Talk:Atheism

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed.
Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes.
(This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

Relationship to definition of god

The meaning of "atheism" depends on the meaning of "god" to some degree. Self definition as an atheist is denying some specific concept of god and not every possible concept of god. Example, many atheists today would accept that they are not disbelievers in "the universe", which is one possible concept of god. Also, in defining someone else as an atheist one is saying their beliefs do not include what I conceive of as qualifying as a god. Example, Christians were considered atheists by many when the religion was young. It is often the case with a new belief that its followers and teachings are labeled more for what they don't believe than for what they do believe. Context matters. 4.250.198.191 00:12, 11 Apr 2005

The above text was moved to Talk for obvious reasons. Adraeus 09:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He makes a very good point. For example few atheists concieve of, much less disbelieve my God. Usually its an anthropomorphic Calvinist God their rejecting, in my experience (A God I also reject, incidentilly). Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 09:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The first point the anon makes doesn't stand up. Of course atheists don't disbelieve in the existence of the universe, they just don't believe that it's god (just as most atheists don't disbelieve in the existence of Jesus, but again, they deny that he was divine). Much of what's in the passage is in any case covered elsewhere in the article. It's just a rather poorly written personal essaylet by someone who hasn't read the rest of the article very carefully. I agree with Adraeus in taking it out. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

there's a good point in there somewhere, but it is not well put at all. We are not required to clean up anon's text for him. The point is made, more or less, in the article already, therefore remove. dab (ᛏ) 11:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thing is, you don't really understand what god means. A god is a supernatural being. If you call red "green", that doesn't change the fact that it is red, it simply changes what we call it. If you renamed the universe "god", then you'd have to reject reality to reject it. However, that is not what god is usually taken to mean, and it is like using the word "evil" instead of Christian; even if you mean the same thing by it, its not the usual context of the word. Titanium Dragon 13:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I'm not sure that you are right about the nature of the God that strong atheists typically reject. I am sure it runs the gamut from anthropomorphic God-in-the-sky, to the Deist Creator-God, to the pantheist God that you worship. In my experience, strong atheists are quite sophisticated in their knowledge of religion and philosophy, and know about a variety of possible conceptions of God, rejecting all of them. This is only my personal experience, and I wouldn't make generalizations from it in the absence of data. However, you shouldn't either. --BM 20:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

our definition of atheism relies on the deity article, which in turn defines a deity as essentially supernatural. Atheists according to this reject the supernatural. I don't know if there are atheist spiritists, but they are in fringe territory since it is almost impossible to separate deity from spirit, historically. Calling the Universe "God", to the atheist, is just silly terminology, since it's already called "the Universe", and since it is not supernatural at all, but rather the sum of everything natural. Atheists would also reject anything "outside" the Universe as an oxymoron. dab (ᛏ) 20:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'spiritist'; could you explain? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think your last comment, dab, is always true. For instance, not all atheists would reject Star Trek-space travel as oxymoronic, and there are certainly some theoretical astrophysicists who would disagree with the idea that there exists only a single "Universe". Rationally, to claim there is only a single "Universe" — directly or indirectly — is premature considering our exploration of time/space is so limited. Adraeus 23:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

of course with "Universe" I do not mean "known Universe", but universum, i.e. "all" by definition. As long as hyperspace is describable with natural laws, there is no reason to call it "supernatural". With 'spiritist' I mean, belief in (disembodied) spirits. Polytheistic gods are not different in essence from disembodied spirits, so I believe it would be misleading to call an occultist without belief in a single God an atheist. dab (ᛏ) 05:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It sounds, then, as though you're lumping dualists in with what you mean by 'spiritist', in which case I have to disagree; there are many atheists who are dualists (I'm one of them), just as there have been many theists who are physicalists. Moreover polytheists gods are different from mere dismbodied spirits (for a start, of course, they needn't be disembodied), and polytheistic religions generally make clear distinctions between the two. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

wait a minute, by "dualist" do you mean Zoroastrian/Gnostic-style belief in two deities? Then you are clearly outside our present definition. An atheist needs to reject both monotheism and polytheism (including the special cases of Henotheism and Dualism). We say that an atheist rejects theistic beliefs. Theistic beliefs are belief in deities, and deities we define as supernatural. A "physicalist theist" believes that there are powerful but natural beings (such as aliens)? Not a theist, then. Polytheistic gods may be embodied, they need not even be immortal (megas Pan tethneken), but they need to be supernatural in some way, otherwise they are just an elite (human, alien, elvish or what have you), but not gods. dab (ᛏ) 11:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I realize, belatedly, that you mean the "other" dualism, belief in an otherworld. You need then to decide that both worlds are really on a par, and their conjunction may be considered the "Universe", or, if you assume a hierarchy, one of these worlds as "natural", and the other as "super-natural", and if you furthermore assume that the supernatural world contains "entities" (excluding the boundary case of an "empty otherworld", probably applicable to Buddhism), you are, by our definition, a theist. It sounds like you may be a polytheist after all, Mel. (I am myself uncertain whether to classify myself as a polytheist with atheistic leanings, or vice versa, or a naturalist with a taste for philosophical monotheism, hell I don't know. Luckily, nobody cares :) dab (ᛏ) 11:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dualism is a heavily overloaded term. I think Mel is probably labelling himself a dualist in the Cartesian sense. In the philosophy of mind, a materialist considers that there is only the material world, and that "minds" as separate entities do not exist. A dualist asserts the existence of "minds" and "mental" objects as separate from material "bodies". This gives rise to the famous "mind-body problem": what is the nature of the interaction between "minds" and "bodies"? Probably most atheists who have considered the problem are materialists, but I don't think an atheist is obliged to adopt any particular view regarding the mind-body problem. The world of "minds" and "mental" objects need not be identified with the "supernatural". Christians with their notion of persistent, ghost-like "souls" that go to "Heaven" to be with "God", etc, seem to conflate the two, though --BM 11:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

as long as you assume the "mind" space operates strictly causal, you remain a materialist, the mind-body problem is reduced to the question of interaction between two weakly coupled, but entirely 'natural' subspaces. As soon as you assume the 'mind' space is somehow exempt from cause and effect, you are in 'spiritist' and/or 'theist' territory. Early polytheism is not clearly separable from spiritism / animism / ancestor worship. If you believe in ghosts and (non-material/non-causal) souls, but not God, you may classify yourself among early polytheists, typologically. dab (ᛏ) 12:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BM's right about my position (sorry, I didn't make myself clear; it's because in philosophy 'dualist' is rarely used to refer to anything else but mind–body dualism).

It's wrong to say that because the mind is causally related to the body therefore it's material; that makes an assumption which is either question-begging or ungrounded (or both). Moreover, those who hold that mind doesn't have effects on body (such as epiphenomenalists) are usually materialists. And I don't see how believing in non-causal minds would bring one in to polytheism... what's the connection? You seem to be simply identifying such a position with polytheism by definition, but that's not really on (and certainly lies outside normal definitions of the term). But this isn't the place to debate such a complex and difficult issue. I avoid the articles related to such matters, but I'd be happy to discuss it by e-mail, or on my Talk page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this should be taken to Talk:deity. We seem to agree that atheism means "absence or rejection of belief in deities", so what we should argue about is how to define deity, otherwise our definition on atheism is worthless. 'materialist' doesn't mean 'belief that the world consists of little hard polyhedrons' anymore. It means belief that there is a set of abstract natural laws that have no exceptions and are fully consistent. Whether these operate in 'mind' or in 'body' space is irrelevant. But I agree to terminate this discussion at this point, since it will not lead to modifications of the present article. See you on Talk:deity sometime, maybe? dab (ᛏ) 12:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather not get involved with Talk:Deity, to be honest. And use of 'materialist' to refer to immaterial minds would be rather odd. But if you want to discuss this on User talk:Mel Etitis/Mind and body, I'd be happy to set out my views and arguments at greater length. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

gladly. WP is not a discussion forum, but it may lead to improvements on deity eventually, so it seems justified to have that discussion. dab (ᛏ) 13:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some atheists reject the undefined or unprovable or nonobjective object others claim to hold in awe, worship, and/or pray to as it is not rightfully called god in their view. So their rejection is not so much a rejection of the object they call god as it is a rejection that what they call god is rightfully called god. Other atheists claim to reject objective proveable or anthropormorphic gods while reserving judgement for objects they lack evidence for or believe in but call by another name (laws of physics - I don't stop believing in them just cause you want to call them god). 4.250.27.212 23:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Use of the term currently and over time is mixed in with discussion of the belief in The concept currently and over time and Analysis of the term currently and over time. While no one frame or structure is best, perhaps a section labeled Use of the term would help. 4.250.27.212 00:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some who are atheists by one or more definitions of the term never-the-less claim not to be atheists. Some who claim to be atheists never-the-less behave in ways that appear to be evidence they hold theistic beliefs (pray, reverance, church attendance, giving money to a church, bowing to an idol (an Indian software engineer I knew; his grandmother in India mailed him a stone carved god !) 4.250.27.212 01:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What would help this article meet the needs of its typical English speaking reader? 4.250.27.212 04:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

