Talk:Atheism/Archive 8

Added "Subud"

Weak or strong atheists may be (and in fact are) members of the international spiritual, charitable, and cultural association called Subud. At the minimum, Subud requires one to be open to insight from a source that is not explicitly known. Religious persons in Subud call this source "God" or a "creative energy in the universe" while atheistic or agnostic persons refer to it as coming into contact with intuition or the unconscious. E.g., there are various therapies such as Primal Therapy (see http://www.primalinstitute.com/theory.html) that are cathartic and energizing (like the Subud meditation exercise is), yet do not require belief in God. Aliman 21:47, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I did not mean to make any statement regarding subud, which I am unfamiliar with. I was rather pointing out that an atheist is not spiritual in nature, but rather that atheism precludes spirituality. Sam [Spade] 22:13, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Although an atheist may well be able to follow Subud [1], I have never heard of he term, and it appears to be religious/spiritual, and uses the same incomprehensible gobledegook. It does however seem to be broadly compatible with humanism, though perhaps not secular humanism. Anyway, it has no place in this article. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:43, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Deleted Subud

I deleted the link to Subud. I see a difference between the words "religious" and "spiritual" that some people (at least Sam Spade and Dunc Harris, and probably many others) do not accept. To some, the words "religious" and "spiritual" have the same meaning. This is fine, b/c in some coarse sense they are in fact the same. In a more nuanced sense, however, there are slight but critical differences. However, it is not my purpose to argue that specific point right now. Rather, I want to point out that b/c this distinction isn't accepted, that the article got edited, and now the article is in error. That is, when I originally edited, the wording looked like this: <...religious or spiritual organizations which allow atheists as members. Some examples are the Naturalistic Pantheists, Brianism, Subud...> However, after more edits, the article now looks like this: <There are religious belief systems, including much of Buddhism, Unitarian Universalism, Subud and Universism, which do not require belief in a deity.> And, as I've said here, Subud has no beliefs, creed, dogma, nor any kind of religious tenets. Thus I've deleted it-Subud is not a "religious belief system" as the article stated. Subud may be "spiritual" in some sense (although it need not be), but it certainly is not overtly a "religious belief system." Aloha, Aliman 12:05, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Atheism precludes spirituality

Sam Spade said a person cannot be both spiritual and atheist (i.e., atheism precludes spirituality). Dunc Harris said that words used to describe Spirituality are incomprehensible gobledegook. However, in order to be consistent with these views, shouldn’t the entire section on “atheist religious organizations” in the Atheist article be deleted? From your points of view such wording is unintelligible. I submit to you both that you argue that atheism precludes spirituality, and if you are successful then we can delete that section of the Atheist article that mentions “atheist religious organizations.” Aliman 12:26, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

as far as I can tell the organizations listed don't require any sort of spirituality, much less Godliness from their members. Mentioning religious groups which accept atheists seems fine to me, so long as its accurate. Sam [Spade] 17:58, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From Naturalistic Pantheism's intro: "Naturalistic Pantheism is a form of Pantheism which holds that the universe, although unconscious and non-sentient as a whole, is a meaningful focus for human spirituality." From the principles of the Unitarian Universalist Association: "Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations" and listed among the sources of the traditions they follow: "Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature" and "Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life." In general, see the definition of spirituality, which indicates spiritality as being a focus on personal experience and revelation as the way to true understanding of the universe but does not necessarily require any gods to be involved. It looks to me like atheism and spirituality are indeed compatible. Bryan 23:02, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well we don't agree, but does it really matter? It seems to read fine to me as it is now, and heck, including Subud (and what about that "self reliance" religion of N korea?) seems pretty harmless. If atheism precludes spirituality is an important question, but is not something the article narrative should be expressing an opinion on. Sam [Spade] 23:15, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking of Juche. Sam [Spade] 23:20, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You said none of the organizations listed required any sort of spirituality in their members, I pointed out examples disproving that statement. It had nothing to do with the text of the article itself. Bryan 02:15, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are right about it being irrelevant to this article, and I suggest you discuss it further at Talk:Naturalistic Pantheism if you’re interested in the subject. If you'd like to see a discussion of why I think Naturalistic Pantheism is devoid of spirituality, as well as having nothing to do with pantheism, see Talk:Pantheism/Critique. There is even more info at Pan-atheism and Pseudo-pantheism. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 00:52, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Further observations on "Atheism precludes spirituality" (APS)

First, Sam Spade said: "...Mentioning religious groups which accept atheists seems fine to me, so long as its accurate. Sam..."

Fine, and I agree. However, there's a difference between the words "religious" and "spiritual." Spirituality doesn't necessarily have anything to do with God nor anything transcendent, while religion usually does have elements of belief in God and/or belief in something transcendent. (From Spirituality: "...Others hold that spirituality is not religion, per se, but the active and vital connection to a force, power, or sense of the deep self."). Given this aspect of the definition, it seems appropriate to mention Subud in the Atheist article because Subud does not require religious belief, and accepts atheists as members. Aliman 11:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Spirituality has everything to do with the transcendent, to suggest otherwise makes the term meaningless. Sam [Spade] 23:17, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Second, Sam Spade said: "...atheism precludes spirituality..." (let's call it APS) and, as Bryan perspicuously pointed out, it seems that this statement (APS) is in error, given the definition of "spirituality" (cited above from the Spirituality article.) An atheist can certainly have a "vital connection to a force, power, or sense of the deep self." Neuroses and patholgoy in general stem from buried unconscious drives which, in part, result from repressed traumatic experiences from early childhood. Various therapies (e.g., Philosophical Counseling, Cognitive therapy, etc.) deal with resolving these unconscious problems, and some take a spiritual (NOT necessarily religious) approach to doing so. At the root of most therapy is developing that vital connection to the deeper self, and ridding one's self of irrational ideas (such as an omnipotent God sitting up on a golden throne, inexplicably blessing people with wonderful bounties one moment, and torturing them with Holocausts and Pol Pots the next). An atheist (or non-atheist) can fully and beneficially participate in these various types of therapy, even if the therapist does take a "spiritual" approach. So, at one end, APS is a complete error, and at the other end it's an exaggeration. Either way, it has a hard time standing up to scrutiny.

I do agree with the statement: "atheism precludes belief in the transcendent," but it could be argued that "value," in and of itself, is not something that is purely instrumental. If the argument for "inherent value" is taken far enough (which I won't argue here), the statement "atheism precludes belief in the transcendent," also, at the very least, comes into question. Aliman 11:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Spirituality refers to ones relationship with the trancendant. Taking this into account, the majority of your above statements are not relevant. Psychology does indeed have some relationship with spirituality, but this is not always the case. Look into Jung. I don't understand your statements regarding value. Sam [Spade] 23:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Third, Sam Spade, please clarify this group of words, because it is a sentence fragment (in terms of English grammar, I mean): "If atheism precludes spirituality is an important question, but is not something the article narrative should be expressing an opinion on." E.g., if you remove the first word of this group of words (the word "If"), then the group of words becomes a sentence. There are, of course, other alterations of this group of words that could be made to turn them into a sentence, but I don't know which alterations to make. Thanks in advance for clarifying this. Aliman 11:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think what he meant there was "the question of whether atheism precludes spirituality is important, but not something the article narrative should be expressing an opinion on." Bryan 15:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bryan is correct. Sam [Spade] 23:26, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fourth, just as a head's up, I'm going to consider putting "Subud" back into the atheism article, especially if it can be done in one sentence to show that it need only be "spiritual" in a very weak and generic sense, and that it's certainly NOT necessarily religious. The problem rears it's head here that much of what is written about Subud is written from a religious point of view, and those of us who are atheistic or agnostic (from the classical theistic point of view) have only a small voice. I.e., do a Google search, and almost everything that comes up (including things that I've written on the internet) will have the word "God" in it. But, Subud need not have any type of religious component. Aliman 11:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind you mentioning Subud, so long as what you mention is NPOV and factually accurate. Sam [Spade] 23:26, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I guess I shouldn't put anything more on this page because it is too long? It says "44 KB" at the top. Therefore, I'll put the response to User:duncharris on the Talk:Spirituality page rather than here. (Duncharris said: "Although an atheist may well be able to follow Subud, I have never heard of [t]he term, and it appears to be religious/spiritual, and uses the same incomprehensible gobledegook [sic]." The gist of my response is that "there is room for "spirituality" within a scientific/materialistic worldview." See Talk:Spirituality for the argument. Aliman 11:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ignore that length warning, it's just advisory. At some point when the discussion above gets old and obsolete enough it'll get moved into an /Archive page and the warning will go away. Bryan 15:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I disagree w Bryan, the page needed archived, as all pages do when they near 32k. Sam [Spade] 23:26, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

