grounds that it is, though an interesting discussion, irrelevant to the atheism article, and thus serving only to distract from Wikipedia's purposes. Please feel free to continue the debate there ad libitum. -Silence 13:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

agnostic atheism
The article agnostic atheism was previously split from atheism. The article is currently selected for deletion. If you have any opinions on this issue, please join the discussion at Articles for deletion/Agnostic atheism. Thank you. Adraeus 00:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How absurd. Agnostic atheism has over 30 times as many Google hits as agnostic theism, four times as many references, and a tenth as many dubious claims (in fact, while "agnostic atheism" is primarily a disambiguation page for helping clarify to users what use of that term might mean, "agnostic theism" makes dozens of actual claims about the nature of knowledge, God, etc., most of which is probably original research; even its only citation, from the "rebuttal" section, doesn't seem to use the term "agnostic theism" and is actually about a mostly-unrelated topic: whether agnosticism is actually a subtype of atheism), yet its never been proposed for deletion and doesn't even have any "cleanup" tags on it, presumably because it's so long and has so many pretty pictures. -Silence 14:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Atheism as a religion
Atheism cannot be judged as or as not a religion. Reasons: Atheist nations persecute other religions. This level of fundamentalism is found in many religions. Religion does not need an institution, it can be personal. Read the definition below. The Seventh US Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the prison violated Kaufman's civil rights by not considering atheism as a religion and protected form of religious expression. Therefore to say implicitly that is or is not a religion is showing bias.

Definition(see 1b and 4):

re·li·gion   ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (r-ljn) n.

1a: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 1b: A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2: The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3: A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

-Clandestined


 * I find your intial sentence somewhat mysterious. Would it be correct to interpret it as "atheism is a religion for some folks, and for others it is not"? Are you suggesting that atheism can fulfil the definition you pasted under item #4? I apologize if I seem to be putting words into your mouth, I just didn't find the above very clear.


 * At any rate, these so-called "zealous atheists" (if that is what you're referring to) must be awfully rare. I've met many atheists but no zealous ones.


 * Anway, as to stating in the introduction that atheism isn't a religion, it does seem rather superfluous. --Yath 06:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That may be one way to interpret it. Stating that it is or is not shows bias. As for your comment about Atheist zealots. If you go to Wikipedia's article on North Korea you will read they are an official Atheist state and they persecute Christians more than any nation on Earth according to the study mentioned. If you also read the article on the former USSR you will see the similarity. As well as Cuba and China. So it is plausable to draw a conclusion between Atheist fundamentalism and any other type of religious fundamentalism.

Clandestined —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.213.218 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi Clandestined--This:


 * So it is plausable to draw a conclusion between Atheist fundamentalism and any other type of religious fundamentalism.


 * would seem to fall afoul of a Wikipedia policy called No Original Research. The article should only discuss what notable sources have said about atheism.  In particular, if an edit:


 * ...introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
 * ...introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;


 * then we should not make that edit.


 * However, your point about US courts finding atheism coeval with religious belief would merit mention somewhere in the article (accompanied by a citation), in my opinion anyway.


 * Also, if you want to sign your posts with name and timestamp, just hit the tilde key four times, like this: ~.
 * Birdmessenger 11:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this whole debate deserves a subsection of its own, preferably under Section 6 "Religion and atheism". MFNickster 13:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As someone said in the history, state persecution of the religious isn't a religion; it's simply state persectution of the religious.


 * Definition 4 above has nothing to do with "religion" in the sense of any of the other meanings (i.e., what Wikipedia covers at religion). This usage is there to cover the usage of referring to anything, such as being a football fan, as a "religion". A dictionary needs to do that, but Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. To claim that two things are the same (i.e., atheism and other religions), because they can both be described by the same word, when you are using entirely different meanings of that word, is a fallacy. Thus, definition 4 should not be considered (except perhaps to point out that atheism can only be referred to as a "religion" in this sense, but is certainly not a religion in the more usual sense).


 * I'm not sure how definition 1b applies. Since 1a doesn't apply, there clearly can't be a system grounded in such belief. Mdwh 14:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how any of them apply. I'm not seeing any objections to 'atheism is a negative position and does not necessarily imply anything other than not being theistic about atheists', and I've never heard of a religion that makes no statements whatsoever about what should and shouldn't be done. Some (many? most?) atheists have principles that could be classified as religion (e.g.; any form of morality that ends with 'just because you do/don't do that'), but those are personal things and have nothing to with atheism as a whole.


 * Also, since there's no need to post twice - let's say that North Korea is defined as a nation by its atheism and it slaughters/oppresses thousands of Christians per year (poor minority, underrepresented bastards). Millions more were killed in the Crusades, and Hitler invoked Christianity on many occasions in arguing for the oppression of Jews and all the other undesirables. Does this mean that something about Christianity inherently leads to genocides? Of course not. --Ted 20:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

People should just accept atheism as it is. I respect Christians, Islams, etc. We should just all respect each other and stop hating everyone because they are not the same religion. A lot of people think that we athiests are like that because the devil made us do it. As a fact though,I thought we do not believe in the devil either. I would like this to be added if it already is not. Chad wolfe

I removed the sentence "There are specific individuals whose religious or spiritual beliefs some might describe as atheistic, though those holding such beliefs do not normally describe themselves as atheists" from the second paragraph. In its current form it conveyed very little. In earlier versions it made a point that even some people who "are" "religious or spiritual" (in some unspecified senses), and who do not self-describe as atheists, may be considered atheists by some other people's definitions. That was at best a debatable point and hardly one central enough to be worth a place in this concise definition/introduction section. - Mglg 01:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"Atheism cannot be judged as or as not a religion. Reasons: Atheist nations persecute other religions." Christian and Muslim nations persecute other religions. --Macarion 20:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Atheists belief?
I cannot analyse the logic of every atheist. But surely the word 'belief' is a strange one. I mean, we are all naturally disbelievers. We only start accept or know things when it becomes apperent to us that we should do this. I mean, I do not belief that leprechauns do not exist. Logic and reason forces me to assume they do not exist. Same with the pink invisible unicorn, Russel's chinese teapot, the spaggetti monster, etc. But also all kinds of other theories that are unfalsifiable. What theists do is to suspend their disbelief. All people are naturally atheists on all subjects. People do not believe in things. Children do, but adults generally do not. When one starts to belief in a conspiracy theory, in ETs visiting earth, in fairies or in god one suspends disbelief. What are all the people's stances on the endless lists of gods and demigods? Are we agnosts? Atheists? Do we need to define that one is a weak atheist on Zeus and Apollo but an atheist on Ishtar, Enlil, Ano and Enki? And are we nontheists or even Ignostic on the gods of the Mayans and Incas? I mean, I do not even know the names of these gods. I don't care. Surely one realises that one is naturally a disbeliever. A monotheist is an atheist that makes an exception.

--If "belief" is strange here, then "assert" is even odder. Assert is an overt act "To state or express positively"--from dictionary.com. One however can feel that no gods exist without making any overt assertion of such to anyone. Maybe "feel" would be better than either believe or assert?

I have no idea what you mean when you say one is naturally a disbeliever. Just because I don't believe someone named Johnny Appleseed ever existed does not mean I disbelieve that himans existed before I born, with some exceptions. The existence of a supernatural being logically preceeds that being's name. Does a Christian disbelieve in Allah, or does he or she think that the concept of Allah is an approximate construct in his or her true god, with the ancient deities you mention being lesser approximations? The concept of belief is not as black and white as you make it out here. ---Zathras 31 May 2006

I think this might be an fallacy of Equivocation since it appears to use belief in two very distinct ways. The blind belief or faith a theist places in god(s) or dogma is much different from the inductive belief based on empirical evidence that a strong Atheist might have. It's the difference between "I believe in god" and "I believe the world is round". A strong Atheist might say "I don't believe in god" as easy as they might say "I don't believe in werewolves" but most people would not flinch at the second statement. Eric  169.226.88.133 14:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I don't feel or believe anything. No one can postulate a falsifiable theory of god. And there it ends. No one can tell me what god is. So how can I know if I either have to support or oppose this theory? How can I consider the evidence for and against? Let alone belief or disbelief it. Or feel anything about it. I myself cannot come up with a concept of god that describes and/or fits reality. I don't belief there is no god. But I don't believe in god either. I don't have to. The whole concept is just thrashed because it does not relate to reality.
 * So since I do not believe god does not exist, what am I? Surely I am not an atheist, right?


 * If you think there were no humans before you lived then you have a theory, the theory that there were no humans. You aren't a disbeliever if you believe. You are a disbeliever if you have no believe about it at all. You don't know if there were humans before us or not; you do not take a stance. And then instead of comming up with a story and believing in that you go out and find out. You look for evidence of humans living in times before. Then you know.
 * So, you can observe that humans lived before we did. No need to belief it. First there is either nothing or an unknown. Then we explore and observe it. Then someone postulates a theory. Then we try to refute it. If it doesn't it describes reality accurately enought.


 * But when we talk about god there is neither evidence pro or con, there is no falsifiable theory about god. There is nothing to consider. It is a non-issue.
 * user:212.187.69

LaVeyan Satanists
"LaVeyan Satanists are technically atheists, because they do not believe in the existence of any deities in a literal form." Those people have a bible and a belief in a higher power or being so they are NOT atheists. Obviously someone wants to tie Satanism and Atheism. I've removed it because they are not "technically" or otherwise atheists. (Anonymous User) May 25, 2006


 * What "higher power" do they believe in? And I don't see that having a Bible changes anything - a Bible makes one religious, it doesn't make one a theist. Mdwh 22:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Satanists do not necessarily believe in a divine higher power; the above anonymous user is clearly operating under gross misconceptions about Satanism, and especially LeVeyan Satanism. However, LeVayan Satanism also does not preclude belief in deities (see LaVeyan_Satanism): atheists and theists alike can be Satanists. So, I have no problem with removing the information Anonymous User removed as an overgeneralization, even though his rationale for removing it is extremely suspect. -Silence 22:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Section order
Etymology and definition of the word the article is about (the latter of which the "types and typologies" section largely deals with, elaborating on the intro) comes before the history of the concept it describes. In fact, the etymology would come in the intro if it wasn't such a long section; putting it after the history is absurd. The original placement for "history" was excellent; the new one is unhelpful, counter-intuitive, and poorly-planned. Also, we should probably make "Distribution of atheists" a subsection of "Atheism studies and statistics". -Silence 23:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reversed the order of History and Etymology based on your comments. I agree, it works better.  I also agree about making distribution of atheists a subsection of Atheism studies and Statistics, though we shouldn't have subsections for each country if we do that.  Finally, what do you think about the placement of "religion and atheism"? I think it may work better going in between "Reasons for atheism" and "distribution of atheists", since it does deal with the motivating factors behind atheism and its interplay with religion. --Danaman5 05:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good feedback; I'm glad we agree about history/etymology. I think we could shorten the "Distribution of atheists" section sufficiently to make it a subsection of "Statistics" by putting some of the country-by-country details in a daughter article, Atheism by country, modeled after the Religion by country series of articles. Per my comments on this article's FAC, I also think we should create a new section, "Atheism in philosophy" or "Philosophy and atheism", similar to the "Religion and atheism" section, and imagine an organization somewhat like:


 * Etymology
 * History
 * Types and typologies
 * In philosophy
 * In religion
 * Studies and statistics
 * Reasons
 * Criticisms
 * In my view, "reasons" and "criticisms" go together well because many of the criticisms serve as attempted rebuttals for the reasons, and vice-versa. And I like including the "religion" section earlier in the article because atheism's role in various philosophies and religions is pretty closely-related to the various types of atheism that exist, whereas statistics is a substantially different matter, though admittedly the geographic factor relevant to many religions complicates matters. -Silence 06:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"questioning the goodness and morality of religions that have brought us such things as holy wars and inquisitions"
I really think that the recent addition of some of the text below:

Many people who self-identify as atheists do tend to share common skeptical concerns regarding the evidence of the world's many deities and creation stories as well as questioning the goodness and morality of religions that have brought us such things as holy wars and inquisitions.

does not belong in the intro.