if you call the laws of physics "God" you're just fooling with semantics. You can also call them "Zebra" without having an effect on Zoology. Participation in religious rites you don't believe in obviously doesn't keep you from being an atheist. There may be a strong ethical code not to deny your position among some atheists, but for others it may be just as acceptable to participate in any religious behaviour whatsoever, since they don't think it matters in the least. dab (ᛏ) 12:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm refering to belief structures the believer does not call "the laws of physics" but after applying Occam's Razor they boil down to that. Most people I talk to who believe in Pantheism can't point to a single real world provable result if Pantheism were true that differs from the results if "the laws of physics" are true. They believe in "Entities multiplied beyond necessity". I find no reason to distinguish atheism from atheism with belief in entities that result in no known difference to the objectively verifyable universe, which I believe to be the case for many believers in Pantheism and the like. 4.250.27.74 18:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What constitutes a "god"? Is a "god" only such a being if imbued with monotheistic (Christian) traits? [1] (http://www.talkatheism.org/node/4) [2] (http://www.metavirus.net/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=135) Or is a "god" simply "any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force"? [3] (http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.0?stage=1&word=god) Apparently, the definitions of atheism in the article are inapplicable if the non-academic uses of the term "atheism" really apply to theists — today. But is such re-application valid given the etymological construction of "atheism" meaning "a-" "-theism"? How would we make this distinction more clear? And is revamping the introduction and Types of atheism to make the distinction clear necessary? Adraeus 19:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you both have a point. Pantheism is often virtually indistinguishable from atheism (I rediscovered that on Brethren of the Free Spirit, yesterday.) Maybe it really does boil down to a matter of terminology. As long as we have the "supernatural" in the definition of deity, the laws of nature do not qualify as (part of) a deity. But I am not so sure anymore the "supernatural" (whatever that means) is really a prerequisite :o\ If Emperors can be divine, it seems that simply accumulating enough "mana" (which may be a perfectly natural substance) makes you a deity. dab (ᛏ) 07:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The term supernatural is actually a reference to a belief in the supernatural. That is, to designate something as "supernatural", one must believe in the supernatural. ... "supernatural" is a null phrase, being self-contradictory, in that if something exists, it is "natural" and must conform to the "natural laws" of the Universe in which it exists. From this it follows that something "unnatural" cannot exist except as imaginary items, and that this must necessarily include instances of the so called "supernatural". As the consensus model of our Baryonic Universe precludes most of the attributes which people would claim are required for gods, and as no evidence or necessity for such beings appear to exist, ... gods [are] less likely than tooth-fairies. — Hermit. [4] (http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=31;action=display;threadid=29351)

Adding to that, the definition of supernatural in some contexts may simply be "of or relating to scientifically inexplained phenomena". For example, I may claim "the standard monotheistic God is inherently supernatural" which would mean — as an implicit atheist — that the monotheistic God may be beyond our current scientific models of "reality". Adraeus 07:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

yes, but the question is, can you believe that there is no such thing as "supernatural" phenomena, other than as-yet-unexplained nature, and still believe in deities? Anyway I have replaced super- with preter- on deity now, which makes for a somewhat looser definition. dab (ᛏ) 09:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A person can believe in anything and still believe in deities.

"All belief is essentially irrational, as belief can only occur where acceptance is not compelled, for if acceptance is compelled, then belief is not required to accept that thing. Belief is thus the acceptance of some thing as being provisionally true where: contradictory evidence exists which throws doubt upon or compels the rejection of the thing being accepted as truth; or where insufficient evidence exists to compel or suggest acceptance of the thing as truth." — Hermit.
"Belief is the impress made upon our minds when we are under the spell of or in subjection to another." — Hypatia of Alexandria

Bottomline: "A believer does not require evidence that justifies his/her beliefs in order to believe." — Adraeus ;)

In the spirit of Occam's Razor: Belief is not bound by rationality. Despite evidence that falsifies (or suggests falseness of) objects of belief, the number of objects of belief is infinite and expansive, like the universe [as we know it]. To directly answer your question: we can accept — based on evidence, assertions, and sound models of "reality" provided by trusted sources (including logic devised through critical thinking) — that the attribute "supernatural" is a misnomer, a null attribute, contradictory, and/or ambiguous (being uniquely defined from points-of-emission), and we can retain theistic beliefs. Adraeus 10:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

no. I would not consider something that is self-contradictory a belief, because it is not even a statement. If we define deities as "supernatural", you can not at the same time reject the concept of supernatural and accept the concept of deity. It's not about true or untrue, it's about consistency (come on, this is straightforward). You claim the concept of 'supernatural' is self-contradictory in itself, but I do not accept that. Nor is credo quia absurdum - it is the position that there are (whatever are means, here) things unaccessible to any human notion of causality or consequence. This is not self-contradictory in itself, although it is of course unverifiable. It only becomes that if you at the same time accept and reject this position. dab (ᛏ) 10:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Before I can properly reply, you'll need to rewrite your response in order to preserve the coherence of your original meaning. Adraeus 11:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

um. struck out tangents to increase coherence. Maybe we should just drop it, though. dab (ᛏ)

I still can't derive reason from your reply, and I don't want to reply as if I know what you are talking about; otherwise, we'll get off-topic. I think you are somehow misreading what I wrote about beliefs and the oxymoronic nature of "supernatural", or you simply have not given that which I wrote enough consideration. Excluding the "no", your first claim doesn't make any sense. Your second claim ignores mental illness, delusion, and self-deception. And your third claim seems to state that beliefs require consistency. (Beliefs are not bound by reason, logic, and consistency. Beliefs can be in whatever-whenever regardless of logical ridiculousness. See also: Christianity [5] (http://www.talkatheism.org/node/4) [6] (http://www.metavirus.net/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=76)) Further clarification of the quotes above, too, seems unneeded and extremely difficult. I'd simply be repeating myself if I tried. Adraeus 11:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well, it seems you just disagree with me then. You link to the same (atheist) text by one Chad Docterman, twice. If we talk about that, we'll get sidetracked, but I don't think it would raise any scholastic eyebrows. I don't think we'll get any further if you expect me to ponder the intricacies of your implications, while you are at liberty to dismiss my statements as 'making no sense'. Maybe you should give it some more consideration. Yes, I assert that a belief that can be stated is necessarily consistent. Just because some atheists say the concept of God is not consistent doesn't make it so. A mystic may want to express the ineffability of his experience with self-contradictions, but that is outside the concept of "belief". A belief implies a statement, e.g. "The Holy Spirit emanates from the Son". You say that, and then you say "this, I believe". This belief makes sense assuming you grant that "Holy Spirit", "to emanate" and "the Son" are meaningful concepts. If you do (of course you don't, but assuming), the statement may be true or untrue, but it is not self-contradictory. "Linear, singularity and trinity equate to evil math within Nature's Cubic Creation." or "green ideas sleep furiously" or "the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe" are not statements, and therefore they cannot be believed or disbelieved. dab (ᛏ) 12:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Beliefs do not require verbal admissions of holding. Beliefs can be demonstrated by behavior and "knowledge" of other subjects. Beliefs are not required to make sense to be held true. Beliefs are not required to be falsifiable. Beliefs can regard anything regardless of logical ridiculousness. Belief allows us to deceive ourselves. Belief is irrational. "God is and God isn't." That doesn't make sense? How can God be and God not be? Right. That's a logical error; however, belief doesn't require logic to be held true. Simply because there's a flaw in a belief doesn't necessitate a belief to be false. A belief can never be false to a believer. A belief can always be held true. Adraeus 18:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

devotional

I take a more practical view. To me, "god" is "that to which god-belivers address their devotion". For me, atheism means that I think that when god-belivers pray, they are talking to thin air.

Taoism and Buddhism (in History section)

We currently have the following:

the practical application of these worldviews to religious thought remains atheistic

This could be a whole lot clearer. I'd clarify it myself, if I were entirely sure what the intent was. (This somewhat goes to the above "what constitutes a god" discussion, perhaps, as many of the proposed criteria are found in assorted branches of Buddhism, though none are necessitated by its basic precepts.) Alai 05:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This relates to atheism in behavior rather than atheism in belief. Atheism in behavior is inadequately dealt with in this article. The article as it stands is more about atheism as it relates to professors of philosophy having a tete-a-tete than to a pantheist, a Catholic, and an atheist discussing the implications of atheism to stem cell research, capital punishment, prayer, or purpose in life.

