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 Adraeus (talk | contribs) at 23:53, 9 December 2004 (→What/who determines "...the ''"correct"'' definition of Atheism"? & why this thinking is flawed). 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Discussion on this article has been archived.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.

In case anyone is still interested in these:

Summary of the Problem?

I've come across the Atheism article, being an atheist myself, and have found it protected. I've tried to read this discussion and see what the problem is, but it's very long. :)

Could I get a short summary of what the conflict is that keeps it protected, and what is being done to solve it?

I'm in the same position as you, except that rather than being new, I returned to the article last week after about a year, finding a largely new cast of editors. I have posted above my interpretation of the issue. This is based on some reading of the arguments in the archives, but I have only scratched the surface. As you see, they are very long. As you may not have seen, they are also very rancourous.

My statement above of the issue has been rejected by two of the participants, apparently. Whatever the issue is, I doubt it is actually anything that could not be solved using the usual Wikipedia methods of NPOV, compromise, neutral presentation of multiple points of view, and civility between editors. However, there seem to be some strong personalities involved who have not accepted Wikipedia methods, except insofar as it is to their advantage, and who would seem to prefer to have the article frozen rather than engage in compromise and tolerate the possibility that the article state anything other than the one point of view which they consider correct. So it seems that any change to the article by one "side" is immediately reverted by the other. I asked the administrators to remove the freeze last week and for a few days an administrator and I tried informal mediation. It isn't even clear to me how many sides there are yet. The freeze had been on for about a month, but apparently nobody has cooled off. The mediation attempt didn't get anywhere and the edit wars started again almost immediately, with only a couple of the people engaging on the Talk pages with the mediation attempt. The administrator put the freeze back on after a couple of days. I'd be delighted to have any help in getting things sorted out. The administrator who can unprotect the article is monitoring this in the background but has temporarily given up. --BM 02:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That does not sound very positive. I'd like to see in unprotected. Any chance this is just a ploy by a user or group to keep this page locked? T2X 03:14, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Unclear. I don't think so. As you see from the above exchange, it is hard to get anyone to respond on what the problem is. You could request the admin who locked it to unprotect it again and we could see what happens this time. He's a nice guy but doesn't have a lot of time to babysit one article. The situation is pretty intolerable. Basically some editors need to be told either to engage on the Talk Page and progress towards a compromise on their issues or to go away so that the article can make progress, but I'm new enough to Wikipedia that I don't know how one does that, and whether it is even practically possible. --BM 04:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article's protection status has been enabled and disabled numerous times. Each time it has been enabled due to edit warring between Good Faith Editors and Bad Faith Trolls (POV Warriors). Formal dispute resolution, initiated by a POV Warrior, was a joke because the mediator thought he could resolve the issues by ignoring the issues. Arbitration was sought by the same POV Warrior (because the results weren't as he wanted) and nothing came of that attempt. Informal mediation is what it is: informal and incredible. Conclusion: both conspiracy theories and suggestions of disabling article security must be laughable efforts to produce humor because both are irrational considering this article's history of conflict. Adraeus 04:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree totally with Adraeus. My view is that the scenario we have here is indicative of a systemic problem within Wikipedia. Wikipedia generally works very well, but on topics that seem to stir sanctimonious outrage - such as atheism or on topics that generate strong emotions, Wikipedia is very vulnerable to those either acting either in bad faith or those who are simply unable to see their own strong bias combined with little intellectual integrity and accept a balanced, neutral article. For some reason some folks, Sam Spade in particular, wish to limit the general definition of atheism to only cover strong atheism. This despite numerous well sourced citations, the etymology and the use of atheism in many other Wikipedia articles which demonstrate that the weak definition is in common use. Until this point is resolved specifically by Sam in particular either conceding on it, being persuaded to agree explicitly to stay away from the atheism article (unlikely in my view), or being directed so to do, we are wasting our time here. Given what's been written before in these atheism talk pages I intend to minimise repeating the arguments ad nauseum that I and others have made in support of the broad definition. I'm more interested in these systemic issues within the broader Wikipedia--Nick-in-South-Africa 05:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nick, I think you are missing the point. There are competing definitions. The