 * 1) It is not cited.
 * 2) Religion and particularly the supernatural encompass far more than deities and creation stories.
 * 3) The tone of the bolded text is particularly inappropriate to this article.

Please consider removing it.--Birdmessenger 19:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is too bad, those are the main objections of atheists. It would be nice to have a citation if you can find one though. And I don't see what is wrong with the tone - in an article on atheists you need to identify what they believe, which is a POV, and the historical evils linked to religion is used as evidence that religion is not intrinsically morally "right". Sad mouse 21:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Be careful about identifying atheism with anti-religion though - they can be very separate - and some atheists might even say that religions have done a few good things too --JimWae 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - but the atheist stance is that religion is not "intrinsically morally right". Most atheists would agree that religion can do good things, but some would point out that it also does bad things, and thus the moral correctness is not intrinsic and is rather human derived (thus removing the need for a God). I know pro-religion atheists who wish there was a God, so your point is taken that anti-religion and atheism are distinct, but they are very overlapping too, so I don't think this was too bad. Sad mouse 00:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the editor who added those bits, Steven Argue, does not seem to be participating on this talk page. I will post to his talk page and ask him to state his reasoning (as well as any cites he may have to support these assertions.) KillerChihuahua?!? 19:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Atheism - antitheism
Not all atheists are opposed to belief in a deity or deities; see WP article antitheism. The clarification is relevent. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not all atheists are opposed to belief in a deity or deities, that's true enough in the sense that not all atheists actively promote their non-belief. They are still opposed to such belief enough to not hold them. My issue is not with this fact, but with the "normally defined" wording, which belongs among the worst kind of Wikiweasling. Nobody claims atheism is equivalent to "antitheism". Antitheism is a subset of atheism, and properly has its own section with main template here. I disagree with your insistence that antitheism must be linked from the (already overlong) intro. We don't list other things atheism is not equivalent to, either, without the implication that atheism is equivalent to nihilism, satanism, vandalism or pedophilia. You can rest assure that anyone reading the article will understand your point. We even have a bleeding diagram showing the difference between "weak" and "strong" atheism, for crying out loud. The problem is not with the article being unclear, but with it droning on and on for too long about terminology so that nobody is very likely to read it in its entirety. Which in turn motivates you to cram whatever you happen to want noticed into the intro. Which extends the intro beyond readability. I hope I have made clear that my position is not in factual disagreement with yours, except for points of article layout and organisation and stylistic issues. dab (&#5839;) 17:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, antitheism is not necessarily a subset of atheism. Read the article, there are two primary forms of "antitheism": the first denotes "opposition to belief in God", whereas the second denotes "opposition to God". Only the former can be construed as requiring atheism. Overall, antitheism is a complex and very loaded term that we probably should cover minimally, if at all, in atheism's intro (though certainly there's room to address antitheism/atheism misconceptions later in the article). Also, "Nobody claims atheism is equivalent to 'antitheism'." is simply untrue. Also, of the above examples you gave, most are absurd; the only one that would, perhaps, be a good idea to mention alongside antitheism is an incorrect thing to equate atheism with is nihilism (though all nihilists may be atheists). I have to disagree with your point, though, that the article is clear in explaining that atheism isn't "opposition to God/theism". I could easily see someone skimming through a fair amount of the article without realizing that; I see no harm in avoiding such a common misconception with a few words in the intro, as long as there's room. -Silence 17:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * do you see the, what, 26 archive links at the top of this page? I have watched this article from about number 7. I am extremely bored by these discussions about mere terminology, and all I want is make the article readable again. I know my examples were absurd, they were of course intended to point out the absurdity of KillerChihuahua's assertion that the statement needs to be in the intro because it is true. I really don't give a rat's ass about the various definitions of "antitheism" because I think this is a term that creates more bother than its worth. I'll leave you to unravel it at antitheism to your heart's content, but featuring it in the intro here is just not helpful. What do you mean, "atheism isn't 'opposition to God/theism'"? Of course it 'is', meaning it comprises. You left out the crucial "equivalent": "atheism isn't equivalent to 'opposition to God/theism'": here you go: pure terminological hair-splitting unconductive to a better article. Atheism is the state of not believing in God or gods, that's the full definiton, entailing all that atheism is not. I don't see any claim of "atheism=antitheism" here, certainly not in the antitheism section, so I don't know what you mean when you say my assertion that "nobody claims" is false. I meant, of course, nobody here claims this, nor is any such claim referred to. I am prepared to believe that there was such a claim made on Usenet back in 1991 if you tell me so, but I would fail to see how this is at all relevant. Ah, and there is no room. We seriously need to branch out a lot of material, maybe beginning with exporting the whole statistics section to Demographics of atheism or something. dab (&#5839;) 18:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoa! I do not insist, I did not add this bit, I did not state that this needs to be in the intro. I responded to an edit summary of "the point is that "antitheism" is not 'normally defined' at all. it is a minority coinage with an agenda" with the statement that it is indeed defined, in the Oxford English dictionary. I am more than open to the concept that it is not necessary in the intro or indeed at all in this article. But do not put words in my mouth nor impugn me with motivations and positions I do not hold. Absurdity of "my assertion that the statement needs to be in the intro because it is true"??? Indeed. dab, 99 times out of 100 I find you civil, reasonable, and one of the editors most careful not to mis-characterize other editor's positions. In this case I find this not to be so. Please reconsider your statements about me. I defy you to find a single instance, ever, of my stating something should be in an article because it is true. I find this highly offensive. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Assume Good Faith much? FeloniousMonk 19:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * DAB, this isn't hairsplitting at all, many atheists would be profoundly offended to be called antitheists and by any definiton weak atheism is not antitheism. The distinction is an important one that is endorsed by major sources such as the OED. I don't understand why you consider this hairsplitting. JoshuaZ 19:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There are MANY misconceptions of atheism - they should be covered in the article AND introduced in the intro --JimWae 19:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Jim. And dab, you are way off track here -- putting words in another editor's mouth is simply wrong.  Bad day? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Atheism & Buddhism & Materialism
Arguments about whether Buddhism and atheism are compatible do not belong in the intro, but in the main body - particularly not when only one side of the argument is being presented. It is sufficient to mention the topic in the intro & cover it later.

Arguments in the intro that imply that all atheists would agree with materialism also do not belong--JimWae 19:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * concur, even to the point of not mentioning it in the intro. Why don't you be bold and change that? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree.--Birdmessenger 19:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Buddhism has been described as “nontheistic”. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism#Nontheism_in_Buddhism Dhammapal 20:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will move it to the religion and atheism section. -Steven


 * Although atheism is commonly equated with irreligion in Western culture, some religious beliefs (such as some forms of Buddhism), though not often so identified by the adherents, have been described as atheistic.


 * I don't feel the above statement belongs in the intro, nor in the article. some religious beliefs is innaccurate as being atheist. Putting in improper definitions of atheism just because someone is ignorant of what atheism is but has said it contributes is stupid. Buddhism is a religion, which is theistic. It may not be a typical western religion, but it inquires beliefs of the supernatural, which is a religion. The quote below was to back up the claim that buddhism is non-religious, however, the quote makes no such claim.


 * from nontheism: When the doctor arrived to remove the arrow, the man grabbed the doctor's hand and asked, "Before you start treating me, Doctor, tell me, who was it that shot me? Was he of warrior class or some other class? Was he tall or was he short? Was he young or was he old? Was he dark skinned or light skinned?" The doctor ignored the questions and removed the arrow. Had he taken the time to answer the questions, the patient would have died. For this reason, said the Buddha, I will not answer your question about God. If I did, you would just spend your time in endless speculation, and never awaken from your current state.


 * The Buddha implies he does not answer questions about god because it is not a priority he feels obligated to address, not that he doesn't believe in such a diety. this is not atheism.


 * How about: Although atheism is commonly equated with irreligion in Western culture, some religious beliefs (such as some forms of Buddhism) are generally considered nontheistic.?


 * "have been described as atheistic" is it bit bad - it doesn't say *who* describes them, and is a bit vague. But Buddhism most certainly is not a theistic religion. See Theism and God in Buddhism. Theism (and atheism) is about God, not the supernatural in general. Mdwh 23:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My point is, is that Buddhism has dieties and it seems that somehow they arent dieties. Below is one of the definitions of a Deity, because wikipedia doesnt have one:


 * any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force.


 * From God in Buddhism: although it does teach the existence of “gods” (devas), these are merely heavenly beings who temporarily dwell in celestial worlds of great happiness. Such beings, however, are not eternal in that incarnational form and are subject to death and eventual rebirth into lower realms of existence. -- These are deities. That excuse doesn't make sense. they're supernatural, but there not deities because they die? Somerset219 01:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * what about connecting this section to some actual literature? Here's one:  "Princpled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition", Richard P. Hayes, Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16(1) March 1988, p.5-28 and


 * Although atheism is often equated with irreligiosity in Western culture, not all atheists are necessarily irreligious or nonspiritual. Some formal religious beliefs, such as several forms of Buddhism, have been described as atheistic due to their lack of any participating deities, these beliefs are not generally identified as such by adherents. Atheism is also sometimes erroneously equated with antitheism (opposition to theism) or antireligion (opposition to religion), despite many atheists not holding such views.

How are participating deities and personal deities different? Why can't we take this out, or place it under buddhism? This is a supernatural religion, how is it atheistic? Just because it's different from A-typical religions doesn't make it atheistic... does it? Somerset219 04:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling that Buddhism may be labled Atheistic due to the nature of denial of existence of god/s and the the denial of the existence of an immortal soul and the basis of moral and ethic not being based on god. Some might see that as atheistic n nature. Monkey Brain(talk) 04:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * please read my previous contributions and questions above. In other words, I see no denial, I see different religious customs. Somerset219 19:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hah, custom? lol, without understanding what is Buddhism, you had made an error in judgement. The denial of existence of Creator God and immortal self(note:soul is western custom/theology) is not a custom, but a part of a philosophy. The rest of the dieties are presented as not useful (this could be because Buddhism had to adapt to different theistic settings(Bon, Hinduism, and others unmentioned)). And there is no "participating"/"personal" dieties in general Buddhism. Monkey Brain(untalk) 06:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Assert vs. Belief
--An earlier comment states that belief is a strange word for use as the atheist's postion. However, if "belief" is strange here, then "assert" is even odder. Assert is an overt act "To state or express positively"--from dictionary.com. One however can feel that no gods exist without making any overt assertion of such to anyone. Can a person on a desert idland not be a strong atheist? Maybe "feel" would be better than either believe or assert?