"the practical application of these worldviews to religious thought remains atheistic" So what is the "practical application" of atheism? A behavior section would be useful. Maybe Atheism and behavior should exist ? 4.250.27.129 19:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking Atheism and behavior would be rather stublike: "Atheists act like everyone else, but they use different justifications." --Yath 20:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't really follow. In many respects, Buddhists (to particularise) don't act like atheists; and how does this relate to "religious thought"? I'm inclined to rewrite this as saying that deities and worship thereof isn't required by Buddhism, and would be seen by almost all adherents as subsidiary to its fundamentals, or some such form of words. (Am vaguer about the role of deities in Taoism.) Whether this would clarify or completely change the original intent I'm honestly in the dark about. Alai 06:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't really follow this. It would probably help me if you could say how atheists act, and then I could judge whether or not Buddhists act like that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I substantially rewrote the Buddhist/Taoist section. Asserting that early Buddhist texts assume an atheistic standpoint is factually wrong; the earliest texts that we have available include Vedic deities, supernatural powers, and visits to and from heaven. What distinguishes Buddhism is not its rejection of the reality of deities, but rather its assertion that deities are bound by the same rules as humans and other beings, and are not necesary to the ultimate salvific goal (Nirvana). Claiming that supernatural elements are later additions is usually based on circular logic: we know that the early teachings denied the supernatural because the supernatural parts are later additions, and we known the supernatural parts are later additions because the early teachings denied the supernatural. --Clay Collier 03:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Anyone want to collaborate?

The article as it stands alludes to but does not deal with in a clear, direct, specific way the concerns expressed in response to my abortive first attempt. Let us alter the article in an attempt to address the above concerns in a more clear way than it does now. Please do not simply revert any change. Some changes can be seeds for the clarity needed. Anyone care to COLLABERATE in an attempt to better address the issues discussed just now? 4.250.132.149 16:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heck yeah! Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 20:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you put your proposed wording on this Talk page and let people discuss it first. To be honest, your first attempt was not very clear, and it was probably reverted because the editor didn't know where to start in working it into the article in a reasonable way. --BM 21:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suggest adding the following as the second sentence: "In contexts where there are disagreements concerning "What qualifies as deities?" there are thus disagreements concerning "What qualifies as atheism?" (for a possible example see pantheism)." I did add this as the second sentence of the article. My prior attempt to add a comment to the END of the article was thrown away. THIS attempt was thrown away. One might get the idea that some people think their prose can not be improved upon. Nhaaah that can't be it. So, guys, where do we go from here? 4.250.132.149 01:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you want your prose and style critiqued, call upon Mel Etitis. I'm certain he'll be reasonably harsh, and lesser than I would.Adraeus 01:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that sentence was justifiably removed because it is completely unclear and vague, and anyway making it the second sentence dives into details far too early in the article. By the way, there is already long paragraph concerning definitions of God in the Types of Atheism section. --BM 11:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I asked "where do we go from here?" BM refers me to "paragraph concerning definitions of God in the Types of Atheism section" which is a good place to start. The last sentence "Most (though not necessarily all) atheists who deny the existence of deities as supernatural beings would probably also deny this and similar conceptions of God, or consider them to be incomprehensible." While without doubt perfect in every way (just my sense of humor, I figure I'm just gonna get shot down again, so I might as well make light of it) I feel it doesn't adequately cover "Maybe it really does boil down to a matter of terminology." (by dab (ᛏ) 07:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) in the previous section). Evidence to date indicates you won't like my choice of words in dealing with this, so perhaps someone with more karma (slashdot useage) here can help out.

That would be a good start. Where I'm going with all this is:

To what extent is this about disagreements about the results of experiments (I call that reality) versus words used to communicate and model reality versus our emotions and choices in response to reality. Does praying for rain work? Do we call whatever is most powerful God? Do we stand in awe before life or do we investigate and conquor it? Three ways of being an atheist. Three ways of NOT being an atheist. People can and do mix and match. 4.250.198.65 23:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Praying for something is actually an attempt at conjuration a la witchcraft.
Prayer is actually a method for centering yourself, aligning your thoughts with religious ideas, and for reflecting on previous behaviors. Outside religion, "prayer" is called concentration.
A "god" in Greek mythology is not necessarily the most powerful deity.
Let's leave philosophical teaching out of the article. This is an encyclopedia. It is not a podium. Adraeus 00:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would anyone like to comment on the following proposed addition

Atheists do not believe in dieties, gods or God. Atheists do not believe in using the terms or concepts of deities, gods or God to describe, communicate or model that which exists. Atheists believe that regardless of the emotional and behavior choices one makes in response to all of existance, treating some segment of existance as if it were sacred or supernatural or a diety does not make it so. 4.250.27.129 16:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article already states this. Anyway, your proposed paragraph is simply repetitious, or else it draws one into vague notions like terms or concepts "modelling" that which exists. I don't understand the point of the last sentence. --BM 16:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article covers belief ("the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities.") I am suggesting it also cover use of the term and behavior as it relates to atheism. Using other words: The article has the philosophy, the history, the etymology, the types, and the views. The semantic, sociology and psychology aspects are a tad weak. 4.250.27.129 19:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

4.250.27.129 makes a very good point, atheism is the specific disbelief in something, not a general state of ignorance.

Prayer is a conversation with God, or at least a spiritual movement towards him. Sometimes that involves requests, repentance, mantras, sometimes a libation, or other physical act. It varies depending on the person, everyones relationship with, and understanding of, God is slightly different.

This article needs a substantial rewrite, which I suggest be attempted early and often. Waiting to achieve concensus on the talk page prior to additions is simply not possible on this of all pages. Anyone who doesn't believe me can look at the archives. We can argue all day, but this is an encyclopedia, not a debate forum. The work needs done.

Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 20:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities. We've covered the definition of strong atheism, Sam, and we've covered the historically and evidently accurate definition of weak atheism. Continuing to push your baseless point-of-view that there exists only strong atheism is not helping the legitimacy of your participation.

Prayer is actually a method for centering yourself, aligning your thoughts with religious ideas, and for reflecting on previous behaviors. Outside religion, "prayer" is called concentration. Any "prayer requests" can be simply relegated to conjurative witchcraft disguised as "prayer". For example, "God, please give me the strength to kill these men." Or "God, please give me a Super Soaker 9000." "God, give me a winning lottery ticket." That's not prayer. Aside from cognitive delusions, there's no such thing as a "conversation with God", literally. Such a description of prayer merely gives rise to the validity of "God told me to kill those children." Mantra? That's a chant—witchcraft. Libation—cult behavior. The problem is that most religionists don't know how to pray so they make up all sorts of so-called prayer methods. Prayer is just meditation, and because it's meditation, don't expect praying for the health of another to somehow affect the health of another. That's just one more magic trick. Prayer is personal and proper meditation benefits only the one praying.

The article already covers the anonymous user's concerns. Judging from the quality of the attempted edits by the anonymous user and the anonymous user's demonstration of understanding of the topic, I don't think the anonymous user has read the entire article, done any extra-Wikipedia research, or even completed higher education of English composition. Adraeus 21:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for clearing all that up for us. --Goethean 22:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sam - for prayer to be a "conversation with God", you would have to believe in god in the first place. To an atheist, prayer might look like nothing more than hocus pocus and magic spells - "If I say the right magic words, the invisible man will come and help me." Yes, totally rational. Aaarrrggh 22:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is merely a thread hijack--the anon did not mean to assert that active disbelief was the only definition of atheism. --Yath 00:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Atheism

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism. The tribal gods of the early inhabitants of Palestine are of little or no philosophical interest. They were essentiallly finite beings, and the god of one tribe or collection of tribes was regarded as good in that it enabled victory in war against tribes with less powerful gods. Similarly the Greek and Roman gods were more like mythical heroes and heroines than like the omnipotent, omniscient and good God postulated in mediaeval and modern philosophy. As the Romans used the word, ‘atheist’ could be used to refer to theists of another religion, notably the Christians, and so merely to signify disbelief in their own mythical heroes.

The word ‘theism’ exhibits family resemblance in another direction. For example should a pantheist call herself an atheist? Or again should belief in Plato's Form of the Good or in John Leslie's idea of God as an abstract principle that brings value into existence count as theism (Leslie 1979)? Let us consider pantheism.

At its simplest, pantheism can be ontologically indistinguishable from atheism. Such a pantheism would be belief in nothing beyond the physical universe, but associated with emotions of wonder and awe similar to those that we find in religious belief. I shall not consider this as theism. Probably the theologian Paul Tillich was a pantheist in little more than this minimal sense and his characterising God as the ground of being has no clear meaning. The unanswerable question ‘Why is there anything at all?’ may give us mystical or at any rate dizzy feelings but such feelings do not differentiate the pantheist from the atheist. However there are stronger forms of pantheism which do differentiate the pantheist from the atheist (Levine, 1994). For example the pantheist may think that the universe as a whole has strongly emergent and also mind-like qualities. Not emergent merely in the weak sense that a radio receiver's ability to receive signals from distant stations might be said to be emergent because it is not a mere jumble of components (Smart 1981). The components have to be wired together in a certain way, and indeed the workings of the individual compunents can be explained by the laws of physics. Contrast this with a concept of emergence that I shall call ‘strong emergence’. C. D. Broad in his Scientific Thought (Broad 1923) held that the chemical properties of common salt could not even in principle be deduced from those of sodium and chlorine separately, at the very time at which the quantum theory of the chemical bond was beginning to be developed. Though the mind has seemed to some to be strongly emergent from its physical basis, it can be argued that developments in the philosophy of mind, cognitive science and neuroscience favour weak emergence only.

