User:20040302/Atheism comment

After the first few paragraphs, the usage of the term appears to concur with my own: That is, atheists are those who actively disbelieve in divinity. It appears that individuals such as Adraeus have not even read further down the article, or have very strange ideas about what the article is about, or are not interested enough to continue to re-label the term appropriately. This can be shown by merely replacing the term "atheist" (when not prefixed by strong/weak) with "baby". I have marked original text from the article in bold, and possilbe replacements in italics My comments are in plaintext.

Atheism is the condition of lacking theistic belief.

I dispute this because it promotes a strong claim that is lacking in many dictionary definitions, as well as lacking in my own POV, and that of others involved in the discussion so far.

I consider the 22 Oct revision to be more NPOV, in that it reflects the opinions of a broader community:

''Some consider Atheism to be a state of merely lacking theistic belief, while others consider Atheism to be the active disbelief in, or denial of a God or gods. Many religious communities consider the term to be cognate with Infidel and the term (atheist) is often used in a strongly pejorative sense.''

(The actual wording of this could be improved upon. I feel that the current debate on the discussion page demonstrates valid, differing POV, and it would be nice to see some of that reflected in the article itself. It also introduces the controversy and polemic surrounding usage, which is notable by the amount of kerfuffle).

[...]  The literal meaning of the term is therefore "lack of belief in a god."

I dispute this as it stands, because it is merely reinforcing the POV as asserted by the first statement. The following, once more reflects the opinions of a broader community:

The literal meaning of the term is read as either "lack of belief in god" or "disbelief in god".

(Once again, I am not particularly precious with the wording - namely I feel that the object of atheism (God/gods/divinity/supernatural beings/MY GOD ONLY etc. requires some examination in the article as a whole)

'''Atheism is generally defined by most dictionaries and encyclopedias as the "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God or gods." '''

The URL above appears to agree with me regarding the definition.

The weak/strong atheism component is far too high up. there is a lot more to be said about atheism on its own.

For instance, the distinction of views regarding whether or not atheism/theism is a true or a false dichotomy. Personally, I consider it to be a false dichotomy, though I don't see how my views are directly relavant to the article, as long as they are fairly represented.

There is also a lot to be said about the history of atheism, and how the term has been used to divide society - how it was attached by the church to early scientists, and helped to feed the western split between church and science. This appears far later in the article, and it could appear up here.

I also feel that something could be written about how terms such as atheism are deliberatly used by socio-political authorities to promote their own cause, and in themselves are nothing more than tools used in socio-political projects. To say "I am a theist" or "I am an atheist" is just another way of declaring ones-self as belonging to a community; it appears to me to be nothing more than thinly veiled tribalism..

Also, I find it interesting that Buddhists (many of whom reject both atheism and theism) are considered (by the conservative abrahamic religions and Hindus) to be atheist idolators. An oxymoron if I ever saw one.

Moving on...

It appears to me, regarding the current definition of weak atheism, that it is a position (therefore an active one). The current discussion page is filled with individuals claiming that passive non-belief is cognate with weak atheism, yet this flies against the current article. I agree that weak atheism differs from agnosticism. I do feel that agnosticism needs to be included on the page, as it is commonly associated with atheism by many on a 'theist-agnostic-atheist' axis, which to my own POV appears limited already. But I respect the views of others, and I acknowledge that many people hold such an axis.

'''Weak atheism [...] is the position that there lacks reason to assert the existence or nonexistence of gods. A weak atheist abstains from positive judgment and retains tolerance of the possibility of the existence and nonexistence of gods.'''

Doesn't sound very passive to me. In which case, it may be that the definition needs to be shown to have it's own differing interpretations, that reflect the vast numbers of views concerning atheism. My POV regarding this is that weak atheists are those who choose to disbelieve in God, but they don't think it is necessarily bad for you.

'''Strong atheism, [...] is the belief that gods do not exist, which is different from a lack of theistic belief. Strong atheists often cite logical impossibilities intending to demonstrate theistic concepts of godly omnipotence omniscience [...] are contradictory and/or internally inconsistent.'''