I also have no idea what the comment that "one is naturally a disbeliever" means. Just because I don't believe someone named Johnny Appleseed ever existed does not mean I disbelieve that himans existed before I born, with some exceptions. The existence of a supernatural being logically preceeds that being's name. Does a Christian disbelieve in Allah, or does he or she think that the concept of Allah is an approximate construct in his or her true god, with the ancient deities mentioned being lesser approximations? The concept of belief is not as black and white as it is made out here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.144.203.153 (talk • contribs).


 * I am assuming the he sentence in question is:


 * "This encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not."


 * The way assert is used here is describing a particular subset of atheists, not all atheists as the next part clarifies. Unless you want to argue that there are not some atheists who positively assert that there cannot be any gods, I don't think the change is warranted. Nowimnthing 19:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Invisible man in the sky
The critisms section was edited to contain this paragraph:

"Other criticisms are based on ideas that it leads to poor morals or ethics, or that lack of belief in a god is as much (or more) a leap of faith than belief in a god. This has been countered by atheists that have pointed to the lack of morality in many acts inspired by religion and the leap of faith it takes to believe in an all knowing invisible man in the sky that created everything based on no empirical evidence. Much has been written to support and to counter these arguments. "

The second scentence does not belong for these reasons:

1) It is poorly worded.  I'd fix it except that 2)  The criiticisms section should contain criticisms and 3) The phrase "all knowing invisible man in the sky" is not a NPOV, as I think just about no religious people describe their deity that way.

Comments welcome. PitOfBabel 17:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hrm, replace "all knowing invisible man" with "deity", for starters? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly. I admit I'm not making much of an effort to fix it.  The reason is that I don't understand why we're putting responses to criticisms in that section.  The section is titled criticisms, and it links to an article that goes into plenty of detail on both sides.  If others continue to disagree I'll let it go like a good helper monkey.  PitOfBabel 17:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Open to ideas on that one... concur is "Criticisms" OTOH we don't have "Rebuttals". KillerChihuahua?!? 17:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is there even a criticisms section to begin with? There are already criticisms of atheism in other parts of the text. Why then should the article end with a non-neutral section of criticisms? Is there a criticisms section for Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc? Do they end with a section questioning the moral fiber of religious people? If not perhaps we should delete the criticisms section here, or else add a criticisms section for every religion. I move for deletion of the section, especially if blatant non-neutral points of view cannot be answered in the section. -Steven Argue


 * The atheism as immorality section fits in better in the history section - not in typologies. A criticism section is appropriate - but responses are needed. Where in the article to put that may require some work. "Invisible man in the sky" is sophomoric - --JimWae 18:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur, article is too negative, Invs. man should be simply "deity", and a slight re-org may be in order.
 * What does everyone think of Steven Argue's suggestion that the Criticism be removed?
 * NOTE: Please remember to sign your posts using four tildes, Steven. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I will second the motion to delete that section as we have a whole page already devoted to the subject Criticism of atheism. We can just mave that link to 'see also'. I still feel we need something about persecution, but maybe that can just incorporate that better into the various religions section. Nowimnthing 18:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Invisible man in the sky is an appropriate response to the absurd: "lack of belief in a god is as much (or more) a leap of faith than belief in a god." Either both should be removed, or neither should. -Steven Argue


 * I advise against edits that describe a supposed general atheistic "response" to various criticisms. In the intro, it says: there is no single ideology that all atheists share, nor does atheism have any institutionalized rituals or behaviors. Indeed, atheism is inspired by many rationales, encompassing personal, scientific, social, philosophical, and historical reasoning.
 * I also reiterate my strong opposition to language such as "invisible man in the sky" and "questioning the goodness and morality of religions that have brought us such things as holy wars and inquisitions." JimWae said it best, I think.--Birdmessenger 18:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The statement it has been "countered by atheists" does not imply a generalized athiest response. I guess you are looking for a more explicit statement that this only reflects some athiests that are willing to defend their views from criticism. I will edit to reflect this. In fact I'll see if I can find the exact quote from George Carlin. On the other points, as I've already stated, I am only countering the strong anti-athiest statements that are already presented in the section. -Steven Argue


 * Good grief, not Carlin, please. I agree that the leap of faith is unsourced, makes no sense, and should be removed and am doing so forthwith. I also agree with Birdmessenger that "invisible man in the sky" is completely inappropiate. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't like Carlin, a great comedian in my opinion, but oh well. Anyway, I can agree to getting rid of both statements.

Just for kicks here is George Carlin's statement (too long and brash to use for these purposes anyway I realized after finding):

"Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time...but he loves you." George Carlin

-Steven Argue
 * I love Carlin. He's not an expert on Atheism, however. He's a standup comic.
 * Please, please sign with four tildes. I cannot stress this enough. It adds the time/datestamp which is important for reconstructing discussions. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't using him as an expert source, only using the argument itself. In addition he is the opinion of one athiest and that opinion does reflect the opinions of some other athiests as well. I'll see what I can do on this sign-up date-stamp thing you are talking about. -Steven Argue

Evolution
Steven Argue, I am confused why you reinserted (into the "Scientific reasons" section) the long paragraph that only explains the scientific basis of evolution and does not discuss atheism at all. This is an (already too long) article about atheism, not about the evolution-vs-creationism debate. Evolution is as you know one of the most well-established and -- in scientific circles -- universally agreed-upon concepts of science, and this article is not the place to debate it, certainly not to paint it as a controversy by sounding defensive. I had tried to include what I thought was the intended relevance to atheism of that paragraph into the preceding paragraph, explaining some implications of evolution for atheism, not merely defending evolution. (By the way, if one did want to include an experimental observation of evolution in action, speciation by hybridization is a horribly atypical example to use, being sudden instead of gradual and not driven by either random mutations or selective pressure.) Can you explain the thoughts behind your decision to revert? - Mglg 21:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, is evolution really by necessity contrary to all conceivable theistic creation stories? Would a hypothetical theism even need to have a creation story? Remember, this is about categorically rejecting all theism, not about rejecting some specific religion like literal Christianity. It seems to me that all we can say is that evolution is contrary to some theistic creation stories, and that to some athesists this is a basis for their rejection of those specific theistic beliefs that are based on those creation stories. - Mglg 21:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * When I wrote the section on "Scientific reasons" I gave the following explanation as to why evolution is important to include in any discussion of atheism, "Evolution, while being accepted by some people who believe in deities, is contradictory to theistic creation stories and serves as a reason for many atheists for their rejection of theistic beliefs."


 * An understanding of evolution is a "reason for atheism".


 * Speciation through hybridization is actually a rather common form of speciation, just not in animals. I included this example because it is a case of speciation that has been directly observed.


 * Go ahead and do some deletions of what I wrote again if you think it is important, I just feel that the first sentence and some explanation of it are important to maintain. Steven Argue 22:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I see now the broader point you are aiming for, about an understanding of evolution being a reason for atheism. What I think weakens your lead sentence badly is the word stories, for the reason I mentioned above: it makes people think about specific literal stories (like the one in Genesis, including the bits about the rib, the snake, the apple...) which far from all theists believe in literally. A conflict with such stories is therefore hardly a general argument against theism. The argument needs to be reformulated so that it applies in the general sense you are aiming for. (And I don't mean defending evolution. I mean that the section must be a convincing argument for atheism given that one accepts evolution.) - Mglg 21:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I gave it another shot. See what you think. - Mglg 21:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your changes are pretty good this time. I have no problem with them. - Steven Argue 21:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Evolution, while being accepted by some people who believe in deities, is contradictory to theistic creation stories and serves as a reason for many atheists for their rejection of theistic beliefs.

can we re-word this a little, with maybe another sentence and place it in the place of the sloppy 3 paragraphs alreafy under scientific reasoning? The reason people become atheists? evolution makes more sense than unprovable and supernatural tales of theists. or perhaps somewhere along those lines. Explaining what evolution is and why it sounds more appealing than christianity is unnesesary. Somerset219 03:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Note on Criticisms Edit
I wanted to mention that I had previously edited out a sentence in the criticisms section due to a lack of citation. This was on an older account of mine, however. At the time of edit, I was still very new to Wikipedia, and worry that this edit may have been bad manners on my part, as I did not first discuss the edit before making it. Basically, the sentence stated that an Atheist is, by the truest dictionary definition, an evil / immoral person. While I have encountered this definition in some dictionaries, it still strikes me as not belonging to this article, in that the term may not necessarily be in realtion to anti-theology. Does anyone have any disagreements with my edit? Grendel 14:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Atheism And An Impersonal God
Atheism means "absence of theism", and theism usually means a belief in a personal God that interferes with the affairs of the world directly. If this is the case can deists (who believe in an impersonal God) and pantheists (belief in an impersonal God being Nature) be considered atheist? Zachorious 15:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say no. It's easy enough to simply expand the definition of 'theist' (if expansion is even necessary) to 'one who believes in a god or gods'. --Ted 21:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily expanding the word theist because I have seen some that define "theism" as a belief in a personal god. Another thing to note is that deists and pantheists tend to be closer to atheists than they are to theists. Reason being is that deism and pantheism are freethinking philosophies that have similar arguments against the existance of Yahweh and other such deities. All three philosophies (deism, atheism, and pantheism) are based on reason and logic rather than faith and revealed doctrines. The worldview of a deist or a pantheist is closer to atheists in that regard. If you really think about it the philosophies sort of overlap as well. Deism is much different than pantheism, the only difference being that deism is a bit more dualist than pantheism. And pantheism isn't much different than atheism since atheists believe in the universe and nature while, and pantheists just choose to call nature and the universe god. Zachorious 21:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not the atheism I know. Fine, deism and pantheism get a point up on 'personal god' arrangements, but they still involve supernatural entities. In that respect, they are no more logical, and certainly completely separate from atheism where atheism is defined as not believing in gods (or, by extension, literally godlike entities).


 * Other angle: atheism is a logically negative position. It does not denote belief in anything (nor disbelief if that is a positive action), which is also an irreconcilable difference.--Ted 03:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

organizational suggestions
How about we come up with a list of things to do. like determine quotable sources based on popularity and effectivness. Perhaps cut down certain reasoning to making a point rather than making an impression.