God and god

Millerc writes in an edit summary: (God is a proper noun, god is a common noun; if you aren't refering to a specific god named God or quoting someone else's misusage, then don't capitalize.) I don't see how it follows the article ought not capitalize the word God here. Atheists don't believe in, among other things, God, no? - Nat Krause 07:20, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but God is a particular instance of a god (according to most people), so he's included when you talk about gods. And atheists don't not-believe only God, so IMO it's best to avoid using that one specific god's name if possible. This is an issue that's been argued extensively before, check out /Archive 5#"God vs. god", /Archive 5#Capitalization of G, /Godvrs.god poll and /Archive_6#Conventions_in_capitalization for some historical background on it. Bryan 17:23, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, as always. Every respected source of reference describes atheism as the "denial of God" [2], [3], [4], etc... The only reason the wiki doesn't explain the term in the same way is due to what is perhaps the primary weakness of NPOV, that those w strong feelings on a given subject (particularly advocates) tend to make up the majority of those willing to edit the topic regularly. This is an ugly fact of wiki-life in no way exclusive to atheism, many if not most pages regarding emotionally charged topics have a similar failing. Until we find a way to enforce NPOV, I see no reason to hope for the wiki becoming a respected source of information. Sam [Spade] 23:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Until we find a way to enforce NPOV, don't you mean until we find an authoritarian way of enforcing a POV that agrees with your's? millerc 21:32, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about we change it to "god, God, or gods?" Andre 04:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This argument is absurd; Sam sums up the reasons admirably. But in addition, our typical reader doesn’t care that atheists do not believe in god or gods – since the vast majority of readers will agree with them. It is that they do not believe in God that makes atheism a worth topic for inclusion. Banno 10:18, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, essentially everyone "does not believe in" or at least does not worship, some god or another. It is the denial of God that defines atheism, a crude inspection of the etymology of the term tells us that. Sam [Spade] 11:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The etymological definition has since expanded to include disbelief in any god, not just the Abrahamic god. Obviously, someone who lacks belief in that god but worships another would not rightly be called an atheist, except perhaps by some of the more extremist religious believers. It is this lack of belief in any god that defines atheism. The origin of the word is irrelevant to its current meaning, just as with many, if not most, words. User:Davin (usurped) 00:46, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is exactly the same argument that's been gone over before. Banno's "atheism is only about my particular god" argument was done here: /Archive 5#Capitalization of G (about three quarters of the way down the section, on January 28). You can read my responses to this argument there if you like, but to summarize: "no it isn't." Atheism is about all gods, which includes the one that any given monotheist believes in but also much more than just that. Bryan 01:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By that argument, polytheists whose belief systems don't include a supreme omnipotent God are actually atheists. -Sean Curtin 00:34, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Sean, and restate request to change to "god, God, or gods" - not necessarily in that order. Andre 04:27, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why not request to change to "a god, gods, God, Goddess, Allah, YHWH, Ra, Baal, Elohim, Zeus, Jupiter, Ganesh, Shiva, Thor, Loki, etc."? Because its a silly quibble. millerc 21:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The alternatives to ‘God’ are either ugly or erroneous. But for reasons Sam has stated, the argument will continue for a few weeks, reach status for a few months before starting again when a new bunch of editors move in. In the meanwhile those outside the discussion can again have a giggle at the pratts over at atheism. Nobody cares, folks – do what you like.Banno 11:54, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I think the real question in all of this, is why so many religious people who believe in God (here I do mean the name of a particular monotheistic deity) feel the need to define a minority view point in opposition to their own beliefs (a view point which encompases much more than just a silly argument over the existance of a deity named God -- ask 10 people who believe in "God" just what "God" is, and you'll get 10 different answers, but theist rarely ask what others mean by the word God). Are they really so self absorbed, that everyone else's view point has to revolve around their own? The answer is so obvious I shouldn't even have to comment on it.

I think the word god/God may be used in three distinct ways, only one of which is causing the problem here:

1. Zeus is a greek god. Here were talking about a single diety from a pantheon, and I think everyone agrees.

2. In the beginning when God created... Here were talking about the monotheistic deity of a particular belief system, where its adherents commonly refer to the deity by the name God. Here, I think we might be able to all agree.

3. Allah is the god of... or is it Allah is a name of God? This is where we disagree. Depending on what one thinks either sentance might be correct. One should note that the second case has the implict assumption that God exists. Where the first sentance has no assumptions about if Allah exists or not, it is simply a description.

Some theists even go so far as to write sentences like Allah is the God of..., but this makes no symantic sense (unlike both sentences in 3). Its like saying Allah is the Allah of... You can't describe an entity by simply renaming it, thus we are forced to assume that "God" in this instance is a common noun (a descriptor). In English common nouns are lowercase.

Now can anyone tell me why, in an article about athiesm, why theists wish the entire article to automatically assume the existance of the monotheistic deity named God? millerc 21:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is not about atheists vrs. theists. This is about POV pushing extremists vrs. neutrality. Sam [Spade] 14:46, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not all theists are insisting that atheism is only about their particular god, only some of them are. Those are the theists that I (and presumably also Millerc, Sean, Davin, etc.) am disputing issues with. Bryan 19:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are you familiar with roman usage of "atheist" against Christians in order to describe their early unwillingness to obseve roman holidays and/or worship roman gods? I don't see the point of trying to divide the individuals discussing these matters into the camps of atheist and theist. A well informed and NPOV seeking atheist aught to be just as able as anyone to understand the facts at hand. Sam [Spade] 11:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Once again, I am not dividing the individuals dicussing these matters into the camps of atheist and theist, I am dividing them into the camps "thinks atheism covers all gods" and "thinks atheism only covers my god". All members of the latter group are of course theists, since only theists have gods, but not all theists are members of the latter group. As for the roman usage of "atheist", it's already mentioned in the article: Atheism#Polemical usage. Expand that section more if you like. Bryan 18:10, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Just use "god" or "gods" since it's universally applicable. Princeton's WordNet: god Atheism is the "lack of god-beliefs of any type for whatever reason." The common noun works well because it's a common noun. The proper noun doesn't work well because it's specific and according Wikimedia's Wikipedia's intent, specificity should generally be avoided. Adraeus 04:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reversion

It's considered rude to revert someone's content without discussing it first. You could have asked for a source without reverting. Anyway, a source is provided now. – Quadell ^{(talk) (quiz)}[[]] 22:44, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to be rude. Anyhow, I've read the article you linked, and I still don't see their source. There is a table and two graphics, each with different sources, but the quote you've chosen to pull from the article ("52 percent of Americans claim they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist for president") appears in a big unattributed list of figures that also includes such gems as "The conservative Family Research Council calculates that 6 million likely Democratic voters have been aborted since Roe v. Wade." and "Half of all Saudis approve of Osama bin Laden?s rhetoric, but only 5% want him to rule over them." Which Americans expressed this opinion, and when? Who took the poll? As much as I like Mother Jones, I don't think their article you linked to justifies such a silly statement appearing in the Atheism article here. A wise man once told me that 47% of all statistics are made up on the spot :) ~leif @ 00:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that. -Homer Simpson | Talk 00:36, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I was disappointed Mother Jones hadn't provided an adequate source. I dunno. Should we remove it? Or should we say "Journalist Ross MacDonald, writing for Mother Jones Magazine, states that. . ."? – Quadell ^{(talk) (quiz)}[[]] 11:55, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid thats not much of an expert source. Sam [Spade] 00:30, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Juche's churchness

Juche just got removed from the list of atheistic "churches", and although I'm quite ambivalent about it myself (I also removed it once and then restored it again some time ago) I figure it's sufficiently borderline that we should discuss it a bit here on talk:. From the Juche article, this paragraph is the source of my discontent:

Some sociologists and other overseas scholars have likened Juche to a religious movement. They have claimed that the modern ideology indicates that adherents can achieve immortal life by shaping the immortal state and that the leader, according to Juche literature, is received in the same language in which Korean Christians would receive communion. Juche authorities state that the idea is a secular one.