broad/weak definition, which generally is favored by the "freethought" tradition and is especially current online. And the narrow/strong definition. We shouldn't be arguing which position is the "correct" one. Editors will have their own POV about that. You may not think the narrow definition is a correct one, but that isn't the point. If the two definitions have currency, or even if the narrow definition is only of historical interest, then both of them need to be mentioned in the article. You seem to be saying either that the narrow definition is so twenty-years-ago that it must not be mentioned, or perhaps even that the editors here who seek to have it mentioned are just ignorant and imagining it, even though there have been quite a few of them trying to get it into the article. Look at how the article on how "Agnosticism" handles this terminological dispute. They have a section covering "variations" in terminology near the top of the article. That not only shows that the narrow definition is real, but also indicates how the article should deal with it. --BM 14:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
BM And if you'd read the recent archives you would know that I support the inclussion of both the positive/ strong/ active AND the negative/ weak/ passive definitions in the general intro. I am NOT nor have I ever argued for the exclusive negative definition, I am well aware that both have currency--Nick-in-South-Africa 18:23, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Adraeus and Nick present a fair and accurate summary of the last few months here and describe the issue well, I think. An additional significant part of the problem as I see it, is:
  1. Several editors here are woefully unread on the topic and in their obtuseness are unaware of the historical canon and facts, and hence fail to understand basic the nuances, distinctions, but even unaware of how much they do not know.
  2. Those same obtuse individuals willfully remain so. When presented with compelling evidence that they are uninformed or mistaken they either lightly dismiss it or fail to acknowledge it altogether.
Progress will not occur until those of us in concurrence on the topic resolve how to deal with obtuse and POV obstructionist editors.
BTW, BM, I can't find you in the edit history of the article or the talk pages here as you claim. Would you care to clarify this? --FeloniousMonk 06:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yup its clear that there are many here that have a thin understanding of the subject matter and are rather shooting from the hip we even have one now who is using it as a bulletin board or soap box. BM candidly it's simply inconsiderate and bone idle to not read the archives and then wade in. Its also not suggestive of you acting in good faith to come and sound off here with sweeping genralisations and cutting but unspecific charges rubbishing ALL the arguments presented here. It doesn't introduce you favorably in my eyes for one. Please read the last few archives if you want to contribute and please take a little more care before using sweeping generalisations rubbishing others arguments--Nick-in-South-Africa 06:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Maybe someone needs to create an "RTFA" tag for articles like this...--FeloniousMonk 07:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nick-in-South-Africa, I think it's inconsiderate and bone idle of you to bash (BM?) for giving his opinion of what the issue is. It doesn't introduce you favorably in my eyes to act like that. Do you really expect people to read an archive going back nearly three years? This is a talk page, let's act a bit nicer. You can disagree with his opinion, but don't be hostile. T2X 12:10, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
UTC Im not sure what your aim was in your post. In any case, I never commented on you and now you have mis-represented my position, firstly I never said I expected anyone to read 3 years of archives, and I was explicit on this….just go back and check. Secondly I am not being hostile to BM he is reaping what he sowed by getting a robust response having trashed all arguments prior to his interjection and clearly being ill briefed about what has happened here in the last couple of Months. --Nick-in-South-Africa 18:23, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Do not, please, drag me into the ad hominem nonsense. I have done nothing to warrant it. Even if I were in fact a complete idiot, who knew nothing about atheism, I have the same power to edit this page as you (presently none), whether someone likes this or not, and civility, Wikipedia policy, and just practical common sense demand that I be treated with courtesy and respect. I am on completely firm ground in demanding this. Nor should it be necessary for someone who wants to edit this page, or who seeks to mediate a dispute, to read a couple of megabytes of bickering between a handful of people. I've already taken a couple of hours to read through at least some of the archives and I thought I had gleaned the issue under dispute from that reading. I'm not going to read any more of the archives. By the way, my editing of this article was done as an anon. Look in August 2003. You will see it. Yes, not so long ago, Wikipedia was quite a different place, and people could anonymously make major edits without being immediately reverted and hooted down. I found that this is now impossible and so I registered. Now, will someone PLEASE stop rehearsing all the sleights of the last year, perceived or otherwise, and state the issue, since you have scornfully dismissed my statement of it. --BM 12:48, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Failure