One strong form of pantheism ascribes mental properties to the cosmos. If the weak sense of emergence was adopted we would be faced with the question of whether the universe looks like a giant brain. Patently it does not. Samuel Alexander asserted, rather than argued, that mentality strongly emerged from space-time, and then that at some future time there will emerge a new and at present hardly imaginable level which he called ‘deity’ (Alexander 1927). It is hard to tell whether such an implausible metaphysics should be classified as as pantheism or as theism. Certainly such a deity would not be the infinite creator God of orthodox theism. A. N. Whitehead, too, had a theory of an emergent deity, though with affinities to Platonism, which he saw as the realm of potentiality and thus connected the atemporal with the contingent temporal deity (Whitehead 1929). Such views will not deliver, however implausibly, more than a finite deity, not the God of core theism. God would be just one more thing in the universe, however awesome and admirable.

The weak form of pantheism accepts that the physical universe is all and eschews strong emergence. Sometimes the weak form of panthism is rhetorically disguised as theism, with God characterised as ‘absolute depth’ or some equally baffling expression, as by Paul Tillich. At any rate, whether or not we accept pantheism as a sort of theism, what we mean by ‘atheism’ will vary according to what in the dialectical situation we count as theism. 4.250.33.72 00:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed text

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. [7] (http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html)

I've just retrieved this, which was removed by Adraeus with the edit summary: "rv. redundant, and improper for a Wikipedia article". My first thought is that it should be tidied up, perhaps expanded a little and reinserted, as neither of the two reasons given seems to me to be true (in so far as I understand the latter), but are there any thoughts from others?

Oh, and why should Chinese religion be qualified as 'traditional'? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think I'd agree that the above is editorializing and would count as original research. It's also not entirely clear how the Russell link acts as a source for it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:20, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

The removed text is styled in a way inappropriate for a formal Wikipedia article as it is what one would expect to read on a message board rather than on Wikipedia. The removed text would have been redundant if the information regarding "atheists who refrain from identification with atheism for various reasons" had not been removed from the Types of atheism section. To that extent, if there's something useful to be gained from the anonymous user's edit, that is the re-inclusion of information regarding non-identifying atheists. (My dad, for instance, is an atheist by definition; however, he refuses to identify as an atheist due to the stigma attached to what is generally perceived as representative of atheism and its adherents. My organization, the Center for Atheism (http://www.talkatheism.org/), is working towards the goal of de-stigmatizing the atheism brand.)
See Adherents.com (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Chinese) for information on Chinese traditional religion.

Adraeus 17:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But the text isn't about people trying to avoid stigma, but about people whose views match what we'd normally call atheism, but whose epistemological views lead them to avoid that term. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The removed text regards atheists who do not identify with "atheism" for epistemological reasons. A previous version of the Types of atheism section included a line similar to: "there exist those who refrain from identifying with atheism for whatever reason while satisfying the criteria for description as an atheist."

Note: Please use proper formatting when you respond to others. Adraeus 18:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see that 'for whatever reason' is duplicated by 'for epistemological reasons', especially when the actual wording was more specific than that.

I've no idea what you mean by the final line (does anyone else?), but it's not the first time that you've lectured other editors on their supposed lapses in etiquette — as I remember, your last one concerned someone daring to use the third person. One of the worst lapses of good manners is to lecture others in this way; you might add it to your list. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An epistemological reason, like a stigmatic reason, for non-identification with atheism is inherent to whatever reason (e.g., atheists are those without god-beliefs for whatever reason). Your suggestion that we include every reason for non-identification is patently ridiculous considering the existence of diversity in thought.

Every time you post in discussion I have to add colons to clarify to whom you're replying. Your combativeness is getting tiresome and, quite frankly, boring. I suggest you drop the smartass remarks and concentrate on the article. By the way, I hope you realize that by lecturing me on what constitutes "good manners" by your definition you lapsed in good manners. Moreover, you should also realize that I did not lecture you on proper wikiquette. Note "please". It was a request. Perhaps you should pay more attention to what's actually written rather than focusing on how nasty you can be to me. Adraeus 23:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Proper formatting" is a peculiar way to describe my approach indentation, given that the standard Wikipedia approach is to indent two or three times before returning to an unindented comment — otherwise the discussion finishes up over on the right, looking silly (see Wikipedia:Talk page#Standards and conventions of writing and layout). This isn't the first time that you've reprimanded someone for acting in accordance with Wikipedia convention and policy.
You seem to be saying that, because one can't include every reason (and I frankly doubt that there are many), one should include none. A philosophically important reason, and one connected to the very essence of atheism (belief or non-belief) is the epistemological appeal to a certain notion of justification, which leads some people to deny that they're atheists, despite their meeting the normal criteria. That seems to me to be a significant point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reprimanded? I requested that you make it clear to us to whom you are speaking. Hence, "please". By the way, unlike you I'm not citing policy. Refer to the actual definition of "proper" — "proper, right, suitable: appropriate for a condition or occasion". Now that you've brought the indenting guideline to my attention...

You doubt that there are many reasons for non-identification with atheism? Fine. I challenge you to list all the reasons definitional atheists use for not identifying as atheists. I'll start you off with a few examples:

"I don't identify as an atheist because..."

...my mom is Christian.
...there might be a God.
...my dog, Sam, howls at the moon.
...Helga says she'll beat me up.
...I'm superstitious.
...life is wonderful.
...this uniform makes me look fat.

If you don't understand that there are an infinite number of reasons for non-identification as an atheist, then more than likely, you don't understand the concept "to each his own". Adraeus 16:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, your usual pleasant tone. I'll leave the courtesy issue, as it's clearly not getting through. On the central issue, even leaving aside the fact that most of your 'examples' seem to have nothing to do with the case at all, you're conflating two distinct matters: not wanting publicly to admit being an atheist while believing oneself to be one, and not believing oneself to be an atheist even though one's (lack of) beliefs meet the normal criteria. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not conflating issues. I'm showing you another way to think. "I am (not) an atheist because... <insert reason>." An epistemological reason is a reason. Insert it. Now I'm going to refer to policy. Wikipedia policy suggests that editors do not write what people believe; instead, Wikipedia policy suggests that editors write about what people believe from a NPOV. Editors should also avoid gender-specific terms wherever possible. The removed copyvio text violates both suggestions.

There's actually three distinct issues: avoiding admission of atheism for whatever reason while recognizing satisfaction of the criteria for definition as an atheist, avoiding admission of atheism and believing to be something else while satisfying the criteria for definition as an atheist, and avoiding admission of atheism and satisfying the criteria for definition as an atheist while believing to be not an atheist. (By the way, would you please be nice and explain the removed copyvio text using Occam's Razor. I'm having difficulty understanding what exactly the quote is describing, but that may be due to the passage's lack of specificity.) Adraeus 05:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't really follow most of this. The first comment is obscure and vague. The reference to writing about what people believe rather than writing what they believe is clear, but doesn't apply to the passage in question. The business about gender is minor, and not a reason for deletion.

The English in your second paragraph goes a bit haywire, and perhaps that's why the distinction between the last two is unclear. I've no idea how one explains something using Ockham's Razor, nor do I understand why you don't follow the passage, I'm afraid. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Occam's Razor. What's your simplest explanation of the text that was removed? Adraeus 00:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know what Ockham's Razor is; it doesn't apply to something like this, in which no entities are involved.
Are you really saying that you don't know what the text means? Why did you call it redundant and inappropriate then?
Why have you ignored all my points but this one? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm asking you what you think it means in the simplest terms possible. What points have you made? By the way, Occam's Razor can be applied to anything. Adraeus 19:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Occam's Razor can be applied to anything, but it isn't always useful. Many people mistakenly invoke the principle because something is complex. Essentially, Occam's Razor is basically the idea that the simplest theory which fits all the facts available is most likely to be the correct one. Invoking Occam's Razor in relation to text is not really valid; text may be verbose and far from straightforward, but text is not a theory. Stating things clearly and concisely in as few words as possible is certainly good writing technique, but it has nothing to do with Occam's Razor. Titanium Dragon 01:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Returning to the discussion of the removed text, I think this is a valid point, and should have been cleaned up rather than removed. There is a much pithier version of this point in the article on Strong atheism, in the form of a quote from Richard Dawkins. --BM 13:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Er, given my oft-stated opinion of Dawkins, you can imagine my response to wanting to quote him here. I'd rather explain it ourselves (or quote an epistemologist). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

Editors are not obligated to clean-up every poorly written and clumsy contribution. As such, the removed text was removed. If you want to clean-up the removed text and reinsert it, do it. Nobody's stopping you, but don't criticize editorial decisions that improve the quality of an article. On a wiki, nothing is ever truly deleted. Adraeus 16:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The removed text was A DIRECT QUOTE from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [8] (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/) I leave judgements concerning Adraeus to the reader. (The above long piece titled atheism is also from there. For comparison.) 4.250.27.38 20:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In that case it was in breach of copyright (as was your use of the text above). Please don't do that again. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In addition, the removed copyvio text was also POV. Most, if not all, SEP entries are written from the perspective of the authoring philosopher. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to use whatever resources available to us to provide objective contributions to our encyclopedia. You can, however, quote SEP entries if you provide citation, and if you provide relevant context within which the quote is reasoned to exist. Adraeus 05:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for deletion on this article are often specious

This article is not being allowed to grow and evolve. Every bud is broken off with the excuse that it isn't a full grown limb.