Im up for any other ideas anyone might have. I feel like this page has a lot of potential! Somerset219 03:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

WTF?
"Although not all atheists claim to have a rational justification for their stance..." Uhh, what? --Macarion 20:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You'll have to be a little bit more specific than "uhh, what". Do you question the statement's veracity, verifiability or wording? JRM · Talk 21:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Who wouldn't claim to have a rational justification for their stance? It seems like it was written by someone who is against atheists. --Macarion 21:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You raise a good point insofar as nobody would call themselves irrational (theists included) but that's not to say you can't admit that you have no rational justification for believing something. Just as a theist may claim to believe in the existence of God because they just know it's true, an atheist can claim they believe in the nonexistence of God because they just know it's true. Rationally you could be an agnostic, with atheism as your "irrational faith" ("Logically I think nobody can know whether or not God exists, but outside of logical reasoning, I personally believe God does not exist.") JRM · Talk 21:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do we have a source for this claim? The quoted one? Titanium Dragon 23:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The claim that "not all atheists claim to have a rational justification for their stance"? Well, how would you like to source the opposite, that all atheists claim to have a rational justification? You presumably wouldn't, so we'd need to reformulate the whole thing to avoid the issue altogether. I can tell you that personally I'm someone who firmly believes God does not exist, and I've done so long before I was capable of propping up this claim with reason. God as a concept has always seemed absurd to me, but not believing in the existence of something because you consider it absurd is not a rational justification. I do not feel troubled at all by being irrational in this sense, no more than if I told you I liked cherries and the color blue, neither of I can or want to rationally justify.
 * Even now I'm inclined to simply take the nonexistence of God on faith, regardless of any logic that might support or disavow it—I'm agnostic in the sense that I also believe that no conclusive reasoning for God's (non)existence can be mounted either way, although I feel the atheist side holds the better cards as far as (dis)proving the influence of God on the physical world goes.
 * Of course, my personal experience does not count as a source, and Wikipedia reports on verifiable facts, not truth. (If "one person does not claim to have a rational justification", that does not make it notable.) I don't care particularly for whether the claim stays or goes, sourced or otherwise. (As an aside, just in case, I did not insert or edit the claim.) JRM · Talk 23:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I was bold and removed it and reworded the paragraph in question (which is entirely unsourced). If you feel like reinserting the sentence in question or reverting my edit, feel free. I don't have any complaint, but I think my version works a little better than the previous one. Titanium Dragon 23:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me like the point is this: not everyone feels they have to make an argument to justify their atheism. Such a person might be told by a theist that "atheism requires faith too" and have no problem with that. MFNickster 23:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded "experiencable" to "physically experienced", I suppose this was the intended meaning. The only problem I have with the remaining sentence ("Many atheists assert their position does not require belief in anything other than that which can be physically experienced; they state the onus is on theists to prove the existence of god(s), rather than on atheists to disprove the existence of any supposed deities") is that it seems inaccurate/POV to me, because 1) "belief" in what is experienced is specious (you don't really "believe" in what you experience, it simply is to you) and 2) it implies that statements which rely only on what we can experience are "better" or "stronger" than statements which do not. This is no doubt what atheists actually claim, but it's not spelled out as their opinion here.

With this in mind, I re-rewrote the paragraph. It seems to me that all that it should do is serve as the introduction for the sections; it doesn't need to introduce additional claims. I've tried to do this as carefully as possible, though I'll admit I've come dangerously close to making it vacuous. JRM · Talk 00:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Types and Typologies of Atheism seperate article
Could we perhaps cut way down on the explainations of atheism, or perhaps make a seperate article for it. Having a graph on how "developed" your atheism is, to me, a bit "over the top". I think the first paragraph of the article sums up atheism nicely.

The only reason for "levels" of atheism, are for people with levels of doubt and insecurity. take a look at the christianity page and tell me where there are different levels of christians. They have denominations, which is a paragraph, but thats about it. Atheism is about skeptism, we should focus on the points that make atheists what they are, not what their afraid to be. maybe im wrong here... anyone got any insights? Somerset219 03:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless, there are a lot of atheists who identify along those lines. That alone makes it a good idea to differentiate between them in this article. --Ted 05:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Differentiate, fine. Differentiate in multi-paragraph sections per typology, with paragraph-length quotes in each section, as currently is?  Problem.  That overlong chunk of this bloated 95KB article reads like a philosophy class term paper.  The Literate Engineer 10:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, differentiate... but there's a lot of whimsical stuff thats redundant and irrelevant, I'm just asking for some proper editing. An agnostic is an atheist, then define an agnostic and move on, theres way to much explanation. Somerset219 06:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I move for the deletion of antitheism
antitheism is an atheist who hates theists. this is just stupid, why is this categorized? what do you call a christian who hates muslims?... an american? in other words how is this relevant to atheisism. This page is about what atheism is, not how some people who are atheists behave. Somerset219 03:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * An antitheist is an atheist who actively disbelieves in all forms of god(s), as opposed to an atheist who passively does not believe in any god or gods. I have no idea where you got that idea (certainly not from this page). --Ted 05:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that's not correct - you are describing a strong (or in some respects, explicit) atheist. Antitheism is not just about what an individual believes; it is taking the position that theism is wrong (or misguided) and that nobody should believe in god(s). It's a step beyond mere disbelief into polemics, activism and advocacy. MFNickster 06:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

all I'm saying is why is it nessesary to categorize what an atheist does with his/her lack of belief. Or at the very least, why does it need 3 paragraphs.Somerset219 06:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it helps to explain that atheism doesn't automatically imply antitheism, a misconception that more than a few people seem to have. MFNickster 06:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Antitheism is a common atheist stance; and even beyond that, though not all atheists are antitheists, all antitheists are atheists. I think it'd be wrong to delete; its very much related to atheism, being a highly visible subpopulation of atheists who do advocate their views. I'd expect the Christian page to have links to Mormonism, Catholicism, and the various other large Christian groups; heck, I'd expect the Judaism page to have links to Islam and Christianity, as it spawned both of them (along with the less visible Ba'hai faith). Antitheists are pretty common amongst atheists, and they should definitely be included. Titanium Dragon 08:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, they have  links... Somerset219 02:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not encourage trolling. Grendel 03:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trolling, I'm saying that the christianity page does have links, my point was to minimalize the excessive content on anti-theism by just having it as a link. obviously that point did not get across. Somerset219 02:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Belief in Diety or Dieties
I believe that an atheist, like myself finds it impossibel for there to be an omnipotent being. But I am perfectly open to the suggestion of polytheism and spiritualism, although I find it extremely unlikely... it is not necessarily impossible. Having a finite diety which just means a being of a higher order of intelligence or power or existence, is perfectly plausible. What is not plausible is a bing that is everything and controls everything and knows everything et cetera. SO while I don't believe in a diety or dieties, I do find that the Philosophers' omnipotent God is impossible, while the polythiest is possible, however improbable. Thus there needs to also be a change between what is believed negatively (I don't believe in any gods) and what is believed positively ( that I know that an omnipotent god doesn't exist, but I don't know if finite gods don't exist). Sean1K2GA9 19:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Sean1K2GA9Sean1K2GA9 19:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * um no, I think you're confused. There is an atheistic position you could take, possibly agnostism. In which youv'e seen no substantial evidence to make a choice, however you seem to be theistic, one that is religious. If you believe in a deity, you're religious. Your problem is choosing a religion.
 * On a side not: please explain how you know an omnipotent being does not exsist, but think any other deity does. I'm just curious, because I'm having trouble following your logic. Somerset219 02:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand what the above user said. He did not say that he thinks any deity exists. He says that he thinks it is possible (but unlikely) for a deity (a mighty supernatural being) to exist, but impossible for God (an almighty supernatural being) to exist. So he is a weak atheist with respect to gods in general, and a strong atheist with respect to God. However, if he is trying to define all atheists as having the same belief, as implied at the beginning of his comment, then he is mistaken. -Silence 05:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Islam
Took a chunk out of this section which seemed to me to be poor. It was confused, contradicted itself and contained some POV assertions. Quranic vs Westernized Islam seems to be Original Research. "The majority of muslims in the world today are practitioners of Quranic Islam, routinely annihilating apostate/infidel groups" hardly needs commenting on. "Browsing through writings by College of Islam professors" seems like something you would say in a diary rather than an encyclopaedia. --Vjam 17:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to reduce the last paragraph from..., "Atheists in Islamic countries and communities frequently conceal their non-belief, (as well as other condemned qualities such as homosexuality). Many sociologists interested in the Islamic nations wonder how Islam will continue to deal with these issues as these nations are exposed to Western worldviews, traditionally founded on Judaic/Christian ethics and morality."

to

"There are a number of problems with identifying the exact demographics of atheists in any country and this is expecially true in any country "where religion is heavily enforced by the government and risks are present for citizens viewed as non-believers (e.g., Saudi Arabia or Iran), individuals will be reluctant to admit that they don't believe in Allah, regardless of whether anonymity is 'guaranteed.'" . The data for Islamic nations would indicate secular percentages ranging from less than 1% to less than 5% . This is a low rate of 'organic atheism' compared to other nations. The concept of 'organic atheism' i.e. "atheism which is not state-enforced through totalitarian regimes but emerges naturally among free societies" is presented by Phil Zuckerman as an indicator of 'societal health'. High percentages of organic atheism correlate with low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality. The lowest rates of organic atheism are in nations which are characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security. Ttiotsw 23:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Ttiostsw. This all looks good. Some things though. "Will be reluctant" seems a little assertive (even though it is undoubtedly true). Could we have something more like "might be expected to be reluctant"? Next, I'm not sure why "regardless of whether anonymity is 'guaranteed.'" is needed - I'm not sure what it adds.


