Jump to content

Talk:Atheism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 20040302 (talk | contribs) at 13:52, 31 October 2004 (Position E). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Discussion on this article has been archived. If you wish to comment on an ongoing discussion, you may quote it here or simply refer to it. Post new comments below the list of archives please.



Dispute Resolution Closure

With only one side of the dispute remaining involved, I am forced to withdraw from this discussion. I am not happy that this is the manner in which it has been resolved, but it has been resolved all the same. After 3 days time without any objection from the other side, I will be requesting that the page be unprotected and contributions shall resume. If any member of the other side (namely User:Andrevan, User:Nick-in-South-Africa or User:Adraeus) reverts future edits without discussion, these reversions must be considered attacks and further dispute resolution will be facilitated by myself against that particular user. If, at any time, the opposing side wishes to resume talks, I will gladly return and the page will be protected once more while discussion continues.

Make no mistake, I am not happy with this result, but without dispute, I have no purpose here and shall withdraw. I wish this article and its contributors the best of fortune and hope further hostilities will be avoided.

User:Adraeus had left a comment on my user page regarding this closure. I have reposted the response I left on his talk page on a sub-page of mine for anyone to view. This response is posted here: User talk:Skyler1534/DR.

Thank you to all for your time and effort in resolving this matter.

Farewell,
Skyler1534 13:29, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Skyler! Sorry I skipped out before this dispute resolution began, I've been involved in several endlessly-repeating arguments recently and didn't want to get back into one that ate up a month of my time earlier this year already. I promise to stick around next time as penance. Should I give some sort of "official" opinion on how things stand, or would you prefer if I don't do anything in the eleventh hour after being absent for most of the discussion? Bryan 03:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How things currently stand is that there was basically a "walk-out" on one side. Andre, Nick and Adraeus have stepped away from the table. So, while the dispute is over, nothing was actually resolved. You mentioned above that you think the article as it stands now is fine, but the problem is that after 3 days of no discussion, I will be requesting that the article be unprotected and I would expect that it will change drastically shortly thereafter. The only difference will be that we are one more notch up on the dispute resolution process and if users continue to revert edits without discussion, it will be considered a hostile act and I will personally, as an impartial observer, request arbitration against that user.
To make one thing clear, I am not here in any official capacity. I am not a member of the Mediation Committee and am not even an administrator. I simply wished to help after User:20040302 mistakenly posted his request for mediation on the Association of Members Advocates page (an association of which I am a member). Also, I wish to make clear that I have not taken any side in the matter as far as the dispute goes. I have followed Wikipedia policy. Policy is that compromises must be made in the absense of a person clearly being factually wrong or vandalizing. All parties have acted in good faith here, so the only solution is discussion. Actions taken after this (other than to restart discussion) must be considered to have been made in bad faith.
Bryan, if you were on the side of Andre, Nick and Adraeus in the dispute and would like to continue resolution efforts in an attempt to keep matters from getting ugly again, I will be more than happy to consider the dispute still open and we can continue to work. If this is not the case or you are not willing (for whatever reason), the article will be unprotected on Friday and unreasonable actions without prior discussion will be considered hostile.
I get the impression from Nick that I have handled this process incorrectly and from Adraeus that I am simply on the opposite side of him and want to destroy the article. I'm sorry to any who feel this way, but all that can be done is to end or resolve the dispute so that contributions to the article can continue. That is, after all, what Wikipedia is all about. Skyler1534 04:32, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
Hm. I'm not really sure I can "pledge allegience" to any particular side here. I consider the current version's definitions of weak and strong atheism to be correct and the efforts to equate weak atheism and agnosticism to be misguided, but I notice that at one point Andre said that agnostics were always atheists and I don't agree with that either. I've got a lot of catching up to do if I'm to pick up the current disagreement. As for whether this is "official" Wikipedia policy or not, I'll go with whatever works. I recently got involved in another dispute that went all the way to arbitration and sadly I haven't seen the "official" steps of dispute resolution working so well. I guess all I can suggest is that perhaps we could try to describe the argument itself in a concise summary and then add that description to the article? Since it seems to come up again and again, that may be a route to a more stable and NPOV article. Bryan 05:36, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Bryan, see Atheism/DR for my attempts to do just that. One of the significant changes I have proposed to the article is to move the issues of strong/weak atheism down the article - I consider that atheism qua atheism has a lot to offer before needing to discuss differentiations. One of the issues that has been brought to light for me regarding the term is that it has two significant categories of usage- one is general community usage, and the other is finely examined usage as found in academics and philosophers involved in the promotion (or discussion) of atheism as a Weltanschauung. The current protected article does little to mention this, and yet it appears to be a fundamental cause of edit wars. A key objection that I had in the article was the blurring of definition so much that it first of all appeared to say that anyone without belief in God is an atheist, and this definition is the defacto correct one. Then, the article extensively uses the term to refer to those who actively disbelieve in God. As I wrote at Atheism/DR:
"Many people commonly use the term to indicate the belief system represented by those who actively do not believe in the divine. There are many individuals and organisations that declare themselves proactively atheist, and the rest of the article adopts such an interpretation. Otherwise we would have to talk about why babies weren't sentenced to death for being atheists, struggle to explain what was going to be taught in British schools, and be at a loss as to how the CIA factbook estimates (world population) 12.5% to be non-religious and about 2.4% to be atheist."
Regardless, from what I understand of the DR process, it will be the article at Atheism/DR that will replace the current article, so it may be better for you to cast your eye over that, rather than the protected page. (20040302 09:05, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC))
Looks even better. Not sure if it's a good idea to move the strong/weak distinction right to the very end of the article, but I can't think of anyplace else to put it aside from immediately after the "interpretations" section and that's right at the beginning again. Skyler, may I try adding a paragraph at the end of the "divisions within atheism" summarizing the dispute here, mentioning some of the POVs I've seen that oppose the weak/strong distinction? That seems to be a good place to put them, IMO. Bryan 00:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Bryan, please add your proposed paragraph to the section on the Talk:Atheism/DR page that it applies to. Please also add your reasoning for adding the paragraph and any other changes you may want to make to the section. They will be discussed and if they are agreed upon, I will add them to the article.

Welcome Bryan

I have discussed matters extensively w user:andrevan, record of which is @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Talk:Atheism. The summary (IMO) is that we both agree that both points of view aught to be included:

  • The POV that Atheism means only those who reject God actively (this is the theist POV, largely)
  • That atheism has strong and weak variations, strong being the common meaning, and weak including many others. (the atheist POV as I see it)

I think all POV's should be expressed equally, and clarified. Andre feels the atheist definition is more etymologically correct. I don't agree, but we can let the reader decide on this, by providing them the info. I also think this debate should be moved lower in the article, or perhaps to a subpage if it grows too long. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 14:13, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Though I agree with Andre that Strong Atheism is not more etymologically correct (And I would add nor is it certain that Strong Atheists are the most common form of Atheist.), I do also agree with you here that we need to let the reader decide.