From [Wikipedia:Editing policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy|)] :

"incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can evolve into polished, presentable masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing."

"One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work destroyed without warning. So, whatever you do, try to preserve information."

"Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Wikipedia can be a very energetic place, and it's best for the project as a whole if we concentrate our energies on improving articles rather than defending our pet theories, ideologies, religions, etc." 4.250.132.245 21:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The subject of these comments is very clearly first drafts of articles. Having said that, you've also stumbled into an article that has been the subject of hot debate, and you added a copyright-violating passage which, frankly, wasn't well-written. I agree that Adraeus acted too hastily, and somewhat aggressively, but that's the way he does everything. It's difficult to get used to it, but at least one learns to expect it.

If I were you, I'd try editing some less controversial articles, so that you get a feel for the Wikipedia approach; then you might try something a bit heavier, like Atheism (or Creation science...). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Atheism, despite its furious editorial battleground, is a well-written, reasonably researched, and evolving article. Inserting incomplete, poorly written, and copyright-violating text into the article could by no reasonable definition be regarded as improvement. Your intentions are good, I understand, but your contributions need to conform to, at least, the style and quality of previously accepted contributions. You may also want to register a username to avoid the stigma attached to anonymous users.

Like Mel Etitis said, I act quickly and aggressively, but what he didn't mention was why. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia which is actively being visited by readers around the world. Before you contribute, you need to stop and consider your would-be edits. Are they appropriate? Are they well-written? Researched? Fact-checked? Cited? Are there any grammatical or spelling errors? Can the content be improved before being published? The objective is to reduce the error margin before contributing. If there are any mistakes you didn't notice before publishing, they'll most likely be corrected. Anyway, that's part of how you improve an article. Adraeus 00:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Archiving

Live and very recent discussions shouldn't be archived. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

None of the discussions archived for #21 seemed "live", "recent", or "on-topic". Whatever floats your boat.Adraeus 22:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

History section, about communist states

Haiduc added some info about control of religion in communist states which is generally right. I added one more sentence. I wanted to say there: initially the communist states were very strict in control of everything, this lasted some decade and then it went slowly down, for next few decades. The state simply didn't have much of resources to keep its functioning and control of religion was victim of cuts. Please feel free to fix clumsy wording there.

Being here: the History section somehow misses explanation of growth of atheims in last century(ies), at least in Western civilization. This trend and its causes must have been examined thoroughly. Pavel Vozenilek 23:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My suspicion is that, first the reasons can't be pinned dowwn precisely, because we're in the field of sociology and psychology, and secondly, that the explanations that have been offered will be objected to be believers. I might be wrong; if you want to add some material, then we'll find out (light the blue touch paper and retire...). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not want to add anything, I just saw a gap. Pavel Vozenilek 11:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not having read on this topic I am not in a position to contribute too much, but I recall that the growing success of scientific rationalism generated a wave of disbelief in religious dogma and a general fall into disfavor of irrational superstitions. I agree with Pavel that this material needs to be included Haiduc 12:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The latest edit from Haiduc: "Only the elderly could attend with relative impunity. Consequently, religious organizations were among the staunchest opponents of communist regimes. In particular, the Catholic Church under Pope John Paul was instrumental in the fall of communism."

Few historical facts from former Czechoslovakia:

Elderly were (and are) most frequent church attendants because of their habits. Church attendance was not welcomed but largely overlooked (as it was going down steadily anyway).
Quite a many of clergymen tried to survive harsh conditions by (mostly symbolic) collaboration with regime and the "christian party" KDU-CSL had token presence in the goverment. Staunchest opponents were people who emigrated (huge groups, hundreths of thousands). There was very tiny "underground church" outside traditional structures.
I am not sure how big was influence of Catholic Church "globally" (in Czechoslovakia rather small) but I had seen how the economical and social incompetence of system was instrumental in its fall.

Perhaps there should be separate article that gives room for information about different countries. Pavel Vozenilek 11:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nothingness After Death

How about the atheist belief that there's no life after death, but simply disappearance of consciousness and decay of body? Is that an integral belief of atheism? --Menchi 20:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Atheistic beliefs are not components of atheism. Atheism only concerns the existence of gods. An atheist is someone without god-beliefs of any kind for whatever reason. That does not preclude atheists from holding nontheistic beliefs. Adraeus 20:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It can be argued (I have argued it, in fact) that the notion of life after death makes no sense from an atheistic standpoint; it can also be argued (and I've argued this too) that it doesn't make much more sense from a theistic standpoint either. Just as theists believe many things that don't really make sense, so do atheists. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"...the most common position among scientists..."

To this phrase, 4.250.201.170 added this link (http://psy.ucsd.edu/~eebbesen/Psych110/SciRelig.htm), with comment "provide a source". While the essay linked to ("Personal Gods, Deism, & the Limits of Skepticism") is an excellent study on the relationship between science and religion (and skepticism in general), I couldn't find any place where it establishes atheism as the most common position among scientists (or even skepticism—it merely discusses the interaction; it does not identify the size of various groups). If I've missed this or if I'm reading it too strictly, please point me to it, but otherwise I think calling it a "source" is too much. JRM · Talk 11:39, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

I've always been against the generalizations in the introduction. What the anonymous editor is referring to are the statistics located under the section titled "What the Discussion is and is Not About". Unfortunately, that section doesn't appear to be cited properly. The bibliography, however, does provide the following resource someone should check out: Larson, E.J. and L. Witham. 1997. "Scientists are Still Keeping the Faith." Nature 386:435-436; Larson, E.J. and L. Witham. 1998. "Leading Scientists Still Reject God." Nature 394:313. Adraeus 11:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

You're completely right. I shouldn't have missed something with a title as obvious as "Leading Scientists Still Reject God." JRM · Talk 11:54, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

I provided a set of links to sources showing that atheism was the most common position among scientists (physical and social). They're now somewhere in the archives. Adraeus' position seemed to be that people doing "business studies" were scientists, and that therefore the claim was too sweeping. I don't remember anyone agreeing with him. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, it's /Archive 19#Scientists. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Thread hijack. Ignore Mel Etitis. Adraeus 16:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather not, if it's the same to you. :-) Reading that archive, I see it was down to squabbling about who was included under the term scientist, with dictionaries being hauled out and everything. I understand the facts in the "contemporary atheism" section are not disputed? Which includes, in particular (oh, what an ironic full circle) a link to Leading scientists still reject God (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html)? That does make explicit mention of the survey being conducted among natural scientists, not social scientists. Of course the counterargument is that "science" typically refers to natural science and hence natural scientists, but this is not a very strong counterargument, because if you can make the statement more precise, why risk any accusation of overgeneralization? Unencumbered writing is nice, but not if at an avoidable loss of precision. If we have references for the level of atheism among all scientists, regardless of particular field, it's another matter. Keep in mind that not generalizing for lack of sources is not the same as implying that we have information on those who are not included by the statement, that is, saying "natural scientists" would not imply that atheism is not common among the "unnatural scientists". :-) JRM · Talk 16:40, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