All that I know about Juche comes from that article, and based on that I'm thinking we might want to mention it here as an "iffy" case. Bryan 23:26, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It was I who removed it. Juche is a political idea developed and promulgated by the late Kim Il-sung in North Korea. The "sociologists and other overseas scholars" who claim that it is a religious movement are really reaching. That claim is on a par with the frequent and tiresome accusation that communism is a religion.

I know a bit about juche, but this is the first time that I have read that "its adherents can achieve immortal life". That's a patently absurd statement. I nearly removed it when I edited the article on juche just now (for NPOV), but I decided to leave it on the grounds that there probably are "sociologists" or "scholars" in South Korea who spread this silly rumour.

In any case, juche certainly isn't a church. There is no community of adherents, and there certainly aren't institutions comparable to communion. Shorne 23:39, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Knowing a bit about Juche is a lot more than I know, so I think I'm suitably reassured. I was basing my uncertainty on the version of that article from before your recent edit. Bryan 00:53, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We have Juche listed as a government personality cult on list of religions. Then again we also have demon worship, Scientology, Deism, Spiritual Humanism, Church of Emacs, and various others that may or may not be "religions" according to you or I. Juche says where man is in the universe (at the top), and has some other religious philosophies. If buddhism, and scientology are religions, Juche is prolly too. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 03:07, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Table

The following table is an attempt to categorize some of these positions systematically relative to each other:

	Believes at least one god exists	Believes no gods exist	Does not have any beliefs regarding the existence of gods	Believes gods are irrelevant
Believes proof/disproof is possible and is known	theist	strong atheist	weak atheist	apatheist
Believes proof/disproof may be possible but is not currently known	weak agnostic theist	weak agnostic strong atheist	weak agnostic weak atheist	weak agnostic apatheist
Believes proof/disproof is not possible	strong agnostic theist	strong agnostic strong atheist	strong agnostic weak atheist	strong agnostic apatheist
Believes proof/disproof is irrelevant	Theist apatheist	Strong atheist apatheist	Weak atheist apatheist	Apatheist (possible weak atheist)

Some of the positions on this table may seem contradictory, or at least unfounded, but where beliefs are concerned a great many people rely on faith and thus can believe strongly in things which they do not believe have been or can be rigorously proven.

This table has been moving around for awhile. Maybe it can go in this article? I don't know if atheists agree w the definitions in it, but I as a theist don't. Anyhow, if you do put it in, please qualify it as the opinion of some, not an end all be all catagorization (since I am sure lots of people have divergent opinions). Sam [Spade] 01:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think including the table would create more confusion in a word with a very simple meaning and itself is seriously open to question. An atheist is simply one who lacks any god belief. The reasons may vary from indifference, ignorance (All young children are atheists) or a careful weighing of the issue (not necessarily a choice, many atheists couldn't believe in any deity if they wanted to, and some wish they could, anymore than most could convince themselves that the Earth is flat). Within that definition there is a strong spectrum of view which the article covers well. Also I think the latest edit whilst correct in this sense is now less clear because the English is more difficult, but that's just my subjective view. --Nick-in-South-Africa 07:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nick, where do you get your definition from? An atheist is simply one who lacks any god belief is dependant too strongly on etymology, rather than common usage. Atheism is defined by most dictionaries and encyclopedias as the "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God or gods."

There is quite clearly a stance regarding God in the definition - there is a distinct difference between disbelief (it requires a conviction) and mere absence of belief (such as is supposedly held by babies).

Certainly, many conservative christians consider absence of belief to be atheist, but this cannot be said to be NPOV - there are other definitions, and other viewpoints. And I am pretty sure that you agree that there is a strong difference between a skeptical atheist who writes books such as Atheism: The Case Against God (ISBN:087975124X), and a baby. Are you really sure that it is NPOV to state that babies are atheist?

Regarding the table, Sam, I personally feel it needs further work. There is indeed a problem of POV - certainly the terms are not universally recognised! But what it does show is that there is a wide spectrum of viewpoints regarding the existence of God. (20040302)

I think that there are two fundamental flaws regarding the axes of the table - if you will, it shows variation of provability over variation of existence. This indicates that it would only be relevant to those who subscribe to the rationalist project - who buy into a fundamental conviction about the nature of existence and proof. What about, for instance, someone who says that provability is meaningful only within the context of its bounds? This would suggest that one could not begin to use the term 'proof' regarding the existence of God one way or another. Secondly, regarding existence - it appears counter-factual to me for people to talk about the 'existence' of God, in that it implies that the existence/non-existence dichotomy is larger than God (according to the table God is contained in one or the other - the irrelevance columns appear to be not part of an existence or proof criteria). Essentially, I am saying that if we agree that God is ineffable, then talking about God in terms of existence or provability is a meaningless exercise, analogically similar to arguing whether or not the statement "This statement is false" is actually true or false. These issues may be addressable for the table, but they are currently not dealt with as it stands. Also, where are Nick's babies in the table?! (20040302)

Extended table

Here is an extended variant, which includes babies, and those who do not subscribe to the ideas of meaningfulness concerning the metaphysical/ontological existence of God, but still allow for belief in God. As an exercise, it was useful, though I feel it's sole purpose is to show that there are a broad band of beliefs that cannot be adequately summarised with anything other than 'fun' labels. (20040302 10:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC))

		One can talk meaningfully about the ontological status of God				One cannot talk meaningfully about the ontological status of God					No views regarding the ontological status of God
		At least one God exists	Conviction that no God exist	Aware lack of belief in existence of god	Gods are irrelevant	Belief in God	Disbelief in God	Aware lack of belief in God	Nothing can be said about belief regarding god	Gods are irrelevant	Belief in God	Disbelief in God	Aware lack of Belief	Unaware lack of Belief
It is meaningful to talk about the provability of God	Provability of God is possible and is known	established rational essentialist theist	established rational essentialist strong atheist	established rational essentialist weak atheist	established rational essentialist apatheist	established rational relativist theist	established rational relativist strong atheist	established rational relativist weak atheist	established rational relativist silent	established rational relativist apatheist	established rational simple theist	established rational simple atheist	established rational simple weak atheist	unaware established rational simple
	Provability of God may be possible but is not currently known	weak agnostic rational essentialist theist	weak agnostic rational essentialist strong atheist	weak agnostic rational essentialist weak atheist	weak agnostic rational essentialist apatheist	weak agnostic rational relativist theist	weak agnostic rational relativist strong atheist	weak agnostic rational relativist weak atheist	weak agnostic rational relativist silent	weak agnostic rational relativist apatheist	weak agnostic rational simple theist	weak agnostic rational simple atheist	weak agnostic rational simple weak atheist	unaware weak agnostic rational simple
	Provability of God is not possible	strong agnostic rational essentialist theist	strong agnostic rational essentialist strong atheist	strong agnostic rational essentialist weak atheist	strong agnostic rational essentialist apatheist	strong agnostic rational relativist theist	strong agnostic rational relativist strong atheist	strong agnostic rational relativist weak atheist	strong agnostic rational relativist silent	strong agnostic rational relativist apatheist	strong agnostic rational simple theist	strong agnostic rational simple atheist	strong agnostic rational simple weak atheist	unaware strong agnostic rational simple
	Provability of God is irrelevant	apatheist rational essentialist theist	apatheist rational essentialist strong atheist	apatheist rational essentialist weak atheist	apatheist rational essentialist apatheist	apatheist rational relativist theist	apatheist rational relativist strong atheist	apatheist rational relativist weak atheist	apatheist rational relativist silent	apatheist rational relativist apatheist	apatheist rational simple theist	apatheist rational simple atheist	apatheist rational simple weak atheist	unaware apatheist rational simple
It is not meaningful to talk about the provability of God		skeptic essentialist theist	skeptic essentialist strong atheist	skeptic essentialist weak atheist	skeptic essentialist apatheist	skeptic relativist theist	skeptic relativist strong atheist	skeptic relativist weak atheist	skeptic relativist silent	skeptic relativist apatheist	skeptic simple theist	skeptic simple atheist	skeptic simple weak atheist	unaware skeptic simple
No views regarding provability		naive essentialist theist	naive essentialist strong atheist	naive essentialist weak atheist	naive essentialist apatheist	naive relativist theist	naive relativist strong atheist	naive relativist weak atheist	naive relativist silent	naive relativist apatheist	naive simple theist	naive simple atheist	naive simple weak atheist	unaware naive simple

It should be noted that here I came to the conclusion that one may merely believe in God without necessarily believing in an ontological status of God. Some people may consider the distinction irrelevant, but I am not so sure. To me, the to assert the existence of God requires an ontological/metaphysical assertion regarding the nature of the universe, which I feel is not necessary for the mere belief in God. I have chosen label the label 'simple' for those who have no views regarding the ontological status of God; this does not mean to denigrate such views, but merely distinguishes them from the 'naive' view of not having views regarding the provability of God. I also feel that it is possibly mistaken to use the term apatheist to describe both those who say that the existence of God is not relavant, as well as those who say that the provability of God is irrelevant: - we end up with ambiguous apatheist apatheists! I have added labels for those who feel nothing can be said (silent), and those who believe that the provability of god has been decided (established).