 * The section about "societal health" doesn't seem to be specifically about Islam (although relevant to Islamic countries) - perhaps it should be elsewhere in the article. Also, think it should be made clearer that what we are talking about is an association (ie the study doesn't tell us whether having atheists in a society adds to its wealth, or whether it is simply the case that atheism is easier in a wealthy society). --Vjam 17:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms by .67
While you have pointed out the need for discussion of a criticism not previously included in the article, you are presenting your UNSOURCED opinions about logic & atheism as factual - that kind of POV is unencyclopedic & not allowed here. You are also about to break have already broken WP:3RR. Instead of engaging in a revert war, engage in discussion here --JimWae 20:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In particular, while there could be an argument that the atheist "response" to the criticism needn't be included, the claim that logical analysis "inevitably" leads to this criticism is patently false, not just POV. siafu 20:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly, there are MANY "unsourced" opinions and points of view on the atheism page (among many others dealing with belief systems). I see no problem with what I wrote in the "criticism" section of "Atheism" as it is for criticisms and not apologetics.  I will not deny that it is my "POV" (and that of many others as you rightly pointed out) that the ultimate logical end of atheism is nihilism, but it is certainly not "false".  Unfortunately, those who subscribe to the view either commit suicide or choose to ignore it (known as cognitive dissonance).
 * It's quite false. Utilitarianism and deontology, are both compatible with atheism, and incompatible with nihilism (and in fact incompatible with each other as well).  While many, (e.g. Dostoyesky) would agree that logical analysis of atheism does lead to nihilism, it is by no means "inevitable".  Therefore the statement that's been repeatedly inserted into the article is quite false, but stating that there are some who claim that it's inevitable is obviously true, as our anonymous friend clearly instatiates such a group, even though it's a bit weaselly. siafu 21:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I disagree that it is false. Atheism leads inevitably to Nihilism.  I understand that this is not desirable and will be denied at every opportunity and occasion.  This is why alternatives such as Utilitarianism and Deontological ethics were created at such a recent date and within western "Christian" (or at least Deistic) societies where they were able to borrow from and rely upon the Christian moral values of the society around them.  Of course they couldn't accept many, if any, things against religious morals because that would simply not be compatible with the majority views of those in whose society they lived.  As to "inevitable" being a "bit weaselly", it is only so if "cognitive dissonance" is involved for those who wish to maintain their worldview and yet live in a society largely made up of religiously derived values, otherwise it is quite clear.
 * "Inevitable" is not the weasely part-- see the link; the weaselly part is the vague "some scholars" or "some people" who are making the claim. As for your statement: This is why alternatives such as Utilitarianism and Deontological ethics were created at such a recent date, this is rather bizarre as both utilitarianism and deontological ethics were actually formulated well before nihilism was introduced as a philosophy, and both utilitarianism and deontology are hundreds of years old.  Deontology was introduced by Immanuel Kant in the 17th century (though you could argue that it has its basis in the Stoicism of Seneca and Zeno of Citium), and the first instance of utilitarianism comes from Mozi in the 5th-4th centuries BCE (in a non-christian society, no less). siafu 21:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As a term, sure Nihilism is relatively recent as well, but as you point out with respect to these theories of ethics, the philosophy has also been around for a long time. I do not doubt that non-christian societies were able to come up with a set of ethics derived from the values of the majority of God believing and fearing society about them.  The problem, which often goes unacknowledged, comes at the level of the individual who maintains the power, in the absense of consequences, to secretly act in any manner desired and have no real definition of morals.  Theists who believe in "God-given" laws written in a text (whether Jews, Muslims, Christians, or otherwise) have moral laws that they believe they must follow or receive punishment.  For them, these laws become objective (act accordingly or recieve ultimate punishment, for no act is done in secret because God sees all).  Theists honestly and objectively believe they may not murder in secret.  Atheists may believe murder is ok and do so in secret if desired.  Of course this does not mean they will do such a thing, but they do not believe in the same "ultimate consequences" for acts comitted in secret, so it becomes a valid and possibly unpunishable act for them.
 * The philosophy actually has not been around very long, relatively speaking. Moreover, Mozi wasn't a theist in the traditional sense, either.  The "ultimate consequences" you are discussing do not necessarily need to be theistic or supernatural in nature; utilitaranism, as cited above, is a very good example.  Regardless, this is beside the point as it's very clear by the sheer existence of alternate (and, btw, vastly more accepted) ethical theories that there is no such "inevitability", period. siafu 21:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The philosophy has been around a very long time. Utilitarianism does not come close to solving the ultimate problem.  Again, I am not denying that atheists can find moral values, so yeah there are moral systems out there that are the result of "cognitive dissonance" and derived from the values of the religious society around them.  What I deny is that they have any good reason to follow them should they choose not to.  Case in point (hypothetically, of course):  I am an atheist, homeless, and am no stranger to prison.  I feel that I have worked hard in my life and can't get anywhere while others ride their Daddies' paychecks through nice colleges and into cushy high-salary jobs.  Everyday, downtown, I watch you walk by near "my" alley, nose in the air, with your Armani suit and gold rolex, chatting away on the most expensive and new mobile phone you could find.  I despise you because you never had to work like I did and yet look at what you have!  Not only do you have the necessities of life that I am often deprived of, you have gone way overboard!  Couldn't you have only fulfilled the necessities and spared some to help me out?  Downtown, you have to do what you have to do to survive day after day and I have my sources who can easily allow me to borrow a gun.  One day you work late and come prancing down the street.  I follow, pull you into an alleyway, shoot you dead, and take your money, watch, and everything of value.  Why should I care?  There is no God looking down on me judging anything I do in secret.  I fear no "ultimate consequences".  I doubt I'll get caught and even if I do, at least I'll have free meals given to me in prison...I've been there before.  It's a win-win situation for me as long as I play it right.  Morals?  What are those and who really cares?  Morals are only for the rich and comfortable.  I can't afford them in this world or I'll die.  Of course, the logic continues to devolve until one finally winds up in Nihilism.  It is simply inevitable.
 * This is entirely a matter of your POV, and I'm afraid you'll find that there are some "ultimate consequences" to POV-warring here on wikipedia. siafu 22:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is true and uncounterable and only denied out of the necessity of "getting along in society" or by "cognitive dissonance". Merely thinking about it will make you realize although you will want to deny.  Either way, I did not start a war.  I merely wrote "truth" and had it erased numerous times.  I did nothing wrong and started no war.  Those erasing my posts were warring, quite unethically, I might add, since they are denying relevant information to people.
 * By the way, this is why Wikipedia will never be a good source of information. It is ultimately the moderators who decide what content is a POV and what is supposedly fact and truth.  Wikipedia is not a good source of information on anything controversial and it never will be.
 * I'm not an administrator (what you seem to mean by "moderator"), and I have that on the contrary, because wikipedia ascribes to a neutral point of view and eschews partisanship and fanaticism, it is in effect a very good source of information on controversial subjects. siafu 22:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, I'm not "wikipediaized" in my lingo yet. The information on wikipedia is most definitely biased as is evidenced by the highly biased and repeated editing of my benign and informational contributions.  The edited versions don't even make sense as they simply respond in apologetic fashion to the points I bring up and therefore become unfocused.  As I said, and will not repeat again, it is impossible for this site to be anything other than biased when it comes to controversial subjects.  The subjects will constantly be edited and re-edited and re-re-edited until an "administrator" decides when enough is enough and makes a subjective decision about what the contents will ultimately be.  That "administrator" and their views, or the views of the most repetitive editors, are the ultimate views that are expressed here.  Not truth.  Not even good information.  Especially not complete information.
 * Well, I guess it's fortunate for everyone, then, that you know where the door is. siafu 00:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just here to correct you all and show you the error of your ways. ;-)


 * Even if you had come up with some amazing proof, Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia will be a perfectly good source of information as long as it is verifiable, and we don't let editors write unsourced POV claims as if they were fact. Mdwh 02:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If there are other unsourced opinions, that is no argument for adding more of them! Instead, let's focus on those unsourced opinions - what in particular are you referring to? Mdwh 02:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * wow, talk about rudeness. At any rate, I really feel our anonymous friend is on to something, perhaps he should look it up and get it cited, because I do agree with him, well at least up until the borrowing of morals from the religious. Morals are personal laws, to keep the stupid in line, there are logical reasons for morals but its much easier to use scare tactics for memorization than to teach them.


 * now i agree with atheism ultimately going towards Nihilism, but thats only if your looking for excuses, for whatever your intentions are. you need a motive to keep looking for that "answer", yours is obviously breaking down social constraints to survive, in which good luck. Somerset219 01:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see where I've been rude to anyone... Mdwh 02:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * then perhaps you weren't rude... It's polite that I not name the user... Somerset219 03:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Somerset, if you truly believe that I have some points with respect to the legitimate criticisms I made against atheism, then why did you remove them? Does this belie your true feelings and biases, or not?  And, by the way, I have been no more rude than others have been to me by continually erasing legitimate criticisms that I wrote.


 * As Mdwh already said, whether it's true or not is not the standard for inclusion. Most people here are mature enough to work on a project like this and be satisfied even if it doesn't turn out exactly how they would have done it alone. --Ted 22:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you're addressing Ted. By the way, I would not call the constant erasing of my entries "mature" or "working together".  The problem (as I imagine to be the case for subjects on religion as well) is that the administrators will rule the day on this "project".  It is funny that they say muliple editors have modified my entries, so I am the one in violation of their rules.  Yeah, ok, so isn't that mob rule?  If I get a bunch of buddies that out number your buddies, then all of a sudden I'm right?  Oh, perhaps not.  The administors' views will still rule the day.  I will go ahead and admit that wiki has some decent information, but there is a TON of apologetic-type material (constantly edited and re-edited) on controversial subjects, and the views of the administrators or their online posse-mob will be the ultimate views expressed on a subject.


 * we have told you why we revert them, its not to spite you. Your addresses are usually horribley POV and poorly written. You give the reader false impressions and ideals, instead of the facts. there may be apologetic material, however, its difficult to delete people's belief systems. This page isn't to see which philosophy is the best, but rather to explain what they are. Somerset219 22:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Somerset, you have no idea what you are talking about and you should spell "grammer" as "grammar", so don't talk to me about writing "horribley" [sic]. I do not give the reader false impressions.  That is done by those who do not allow all facts and criticisms.  You display your atheism in your Talk page, so you are obviously not unbiased in these matters.  Besides that, nearly everything on that page is someone's point of view.  If it's not an unsourced point of view (which much of it is), then it is a sourced "point of view" (which is hardly better, just sourced).


 * Actually, it's a lot better; if a point of view is referenced to a person ("i.e., Bob Jones says..." or better yet, "According to the large group of people named X..." with cites to print references) it's fact. Bob Jones or whomever does actually say that.  Simply putting it in as fact as you were doing is inherently POV and not factual.  The problem is not with the criticism itself, as has been made clear, but with the insistence that it is "inevitable", which is another way of saying that it's the only possible conclusion, which is clearly false and POV. siafu 22:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, it is most definitely not false, though it may be considered a POV (as is everything on the page - even scholars are merely expressing their points of view). Might does not make right.  In other words, because a bunch of people agree, that does not make something fact or right.  It is still a POV.


 * And once again, it's not the criticism itself that is false, it's the claim that it's the inevitable logical conclusion that is false. Might, btw, is not being applied here-- just because a bunch of people agree does not make it right or wrong, but it does make it wrong to say that they are all simply fooling themselves by disagreeing.  Many people much smarter than anyone here have argued exceptionally well for all sides; it is clearly not "inevitable". siafu 23:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * you're right, I'm atheist, however I accept both points of view and would rather it be that way. that way one can formulate their own opinion, you know, because of different/opposing points of view. That's how we try to get it as neutral as possible. I'm glad to see you know what point of view is. And yes i misspelled a few words, which means everything I say is wrong, you are right. Somerset219 23:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wot no Atheism Portal
I'm a bit surprised to find that there isn't an atheism portal already - or am I missing something. -- Solipsist 23:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In the style of dual portals like Portal:Mind and Brain, I think it might be wise to use a portal name like Portal:Atheism and Agnosticism, since the two concepts are often grouped together or conflated and we might otherwise have too many arguments between people fighting over what qualifies as an "agnostic" topic and what qualifies as an "atheist" topic (largely due to the variable definitions). These are also the two most common and popular nontheistic terms, so it makes sense to use them for a portal. -Silence 23:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Page move POV issue
I was going to ask this on the Portal:Atheism, but as it is yet to materialise (see above) this seems like the best place... I stumbled across a page move issue today, but it is a biggie and I don't have anywhere near enough enthusiasm to pursue it - perhaps someone else would be motivated.

Why is it that the article at David is not a disambiguation page? There are a _lot_ of historically significant Davids and whilst King David of Israel may be an early one, does he really deserve primacy or is this POV. This applies to quite a lot of biblical names, but many (most?) other first names are disambig pages. Should not 'David' be moved to King David?

Some things to consider:
 * There are a lot of links coming into the David page and many of them refer to King David. However, about 250 of them are redirects from King David in any case. More than a few of them are due to inclusion from templates, such as Template:Adam to David and Template:Prophets in the Qur'an. A great many more are from links that have effectively been dab'd from 'King David' (see for example Book of Job)
 * There are quite a number of other King Davids
 * Are there any other Kings, Emperor or rulers who take a primacy for their name?
 * Alexander the Great is probably the most significant Alexander and is often refered to as just 'Alexander', but Alexander itself is a disambig page.
 * Akhenaten does and is a page devoted to Pharoh Amenhotep IV, but then I'm not sure there are any other significant Akhenatens.
 * Muhammad is a page devoted to the prophet of Islam, but in that case it is more reasonable to suggest that he was the first person so named. However there is a large number of other significant Muhammads.
 * Jesus is a page devoted Jesus of Nazareth. However in this case Jesus or Joshua has several earlier examples, even in the Bible.