As stated at religioustolerance.org, Atheism is confined to one factor: the existence or non-existence of a deity:

  • Atheism can involve the positive assertion that there is no deity.
  • Atheism can be the absence of a belief that there is a deity.

Considering this, the only thing that the article can assert with any certainty is that Atheism is the absence of belief in God or gods; whether it's by an active assertion or a passive lack of belief is moot and the article should not seek to characterize either position, merely state them. Referencing some credible statistics would allow characterizations to be made, if rather obliquely.--FeloniousMonk 18:32, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

absence of a belief has no one lable, and is in no way included w/in atheism (indeed its excluded, since atheism is the belief that their is no God). You can say some people think that, but anything more is unacceptable. Atheism is an (anti)spiritual act, not a default. Presenting all POV's is ok, but stating the contemporary Athiest POV as fact is contrary to compromise (and NPOV), and will earn the article a dispute header, as well as a ton of conflict, for the forseeable future. NPOV involves stating all verifiable POV's impartially, not taking a stance. Sam [Spade] 20:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I think you've misstated the issue: I see absence of belief as an attribute. It's an attribute common to atheism, agnosticism and any number of others positions, whether they be passive positions or active beliefs. About.com (not a scholarly reference but one that is nonetheless accessed by millions) states about Atheism: "The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this."
About your personal definition of atheism -" since atheism is the belief that their is no God"- You think it doesn't take a stance? It's pure POV, as is "Atheism is an (anti)spiritual act, not a default". A significant number of Rationalists do not so much assert that Atheism is rational, but that Theism is irrational. Therefore for them Atheism is no more than a default position. Consider the words of Isaac Asimov: "I prefer rationalism to atheism. The question of God and other objects-of-faith are outside reason and play no part in rationalism, thus you don't have to waste your time in either attacking or defending." Clearly he viewed Atheism as merely a default position. Further, one could easily argue that since no one is born with beliefs, say, as a Theist or Deist, Weak Atheism is indeed everyone's original default position. Also, if you're so convinced that Atheism is a "(anti)spiritual act", perhaps you should try to include that point in the article...
I think that any article that overtly favors any POV and is vigorously defended by ideological ax-grinders by definition should have dispute header. I'll place one myself for such an article. As far as compromise here, I don't see a lot of compromise. I see several editors who are not Atheists trying to dictate to several Atheists what constitutes Atheism, based on their POV (based solely on a priori knowledge as best I can tell). Do Jews get to define what and who is Jewish? Hindus? So why is it you claim Atheists cannot do the same? Especially when they can provide extensive scholarly references in support of their position? I reject your definition of Atheism and hence your idea that this is any sort of compromise. I support a purely neutral definition of Atheism consistent with what is found on religioustolerance.org:
Atheism is confined to one factor: the existence or non-existence of a deity:
  • Atheism can involve the positive assertion that there is no deity.
  • Atheism can be the absence of a belief that there is a deity."
--FeloniousMonk 21:11, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


FeloniousMonk et al. For the record, I am not a theist. This means that according to the definition of some editors, I am an atheist. Do not be so quick to label people into categories that appear to suit you. However, as it happens, I do not consider myself an atheist either - and who are you to tell me who I am?
I understand why atheists wish to say that they merely lack belief - this is to do with the idea of otherwise falling into a 'faith' of disbelief. Well, so much for the rationalist project. As I see it, we choose our beliefs and convictions, whether or not we are conscious of the fact.
I note that many atheists have been actively bringing about a change in which the word is used - and the fact that this is reflected on WP comes to no surprise. There are always socio-political projects going on, and I hope that the current article can reflect that. The British education project has redefined it's broader scope, and now does NOT include atheism - because I guess, what is the point of teaching a non-movement? Instead, they are proposing to include "secular philosophies such as humanism". (BBC news, today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3959255.stm ), so I notice the shift in understanding of the word.
Regardless of any novel developments, as you say, (FM) there are definately two current positions regarding atheism, which is all I ever asked of the article. Moreover, the original article, from Persecution down, concerns itself with those who positively assert that there is no deity. To demonstrate this, as (another) thought experiment, substitute the word "baby" (as an example of a mere unbeliever), for the word atheist in each case, and re-read the article. I now agree that the ideas of weak and strong atheism are older than I initially thought. Issues concerning the status of babies are dealt with below. (20040302)


---

Funny, I never said you were an Theist or Atheist. In fact, I've never referred to you at all.

You attempt to spin this debate as Atheists just trying to rewrite a more favorable definition. You couldn't be more wrong. Anyone who's actually read Atheism's critical writings, Paul Henri Holbach (1772), Charles Bradlaugh (1876), etc., and is intellectually honest will know that Strong and Weak Atheism have been historically and scholarly recognized components Atheism for over two hundred years.

I cite the following support for my position that both Weak and Strong Atheism have historically been and remain scholarly and central to understanding Atheism:

New Dictionary of Religions, edited by by John R. Hinnells. Atheism: Disbelief in the existence of any Gods or of God. This may take the form of: (a) dogmatic rejection of specific beliefs, e.g. of theism; (b) scepticism about all religious claims; or (c) agnosticism, the view that humans can never be certain in matters of so-called religious knowledge (e.g. whether God exists or not). An atheist may hold belief in God to be false, irrational, or meaningless

Encyclopedia of American Religious History, by by Edward L. Queen, Stephen R. Prothero, and Gardiner H. Shattuck

Atheism, literally the absence of belief in God, has always been a minority viewpoint in American culture.

The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion, edited by by Jonathan Z. Smith and William S. Green

atheism: Gk. a-theos, "no god" A critical stance toward divinity. Ancient forms of atheism, for example, the Greek atomist school of philosophy, did not deny the possible existence of gods but did deny their permanence and immortality. The atomists viewed the gods - if they existed - as merely higher forms of life within nature. Buddhism does not exempt the gods from the cycle of karmic reincarnation. Modern naturalistic atheism descends from atomism but goes further and denies the existence of any superhuman beings, of any form of transcendent order or meaning in the universe. These notions, it insists, are merely temporary human projections onto a reality alien to human thinking. In practice, atheism denotes a way of life conducted in disregard of any alleged superhuman reality. Existential atheism is a positive form of the teaching: it argues that if humans are to be authentically free in the universe, then it is necessary that God not exist since that would limit human liberty.

The above definition at first defines atheism simply as the denial of the existence of any gods, but then it proceeds to acknowledge that, in practice, atheism simply involves the absence of any belief in a "supernatural reality."

The Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, edited by Edwin R. A. Seligman. In its narrowest sense the term atheist applies to one who categorically denies the existence of any gods. But in its wider sense it properly applies also to skeptics, materialists, positivists and all other who do not accept the claims of theism - that the world was created or is governed by a person or persons having the human traits of intelligence and will in more or less magnified form. Moreover, as people generally do not discriminate between belief and conduct, the term atheist has also been applied to those who refuse to participate in the customary forms of public worship. Thus the Romans called the Jews and early Christians atheists because they did not pay the customary honors to the sacra of the established imperial cult.