Again, the actual labels are pretty arbitrary, and do not necessarily represent their common uses. The purpose of the table is to look at covering the entire spectrum of beliefs concerning God, and it is not concerned with accurately labeling them. Secondly, none of the labels are meant to be denigratory or insulting. (20040302)

This table also should include the mentally ill, those suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and those who incur brain damage who become atheists. Atheist at least in the soft sense of not having any deity belief, even if at one stage they were staunch deists of one 'brand' of theistic conviction or another. I maintain that the table is trite, a harsh view perhaps, but there it is.

I assert again that the meaning of atheist is very simple 'to be without belief in any deity' this is not POV, there is absolutely no hint of axe grinding here. Within that definition we have soft or hard or if you prefer positive and negative atheists and the article covers these rather well to my mind. The common misuses problem is a rather moot point, the word 'disingenuous' is misused all the time, but this does not make the common error any more correct anymore than the plethora of individuals who are incapable of pronouncing properly the word ‘nuclear’ or even the simple word ‘ask’ makes this correct.

It is indeed quite possible to be an apathetic atheist, in so far as one does not have to be one who 'denies' anything. The problem of course is that the very term atheist tells us very little about what any individual atheist’s cosmic view is. All it does is tell us a tiny part of what their view isn't, such is the nature of describing somebodies views by what they are not. A bit like describing someone as a non-capitalist could cover the spectrum from a Tibetan Buddhist monk through to a Namibian Himba tribesperson and on to a screaming if slightly anachronistic Trotskyite (and yes the anachronistic was POV!).--Nick-in-South-Africa 21:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We are all entitled to our opinions Nick - and I ask you to remain cordial, as well as civil - but the choice is yours. There remains areas of the extended table which are not covered by your reductive stance. For instance, (1) I believe that one cannot talk meaningfully about the ontological status of God, and I also (2) believe that it is not meaningful to talk about the provability of God; further more, I am convinced that (3) nothing meaningful can be said about belief regarding God. The extended table would call me a "skeptic relativist silent". This does not make me an atheist on your terms, because I reject the attribution 'to be without belief in any deity' in (3). I am also not an agnostic, or a theist. So - using your own criteria, label me.

On your earlier note, brain damaged individuals would (in extreme cases) be under the heading "unaware naive simple". The table does cover most beliefs regarding God. Secondly, I doubt you meant to say 'trite' - as it was created today, it is counterfactual to say that it is so worn out, hackneyed, and common that it has lost interest for anyone. (20040302)

20040302 (strange name that, to me that sort of name is not civil so these things are relative) Anyway sorry if you didn't find my post civil or cordial. My style was meant to come over as completely flat and bearing upon the issue of an exposition of atheism, there were and are no angles at all. That said, one view of yours that rather leapt off the page and caused a little eye brow sprain due to the intrinsic self contradiction: >I am convinced that (3) nothing meaningful can be said about belief regarding God<.

Your own personal views or mine on the truth value in anything approaching any entity in the pantheon of humanity’s deities is again rather besides the point.

The reason I see the table as silly, and yes I did mean 'trite' is that I see it as yet another attempt to pigeon hole or categorize views using largely arbitrary criteria, it is a false categorization of a multi faceted, multi dimensional continuum, which is why I don’t see a table as the proper tool for this exercise. I see simple descriptions using well written prose as far more appropriate and my view is that including your table in the main article would make it a considerably lesser piece and less enlightening for the vast majority of readers. It is actually quite a good article save for those that keep seeking to come seemingly with some agenda to the definition at the start and making it less enlightening--Nick-in-South-Africa 23:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Briefly,

1. Any simple definition is a pigeonhole. I agree that the tables are indeed imposed reductive categorisations of one or more continua; that was my purpose: To begin to show the extent of such continua. That is exactly why any in/out (black and white) definition of atheism will inevitably be reductive and mistaken. Secondly, I am not convinced in 'shades of gray' - I feel that the scope of the term is more than bipolar.
2. Nothing meaningful can be said about belief regarding God is not-necessarily self-contradictory. If one asserts that God -by definition- (and this may not be your definition) is ineffable (or inconceivable) then what meaning does it have to say that one can think of, or have a concept of God? If God cannot be conceived of, then in my mind it is meaningless to talk about belief regarding God. This neither is a statement of belief or non-belief regarding God, but a statement of the limitations of the normal human mind. So, IMHPOV any question regarding the existence or nature of god is likely to be answered with something like "It's not like that". With real respect, it appears to me that because such thoughts don't fit into your boxes, you wish to say that my POV is self-contradictory. (20040302)

Questions about atheism as non-belief in deities

Suppose there is an individual who believes that Zeus, Hephaestus, and Apollo or Odin and Thor or Shiva and Vishnu, etc. exist, but believes that they are merely actors in the world, and not its creators; this person does not believe in any other gods, such as the Christian God. Is this person an atheist? Suppose there is a society where most people consider the local emperor to be a living God; is an atheist required to dispute not only the emperor's claim to be God, but also the emperor's very existence? - Nat Krause 10:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like unhealthy beliefs. Such a person could be correctly called "delusional." A person can't be a Hellenistic pagan unless they practice related rituals and worship a certain god of their city. Nordic and Saxon mythology originated in India and developed from the Vedas... Hinduism for Shiva and Vishnu. Polytheism is the term for belief in multiple gods. Omniwhatever isn't a necessary attribute for a god. Read sense 2. Adraeus 11:40, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Which is an unhealthy belief: believing that Shiva is not omnipotent, believing that Caligula is not a god, or believing that Caligula does not exist? Anyway, option 1, healthy or not, describes the beliefs of many, many Buddhists historically (no comment on whether this is actually the orthodox position); they believe that members of the Hindu pantheon (Brahma, Indra, etc.) exist, because they are mentioned in Buddhist scripture, but they believe that these are no more than powerful worldly beings; and they don't believe in any omnipotent God or gods. It's not clear to me whether or not the current version of the article describes these people as atheists. - Nat Krause 13:40, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think there have always been some issues on this page dealing w the distinction between gods and God. Almost everybody fails to believe in some deity or another, but disbelief / denial of the one God who is All is what I have always associated w atheism. The God of monotheism is not a god, not some Zeus or whichever, but another concept entirely. Keep up w the interesting questions Nat, I think your making progress here. Sam [Spade] 14:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your view is extremely biased in favor of the monotheistic god. Andre (talk) 15:26, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Then you should have no trouble answering my questions three. Well, actually one of them was addressed specifically Adraeus, but you should have no problem with the other two. - Nat Krause 15:36, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In answer to Nat's questions: yes, and no. Those people would be atheists; they don't have to dispute the Emperor's existence, just his divinity. I don't know if the article reflects this, though. Andre (talk) 15:43, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Which is an unhealthy belief: believing that Shiva is not omnipotent, believing that Caligula is not a god, or believing that Caligula does not exist? Merely the third. How is this relevant? Andre (talk) 03:38, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits

I consider the recent work by Adraeus to be suitable, and in the right direction.

Without attempting to incite trouble though, it seems that NISA considers atheism to be a passive position, whereas Adraeus (if I understand correctly) and myself consider it to be an active position. Is it possible to find rooted concensus, or should the article indicate the distint variations of POV?

Secondly, Adraeus considering it is possible to be neither a theist, nor an atheist, is there some way that is sensible for naming those that belong to such a group? (20040302)

At the risk of sounding arrogant, I don't think a consensus is required for the types of atheism if some people don't understand atheism correctly. There are as many variations of atheism as there are atheists. I suggest keeping the definitions of atheism, weak atheism, and strong atheism generalized. After all, specificity isn't required for a person to state, "I'm an atheist." The same is true for political parties. I also don't think it's possible to be neither theistic nor atheistic. Those are yes/no descriptions of a person's theistic beliefs: they either believe in gods or they do not. How they believe or don't believe is another matter. Adraeus 19:40, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that other people (such as myself in this case :) are going to be accusing you of not understanding atheism correctly. Case in point, your apparent rejection of negative atheism and insistance on calling weak atheism agnostic atheism here in the main article. I consider this to be a misunderstanding since agnosticism is not directly related to atheism/theism; it's a philosophical position about knowledge whereas atheism/theism is about belief. This has come up before in the history of the atheism article and we achieved consensus about most of it, I'll dig up some references to past discussion in a few minutes to make sure we don't just go through the same efforts over again. Bryan 23:44, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Weak atheism" is sometimes called "agnostic atheism" (agnostic is an adjective; note -ic) because of the strong overlapping of the two subjects.

Read ReligiousTolerance.org - Agnosticism: Uncertainty about whether gods exist. Your misunderstanding of atheism and of agnosticism is evident. I will continue to revert your misedits until you figure out why. Adraeus 23:48, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, your approach to discussion leaves a lot to be desired. Promising to revert until your opponent gives up is not a valid argument, and in the long run is likely to turn people against you. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, and consensus-building is a key foundation of that collaboration.

(Not to mention a violation of the wikipedia three revert rule. Anyone pulling that stunt faces dispute resolution as a rule.--FeloniousMonk 00:40, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Secondly, that link contains a definition that seems at odds both with my own understanding of agnosticism and with what's at agnosticism. An agnostic can be a theist; Immanuel Kant is an example of an agnostic theist that pops to mind (see [5]). Also, I just dug up what looks like a pretty good summary of the theism/atheism/agnosticism issue at [6] (note that that's not authoritative, it's just a personal opinion essay. I point it out so that I don't have to write up my own version.) Bryan 00:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A consensus is unneeded if your "opponent" is not aware of the issues.

There are agnostic atheists and there are agnostic theists. Agnosticism regards how one believes (or doesn't believe). "Agnostic atheist" is a perfect term for a "weak atheist." As mentioned later in the section, weak atheism is not equivalent to agnosticism; however, they do overlap. "Agnostic" is an adjective, not a noun. Think of that way and you shouldn't have a problem comprehending this issue. Adraeus 00:33, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all that. But I disagree that weak atheism and agnostic atheism are synonymous; it is quite possible to believe it is possible to know whether gods exist (not-agnostic) and yet lack a belief in any gods because no compelling evidence has come along to convince you (weak atheist). One word is about knowledge, the other's about belief. Bryan 00:37, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All right. I agree with you. I never thought of that condition before. Thanks. Additionally, I think atheistic agnosis should continue to be mentioned as it is a truly "fair and balanced" position. Adraeus 10:19, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here, by the way, are those links I said I'd dig up to previous discussion on this subject.

• Talk:Atheism/Archive_5#Moved_from_article.,
• Talk:Atheism/Archive_5#Weak_atheism_vs._agnosticism,
• Talk:Atheism/Archive_5#replace_the_dispute_headers. Bryan 00:22, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Separate issue

A separate issue, in the meantime. This was removed from the "morality and philosophy" section:

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

I consider this to be quite relevant, since although it's discussing the beliefs of religious people rather than atheists it's addressing the beliefs of religious people about athiests. The line immediately after this bit begins "Atheists deny charges of amorality", but without this section there aren't any "charges of amorality" mentioned now. Bryan 23:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Most religions..." is a generalization and therefore ambiguous. (That section is also poorly written.) This article is supposed to discuss atheism not argue for it. Adraeus 23:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A specific example is given in parentheses right in the first line. One or two more examples might be worth adding, but since this article is about atheism it doesn't seem appropriate to me to go into a lengthy discussion of religious moral codes. Also, how is this an argument for atheism? It's a description of certain views of atheists that are commonly held by theists. Bryan 00:04, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're presenting a case by generalizing theistic beliefs and arguing that (all) religionists claim atheists are immoral. Removing the needless mention of charges of amorality would serve to better the quality of this article. Adraeus 00:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, it says "Most religions include a moral code" and "Their followers, therefore, often believe." This is quite explicitly different from saying all religions and always believe. And as I've argued, metioning this is not needless - this is the very "charge of amorality" that is discussed later in the section. Bryan 00:16, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're still assuming what other people believe. Charges of amorality is irrelevant. I've removed mention of it and the article is far more positive than the constant drone of "Xians say this but we're not that! We swear!"

It's hardly an assumption, I've had such charges levelled against me personally in the past. For a more general example, see [7]. It includes the following lovely description of atheistic outlook: "Since there is no God, there is no right nor wrong, and human action is neither good nor bad, but convenient or inconvenient. It leaves human society without a basis for order and human government without foundation (Romans 1:10-32). All is hopeless, all is wretchedness, all is tending to the grave and the grave ends all." While it is true that not everyone thinks of atheists this way, it is true that many people do. I think it's quite important to address this issue when discussing atheist morality in an encyclopedia article, and it's possible to do so in an NPOV way. Bryan 00:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's an important issue for an encylcopedic article. I suggest forming a new section similarly titled "Social perceptions" and discussing the various interpretations of atheism/atheists within that section instead of adding extraneous and irrelevant material to the atheistic morality and philosophy section. Discuss atheism first and then other views. Adraeus 00:38, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bryan is right, the majority do, and it is vital to discuss. Sam [Spade] 00:35, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree strongly w both of you, the section should be kept, and rewritten. Also, the article is a bit of a polemic. Here is one of my own ;) Sam [Spade] 23:58, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Adraeus' removal today of the mention of charges of atheist amorality. These charges are more than quite common, but represent one of the primary arguments against atheism leveled by theists. Their absence is glaring; most atheists have faced these very allegations, and not having them addressed here leaves them without one more definitive source to refer those making the argument to. I suggest rewriting the passage and providing links to examples of the charges being made, there are plenty available online.--FeloniousMonk 00:40, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The objective of this article is not make a case against the case against atheism. If you want to write an argumentative essay composed of original research, do it elsewhere. Adraeus 00:42, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If many people make a case against atheism, then it seems reasonable for an encyclopedia to mention that. That doesn't mean the encyclopedia is making a case against atheism, it means the encyclopedia is describing a case that many people make against atheism. For example, everything linked to from Arguments for the existence of God and Arguments against the existence of God. Those articles are not there to convince someone to believe/disbelieve, they're there to describe famous arguments that other people have made for/against in the past. Bryan 00:46, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The fact that we interpret the removed section differently indicates we need a new section titled "Criticism of atheism" instead of, again, adding irrelevant content to the atheistic philosophy section. I'm all for NPOV sections regarding the topics presented but I removed that which is out of place. Adraeus 00:54, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Common arguments against atheism and atheist's responses to those arguments have a place here, themselves being significant in shaping atheism as it is.--FeloniousMonk 00:52, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You two also need to start defining "many." "Many," "most," etc. are ambiguous and any sections that start off with ambiguous terms must be rewritten. Adraeus 00:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By the way, "shaping atheism"? Atheism is static. It is only the "lack of theistic beliefs." Movements such as Secular Humanism have diverged from the concept of atheism but atheism itself lacks a doctrine. Adraeus 00:59, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

bogus terms

Weak atheism, agnostic atheism, strong atheism, what-ever-you-call-it, it’s a bogus term. The accepted terms are written by theists (the majority, esp. historically), and the terms are "agnostic" and "atheist".

An agnostic is he who doubts, or claims incompetence to judge. An atheist is a denier of God, someone who is adamant in their refusal to accept God. Amalek.

Atheism is a very strong word, and these attempts to rewrite the terms (not by editors here, but by atheists/agnostics/non-believers generally) blur the lines. It is very important in this article, and in all of those articles using these terms, to clarify that these used here are not the generally accepted labels. Maybe they are in some communities, or will be in time, but they are not generally the terms used now, and must be clarified as such. Sam [Spade] 23:58, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By saying i'm a "denier of God, adamant in my refusal to accept God" means that i acknowlege his existance, and choose to refuse to accept him, which is blatently wrong. I firmly believe that no gods exist, thus no need to refuse to accept ANY gods. It's up to YOU to PROVE your particular god's existance before i have the option to accept/deny him. If i accept your definition, then you are in retrospect, a denier of Thor who refuses to accept him. Paulr 01:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What makes you think that? As (20040302) states below, there is no need for this false dicotomy of belief and denial. Rather I am taking no particular stance here regarding Thor. When you call yourself an Atheist, you are taking a stance, it is not a passive label, but a choice. Sam [Spade] 11:21, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Considering 20040302's latest post on the non-passivity of atheism (aka. his misinformed opinion that communications is system of conspiracies), if I were you I wouldn't be using him as a supporter of your ideas. Atheism is not a choice; it's a natural state of being. Humans are born lacking theistic beliefs. Humans are born as atheists. When one states, "I am an atheist," they are identifying themselves as a person who lacks theistic beliefs. They are identifying themselves as a person who has not subscribed to a religion or a theistic belief-system. There's nothing more to it than that! Arguments against such identification are weak and ignorant being equivalent to arguments against communication. Adraeus 11:53, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is a deeply false doctrine which no theist would accept. No infant can deny God. Lack of belief is agnosticism. I find the attempt to sensationalize this discussion detractingly "weak and ignorant". Sam [Spade] 12:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't care if "no theist would accept" that fact. It's a damn fact. Humans are born without theistic beliefs. That is atheism. Adraeus 13:04, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that I disagree with Sam on the issue concerning Agnosticism, we appear to concur about the false dichotomy of atheism/theism. Secondly, Adreus, if you think that I am talking conspiracies, I think you should read more carefully what I am saying. There is no conspiracy regarding the issue. None is needed. Socio-political tribalism is as common as war. (20040302)

Sorry, bub. You're wrong. Adraeus 13:04, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Atheist means "lacks a belief in a god." When i call myself an atheist, i'm describing myself as someone who lacks a belief in a god (any). I'm not taking any stances. When you ask me, "Do you accpet God and Jesus?" and i tell you, "No, and i don't believe in your God" I am taking a stance. Just as you take a stance on not believing in Thor. The only difference between me and my Christian brothers is i believe in one less diety. Paulr 19:19, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know where you get your information but what you've presented is incorrect. "Weak atheism" and "strong atheism" are accepted terms that refer to the two main categories of atheists. Religionists may not accept those terms; however, their opinion is irrelevant for they are no longer sane. The definition of atheism contains two senses: the first refers to strong atheism while the second refers to weak atheism. It's a simple concept to understand. Your opinion is misinformed. Atheists define atheism, not theists. Adraeus 00:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Atheists may define atheism here, but not generally. The vast majority accept these terms not at all. Sam [Spade] 00:19, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Babble on. I'm certain someone crazy enough will listen. Labeling "weak atheist" bogus is equivalent to labeling "open window" bogus. Adraeus 02:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I, personally, had heard of these terms before Wikipedia, and I identify myself as a weak atheist. Andre (talk) 02:05, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Adraeus, the terms strong atheism and weak atheism are common terms and were in use long before they appeared here.--FeloniousMonk 15:15, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Atheism is not a passive stance

Quite clearly there remains a distinction of view regarding the necessity of mental activity in atheism. I, and most dictionary definitions, assert that atheism is an active stance- it involves a disbelief, and not merely a lack of belief. Moreover, theism also is an active choice. Regardless of whether or not it fits with ideas of a necessary dichotomy that we may have concerning the term, the position of requiring an active position means that there is a scope for people who are neither atheists nor theists.

I am a person whose view is not unique in believing that it is NOT true that the entire population can be divided into theists and atheist. The article does not appear to address such a community that I am a member of, which means that it remains POV. Before someone says "oh that is weak atheism", I disagree. Weak atheism, regardless of whether or not it is a neologism, would be a misnomer as such people do NOT disbelieve in God, just as they do not believe in one; they maybe merely completely unaware of the idea, they may believe that belief in God is itself ineffable.

Lastly, a possibly smaller community (which I would include myself to be within) consider themselves to be involved in the philosophies of (a)theism, but reject the theism/atheism dichotomy as they consider such terms to be cultural, semantic issues that can bear no relation to fact. This is not a self-contradictory position. It is more of a pragmatic position, if anything.

My final view of terms such as atheism is that they are deliberatly used by socio-political authorities to promote their own cause, and in themselves are nothing more than typical tools used in socio-political propaganda exercises. To say "I am a theist" or "I am an atheist" is just another way of declaring ones-self as belonging to a community; it appears to me to be nothing more than thinly veiled tribalism. Therefore it is not necessary to use a label at all for those who are neither atheist nor theist, just as it is meaningless to say to a Greek "If you aren't a Republican you must be a Democrat" (20040302)

Atheism cannot be an active stance--a choice--for humans are born as atheists. That is, humans are born lacking belief in gods; therefore, atheism is a passive and natural condition. Theistic behavior is learned and religious behavior, regarding theism or atheism, is also learned. These behaviors are not components of atheism. The two categories of atheism are explicit: strong atheism is a positive belief in the nonexistence of gods while weak atheism is the lack of theistic belief for absence of certainty of the existence or nonexistence of gods. Adraeus 11:41, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The entire population of Earth can be divided into theistic and atheistic groups. A person either possesses theistic beliefs or doesn't. It's that simple. Adraeus 11:41, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is a contradiction in your stance, from my POV. These two sentences contradict: "Humans are born lacking belief in gods; therefore, atheism is a passive and natural condition." AND "Atheism is generally defined by most dictionaries and encyclopedias as the "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God or gods." I reiterate. Disbelief or denial is not cognate with a passive condition.

Learn how to use a dictionary. For many words, there are multiple senses. You can't choose one sense and try to argue that everything centers around that one sense. Positive belief in the nonexistence of gods (strong atheism) is the "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God or gods." That sense, that category of atheism, is an active position; however, the term "atheism" is used to refer to only the lack of theistic beliefs. Here's what Princeton University has to say about atheism. Strong atheism is motivated, and therefore, an active belief in the nonexistence of gods. Atheism, sometimes called weak atheism, is only the lack of theistic beliefs. Nothing more, nothing less. Adraeus 13:15, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regardless, you persist in misunderstanding my point. My POV regarding atheism is distinct to yours. I am not involved in attempting to persuade you to adopt my POV. I suggest that you do likewise. My POV is a valid POV. It is not expressed in the article. Therefore the article is POV, not NPOV. I suggest that we call in arbitration if you consider my POV as not legitimate enough to be expressed in an article that should aim for a NPOV. (20040302)

The article may not cater to your narrow-minded and misinformed view but it remains NPOV. If you edit the article to suit your view, I'll consider your edit vandalism and act appropriately. Adraeus 13:15, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This remark has prompted me to request for dispute resolution. Enough said. (20040302)

People can only be divided into theists and atheists if you discount agnostics. It's certainly possible to be unsure, or actively sure you don't know. Shane King 13:26, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

As Bryan eloquently said, "One word is about knowledge, the other's about belief." Agnosticism regards how one believes or doesn't believe and it is irrelevant to a division of theists (believers) and atheists (nonbelievers). Adraeus 13:31, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I reject that dichotomy: belief and knowledge are inextricably linked. Shane King 13:38, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

The problem with pre-scientific thinking is that statements of assumption (belief) and statements of fact tend to be regarded as the same. Belief and knowledge are not synonymous. You're obviously bringing this discussion off-topic. Bryan meant by "knowledge" that agnosticism regards how one believes (or doesn't believe.) It is a concept, not a religion. It is not a belief in, a disbelief of, or a lack of belief. It is a concept that regards how those beliefs are processed. Amazing. I actually have to say that again. Read it this time. Adraeus 13:48, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I did not say they were synonymous. I said they were linked. As most people do not think scientifically (and I'd guess of those who do, most only do so when necessary for the task at hand), I think it's overly simplistic to seperate out the two. For example, a lot of strongly religious people will tell you they don't just believe God exists, they know He/She/It does. To me it's obvious that belief isn't a simple off/on thing: religion is a complex issue that many take years to arrive at their final answer. Clearly there are various strengths of belief. Why is it so hard to believe that there can be states in between: where it would be incorrect to classify someone as either a believer or a non-believer? I think such states exist, and I think some of those states are called agnosticism. Others would be called ignorance, as in the lack of knowledge that theism (and hence atheism) is even an option.

To relate that back to the original topic: atheism is an active stance due to this. Humans don't start out lacking belief. They start out not knowing about the concept of religion. You can't lack belief in something until you know of the possibility of the thing existing. Trying to define this otherwise is like talking about what existed before time started: the concept of before doesn't make sense without time. Likewise, belief doesn't make sense without the option of something to believe in!

As I see it, the only way atheism can be the default is if there is a God, and that God ensures humans are born with a knowledge of the possibility of theism, but without theistic beliefs. While that could be true, it sounds a little far fetched to me, and is certainly not a solid base for an encyclopedia article. Shane King 14:12, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

"Atheism is an active stance" is just your particular POV, however. As several people have argued, there are people out there who count themselves as passive disbelievers - weak atheists, but not necessarily agnostic (even though they're often linked). One can develop agnostic beliefs or one can develop non-agnostic beliefs without necessarily affecting one's atheism. The issue of what's the "default" isn't strictly relevant to this. Bryan 14:59, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Many Rationalists consider themselves atheists only by default. Were Theism a rational stance, they may have that position to consider as well. It's not as simple as saying it's an active stance.--FeloniousMonk 15:07, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was born a weak atheist, but more importantly one who had no inkling of any gods at all. In my youth (we're talking age 4 or 5 here), I was introduced to theism and I strongly disliked it, becoming a sort of strong atheist (with arguments like "God doesn't exist obviously because I can't see him, and it's impossible to be invisible") until I was about 10 years old, when I realized that weak atheism is the only defensible stance. Weak atheism can be defended because it is a passive stance, one that makes no arguments about the world. Strong atheism is an active stance because it argues that no gods exist. Agnosticism isn't involved here because it deals with the possibility of knowing the truth, rather than what the truth itself is. Andre (talk) 17:01, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

"Humans don't start out lacking belief. They start out not knowing about the concept of religion." So, you're saying they DO believe in God, but somehow don't know about religion? If you don't think they believe in God, they lack belief. All "lack" means is that they don't have it. Andre (talk) 17:10, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Lack of belief does not preclude believing when psychologically capable. Lack of belief does not require previous belief just as a lack of salt in a soup doesn't require previous salt in a soup. The verb "lack" means "to be without." Newborn humans lack beliefs; therefore, they lack theistic beliefs, which is the condition of being an atheist. Remember that an infant child has only a single sense of right and wrong: what feels good and what feels bad. Look up moral development. [8] [9] Adraeus 21:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is one of those odd times when I need to ask for some clarification. Adraeus, your post immediately follows a post by Andrevan, and seems to be written in a tone of disagreement, but everything you've written seems to expresses agreement. What gives? --Yath 03:11, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I responded to Shane King apparently. The colons are important. :) Adraeus 03:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with Adraeus and support him in this. As such, I've amended my colons. Andre (talk) 03:29, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Whether or not atheism/theism is an exclusive dichotomy

I have requested assistance for dispute resolution.

As far as I can see right now, there is a split between active discussants on the issue of whether or not atheism and theism consist of an exclusive dichotomy. (What is meant here, is whether or not it is true that: "if you are not a theist, then you are an atheist"). For the purpose of the dispute, we are using 'theist' in its broadest sense.

As far as I can see, and regardless of any other differences of opinion

There those that appear to be in favour of the motion (IE They agree with "if you are not a theist, then you are an atheist") are as follows:

User:Adraeus, User:FeloniousMonk, User:Bryan Derksen, User:Andrevan, Starx

Those who appear to be against the motion (IE They disagree with "if you are not a theist, then you are an atheist" are as follows:

User:Sam Spade, User:ShaneKing, User:20040302, User:Nat Krause

Please feel free to revise your status as above, if you see fit.

The problem is there are various forms of atheism, one that rejects God, and another that rejects God, any other deities, astrology, or other supernatural nonsense. This article needs to explain this spectrum of positions. Dunc|☺ 20:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Atheism deals with astrology and other supernatural things? I don't think so. Andre (talk) 20:09, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Ditto. By the way, who requested dispute resolution? There isn't a signature. Adraeus 20:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Weird. If you believe in a god, you can't be free from belief in god. How does this disagreement get beyond the "Let's go look in the dictionary" stage? --Yath 03:18, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And so you've proven that theists are not atheists. How does this relate to anything else? - Nat Krause 03:24, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

An atheist is not a theist. A theist is not an atheist. If one lacks theistic belief, they are an atheist. If one possesses theistic belief, they are a theist. One either believes in a god (theism) or one doesn't (atheism). You do not have a valid argument. The problem rests with your POV, not the article. You think that atheism as "a condition of lacking theistic belief" is too dependent on etymology and not on common usage. What makes your argument invalid is that the common and accepted usage of "atheism" is the etymologically dependent definition. You fail to recognize this. As such, your POV is not our problem. Adraeus 03:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, we stipulate that you're either an atheist or a theist. Weak atheism is the neutral state, strong atheism and theism are formed opinions. If you agree with this, you are in favor of the motion. Andre (talk) 03:34, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion a weak atheist is one who takes the position there is insufficient evidence for gods, and hence choose not to believe. A strong atheist is one who goes beyond that, and asserts there is sufficent reason to disbelieve in gods. An agnostic is one who, for any of a variety of reasons, decides they don't know enough to make a choice either way. To me, that's neither believing nor disbelieving. It's like saying one must be either heterosexual or homosexual because you have to sleep with either men or women, ignoring the fact you can choose not to sleep with anyone at all.

In YOUR opinion. Atheism is a passive condition of being. "Weak" and "strong" indicate methods of reasoning. Secondly, "agnostic" is not a noun; it's an adjective. Adraeus 10:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it's either, just as the word "German" can be a noun ("look, a German") or an adjective ("you're looking German today"). In terms of hetero and homosexuality, as mentioned by whoever isn't signing, those two terms are analogous to strong atheism and theism, while asexuality would be analogous to weak atheism. Andre (talk) 15:38, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

While poor (and informal) grammar is acceptable for informal writing and speech, it is improper to use such grammar in formal writing and speech, such as in Wikipedia. "German people," and "Germanic peoples" are the formal forms of "Germans."

• "Look, a German" is ambiguous: a German what? A German dog? A German pancake?
• "You're looking German today" is also ambiguous: a German what? How does that 'what' look like?

Being a member of the Institute of General Semantics, I detest using informal language where formal language is appropriate, for such bastardization and misuse of a language always results in miscommunication. Adraeus 22:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of course, they're not the only three choices either. You could decide it doesn't matter enough to make a choice. You could just never give it much thought. You could never be introduced to the idea of theism. There are any number of possible positions to take here, and I think it only muddies the waters if you lump them all together as being atheists.

Atheism = the condition of lacking theistic beliefs. If you're an anatheist, you're still an atheist. You don't have to know of theism to lack theistic belief. Adraeus 10:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I fail to understand why anyone would want to try to redefine the word to be less precise than its generally understood meaning. What good does such scope creep do other than serve someone's personal agenda? Shane King 05:54, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Atheism = the condition of lacking theistic beliefs. That is its common usage. Adraeus 10:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Shane. If we accept the positon of Adraeus et al, we have to assert all sorts of other false dichotomies. If babies are atheist (without belief), then they are agnostics (without knowledge), ammoral (without morals) etc. (20040302 08:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC))

There's no if. Don't you know anything about developmental psychology? Adraeus 10:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're right, 20040302, babies are born amoral. Not immoral though, there's a large difference. Not agnostic though, see my response below on that. Andre (talk) 15:38, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Enough of this banter. I will not attempt to state my case as being more truthful or factual than that of Atreus et al. I accept a multiplicity of views regarding the way in which people use the term. All I ask is that Atreus et al. accept that there is a significant community who do not agree with them concerning the nature of Atheism. We can accomodate both (or more) POV in the article, and the article will benefit from that. (20040302 08:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Adding idiotic POV to the article will NOT enhance the article. Adraeus 10:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your POV, 20040302, is a false interpretation of the word atheist. Andre (talk) 15:38, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Babies, when born, are amoral (without morals), asexual (without sexual preference), and weak atheist (without belief). This is different than being homo or heterosexual, immoral or moral, or theist or positive/strong atheist. Agnostics aren't without knowledge, they are those who stipulate that knowledge is unknown or unknowable, and babies aren't born this way. ("Weak agnosticism or negative agnosticism is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown, but is not necessarily unknowable." "Strong agnosticism or positive agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any God or gods exist.") Nobody is redefining the term atheist; it means what it always has meant, since the term was coined: not theist. A is a passive Greek prefix, meaning simply not, as opposed to against. I hope this clears up some of your objections. Andre (talk) 15:33, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

It looks like this hinges on the question of whether you define atheism as "without belief in gods" or "denying the existence of God". Modern organized religions tend to define atheism as being in opposition to their own deity(ies), and so often hold the second definition. Under that belief system, they like to classify people in three ways: Theist, Agnostic, Atheist. --Yath 22:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Religionists apply the definition of strong atheism to all atheism which is an incorrect application; therefore, that misapplication is irrelevant to this objective description of atheism as it applies to atheists. Their ignorance is not our problem. Adraeus 22:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think most of the conflict here stems from this divergence. When I change it to "does not believe in any gods" and Sam Spade changes it to "does not believe in God or gods", I deemphasizing the second definition. This is because, from the atheist point of view, singling out a single deity for disbelief is nonsensical. You might as well say, when describing Iraq as free of WMDs, that it has no WMDs or anthrax artillery shells. --Yath 22:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Atheism is not the disbelief in gods or a god; it is only the condition of lacking theistic beliefs. Adraeus 22:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In response to Andrevan's claim that "nobody is redefining the term atheist": they are and they have. A large number of people believe that atheists exist to prove that Yaweh doesn't exist. The dictionaries reflect this. Reporting it here is appropriate. --Yath 22:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The term "atheist" has always meant what it was coined to mean. Incorrect and obviously biased interpretations of atheism do not make for reasonable redefinitions nor do they belong in this article except under a section regarding criticism of atheism. The problem with many dictionaries is that they often fall prey to such deluded interpretations of atheism. For instance, American Heritage defines "atheism" as a "immorality." Dictionaries are neither authoritative nor appropriate foundations for any argument against atheism's etymologically rooted definition. Like I said before, such arguments are invalid. Adraeus 22:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We need to accommodate both views in the article. I'd do it, if I weren't lazy/behind on homework. --Yath 22:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The only accomodation I'll tolerate is a section regarding criticism of atheism with explanations concerning the incorrectness of those criticisms due to misinterpretation. If that is unacceptable, then forget about accomodation: the theism article doesn't discuss atheism; therefore, there's no reason atheism should discuss theism. Adraeus 22:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Yath understands the distinction between strong and weak atheism. Andre (talk) 23:12, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

I've taken a moment of my time to describe the theist viewpoint (atheism = disbelief). I didn't counter it with the atheist viewpoint (atheism = lack of belief) because I assumed that was the default understanding here. I fully understand both sides, and the difference between strong and weak atheism. The point I am trying to get across, and one that I hope Adraeus will not be too hostile to, is that usage defines words. Dictionaries report meanings, they do not create them. Well, at least they're supposed to. Therefore, if 100 million people think that atheism means "disbelief in God", then they are correct, and the fact that the word meant something entirely different before they all started to twist the meaning will not change that. There is a large group of people who like to divide atheism into strong and weak, and there is a large group of people who lump them all into one definition. In order to be properly neutral, the article must report both views, and it doesn't, yet. --Yath 10:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yath, I've suggested on numerous occassions that we should create a section appropriately titled "criticism of atheism." Apparently, that suggestion has either gone unnoticed or ignored. Strong atheism describes the theistic view of all atheism while the article makes the two types of atheism distinct. Read my post in the Request for comment section. The article does report both views. Adraeus 20:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Those in favour of the duality seem to be interpretting the comments of people against your point of view as holding theistic biases. I can assure you, I am not a theist. I also don't feel that atheism correctly describes my beliefs. Furthermore, outside of wikipedia, I have never heard atheism described in this way. If the definition presented here is the "true" definition of atheism, I find that strange, since I primarily associate with people who describe themselves as atheists. You would think at least one of them would accept the definition presented here if it's so common. Shane King 00:39, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Atheism neither describes nor prescribes beliefs. Atheism is the condition of lacking theistic beliefs. If you've never heard of atheism as it is described here, then you've never heard of atheism; you've only heard misinterpretations. You can ask Dr. Michael Shermer of the Skeptics Society, Richard Dawkins, Cliff Walker of Positive Atheism, David McFadzean of the Church of Virus, or anyone even remotely involved in significant atheistic communities about atheism and they'll describe it as it is described here. Even Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the founder of American Atheists (AA), which promotes strong Atheism--the distinction between atheism and Atheism is important--writes, "Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any." [10] [11] Adraeus 03:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The capitalized "Atheism" is the strong atheism promoted by American Atheists. The American Atheists organization does not represent all atheists and they are not considered an authority on atheism (except by religionists that don't know better.) Since the AA does have much financial power, they are able to voice their opinions louder than other atheists. The problem is that they are strong atheists, not weak atheists. I think they've produced more confusion than clarity regarding atheism in their position; therefore, I don't agree with their movement most of the time. Adraeus 03:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's a "no true Scotsman" argument. I've said I know many atheists, none of whom would define atheism as you would, and you've basically said their not "true" atheists, they're just people who don't know what they're talking about. I reject that elitist hogwash: if I tried to define a Christian's religious beliefs for them, they'd be (justifiably) offended. I don't see why it should be any different with atheism.

Those bunch of links you've thrown out don't (at least directly, I'm not going to bother go looking) point to anything that supports your point of view. Even if they do, I still don't see your point. So what if some people agree with your definition. Many people don't. Therefore, for NPOV purposes, they should be heard. I also don't see why it matters whether that's what theists, atheists, or whatever think: atheists have no more a monopoly on the definition of the term than theists. The NPOV policy says that if theists see the term meaning something, they get to have their say. In fact, since theists are the majority, they get their views phrased along the lines of "The majority of people believe", as I read the policy. Shane King 09:13, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

I would have posted a more extensive response; fortunately, further explanation isn't required for a rational person to comprehend. You don't understand atheism as it is. You understand atheism as you want it to be. Your arguments have been weighed, measured, and found lacking reason. Perhaps you're better suited for a theistic worldview. I tire of your endless banter in which you repeat the same falsehoods over and over. Not once have you mentioned your interpretation of the etymologically defined atheism as described in the article. Post your description of atheism so that we may see where you err in your understanding. Adraeus 10:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the personal attack. In response to your query, I quote myself: "In my opinion a weak atheist is one who takes the position there is insufficient evidence for gods, and hence choose not to believe. A strong atheist is one who goes beyond that, and asserts there is sufficent reason to disbelieve in gods." Shane King 00:41, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

The point of my earlier questions

The point of my early questions is that any places where the article defines atheism as "non-belief in gods" are potentially very misleading. I only got one real response, but that correspondent agreed that one can believe in beings such as Shiva, Zeus, Odin, etc. and still be an atheist. Now, I'm not really comfortable myself using the word "god" to refer to this sort of thing (I prefer saying "deva" in the context of Buddhism), but with regard to Norse or Greek ones, I just don't know what else to call them. So, it appears that atheism must mean something other than simply not believing in gods, or at least that the article needs to be much more specific about what it means by "god". - Nat Krause 16:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's a major difference between believing in those gods and believing that they were myths based on historical figures. The first is theism, the second is atheism. However, the second is a view about history; regardless of your view on history, you still don't believe those people were gods and as such reject theism in their regard. The meaning is clear, to me. This is a rather rare occurence I think, so it doesn't appear to have its own term. Andre (talk) 17:41, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to a theory that conceptions of monotheistic gods are based on historical figures. I meant people who believe that Shiva or Zeus or Odin are real, currently existing, nonhuman beings. This is not really a rare occurance; in fact, it is perhaps the default among Buddhists. - Nat Krause 13:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)