As I say, its a bit of a job to sort it all out. It involves some significant POV issues as to whether names in the Bible should be considered more significant than any other. In the end it might require a policy to assert that all first names and surnames should disambig pages unless they are unique. -- Solipsist 23:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Points(although you may not see them) for you for pointing out the non-existince of an Atheism Portal. I hope someone more experience, than me(obviously I am inexperienced), would do us the favor in creating such portal!
 * But about the David thing, I do not know of any famous David other than the king David listed in the disambiguation page, so let's keep it that way. Let's keep the personal opinions out and let the NPOV in you speak. :) The NPOV person in me would say that David being referenced to King David is such a Neutral POV because majority of the people know David as king david. Although the article is christian in nature, it is a NPOV to tell what is fact, or the most understood as. Monkey Brain 23:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is that I suspect he is most naturally linked as King David, and that is indeed how the article starts. Consider also the more or less random treatment of some other examples and see whether there is only one person you can immediately think of and then try and decide why some are disambigs and some are primary pages.
 * David - primary
 * Saul - disambig
 * Canute - disambig
 * Judas - disambig
 * Peter - disambig
 * Matthew - disambig, but not a disambig on the name, that's at Matthew (name)
 * Magdalene - disambig
 * Herod - disambig
 * Augustus - primary
 * Julius - disambig
 * Alexander - disambig
 * Socrates - primary
 * Nathaniel - disambig
 * Sarah - primary
 * Ahab - primary, but perhaps not the one you were thinking of
 * Jacob - primary, but Jacob (disambiguation) is quite involved
 * Merlin - disambig
 * Kong - disambig, although the King is perhaps best known.

I wouldn't pretend to have checked the 'What links here' on any of these other than David so perhaps some are justified and some are not. Little of this makes any sense to me, but some of it suggests a bias towards a Western/Old Testament names being treated as primary articles. -- Solipsist 01:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, placing the disambig page + details about the common names in Western culture, as a primary page does seem more logical(without the need for popularity). Edit is in order. Monkey Brain 02:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved it for you, david->king david; david (disambig)->david; talk:david->talk:king david; left a link to talk:king david in talk:david. Monkey Brain(talk) 03:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I'm sorry I'll have to roll that back. I'm afraid that cut-n-paste page moves are a bit of a no-no (see page moves for why and how). In any case, a page move of this significance really needs to be discussed by interested parties and listed on WP:RM. At the end of the day, it then needs sysadmin assistance to move the page since the destinations of each move has existing edit histories. -- Solipsist 04:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry, I'm a bit too unfamiar with that. My apollogies. Monkey Brain(talk) 04:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like I've now talked myself in to taking on the task and shepherding the page move through formal channels.... -- Solipsist 07:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

major edit on Philosophical reasons
Old one
 * Some atheists claim to base their stance on rational or philosophical grounds, arguing that their position is based on logical analysis, and subsequent rejection, of theistic claims. These arguments against the existence of deities claim a number of different problems with theism. Chief among these problems is absence of evidences supporting theistic claims. Also, instead of simplification of explanation (of how nature works) theism tremendously complicates it by introducing new questions like origin of god(s), their dwelling, style of life, exercising their powers, conflicts with laws of physics, unpredictability, etc.


 *  "Within the framework of scientific rationalism one arrives at the belief in the nonexistence of God, not because of certain knowledge, but because of a sliding scale of methods. At one extreme, we can confidently rebut the personal Gods of creationists on firm empirical grounds: science is sufficient to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there never was a worldwide flood and that the evolutionary sequence of the Cosmos does not follow either of the two versions of Genesis. The more we move toward a deistic and fuzzily-defined God, however, the more scientific rationalism reaches into its toolbox and shifts from empirical science to logical philosophy informed by science. Ultimately, the most convincing 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 successes throughout the last three centuries." 


 * Many atheists hold that, as their view is merely the absence of a certain belief, it is the default position. Thus, they hold that the only defense that atheism really needs is a good offense. If theism's arguments are refuted, atheism is all that remains. As such, many atheists have argued against the most famous 'proofs' of God's existence over the centuries. Whether all of the theistic arguments have been refuted is often hotly debated.


 * '' "Throughout the centuries, theistic philosophers have offered logical arguments in support of God's existence. Most of these can be divided into four major classes - ontological, cosmological, teleological, and moral"
 * In general, atheists contend that these have been categorically refuted.


 * There are also many atheists who attack specific forms of theism as being self-contradictory. One of the most common arguments against the existence of a specific God is the problem of evil.


 *  "The problem of evil is probably the most enduring and the most potent argument atheism has to offer against many varieties of theism. Christian apologist William Lane Craig aptly styled it atheism's killer argument. In brief, it seeks to establish that the existence of evil in the world is logically incompatible with the existence of a benevolent God, and that it is more reasonable to conclude that God does not exist than that he does exist but does nothing to stop evil." 


 * Indeed, Epicurus is credited with producing a perfect logical triangle on this basis -- if one admits that evil exists in the world (as one must), and if one further assumes that some sort of divine being exists, there are only three possibilities (since that being is obviously not both able and willing to preclude evil from occurring): able, but not willing (malevolent); willing, but not able (insignificant); neither willing nor able (insignificant). Most people, it is thought, if given the choice between a useless or malevolent god and simple atheism, would choose the latter.


 * Other well-known positive arguments include theological noncognitivism, incoherency arguments (which seek to prove contradictions within the nature of 'god'), atheistic teleological arguments, and the Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God.


 * In the new one I just organized and added more things, took out POV and placed the "default position of atheists" in the first paragraph of scientific reasons. Somerset219 19:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Atheism in philosophical naturalism
''Atheism in philosophical naturalism Many, if not most, atheists have preferred to say that atheism is a lack of a belief, rather than a belief in its own right (see, for example, Krueger (1998, p.22-24); Smith (1979, p.15-16)). This keeps the burden of proof on the theist (see Flew (1984b)), as the only one making any positive assertions. "Belief" also has other connotations that many atheists may wish to avoid. Nevertheless, some atheist writers identify atheism with the naturalistic world view, and defend it on that basis. The case for naturalism is used as a positive argument for atheism. See, for example, Thrower (1971), Harbour (2001), Nielsen (2001) and Baggini (2003). See also Everitt's discussion of an anti-atheist argument against naturalism (2004, Chapter 9, p.178-190). According to Thrower, Much atheism... can be understood only in the light of the current theism which it was concerned to reject. Such atheism is relative. There is, however, a way of looking at and interpreting events in the world, whose origins... can be seen as early as the beginnings of speculative thought itself, and which I shall call naturalistic, that is atheistic per se, in the sense that it is incompatible with any and every form of supernaturalism... naturalistic or absolute atheism is both fundamentally more important, and more interesting, representing as it does one polarity in the development of the human spirit. (p.3-4) Julian Baggini argues that, "atheism can be understood not simply as a denial of religion, but as a self-contained belief system, if it is seen as a commitment to the view that there is only one world and this is the world of nature" (p.74). For Baggini, therefore, the evidence for atheism is to be found in the fact that there is a plethora of evidence for the truth of naturalism and an absence of evidence for anything else. 'Anything else' of course includes God, but it also includes goblins, hobbits, and truly everlasting gobstoppers. There is nothing special about God in this sense. God is just one of the things that atheists don't believe in, it just happens to be the thing that, for historical reasons, gave them their name. (p.17) Baggini's position is that "an atheist does not usually believe in the existence of immortal souls, life after death, ghosts, or supernatural powers. Although strictly speaking an atheist could believe in any of these things and still remain an atheist... the arguments and ideas that sustain atheism tend naturally to rule out other beliefs in the supernatural or transcendental" (p.3-4). Michael Martin (1990, p.470) notes that the view that "naturalism is compatible with nonatheism is true only if 'god' is understood in a most peculiar and misleading way", but he also points out that "atheism does not entail naturalism".''

This is an ideology, not a type of atheism. However this is a big edit, so I'll put it hear for any discussion. Somerset219 20:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

atheism as immorality
Atheism as immorality The first attempts to define or develop a typology of atheism were in religious apologetics. These attempts were expressed in terms and in contexts that reflected the religious assumptions and prejudices of the writers. A diversity of atheist opinion has been recognized at least since Plato, and common distinctions have been established between practical atheism and speculative or contemplative atheism.

Practical atheism was said to be caused by moral failure, hypocrisy, willful ignorance and infidelity. Practical atheists were said to behave as though God, morals, ethics and social responsibility did not exist; they abandoned duty and embraced hedonism. Maritain's typology of atheism (1953, Chapter 8) proved influential in Catholic circles; it was followed in the New Catholic Encyclopedia (see Reid, 1967). He identified, in addition to practical atheism, pseudo-atheism and absolute atheism (and subdivided theoretical atheism in a way that anticipated Flew). For an atheist critique of Maritain, see Smith (1979, Chapter 1, Section 5).

According to the French Catholic philosopher Étienne Borne (1961, p.10), 'Practical atheism is not the denial of the existence of God, but complete godlessness of action; it is a moral evil, implying not the denial of the absolute validity of the moral law but simply rebellion against that law.'

According to Karen Armstrong (1999):

"During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic... In his tract Atheism Closed and Open Anatomized (1634), John Wingfield claimed: 'the hypocrite is an Atheist; the loose wicked man is an open Atheist; the secure, bold and proud transgressor is an Atheist: he that will not be taught or reformed is an Atheist'. For the Welsh poet William Vaughan (1577 [sic]–1641), who helped in the colonization of Newfoundland, those who raised rents or enclosed commons were obvious atheists. The English dramatist Thomas Nashe (1567-1601) proclaimed that the ambitious, the greedy, the gluttons, the vainglorious and prostitutes were all atheists. The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist. (p.331-332)"

On the other hand, the existence of serious, speculative atheism was often denied. That anyone might reason their way to atheism was thought to be impossible. The existence of God was self-evident, and (apparently) necessary for the proper functioning of society. Thus, speculative atheism was collapsed into a form of practical atheism, and conceptualized as hatred of God or a fight against righteous social mores. This is why Borne finds it necessary to say, 'to put forward the idea, as some apologists rashly do, that there are no atheists except in name but only practical atheists who through pride or idleness disregard the divine law, would be, at least at the beginning of the argument, a rhetorical convenience or an emotional prejudice evading the real question.' (p.18) Martin (1990, p.465-466) suggests that practical atheism would be better described as alienated theism.

Other pejorative definitions of atheism When denial of the existence of 'speculative' atheism became unsustainable, atheism was nevertheless often repressed and criticized by narrowing definitions, applying charges of dogmatism, and otherwise misrepresenting atheist positions. One of the reasons for the popularity of euphemistic alternative terms like secularist, empiricist, agnostic, or 'Bright' is that atheism still has pejorative connotations arising from attempts at suppression and from its association with practical atheism; as mentioned above, godless is still used as an abusive epithet today.