Charles Bradlaugh: One of the England's leading atheists and freethinkers in the 19th century, Bradlaugh wrote in 1876 in his book The Freethinker's Text Book that Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God. The atheist does not say that there is no God, but he says 'I know not what you mean by God. I am without the idea of God. The word God to me is a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which by its affirmer is so imperfect that he is unable to define it for me.

Annie Besant: Before she became a Theosophist, Besant was one of England's most well known atheists and advocates of freethought. In her 1877 book The Gospel of Atheism, she stated:

The position of the atheist is a clear and reasonable one. I know nothing about God and therefore I do not believe in Him or it. What you tell me about your God is self-contradictory and is therefore incredible. I do not deny 'God,' which is an unknown tongue to me. I do deny your God, who is an impossibility. I am without God.

Here it is made explicit how an atheist might go so far as to deny certain, specific gods without also necessarily deny all possible gods - a position taken by most atheists today.

Edward Royle describes the "negative atheism" of nineteenth-century freethinkers like Carlile, Southwell, Cooper, Holyoake: Logically, this kind of atheism did not prove that there was no God.... On the contrary, Southwell was typical in placing the onus probandi on those who affirmed the existence of God and Holyoake regarded himself as an atheist only in his inability to believe what the churches would have him believe. They were content to show that the Christian concept of the supernatural was meaningless, that the arguments in its favor were illogical, and that the mysteries of the universe, insofar as they were explicable, could be accounted for in material terms.

--FeloniousMonk 22:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Re:FeloniousMonk

"I prefer rationalism to atheism... you don't have to waste your time in either attacking or defending" (Isaac Asimov)

"Clearly he viewed Atheism as merely a default position" (FeloniousMonk)
"say what?" (Sam [Spade])
In summary, no, partisan atheists can't define atheism here. Please review NPOV, and some neutral references [1], [2], [3]. religioustolerance.org? About.com? You might as well ask me to go to infidels.org. This is an Encyclopedia, not some sort of propoganda production line. Neutrality and factual acuracy are the fundamentals here, not partisanship. Sam [Spade] 21:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

It just so happens that what you call the defintion used by "partisan atheists" reflects both the common and academic understanding and definitions of Atheism:

New Dictionary of Religions, edited by by John R. Hinnells. Atheism: Disbelief in the existence of any Gods or of God. This may take the form of: (a) dogmatic rejection of specific beliefs, e.g. of theism; (b) scepticism about all religious claims; or (c) agnosticism, the view that humans can never be certain in matters of so-called religious knowledge (e.g. whether God exists or not). An atheist may hold belief in God to be false, irrational, or meaningless

Encyclopedia of American Religious History, by by Edward L. Queen, Stephen R. Prothero, and Gardiner H. Shattuck

Atheism, literally the absence of belief in God, has always been a minority viewpoint in American culture.

The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion, edited by by Jonathan Z. Smith and William S. Green

atheism: Gk. a-theos, "no god" A critical stance toward divinity. Ancient forms of atheism, for example, the Greek atomist school of philosophy, did not deny the possible existence of gods but did deny their permanence and immortality. The atomists viewed the gods - if they existed - as merely higher forms of life within nature. Buddhism does not exempt the gods from the cycle of karmic reincarnation. Modern naturalistic atheism descends from atomism but goes further and denies the existence of any superhuman beings, of any form of transcendent order or meaning in the universe. These notions, it insists, are merely temporary human projections onto a reality alien to human thinking. In practice, atheism denotes a way of life conducted in disregard of any alleged superhuman reality. Existential atheism is a positive form of the teaching: it argues that if humans are to be authentically free in the universe, then it is necessary that God not exist since that would limit human liberty.

The above definition at first defines atheism simply as the denial of the existence of any gods, but then it proceeds to acknowledge that, in practice, atheism simply involves the absence of any belief in a "supernatural reality."

The Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, edited by Edwin R. A. Seligman. In its narrowest sense the term atheist applies to one who categorically denies the existence of any gods. But in its wider sense it properly applies also to skeptics, materialists, positivists and all other who do not accept the claims of theism - that the world was created or is governed by a person or persons having the human traits of intelligence and will in more or less magnified form. Moreover, as people generally do not discriminate between belief and conduct, the term atheist has also been applied to those who refuse to participate in the customary forms of public worship. Thus the Romans called the Jews and early Christians atheists because they did not pay the customary honors to the sacra of the established imperial cult.

So sorry Sam, but you're wrong, the defintion incorporating both Weak and Strong Atheism without characterizations or distinction is correct and should be part of the article.--FeloniousMonk 22:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I find that about as convincing as your asimov quote. Sam [Spade] 22:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sam, your references are sparse, insignificant and incomplete. Mine are extensive and from leading academic publications; you ignore them at your own risk. Also, you don't need to lecture me on NPOV policy, I am exceptionally familiar with it and its application here. Considering that you are aggressively asserting your argument (which rests solely on three insignificant and incomplete references) while denying Atheists their own definition of Atheism (which is itself consistent and well supported in the academic and common literature as I have just shown) based solely on the fact that they are Atheists I may well conclude that it is you who needs to reacquaint himself with the NPOV policy. You as a Sr. Admin. should know better than to claim that "atheists can't define atheism here"; by doing so you're denying them a significant and credible seat at the table in defining their own beliefs. That's NPOV?--FeloniousMonk 22:35, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Atheists have more than a seat at the table, they are the majority on this page (and perhaps even the wiki generally). But that doesn't mean they can define the term as they like, despite references. I made fun of the references you recently presented because they agree w me (as does asimov, incidentily ;). They present things in a balanced manner, offering a view of both sides. They show the variety of interpretations of the term. Oh, and thanks for appointing me as "Sr. Admin", thus far on the wiki today I have been dubbed "Jehovahs witness" as well as "Sr. Admin". Has anyone a further title to offer? (hint, I prefer "Emporer" or "Patriarch"... maybe "Pope"? ;) Sam [Spade] 22:50, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My mistake, I constantly confuse your handle with UncleEd for some reason. This isn't the first time I've done this.
Exactly how do you see my references supporting your position that Atheism means only those who reject God actively is the more correct definition? They do not. They each in their own way acknowledge that Atheism is merely the absence of belief in God or gods.
Since you wear your faith on your sleeve, answer with a yes or no this question: Do you accept any God other than the Christian God, The God of Abraham, as valid?--FeloniousMonk 23:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
God is, no matter what name you call him. And why is my personal denomination in question here? I consider myseilf a interdenominational Christian, and I assume everyone has some relationship w my God, the one God who is All, the Absolute infinite, The God of Monism. See User_talk:Sam_Spade#Theology_and_logic. Sam [Spade] 23:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but other's have very different concepts of God, many that outright exclude inclusion in your idea of God. They reject your God, even though you claim your God is monistic. Their own very different personal God is anathema to your personal God. Do you reject their idea of God, yes or no?--FeloniousMonk 05:24, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Oh, and your references agree with me because even tho they are factually innaccurate (they present false definitions of atheism), They are balanced, and provide accurate definitions as well. Thats all I expect, an ounce of neutrality, rather than a partisan snowjob. The facts will speak for themselves, in time. Sam [Spade] 23:46, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Do I understand you correctly: my supporting references are "factually inaccurate" but are "balanced" and "provide accurate definitions"? Regardless... The fact remains that the references are not just consistent with, but indeed are both the academic and the common vernacular definitions of Atheism, and they both include the distinction between Weak and Strong Atheism. The fact that they are taken from several Dictionaries of Religion as well as a Religious Encyclopedia indicate strongly that they are indeed neutral. "Partisan snowjob"? I think we can safely say that that is not the case here. I think you meant that you'd prefer a different partisan snowjob.--FeloniousMonk 05:24, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
While I don't exist on any side of this arguement. I know one thing, you can't let a religion self-define itself. While I am the first to say Atheism is not a religion, everything should be stand-offish. while denying Atheists their own definition of Atheism Your point scares me because while agnostic, and according to one side here, atheistic, we need a outside critical examination and definition. However, I am quite impressed with your blockquotes. Ideally, we would have the atheists make the article and then have someone who is neither an atheist or a theist to copyedit it. However, this is hard to do because one side considers agnostics atheists. ---The Sunborn
I wasn't clear in making my point that what Sam calls the "partisan atheist" definition of Atheism is actually the common and academic definition of Atheism as shown in references, but that he fails to recognize it as such only because it is often made by Atheists themselves. My fault for not being more explicit. I'm preparing more blockquotes in support of this point for the edification of all here.--FeloniousMonk 23:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oy vey. A section titled "Welcome Bryan" is created and ends up with with almost 24 kilobytes of arguing before I even see it (and an edit conflict while typing up this reply, too). This is exactly the reason I virtually quit editing for a couple of days when this subject originally came up again. :) So, what can I say? I fell on the side of "the definition of atheism used in academia includes weak atheism" even before FeloniousMonk provided this quite impressive collection of references, I don't know what else I can add to that. The version of the article at /DR already has "Some consider Atheism to be a state of merely lacking such beliefs, while others consider Atheism to be the active disbelief or denial of the divine" at the beginning, which IMO should be enough to cover all the bases. Bryan 00:37, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On the meanings of words