As long as you are going to bring up an old topic, the term "scientist" is demonstrably ambiguous having more than one possible meaning. Mel Etitis rejects the idea of "business sciences"; however, many institutions of higher learning use the phrase to refer to economics, management (called managerial sciences), marketing, and other "so-called" business sciences. On numerous occasions, my studies have revealed that business (not the act of doing business) as a field of study is a social science. Business sciences encompass many different scientific fields just as many natural and physical sciences do. My attempt to disambiguate the term "scientist" failed because Mel Etitis is unwilling to acknowledge the usefulness of specification and the reality of the ambiguous nature of the term "scientist". Mel Etitis argues, "It's of course true that the term 'science' can ben used metaphorically, loosely, and plain wrongly, as can just about any term; that's no reason to claim that it's ambiguous." These are all correct usages of the term "science". (http://www.metavirus.net/wp/OED3_SCIENCE.HTM) Mel Etitis believes that definition 5b is the one and only true definition, which states, "In modern use, science is often treated as synonymous with 'Natural and Physical Science', and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use." This is the definition, by the way, which convinced me to allow Mel Etitis his twisted perceptions. I've stated this before somewhere in the archives unless someone "refactored" my concession out of the discussion. Adraeus 17:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I don't accept the definition that Adraeus says that I do; indeed, my inclusion of social scientists should have suggested that. The term "science" isn't ambiguous, it's broad; I argue, however, that it isn't so broad as to include business studies. If there are bits of business studies that are social science, that doesn't make business studies a social science (one of the problems with all these new, putative academic disciplines that generally end with "studies" is that they're fuzzy, usually only united by a certain area of interest rather than by a particular, central methodology). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

*sigh* You're merely downplaying the fact that "scientists" alone is not useful. The term is both ambiguous and broad.

broad, unspecific -- (not detailed or specific) [9] (http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.0?stage=1&word=broad)
equivocal (vs. unequivocal), ambiguous -- (open to two or more interpretations; or of uncertain nature or significance; or (often) intended to mislead) [10] (http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.0?stage=1&word=ambiguous)

Compare and contrast. Ambiguity and broadness are complementary, if not necessarily complementary. Using ambiguous terms results in broad statements. This article's introduction, particularly the historical summary, is extremely generalized. Adraeus 17:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way, your last comment is pure rubbish, "If there are bits of business studies that are social science, that doesn't make business studies a social science (one of the problems with all these new, putative academic disciplines that generally end with "studies" is that they're fuzzy, usually only united by a certain area of interest rather than by a particular, central methodology)." Argumentum ad ignorantium. Adraeus 17:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

This is my punishment for bringing up an old topic? I'll be sure to remember that. :-) I don't think that whether or not science includes business studies is of relevance to the article as it stands; as far as I'm concerned, anyone can hold any beliefs on this matter as they see fit, "twisted perceptions" or not, broad terms or not. Do the sources as we have them in the article allow us to generalize over all scientists (as defined by those sources) or not? If not, then we should talk about natural scientists, or add more sources. If they do (whether or not they explicitly include business studies or mathematics or philately) then we should talk about scientists in general. And if it should turn out that the issue is too complicated to dismiss with one sentence in the intro, then we shouldn't try. We can argue over what particular definition of "science" we subscribe to in the pub. Or better, we can find more sources. Let's not get into a discussion that should be taken to science, if it should be held on Wikipedia at all. JRM · Talk 17:49, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Let's not forget political scientists and Christian Scientists. Per Mel Etitis' comments in Archive 19, I think the broad claim of atheistic commonality "among scientists, rationalists, and humanists" needs to be cited and dated. The 60,000-professor-wide survey Mel Etitis mentioned was conducted when? 1963? A lot can happen in 42 years. Adraeus 18:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, you can't deny that you've had an experience — and been treated to a pretty typical example of Adraeus' charming and emollient style. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

I'm sure both you and Adraeus are actually very nice fellows who just don't happen to get along very well, but even if it happens to be so that either of you is indeed morally or intellectually superior to the other, I still wouldn't care to put my opinion on that here. I'm going to ignore any further exchanges between you two insofar as they don't pertain to the article, if it's all the same to you. Stirring up trouble was not my intent; that said, I'm not going to apologize for commenting here either. JRM · Talk 18:00, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Personally, I think our conflict stems from the scary similarity of our personalities. He'd probably disagree, but I recognize Adraeus-ish behavior when I see it. Adraeus 18:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

for a scary moment there I contemplated the possibility that you may be sockpuppets of one another :p dab (ᛏ) 18:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I am perhaps beating what has become a dead horse on this page, but the numbers for "top scientists" are wrong according to Nature 386:435-436; Larson, E.J. and L. Witham. 1998. "Leading Scientists Still Reject God." Nature 394:313. Stratton 14:38, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)--

- - - An illiterate (or biased) contributor misquoted the Larson-Witham 1996 study (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html) as stating that 93% of all natural scientists rejected or disbelieved god, thus attempting to support his opinion that there had been a momentous decline of religious belief in the scientific community between 1914 and 1996. In fact, the linked study clearly states that among randomly selected natural scientists, that percentage has only marginally increased, from 58% to 60.7% in the past century.

- - - The 93% number refers to a completely unrelated sample of "leading scientists" of National Academy of Sciences surveyed members, who were questioned by mail in a different study in 1998, and among whom only 50% agreed to answer. Wikipedia's relevant entry in "the relationship between religion and science" article also makes a good point wrt this study by stating that "the phrasing of the question could be criticized as presenting an overly narrow definition of God. The survey among NAS scientists was conducted via mail and had a low and perhaps statistically biased return rate of 50%."

- - - In any case, regardless of the merits of the 1998 NAS survey, the statement regarding the 1914-1996 studies, as found in the previous version of this article, is clearly fraudulent and I am revising it to reflect the truth. Feel free to reincorporate the 1998 study as you see fit (WITHOUT as disguising it as something it is not).

MELETITIS, have you been reduced to vandalism? I made a correction to the fraudulent misrepresentation of the 1996 Larson-Witham study while referencing the relevant article, and you revert to the old fallacious misquote? Are you joking? The study clearly states that, when using the 1914 method of inquiry, the results of the survey were identical in 1996 to those of 1914 (58% vs 60.17%). This is why Wikipedia is useless for anything but the most non-controversial matter, in my humble opinion. Kids with too much spare time in their hands will systematically vandalize corrections "just because", without answering to the comments and concerns of those who made them in the first place.

rationalists, and humanists

I think "rationalists, and humanists" in the header should be deleted or given a CURRENT (not 1960s) reference. My reason for wishing to delete it even if a reference were found is that it seems a bit tautological to me in that everyone I've ever talked to that self identifies as a "rationalist" or "humanist" did so because it sounded better than "atheist". 4.250.198.247 12:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Rationalism says it "rejects ... all religions". "Humanist" points to Secular humanism rather than Humanism. Exactly what claim is being made here and who is making it? 4.250.33.158 11:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Secular humanism is "Humans matter and can solve human problems, science, free speech, rational thought, democracy and freedom in the arts go together, there is nothing supernatural" and rationalism is "truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma or religious teaching." The rationalism article says that historically some rationalists weren't atheists, and secular humanists can be agnostics as well. There's nothing tautological about this - secular humanists, rationalists, and atheists are not the same thing, though many of all three believe the same things. Additionally, the humanism article states that there are two types of humanism: religious and secular, and obviously religious humanists aren't going to be atheists. Andre (talk) 15:00, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for atheism section

I have removed this section from the article because the anon who added it did nothing more than cut and paste from other articles. It was just a bunch of quotes and was quite incoherant and messy. I personally don't think the section is even required, as everything within it is covered within the article elsewhere. If other people think the section should be in here, we can go about putting a heavily edited and cleaner version of it back in. Let me know what you think about this. Aaarrrggh 13:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous edits

Those of us who aren't anonymous users, do we approve of the recent anonymous contributions to the article? For example, the "reasons for atheism" section seems redundant considering there's an article that deals specifically with arguments against the existence of God, and many of the reasons for specifics types of atheism are written in the "types of atheism" section. Where's Mel Etitis? Where's BM? Where's dab? Titanium Dragon? Yath? I feel like I chased them off. Come back! Adraeus 16:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

You've called out to the giants, and the village idiot responds instead. I'm pleased we've taken it to the talk page instead of continuing to cut swaths of material because it doesn't look very nice. I've also taken the modest liberty of actually contacting the author and inviting him/her to discuss the changes here. Now I'll just be out of your hair while you figure out the whole approval thing... JRM · Talk 17:10, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

I apologize for not mentioning you. You're bigger than giants. I figured you're already here. :) Adraeus 02:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

JRM - Are you calling me a village idiot because I removed some information that , in your own words, "doesn't look very nice"? That entire section is a mess, and pretty much all of the information had been referenced at some point in the article itself anyway. Did you actually read the section??Aaarrrggh 08:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I think JRM was jokingly referring to himself as "the village idiot" referencing my "calling out to the giants" without mentioning him. Of course, I may have completely misinterpreted everything... Adraeus 08:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah right...I may have just got the wrong end of the stick then. Hope I did, I got a bit angry about that at first :-P no problem JRM if that's what you meant :-) Aaarrrggh 14:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

See where humor gets you on Wikipedia? Of course I would only honor myself with such an epithet. :-) I'm also not offended in the slightest by Adraeus not mentioning me; I've barely ever edited this article and was never involved in the major discussions on it. This was strictly gratuitous self-deprecation; apologies if I offended anyone even for just a few seconds. JRM · Talk 17:17, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Back to the issue of this section - upon further reflection, I decided to stick my neck out and to remove the entire section again. There is nothing of any relevence here that is not already in the article, much of it is garbled (some of it is plainly wrong and doesn't even make sense), and almost the entire section was made up of direct quotes taken from different articles, and contained little in the way of original content. Aaarrrggh 15:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

"Some factual claims in this article or section need to be verified."

This is claimed in the section "Nonexclusive and contradictory use" that I began and others improved (Thank you). I'm unaware of what claims you find in need of verification. Please be specific about the claim you refer to and why you think it is in need of verification. Definitions, logic, and references definitely must be supplied where needed. Sometimes one person finds a thing obvious and another doesn't. Perhaps I'm actually wrong about something, or right but mis-spoke myself. Your help in improving this section by pointing out what is questionable would be wonderful. Thanks for helping. 4.250.201.231 12:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

That section is almost entirely opinion and original research. The section needs to be written using journalistic style. Currently, the section's style is bloggish, and uses first-person pronouns and asks the reader a question. That's not encyclopedic. There's also an obviously unsubstantiated generalization beginning with "most people". Adraeus 16:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Why the use of quotation marks then? I don't understand that if this is original research. It definately needs some heavy tidying up, and I still maintain there's nothing of any value there that I can see that isn't already covered in one way or another within the article itself. I think regardless, the section should be taken down until it can be re-written to a higher standard at the very least. I still think the section is unnecessary, however. Aaarrrggh 17:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

announcing policy proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Please vote yes on this proposition. Thank you. Adraeus 01:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Etymology

It might be worth noting that "Dei" is latin, wheras "theos" is the greek.

References formatting

I don't know when someone screwed up the references formatting, but the references list needs to conform to MLA standards. [11] (http://www.easybib.com/) See William Wallace for example. I'll work on it, but that's a lot of finding the first names of authors and adding ISBN and ISSN numbers. Adraeus 11:14, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Removed link

I removed the link to 'arguments for the existence of god' from the arguments for atheism section. However, now that i think about it, was its inclusion meant somewhat satirically? That is, the arguments for 'god' are so bad, or non-sensical that one becomes an atheist by default? If this is the case, then add the link back, otherwise, it seemed as if it could have been added by a 'believer'.--Black Dagger 12:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Haha. I love your reasoning :-) Aaarrrggh 23:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Removal of lots of links

I've just replaced a large number of links which were removed on the basis that "Wikipedia isn't a link-farm". That's something to bear in mind when deciding whether or not to add a new link, but it's not good grounds for removing links, and certainly not for such a wholesale removal. If there are arguments against including individual links, then we discuss it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Mikkalai (talk • contribs) has again removed the links, still without the courtesy of discussing it here. I've reinstated them until a proper explanation is given. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid that them removed it again because you reverted my edit without cortesy of blurting a single word in the edit summary as if I am a random vandal. Meanwhile I thought I gave a very detailed explanation in the comments:

wikipedia is not link farm. if other encyclopedias contain useful info, put it here. Catholic encyclopedia is public domain. Use it.
please read Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally. If links have useful info, put it here

Over a time anons and other good-meaning contributions piled dozens of links here. Clearly, such a vast topic as atheism can command millions of webpages. And if 0.1% of them contain important info, we are looking at 1,000 ext links. You want them here?

This talk may be carried out at each and every broad page, where everyone feels himself an expert: religion, communism, capitalism, politics, democracy, etc.

The rules are both grounds for addition and for removal. Otherwise we will quickly will be overrun by spammers. And I shouuld have asked you why do you think the link to an internet radio station is so encyclopedic.

Here are two basic answers to your concerns, found in rules:

if a particular site (eg these internet radios) are notable, the please write an article about them. If not, goodbye link.
If a particular reference site contains useful information put it here. This concerns, in particular Catholic Encyclopedia, which is public domain, so you even do not have to trouble yourself with copyediting.

That said, I am restoring my edit. Please notice also that I removed less than half of the articles. I did not have an opinion about the remaining links yet. It is quite possible they are some spam, but I didn't touch them, although they look suspicious. mikka (t) 23:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome to restore some of my deletions, if you provide serious reasons for their inclusion. I will take your word and will not argue, with the exception of internet radios and encyclopedias, allrefers, etc., against which I object most seriously. mikka (t) 23:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I didn't understand your first comment.
Unless you think that a single article froma single source is all that a reader needs, or that every piece of useful information and every argument and opinion can be cramnmed into one Wikipedia article, then it is only fair (not to mention NPoV) to point to alternatives. the Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, has a particular, PoV approach to the notion of atheism; we certainly don't want to present that here, and merely mentioning it isn't enough; the link allows the reader to see for herself.
If the link list looks like getting close to 1,000, then we can worry about it; slippery-slope arguments, however, don't convince me.
If a link is spammed, then it can be removed; you haven't shown that any of the links that you removed were spammed, however.
The internet radio station is relevant to the topic of atheism, and to various points made in the article. there is no Wikipedia policy against its inclusion. Nor is there any policy against including links to encyclopædias, etc. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm coming here following a request for comment on the Pump. To be honest Mel, I would have to say most of the deleted links were a good call on mikka's part. Some of these, like the camp-quest.com site are blatant spam as self promotion. Others are very low quality (the cybamall.com site is dreadful) or just discussion forums.

As I see it, the only questionable deletions would be:

freethoughtradio.com - no particular reason not to link to a web radio. This one looks reasonably well done, presumably relevant and free (although I couldn't get it to work myself) - probably keep
Catholic Encyclopedia - most likely used as a reference at some point. The CE is generally good quality even though its often POV and can be out of date - best moved to the References section
Infidel Guy Radio Show - Another radio station, but this one is totally commercial and requires subscription - delete as spam
ExChristian.net - Its not totally irrelevant, but its not particularly well done. A bit POV to only support Christian->atheist conversion, but I guess exMuslim.net etc. don't exist. - borderline
Erkki Hartikainen lecture - reasonable credentials, but these lecture notes are incomplete and several sections are just bullet points - probably delete

Of course other folk might have different opinions. -- Solipsist 18:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the point is that mikka might have given these reasons from the beginning, i.e. arguing each deletion, saving this talk page from some more bad karma. begging the question, "why are atheists so grumpy?". dab (ᛏ) 13:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Being an atheist and a nonatheist is contradictory

The article currently contains the following sentence: "The apparent contradiction of being both atheist and nonatheist is no more actually contradictory than a person or a box being black from one point of view and white from another." This is utter nonsense. Either a person is an atheist, or he isn't (that is, he is a nonatheist). I would also disagree with the assertion that an object can "be" both entirely black and entirely white to two different people. It can appear white to one and black to another, but it cannot be both. The article would be better if this sentence were eliminated. Rohirok 01:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you conceive of two different people having two different definitions for what an atheist is? Can you concieve of someone that fits one of those definitions but not the other? I assure you such exists. And that person is therefore an atheist from one point of view and not an atheist from the other point of view. 4.250.132.180 00:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Replace "atheist" with any other noun and the argument applies likewise. The argument you're making is a staple of metaphysics, but I do not see the added relevance applied to atheism specifically. We can similarly claim that one person's Christian is another person's heretic; that one person's brilliant movie is another person's turgid mess... It's all very true, but it's not specific enough to be of added value. JRM · Talk 00:26, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

This article makes a very big deal out of counting percentages of atheists in the heading and a section about this and that and the other poll. Those references to counting atheists makes it relavent here but not in articles that define a term but don't go out of their way to assert so many percent are in the group. Remove those references and the contradictory use and nonexclusive use is no longer directly relevant. So remove those and then I would agree with you. Leave them and pointing out the difficulty in counting atheists remains relevant. The child of two Jews is adopted by a Catholic and given infant baptism. The person has no specific religious beliefs. That person is counted as what? At age two? at age 20? inbetween? The point is relevant. The way I made it could undoubtably be improved. But the point is better made as is than not made at all. 4.250.132.180 00:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But then you're questioning the validity/applicability of the polls, suggesting that we're incorporating them wrongly because they may be based on different definitions. You'll have to back up that statement with something more concrete than "definitions may be different across polls". The percentages are listed with explicit mention of the source—whether by self-identification of people, or by definitions applied by the poll-taker. The reader is supposed to understand from this that obviously, the definition of "atheism" may not be exactly what Wikipedia (or the reader) has in mind—caveat lector. To dispute the accuracy or relevance of the percentages, you'll have to use an argument that's more specific than "definitions may differ". That's always the case. The question is whether they do misleadingly so, and that hasn't been established. JRM · Talk 00:57, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

"Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities." is the first sentence. "A 1995 survey [16] (http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html) attributed to the Encyclopedia Britannica indicates that non-religious are about 14.7% of the world's population, and atheists around 3.8%." is the first listed poll result. The definition provided in the first sentence indicates the non-religious ARE atheists. Am I to add a discussion after each and every freaking poll result? I think it better to have a seperate section than to do that. 4.250.132.180 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"60.7 percent" in the first page asserts that atheists can be counted to an accuracy of one part in a thousand. It used to be 60% which is justifiable. The unreverted addition of the point seven is exactly why pointing out contradictory and nonexclusive use is necessary. 4.250.132.180 00:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the section should be retitled Difficulties in counting atheists and reedited to fit that new title. 4.250.132.180 00:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The big problem is is that it's more aptly titled Difficulties in counting any adherence to any religious/spiritual/philosophical view. As the saying goes, there are "lies, damn lies and statistics". What you'd want is nothing short of a crash course in how to interpret polls properly (that is: with what and how many grains of sand one has to take any poll result). The conclusions you can draw from a poll depend critically on how the poll was conducted.

But all that is not relevant. The reason it's not relevant is because we are not claiming any of these percentages are right. We don't have to. We simply state that such-and-such has reported a percentage of such-and-such; if at all possible we should add more information (what institution conducted the poll, exactly? What questions were asked? Etc.), but the information itself isn't wrong or dubious; everybody understands Wikipedia is not claiming these figures were carefully adjusted to match our definition of "atheism", but is quoting external sources, however those sources may have obtained their figures. "The 2001 New Zealand census showed that 40% of the respondents claimed 'no religion'." is simply a statement, clearly having some relevance to atheism, but we're not saying 40% of New Zealanders are atheist, because that's just not what was established. What conclusion you draw from the poll is another matter. We make an explicit point of some of the more dangerous assumptions and biases underlying some of the polls in the "statistics" section when we happen to be aware of them (inflated atheism counts in communist countries, etc.)

Aside from that. Your section doesn't even address those polls; it's actually even less specific than that. Rather than clarifying anything, your section confuses me intensely, because I can't determine the author's intent. What's being said here? That words can be used in nonobvious ways? I already knew that. That "A" and "not A" may not be exclusive if we use different definitions of "A" in either statement? That seems obvious. That we will use "atheism" in a manner consistent with how we defined it in the intro, and clearly indicate when we do not? That should not have to be explained, or we're doing something wrong.

In short: what's the point of the philosophical discourse here? If it's to make the reader critical of polls, then you a) need a more direct approach and b) need to hold the discussion somewhere more general than atheism. If it's just to educate the reader on semantics and how our processes of understanding can play tricks on us, it shouldn't be anywhere, since encyclopedia articles are not how-tos or lecture notes. I think you're trying to address an issue that's not a problem, in a way that's far too general. JRM · Talk 01:35, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

This section should simply be removed. It is completely, totally, and utterly irrelevant and a great deal of it is false or self-contradictory. It is obvious that being an atheist does not preclude you from having a certain ethnicity; we do not spell this out in numerous philosophical and religious articles, so there's no reason to do it here. And saying that you can be an atheist and a Christian is completely, totally, and utterly contradictory. A Christian must believe in a deity; that is part of what makes a Christian a Christian. Arguing that it is cultural is bunk; no disinterested party refers to Christianity in such a fashion. You cannot believe in a deity and be an atheist; therefore you cannot be a Christian, a member of the Jewish religion, Muslim, Asatru, Wiccan, or a number of other religions which necessitate belief in divinities.

The word god is not meaningless, contrary to what obfuscationists think. It is a word with a number of very specific meanings. Though some people obviously are unable to differentiate between bizzare philisopical constructs and any sort of reality, that does not mean we have to include such things in the article. That belongs in the appropriate philosphical article.

Being an atheist is very much exclusive; it excludes you from being a theist. Stating it is nonexclusive is incorrect. Titanium Dragon 05:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Race

As a a simple and easily verifiable fact, the notion of race is controversial. There is no consensus on its status as a biological natural-kind distinction, nor on its being a purely social construct. The reference to this in the text might be put more elegantly, but I see no ground for removing it altogether. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, though, when I went to replace and tidy that passage, I discovered that the whole section was a personal essay, with much that was either vague or controversial (and some remarks that were pretty close to nonsense), and that it added nothing to the article. I've been bold and deleted it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It was essay like material and didn't really make much sense. Morwen - Talk 11:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nonexclusive and contradictory use

Atheism is a nonexclusive condition and can be combined with also being Jewish (by race), also being Buddhist (as a philosophy and ethical system), also being called a Christian (some believe "once a Christian, always a Christian" [12] (http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/eternalsecurity1.htm); others may admire Jesus as a role model while rejecting any religious implications), and even in apparent contradiction calling oneself something other than atheist when specifically choosing between atheist and something else [13] (http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html|label).

Atheism is nonexclusive when the definition of atheism and the definition of the other state both apply, example: Jewish atheist. Atheism is nonexclusive when by one point of view or situation atheism as a label applies and by another point of view or situation it does not. Am I talking to someone who shares my understanding of the word or to someone who understands the definition or implications very differently from me?

The apparent contradiction of being both atheist and nonatheist is no more actually contradictory than a person or a box being black from one point of view and white from another.

The nature of belief itself also permits apparent opposites to be believed. Most people have no trouble believing in both timely behavior "He who hesitates is lost" and caution "Look before you leap", even though on some occasions you can't do both.

Logical positivism asserts the term god is meaningless. So not only may one be both atheist from one point of view and nonatheist from another, some assert they are neither atheist nor nonatheist.

The previous discussion covers honest nonexclusive and contradictory use. The nature of speech allows actual opposites to be asserted as opposed to merely apparent opposites; sometimes in error, sometimes as a ploy. So in its actual use as a word, atheism can be used in a nonexclusive or contradictory fashion with any other term whatever.

It is impossible to be an atheist and a nonatheist at the same time; you simply do nuot understand what it means. Being of Jewish ancestry has NO bearing on whether or not you are an atheist; someone who does not believe in God is an Atheist, and someone whose mother was Jewish is a Jew. Therefore, these are nonexclusive.

However, a "nonatheist" is a theist. An atheist by definition is the opposite of a theist (or vice-versa, as technically the word atheist existed before the word theist). In any event, it is impossible to be an atheist and a theist at the same time, as they are mutually exclusive. A Buddhist can be an atheist, as (depending on the branch of Buddhism) their religious belief does not equate with belief in a deity, which an atheist is (strictly). Being an atheist is not synonymous with being irreligious. However, oftentimes in surveys they are not looking at atheists (which make up a fairly large chunk of the world) but irreligious atheists (who are the aforementioned relatively small percentage), which can lead to some amount of confusion.

You cannot be a Christian and be an atheist. You cannot be a religious Jew and an atheist, though you could be an ethnic Jew and an atheist. If your religion includes a god, and you believe in your religion, then you cannot be an atheist. If you religion does not include a deity, and you don't believe in one, you can be religious and an atheist. Titanium Dragon 05:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the section wasn't removed because it makes false statements. It was removed because it is a random rambling, and doesn't add any value. I bet I would be reverted too if I went over to Elephant and said, correctly, "An Elephant cannot at the same time also be a Giraffe. Or a Panda. Some admire Pandas because they are so cute". dab (ᛏ) 09:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's talk

I would be more than happy to justify a discussion of the use of the word "atheist" in the article as in the section deleted and put back (please leave it until AFTER we discuss it and arive at consensus). I submit that discussing the use of the word in the article is justified. 4.250.132.180 00:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note: so far the discussion on justifying this section is being held a few sections back in Being an atheist and a nonatheist is contradictory 4.250.132.180 01:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussing the use of the word is fine, but the paragraph that I removed is a personal essay, as well as containing much that's either obvious (you can be an atheist while being other things unrelated to atheism) or controversial (you can be an atheist and a Christian). It can't stay because of the first point, which means that it's against Wikipedia policy. if it could be edited so as to be acceptable to other editors and properly backed up by citations, then the new version can be put back into the article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm told it has to go because it is so obviously true it is not needed. I'm told it is so obviously false it must be deleted. Normally this would indicate false reasons are being given; but I don't believe that is the case here due to my respect for the people involved. I give up. I'm not going to fight for it anymore. But I am an atheist and due to my good works ("by their fruit you shall know them") and the fact that I accepted Christ into my heart in my Christian youth, some people I know believe me to still be a Christian, no matter what I say I believe ("God will know you as one of His own when you die.") As I say, I'm done with the subject matter deleted. I truly hate these fights. 4.250.138.83 11:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

as Mel says, parts were obvious, other parts were, hm, peculiar. You may have a valid point to make, and I do not see the deletions as hostile: If you help us put a finger on your precise point, we may be able to find a wording acceptable to everyone. I suppose you can be atheist and "Christian" in the sense that you're perceived as belonging to the Christian culture, e.g. an atheist who self-identifies as "Christian" when travelling in the Middle East, just so people have a label to put him in perspective. dab (ᛏ) 11:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's true, though it would be correctly described as being an atheist while being thought to be a Christian, or being an atheist while calling oneself a Christian. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Atheism"