Mynga Futrell and Paul Geisert, the originators of the term Bright, made this explicit in an essay published in 2003:

Our personal frustration regarding labels reached culmination last fall when we were invited to join a march on Washington as 'Godless Americans'. The causes of the march were worthy, and the march itself well-planned and conducted. However, to unite for common interests under a disparaging term like 'godless' (it also means 'wicked') seemed ludicrous! Why accept and utilize the very derogatory language that so clearly hampers our own capacity to play a positive and contributing role in our communities and in the nation and world?

That several religious groups have adopted the disparaging names handed to them as a badge of honour (the 'Methodists', for example) seems to have only increased their ire.

Gaskin (1989) abandoned the term atheism in favor of unbelief, citing 'the pejorative associations of the term, its vagueness, and later the tendency of religious apologists to define atheism so that no one could be an atheist...' (p.4)

Despite these considerations, for others atheist has always been the preferred name. Charles Bradlaugh once said, in debate with George Jacob Holyoake, 10 March 1870, cited in Bradlaugh Bonner (1908):

"I maintain that the opprobrium cast upon the word Atheism is a lie. I believe Atheists as a body to be men deserving respect... I do not care what kind of character religious men may put round the word Atheist, I would fight until men respect it. (p.334)"

For more on repressive definitions of atheism, see Berman (1982, 1983, 1990).


 * Put in Persecution of atheists. Somerset219 20:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Secular ethics could use a lot of this material. Star Ghost 05:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Implicit and explicit atheism
The terms implicit atheism and explicit atheism were coined by George H. Smith (1979, p.13-18). Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as 'the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it.' Explicit atheism is defined as 'the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it', which, according to Smith, is sometimes called antitheism (see below).

For Smith, explicit atheism is subdivided further according to whether or not the rejection is made on rational grounds. The term critical atheism is used to label the view that belief in god is irrational, and is itself subdivided into a) the view usually expressed by the statement 'I do not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being'; b) the view usually expressed by the statement, 'god does not exist' or 'the existence of god is impossible'; and c) the view which 'refuses to discuss the existence or nonexistence of a god' because 'the concept of a god is unintelligible' (p.17).

Although Nagel rejects Smith's definition of atheism as merely 'lack of theism', acknowledging only explicit 'atheism' as true atheism, his tripartite classification of rejectionist atheism (commonly found in the philosophical literature) is identical to Smith's critical atheism typology.

The difference between Nagel on the one hand and d'Holbach and Smith on the other has been attributed to the different concerns of professional philosophers and layman proponents of atheism (see Smith (1990, Chapter 3, p.51-60 ), for example, but also alluded to by others).

Everitt (2004) makes the point that professional philosophers are more interested in the grounds for giving or withholding assent to propositions:

"We need to distinguish between a biographical or sociological enquiry into why some people have believed or disbelieved in God, and an epistemological enquiry into whether there are any good reasons for either belief or unbelief... We are interested in the question of what good reasons there are for or against God's existence, and no light is thrown on that question by discovering people who hold their beliefs without having good reasons for them. (p.10)"

So, in philosophy (Flew and Martin notwithstanding), atheism is commonly defined along the lines of 'rejection of theistic belief'. This is often misunderstood to mean only the view that there is no God, but it is conventional to distinguish between two or three main sub-types of atheism in this sense (writers differ in their characterization of this distinction, and in the labels they use for these positions).

The terms weak atheism and strong atheism (or negative atheism and positive atheism) are often used as synonyms of Smith's less-well-known implicit and explicit categories. However, the original and technical meanings of implicit and explicit atheism are quite different and distinct from weak and strong atheism, having to do with conscious rejection and unconscious rejection of theism rather than with positive belief and negative belief.

People who do not use the broad definition of atheism as 'lack of theism', but instead use the most common definition 'disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods' would not recognize mere absence of belief in deities (implicit atheism) as a type of atheism at all, and would tend to use other terms, such as 'skeptic' or 'agnostic' or even the heavy-handed 'non-atheistic non-theism', for this position.


 * Cut out of article, this is a rewording of lack of theism/agnotism/weak and strong atheism. Just in different words (implicit explicit.) Somerset219 03:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the article on Strong atheism defines it as a form of explicit atheism, but without this section...there isn't an explanation of what explicit atheism is. I think we should have at least a small section on the topic. -Alethiareg 21:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

no truth equals atheism?
please explain why atheistic morals are standard and there is no truth. Somerset219 23:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Doggonit! If people are going to edit on atheism, they'd better know their stuff, otherwise, everything is simply a POV. The supposed POV you removed was in response to the other POV expressed on murder that I keep removing (and it keeps getting put back). That section is for criticisms of atheism. The preceding statements are talking about the comparison of atheism and nihilism, which I (and others) happen to believe is the logical end of atheism. If you read a little about Nihilism, you will find out that there are no morals and there is no truth. If this is the case, then there may be no such thing as an "unjustified killing", therefore I think both my parenthetical comment on murder AND the other comment on murder should be removed, or they should BOTH be left. -- 67.187.9.149

I do think the thing about murder being defined as unjustified is unhelpful... nobody really forms their moral judgements in this way, I think. I mean, nobody would say "hey you murdered someone, that's wrong, because murder is defined as unjustified." Rather, they would say, "hey, you killed someone, and it was unjustified, so it's murder".... Evercat 23:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I assume this is about this "fact". In fact this phrase does not seem to assert that there is no truth. It explains the logical consequence if there would be (as exemplified by when) no such thing. This may be related to Counterfactual definiteness. I also agree to better make both statements disappear: best to avoid any conclusions and examples. Too bad for dumb people, but we're writing an encyclopedia and not philosophy for dummies. (You may sign your comments with four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;), and use : to indent)&mdash; Zanaq (?) 23:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Somerset219 23:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) these morals are based off of social law.
 * 2) these morals are some atheists view.
 * 3) If you read a little about Nihilism, you will find out that there are no morals and there is no truth This is not Atheism. If you are defineing nihilism, then define it, not atheism
 * 4) nobody really forms their moral judgements in this way <- That is POV

I'm allowed POV on a talk page, but I'm fairly certain no serious thinker says places any emphasis on the fact that some words are defined as "wrong acts". Saying that murder is "killing that is wrong" doesn't really get us anywhere unless we already know what "wrong" means. It's not the basis for any real philosophy as far as I know. I could demand a citation... :-) Evercat 23:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is unjustified Somerset219 23:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I pointed out your POV because you were giving it as an excuse to take out the passage. Somerset219 23:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"It is unjustified" - And you point me to a page that doesn't even contain the word "justify". I'm basically throwing my hands up in the air here. I don't get what possible importance there could be in the fact that murder is defined as "unjustified killing". This fact does not seem to help you in any way. Could you at least spell out your argument precisely. What are you trying to prove? Forget about POV/NPOV for a moment. Just tell me in detail what the argument is supposed to be.... Evercat 00:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I seriously suggest that Somerset do some more reading in philosophy. He appears to still be in college, so this is forgiveable. I humbly request that Somerset stop modifying things until he has read appropriate materials. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.9.149 (talk • contribs).

(you know trouble is afoot when you read "grammer" in an edit summary:) this 'murder' point seems awfully offtopic for an already rambling article. Atheists do not share a single concept of morality, period. I daresay typical atheists will at least ponder implications of humanism and morality, unlike the "who would Jesus kill" attitude of many Christian imperialists. I suggest everyone just drops it. dab (&#5839;) 00:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Atheists routinely criticize Christians for their blind faith and acceptance of relativistic bible-based morals. Atheists should be aware that their own belief systems have similar flaws, they just aren't pointed out as often.  67.187.9.149 00:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Atheism isn't a belief system. Of course atheists often pick some belief system, consciously or not, and since not every atheist is intelligent, they might often be deeply flawed; since they are not comprised by atheism, such belief systems should be discussed on their respective articles. dab (&#5839;) 00:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It is obviously a loosely defined group.  As proof, all one needs to do is to look for atheist groups on the internet.  There are plenty.  They may have differing beliefs, but they must have some unifying belief or there would be no point in forming groups.  Even the views of intelligent atheists are flawed and their logic breaks down at some point.  When one gets down to the basics, everything is belief and faith.  You may be like Nietsche in your wisdom, or you may be like Kirkegaard.

By the way, I believe that philosopers other than just Nietsche argued for relativistic morals and the nonexistence of "truth". Does anyone have the other names that could be inserted in the text to make the point more obvious to those who may not be quite as well read? Hume was one of them, I believe, before Nietsche. Kirkegaard also took up these notions, but went in a different direction. Derrida? Know there are some others, but I'd have to look them up. Anyone care to add them? 67.187.9.149 00:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * this would all belong on Relativism I suppose. dab (&#5839;) 00:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Or Moral skepticism. Evercat 00:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree because it is a rational criticism of Atheism and should remain there. Links to the other sections are relevant and welcome but not the removal or transfer of the material. 67.187.9.149 00:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * this article weighs 77k (see below).What makes you think the material you added is sacrosanct in particular? dab (&#5839;) 00:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sacrosanct? That's a rather loaded term...  Relevant information that those reading about atheism should know is how I would view it.  I would say that few relevant criticisms of atheism are preserved because atheist apologists constantly remove them, just as theists remove relevant criticisms.  My question would be why do you not view the material as relevant when much of philosophy seems to deem it so? 67.187.9.149 00:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

its actually stated here, which is what i put in to begin with. Ive addressed the need to put in Some atheists also believe that some acts are wrong by their very definition (for example, murder is defined as the unjustified killing of another person) saying you can't is hardly a fair reason. Iv'e pointed to laws, which every citizen is obligated to, how is this not a good reason. Somerset219 00:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps taking out atheism in different religions, or cutting down on definitions is more appropriate a stance. Somerset219 00:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Atheism & Nihilism
The criticism being examined is the one that atheism inevitably leads to nihilism. The basis for the claim needs some development first - supported by someone such as Nietzsche. Responses to such criticism merit inclusion too. Four reasons or systems of reasons that atheists have adopted have been presented - none of which are particularly new. If it is deccided that Nietsche has more to say in response - such as "why should I be concerned with what actions are justifiable?", then there is an opportunity to add more this important section. As it stands, Nietsche's objections are presented as fully defeating "rational morality" - when there is more than considerable doubt that his objections do not defeat all claims that "rational morality" is possible. --JimWae 01:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The repeatedly inserted claim that morality is "one person's idea of what rules he wants everyone to follow" ignores the previous statement in the paragraph that not all moral atheists are making rues for others - as such it is non-responsive & does not belong as the last sentence --JimWae 01:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this is where you wanted me to respond, Jim...I have no idea (all you wrote was "Talk"...whose, mine? yours? this page?). Your revert is incorrect.  Your mistake is reading portions of God is Dead.  You should read Beyond Good and Evil and then you MAY understand your errors.  67.187.9.149 00:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link that agrees that murder is wrong by definition. Which killings are murders might still be open to question, but I have not seen any justification for removing (censoring?) this position from the article. I think a nihilist's objection would be more about whether or not any act at all is a murder --JimWae 01:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree murder is wrong by definition but I don't see where this gets us. The justification for removing it is that nobody argues that you can use the fact that "murder is wrong" to make useful statements. It's just an a priori truth that gets us nowhere. Evercat 01:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * An interesting statement would be "killing is wrong". That's a statement that tells you something you might actually use to make moral judgements. But "murder is wrong" doesn't help me, since murder is precisely being defined as "killing that's wrong", so all we get is "killing that's wrong is wrong".