I admit I haven't read in detail all the debate here, but I think the following point should be clarified. In English, at least, there is no such thing as an objective or absolute source for what a word does or doesn't mean. A word simply means what people use it to mean. In the case of the word atheism, people use it to mean at least two different things. Both of these meaning are legitimate. It doesn't matter if one meaning is used more than the other. For example, besides referring to a type of fish, the word tuna also refers to a kind of prickly pear [4]. Now, probably more than 99% of the time the word tuna is used, it refers to the fish. But that doesn't mean uses of the word tuna to refer to the prickly pear is in any way wrong. It's just a minority usage. Dictionaries, both general, and religion-specific, support the contention that there are two meanings for the word atheism. Therefore this article should not state that one meaning is "more correct" than the other. The article can only state that there are two meanings for the word and what those meanings are. To do anything else would not be NPOV. Nohat 00:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here, here! Thats my position as well. Present the verifiable POV's in a neutral manner, and let the reader make up their own mind. Sam [Spade] 00:22, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And a hear, hear from me too. I think the dispute has been just how common and in what circles these different definitions are used, rather than that the two different definitions exist. Bryan 01:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is what certain prescriptivist editors have been railing against all along, but now that they have mostly quit the arena, and we have this extra "dispute resolution" club to thwack them with, the descriptivists seem to have free rein to put this stuff in. --Yath 03:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't think we should attempt to characterize which defintion of atheism is more commonly used or which is used by which group. I think that anyone who discusses or considers atheism at any length at some point has to confront the two meanings, and any extended debate about atheism has to be clear about which definition it debating. I think we would do our readers a disservice if we pick one meaning or the other as the default meaning for atheism. We should use atheism when discussing aspects of atheism that apply to either definition, and a more specific term when discussing something that is specific to one or the other meaning of atheism. Weak atheism and strong atheism seem to be the most commonly used unambiguous terms. Are there specific objections to using those terms when relevant? Nohat 04:31, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree and support this.--FeloniousMonk 07:02, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Unless I have misunderstood Nohat, I disagree on editorial grounds. Primarily itmeans qualifying vast amounts of the atheism article. The entire sections "Persecution of Atheists", "Persecution in the name of Atheism", "Atheism today", and "Statistics" are all concerned specifically with "atheism" in relation to the many individuals and organisations that declare themselves proactively atheist, as opposed to the broad categorisation of atheism that depends upon mere lack of belief, which includes babies, etc. I refer you to the article at Atheism/DR for a proposed solution. (20040302)
I disagree with using "Strong" and "weak" atheism outside of a small section describing their meaning and usage. They are not widely used, and they have their own articles. This article aught be about Atheism itself, not some new phrases using the term. A section yes, the whole article qualifying "strong" and "weak" atheism as tho they are the accepted terminology? Certainly not. I think people need to consider the provocative, POV stance which the use of these terms makes. Thats fine for individual atheists (free speech and all), but not OK for a NPOV encyclopedia. Sam [Spade] 13:40, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


20040302: I have encountered your argument that "weak atheism" is a vacuous concept because it includes babies and rocks before. It's a fallacious argument. It's like saying non-gasoline-based is a vacuous concept because it includes babies and rocks. The argument ignores the concept of "relevant properties". It makes no sense to qualify the beliefs or lack thereof of things that aren't capable of having beliefs, much as it makes no sense to qualify the engine fuel source of things that don't have engines. It is inherent in a definition that says that X lacks property Y that X is at least capable in theory of having property Y. Babies and rocks aren't capable of belief in God; therefore atheism doesn't really apply to them. Second, you are incorrect that the sections you name don't apply to "weak atheists". Weak atheism is still rejection of God, just not on the grounds that God doesn't exist; instead they reject God on the grounds that there isn't enough evidence that God does exist.