I am concerned that this article is a good example of a failing of our consensus based editing system. The majority of the editors on certain pages are enthusiasts of the subject (in this case, atheism). They feel strongly, and are thus far more agreeable towards otherwise unpleasant personalities who champion their cause. Some editors who would normally behave in a polite manner become belligerent due to their overwhelming POV in regards to the subject they were attracted to. And here is the clincher... admins sit back, aloof from the fray. The page may be protected, but civility and intellectual honesty is not enforced. Good editors are thus driven off, and the rancorous, aggressive partisans rule. There was a sermon I heard recently, which gave grave insight into this very sort of circumstance. The gist of it was this: There is evil in the hearts of some, and many wicked things done. But there is something far worse: The silence of good men. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 11:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam I agree with you totally for once! Where I suspect we will part company is that I and I have no doubt a goodly few others will see your comments about the problems here as a rather fair encapsulation of you and your behaviour. I put it that you are the main blockage towards progress on this article and that your behaviour here is typical of the negative reputation that you have built yourself with so many Wikipedidians.
With regards civility your e-mail using the Wikipedia system to Felonious Monk for which you have shown no contrition and I quote verbatim with all due apologese for the foul langage: "Fuck you, you ignorant rat bastard," can hardly be termed a 'civil' interaction or the mark of a 'pleasant personality'. More, any fair minded, reasonable person only has to look at the views expressed on the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements/Sam Spade about you following your self nomination for Admin. Now granted one possibility is that perhaps those voting against you are being unfair and their points about your POV and conduct are unreasonable, a second is that there is a grand conspiracy against you by others with an agenda and they are picking on you who are simply a bold editor acting in good faith, the third possibility is that these folk have a point. I leave it to any fair minded, reasonable individual to compare and contrast comments against your nomination with those of all others and then to review these talk pages and come to their own view.
I agree Admin should step in; and to reign you in, you waste an inordinate amount of time of so many good people--Nick-in-South-Africa 12:05, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Thank you for the fine example of the sorts of Ad hominems which have stiffled honest debate. BTW, you misquoted me (as if it matters). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I merely enjoy pointing this out... Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements/Sam Spade Look at all those people who are, quite frankly, tired of Sam Spade's idiocy and related shenanigans! You've certainly made many enemies, Spade, more than friends. I wonder when people will begin to move to have you banned. Adraeus 13:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sam, your hypocrisy is unhelpful and disingenuous. Implying that those here who disagree with your actions here are "evil" and doing "wicked things" is itself a form of ad hominem, making your claims of being a victim of ad hominem hypocritical. There's no need to go into detail of your history obstructionism this topic or of sending offensive emails to me, it's public record for anyone who cares to look.
I think it's the height of irony that you of all people here would invoke "intellectual honesty" after proclaiming "Everybody knows what Atheism means... Its the active disbelief in God." just 4 weeks ago. Your defining both "atheism" and "disbelief" for every reader thusly is neither intellectually honest nor fair. And it was your actions that have directly resulted in the article being protected 3 times in the past months. You've resisted all progress and compromise, indeed you have since last February. That qualifies as rancorous, aggressive in my opinion, and so yes, good editors have been driven off indeed, like Bryan.
Your arguments here have all the indications that your reading on the subject of atheism spans the entire writings of Jack Chick but is limited only to that POV. Many of your comments appear lifted whole cloth from his tracts. You are woefully unread on the topic. Your past statements indicate you are apparently completely unaware of any writings and historical facts regarding atheism. Hence, you fail to understand basic the nuances, distinctions within atheism, compromising your ability to make cogent, coherent contributions to the article. And you repeatedly choose to willfully remain obtuse on the topic. Time and again here, when presented with compelling evidence that your are uninformed or mistaken you dismiss it or ignore it altogether. :Your words "Some editors ...become belligerent due to their overwhelming POV..." describe your actions and attitude here far better than anyone else found in this discussion. --FeloniousMonk 17:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