 * Now, actually Somerset219 seems to think that "unjustified" means "illegal" and so murder is "killing that's illegal". But "killing that's illegal is wrong" certainly isn't true by definition. Evercat 01:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * then edit it. Somerset219 01:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm trying to avoid a revert war. Evercat 01:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It is there because of a previous criticism in article (& many other places) that atheists have no grounds to say that murder is wrong. It also can be a starting point with which to develop a "rational morality" - if one agrees that there are murders & there are thefts, etc., then one must acknowledge that their thoughts include moral concepts - and that one does not need a deity to tell them these are wrong acts. And no, making all killing the same, including killing in self-defence, is not very helpful --JimWae 01:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My point is that if murder is just defined as "killing that's wrong" then this can't be a ground for any judgements about morality, since without further guidance we won't know whether a killing is wrong or not. On the other hand, if murder is defined as "killing that's illegal" or somesuch, then "murder is wrong" certainly is NOT true by definition.


 * I don't believe anyone argues that statements like "'murder is wrong' is true by definition" are actually useful. That's why I don't want it in the article. It's like original research. Evercat 01:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * These morals are based off of social law. killing someone for no reason may be punishable where it's prohibited. It is not original research, it's social progress. Lynchings were considered moral at one point, if not now. They were based on hearsay from the bible, and by the fact that no one ever persecuted the lynchers. Some atheists don't murder because they have no good reason to put themselves on the opposite side of the law of society. Yes, it means taking responsibility for your own actions. Somerset219 02:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point. If murder is simply "killing that's illegal", then, contrary to what you want the article to say, murder is NOT wrong by definition. Evercat 02:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

look up wrong. It is killing that's illegal, it is not contrary. killing someone is against the law. that is wrong. I guess I am missing the point. i have no idea where you're going with this. Somerset219 02:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are missing the point. It is clearly not true by definition that breaking the law is wrong. A moment's reflection will let you think of any number of situations in which breaking the law would be right, or at least neutral. Evercat 02:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

ok ok... i think you're mis reading me here. I'm being as positive as I can. the act of breaking the law is considered wrong, and society punishes you for it. this is a law. If breaking the law is right, then it's in accordance with somebody elses rules/laws; and in that way would be wrong according to another set of laws. Please tell me you understand this. in other words, breaking the law is only right when you're following someone elses laws Somerset219 02:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's unclear to me how one is supposed to choose between two conflicting sets of laws one might follow. Basically you're saying that an act can simultaneously be "right" according to one set of laws, and "wrong" according to another. And you think this saves you from the charge that morality is groundless? This is total relativism. Evercat 02:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Name me one assasin that was an atheist. I say this because most people that go around assanating people are ground in their belief that their "priority" set of laws out weighs those of society. see abortion killings. Somerset219 02:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You haven't really answered my point, I feel. One society says something is wrong, another society says it is right. So, is it objectively right or objectively wrong? How are you to decide, since "right" for you simply means accordance with the law? Whose law? Clearly it can't just be "the society I'm in". What if you're in Nazi Germany? Evercat 02:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What if you are? A lot of people had a hard time with that. some people did not kill because they lived through peaceful times and thought previous laws were better, other because of their religious laws. However lots of people did kill because hitler convinced them it was a religious war; and their religion had higher priority over social law. right and wrong are subjective, you learn this very quickly in anthropology, esp when studing cannibalistic cultures. So if you feel like you can't take responsibility for your actions and can't think on you own, then it's best for you to go and pick a religion thats won't screw you over; ie scientology, charles manson, any cult. Somerset219 02:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You say "right and wrong are subjective". I thought this was what you were arguing against? I thought you were arguing that atheists can believe in objective morality? Now you're arguing the opposite.


 * But we've drifted quite far from the point. It seems like you're now agreeing with me that "the law" and "objective right and wrong" don't have much necessary connection with each other. You say you have to "think on your own". Exactly my point. So do we agree now that something isn't wrong just because it's illegal? And therefore, if we define murder as "illegal killing", then it isn't true by definition that murder is wrong...? Evercat 03:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC), my apologies to other innocent readers of this talk page...

Im sorry when did I ever say i was arguing against subjective morality? Please quote me.

I still disagree with your main arguments, It seems you are in a word-use disagreement.: ''The justification for removing it is that nobody argues that you can use the fact that "murder is wrong" to make useful statements. It's just an a priori truth that gets us nowhere. An interesting statement would be "killing is wrong". That's a statement that tells you something you might actually use to make moral judgements. But "murder is wrong" doesn't help me, since murder is precisely being defined as "killing that's wrong", so all we get is "killing that's wrong is wrong"

Then here it seems as though you think wrong and right are objective and they have to be; however they don't have to be, hence why we have laws and punishments: My point is that if murder is just defined as "killing that's wrong" then this can't be a ground for any judgements about morality, since without further guidance we won't know whether a killing is wrong or not Somerset219 03:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

if we define murder as "illegal killing", then it isn't true by definition that murder is wrong...? it is true from a social stand point, that if you don't obey you will be punished. so it is true by definition.Somerset219 03:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To address your points in order: You're supposed to be arguing against nihilism, the view that there are no values except the ones we make up ourselves.


 * Yes, I think right and wrong have to be objective. I don't see any inconsistency in your quotes of me above, unless you're reading me as saying that, just because someone said "killing is wrong" I should accept his view. I haven't said that. What I meant was that if I were to accept that "killing is wrong", then certain logical consequences would follow, in a way that would not occur from an acceptance of "murder is wrong" where murder is defined (my way, not your way) as "killing that's wrong"....


 * It is not true by definition that "something which you will be punished for" is wrong.


 * Anyway it's late. Good night. Evercat 03:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche & Atheism & Nihilism

 * This is an article about atheism. It is not an article about Nihilism & certainly not an article about Nietzsche & how he (& our anonymous 67. contributor) thinks he has defeated all attempts at rational morality. Despite that editor's insistence, scholars do not agree that atheism inevitably leads to nihilism nor to immorality. --JimWae 22:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The placement of those remarks by Nietzsche do not even cover his main position (Beyond Good & Evil) that morality is "merely a master-slave relationship", nor are they responsive to the earlier presentation in the paragraph. --JimWae 22:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 67, you have again violated WP:3RR --JimWae 22:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=66748796&oldid=66748491 22:06 2006-JUL-30 UTC
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=66746706&oldid=66742303
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=66608740&oldid=66608044
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=66605332&oldid=66604336
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=prev&oldid=66591937 22:44 2006-JUL-29 UTC

I will not be baited into violating WP:3RR. Adding something is not a reversion. You are allowed 3 reversions per article per day - you are way over that & have no basis to accuse others of that which you so blatantly do yourself - without even responding on talk pages. I have not determined if you are a nihilist or a Xian. If a nihilist, you have no basis to argue about unfair edits (or else your arguments belie your stated claims) and unlikely to respond to anything other than consequences -- like being banned. --JimWae 00:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

3 more reversions by anonymous 67 - possibly banned user Dot 6 --JimWae 00:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=prev&oldid=66764469 23:58 2006-JUL-30 UTC
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=prev&oldid=66765841 00:09 2006-JUL 31 UTC
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=66768065&oldid=66767628 00:26 2006-JUL-31 UTC


 * Oh give it a rest. I am not "user Dot 6". I am a reasonable, though quite opinionated person.  I DID leave comments above that you apparently didn't read, I just couldn't figure out where to leave them as I am relatively new to the quite errant Wikipedia.  Everything I have added has been constantly removed or edited in favor of atheism in an apologistic fashion by people who obviously do not know their philosophy.  I have been accused and already unfairly banned once because of the mob rule behavior of others here.  My beliefs are of no concern.  I believe I read on your own page that you are an "existentialist" (by a test), do I have the right person?  If you are, then as a consequence, you have no interest in truth, right, or wrong, so don't accuse me of such.

Not even Existentialists, which I am not really - though the test cannot tell, agree that FN has done away with all basis for morality. FN thought that Xty had become nihilistic & done away will any basis for morality - he gives many indications that he thinks a "true" morality can be found - one that need not involve a deity. But whatever he thinks, it is certainly NOT the last word on the subject --JimWae 01:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you believe his word is not the last on the subject, then perhaps you should read the many others who think the same such as Kirkegaard (and several other more recent names I could dredge up if necessary). I thought Nietsche might be a little more friendly and appropriate for an atheism page than Kirkegaard. 67.187.9.149 01:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your point reminds me most of Dostoevsky. His writing appeals mostly only to those in the first stages of "death of God", or who have drawn back from even considering it. Later in life it is either laughable or simply tortured philosophy. Sure, morals are no longer absolute without deities - but that does not mean they are without foundation --JimWae 01:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

please see
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Somerset219#Atheism_Reverts for explanations on talk page. Somerset219 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

article length
I've been watching this article for over a year, and it has proven an awful sophist-magnet. It desperately needs a firm springcleaning, cutting it down to clearcut prose pointing out the essentials. It should absolutely be cut down to 60k, meaning that some 15k of ballast need to go (and good riddance too:) dab (&#5839;) 00:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ive been trying, however its hard with a belief system that has no clear cut boundries. You are more than welcome to try. Somerset219 00:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * it is not a bleeding belief system, and I don't see how that affects our ability to reduce article size per WP:SS (plus much of this article is just rambling, belief system or no, I know no other article where authors are so possessive about their phrasings). also, you might want to use a spellchecker. dab (&#5839;) 00:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is a belief system. You seem to understand the implications of the philosophies mentioned.  If so, then you know that everything is merely belief and faith.  Again, as mentioned above, if atheism is not a belief system, then why are there so many atheist groups?  You wouldn't think they would have anything in common if atheism wasn't a belief system.  67.187.9.149 00:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

if you understamd what im saying is it relevant on a talk page? Please be civil. Somerset219 00:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Perhaps stating your opinion all the time isn't appropriate either "good riddance too", "awful sophist-magnet" Somerset219 00:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Take de:Atheismus for reference: it's a FA. It's also over-long (77k), but half of that is a concise treatment of the history of the concept, not some pov-counter-pov dialogue (while the History section was unceremoniously exported from this article to gain more room for self-centered hair splitting by editors of various convictions). I would like to remind everyone that this article is not a platform for your personal views, but should give a clean and distanced overview of the whole topic. The "studies and statistics" section for one thing is insanely long and should have been exported long ago. dab (&#5839;) 00:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "...this is not a platform for your personal views, but should give a clean and distanced overview of the whole topic." I agree, which is exactly why atheism leading to nihilism should remain in the criticism section.  It is a valid philosophical criticism mentioned and maintained by multiple philosophers down through history.  Am I incorrect?  67.187.9.149 00:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is in the criticism section. No one has argued that it should not be. siafu 03:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A lower case g
I've just reverted someone's attempt to change "God" to "god". This is very controversial and I don't believe any decent text book would spell God, when used as a proper name as opposed to "a God" or "the God", with a lower case g. It's not standard and it looks to me like an atheist's attempt to impose some personal standard. --Lo2u (T • C) 10:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't read that properly. It was quite correct to change it. I've made the capitals consistent now. Best. --Lo2u (T • C) 10:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)