Nohat, your definition of weak atheist is fine for me - because it involves rejection. My difficulties is when the term atheist is applied to non-theistic societal groups; I get your point about babies and I concur - though others (see discussion/archives) disagree with you. But e.g. how about those individuals (see my table in 9. Archive 8) who consider beliefs or arguments based on ontological status just do not apply to ineffables. This is very much a philosophical argument that rejects both theism and atheism as being part of a human-constructed linguistic dyad, with a self-defined lack of correspondence to verifiability. You may argue that such protaganists are atheist - but they cannot be, because they assert that one cannot engage in such discussions meaningfully. This position is held (not exclusively) by many Buddhists. (20040302)

Sam: You have already agreed with me that "atheism" is inherently ambiguous. Don't you think then that it does our readers a disservice to talk about aspects of atheism that refer only to one kind without specifying exactly what kind? We don't have make the POV choice that the terms "strong" and "weak" atheism are commonly used or accepted. We can be explicit in the conceit that we have chosen those terms because there are no better terms, despite the fact that they're controversial. Although some people disagree with the terms, the alternative is to be ambiguous, which I think everyone would agree is not desirable. How do you suggest we avoid being ambiguous if we don't use terms to disambiguate? Nohat 19:13, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---
To Sam: The terms "Strong" and "Weak" atheism are not commonly used? That claim does even pass the Google test- Strong atheism returns 98,400 hits, and weak atheism, 42,200 hits. Additionally, the following are quotes from significant neutral publications where the terms are used:

From the NationMaster statistics analysis website:Weak atheism, or negative atheism, is the standpoint that there is no reason to believe that any particular god exists. Strong atheism, or positive atheism, goes further to make the assertion that there are no such things as gods.

From Agora, the Online Undergraduate Research Journal of Humanities:The term atheism has several subtle meanings. Theism literally refers to a belief in a God or gods. Since the prefix “a” means “without,” the term atheism literally means “without theism.” Therefore atheism is the absence of a theistic belief. However, this term encompasses two meanings. Essentially, atheism holds to a weak epistemological position – it is simply the negation of theism. Regarding this weak atheism, a person simply does not include God/gods in his metaphysics.

From The Philosophy of Religion website: Weak atheism is defined as the absence of belief in God... A strong atheist, on the other hand, is someone who has the positive belief that God does not exist.

--FeloniousMonk 18:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Actually, Strong Atheism returns about 1,640 hits and Weak Atheism returns about 1,580 hits. Sorry, but I found that statistic to be a little strange, so I checked it. You need to enter it as "strong atheism" in quotations or it is returning links for every page with the word "strong" or "atheism" in it. Skyler1534 20:33, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
Conducting a "phrase search" reduced the results by a wide margin. The point still remains that terms are common and in vernacular usage by both atheists and neutral third-parties as the sources I've cited here shows. I have addtional references I can cite should anyone feel that this fact needs further support or that what I've provided here already is insufficient in making the case.--FeloniousMonk 21:02, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Resumed

Due to the participation of User:Bryan Derksen, and possibly others, the dispute resolution process will resume. The main article page will remain protected until resolution has been successfully completed or is once again abandoned.

I will no longer be monitoring this talk page. The larger discussions regarding ideals do not concern me. To participate in the dispute resolution process, please direct your comments to the Dispute Resolution talk page. These comments should only be regarding the section being discussed and not overall ideals. I have determined that the only way anything will be done is if it is done piece by piece. This shall be my last post on this talk page until dispute resolution is concluded. All further discussion will be concerning the DR sub-page. Skyler1534 15:45, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the debate over whether to include the definition of atheism as "active disbelief and denial of the existence of gods" has been resolved in favor. Does anyone remain who opposes it? If not, there seems to be no need for dispute resolution and page protection. --Yath 23:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Myself and other's here disagree with your definition and do not consider the matter closed. That Atheism is an active position is a non sequitur. Atheism can involve the positive assertion that there is no deity. Atheism can also be the absence of a belief that there is a deity. Any claim that Atheism must be an active stance is a logical fallacy.--FeloniousMonk 01:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oh. In my opinion, to support your position, you would have to demonstrate either (1) That descriptive linguistics is inapplicable or inappropriate, and that the NPOV policy is, exceptionally, not necessary for this article, or (2) that the "atheism is denial" definition is held by an insignificant minority. Are you prepared to do one of those? Or do you have some justification I haven't considered? --Yath 05:54, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I misread your response, so disregard the above. You say, "Any claim that Atheism must be an active stance is a logical fallacy." May I infer from that, that you intend both viewpoints be included? In that case, you must have misread my post, because we are in agreement. I said include the definition of atheism as active disbelief, not to have it exclusively. And it isn't my definition, I'm not making this stuff up (as your list of dictionary definitions below attests). --Yath 06:12, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, some people want to utilize the broad, default definition: people who havn't taken a stance = atheists, thruout the article. Thats totally unnacceptable, since thats an uncommon definition. Discussing the various usages of the term, in individual sections, is the solution. Sam [Spade] 00:20, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Sam here. The term atheism is inherently ambiguous. Accepting one definition over the other as the default would be POV. That's not acceptable. The reality is that atheism incorporates both ideas. Nohat 01:08, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I fully agree with Nohat here. (20040302 11:45, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))
Sam, a lack of belief in God or gods, aka: Weak Atheism is the common definition of Atheism. Anyone, yourself included, who makes claims to the contrary should present some credible and neutral support for your position. Perhaps you can explain and justify your claim that Weak Atheism is an uncommon definition in light of it being a central feature in each of these reference sources (either that or demonstrate exactly how these references are wrong):

Webster's International Dictionary of the English Language, 1903
atheism: 1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. 2. Godlessness.



Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language, 1947
atheism: The denial of or disbelief in God, as a First Cause, or Ground, of the universe. As dogmatic atheism it denies, as negative atheism it does not believe in, and as critical or skeptical atheism (or agnosticism) it doubts, the existence of god. What is called positive or dogmatic atheism, so far from being the only type of atheism, is the rarest of all kinds. . . . Every man is an atheist who does not believe that there is a God. R. FLINT Agnosticism sec. 3, p. 53. [s. '03]

Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1957
atheism: Disbelief in the existence of God; the state of godlessness. Atheism: unbelief in or denial of God or any supernaturalism; to ancient Greek it meant denial and lack of recognition of stat gods. In 18th cent. it was a protest against religious hypocrisy; in 19th cent. it was any system not recognizing the idea of a personal Creator or any one supreme being. It sees marter, not spirit, as sole universal principle; its history one of opposition. Term often loosely used in referring to agnostics who neither deny nor admit the existence of God, or in regard to others who disagree with current theological doctrine.

Oxford English Dictionary
atheism: (from Greek atheos, "without God, denying God") Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).

New Dictionary of Religions, edited by by John R. Hinnells
atheism: Disbelief in the existence of any Gods or of God. This may take the form of: (a) dogmatic rejection of specific beliefs, e.g. of theism; (b) scepticism about all religious claims; or (c) agnosticism, the view that humans can never be certain in matters of so-called religious knowledge (e.g. whether God exists or not). An atheist may hold belief in God to be false, irrational, or meaningless

The Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, edited by Edwin R. A. Seligman
In its narrowest sense the term atheist applies to one who categorically denies the existence of any gods. But in its wider sense it properly applies also to skeptics, materialists, positivists and all other who do not accept the claims of theism.

Agora, the Online Undergraduate Research Journal of Humanities[5]:
The term atheism has several subtle meanings. Theism literally refers to a belief in a God or gods. Since the prefix “a” means “without,” the term atheism literally means “without theism.” Therefore atheism is the absence of a theistic belief. However, this term encompasses two meanings. Essentially, atheism holds to a weak epistemological position – it is simply the negation of theism. Regarding this weak atheism, a person simply does not include God/gods in his metaphysics.