This looks like it was written without reading the previous paragraph. My POV regarding this is that weak atheists are those who choose to disbelieve in God, and they do think it (belief in God) is necessarily bad for you. In short, they prosyletise. But I prefer not to get into such differentiations, as I feel they are developed as a part of the socio-political ramblings of people who like to use the theist/atheist false dichotomy for their own socio-political projects.

Critics of strong atheism contend that atheism requires faith due to a supposed impossibility of proving negatives

It should say "Some religious critics of atheism" [...] and cite examples.

(For the rest of the article, I feel that the weak/strong atheist labels could probably be removed in most cases. Atheist suits, though I acknowledge differing POV on that)

Strong atheists counter that for most mainstream concepts [...]

The focus on the argument, with citation indicates a very strong pro-atheist POV. This is actually a concern regarding the entire editorial. It will make theists feel uncomfortable about the article, and do nothing for the bystander who does not wish to be brow-beaten into having to choose sides. WP is not a political arena for the promotion of socio-political agendas.

Philosophy of atheism

Once again, if I am mistaken regarding the definition of atheism, then according to Atraeus et al, this is the position that babies have, so there cannot be a meaningful discussion of the philosophy of atheism! Yet the title is here.

Maybe it should be retitled to something which everyone could be more happy with, like

Atheistic Philosophies

Atheism does not prescribe a system of values, which is present in other categories of atheistic thought including [...]

This is a terribly clumsy sentence. Maybe something like: Just there are many different ways in which people believe in God, so there are many different types and philosophies of atheism

'''Most religions include a moral code (e.g., the decalogue) and teach that morality derives from their deity or deities. Their followers, therefore, often believe that to fail to believe as they do is to be without morals-or even, in the absence of a protective religious belief, to be defenseless against the corrupting influence of agents of evil.'''

I don't really feel that this belongs under 'philosophy'. Historical polemics may be more appropriate. I also feel that the entire thrust is defensive and polemical in it's own way. The paragraph appears to be a pretty unintelligent broadside attack against 'followers of most religions'. Nuts.

Atheists deny charges of amorality and accept personal responsibility for determining the morality of behavior.

It appears that even within the article as it stands, the identity of atheism is not at all clear - atheists wish to include everyone except for theists (such as babies and other innocents), and then they want to tell us (innocents) what our moral philosophies are.

However, if we accept my own definition, (that atheists are indeed active in their disbelief), then the sentence (albeit incredibly generalised) is certainly less harmful.

Atheistic organizations of certain worldviews, such as Secular Humanism, provide examples of atheistic moral codes.

Once again, defensive, but otherwise harmless. It should possibly be more postive regarding what Secular Humanism has to offer (in terms of a sense of personal responsibility - that no-one else will pick up the mess we place ourselves in, that we don't need god the judge - our own rewards are meted out by our actions, etc.)

'''Atheists accept that enrolment in a religion is unnecessary for a values orientation. Francis Bacon explains: "Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men.'''

Fine, if we accept my definition of atheism. Not at all fine for those who consider atheists to be non-theists. Babies consider nothing of the sort. Nor do Buddhists. The quote from Bacon is really great, but in the wrong place. This part of the article appears still to be very much on the defensive.

Persecution/In Communism, Marxism and the Cold War Generally good historic stuff, though I feel the titles need to be changed to something like Persecuation against atheists and Persecution by atheists.

Atheism today,Statistics definitely cover my own definition of atheists (that is those who choose to be atheist), and appears to be reasonable editorial.

Polemical usage could be expanded upon, and certainly promoted.

Atheistic religious organizations is OK, but (as ever) deeply misrepresents (by generalising) the vast population of Buddhists over 2500 years.

Jewish views of atheism Seems unbalanced because it is the only faith that is represented. Otherwise, I have no problem with it, though I doubt two paragraphs can adequately express Jewish ideas concerning atheism.