If it is any help in getting us away from licking old wounds, I don't believe Sam is in fact the main impediment at present to a resolution of "the issue", although I have no trouble in believing that this may have been true in the past. The social problems here are (a) days and days go by trying to get people to discuss anything and the Talk page is quiet; (b) when people do engage their aim does not seem to be reach a compromise, but rather to belittle the other side's POV and to refuse to concede that the article mention anything other than their own POV, to refuse to concede that the narrow definition has any currency whatsoever; (c) they constantly descend into ad hominem bickering and rehearsal of old grievances. I may not have read the hundreds of pages in the 12 editions of the archives, but I have read enough for it to be clear that there there is more than enough blame to go around when it comes to who is responsible for the rancour, and Sam comes in for his share. But in the week I've been trying to break the deadlock, I haven't found Sam to be as much a problem as some others. --BM 13:15, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • (a) days and days go by trying to get people to discuss anything and the Talk page is quiet;
Such is life.
  • (b) when people do engage their aim does not seem to be reach a compromise, but rather to belittle the other side's POV and to refuse to concede that the article mention anything other than their own POV, to refuse to concede that the narrow definition has any currency whatsoever;
*ahem* [1]
Stop ignoring progress. STOP IGNORING PROGRESS. That goes out to everyone who is ignoring that section of this page.
  • (c) they constantly descend into ad hominem bickering and rehearsal of old grievances.
No, only Sam Troll consistently descends into "ad hominem bickering and rehearsal of old grievances."
  • But in the week I've been trying to break the deadlock, I haven't found Sam to be as much a problem as some others.
Refer to [2] for the reason why. Apparently, POV Warriors and Trolls don't like being pointed out and admonished. Adraeus 13:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Can we drop this discussion about who is the biggest troll and talk about the issues? Even if you think Sam is on his best behaviour because of being admonished, rather than gloat about it, take it as an opportunity to make progress. --BM 14:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
BM I cant see how your post contributed to the forward movement of the article or the logjam, indeed it seems you are guilty of precisely what you charge others with! Except you are not naming names, just issuing forth vague accusations and judgments unto the ether! Perhaps you should have studied the page a little as well as the subject matter before wading in and shooting from the hip and antagonizing by seeking to belittle all arguments presented before your interjection.
Then if you wanted to contribute you could have aptly picked up on the progress pointed out by Adreaus :::*ahem* [3], it was right open! This is still open, feel free to have a bash at it.
Re your charge that folks around here "refuse to concede that the narrow definition has any currency". I don’t see anyone denying the positive, strong or narrow definition of atheism here or that it has merit. The arguments I have seen relate to accepting the positive definition at the exclusion of the negative, weak or broad definition. I do however see the converse of Sam and a couple of now notably quiet folks supporting the positive definition and specifically excluding any acceptance and acknowledgement that the negative or weak definition has any currency....this despite the ample...nay…. crushing support offered as to the validity and currency of the negative definition. So the way I see it this charge of yours misrepresents the facts relating to the history of these talk pages in the last few Months.
Again on a positive note, why not walk your talk and pick up an run with the progress Adreas pointed out --Nick-in-South-Africa 15:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nick, not to be snarky, but now it is my turn to ask *you* to read the archives. In the last archive, there is my proposed re-wording of the introduction, to which Felonious proposed some edits. --BM 19:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It should be obvious to everyone here that I could not posibly be the cause of the problem here, since I rarely involve myself on this page. The reason why I rarely involve myself is the incivility, personal attacks, and refusal to discuss the article. It is clear to me that the problem on this page is that very incivility which keeps me from being fully involved here, not the minor presence I do make. If certain unnamed others in this discussion were more interested in discussing the matters at hand in an intellectually honest manner, rather than making personal attacks and vandalizing my user page, perhaps we'd have the page unprotected and edited in a manner acceptable to all sides by now. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 15:17, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree. The article history tells a very different story. When Sam does edit the article it is so blatantly POV that it invariably leads to the article being protected:
  • 03:59, 8 Nov 2004 Michael Snow m (unprotected)
  • 20:23, 8 Nov 2004 Sam Spade (adding andre's definition)
  • 20:36, 8 Nov 2004 Nick-in-South-Africa (Reverted Sam Spade's edit as after the recent dispute he presumed to make a change without attempting to reach an amicable consensus. This is not on please dont do it again Sam.)
  • 20:51, 8 Nov 2004 Sam Spade ({{TotallyDisputed}})
  • 21:04, 8 Nov 2004 Adraeus (yeah, right, sam. and i'm doctor phil.)
  • 21:08, 8 Nov 2004 Sam Spade (DO NOT REVERT DISPUTE HEADERS)
  • 21:14, 8 Nov 2004 Adraeus (quit editing for your own selfish agenda, sam. i know your game.)
  • 21:31, 8 Nov 2004 Michael Snow (protected)
  • 13:16, 3 Dec 2004 MacGyverMagic (unprotected)
  • 16:14, 3 Dec 2004 Sam Spade (Atheism is disbelief in the divine. 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. Some re)
  • 16:31, 3 Dec 2004 Adraeus (rv. vandalism by Sam Spade)
  • 18:51, 3 Dec 2004 Sam Spade (rv to last version by noisy. Don't make false accusations of vandalism, Adraeus)
  • 16:41, 3 Dec 2004 Adraeus (rv. vandalism by Noisy. Don't ignore the consensus again.)
  • 21:13, 3 Dec 2004 BM (Sam, this page is now unprotected, but unless you want to re-protected, I think you must participate in a bona-fide discussion on the Talk page of how to resolve differences before further edits.)
  • 17:19, 4 Dec 2004 MacGyverMagic ({{protected}} - please come to a concensus on talk before editing.)
There is no lack of consensus here that you have obstructed progress on the article since February. This is backed up by the Talk archives, and the public record of a supposedly now resolved RfC you were part of, though much of what you are accused of in the RfC is exactly what we see here from you now.--FeloniousMonk 19:03, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Description of article conflict

Firstly, this is mainly a matter of personality conflict, but lets disregard that for now. There seem to me to be two (maybe three) major camps here.

  1. Thinks atheism = anyone who is not explicitly a theist, including those who are secular, agnostic, irreligious, or non-devout. They want the article to express this non-traditional POV as a fact, and feel they have references to back that up
  2. Thinks Atheism = those who reject God. Feels we should portray other, non-traditional interpretations of atheism (such as weak atheism) in the article, but not in the intro. Feels that this article should be more in common w other similar online encyclopedias (brittanica, encyclopedia.com, columbia encyclopedia, etc...)
  3. Takes no stand, feels that both definitions should be in the intro, and portrayed as equally valid and essentially equally widely utilized.

Does anyone disagree w my summary? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 15:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Sam, Yup indeed I do. This is extremely revealing because it shows your POV approach even when you are trying to supposedly summarise other's position neutrally. It's slanted as if written by a monotheist who has an axe to grind. Let me explain the main points. The expression those "who reject God" is slanted towards monotheism as it only details one of many gods as if there was only one specific God (indicated by the capitalization) for an atheist to be without belief in. Strong or positive atheists withhold belief in all gods; this includes any particular God; all of them from Allah to Zeus. Also the term 'those who reject God' rather pre-supposes that there is something to reject and that's POV. Additionally the term 'non-traditional' in 1 and 2 is bias as it's suggesting that the weak definition is indeed 'non-traditional' and this aint so. Finally you have rather revealed a POV by referencing supporting quotes in option 2 but it's notable that you have failed to do this for the other two options, despite a goodly few being available in these here talk pages, this is yet again biased. So picking up on your summary and re-working it to cover your 3 categorisations neutrally it could read...
There are 3 main camps with regards the definition of atheism in Wikipedia these respectively feel the article should cover those who…
  1. Are not theists, including those who are secular, many agnostics, and the irreligious and those incapable of holding a view. This camp want the article to express exclusively this definition in the intro. Other aspects are to be covered in the article body.
  2. Withold belief in all gods. This camp feel other aspects of atheism (such as weak atheism) should be covered in the article, but not in the intro.
  3. As Detailed in 1 and 2 ie the intro should cover both positions. This camp feel that that the article should drill into the specifics of strong/ positive Vs weak/negative definition in the article body and cover other aspects such as the relationship with agnosticism.
I fall into the latter camp and suspect Felonious Monk and Adreas do too, and a goodly few others. I know of no one who falls into the first camp and I suspect you Sam fall closest to the middle camp (but you probably have a problem with the fact that I didn’t capitalise the word 'gods'. I did this not because I have an axe to grind, but because I was referring to all gods not any specific God such as Jehovah/ Yahweh, a specific deity often referred to as 'God'). From this little revealing episode I think it clear that you are incapable of being neutral on this subject and I think you should be honest withy yourself on this --Nick-in-South-Africa 16:51, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I fall into the other camp. All possible definitions of atheism should be included in the article, written as neutrally as possible. The "strong atheist" v. "weak atheist" distinction is a farce if it is portrayed as a rule because atheists don't neccessarily divide themselves into such groups, but since the article clearly says that only some atheists classify themselves as either, I will not make it a quibble. The current article isn't terrible, so all modifications should be minor and geared toward improving the neutrality of the wording and toward improving the accuracy. All information should be factual, and distinctions such as "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" should be explicitly attributed to the people who may have been responsible for first coining the terms. Also, these terms should not recieve any sort of endorsement in the article. Also, we should say right there in the intro that there is much debate on what exactly makes one an atheist.--Bill Mutz
I disagree with your summary, Sam, for the same reasons as Nick describes above.--FeloniousMonk 20:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As I keep saying, I think there are two parallel issues. One is a terminological issue as to the definition of the various terms, such as atheist, agnostic, etc. This is a matter of labelling. The second is the set of actual philosophical positions that need to be covered by the article: god exists; god does not exist; disbelief/scepticism that god exists; god-language is meaningless; it is not possible to know whether god exists or not; etc. Because of the terminological issue the labels for these positions vary, in a manner that can be confusing and give rise to controversy. The two issues are not unrelated. Adherents of the various positions have definite terminological preferences, although other things such as organizational affiliations, age, and background, enter into it. But the terminoligical preferences and the actual positions are not completely correlated. For example, I believe that no gods (or indeed any supernatural entities or forces) exist. I call myself a materialist and atheist. Some atheists whose positions are identical to mine have no objection to the weak/strong atheist distinction and quite happily call themselves strong atheists. People who do not adopt a positive position on the existence or non-existence of god, might call themselves "weak atheists" and call me a "strong atheist". Others with this point of view might call themselves skeptics, skeptical atheists, agnostics, or agnostic atheists. Some of them might call themselves agnostics and resist the atheist label strongly, especially if they hold the epistemological position that it is not possible to know whether gods exist. Those who believe that god-language is meaningless (and therefore do not have a positive position on the existence or non-existence of god) might call themselves positivists and reject the atheist label, while weak atheists would include them as a type of atheist. The terminology situation is messy. The article could just pick a terminology, because it is just terminology and nobody should care as long as the definitions are clear. However, they do care. Moreover an encyclopedia article introducing someone to this space needs to let people know that there are different and inconsistent terminologies, because they need to aware of it. --BM 18:35, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Moreover an encyclopedia article introducing someone to this space needs to let people know that there are different and inconsistent terminologies, because they need to aware of it." --Your points above, particularly the one I quote, were addressed by the solution I proposed earlier that you and Sam summarily dismissed. Since Nick, Adraeus and Bryan had largely agreed to it previously, I'll try it again, taking into account your previous concerns:

Atheism is the denial of, or the condition of being without belief in, God or gods. Some consider Atheism to be a state of merely an absence of belief in God or gods, while others consider atheism to be the active disbelief or denial of God or gods.

The term atheism has several 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, the term encompasses two meanings. The one form of atheism is simply the negation of theism. A person who simply does not include God/gods in his metaphysics is often identified as a Weak Atheist. Those atheists who take a stronger stance by actively denying the existence of God or gods, are often referred to as Strong Atheists. Agnosticism, by contrast, is the epistemological position or doctrine that God (gods) is (are) unknown and answers to questions of God or gods are unknowable." Some religious communities consider the term atheist to be cognate with infidel and atheist can be found being used in a pejorative manner.

Many credible dictionaries define Atheism as "the disbelief in, or the denial of, God or gods." This definition is the source of much contention and confusion regarding the definition. One should note that "disbelief" is susceptible to interpretation for it allows for both agnostic and strong atheistic definitions: a) "doubt about the truth of something" and b) "rejection of belief." This ambiguity allows for those claiming primacy of both the weak atheistic and strong atheistic definitions to each claim that "disbelief" as used in the definition of Atheism is consistent with their own view.

I've tried to address all reasoned, valid concerns with this stab at it, and am willing to entertain any additional points for improvement.--FeloniousMonk 20:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
FM That's very good, the essence is there, it's accurate, balanced, nutral and comprehensive--Nick-in-South-Africa 09:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC).

We can't just pick any one definition; the definition we pick must be compatible with that used in other books of reference. Were an encyclopedia, not infidels.org, and this page will be read by far more people than atheist advocates. Even if this page were only for atheists, we would still do them a disservice by providing them w an atypical definition. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 18:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For those now joining us, read Spade's text closer and you'll see his POV, which he has stated on numerous talk pages. His POV boils down to this: "Atheists are evil, manipulative demons who corrupt the minds of enlightened, good Christians." Any rational person looking through the archives will find a list of resources, including books, that corroborates Nick's, FeloniousMonk's, and my comments regarding atheism. Sam Troll ignores these resources and consistently attempts to insert his POV. After all, he is a POV Warrior! Adraeus 23:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Adraeus, please stop. Wikipedia policy is no personal attacks. If you think Sam Spade's behaviour is unacceptable your recourse is to try to have him disciplined through the various community processes. Attacking him, as you have done in many of the posts you have made lately, is not one of your recourses, however justified you believe this may be. --BM 00:30, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think you meant ...find a list of resources, including books, that support Nick's, FeloniousMonk's, and my comments regarding atheism..., not refutes.--FeloniousMonk 03:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yup Adraeus you've got the meaning of the word 'refute' askance by 180º --Nick-in-South-Africa 08:56, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dammit, let me respond. Pointing out and admonishing trolls and POV Warriors is not against policy. In fact, nobody enforces policy so policy is quite irrelevant. (I see you removed your hypocritical ad hominem attack from the beginning of your lecture. Smart move.) Sam Troll has contributed nothing positive to Wikipedia and continues to do so; therefore, he's neither a Wikipedian nor is he a user. He's an abuser; thus, not subject to any policy regarding civility. Adraeus
Actually, no matter what he does he's still a user (I think even banned users are still technically users, though obviously ones with a lot of restrictions on them). I totally agree that Sam is a biased POV-pusher, but please do try to keep calm in dealing with him - if you start breaking policy yourself it makes Sam's transgressions stand out less obviously against the background. Just point out his biases when they show and trust that they will be countered by the Wiki way. Bear in mind that for most of the past year the article was actually in pretty good shape, I'm sure it will be again soon. Bryan 01:39, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Adreus, you should read Wikipedia Etiquette again. It calls upon people to turn the other cheek, and that is what you should do. I think most people will forgive someone who loses it right after being egregiously provoked. But so far as I can see Sam Spade has not written anything to insult or provoke you in recent days. You need to bury the hatchet, at least on this Talk page. It is simply not your decision that any particular user is beyond the pale and not entitled to civility. This isn't just because people should make nicey-nice. Incivility drags down the discussion and takes everybody away from the task of improving the encyclopedia. --BM 02:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Felonious, as I think I stated previously I think your version is basically better than we have now. You might have missed this comment since things get archived so fast and this Talk page is so full of distractions. I wouldn't object to it replacing the current text. I would want to edit it some, once it was in. (Of course.) Even better would be my wording. But I don't insist that my wording win. The main problem that I see with your wording is that it doesn't discuss the terminological issues directly enough, and fairly quickly adopts the "weak atheist" , "strong atheist" line of terminology, before making it clear enough that this terminology is controversial. --BM 02:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Alright, with that text as a start, how about rewriting the parts you think need work and replying with it here, then I can do the same with your edited version, and so on... Hopefully that way we can all have hand in it and address our concerns. A side benefit being it will not be just one person's version as well; we'll all have stake in it, making it harder for any who fail to participate here resist it going live.--FeloniousMonk 03:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Atheism, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is defined as the denial of the existence of gods and alternatively as the condition of being without theistic beliefs. These different definitions diverged from the original meaning, "without theism", due to interpretations of the a- prefix as either "not" or "without". The issues concerning self-identification and categorization as an atheist are complex as both involve adoption of the former definition or only the latter definition, or both. Each definition is respectively known as strong [epistemological] atheism and weak [epistemological] atheism.

By the way, where is this page's Table of Contents? Adraeus 07:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Progress

Interwiki

As it is protected, I can't do this, but can someone add an interwiki link lv:Ateisms here ? --PeterisP 11:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Encyclopedias which use the correct definition of Atheism

First we have the other online english encyclopedias, which I have so often cited, lets have a look again:

There are many other wikipedia languages w this article, lets have a look at them:

Rough translation of intro:
The term atheism (v. Greek. : άθεος - átheos: godless) designates comprehensively each form of philosophical or ideological acceptances that deny the existence of a God or several Gods and generally of transcendental beings.
The label „atheism“, for one, that existence of a God negative weltanschauung, comes from that 4th until 3rd century v. Christ.
The concept was used originally as a depreciating label ("gottlos") for views, that stood in the conflict with the established religions, also for newly developed religious views. Also the Christians became first of all as αθεoι atheoi designates.
Although there are religions, that no Gods know, one understands atheists to be persons who consider the acceptance of the existence of Gods or, generally, of supernatural beings (spirits, angels, demons) or powers, incorrectly.
Rough translation of intro:
Athéisme designates a thought or attitude excluding the belief in the existence of all divinity.
It would be more just to talk about the athéismes, the athéisme not being a thought system structured as are religions. In addition, it develops often in reaction to an, or several religions dominating in the country. Nevertheless certain traits are common with most of the athées.
Rough translation of intro:
The classical definition of ateísmo is the disbelief in the existence of God, being that the atheists persons that do not believe in God.
Many atheists, however, do not accept that definition, consider it incorrect and say that she neither reflects the true spirit of the ateísmo not is even faithful to the etymology of the word. For these, ateísmo is a sort of philosophical shackle characterized by the not-belief in the existence of God. The word "God" utilized in the previous definition serves for show that all of the kinds of God are excluded in this religious position.
Or it be, although many persons find that the atheists are persons that have faith in the not-existence of God (generally the catholic God), the atheists say that this concept is made in mistake because the ateísmo is not a "belief". The word "ateísmo" comes of the Greek one atheos – "to" (without or not) "theos" (God) –, and signifies simply "distant of the belief in God". Obeying to the root etymology of the word, the atheists "believe" – there is not nothing in him that implique a belief.
Some that a disbelief is equivalent to a belief, but many atheists do not accept that equivalence. For them, one is going to believe in the inexistence of an entity or of supernatural entities, and another one does not believe in the existence of those same entities.

I insist that we remain compatable w other references, and other wikis. How about you?

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't really agree. It may be that in the other countries/languages served by these other encyclopedias, the weak/narrow definition is not significant enough in the sources to warrant mention. I cannot comment on that. However, the weak/narrow definition is quite common in English-language sources, and I have to admit is rather dominant in online sources in English. I say this somewhat regretfully. You know my opinion of the weak definition. Moreover, as a practical matter, it seems the majority of editors of this article are weak atheists, and even if we thought their definition/position was held by so small a number of people that it did not merit mention in the article, it would mean unending edit wars to try to exclude them -- as you have seen, Sam. --BM 15:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since it has once again scrolled off into the archive subpages, here's a link to the most recent section of talk where FeloniusMonk presented a pile of references supporting the inclusion of weak atheism: Talk:Atheism/Archive 13#Summarized views - an unofficial attempt at mediation. Furthermore, even if one version of atheism's definition is more common in other encyclopedias that still doesn't mean it should be the definition here. What if tomorrow all those encyclopedias suddenly published errata that changed their definitions to include weak atheism? Would you then complain that no encyclopedias use the "correct" definition any more, and drop your insistance on compatibility? If so, there must be some other basis for you calling it the correct definition than simply the fact that it's in other encyclopedias. (additional note: as far as I can tell, the French and Portuguese wikipedia definitions actually are compatible with weak atheism, and once again you've refernced two identical copies of the Columbia Encyclopedia Sixth Edition as if they were independant sources - both [4] and [5] are the same one-paragraph-long article. You really need to pay closer attention, what would you say if I went around to all the various Wikipedia duplicates out there and used references to them as support here?) Bryan 17:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What/who determines "...the "correct" definition of Atheism"? & why this thinking is flawed

Yes, I too insist that we remain compatible with other references: credible, neutral, academic references. Once again Sam is trying to define all terms for all people, this time in unilaterally proclaiming what is "correct." There is no "correct" definition... there is an entire spectum of definitions, some of which are more common and consistent, other's being unique, with defintions from trusted academic sources being the most credible. Neither encyclopeadia brittanica, nor encyclopedia.com, nor columbia encyclopedia are credible academic references, they are commercial publications.

Credible, neutral academic sources are readily available, and consistantly define atheism thusly:

  • Encyclopedia of American Religious History:
Atheism, literally the absence of belief in God...
  • Harvard Human Rights Journal, Vol. 16 Spring 2003 ISSN 1057-5057 [6]
"atheism, or what one might call the absence of belief"
  • Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, Class: Introduction to Theology [7] (pdf file)
"Atheism is actually the absence of belief in a god. An atheist is one who has no belief in god, or does not believe that God exists. There are two kinds of atheists: *Dogmatic atheists: consciously promote the belief that there is no god *Practical atheists: simply live their lives as though there was no god."
  • Hamline Graduate School of Education, Religion, Glossary [8]
"Atheism: the lack of belief in the existence of God or gods, may include denial of existence or lack of interest."
  • Texas A & M, Corpus Christi Class, Philosophy [9]
"atheism is disbelief in a god or gods, or is the absence of belief in a god or gods. (The prefix "a" means "without.") Atheism is not the belief that God does not exist; atheism involves no belief whatsoever."
  • The Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences
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.

I insist we remain neutral and factually correct, despite what comercial publications (which must by definition serve business requirements to be sold, in other words, meet their customer's expectations) and other wikis may say. There is no assurance that other wikis have been any more successful at negating POV campaigners in their articles than we have been here, and that the content of their articles does not represent some form of compromise of the facts or tone.--FeloniousMonk 19:14, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FM: I've disagreed with Sam's citations as proving that the "correct" definition is the narrow one, at least based on English-language sources. But I hope you aren't now trying to prove with your list of sources that the broad definition is the only "correct" one. I would also have to disagree with that. I thought we were reaching a consensus that there is no one "correct" definition at least in English sources. By the way, many of the sources on your list are "commercial" as well, in the same sense: published by concerns seeking to profit from sales of their books. Are you saying that the EB has made its definition in order to pander to the strong atheists in a naked attempt to increase sales? That seems a bit far-fetched, not to mention that it implies that EB thinks there must be more strong atheists than weak, which is not actually a point you would want to make, I presume. If the EB changes its articles in order to pander to various groups, which is highly doubtful, I suspect you would find that its atheism article would pander to Christians. --BM 19:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just checked my printed version of Britannica (the 1980 edition) and it has the same text as Sam has quoted from the online britannica.com. The "Atheism" article was written by Cornelio Fabro, Professor of Theoretical Philosophy, Univ of Perugia, Italy, author of God in Exile: Modern Atheism. ("theoretical" philosophy, as opposed to "applied" or "experimental" philosophy (!) hmmm. ) The article does not mention "strong" versus "weak" atheism and maintains the consistent line that atheism is "denial of the existence" of God. It traces a long intellectual history, back to Plato's times, for atheism defined thus. It would be valuable to have the intellectual history of atheism in our article, if we can ever get it unprotected. The Italian origin of the author is a bit of evidence for my hunch that the weak definition largely comes out of the Anglo-American "freethought" movement, and the professor may not have been very familiar with these sources. --BM 20:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Britannica is neither academic nor canonical, that's my point. It's watered down and not intellectually as rigorous as actual scholarly primary writings. Britannica is not used as a reference in serious, academically stringent scholarship. For every britannica intended for public consumption there are more intellectually rigorous, clear thinking academic tomes intended for formal education, not informal home reference, that the public would never be be aware of. I've presented some of them here. And to a one they do not assert strong/explicit atheism is the primary understanding of atheism.
Regarding your opinion on what you may think may be origin of the concept of weak atheism being the "Anglo-American "freethought" movement", this is what I was getting at earlier about some editors being unread on the historical basis of atheism and so arguing from a position of ignorance. Eight years of education by Jesuits provided me plenty of opportunities to read on the historical basis of atheism. The distinction between implicit atheism (weak atheism) and explicit atheism (strong atheism) has been a subject discussed in Western philosophy ever since Thomas Aquinas presented "The Five Ways" to defeat the presumption of atheism in his Summa Theologica over 800 years ago. And once again I'll remind you and Sam that Paul Henri Holbach (1772), Voltaire(1778)[10], Charles Bradlaugh (1876)[11], Charles Watts [12] all in their writings made the distinction between weak and strong atheism, then known as "implicit" and "explicit" atheism. The distinction is not a product of the "freethought" movement.--FeloniousMonk 21:27, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A bit more information about the EB article. There is a www.corneliofabro.org web site, in Italian and Spanish, which I cannot read. However, I think it is the same Fabro. He is now quite old, having been born in 1911. From the photographs of him on the site, in which he is wearing a clerical collar, I would suppose him to be a Roman Catholic priest, as well as an academic. If so, I'm a bit disappointed to learn that the Encyclopedia Britannica got a RC priest to write its article on Atheism. Be that as it may, his relatively long article does not mention the distinctions you are talking about. It does refer to "practical atheism", which is not a theoretical position but rather the demonstration through the manner in which one lives one life that one does not believe in God, what you might call "implicit atheism". But not much is made of this; it is basically an aside. Regarding your list of thinkers intended to disprove my hypothesis that the current emphasis on the "weak/strong" distinction comes out of the freethought tradition, I am not familiar with the writings on atheism of all the people cited, but Charles Bradlaugh isn't a good proof of your point, since he was a well-known freethinker. As Charles Watts was a close friend of Bradlaugh's, he most likely was as well, although I have not seen that stated. As for the others, Voltaire, Aquinas, Holbach. Do you have any direct quotes or secondary sources on that? --BM 21:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, on the hypothesis that the emphasis of the weak definition is attributable to the freethought movement, that isn't original with me. I've seen that stated, although I cannot recall where, and I don't recall what sources, if any, were given for the claim. --BM 22:21, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let's reference the trusty ol' tome known as the Oxford English Dictionary, shall we?

atheism [a. F. athéisme (16th c. in Littré), f. Gr. |: see atheal and -ism. Cf. It. atheismo and the earlier atheonism.]

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).

1587 Golding De Mornay xx. 310 Athisme, that is to say, vtter godlesnes.

atheal [f. Gr. | without God, denying God (f. 2 priv. | God) + -al. Cf. F. athée]

Atheistic.

Considering that the weak epistemological form of atheism, also called practical atheism, existed back in 1587, I have difficulty accepting that the weak definition is a product of a freethought movement. I also spoke with 84-year-old Dr. John Smart of Philosophy who wrote the Atheism-Agnosticism entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [13] He responded that at the time of writing he was unaware of the distinctions. J.J. Smart is a "strong atheist." George H. Smith, who wrote several books on atheism (one which is considered an atheism bible), is a "strong atheist" that explains the differing definitions in the introduction to his books. He's also a professional philosopher like John Smart.

As you can plainly see, philosophers often disagree with each other. Adraeus 23:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism&oldid=8279741"