The Philosophy of Religion website[6]:
Weak atheism is defined as the absence of belief in God... A strong atheist, on the other hand, is someone who has the positive belief that God does not exist.

Encyclopedia of American Religious History, by by Edward L. Queen, Stephen R. Prothero, and Gardiner H. Shattuck

Atheism, literally the absence of belief in God, has always been a minority viewpoint in American culture.

--FeloniousMonk 01:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
(sorry to split your response, FM) To quote Nohat: Weak atheism is still rejection of God, just not on the grounds that God doesn't exist; instead they reject God on the grounds that there isn't enough evidence that God does exist. Well, I agree with Nohan, and disagree with FM. However, I acknowledge that there are people (FM included) who have a different POV. I am willing to accept that the definition of WA as defined by Nohat is a common view, and one that applies to the history/persecution. etc parts of the article. I still disagree that a mere lack of belief is enough. To me 'lack of belief' in God is not a fallacious argument when applied to babies, because 'lack of belief' is a status that I would give to those things unable to hold beliefs, whereas 'rejection' I would say is a fallacious argument when applied to babies, because they are incapable of rejecting things like God. (20040302)
11 Significant and credible reference sources I provide above do not support your opinion on this. Do you have any credible, neutral references you can cite in support of your claim that Weak Atheism requires an active disbelief in God/gods, not a passive disbelief as is commonly understood? Atheism is literally the lack of belief in God or gods, without qualification. No claims or denials are made - an Atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. The broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Nohat's definition is factually incorrect. He does not understand Weak Atheism, and confuses it with Strong Atheism. Strong Atheism by definition requires a denial of deities, Weak Atheism precludes it. Attempts to say the two are essentially the same make errors of both fact and logic. Clearly there are many people who simply lack belief in God/gods without making a decision to do so; they are either unaware, apathetic or feel the point is moot for whatever reason. They also happen to be the most numerous type of Atheist.--FeloniousMonk 16:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
FM, it appears that you and I have differing opinions of the term disbelief. For me, and most dictionaries, it is necessarily distinct from lack of belief.
Websters: Synonomous with: Distrust; unbelief; incredulity; doubt; skepticism.
This is how I am to understand disbelief. I agree that WA involves disbelief. I disagree that WA involves a mere lack of belief. (20040302)
Yes, we do disagree. Do you have any credible, neutral references you can cite to support your claim that Weak Atheism is not a lack of belief, but a beleif? The references I've provided do not support your claim.--FeloniousMonk 12:50, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I do not need to change my POV to suit you - I expect the article to demonstrate varying POV that are popularly held. We are not involved in promoting socio-political agendas here, but in attempting to write a fair, NPOV article. Most of your issues are addressed further down the discussion. Nevertheless, I will provide sources, once we have actually addressed another core issue which this particular point rests upon. Do you agree with me that (1) disbelief requires a stance, or (2) do you claim that disbelief is cognate with absence of belief, either in the qualified manner as held by BKonrad, or the unqualified manner as held by Adraeus et al. The reason why the argument rests on this issue is to do with interpretation. I have pointed out that some of the sources you cite appear to support my viewpoint - on the basis that disbelief is in accordance with the dictionary definitions etc. that subscribe to position (1) of this list. If you hold position (2), then we will never agree on the interpretation of provided references. (20040302)

Disbelief is a belief

'nuff said. Sam [Spade] 18:35, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Definition of disbelief

Well. To be clear, and to back my position regarding the nuances normally associated with the term, and to follow FM's tradition of citing multiple sources of definitions:

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
1. doubt about the truth of something
2. a rejection of belief
http://www.brainydictionary.com
1. The act of disbelieving;
2. A state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true.
3. Refusal of assent, credit, or credence;
4. Denial of belief.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disbelief
1. doubt about the truth of something
2. disbelief - a rejection of belief
http://www.wordreference.com/
1. doubt about the truth of something
2. a rejection of belief
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Ed.
Refusal or reluctance to believe.
Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary Unabridged
1 The act of disbelieving
2 Mental refusal to accept (as a statement or proposition) as true
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998
1 The act of disbelieving;
2 A state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true;
3 Refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief.
Princeton University WordNet 2.0 - 2003
1: doubt about the truth of something
2: a rejection of belief

Now, in my opinion (and I doubt I stand alone) doubt, rejection, persuaded state of mind, reluctance, refusal, and acts are all active.(20040302 23:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but you haven't made a case at all that Disbelief = belief. You've only established that a number of dictionaries rightly state disbelief is an act. This was never in question. It's a straw man. The real question is, is an absence of belief an act?--FeloniousMonk 13:04, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could you make it clear as to whom you are talking to, FM? I don't want to be told once more that I was not being referred to. But, for the benefit of doubt, I do not consider mere absence of belief to be belief. My claim regarding disbelief is less strong than that of Sam's, but I do claim that disbelief is an active state, and therefore is a position regarding the issue. You may argue with Sam about whether or not disbelief entails belief, but I doubt the issue is directly relevant to discussion. As for the view that I do hold regarding disbelief - I think that I have enough evidence to demonstrate that absence of belief and disbelief are not cognate. That is all I sought to demonstrate. An example (see discussion with bkonrad below) is rocks. Rocks indeed are absent of belief, just as happiness is absent of color. However, most people totally agree that it is nonsensical to claim that rocks hold a disbelief, because it is a position to hold, a stance, a view. (20040302 13:15, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Summary and back on topic

In some discussions above, I see people discussing the question of whether "weak atheism" involves active disbelief, and other such distractions. While these are interesting questions, I feel it would be a good idea to restrict the discussion over what actually goes into the article to the original question. Therefore, alas, I am creating yet another section.

Positions A/B

Position A: The article should only state the following:

Atheism is a set of beliefs including weak atheism, which involves lack of belief in gods, and strong atheism, which is the denial of the existence of any gods.

Position B: The article should include the definition as held by many Christians and dictionaries:

Some people define atheism as a set of beliefs including weak atheism, which involves lack of belief in gods, and strong atheism, which is the denial of the existence of any gods. Others consider all atheism to be the denial of the existence of any gods, while one who simply lacks belief in any gods is an agnostic.

I see an argument of whether weak atheism, lacking any positive assertions, is a condition that humans are actually capable of. Such a discussion can be fascinating, but is completely off-topic. What we need to resolve is how, exactly, the encyclopedia will report the various views.

Now, it had been my impression that "position a" was mostly abandoned. Is there anyone who wants to support it? (For the record, I support position B.) --Yath 20:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I support "Position A" and am adding my own version of it as Position F.--FeloniousMonk 13:30, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Correction

Position B: The article should include all verifiable definitions, particularly those used in other books of reference:

Some define atheism as a set of beliefs including weak atheism, which involves lack of belief in God or gods, and strong atheism, which is the denial of the existence of God and gods. Others consider all atheism to be the denial of the existence of God and gods, while one who simply lacks belief in God or gods is an agnostic.
Sam [Spade] 20:31, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Position B is untenable: Nobody defines agnosticism that way: From Agnosticism: The view that the existence of God, gods or deities is either unknown, or inherently unknowable. The term is also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities. (20040302 02:33, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC))
FM considers weak atheism to be the mere absence of theism. So, FM asserts that rocks and babies are atheist, in that anything that has a mere absence of theism is atheist, just as anything that has no color (e.g. thought) is colorless. This appears to be due to FM reading 'disbelief' as being cognate with 'mere absence of belief'.
However, as I (and Websters, etc) consider the word 'disbelief' to be something that is not a mere absence of belief, but a conviction regarding the issue, I do not think it is possible for babies, rocks, etc. to disbelieve. This means (for me, etc.) that disbelief requires an active position - a conviction regarding the subject, in this case, the divine, or God. (Note, FM, I am not attempting to denigrate your view here, but trying to understand the nuances of differentiation.) It appears from the various definitions of atheism kindly gathered by FM that I concur with the following: Websters 1, Funk & Wagnell, Websters 2, OED, NDR. I do not entirely agree with the definitions from: Agora, PoR, EoRH. This is because the latter definitions admit babies and rocks as atheists. I also consider the latter sources to be significantly less authoritative than the former, though I completely admit this is POV.
Also, I prefer (and agree with) Nohat's distinction between weak atheism and strong atheism: Weak atheism is still a rejection of God, just not on the grounds that God doesn't exist; instead they reject God on the grounds that there isn't enough evidence that God does exist., which is distinctly a disbelief (as I understand the term).
I also disagree with the way in which agnosticism is being used in positions A and B. I do agree that agnosticism should be mentioned, but I basically agree with those who (in my mind accurately) distinguish between belief and provability. I consider agnosticism to be concerned with the proof of God, and atheism to be concerned with the existence of God.

Position C

Position C: Atheism is disbelief in the divine. Some consider Atheism to be a state of merely lacking theism, while others consider Atheism to be a conviction against the existence of God. Atheism itself is often divided into strong atheism, and weak atheism. Strong Atheism is the rejection of God on the grounds that it is impossible (generally using reason, etc.) for God to exist. Weak atheism is still a rejection of God, but on the grounds that there isn't enough evidence that God does exist.
IMHO we all agree that atheism is indeed disbelief in the divine. (apparently not) All of us also either assert that disbelief is a mere lack of belief, while others consider it to be a denial or conviction, and I consider Nohat's definitions of weak and strong atheism to be sensible and rational.
In brief, (along with Nohat and others) I do not think that weak atheism is well-defined as being cognate with the mere (aka passive) absence of belief in God. (20040302 22:40, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))
In retrospect, it appears that Nohat's definition of strong atheism (which I like) at least tacitly involves a conviction regarding provability - this would mean that in fact agnosticism may need to play a larger picture in the article than at first I thought. However, we would need to be specifically clear concerning the definition of the term, as I also do not consider agnosticism to be a passive stance. (20040302)
As addressed previously, rocks and babies lack the capability to be either atheist or theist--stop reviving this straw man argument. I very strongly disagree about opening the article with the statement "Atheism is disbelief in the divine." The article should at the least begin with a statement that all parties can agree with and that does not implicitly exclude one or another common understandings of the term. I find Position B the best statement so far. olderwiser 23:20, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I agree it would be a straw man if it weren't for the fact that some people assert that babies are indeed atheists. We have discussed this before. I find the idea ludicrous - but that is merely POV. I ask you to consider the statement "thought is colorless" - is that a meaningless statement because thought cannot have color? Or is it informative? Similarly "babies are atheist" is grammatically and semantically analogous IFF we assert that atheism is indeed the mere lack of belief in God, just as colorlessness is the mere lack of color. My purpose is honest. I agree with you - I think it is mistaken to apply definitions of atheism in such a broad manner. I find the concept of theism/atheism as a metaphysical dyad unwieldy and un-useful, though I find the concept of color/colorlessness as a metaphysical dyad useful and sensible. Therefore, to me, it is not sensible to say that atheism is the mere lack of theism. Stating that no-one calls babies atheists because they are unable to believe in the first place actually doesn't work too well: I have atheist friends who say "I would like to believe in God, but I just can't" - We cannot say that they are not atheists, just because they aren't able to believe in God! I would happily call them weak atheists. They call themselves atheists, therefore they are actively atheist. They have a conviction about their beliefs. Why is that so hard? (20040302)
Oh. Here is some evidence. Not such a straw man:
All young children are atheists
--Nick-in-South-Africa 07:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Humans are born as atheists.
--Adraeus 11:53, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Babies, when born, [...] are weak atheist.
--Andre 15:33, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
I likewise failt to appreciate the "straw man" comment. Its not our fault if our opponents don't have a strong case. if you have a sound argument to replace theirs, lets hear it. Sam [Spade] 23:58, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Bkonrad, would you not agree that -against your own criteria- it makes sense to at least qualify a statement such as 'atheism is the lack of belief in god', by explicitly restricting it to the population that is able to get involved? Then we would not have this 'straw man' argument/counter-argument. If we can agree on a fully qualified statement, then we can subsequently work on the editorial. Something like "Atheism is defined either as (1) the disbelief in God, or (2) the lack of belief in God by those who are capable of belief in God." Unwieldy, but it gets us out of the straw men - as has been stated earlier, babies and rocks is an old argument - let's address it through careful definition, rather than sweep it under a carpet by leaving it as an ambiguity left unaddressed. And, as a statement, it is far harder to argue against. (20040302)
No, because there is no need to qualify "lack of belief" as not applying to rocks or babies because it sophistry to assert that it does. In short, the qualification is unnecessary. There is no ambiguity except in the minds of those looking for extentuating exceptions. olderwiser 01:16, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
It is sophistry to assert that it does. This is a faulty premise. Your argument is unsound. I have argued the case that it is not at all sophistry to make the assertion: I have given evidence that people hold the view which you consider so ludicrous that you call it sophistry to deny. There is indeed differing POV grounded in that ambiguity - unless you agree with NISA, Adraeus, and Andrevan. I understand their argument well - they use the a- prefix to demonstrate that atheism is a dyadic opposition to theism. Their view is quite clear (look in the archives) that everything is either atheist or theist. It is a easily stated position. Anything that lacks belief (therefore rocks, and babies too) is atheist. I just have a different view regarding atheism. Your position, as I understand it, differs in that it indeed qualifies the limits of atheism to the limits of what may believe in God. These are distinct positions. (20040302)
And your arguments have been shown to be without merit, hence my characterization of them as sophistry. Perhaps I missed something, but in looking through the previous discussion I could not see anyone other than yourself postulating that babies could be considered as atheists. In order to lack belief in any meaningful sense, one must be capable of having belief. It is nonsense to assert otherwise. olderwiser 02:06, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
Ah. Maybe you don't believe the 3 citations above are real? Or you didn't bother to check the relevant archive (8)? (Try a search for 'children', and 'born'.) Also your statement that my arguments are without merit is, as yet, unfounded. I would appreciate a compassionate demonstration of their lack of merit, preferably something more substantial than a bare assertion. On to your final statement, a question: Do you think that one must be capable of having belief to be an atheist, or do you think that one must be capable of believing in God to be an atheist? In other words, do you think that anyone who is capable of belief is capable of belief in God? (20040302)

Position D

Position D: Atheism is defined either as (1) the disbelief in God, or (2) the lack of belief in God by those who are capable of belief in God. Atheism itself is often divided into strong atheism, and weak atheism. Strong Atheism is the rejection of God on the grounds that it is impossible (generally using reason, etc.) for God to exist. Weak atheism is still a rejection of God, but on the grounds that there isn't enough evidence that God does exist.

This one is easy to judge, because it isn't factual. No one defines atheism that way, so the article shouldn't say that they do. It is clear enough that you do not approve of the definition of weak atheism as mere lack of belief ("We cannot say that they are not atheists, just because they aren't able to believe in God!"), but your personal distaste for it should not be a criterion for judging what what gets included in the article. --Yath 00:52, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am not sure that you read that correctly - try re-reading the quote in context. Regardless, you are correct- I agree with Nohat's definition of weak atheism: Weak atheism is still rejection of God, just not on the grounds that God doesn't exist; instead they reject God on the grounds that there isn't enough evidence that God does exist -- Nohat 19:13, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC).
My issue directly above was actually about the need to qualify what may be three differing views of what is meant by weak atheism: Namely, (1) The definition as supplied by Nohat. (2) Weak atheism is the lack of belief in God by those who are capable of belief in God (derived from Bkonrad's response to my argument as being a straw man. (3) Weak atheism is the dyadic opposition of theism - the state of not being theist. (as held by NISA, Adraeus and Andrevan)
2 and 3 differ on the issue of babies. 1 differs on the basis of whether or not weak athesim is a rejection. Let us indeed start off by being inclusive. (20040302 01:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Position E

Position E: Atheism is defined either as (1) the disbelief in God or (2) the lack of belief in God by those who are capable of belief in God, or (3) the absence of belief in God (therefore including e.g. newborns). Atheism itself is often divided into strong atheism, and weak atheism. Strong Atheism is (depending on one's definition of atheism) either (1) the rejection of God on the grounds that it is impossible (generally using reason, etc.) for God to exist or (2) the denial of the existence of God and gods.. Weak atheism is (depending on one's definition of atheism) (1) still a rejection of God, but on the grounds that there isn't enough evidence that God does exist (2) the mere lack of belief in god by those who are capable of belief in God, or (3) the mere absence of belief in God (including e.g. newborns).

Pretty unwieldy, but inclusive of views stated so far. This can be de-muxed:

Position E: There are at least three different views of atheism:

1) The disbelief in God. Strong Atheism is the rejection of God on the grounds that it is impossible (generally using reason, etc.) for God to exist. Weak Atheism is still a rejection of God, but on the grounds that there isn't enough evidence that God does exist.

2) The absence of belief in God by those who are capable of belief in God. Strong Atheism is the active denial of the existence of God. Weak Atheism is mere absence of belief in god by those who are capable of belief in God.

3) The absence of belief in God (including e.g. newborns). Strong Atheism is the active denial of the existence of God. Weak Atheism is the mere absence of belief in God (and includes e.g. newborns).

I suppose that all discussants agree with one of the three positions above even if we don't agree with the need for qualifiers. Is that correct? (20040302 01:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC))
Is there anyone other than 20040302 who postulates that it is possible to consider rocks and babies as atheists? If not, I think there are essentially only two viewpoints in play here (certainly many nuances, but basically they fall into either of two camps as summarized by Position A and B above. olderwiser 02:06, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
Andrevan, Nick-In-South-Africa, Atraeus actually hold that view. I guess there are others. (20040302)
Secondly No. Position B suggests Others consider all atheism to be the denial of the existence of any gods, while one who simply lacks belief in any gods is an agnostic. I do not hold that position, though I do hold the position Atheism is the disbelief in God. Strong Atheism is the rejection of God on the grounds that it is impossible (generally using reason, etc.) for God to exist. Weak Atheism is still a rejection of God, but on the grounds that there isn't enough evidence that God does exist. I trust you can see the distinction. I reject the position regarding agnosticism within Position B. (20040302)
My apologies 20040302, I did miss the comments in earlier discussion that you point out (I was searching on "rocks" and "babies" not "children" or "born") and the comments have been accreting so quickly on this page that I had missed portions of your replies to me. Until you pointed it out to me, I found it difficult to fathom that reasonable people would postulate babies as being atheists because they lack belief. For me, and this is a subtle point perhaps, but the key term is "lack". This is not simply "absense of", but carries an implicit connotation indicating that the "something" lacked is something which had once been present or which is at the least familiar enough for the absence to be noticed (I don't mean to imply that "belief" is the default condition and "lack" is somehow aberrant though). So I guess my personal POV is that one cannot be an atheist due to ignorance (although one might be through apathy). I can now see that the three positions you describe are applicable. I can see now that some proponents of atheism want to assert atheism as the default condition of human nature and that the condition of belief is a subset. I'll have to ponder this a bit more. olderwiser 02:51, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
It's inaccurate to characterize this as only proponents of atheism claiming that an absence of belief in theism is the default nature of humans; anyone not introduced to theistic beliefs would find the notion of a default theistic nature odd. As do many Buddhists, likely.--FeloniousMonk 13:21, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Apologies, I do not understand what you are saying. Please could you clarify for the less quick-witted among us (like me)
I agree with you FM - that it is not necessary to be a proponent of atheism to hold view E3, though I guess it is not central to Bkonrad's views. I also think you are correct to assert that many consider a default theistic nature to be 'odd'. This is why some of us struggle with the idea of placing all reasoning people into an atheist/theist dichotomy. (20040302 13:52, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC))
How about simply not mentioning agnosticism at all there? Just have it as Others consider all atheism to be the denial of the existence of any gods, and then go into detail about that viewpoint farther down in the article in one of the sections more specifically devoted to it. The article's about atheism, after all, not agnosticism. Bryan 05:04, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That is sensible, though I think Yath's purpose was to find equivalences of definition; this could be more easily expressed (and avoid the can of worms that agnosticism brings) by saying: Some consider all atheism to be the denial of the existence of any gods, while one who simply lacks belief in God is neither an atheist nor a theist.: However, following the discussion with Bkonrad, I prefer the distinctions as made in Position E, and I consider point B to be incomplete: There is no need to force the number of views down to two, and so far we have found at least three positions regarding the definition of atheism, and two positions regarding the definitions of strong/weak atheism. My question right now is does that cover points of view among the discussants? I also wonder if it would not be more readable if we moved the weak/strong atheism definitions away from the introductory paragraph. (20040302 13:04, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC))