Talk:Atheism/Archive 11

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

In case anyone is still interested in these:

Atheism/DR Dispute Resolution version of article
Talk:Atheism/DR Dispute Resolution talk page

Where is this going?

Does anybody agree about anything? Shall we vote? Is concensus possible? I am doubtful. Sam [Spade] 03:02, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We won't be going anywhere for a while yet, Sam. While Felonious Monk:

chooses to ignore (or reasonlessly condemn) arguments against his convictions
merely continues (with amazing stamina) to recite conviction of his own correctness, without acknowledging that his views are partisan
won't even accept a common definition of the word 'disbelief'

He claims that we haven't provided authoratative evidence: there is a wealth of it in the discussion above. He claims that his sources are impeccable, but chooses to cite Christians and Hindus when referring to Buddhist views. He chooses 3 personally edited definitions of 'disbelief', completely ignoring the etymology of the word. To him, to dislike, disinter, disabuse, disadvantage, etc. etc. are passive, non-privative words. I ask him to stop being so disagreeable. According to FM, nearly everyone disagrees with him, because they don't actively agree with him.

FM - if you accept the OED, then why don't you pick it up and read it? Check out the article on the prefix dis-. Check out it's root as having a privative sense.

As for citations from the www, it appears that FM's interpretation is so biased by his lack of understanding of the privative stance regarding words such as 'disbelief' and (more contentiously) 'atheism' that he cites urls that I interpret as strengthening my position.

Straw Man. My arguments would be straw man arguments if the opposing views were qualified. They are not qualified, so they aren't straw man arguments. I am asking FM, etc. to qualify their assertions so that they cannot be interpreted in ways that they consider to be straw man positions. If someone says 'absence of belief' to me that means absence of belief. It does nothing to state any other quality or property concerning its subject, including the capacity or otherwise to believe. Therefore, while FM et al. continue to use unqualified definitions they are susceptible to attacks which they disagree with; they therefore mistakenly apply terms such as "straw man". FM, if you wish to say that I am constructing a straw man, you have to look at what it is I am opposing, and demonstrate that your argument is distinct from that view. This normally is done through careful qualification. You don't like that, because I guess it moves away from the sound-bite crud that the TV and media have fed you. Actually, in academic circles a qualified statement is far more potent. It is careful to delineate the subject of it's definition, which means it is far harder to argue against. Generalisations are inherently weak.

FM continues to say things like In it's common and academic definition, Atheism is merely the absence of belief in God/gods. Well, yes, according to FM's restricted view on the world, that may be the case. Based on his restricted view of disbelief, that may be the case. Walk into the real world for a minute, and it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. (20040302 10:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC))

I have a hard time navigating between your factual errors and illogical leaps. I've provided dozens of academic and common reference sources that are all consistent with the definition of atheism as: "Atheism is the lack of belief in, or the denial of, God or gods." The validity of my references and information stands in stark contrast to the absence of yours. When you find a credible, neutral academic reference that supports your personal definitions for atheism and disbelief be sure to post them; so far you haven't.

Academic reference sources that agree with the (my) definition that "Atheism is the lack of belief in, or the denial of, God or gods.":

The Encyclopedia of American Religious History: "Atheism, literally the absence of belief in God..."
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.
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.
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.
Encyclopedia of American Religious History: Atheism, literally the absence of belief in God...

Academic reference sources that agree with the (your) definition that "All atheism is the denial of the existence of any gods, while one who simply lacks belief in God is neither an atheist nor a theist.": None. 0.

--FeloniousMonk 22:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Common and academic views of Atheist and Disbelief

File:OED-Atheist.gif

This is from the latest OED (complete edition). I accept that the OED has worked tirelessly for over a century to deliver definitions of terms that are accepted both commonly and by academics.

I (as many people do) accept the OED definition of atheist. I also accept the OED definition for disbelief.

File:OED-disbelief.gif

I also accept that atheism is not always interpreted as being privative. I cannot accept that it is 'just factually wrong' when someone asserts that it can be used in a privative stance.

I would like to point out that it appears FeloniousMonk and his supporters do not seem to find a distinction between the terms 'unbelief' and 'disbelief'. The OED could have defined atheist in terms of unbelief, but it does not. (20040302 09:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Look

Look. It's generally pretty easy to find definitions in dictionaries that support your view regardless of whether or not they are right. Dictionaries suck in that respect. See webster's definitions:

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
disbelief n 1: doubt about the truth of something
atheism n 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

People that write dictionaries are not responsible for being experts on every single subject. That's why dictionary definitions favor vernacular definitions over acedemic ones. I'm not saying that vernacular definitions are invalid. They are, in fact, valid and should be included, but they are still vernacular defintions. The terms strong and weak atheism have been around for a long time in academia.

The vernacular definition is included in the acedemic definition and theoretically that should be all that you need, but I understand that you guys have problems with this, so I personally am willing to make the following compromise to split the definitions apart: Define the word in similar way that a dictionary would. Eg:

Atheism
n 1: One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a god or gods.
n 2: One who lacks a belief in the existence of a god or gods.

This supports both definitions without saying that one is better than the other, and does not try to claim that there is some sort of arugement over what the word means. Does that sound reasonable? UVwarning 18:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thats no good for several reasons. For one you didn't capitalize "God". For two, you can't present these two interpretations in the intro. For three, you can't present the "lacks a belief" definition as tho it is uncontested. Rather it must be in a seperate section, dedicated to the "strong/weak atheism" concepts, and the differences those definitions have w the standard defintion. Sam [Spade] 19:49, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, can you explain why these two interpretations cannot both be in the intro? Or why the "lacks a belief" definition "must be in a seperate section"? Personally, I'd like to see a little bit more context around them, but I don't have any objection in principle to UVwarning's suggestion. The introduction is for setting up what is coming in the article and I don't see why this important distinction should not be mentioned in the intro. I mean seriously now, are you still contesting that "lacking belief" is one of several common understandings of atheism? older≠wiser 20:08, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

The lack of context is key. And of course I contest that "lacking belief" is one of several common understandings of atheism. It isn't. But it is apparently common enough to deseve mention, in a seperate section devoted to the differences of definition, and the ramifications of such. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 21:14, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think there has been abundant evidence that "lacking belief" is one common understanding -- I would hope that by this point we could agree to disagree about personal POVs and attempt to work out acceptable phrasing rather continuing to "push each other's buttons" so to speak. You had previously found similar language (Atheism is the lack of belief in, or the denial of, God or gods.) acceptable [1]. Does anyone else have objections to this as an introductory sentence? older≠wiser 21:26, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

I support that definition.--FeloniousMonk 22:23, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's a irrevocably POV position. You do not have anything credible to support your claim that "lacking belief" is not a common definition or understanding of atheism. It is. And in case you've forgotten, I've provided cites and links to literally dozens of reference sources that disprove your claim. Do I need to repost them all here again?--FeloniousMonk 21:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't. If you did, it would be page flooding. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 21:36, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just kidding. Cute new handle, BTW. I hope all Americans here voted today as well.--FeloniousMonk 22:23, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

UVwarning, I agree with and support your definitions.--FeloniousMonk 21:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Look Ha! Fiction!

Disbelief: The act of disbelieving; a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief.

Atheist: n. 1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. 2. A godless person. [Obs.] Syn: Infidel; unbeliever.

Atheism: n. 1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. 2. Godlessness.

It is a sad state when one can no longer trust citations from 3rd party URLS. What are you trying to do? Nail the coffin-lid shut for the arguments of FM? Who needs to worry about accusations of sophistry, when we are bing fed misdirected sources?

The more references you mis-cite the less ground you give yourselves. Such total lack of credibility undermines your partisan arguments.

I also guess you have never opened the OED? It is stuffed with deeply academic pages devoted to words such fleering. Every professor I know depends upon the OED for a starting point regarding academic definitions. Fah. Vernacular. Go to Oxford and say that there

The primary definition of atheist in nearly every mainstream, non-partisan dictionary is that an atheist is one who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God. This is a commonly held view. Individuals like FM who wish to water that basic definition down, or replace it with another view held by many, but then use floods of URLS (that actually often argue against their case, if they were able to understand what was being said) to attempt to browbeat the situation does not help. What is sick is that they then claim that I and others are attempting to subvert the purity of their actions regarding the goal of NPOV.

UVwarning, with your misquotes, I am deeply unimpressed.

regarding UVWarnings definition, I consider that, in the light of the way in which UVWarning and FeloniousMonk intepret 'disbelief' (being a lack of belief), the second definition of UVWarnings is completely redundant. Therefore, I propose, that all we need is:

Atheism: One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a god or gods.

Which takes me all the way back to what I wrote in the main article, or to be precise: (take note, UVW)

Atheism is generally defined by most dictionaries and encyclopedias as the "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God or gods." (Atheism article: 12:49, 22 Oct 2004), which was reverted as being vandalism. (20040302 22:26, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC))

And / or Godlessness. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 22:35, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

20000302- why didn't you post the entire definition from dictionary.com? You're committing the very error of ommission that you accuse UVWarning of, but you've done it purposely. Intentionally. All the while chiding others I might add. Oh the irony. This shows you to be less than credible, indeed, suspect.

The entire definition at dictionary.com reads:

Disbelief \Dis*be*lief"\, n. The act of disbelieving;; a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Disbelief n 1: doubt about the truth of something [syn: incredulity, skepticism, mental rejection] 2: a rejection of belief [syn: unbelief] [ant: belief]

Syn: Distrust; unbelief; incredulity; doubt; skepticism. -- Disbelief, Unbelief. Unbelief is a mere failure to admit; disbelief is a positive rejection. One may be an unbeliever in Christianity from ignorance or want of inquiry; a unbeliever has the proofs before him, and incurs the guilt of setting them aside. Unbelief is usually open to conviction; disbelief is already convinced as to the falsity of that which it rejects.

Shabby stunts like selective editing and personal attacks will get you nowhere here, fast.--FeloniousMonk 22:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not at all. I was citing from his source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, ©1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc., and I left it at the definition, not wanting to embarrass you with the quotes. Let us now take the SET of definitions from the URL, with the quotes, which is composed of 3 different dictionaries. Still can't quite get it right, can you? (20040302)

dis·be·lief

n. Refusal or reluctance to believe.

Disbelief

Dis*be*lief, n. The act of disbelieving; a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief.

Our belief or disbelief of a thing does not alter the nature of the thing. --Tillotson.

No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness that disbelief in great men. --Carlyle.

Syn: Distrust; unbelief; incredulity; doubt; skepticism. -- Disbelief, Unbelief. Unbelief is a mere failure to admit; disbelief is a positive rejection. One may be an unbeliever in Christianity from ignorance or want of inquiry; a unbeliever has the proofs before him, and incurs the guilt of setting them aside. Unbelief is usually open to conviction; disbelief is already convinced as to the falsity of that which it rejects. Men often tell a story in such a manner that we regard everything they say with unbelief. Familiarity with the worst parts of human nature often leads us into a disbelief in many good qualities which really exist among men.

Disbelief

n 1: doubt about the truth of something [syn: incredulity, skepticism, mental rejection] 2: a rejection of belief [syn: unbelief] [ant: belief]

Since you cultivate ambiguity in yourself with selective editing, but excoriate it in others, I'm presenting rest of the definition of atheism you ommitted from dictionary.com.

The entire definition of atheism at dictionary.com reads:

a·the·ism n. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods. Godlessness; immorality.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

atheism n. [Cf. F. ath['e]isme. See Atheist.] 1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. 2. Godlessness.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

atheism n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

--FeloniousMonk 23:05, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

20040302-- disbelief does not equal belief. The entire definition for disbelieve from your preferred reference source:

dis·be·lieve

v. dis·be·lieved, dis·be·liev·ing, dis·be·lieves
v. tr.
To refuse to believe in; reject.

v. intr.

To withhold or reject belief.

--FeloniousMonk 23:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. I never asserted that disbelief equalled belief. That was Sam Spade. Go check out the archive (its archive 10). My sole point has consistently been that disbelief is not privative. It requires activity on behalf of the individual, it is not a passive, or default status. Yet, as I previously mentioned, I am very happy to allow you to keep your view, as it makes the 2nd definition of UVwarning completely redundant for you. So though we would read the single definition in different manners, you and I would both consider it to be adequate. Therefore, let us be happy with:

Atheism: One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a god or gods. (20040302 23:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC))

"Atheism is the lack of belief in, or the denial of, God or gods." is (more) factually accurate, consistent with and supported by the academic definition of Atheism as I've repeatedly shown. And we've already agreed on this definition on the DR page.

We also agree with One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a god or gods., because you recently argued that disbelief and lack of belief are synonyms. I'm glad to see that you put a (more) in; it's the beginning of a concession of some sort, though I am not sure about finding any objective authority regarding your assertion. As the definition stands, I am not sure that I agree with it. I gather Sam does. But first I ask you to either agree with me that 'lack of belief' and 'disbelief' are not synonyms, or use 'disbelief' in the definition. (20040302)

It is not clear that disbelief is indeed not privative or even an act as you say. Disbelieve, it's verb, is defined as "To withhold or reject belief". Clearly some sort of action or statement is required to reject belief, but withholding belief requires no such action or declaration.--FeloniousMonk 23:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, To withhold is like.. a verb. So how does it not involve action? (20040302)

Yes, it is a verb in the same sense as keep is a verb, in fact, it's a synonym. Withold's verb intransigent definition is To refrain. As actions go, that not very assertive. Give and assenting are also verbs, clearly very different ones.--FeloniousMonk 00:06, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I love it when we agree with each other, FM. It seems to be so rare. refrain, witholding, etc. are not passive. They may not be very assertive, but they are not passive. Refraining from talking would hardly be refraining if I was dumb. Refraining implies effort. Similarly, witholding the truth requires the effort of a lie. To withold is clearly not a passive verb. (20040302 00:23, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC))

I disagree. Refraining does not necessarily imply effort or action.--FeloniousMonk 01:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I guess you didn't mean 'intransigent'? (ie uncompromising), but rather that the verb has an 'intransitive' sense, which merely means that it does not take a direct object in the same way as "a bird flies", or "a dog runs"? And to be honest, the verb "refrain" does imply effort and action. Even the most passive verbs (e.g to suffer, to receive) indicate the expenditure of energy (effort) albeit with no choice. Moreover, my experience of refraining have always involved considerable efffort. When I refrained from smoking, or eating fatty foods, or sugar it was not easy; it was effort, and I was refraining. I do not do not consider that I refrain from activities that I would not do. Otherwise I would be refraining from eating doggy-do at every opportunity! (20040302 09:37, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Show me a source that defines "weak atheism" as an act. Definitions for the general term atheism don't count. I'm talking about the specific term "weak atheism" which is a form of atheism. If you can't provide even one source that supports what you are saying then shut up. UVwarning 23:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/presumption.html

Some weak atheists argue that atheism is the default position because he who asserts must prove. Theists make the positive claim that God exists. Weak atheists do not make the positive claim that God does not exist, but merely withhold their assent from the theists’ claim that God does exist. According to the weak atheist, because it is the theist that makes an assertion, it is the theist that bears the burden of proof. He who asserts must prove, and so unless the theist can offer some convincing argument for God’s existence, the weak atheist will be justified in his atheism.

As mentioned before, I consider the weak atheist to be actively involved: They don't make postive claims about God, but they do withhold their assent from the theists claim that God exists.

Witholding is a verb. It is an action. QED.

They also have a position regarding who bears the burden of proof. This necessitates mental conviction. Any other requests? (20040302 00:16, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC))

That weak atheism is an active withholding of belief that god exists would only be true if:

Belief in god were a justified belief, i.e.; god existed.
Weak Atheism's position requires belief.

So, the question is: What belief associated with Weak Atheism is it you are claim requires proof?

Only with the most convoluted of logic can anyone claim that withholding an unjustified belief requires some sort of affirmative declaration. First, the term "God" hasn't been defined - so what the atheist thinks of it cannot be automatically assumed. Theists cannot simply assert that whatever they have in mind must also be something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that whatever this god turns out to be, the atheist must automatically deny it. This concept might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or denial. --FeloniousMonk 01:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I begin to think that you have misinterpreted my stance, FM. For the fact that I appear not to have divulged it clearly enough, I apologise. Regardless, I consider your reasoning about active witholding to be flawed. I reject that "active withholding" necessarily entails anything to do with god(s). My point was a little less strong: that withholding entails an active position of some sort, so my reading from POR requires that one cannot be a weak atheist by default; indeed one must have a viewpoint - that viewpoint being reflected by the citation. Actually, I explicitly point out what it is that the article defines as withheld by a weak atheist: namely, "assent from the theists claim that God exists". Now this has nothing to do with God, but everything to do with actively not agreeing with theists. I consider their position very sound, BTW. Moreover, I would say that most weak atheists would place the same burden of proof on strong atheists as well as theists. Of course, the placement of burden remains an activity, albeit a gentle one. (20040302 09:19, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC))

That's funny that you are using that article to suport your view. It planly states that atheism may be considered a default position. I was expecting you to find some crappy source that would agree with your claim, but this is far more pathetic that I was expecting. The article you found doesn't even agree with you. I think that pretty much closes the case on this issue. If you look at just about any source on weak atheism the unambiguous term "lack of belief" is almost always used. That fact that you have only managed to find one article that happens to use the term "withold" and that contradicts your belief anyway I think speaks for itself. UVwarning 22:06, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What it plainly states is that Some weak atheists argue that atheism is the default position . That is a true statement. However it is problematic to base a general definition on what some atheists argue. older≠wiser 22:30, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not basing a general definition on that. I'm basing it on all of the other sources out there that seem to be pretty clear. 20040302 was supposed to come up with a source that supports his claim that atheism is an act and not a default. This article does not support that, and in fact it actually contradicts it by saying that it may be considered default (i.e some argue that). UVwarning 23:04, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What I think 20040302 claimed, and which I agree with, is that the citation under consideration can be interpreted as saying weak atheism is a volitional act (and without convoluted logic I might add). Weak atheists withhold their assent. In other words, even though some may attempt to claim weak atheism as some sort of inherently normative position from which any sort of theism is an aberration, in fact the entire framework of the weak atheistic argument is a reaction against theism. Now, please understand, I am not trying to say that this understanding should be supressed from the definition of atheism, but it should be expressed as simply one of several understandings of the term. As far as I am concerned, there is no objectively correct definition. There are no empirical facts per se regarding atheism that can be confirmed or disproven by the scientific method. Human value systems are not mathematical sets which clearly and unambiguously divide into neat categories. In my opinion, the only truly factual statements we can make about atheism is to describe the different understandings that various groups of people have of the term without granting special privilege to any one understanding. older≠wiser 01:52, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

I envy your elegance, Bkonrad. Yes, that about sums it up. (20040302 09:28, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Bkonrad(older≠wiser): First of all, I believe that your understanding of what 20040302 has claimed is faulty. Here is a direct quote from one of his arguments: "I disagree that WA involves a mere lack of belief."

No, he got it. And I agree with that quote. WA involves volitional acts. (20040302 09:28, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but you can't agree with that quote and agree with Bkonrad at the same time. Bkonrad is saying that there are several understandings of the term WA including mere lack of belief whilst you are saying that you disagree that WA involves a mere lack of belief. UVwarning 19:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can- let me demonstrate:

There are several understandings of the term WA including mere lack of belief
WA does not involve a mere lack of belief

These two statements do not contradict each other. The second statement can be restated in a qualifed manner (which, if you have been following my position for the last two weeks you would understand) as such: WA does not involve a mere lack of belief, because there are several understandings of the term WA of which mere lack of belief is only one. Moreover, according to alt.atheism, that position is at fault, and mere lack of belief is called implicit atheism. In fact the FAQ there completely accords with my ongoing side in the argument about the definition of WA: "A Weak (or negative) atheist: One who is sceptical about the belief in gods, who knows that he is an atheist." Wish to ~~strike~~ out anything you wrote earlier? (20040302 10:23, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Also, here are a few of the many, many sources that not only contradict what 20040302 thinks, but that also state that Weak Atheism does not mean to imply an action at all in the definition:
about.com
"A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods - no more, no less."
brainyencyclopedia.com
"Weak atheism or negative atheism is the lack of belief in any gods without the conviction that no gods exist. It is equivalent to the term nontheism."
philosophyofreligion.info
"Weak atheism is defined as the absence of belief in God. On this definition, strictly speaking, anyone who isn’t a theist is an atheist."
free-definition.com
"The difference between 'strong' and 'weak' atheism might be summed up as follows: strong atheism is the 'belief' that there are no gods, while weak atheism is the "lack" of belief in God." UVwarning 04:53, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is more to it than you wish to see, UVwarning. BKonrad is better at expressing my concerns than I am, but I totally agree when he states: "The only truly factual statements we can make about atheism is to describe the different understandings that various groups of people have of the term without granting special privilege to any one understanding."

What that means to me is that we can give a definition for atheism - along with it's provenance - and we will always have facts. If we safely put the various definitions into the mouths of those who have defined it then no-one can dispute us. Take for instance the scan from the OED. No-one here disputes that the OED defines atheist as above. Showing traditional, reliable sources and authors for our definitions strengthens the article in that it is guaranteed NPOV. Our struggle here appears to be to find a common ground for definition. Well, 10 large archives of talk appears to be evidence that we will not make headway in that direction. (20040302 09:28, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC))

UVW, it's rather disingenuous to cite free-definition.com and brainyencyclopedia.com, which are Wikipedia clones, to support your argument. And About.com and philosophyofreligion.info, while interesting and informative, are hardly authoritative. There seems to be different positions on weak atheism. One, which I actually agree with and support, claims that the burden of proof is on theists, and that to date there is no convincing evidence for the existence of god. This position does not require a denial of the existence of god and one who holds this position can be said to "lack" belief in god. Some people extend this into a sort of militant weak atheism by claiming that anyone who is not a theist is therefore an atheist. I can appreciate this argument, though I disagree with it. While atheism is not a "belief" in the sense of faith in something unprovable (although some strong atheists may fall into that camp), it is a value system and I do not think that it occurs in a vacuum--it has meaning only in the dynamic of a contrast to a theistic position. I think it is highly POV to posit an unqualified atheism as some sort of default position. Yes, of course we present that some atheists subscribe to this reasoning, but it should not be part of an unqualified general definition of the term. older≠wiser 14:16, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

ditto. ditto. ditto. Best sentence: I think it is highly POV to posit an unqualified atheism as some sort of default position. Yes, of course we present that some atheists subscribe to this reasoning, but it should not be part of an unqualified general definition of the term. Moreover, even the qualified term "implicit atheist" needs to be evaluated against those who assert it's meaning. (20040302 10:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Fact.

I obviously meant WorldNet dictionary. Not webster's. Get over yourself. They are right next to eachother on the link that you yourself pointed to. I'm sure that you noticed that, but I guess you would rather pretend that I was lying.

It is also obvious that discussions with Sam and 20040302 are pointless. We need a mediator. I'm new to wikipedia. How do we go about doing that? Or do we just keep discussing until we puke? UVwarning 23:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, No. You cite Webster's, I read Webster's. I truthfully noticed only when you pointed it out now. You mis-cited. I had quoted from Webster's before, and was shocked to see the definition that you provided. It doesn't do you any good to mis-cite. That's all I was saying. As for WordNet- You rate that over the OED and Websters? Come on. (20040302 23:37, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC))

That doesn't explain or justify your pointed oblique insults like Who needs to worry about accusations of sophistry, when we are bing fed misdirected sources? and characterizing his position with a heading titled Look Ha! Fiction!. Your response to UVWarning reads more like a frothing, trollish rant that a dispassionate point about mis-citing references. I have no doubt as to your intent there.--FeloniousMonk 23:48, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For that matter your characterization of my position and method at Where is this going?at the top this page is pretty insulting and trollish too.--FeloniousMonk 23:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well I apologise to anyone who feels that I have insulted them. It is not my intention to insult whatsoever, and I am completely willing to continue this discussion with civility, restraint and manners. However, I also expect such behaviour from other discussants. Secondly, my intentions are to write a good article. It is understandable that we find it astounding that different people have such completely different views from our own, and indeed it can hurt when someone claims to have greater knowledge than ones-self, or to be told that they know something that the other doesn't, or read claims that one is foolish, sophistic, silly, misguided, uneducated, theistic/atheistic, etc. So let us be civil, polite and restrained towards each other. (20040302 00:09, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC))

I agree we all need to be respectful. Both sides.--FeloniousMonk 01:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's so complicated??

Sorry for not taking the time to read the 10 archives of this talk page, but what's this whole debate about? Does anyone here disagree with the statement "An athiest is someone who believes there is no god?" What's going on!? --RobertStar20 01:45, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes: atheists. That definition is inaccurate. Atheism is not a belief. It is, simply and only, a lack of belief, and not a lack of belief only in one (your) god, a lack of belief in gods or goddesses in general, from lack of evidence or evidence against them.The Rev of Bru

I agree, others don't. Some of them think "Atheism= everything except devout believers", including agnostics, babies, rocks, the uncertain, thoughtless, ignorent, disinterested, etc... [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 01:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nobody thinks that "Atheism= everything except devout believers" It doesn't do any of us any good for you to make these strawman arguments. Please think carefully about what you say before you speak. UVwarning 21:20, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, many people do disagree with that statement, and have a different definition. Occasionally, we try to establish whether or not both points of view will be included. These discussions are invariably derailed and transformed into discussions about whether or not the definition as atheism as "lack of belief" is consistent and sensible. I've tried a couple of times to get back to the question of whether both viewpoints will be included, with little success. Give me another week and I'll probably try again. --Yath 02:35, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They will both be included. The debate as I see it is how, and where. Anyone who thinks the idea of atheism by default is less than a radical break w human concensus is sadly mistaken however, and to place such an outlandish claim in the intro would bring shame to us all. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 02:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, what would be shameful is if bigoted, hateful users, with a POV such as yourself, were allowed to define the things that they hate, sam spade. Anyone who claims, publicly, to 'revile atheists' is far too biased to have a valid NPOV. Go see if you can find any rational atheist that agrees with your nonsense definition. The Rev of Bru

Rev, try to behave please (20040302)

Rev, exactly when and where did Sam Spade say he "reviles atheists"?

Sam, is this true? Have you stated on wikipedia that you revile atheists?

I would have to question the fitness and ability of anyone to remain objective and maintain a NPOV who makes such an obviously bigoted POV statement.--FeloniousMonk 22:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade said " I revile atheism, it is true." to Jwrosenzweig in talk on 23:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)(in his talk page.) He also made a statement to the effect that he would rather die than be considered an atheist, which I am attempting to find atm. Oh- I wasnt going to bring this up, but he also accuses me of being a 'sockpuppet,' 'anti-theist' and such like, repeatedly. I assume this is some sort of insult, but I'm not sure what it means.The Rev of Bru

I wish someone would tell me when a conversation I'm having with someone is being used as evidence against them. It's a little common courtesy, but it really is nice to have. Rev, note the importance of phrasing Sam's statement correctly -- he reviles atheism (a belief or opinion....I know, we're arguing that definition on this page, but fundamentally it is a perspective on the universe) not atheists. I have worked with Sam enough to know that he doesn't hate atheists as people. He is simply appalled at the thought that people believe there is no God (again, whatever we actually want to call atheism, insert it there). While an atheist may think that's semantics, I disagree. Someone who tells me they revile Christianity, I feel like we can talk: maybe they misunderstand it, maybe they've seen it misapplied, or maybe we just fundamentally disagree (if so, that's life). Someone who says they revile Christians, I'm pretty personally offended. This entire talk page is about getting the definition of atheism absolutely correct, so let's not mischaracterize people's words. It's important. Jwrosenzweig 21:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Based on the other things he has said I wouldn't be surprised. One of the things he said to me as you probably saw was "You miss the point that atheism is the gravest of all sins, not some sort of natural default." It is very clear to me that Sam has a bigoted POV adjenda. UVwarning 23:12, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Concerning bigoted statements, Good Faith, and POV obstructionism

Would whoever placed the "ad hominem" section title here care to justify it? It's placement was highly POV, biased and factually incorrect, so I've renamed it to reflect the reality of the discussion. I'll repeat this one more time since someone isn't getting it: When someone publicly makes bigoted statements on wikipedia and their particular ideological POV stance prevents them from working to an article-building consensus, considering any opposing credible evidence, etc., then asking and determining if their past includes a history of disruptive actions is legitimate under the guidelines NPOV: Dealing with biased_contributors and Understand bias. Any factual information provided to that end to help other editors understand the dynamic of the users preventing progress falls under the following guidelines: NPOV- "...the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page (NPOV) and asking others to help. ...There must surely be a point beyond which our very strong interest in being a completely open project is trumped by the interest the vast majority of our writers have, in being able to get work done without constantly having to fix the intrusions of people who do not respect our policy." and Understand Bias- "...Our best contributors should not have to waste huge amounts of their time handholding people who are clueless, ignorant, or have an ideological ax to grind; if some of the latter people constantly post nearly worthless stuff, and do not react to polite and reasonable criticism, they and their writing shouldn't expect to be treated nicely." --FeloniousMonk 09:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade wrote "ad hominem" as the section title. Adraeus 09:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, makes sense.--FeloniousMonk 09:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I remember Sam recently used the term monstrous default to describe atheism as well. Ideological POV doesn't get any more clear than that. I've checked around and found this; I won't comment on it or it's validity other than to say the section detailing previous activities here at Talk:Atheism is extensive and seems very familiar, and some respected users commented as recently as 10/13. Also, this discussion is illuminating as well.

Sam, so in addition to my question, "did you say you 'revile atheists'?" I must add: Have you ever used the handle "Jack Lynch" wikipedia? Considering all this, combined with the 3 rejected requests for arbitration naming Sam specifically, and the alleged "revile atheists" comment, if any of it proves to be true I'll be concerned about the appropriateness of his continuing to contribute here in good faith and ability to maintain some level of objectivity.--FeloniousMonk 01:10, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here Bryan implies that Sam went by another Username. Bryan, care to add to or explain to the rest of us what went on before here? Sam, care to comment?--FeloniousMonk 01:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"I agree we all need to be respectful. Both sides.--FeloniousMonk 01:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

Oh really? Sam [Spade] 01:36, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, when someone publicly makes bigoted statements on wikipedia, and their ideological POV is implicit in those very same bigoted statements, and for months their particular ideological stance precludes them from considering any opposing credible evidence, propositional knowledge, or article-building consensus, then asking and determining if their past includes a history of disruptive POV actions under present or past usernames (such as: User:JackLynch) is legitimate under the policies. It also makes any statement identifying a "bigoted POV agenda" a statement of fact, not a personal attack as you claim on User_talk:UVwarning.--FeloniousMonk 06:00, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam and I have a history on this article dating back to January of this year in which many of these same issues came up and resulted in him lodging several complaints against me. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Sam Spade and Bryan Derksen has some leftover material from that time, and I can confirm that he changed his username around February 10 or so. Unfortunately Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bryan Derksen was deleted at some point and no longer appears retrievable using ordinary sysop powers, but fortunately the summary of our dispute I wrote up that used to be there is still stashed in a text file here on my hard drive; I can dig it up and repost it in a personal subpage if you like. We had a successful mediation and Sam no longer seems willing to engage in edit wars but our disagreement over the issues has remained largely unchanged and I still check carefully for POV edits when he shows up in my watchlist. Bryan 07:57, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bryan, thanks for the reply. Was it your opinion that the complaints Sam lodged against you were without merit, intended simply to harass and/or silence you? I ask this because others have made this allegation and we should know if this is indeed a pattern of abusing the processes intended to protect those who edit in good faith, and hence something the rest of us who do not share Sam's POV need to be wary of here. Having read the Talk:Atheism archives 5/6/7/8 tonight, I can say that since Jack/Jack Lynch/Sam Spade made his January debut here, he has been repeatedly making exactly the same arguments over the exact same issues as we've discussed these last four weeks, despite being shown both his errors of fact and logic time and again for over 10 months. All of which confirms our recent experiences and observations here.--FeloniousMonk 08:34, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, both back in January and still now IMO Sam exploits technicalities and guidelines in an attempt to push his POV while often being far less strict in following them himself. I'll put my old summary online again now since I mention exactly that complaint in it. He hasn't been as strenuous about it lately as he was back then so I've been reasonably content to just let it remain a background problem, but this most recent cycle of repeated argument has become rather annoying due to its volume. Bryan 00:49, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not that I applaud Sam Spade's past activities, but I trust he was duly told off back then and I am sure he has learned from his mistakes. So can we leave off the character assassination, as all it does is to increase the antagonism, hurt peoples feelings, and imply that his detractors indeed have a political agenda regarding the content of this article. Sam, I do not think it is helpful to start using conservative christian tirades as a part of the wikipedia process- we all must be open-minded and accept that other views may differ from our own. What we must be vigilant about is when we see ourselves being too restrictive regarding other views. Compassion is rooted in understanding the views of others from their own side. Wisdom is finding the means to demonstrate to them that their convictions are only another view, and that at least they must accept the views of others as being just as objectively legitimate as their own. (20040302 10:36, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC))

In support of the wider inclusive definition

Many; including some prominent Buddhists (though definitely not all) describe much of Buddhism as atheistic, and this would fall within the definition of weak atheism and this is not a particularly new usage. The fact that some prominent Buddhists describe Buddhism as athesitic is not POV. Here are 2 sources:

Christmas Humphries was president of the Buddhist Society, London [2], from it's foundation in 1924 for 59 years until his death in 1983. He was a prolific author on Buddhism, particularly Zen Buddhism. Humphries was also a prominent British High Court judge and as such will have been especially adept in the nuance of the English language. In "Buddhism" (1954). On page 79 under the title "No God, No Soul" he writes "As between the theist and atheist positions, Buddhism is atheist".

Also "The Varieties of Religious Experience", William James pg 50: "the Buddha himself stands in place of a God; but in strictness the Buddhistic system is atheistic".

This again supports the point in question that the term ‘atheist’ within its general definition should support the meaning of weak atheism as well as strong atheism. Indeed I posit that most atheists are passive or weak atheists , in the same way that most folk are without belief in many other categories of supernatural entity such as goblins and the Tooth Fairy. This passive ‘without belief’ stance does not of necessity require active cognition or any kind of consious choice. Lack of belief can span the spectrum from incompetence to ignorance through mere indifference (passive) to scepticism and on to an active rejection (active). All in this spectrum fall within the set of those being without belief in the Tooth Fairy or goblins.

So it is with atheism and all gods and any particular God. It is POV to treat any and all deities somehow differently to any other supernatural entity and most certainly POV to seek to limit the general definition of atheist to only include active or positive atheism and this is clearly what some seek to do here

Sure, some folks have an understanding of atheism that is limited to active disbelief and some folks describe as atheist those who are in fact theists but happen not to believe in their God. That's fine, clearly this is also common usage and understanding and should thus be covered in the article, but the general definition should be inclusive not exclusive and congruent with the etymology which is exactly how many use and understand the term.

Again in the wider definition ‘Atheist’ can be and is used to descibe anyone that happens not to be a Theist, and this has been well supported in these discussions.--Nick-in-South-Africa 15:47, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

well said Nick. I agree. The Rev of Bru

I too agree, and applaud that you support your point by citing a credible reference source.--FeloniousMonk 19:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quite. With the steadily increasing number of cites showing people using the more-inclusive definition, it's getting rather silly for anyone to to continue insisting that nobody uses that definition. Just describe them both. Bryan 00:57, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I had previously removed myself from this discussion, but well put, I support this definition. Good luck to you. Andre (talk) 01:12, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Well, it is interesting that you choose two old school westerners to represent the Buddhist postion. I have great respect for both men, but we should also appreciate that they are not the best representatives of Buddhist thought. That said though, there is no question that by some criteria, some aspects of Buddhism are atheistic. But we need to be careful what definition of atheism is being used and which aspects of Buddhism. Neither Buddhism nor atheism is a monolithic entity.

It is also revealing that you choose to equate the belief systems of billions of people to a belief in fantastical creatures like goblins or the tooth fairy. Your definition of atheism is not unlike George Bush's understanding of the world--If you're not for us, you're against us. Somewhat overly simplified of course, but the point is, you can't make up a definition and then claim that everyone who you deem to meet the criteria set forth in your definition are to be counted as "not one of them thar theistic types", so hence they must be atheists. I do not want to suppress the presentation of such an understanding, but it is pretty clearly a facile attempt to inflate the scope of persons within the definition of atheist. older≠wiser 02:10, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

I am a Buddhist that you would call atheistic, of the Theravada tradition. However, the only time I call myself an atheist is when I want to provoke Christians--albeit not a very Buddhist thing to do. It should be noted that it has been said that the whole concept of existance of deities is of no use and pondering about it is just a waste of time, the same goes for the first cause. So in the strictest sense the atheism that you speak of is nothing more than agnosticism, unless we accept the conclusion of The good reverend of Bru that we are all atheists because we don't believe in every deity. I am really feeling that the editing the Wikipedia is like trying to figure out the first cause--something always is missing and setting you back. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 04:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you want to cite stances of theism/atheism, please cite primary sources

You might not like them, but they are both primary sources in the acedemic definition of the term, you can of course dismiss them, but it's noticable, perhaps ironically that your dismissal lack authority! Seeking to dismiss Humphries on the point in question is laughable, really come, come. --Nick-in-South-Africa 19:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC).

Though I respect William James for his contributions to pragmatism, regarding his stance vis a vis traditional buddhist philosophical schools his views are faulty, but of course he was choosing to define the subject in a manner that suited his purpose. Christmas Humphries was not taken very seriously by academics (or many Buddhists) even during his lifetime - and many Buddhists who were invited to teach found his history as a hanging judge rather hard to accept. But rather than merely denigrate him, let me briefly explain. Buddhism asserts sunyata. Buddhist Sunyata is (reductively) concerned with the absence of any essence regarding phenomena. For Madhyamakas, Existence and truth are sociolinguistic projects that do not bear light in terms of objective reality. Therefore, most Christian philosophies of God (that depend upon objective, essential reality) consider Buddhism to be atheist. However, within Buddhism the ontological status of God is accepted as being equivalent to any material object - e.g. a fire engine, as long as God is not qualified with any special, transcendant status. Therefore most Buddhists assert omniscience and omnipresence, but deny essence, omnipotence, transcendance, God the judge, God the creator, etc. This leads me to my next struggle about defining atheism as to be the absence of belief in God. What belief in God? One may say any belief in god - but then what sort of boundaries do we put against that definition? What about belief of God as a metaphor for the community? What about belief of God as a concept? Or a crutch during bereavement? In other words, it's only when we start adopting philosophical assertions as to what we mean by belief of God in terms of some objective reality that we can start denying them. Buddhism does not subscribe to objective reality or acontextual truth. this means that Buddhists cannot be theists (for theists that assert the necessity of objective reality and truth, however see Tillich, who wrote rather well on redefining theism in a broader stance that depended less on foundations of objective, acontextual truts). Moreover, questions of whether or not God 'really' exists is meaningless to them. So most philosophies that are based upon ontological states of existence or non-existence fail for Buddhism.

I believe in God, just as I believe in tooth-fairies, elves and tree-spirits. I believe that tooth-fairies and elves exist as a mythological/fantastic concept popular in escapist fiction with important connections to our subconscious. In fact we all have a pretty good idea about what elves look like, so it's pretty hard to say that they don't exist as a social concept. Does that make me a theist? - after all, I believe in God and tooth-fairies. My disbelief is in God's objective existence, but then I have a similar disbelief regarding the essential existence of fire engines. (I am not an idealist or a nihilist. These views are far more subtle than they may appear to be. I believe in an external reality, and in fire engines, just as you do. But I deny them having any special ontological or essential status that allows for me to say that they 'really' or 'truly' 'exist' outside of a sociolinguistic state. If you will, the atoms that make up the fire engine are there, but what we call fire engine depends upon the day to day conventions of the world around us. Now apply the same logic to the atoms.) This means that if I am an atheist, then I am also an a-fireenginist, which is absurd. It would also reduce the philosophical sense of atheism to be a mere truism, which I do not consider to be useful.

There are populations today that believe tree-spirits exist in an objective sense. I believe that they believe in tree-spirits. Who am I to assert my views are superior to theirs? (A variation of the liberal dilemma.) What sort of objective authority is there that can show me this? Scientific method? But that only works for those who subscribe to it's being efficacious. Therefore, it is far better not to try to say "Tree-spirits are this or that" but to say "The Manumamu of Brazil traditionally assert that Tree-spirits are...". Likewise the same for atheism. As mentioned above, if we write the article without attempting to make unqualified, unsourced claims about atheism, we will all be here till the sun dies. Though I have presnented many reasons and sources that show that atheism (even weak atheism) is generally defined as involving some form of volitional activity, that this is reflects only some views, and that there are other views. But I believe it is important for us to give up the challenge of coming up with a reductive, syncretic, pseudo-objective statement, and replace it with a statement that shows provenance, sources and variation. I am in favour of inclusion. (20040302 10:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC))

All well and good but Olderwiser's response and Sunborn's POV point hardly bears on the point in question, I don't see dragging George Bush into this as relevant or particularly helpful.

The object here is not to support or denigrate any metaphysical or religious position or get sidetracked into a discussion on the virtues or otherwise of folks belief systems. It's to resolve the general definition of the term atheist. The point I was making was not to represent Buddhist belief nor to lend support to Buddhism in general or any particular school of Buddhism. I cited Humphries because of his clear authority and because his usage of atheism in the weak sense was extremely clear. It's obvious that he sees someone as either a theist or not a theist ie an atheist, this is the weak, negative or passive sense if you don’t believe in any God or gods you are an atheist. I was not seeking to support nor find fault with any theistic or atheistic views, indeed the mention of Buddhism, goblins and the Tooth fairy was incidental to my core purpose. This was simply to demonstrate that the term 'atheist' very commonly encompasses the meaning of it as detailed in the weak sense. This together with the etymology support inclusion of weak, negative or passive atheism within the general meaning ie simply being without theism, no parameters whatsoever. In that regard I think I and others have made the point crushingly, and I think on this point, and this point alone it's time to concede.

Humphries has never been an authority for Buddhism. Even the Dalai Lama would not make that claim. When Humphries wrote for a very Christian oriented society, (and being brought up surrounded by it), he was attempting to find reductive statements about Buddhism. Regardless, regarding your larger issue, I hold that most people disbelieve (volitionally) in the objective existence of Tooth fairies. I do. Many Buddhists also disbelieve in the objective existence of Fire Engines. I do too. Does that make me an a-fire-engine-ist? So the boundaries of belief and existence are relavant to the discussion of atheism.

Following etymology, one is not necessarily NOT an atheist if one believes in tooth-fairies, as long as one considers tooth-fairies to be gods (ie. most believers in the objective existence of tooth-fairies, who tend to be under eight years old). I believe in tooth-fairies, but as socio-mythological constructs used to encourage children not to be so worried about losing their teeth.

I think you have made no point crushingly. Many arguments against you are left unsatisfactorily answered: The volitional nature of restraining and withholding. Your stance on an adequate definition of disbelief. Your stance on whether or not disbelief is synonymous with lack of belief, and why, if they are synonyms, you object to the definition of atheist as "One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a god or gods". Your position that weak atheism is non-volitional is still contrary to dictionary definitions from OED etc. You haven't given good reason for why a definition of atheism should be based on 'weak atheism' - a term which not in common usage, and then against some very tenuous readings that justify your convictions. (20040302 13:48, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC))

You are once again you are citing references supposedly supporting your position when in fact they are not. The OED only supports your assertions because of your personal interpretation. Repeatedly insisting that the OED definition of Atheism states that weak atheism is volitional, is not going to make it so and most of us here are not so easily hoodwinked. Additionally, you choose to ignore many of other credible and neutral encyclopedic and academic references presented here that hold and state plainly (requiring no inferences or assumptions, unlike your OED "support") that Weak Atheism can be non-volitional.

And 20040302, please stop splitting other user's replies here with your own- it makes for a very difficult thread to piece back together and can be viewed as an attempt to weaken opposing views by lessening their impact. I for one object to it strongly.--FeloniousMonk 16:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are once again you are citing references supposedly supporting your position when in fact they are not. This is the beginning of an accusational attack. Can you not be a little more civil? Regardless, your statement is weakened by your reading of the abbreviation 'intrans.' against a verb in a dictionary, which is completely your personal misreading, so you aren't currently in a position to judge interpretations. Secondly, I am quite clearly not claiming that the OED states anything about weak atheism, I never have, and certainly not repeatedly. The OED doesn't even mention weak atheism. What I have consistently claimed is that WA is active - namely volitional. Indeed alt.atheism concurs, as do Adraeus, UVWarning, and others. I wonder if there is anything over the last few archives you would like to ~~strike~~ out? (20040302 10:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Regarding splitting comments, -thank-you for your point, FM. I will bear it in mind, but please understand that the structure of the talk pages sometimes makes it hard to thread these multi-faceted arguments at the best of times. I find it useful to look at timestamps, and sometimes the article history. But I get your point, and in general I try to do my best. NISA obviously needs to be reminded too. He did just that 3 hours after you wrote this. (20040302 10:40, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Yes many folks find the term atheist a pejorative and this perhaps motivates them in seeking to limit the definition so that the meaning covers as few individuals as possible. But this is POV and does not square with the etymology, nor much common usage. Seeking to limit the definition of atheism because one finds the term personally distasteful is exactly like seeking to limit the meaning of the term ‘liberal’ to remove as many folks from its definition as possible because the term is widely seen as a pejorative (in the US, though not elsewhere) --Nick-in-South-Africa 08:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, Bkonrad stated "I do not want to suppress the presentation of such an understanding". If we can get from "don't want to" to "won't", that's one less objection to including that particular POV. And if Sam Spade and 20040302 will chime in, we could actually get editing again! Granted, there may still be some disagreement over which POV gets top billing, but first things first. --Yath 08:35, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bkonrad may think you have misinterpreted him here. I also do not want to suppress the presentation of such an understanding, BUT I also do not want to promote any one understanding as being the sole objective understanding. I hope and trust that one thing that we can agree on is the need to adopt a plural approach to the subject of atheism. Do we not all agree that there are differences of definition and differences of view regarding atheism? Is there anyone here who claims to hold the 'one true' meaning of atheism? (20040302 11:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC))

A more valid question might be 'Are there any atheists who actually fit the theistic interpretation of atheism?' That is "Believe (in a faith sense) that god does not exist? That sounds more like LaVey Satanism, Nihlism or possibly a bizarre kind of Maltheism to me. Before we allow Bigots such as Sam Spade to define the thing they hate, could we check to see that anyone holds that view? Or at least have the statement: "Some Theists believe that Atheists believe that (their) God does not exist." Although that is horribly stilted, it may be the most accurate and NPOV statement. The Rev of Bru

I disagree. The question is not valid, it is completely off-topic. A similar question that addresses what we are discussing is "Are there many people who believe that atheism is denial of the existence of gods?" And of course, there are. They are even in the majority in the United States. Your question is appropriate for a philosophical debate on Usenet, but I can't see how it's related to the current discussion. --Yath 17:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are plenty of positve atheists that hold strong opinons that that no gods exist, Richard Dawkins springs to mind. I would be hesitent to use your language. Faith in the religious sense of believing stuff despite lack of evidence and seeking to make a virtue of it has nothing to do with Dawkin's position or indeed many or even perhaps most rationalists who are atheists. They just dont look at the world in those terms. This quote from Dawkins rather illustrates the point and yet again bears upon the common use of 'atheism' tied up closely with its etymology....

Dawkins wrote "A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy Agnostic. He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative. But "agnostic" on its own might suggest that he though God's existence or non-existence equally likely. In fact, though strictly agnostic about god, he considers God's existence no more probable than the Tooth Fairy's.

Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence.

The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't' have to bother saying so"--Nick-in-South-Africa 02:00, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree Nick. Thank you for making a more eloquent point that I could. Again, I emphasise to others that being a a-unicornist or whatever does not mean that it is a position based on religious faith. The Rev of Bru 13:36, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As above, and in line with your own adherence to etymology, being atheist does not make you a-unicornist, unless you consider unicorns to be gods. There is no onus on anyone to say why they believe in anything they choose. As stated above, I believe in unicorns. I know what they look like. I have even seen them in films. They exist as fictional, socio-mythological entities that appeal to our imaginations. I have told you why I believe in them. Does that make me a unicornist or an a-unicornist? For those who have never encountered the idea of unicorns, according to you they are a-unicornist. How odd. (20040302 13:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Terms such as a-unicornist or a-fairyist or atheist only have meaning in terms of their binary opposition to the other terms unicornist, fairyist, and theist. It seems that some want to try and claim atheist/atheism as the default neutral term without reference to theism. I think they would be better off using some other term that avoids the atheism/theism binary altogether to describe such a neutral pre-binary position in which the question of the existence or belief in god is simply irrelevant. Any utterance of atheism automatically invokes the oppositional term theism. It is simply incoherent to attempt to understand atheism without reference to theism. older≠wiser

People who do not believe in god(s)(desses) are atheists. That is the neutral position. A definition which does not include theism might be 'Someone who does not believe in the existence of supernatural deities.' This also applies to those whose position on gods is that they are irrelevant. The Rev of Bru 14:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Except that the existence of supernatural deities is simply a restatement of theism. And this is a subtle point perhaps, but for persons to have a position on the relevance of gods also invokes the existence/nonexistence binary. What I'm suggesting is some sort of term in which the very question of the existence and belief in gods is irrelevant (or perhaps inconceivable or simply unconceptualized). older≠wiser 15:09, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Precisely. I find the idea of being able to claim that atheism involves no ideas of any sort hard to buy, and indeed would say it dilutes the term to the point of being completely ineffectual. As I argued above 'belief in God' is pretty hard to reject if you interpret God as a sociopolitical myth considered to be useful by some social groups for bringing hope into their lives. Therefore, there must be a requirement for an individual or group to identify the object of negation - namely God - in order to define the atheism that the individual or group subscribes to. The latter part of your comment gets close to the challenge of qualifying (Madhyamaka) Buddhists as atheists. As they don't subscribe to objective truths or existence, dualities that rest on the objective existence of anything, let alone gods, are rendered meaningless. The consequence is that some people may label Madhyamakas as atheist, but if they do so on the grounds of Madhyamaka ideas of existence, then Madhyamakas would be a-everything, which is cognate with nihilist. Nagarjuna and Candrakirti deny this as being a reductive or simplistic interpretation of the Madhyamaka philosophical stance. (20040302 11:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC))

To edit again we don't need full agreement, policy states we just need a majority (which we've already reached on this one point): "There must surely be a point beyond which our very strong interest in being a completely open project is trumped by the interest the vast majority of our writers have, in being able to get work done without constantly having to fix the intrusions of people who do not respect our policy."--FeloniousMonk 09:23, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Guys, you are splitting hairs here. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, after all. I consider myself pretty much an atheist, and I don't see a reason to object to either of the definitions given. The best would be a negative definition, to avoid making a statement what an atheist actually does believe in (because an atheist may still believe in a wide range of things, putting him in categories as diverse as humanist, nihilist, cultist, fascist, pacifist, positivist, naturalis..... but that's neither necessary nor sufficient for his qualification as an atheist): "an atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of God". I don't care what you end up writing, really. Just note that the true difficulty of defining an atheist lies in the difficulty of defining God (i.e. the concept he needs to reject to be qualified as one). For some definitions of God I may actually not be an atheist, but for the purpose of your average evangelist-missionary-at-the-street-corner, I am certainly one, and not insulted to be called one, whether I "lack belief in" or "believe in the imaginary nature of" God. dab 14:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Very wise and well stated, you are a pleasent voice of reason. :) Sam [Spade] 14:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Great, we are getting somewhere. Sam has changed his position by endorsing Dab's comments in which he writes "the best would be a negative definition". Alas Dab's suggested quote does not properly cover negative atheism. The whole point in this faux pas was to ensurue that the general definition of atheist encompasses the meaning of negative, weak atheism as well as strong, positive atheism, as it happens the current definition does just that..."Atheism is the condition of lacking theistic belief."--Nick-in-South-Africa 17:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And what semantic difference to you perceive between "I do not believe in God" and "I lack belief in God", other than that "lack" is suggestive of a defect? Your point is logically fallacious, because in a 'weak' definition, 'strong' atheists are included a fortiori. I.e.: "people who do not believe in God" automatically and logically include "people who are decisively and emphatically opposed to any idea of the existence of God". dab 16:35, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A consensus yes or no ?

All the above aside is there anyone who disagrees now that the exposition of the general definition of the term 'atheist' should include both the positive and negative senses?--Nick-in-South-Africa 19:06, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree UVwarning 20:29, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"is there anyone who disagrees now that the exposition of the general definition of the term 'atheist' should include both the positive and negative senses?"

Definitely. Sam [Spade] 20:36, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... Sam agreeing? That doesn't sound right. What do you have up your sleeve Sam? UVwarning 22:09, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does that help? Sam [Spade] 23:28, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh ic. You are really disagreeing. That makes more sense. UVwarning 00:16, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I thought that implicit atheism was the same as negative/weak atheism, but then I ran across this on the alt.atheism FAQ:

Notes:*On Weak Atheism
"This is often understood as simply lacking the belief in the existence of gods. But it is different from implicit atheism in the respect that the weak atheist calls him- or herself an atheist. The weak atheist does have an attitude towards theism, namely a sceptical one: he or she questions the validity and possibility of theistic claims."

Various types of atheism.

Atheist: one who lacks belief in the existence of gods

Implicit atheist: one who hasn't heard of theism
Explicit atheist: one who knows that he is an atheist
1. Weak (or negative) atheist: one who is sceptical about the belief in gods.*
2. Strong (or positive) atheist: one who actively rejects the existence of gods.**
3. Agnostic: one who thinks we cannot prove or disprove the existence of gods.***
4. Deist: one who doesn't believe in a selfconscious, personal, living god.****
5. Freethinker: one who rejects all kinds of dogmatic belief.*****

I haven't had time to look into this throughly, but just wanted to throw that out there. This kind of makes sense to me, and if implicit atheism is actually not the same as weak atheism then that could explain why we are having different understandings about weak atheism. UVwarning 20:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's mostly correct; however, deism definitely isn't atheistic and agnosticism isn't necessarily atheistic. Smith describes the types more extensively in The Scope of Atheism (IV Varieties of Atheism). Adraeus 22:38, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Its not bad, but the tabulation or bullet point approach is open to parsing. Simple prose may be less so. Here is a stab...

Atheism is a controversial subject and the meaning of the term itself has various interpretations covering a spectrum of views. At one end there are those who assert that there are no gods or no God; often referred to as ‘positive’ or ‘strong’ atheists. The spectrum continues along through sceptics, who are unconvinced by religious claims of divinity to those who are indifferent to any concept of gods or God down to those who are ignorant or even incapable of holding an opinion of the matter. Those atheists less assertive in their claims are often referred to as ‘negative’ or ‘passive’ atheists.

The term ‘atheist’ is also sometimes used to describe one who does not subscribe to the views of the prevailing theology, though they may indeed have theistic beliefs.

Because of this wide interpretation care should be taken in use of the term and in interpreting exactly what is meant when the term is used--Nick-in-South-Africa 22:34, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In that case, ‘atheist’ may be used as an insult or it may be used as a result of poor word choice. The correct word for someone who does not subscribe to the status quo is heretic. Adraeus 22:41, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This particular wishy washiness style is not very good for an encyclopedia. You make it sound like nobody knows what the word means. Almost all words have some fuzziness and multiple meanings. It's better to just state the different meanings. I didn't quite get the part about the tabulation being more open to parsing. I think that the tabulation should be included in addition to the definition. If we were to use the one from the alt.atheism FAQ that I listed above, we should probably remove the agnostic, deist, and freethinker terms. They are not necessary and perhaps not accurate. I propose a simple definition such as: "Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods, or as an active disbelief in the existence of a god or gods." From there it can be explained further with the tabulation etc. UVwarning 00:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Disbelief is a type of atheism, not atheism itself. Atheism is merely the condition of being without theistic beliefs. Adraeus 01:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

According to one definition of atheism. older≠wiser 02:16, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

It's not just one definition of atheism, it also happens to be the common academic and vernacular definition of atheism as shown by the sources and examples cited below in the "Everybody knows what Atheism means" section. You've made it sound like something Adraeus dreamed up after a long night of drinking... --FeloniousMonk 05:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you Adraeus. Lack of theistic beliefs pretty much covers everything. I was just trying to split the definition up to make other people happy, but really I don't care either way b/c either way is correct. UVwarning 05:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree also. That Atheism is merely the condition of being without theistic beliefs is widely supported by academic and vernacular references, including: The Encyclopedia of American Religious History, The Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Agora, the Online Undergraduate Research Journal of Humanities, The Philosophy of Religion website, Encyclopedia of American Religious History.--FeloniousMonk 05:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Everybody knows what Atheism means

Its the active disbelief in God. Now who that God might be has varied over the years, and what criteria "active disbelief" might entail also has varied, but any attempt to broaden the term to include those who are doing nothing active spiritually whatsoever is an unfortunate attempt to broaden the base constituancy, much like if if the Pope declared "all who fail to denounce Roman Catholicism are henceforth to be known as Catholics in good standing". Its an unnacceptable rhetorical trick, which while worthy of mention in the article, needs to be properly clarified for what it is: a minority, partisan view. Sam [Spade] 00:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of unnacceptable rhetorical tricks, I don't suppose you can actually back up this statement? You can't just say "quit arguing because everyone agrees with my position" and expect that to work, especially considering that a significant number of sources have already been cited showing people who don't agree. Bryan 01:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He doesn't even try to back up any of his statements and I don't think he even cares. He is just here to be disruptive. I think it's best that we just ignore him. UVwarning 01:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Adraeus 01:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also agreed--FeloniousMonk 02:11, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed the above statement is one of zip, diddly squat intellectual integrity, even bloody mindedness I'd now go so far as to describe Sam as a [[3]], a pejorative I try to avoid unless it's well deserved. This in the light of his intransigence in the face of what's been said and the extensive sources cited presenting crushing evidence that the Negative definition of atheism congruent with the etymology (a-theism=without theism) is in common use. This together with his contradiction on implicit agreement earlier on the point. It's staggering that he seeks to limit the definition to suit his purposes and the false_analogy is a complete sham. Sam have you no shame! --Nick-in-South-Africa 04:25, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I think a Rfc may be in order. His behaviour is totally against wiki policy. The Rev of Bru

I provided perfectly good references at the start of this debate, and back in January when we last discussed the definition of Atheism, as much good as it has done. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Sam [Spade] 01:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

...especially when the provided water is obviously poisoned by an ignorant theistic bigot. Adraeus 02:03, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC

Behave yourself, please Adraeus. (20040302 11:26, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Sam you did indeed give references much earlier; whatever the virtues of your sources (and that's another issue) others have provided ample well sourced evidence to show that the negative definition is in widespread use and this is supported clearly by the etymology. Let's have a proper analogy. If I assert that all swans are white and support this assertion with 100 photos of only white swans and then you provide evidence that there are indeed plenty of black swans... my 'all swans are white' statement is proven wrong, I can't simply wish the black swans away and bluster through it, or pretend that the black swans are not swans - a textbook example of the No_true_Scotsman fallacy. This is exactly what you are up to--Nick-in-South-Africa 08:39, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here are all the references provided by Sam (under his old username) in the January talk pages: [4] [5] [6] (from Talk:Atheism/Archive 5#Resources, regarding the definition of agnosticism rather than atheism) [7] (from Talk:Atheism/Archive 5#Moved from article regarding the prevalence of atheism rather than its definition), [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] (from Talk:Atheism/Archive 5#read some sources), [13] [14] (from Talk:Atheism/Archive 5#stories shared, regarding atheist persecution of Boy Scouts rather than the definition of atheism), [15] [16] (From Talk:Atheism/Archive 5#Capitalization of G). I wasn't impressed with any of those references then and I'm still not now. Which of these do you consider perfectly good, Sam? Bryan 08:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moving on, I've now scanned through the entirety of archives 8, 9 and 10 and the only references Sam provides in any of them are [17], [18], [19] (from Talk:Atheism/Archive 10#Re:FeloniousMonk, the second two of these are duplicates from the January group of references). I presume you consider the second two to be perfectly good since you reused them from January? Note that they're both actually the same reference, both copied word-for-word from Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. I pointed that out in January too. Bryan 08:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Enough of the character assassination. I do not support many of Sam's views, but that does not mean that I agree with a group of thugs attempting to railroad an issue by such means. It does not help. If you wish to complain about Sam Spade's position, I recommend you use his own user page, or to relavant authorities. This talk area is for the purpose of discussing the article, and certainly NOT about insulting or deprecating one another. FeloniousMonk and I agree that We all need to be respectful. Both sides. Sam Spade is obviously concerned about the article: He has been involved in discussion here for well over a year. I agree that his position is not always the most rational, but that does not mean his position should be relegated to non-existence. Listen to him, attempt to help him express himself in a more NPOV manner, and everyone benefits. (20040302 11:26, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC))

20040302 Well your use of the term "Thugs" is dare I suggest a tad hypocritical on the point you sought to make by using it. I'm surprised the irony of this didn't occur to you when you wrote it and give you pause!

That aside; If Sam's position is irrational it SHOULD most certainly be relegated to non-existence most explicitly and that is precicely the point. My concern is understanding how this process within Wikipedia can work in a usable manner, Im still to fathom this. Reasoning with Sam and presenting sound evidence clearly does not work, reason does not work with the unreasonable and Sam has shown himself to be unreasonable, in the literal sense.--Nick-in-South-Africa 17:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Strangely enough, the concept of rationality is dealt with in the NPOV tutorial, which I recommend to nearly everyone here: What makes the sun rise? Some have said it's Apollo in his chariot. Can a sensible sun article acknowledge such beliefs? Those of you who consider theistic views should not be represented on the atheist page should learn more about the principles of NPOV (20040302 23:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC))

The problem is that Sam wants his POV to be presented as primary or even the only POV in the articles. He's called weak atheism a "bogus term" and considers it to be a lie perpetuated by atheists trying to artificially inflate their numbers, he's tried to rewrite these articles so that they only discuss his particular interpretation of God, etc. I've never had any problem with the atheism article describing the common perception of atheism by theists, but that's not the only thing Sam's after. Bryan 19:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am astounded Bryan. You think that the problem is to do with Sam? I understand his efforts here are biased, but that isn't unique here now is it? Regarding the term 'weak atheism' - well, I am confused now as to how individuals such as FeloniousMonk apply it, but it isn't bogus. It's a term, and it has some usage. However, I personally think that the history and provenance of Atheism is distinct from Weak Atheism. There is a separate article for that. Moreover, all the qualified variants of atheism (including WA, SA, IA, etc.) are clearly not so well-defined if alt.atheism (which has had a much longer provenance for debate than the relative baby of WP) differs from all the sources that you and others kindly provide. That is okay too. Atheism means different things to different people. Although you may be right that Sam would prefer to see a theistic definiton of atheism as dominant, such a stance is just as objectionable (in terms of WP guidelines) as seeing an atheistic definition of atheism as dominant. If we were all willing to follow the WP NPOV as discussed in the tutorial, then Talk:Atheism would not have been the long standing battleground it is. (20040302 21:13, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC))

This section was started by Sam, the discussion that followed was all about Sam's comments, why are you "astounded" that I'm talking about Sam's views here? As for those views themselves, I believe he disagrees with you; he thinks the "atheistic definition of atheism" is a lie. That's a bit different from simply trying to make the "theistic definition" dominant. Bryan 21:51, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with and support Bryan's analysis; there is little more I care to add, other than to say that Sam is far from having made his case for his personal definition atheism being the primary definition and so we are not required to either wait or continue to try to convince him. As he aptly said earlier: "You can lead a horse to water..."

The NPOV policy on Dealing with Biased Contributors states: "Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page (but politely--one gets more flies with honey) and asking others to help. ...There must surely be a point beyond which our very strong interest in being a completely open project is trumped by the interest the vast majority of our writers have, in being able to get work done without constantly having to fix the intrusions of people who do not respect our policy." Additionally, the guidelines state: "When writing about controversial subjects, please write from the neutral point of view. In this way, people with different beliefs can work together productively." I have yet see little of that from several users here, even when they are presented with tens of significant, credible and neutral reference sources showing clearly that their assertions are incorrect, opinions not supported by fact, and positions are clearly in the minority. Absent any counter-support, their claims are then little more than Special Pleadings, and not what the primary definition of an encyclopedic entry of Atheism should consist of. This is what has prevented progress here. Sam's position or anyone else's here that is not widely supported by referring to credible and neutral sources, though in the minority should get mention somewhere in the article as 'an opinion/view shared by a percentage of/many/whatever theists/deists/Rotarians' , or some such. --FeloniousMonk 22:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed they do! It's: "Atheism is the lack of belief in, or the denial of, God or gods." and an Atheist is one who denies or disbelieves the existence of a god or gods, or one who lacks a belief in the existence of a god or gods. This is supported by:

The Encyclopedia of American Religious History: "Atheism, literally the absence of belief in God..."
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.
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.
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.
Encyclopedia of American Religious History: Atheism, literally the absence of belief in God...

--FeloniousMonk 02:11, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Additional References in Support of the Broad Definition

Here's a few new additional academic reference sources I've dug up this evening, supporting the broader definitions of Atheism provided above.

The University of Tennessee, Knoxville [20] "atheism: The belief that no God or gods exist in or beyond the universe (traditional usage). Sometimes defined as an absence of belief in God."

Harvard Human Rights Journal, Vol. 16 Spring 2003 ISSN 1057-5057 [21] "atheism, or what one might call the absence of belief"

Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, Class: Introduction to Theology [22] (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 [23] "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 [24] "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."

University of Arizona, Religious Studies Web Resources [25] For "Atheism Definitions" University of Arizona, Religious Studies, directs readers to infidels.org, which defines atheism as: "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible."

--FeloniousMonk 09:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Surely you don't agree with The University of Tennessee, FM? It seems to agree with Sam Spade that atheism is a 'belief that no God or gods exist? Or are we being plural, and accepting the need to demonstrate differences of view and to qualify those views with sources? I hope it is the latter. Secondly, I note a very US-centric set of sources. Is this because there actually is a local variation of definition? Can anyone here speak with some degree of authority regarding that? I can't. (20040302 11:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Surely you aren't claiming that Theists' biased claim of what Atheism is is relevant? Regarding your claim that the sources are US-Centric - nonsense. If anything the US sources are more biased towards the incorrect, Christian 'definition.' [26] for example. The Rev of Bru

Of course theist's definitions of atheism are relevant, just as are the definitions of atheism held by atheists. Anything else would be biased POV now, wouldn't it? Regarding US-centrism, I thought I made it clear I was ignorant of the issue. (20040302 14:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Absurd. A person either holds theistic beliefs (theist) or does not (atheist). If neither definitions are relevant, then discussion is futile and consensus is impossible. As I've suggested time and time again, the core of the article should be written by atheists since they are far more knowledgeable of the issues than the theists and the theists should remain in a subsection regarding criticism of atheism. I will not agree to anything else. I will not allow this article to be corrupted by unintelligence and theistic bias. That's more than enough slack for NPOVariety. Adraeus 20:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the article should be written by atheists [...] I will not agree to anything else. Such an attitude deviates from Wikipedia policy. Supposedly you have already resigned from editing this article as you were unwilling to engage in dispute resolution. Your mere presence (and that of Andrevan) having refused the DR process should move this article to last resort: Arbitration. You want that? (20040302 23:16, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC))

NPOV policy is flawed. You can move for arbitration if you want. Your movements merely legitimize our protest. When theists describe atheists and claim atheists describing atheism is against NPOV policy, the hypocrisy is evident and denotes a problem with policy. This article cannot conform to your coveted NPOV policy as long as theists continue to attempt to define atheists. This article cannot conform to your sacred NPOV policy as long as theists exist. If you dare to continue defending theistic bias in the atheism article using NPOV policy, I will do the same with the Christianity article and every theistic article that exists in Wikipedia. I will add a definition of Christians and other theists as "deluded schizophrenics diseased with ethnocentric ignorance." According to NPOV policy, that definition is acceptable and defensible using your NPOV policy. After all, two POVs make NPOV, right!? You don't understand the ramifications of your behavior. Adraeus 23:33, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fine. Will do. (20040302 04:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Have to say I agree with and support most of Adraeus' points here, except adding the "deluded schizophrenics" part ;-), but I do get his point. --FeloniousMonk 00:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The University of Tennessee includes both definitions. I think it's clear that FeloniousMonk also wants to include both definitions. Therefore, the UoT's definition supports FM's position, and refutes Sam's disbelief-only definition. --Yath 14:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. It appears that we may be coming towards some consensus at last. If we can agree upon a multiplicity of qualified definitions, then most of our discussion will be over. I am under the impression that as long as the definition of atheism as "mere lack of belief" (aka implicit atheism on alt.atheism ) is qualified, just as other views (including that of the various theistic views), Sam will have no problem with that. Unfortunately, while contributers continue to use unqualified (ie apparently objective, factual) claims about the correctness/incorrectness of other definitions, we will remain here till the sun dies, (or in Sam's case, until rapture comes). (20040302 14:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Based on what sam has said in the past, I'm skeptical that sam would even agree to that definition. At this point, however, I don't really care what he thinks. As far as what everyone else thinks, you're probably not going to get a consensus supporting that definition. It states too much opinion about the usages of the word that is inconsistent with the rest of acedemia. I don't mind qualifing things, but we need a more neutral definition. I would support the following qualified definition: "Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in god or gods, commonly used in the vernacular to mean the belief that no God or gods exist." I think this is fair. It does not downgrade the vernacular definition. UVwarning 17:11, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Atheism is the condition of being without theistic beliefs." That is a more accurate wording and fair; it does not preclude other categories of atheism. Note that such a wording is different from "lacking theistic beliefs" since "lacking" refers to a void needing fulfillment (inadequateness), which is inherently theistic unless, of course, we consider the God Module. Adraeus 20:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What if I replaced the word "lack" with the word "absence?" UVwarning 21:26, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Absence" still implies a void needing fulfillment. For instance, the child was absent from school. The definition I provided is extremely accurate and concise. I don't see why you object to it. A condition is a state. Since humans are born as atheists, the term "condition" is appropriate being applicable to all atheistic thought. Adraeus 23:08, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Any term that you use is going to define a void, including the word without. The baby is without his pacifier has the same feeling as the child was absent from school. UVwarning 23:49, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's not so definitionally. Adraeus 23:50, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Umm.. ok. Anyone else want to chime in here? UVwarning 23:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You guys make my head hurt. Too bad, Sam's already agreed to "Atheism is the lack of belief in, or the denial of, God or gods." here. --FeloniousMonk 00:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I'll chime in. Adraeus, I find that your disdain and/or misunderstanding of NPOV policy (as evidenced here) is blatantly counter to the spirit of Wikipedia, and is the sort of counterproductive behavior that is absolutely not needed here. NPOV applies most assuredly to this article, since, unlike the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, the nature of atheism is defined only by usage, and therefore must be reported as it is used. I don't care if the roots ('a' and 'theism'), neutrally translated, mean simply 'without belief'; millions upon millions of people use the word for another meaning and they are, by definition, correct. Furthermore, 'absence' does not imply a void waiting to be filled, and your insistence otherwise above implies that you are beginning to flail. I recommend you step back for about a week, take many deep breaths, and come back when you've managed to relax a bit.

Most importanly, understand this: the fact that Christians have redefined the word 'atheism' to advance their particular agenda by sneaking in the unstated assumption that belief in God is the default state of humankind, while annoying, is no excuse for the behavior you are engaging in here. --Yath 01:08, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't really agree with this - firstly I don't think that Christians have succeeded in redefining the word, and secondly, I don't think people would be so comfortable if it was Islam that was being redefined - fundamentally (IMO), people who call themselves X-ist should be allowed to define X-ism. What's happening here is we're allowing a group of people to redefine a term that another group use to describe themselves. Am I, all of a sudden, not an atheist anymore because some Christians don't think I am?

I think "without belief" "absence of belief" and "lack of belief" are all acceptable terms, but the broad definition should stand. bokkibear 01:15, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For entirely practical reasons I have to say I agree with bokkibear here that "without belief" "absence of belief" and "lack of belief" are all acceptable terms, for at least making some progress on reaching consensus. But if we could work past whatever obstructions there are, I would actually prefer something along the lines of Adraeus' definition - "Atheism is the condition of being without theistic beliefs." as being factually accurate and free of tacit theistic assumptions.

Any statements of Adraeus' previous to 11/5 aside, As I state below I find Adraeus to be less disruptive as those here who here who held up consensus and progress with their refusal to accept credible, neutral references as definitive, relying instead exclusively on special pleadings. We've reached more consensus on the basic definition in the last two days (despite Adraeus' allegedly disruptive presence) than we've had in the last two weeks.--FeloniousMonk 08:16, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The problem with "lack of..." is the noun form of "lack" is defined as "the state of needing something that is absent or unavailable." Its synonyms include "deficiency" and "want." Is atheism the condition of wanting theistic beliefs? No. The problem with "absence" is its definition is "failure to be present." Is atheism the condition of failing to hold theistic beliefs? No. "Without" is generally applicable and semantically acceptable. Other than that, I agree with you. Adraeus 01:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that Christians have succeeded in redefining the word - ask any Christian in the United States, and there are over 100 million of them, what an atheist is, and they will say someone who denies the existence of God. Look in any U.S. dictionary, and under 'atheist' it starts with that definition.

Am I, all of a sudden, not an atheist anymore because some Christians don't think I am? - this isn't about what you really are, it's about points of view. If you consider yourself a weak atheist, then from the Christian point of view, you are a somewhat confused agnostic. You may not like their opinion, and I would agree that they are wrong, but that's too bad. The article needs to cover this. And your point of view.

people who call themselves X-ist should be allowed to define X-ism - there is no such policy, and this just muddies the waters. Wherever possible, Wikipedia attempts to do this. Where there is widespread disagreement (e.g. micronation) we muddle along as best we can, being careful to include... wait for it... multiple points of view.

--Yath 01:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yath defends my right to include an alternate view of Christians in Christianity as "deluded schizophrenics diseased with ethnocentric ignorance." Thanks, Yath. I knew you were a team player. Like I said before, misperceptions do not make for reasonable redefinitions. If some group sees atheism is evil, let them believe atheism is evil. That is their Point of View. Adraeus 01:42, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That almost follows from what I said, except that this viewpoint is held only by an insignificant minority. And with all due respect, I doubt you seriously believe it. 50% of Americans go to church, and 95% say they believe in God. Characterizing 95% or even 50% of a nation as clinically insane is ridiculous. You are just venting steam here. We are not your psychoanalyst. Go find someone to talk to, and quit poisoning the well. --Yath 02:06, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Adraeus, will you please agree to conform to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines? If not, Yath (or anyone else) will you second me on a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adraeus concerning his destructive behaviour on what is already a very difficult discussion? (20040302 04:10, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC))

I disagree with your characterizations of Adraeus above. He has been far less disruptive than a number of others here who intentionally and perhaps cynically withhold consensus, and thereby progress here, despite a complete lack of support for their position and POV. I grant that Adraeus may come across as snippy at times, but the points he makes here are valid. I've yet to see be as disruptive as those here who here who insist on remaining willfully obtuse in their refusal to accept credible, neutral references as being definitive and thereby insisting on personal definitions that amount to no more than special pleadings based on ideology, a priori reasoning, or simple bigotry. I would oppose your RFC as being frivolous and lacking sufficient cause. It smacks of censorship to me. Let's make our respective cases on their merits, not a cynical application of the policies. --FeloniousMonk 07:31, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, let me make myself clear. Wikipedia is a project with a purpose. It is not a discussion group, or site for advertising ideologies. With that in mind, any contributer who purposely sets out to subvert the Wikipedia policies and guidelines is involved in destructive behaviour regarding the Wikipedia project. I do not wish to characterise Adraeus in my remarks, and Yath can speak for himself. All I am asking is what I implicitly expect all contributers to assent to: namely, to conform to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Adraeus has implicitly stated that he does not wish to conform to the WP policies and guidelines, by explicitly stating that one of them, NPOV, is flawed. I am merely asking him to explain his position and to publicly affirm (or deny) his commitment to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Adraeus, I am asking you to respond. (20040302 12:10, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC))

FeloniousMonk, regarding special pleadings, may I refer you to the article where it mentions reference to vocabulary that is owned by a distinct community with sole rights to assess meaning and application. Is this not actually the stance held by Adraeus? As for the rest of your charge, it is unfocussed enough to be nothing more than a tirade. Most of the threads over the last few days are left hanging on unanswered questions. For instance, I no longer know what your definition of Weak Atheism is. Could you tell me your stance on eg. the FAQ at alt.atheism regarding Weak Atheism? (20040302 12:18, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Wikipedia guidelines tell us to assume good faith, which is not what you are doing with Adraeus. They also enjoin us to work to consensus here. From my perspective Adraeus seems no more unwilling to accommodate differing views on the facts than have been you, bkonrad and Sam for the last three weeks... I mean, what do you say about those who repeatedly ignore all evidence presented here, literally 15 + cites from significant, credible and neutral reference sources showing clearly that their assertions and definitions are incorrect or highly dubious, their opinions not supported by fact or scholarship, and their positions are clearly a minority among the learned and knowledgeable?

This goes to what you term my unfocused "tirade". As reference sources, The Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, The Encyclopedia of American Religious History, The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion, and the New Dictionary of Religions all support my position and are consistent with that of Adraeus. They either explicitly state, or define Atheism consistently with: "Atheism is the lack of belief in, or the denial of, God or gods." They are all definitive and unassailable primary sources. They want for no gravitas or relevancy. You and others here have ignored and willfully refused to recognize them and the definition of Atheism they present. I said some weeks ago you did so at your own risk, it is little more than obstinate obstructionism. Instead of presenting equally weighty counter-references to support your position we've seen specious logic, highly personal definitions of "disbelieve" and "withhold", and a resurrected ill-conceived, failed Request for Mediation.

I define Weak Atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods. And you've got it backward when it comes to special pleadings and Atheism; the 'distinct community' that thinks it 'owns the vocabulary' are those that insist on a narrow, biased definition of Atheism. Generally they are theists. The fact that the position/definition of Adraeus, Bryan, Nick and myself align precisely with the all of those encyclopedic references I listed in the paragraph before, means that those seeking "unexplained claims of exemption from principles commonly thought relevant to the subject matter" are the one's making the special pleading, in other words, your camp. --FeloniousMonk 06:23, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with FeloniousMonk. Adraeus 07:22, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regarding good faith and Adraeus, I am asking him to explain his activities; this was in no way meant as a threat. The article is basically protected now due to him removing my edits in the name of vandalism. He has walked out of DR, and he claims that WP policy regarding NPOV is flawed. I have great faith in Adraeus. It is unfortunate that he is yet to offer an explanation for his activities, and I am yet to hear an answer regarding his commitment to the WP guidelines. That is all I asked for. Attempting to justify his position by pointing out the flaws of others isn't particularly strong.

My position has always remained consistent. Check it through the wads of archive we have here: To reach an NPOV concensus that reflects the different views and usages of atheism in the world; this necessarily includes the views that you (et al) have, but it also includes many more views that you wish to denigrate because you don't share them. Secondly, on the Internet, 15 citations hardly counts for overwhelming majority. As of today, google returns 670,000 results for Atheism, and 855,000 for Atheist. The OED and other major dictionaries differ from your definitions - yet you have yet to justify ignoring them. Most dictionaries that do allow your definition of atheism place it as a secondary definition, not a primary one. Moreover, the term was coined by theists, yet you and others wish to deny theists a voice regarding a term they coined.

You appear to be confused about interpretations of many of these sources: I am concerned about your understanding of English grammar, regarding intransitive verbs. This is a serious charge, but it is unfortunately justified in the strange views regarding issues of withholding and disbelief (you are still yet to tell me whether or not you consider disbelief to be a synonym of lack of belief, and if so, why you object to it so strongly in a WP definition of atheism). My arguments are far from specious. Most of them have been merely ignored. My definition of disbelief comes directly from a scan of the OED - the largest and most respected English dictionary in the world, and you call my definition highly personal? Regarding the definition of atheism, I concur that the most popular definition of Atheism: ""Atheism is the disbelief in, or the denial of, God or gods."" As I have said before, a lot of this debate revolves around your specious logic of attempting to have your cake and eat it. You still haven't dealt with a fundamental dilemma directly derived from your assertions: Either you agree with me that disbelief and lack of belief are not synonymous, OR you agree with me that the definition as I just stated is acceptable, in that it is synonymous with yours and helps us to move on from this otherwise perpetual debate, because I agree with the latter, but not the former. Personally, I feel that it would be stronger and more encylcopedic to qualify any definition with sources, which would eliminate most of this dire struggle, but if you consider 'disbelief' to be synonymous with 'lacking belief', then there should be nothing intrinsicly wrong with: ""Atheism is the disbelief in, or the denial of, God or gods.""

Regarding WA, thank-you. I asked for your opinion regarding the definition of WA, and I got it, though I remain intruiged regarding your opinions of the FAQ at alt.atheism - would you care to comment? Also, I don't really think that talking of camps is going to help much. If you read my comments from a couple of days ago regarding my beliefs, I think you may find it hard to call me a theist. Though you may find it hard to call me an atheist too. Regarding special pleadings, I just think we better agree to differ. From what I can understand of your position, it looks like you (and, fairly, Sam) are attempting to seek "unexplained claims of exemption from principles commonly thought relevant to the subject matter", whereas I have been requesting inclusion from the word go. (20040302 01:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Well, to your eyes 15 may not be a huge number of supporting references, but it's 15 more than you've provided to make your case here. And you still continue to ignore each of the academic references provided here, instead resting your entire argument on a flawed understanding of a single dictionary definition: "Atheism is the disbelief in, or the denial of, God or gods." It is your personal, unique definition of "disbelief" that is the cause of the disagreement here, as I shall demonstrate. It has always been my position that the OED definition and other dictionary definitions I've provided support the broad definition of Atheism; indeed, I was the one who first presented the OED and all other dictionary definitions here.

In the passive sense, "disbelieve" simply means "not believe" - thus a person who disbelieves a claim may simply not accept the truth of the claim without going any further, like asserting the opposite. This is the broadest sense of atheism, lacking belief in any gods. Thus, the common, broad definition of Atheism (my position), the lack of belief in, or the denial of, God or gods. is wholly consistent with the definition found in the OED. In the active sense, "disbelieve" involves deliberately refusing to believe something (possible reasons might include a lack of evidence or an incoherent claim). Once again, however, this is not the same as asserting that the claim is false and represents a slightly narrower version of weak atheism. [27]

Additionally, as evidence of my position that the OED supports my position on disbelief, not yours, consider this... We all know the definition of Atheism presented on About.com: "atheism: broadly defined, it is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods." That is also the position of myself and Adraeus, Nick, Bryan, UVwarning, GDarwin, The Rev of Bru, and others. Now note that here, About.com cites the OED definition as supporting this position, not your's. [28] This also supports my claim that your method of defining disbelieve is highly personal and again, demonstrating that it is you who is making the "unexplained claims of exemption from principles commonly thought relevant to the subject matter". --FeloniousMonk 06:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am angnostic and in no way am I an atheist. Can I not say that. Can I not define what I want to be called? are you so short-sighted, to call Yath wrong? It is not a Christian conspiracy. --The Sunborn

We're not discussing agnosticism. Explain the relevance of your statement. Adraeus 0--metta, The Sunborn ☸ 00:12, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)1:59, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

yes you are you are equating angnosticism with weak atheism, and therefore atheism in general. If you consider weak atheism, atheism, then you must consider agnosticism atheism too. Jeebus, can't you people keep up with your own arguments. Well I don't blame anyone, this is one big mess. --The Sunborn

No, I am not equating agnosticism (please spell it correctly) with weak atheism. Read agnosticism. Read atheism. While atheism and agnosticism overlap, they are NOT the same. That's even acknowledged in the article which I reworded for optimal clarity. One should also realize that weak atheism and strong atheism are categories of atheism, not atheism itself. Agnosticism regards how one believes, not what they believe, disbelieve or lack belief in. The equivalence of agnosticism with weak atheism is an impossibility and any allusions to such an equivalence are simple misunderstandings of atheism and agnosticism. Again, agnosticism describes how one believes, disbelieves, or lacks beliefs while atheism/theism describes what one believes, disbelieves, or lacks beliefs in. Adraeus 12:04, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree, agnosticism is in the trinary with atheism and theism. In answering the question: "Does any god exist?" theism—"yes", atheism—"no", and agnosticism—"maybe" or "it doesn't matter". If you call me an atheist just because I don't firmly believe that a god exists then you are no better than Sam who says that you are not atheist because you don't firmly believe in a god. Like I said almost a week ago here, we need someone who has no invested interest to decide what is written. Best of all is if all sides are mentioned. --The Sunborn

Atheists are without theistic beliefs. Theists are with theistic beliefs. Agnostic atheists are without theistic beliefs yet are uncertain of their position. Agnostic theists are with theistic beliefs yet are uncertain of their position. Agnosticism regards how, not what, one believes, disbelieves, or doesn't believe. Your disagreement stems from your misunderstanding of both atheism and agnosticism. Quite silly of you to present your opinion when you've obviously not done the slightest bit of research... even when references have been provided to you. Adraeus 01:07, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agnosticism is not a "third position" between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge - it describes the position of a person who can not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; an agnostic theist. Or, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; an agnostic atheist.--FeloniousMonk 05:07, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wow. Everyone keeps swapping their POV so fast that it's hard to keep up. I'm an atheist, and I would have described myself as a strong atheist, except that now I'm no longer certain. I explicitly reject a God or gods, but only as a consequence of believing that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Since atheism is restricted by definition to 'without god', it seems to be only a subset of my belief. But then again, 'weak atheism' – lack of belief in gods – and 'implicit atheism' – unawareness that there is the possibility that there are gods to believe in – are explicitly not things that I subscribe to, and I consider to be separate mindsets. As they are distinct, then atheism becomes a term that is essentially a negative term that may be applied by theists to identify those that fall outside their belief set. In this sense, I think I agree with Sam: atheism only makes sense when used in an exclusionist sense, and that if I want to describe my more specific belief, then it is up to me to pick a term that defines an active statement of my position. So I now seem to have argued myself into the position that I can't claim that I'm an atheist: it is only something that can be claimed about me by someone who is a theist. Therefore, 'ownership' of the term lies in the hands of theists. This is different from current vernacular usage, so I think that the distinction that the article has to make is the one between strict etymological usage, and usage in the vernacular. Gradations of atheism seem to me to be missing the point, because they are all hijacking the word to give lables to entirely different concepts. Thank-you, and goodnight. Noisy | Talk 04:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rubbish. Pure rubbish. I'm not going to bother repeating the same things over and over again. Read the archives. Adraeus 12:04, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please contain yourself, Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:Civility are a must here. The fact that people keep saying the same things, and you keep[ failing to respect them tells me something. Not all who call themselves Atheists are "True believers", but obviously some are. Fanatical, fundamentalist atheism is less, not more freethinking than Theism. Sam [Spade] 13:37, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Respect is earned, not freely given to whomever has an opinion, especially not to those with flaky unsubstantiated opinions. Additionally, etiquette and civility are irrelevant to criticism of opinion. I'm not going to "contain" myself from argument. You'd like that but that's not going to happen... ever. Adraeus 20:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Funny you should cite Wikipedia:Civility here, Sam, since you seem to have ignored that same policy when you sent me your vulgar and insulting email using the wikipedia email function and then violated it again in your edit summary when you removed my reply to you from your Talk page: "23:14, 5 Nov 2004 Sam Spade (Regarding your email to me - :I also said you were ignorant)"[29]. Knowing you've called an editor "ignorant" just yesterday, your lecturing Adraeus for calling an argument "rubbish" is hypocritical. Please try to 1) refrain from personal insults directed me or any other editors, 2) practice what you preach. At least I remember from my christian academy days one thing useful, John 8:7 would apply here, it seems.--FeloniousMonk 16:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reading the no personal attacks policy, though current policy on insulting characterizations of editors is plain (it's not allowed), the policy on characterizing arguments or positions is undefined. This is the "suggested" policy at this time: "Personal attacks do not include... Claims explicitly limited to edits. "This edit is stupid" is not a personal attack. 'You are stupid" is." It would seem to me that this distinction should be apparent to most reasonable editors, and would serve as a common sense SOP here.

Regarding the existing policy on personal attacks, it clearly states that "Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded." Sam, your edit summary calling me "ignorant" was indeed in violation of the policy, as is this edit summary of your's calling another editor a troll. This needs to stop.--FeloniousMonk 18:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think your comment is pretty much indicative of how wrongheaded this whole talk page has gotten; with advocates on both sides trying to out-shout one another and tell each other that only their version of the term can be referenced, nobody's going to accomplish anything except confuse people who aren't already true believers one way or the other. Anyways: as far as I can tell, your position would be described as strong atheism; the dismissal of all suprenatural concepts would also make you a rationalist or a Bright. -Sean Curtin 03:20, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this talk page certainly confused me, with regard to my stance over atheism, but it made me think things through. Having followed the links, I think that I would plump for either rationalist or bright over strong atheism as a self-description. Thanks. Noisy | Talk 19:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This issue seems like it will never be solved. Although letting theists define atheism is much like letting a McCarthyist define communism. There are many misconceptions tossed around by theists from concepts like atheism is a religion or an ultimate reality, to atheists are immoral or merely deny the truth about God. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god or gods. Nothing else unifies atheism. There are rational atheists and irrational atheists. There are atheists who believe in reincarnation, and those who believe nothing happens after death. There are dogmatic atheists who are raised atheist by their parents, but have never really thought it out. There are atheists who believe in materialism and there are those who do not.

I liked the suggestion that atheists define atheism, and the theists can use a section to refute the atheist position. But, from the looks of this long discussion, it doesn't look like the theists are going to be satisfied with this. Another suggestion was to put both definitions up at the same time as a numbered list. This seems to be the best compromise I can see. The theists can argue as much as they want about controlling the definition, but the same thing will happen on the atheist's side, and nothing will come of it. This talk session will continue on indefinitely, much like the atheist chat boards where theists argue over the atheist position. --GDarwin 07:51, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unprotection of article

Due to complete lack of progress on coming to a consensus on this article, I have decided to take a different role. In doing so, I am creating a conflict of interest and must remove myself from any further attempts at impartial dispute resolution. Since I requested protection of the article page for the purpose of dispute resolution, I have now requested that it be unprotected. If anyone wishes to have it protected again, they may make a separate request. Best of luck in resolving your differences. Skyler 1534 04:01, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Skyler, in what capacity were you doing dispute resolution before, anyway? You're not a mediator or an arbitrator. Anyway, I think your request should by no means be granted - consensus still doesn't exist for this article. Andre (talk) 04:04, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I had no official capacity (which I did state once or twice for the record). I am simply user concerned about the integrity of Wikipedia. Skyler 1534 04:26, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Andrevan. By the way, the existence of a dispute resolution is lacking for a war continues to rage between the wizards and the trolls. Should that shield of protection be disarmed, the battlefield would expand to a place of superior importance. Adraeus 04:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Intro proposal #22b

Atheism is defined as either denial of the existence of God, or the absence of belief in deities. Self-proclaimed atheists tend to adhere to the second definition, and divide it further into strong and weak atheism. Modern dictionaries emphasize the first definition.

The subtle differences between these definitions can lead to miscommunication. For example, a person who does not believe in God due to ignorance or lack of concern would be called agnostic by someone who espouses the atheism-as-denial definition. A user of the other definition would call this person an atheist. These approaches are indicative of the underlying beliefs of the observers: since theists know that God exists, anyone who does not is best described as without knowledge—or agnostic. Those who argue that the default position, barring evidence to the contrary, is that no gods exist, find it absurd to discuss the knowledge, or lack thereof, of nonexistent entities. They find that it is more appropriate to state that the subject lacks what the theist has (i.e., theism), and therefore should be called an atheist.

more chum for troubled waters -- Yath 05:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a pretty reasonable summary of the dispute, I'd accept this as an NPOV intro. The other details can be left to the body of the article and/or the strong/weak articles. Bryan 06:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Definitely fair. --The Sunborn

Certainly better than what is currently there. Although not perfect, it's a good starting point. My main complaint would be it doesn't cover the fact many agnostic and/or non-religious non-theists don't consider themselves atheists either, and instead makes it sound like only theists hold the first position. Shane King 06:51, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

You misstate, or more accurately- incorrectly imply, what agnosticism is in this paragraph. Agnosticism is merely "the position or doctrine that God is unknown and answers to questions of God unknowable.", not the position that "(one)...does not believe in God due to ignorance or lack of concern..." or "without knowledge". Considering the amount of actual knowledge about God, by your"without knowledge"' definition of agnosticism, every theist then qualifies as an agnostic, as does every atheist, whereas in reality, only some theists are indeed agnostic, as are only some atheists. If agnosticism were to be referenced in the intro, the correct definition should at least be used. Your suggestion needs a lot more work, it's muddled and factually incorrect. Introducing agnosticism into the intro of atheism is opening another can of worms, particularly when it leads off with a nuanced, incorrect, definition of agnosticism. I cannot support this particular intro.

My counter-proposal is this intro, which is factually accurate, simple, and well-supported by academic and common reference sources:

Atheism is the lack of belief in, or the denial of, God or gods. Some consider Atheism to be a state of merely lacking beliefs in God or gods, while others consider Atheism to be the active disbelief or denial of God or gods. Some religious communities consider the term to be cognate with Infidel and atheist can be found being used in a pejorative manner.

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. The most common form of atheism is simply the negation of theism. A person 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."

That's my suggested intro to the Atheism article.--FeloniousMonk 07:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I like this version better than Andre's, below. Lose the caps on Strong and Weak Atheism, and add something about "implicit atheism" and it's a goer. Noisy | Talk 19:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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." Edit: I intended to submit a counter-proposal but I think that rationality will overcome whatever foul biases with which certain users want to inject the article. My "counter-proposal" will come in the form of a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to atheism education instead. Here's a slightly improved version of FeloniousMonk's first paragraph:

"Defined differently across an array of organizatons, atheism varies from an unbelief in a god (or gods) to a positive belief in the nonexistence of a god (or gods.) Atheism as a “condition of being without theistic beliefs” reflects common academic usage while atheism as belief is exclusively used by both atheist and theist activists alike. Some communities consider atheists cognate with “infidels” and sometimes label others "atheists" pejoratively."

Adraeus 08:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Andre's solution

Andre (talk) Here's my suggestion, incorporating elements of both proposals:

Atheism is defined alternately as either denial of the existence of God, or the absence of belief in any deities. Self-proclaimed atheists and those who literally interpret the a of the word atheism as not tend to accept both definitions, defining the former as strong and the latter as weak atheism. Many modern dictionaries provide one or both definitions. However, the active denial definition is more well-known among the general populace. Some theistic communities consider atheists cognate with "infidels" and sometimes label others "atheists" pejoratively, although groups of atheists have somewhat sarcastically called themselves "infidels" as well.

The subtle differences between these definitions can lead to miscommunication. For example, a person who does not believe in God due to ignorance or lack of concern would merely be called secular, not atheistic, by one who espouses the atheism-as-denial definition. However, one who accepts the broader, more inclusive definition would call this person a weak atheist. Supporters of the inclusive definition argue that the default position, i.e., at birth without religious upbringing, is the lack of belief in God or gods.

Revised. Andre (talk) 22:16, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I think this one is more NPOV and even-handed without being confusing. Andre (talk) 15:34, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I can live w this one. Sam [Spade] 16:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is an improvement, though I honestly haven't been following all the back-and-forth on this page that closely over the last couple of days. A few minor points:

Since some atheists have (ironically) adopted the term "infidel" as a self-description (i.e., Infidels.org), I'm not sure what the point of mentioning that term here is.
I think the phrase as do many academics and linguists who literally interpret the a of the word atheism as not. is unnecessary here and contributes to inelegant prose. It is covered adequately and more appropriately in the etymology section.
Because of this, this active denial definition is more well-known among the general populace presupposes a cause-and-effect relationship that is highly debatable. In general, most modern dictionaries attempt to describe current usage. However, it is also undoubtably true that dictionary definitions have some effect on popular usage. But it is problematic to state it as a simple cause-effect.

How about this:

Atheism is defined alternately as either denial of the existence of God, or the absence of belief in any deities. Self-proclaimed atheists tend to accept both definitions, describing the former as strong and the latter as weak atheism. For many theistic communities, atheist is a perjorative label and some theists use the term to describe any person who does not share their faith in a particular conception of God.

older≠wiser 16:50, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I like Andre's version alot better, yours neglects the stance of neutral parties, such as dictionaries and most books of reference (which side w the "theistic" definition), as well as acedemia and linguists (who at least theoretically subscribe to the inclusive atheistic definition). Sam [Spade] 17:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aside from the question of whether any distionary or other boooks of reference are (or even can be) truly "neutral", the extra verbiage just makes the definition that much more difficult to parse without really adding much. I could go along with mentioning dictionary definitions, but I couldn't come up with a neutral phrasing that wasn't verbose. older≠wiser 17:44, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

The definitions of Atheism provided in The Encyclopedia of American Religious History: "Atheism, literally the absence of belief in God..." and that in 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." do not support the narrow definition. Neither do dictionaries that define Atheism as "Atheism is the disbelief in, or the denial of, God or gods." The definition of "disbelief" allows for the agnostic, weak atheistic and strong atheistic definitions: a) "doubt about the truth of something" and b) "rejection of belief." No dictionary defining Atheism thusly can be claimed to exclusively support the narrow, theistic definition as you state here. --FeloniousMonk 19:22, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I applaud Andre's swack at the intro here, but the following two statements make characterizations that are poorly defined and still want for supporting evidence:

"Because of this, this active denial definition is more well-known among the general populace."

That it is indeed the more "well-know" definition has not been established. I have yet to see any citations or other evidence that this is indeed the case, and I have seen evidence that it is not. I propose we avoid the issue of unsubstantiated characterizations by leaving them out altogether. Andre's solution would be improved in accuracy and tone by dropping this sentence, while still carrying the same meaning.

"Self-proclaimed atheists tend to accept both definitions, defining the former as strong and the latter as weak atheism, as do many academics and linguists who literally interpret the a of the word atheism as not."

Is it really only atheists or academics who use this definition? That has yet to be established here. Again, dropping the attribution to the various groups would avoid the issue of substantiation and eliminate a potential bone of contention.

Additionally, we need to remain consistent here to the common definition of agnosticism: "Agnosticism is the position or doctrine that God is unknown and answers to questions of God unknowable." Agnosticism is not the position that "(one)...does not believe in God due to ignorance or lack of concern..." or "without knowledge". If agnosticism must be referenced in the intro, the correct definition should at least be used, and presented in contrast to atheism to help the reader understand the difference between the two, thusly: 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.

Attributed perceptions of groups or individuals like a person who does not believe in God due to ignorance or lack of concern are generalizations and make for a confusing intro. I'd suggest again we just stick to facts in the intro, and define other's perceptions and critical POVs in a separate section.--FeloniousMonk 19:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Felonious Monk is correct but I do have a feeling of deja vu here. Much of Andre's definition is spectulation on POV and as such best detailed in the body and not the general definition of the intro. I feel that agnosticism should similarly not be covered in the intro, rather in the body of the article. The entry is about atheism not agnosticism. Stripping out the POV speculation which is covered in the article we are left with this which is very clear and NPOV and has been supported by the all too numerous sources cited:

"Atheism is the denial of the existence of any God or simply the absence of belief in any God. the former is often described as as strong and the latter as weak atheism."

--Nick-in-South-Africa 19:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk and Nick, I would really rather just do what you guys are suggesting. However, we're trying to come to a compromise here. I'm on your side, remember? At any rate, I agree with FeloniousMonk's suggestions... see revis Andre (talk) 22:16, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Nice try, andre

Dang, I thought we were getting somewhere. Nice try andre, it looks like the POV pushers have no interest in compromise. I'll check back in a month or so ;) Sam [Spade] 19:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bitter characterizations of other editors here like that do not help us reach consensus, are not in the spirit of wikipedia, and harm how others here are going to perceive you. Nor is sneaky editing of the article while we're still diligently discussing it and before all participants have had a chance to weigh in. Both of your actions appear very anti-social and possibly trollish.--FeloniousMonk 20:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's funny, Sam... considering you have the strongest and most fallacious bias here. Adraeus 20:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see after all that has gone Sam Spade (the current name he is using) has decided to try to impose a view without reaching a consensus and specifically without answering the point 3 of us made about the inclusion of POV exposition in the intro. I think this is not on, especially in the light of Sam's recent conduct both on this section and in his abusive and obscene e-mail to Felonious Monk which I have yet to see any kind of apology for. This sort of beyond the pale behaviour to my mind forfeits him the right of assuing others take his comments as said in good faith. The faux naïf comment above only adds to the tally of woe. He will only be redeemed in my eyes for one if he makes a full and unconditional apology here for this conduct. --Nick-in-South-Africa 21:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One more swack at it:

Atheism is the lack of belief in, or the denial of, God or gods. Some consider Atheism to be a state of merely lacking beliefs in God or gods, while others consider Atheism to be the active disbelief or denial of God or gods. Some religious communities consider the term to be cognate with Infidel and atheist can be found being used in a pejorative manner.

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, the term encompasses two meanings. The one form of atheism is simply the negation of theism. A person 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."

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 removed phrases that others have taken issue with and added a paragraph describing the confusion around interpreting the common dictionary definition.--FeloniousMonk 21:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at my original up there, it's newly revised. Andre (talk) 22:16, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's much improved! We're getting close now.--FeloniousMonk 23:37, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reprotection

Article reprotected by request. Adraeus 21:37, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yet another proposal

Atheism is defined alternately as either denial of the existence of God, or the absence of belief in any deities. Self-proclaimed atheists tend to accept both definitions, defining the former as strong and the latter as weak atheism, as do those who literally interpret the prefix "a-" of the word atheism as "not" (this group includes many academics and linguists). Many modern dictionaries emphasize the first definition of active denial, as do many self-proclaimed theists and theologians. Some theistic communities consider atheist a cognate of "infidels" and occasionally use the word "atheist" as a pejorative.

Because of the competing definitions, agnostics (that is, those who hold the epistemological position that truths concerning God, a god, or gods cannot be known) are held to be atheists by under the "absence of belief" definition and are not considered atheists under the "active denial" definition. The competing definitions also raise the question of whether humans are naturally atheist. According to the "absence of belief" definition, a newborn baby is atheist (that is, it lacks belief in God, a god, or gods) until and unless it chooses otherwise. According to the "active denial" definition, children are born without any position (they do not actively believe or disbelieve, and they do not hold the epistemological position of an agnostic).

I have tried to do justice to everyone's positions....as a result, I am sure it will please no one. But I hope it's closer than previous attempts (which this is based on, in part). Jwrosenzweig 22:14, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Remove "self-proclaimed." Self-identification is inherent to labeling systems.
Most academics and linguists accept that the prefix "a-" means "without" or "no"; in both cases, "without theism" and "no-god-ism" is equivalent.
Again, removed "self-proclaimed." Sounds haughty.
"as a pejorative" can be efficiently replaced with "pejoratively." Go through your proposal and minimize the number of words. Simple is best.
Agnosticism is irrelevant to the introduction of atheism. Perhaps a subsection devoted to the crossing of atheism and agnosticism would be more appropriate?
"lack of" should be replaced with "condition of being without" for increased precision.
"lacking beliefs" has two interpretations. As an adjective, "lacking" refers to a deficiency and thus infers that atheism is the condition of wanting theistic beliefs, which is not so.
"newborn baby" should be more specific such as "newborn human baby." I would just say "...all humans are born as atheists..." to avoid subjective connotations of the term "baby."

Adraeus 22:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would argue for the inclusion of self-proclaimed in this instance because we are dealing with the definition of the term -- in other words, because we are not agreed on who can be called an atheist, we have to distinguish between those who identify themselves openly as atheist and those who meet the definition of an atheist. I think this is necessary, at least -- if we remove the word, how do you suggest we should address the problem I've pointed out?
I don't understand your point about academics and linguists -- where did I imply that they didn't accept that meaning of the prefix? I intended to imply that they did accept it.
I personally think "pejoratively" is an ugly word to try to pronounce, hence my alteration, but I'm happy to change it back. I wish, though, that you wouldn't say "Go through your proposal..." as though I am subordinate to you and deferent to your command. I am happy to simplify phrases where appropriate, but I would prefer to discuss them, rather than to take on simplification as a task ordained by you, or any other user.
I felt agnosticism was an important inclusion in the lead, as it is an integral part of the understanding of the "active denial" definition, but if it would be better elsewhere, I am not wed to the idea of having it in the lead. I thought it was useful as a way of illustrating the practical application of the competing definitions. Do others agree that it is too distracting?
I'm fine with "lack of" being changed as you suggest (though I would point out that it is odd to be simultaneously criticized for being too wordy and not wordy enough....but I suppose you are referring to different sections of my proposal, in which case I would like to have other areas needing simplification pointed out. I think if I try to find them myself, I will inevitably oversimplify an important phrase, as I unintentionally did with "lack of".). Also, with your point about "lacking beliefs" -- either my eyes are bad and I miss where that phrase occurs, or you are still talking about my use of "lack" in reference to the baby. If it is the latter, I agree. If the former, would you help me by pointing to where the phrase occurs?
When writing, I in fact considered whether or not the baby needed identification as human. I had decided that the sentence preceding it had identified the topic (human belief) sufficiently that there would be no confusion, and that adding "human" would be needlessly wordy. I am happy to add it if it is important, but I would ask you to reconsider whether, in context, the phrase really is confusing. If you still feel it is, I am happy to alter it as you propose. Jwrosenzweig 22:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Self-identifying atheists" reads more positively than "self-proclaimed atheists."
You restricted that group's terminological acceptance to the intepretation of "a-" as "no" when the generally accepted interpretation of "a-" is "without." Note the root "atheal" meaning "without God, denying God" (Oxford English Dictionary).
Peh-jore-it-tiv-lee. Sounds fun. Preferences aside, I think it worse to write many words where one will do. Additionally, "pejorative" isn't a noun in formal English. Let's avoid colloquialisms in the article.
I think the mere placement of the word "agnosticism" next to "atheism" influences confusion. The agnosticism article sufficiently covers agnosticism. We need not do that here. A better approach is a subsection comparing agnosticism and atheism.
I mentioned "lacking belief" as a general tip for others.
To avoid the subjective connotation of "baby," I suggest using a more general term such as "humans."

By the way, your allusion to elitism is unfounded. I made a suggestion hence the term "should." Try not to be so defensive. Adraeus 23:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I agree with "self-identifying" -- misread your comments about "self-proclaimed". And you're right on "a-" -- I had copied that portion from Andre and didn't read it closely enough. Is "pejorative" not a noun? It is in Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary (the closest one I have at hand). Anyhow, I don't care for "pejoratively" much but it's a personal preference and I'll accept the change. I don't agree that "fewer words is always better" is a principle I'm willing to adopt here, but in this case I'm happy to let things be as you suggest. As far as the lead, I guess I'd like to hear from some of the other folks around here on both sides of the issue, but if they agree with you I certainly won't kick. I didn't see anything wrong with trying to address it in the lead, as I noted before, but we'll see what the consensus is. Thanks for clarifying the "lacking belief" comment -- makes sense. I didn't consider the connotations of "baby"....perhaps you're right. I still think, though, that we need to reference the human at birth -- is "newborn" or "infant" acceptable (identified as "human" if necessary)? If they all have connotations, well, then I think we choose the most descriptive one and let people deal with whatever emotions they bring to the table -- I'd hope people could read the article on atheism without being biased by the mere mention of a baby. But perhaps you disagree -- I'll wait and see. Finally, I don't understand the comment about elitism, nor the one about "being defensive". I've seen plenty of defensive behavior on this talk page, and frankly I don't think my comments above fit the bill -- I was smiling as I wrote them, if that's any help to you in gauging their tone. The only remark that I felt was a little defensive was the one about your "command" -- is that what you're referring to? If you re-read your bullet point, I think you'll see that nowhere in that point does the word "should" or "please" or "suggest" or anything like it appear -- not that you meant it as a command, of course, but on a topic this controversial and in a discussion that has been as heated as this one apparently has, I thought it was a good idea to note to you that I thought your tone was a little off. I'm sorry if it came off as defensive -- I meant merely to communicate my reactions to your notes. I don't think I ever accused you of being "elitist" -- I can't imagine how I even implied it. I just thought you were coming off a bit brisk, and I figured I'd say so. I hope you don't mind: that's the way I interact here, and I normally find it helpful to give people feedback on what they're saying and how I'm taking it. Other people seem to prefer keeping their feelings to themselves and then blowing up at people -- this is how I avoid that. So, if you found my tone defensive, thanks for telling me, even though I don't see how I will avoid it in future. As far as your assertion that my comments were "unfounded"....don't know what to make of that. My comments about my reactions to your words were "founded" on my opinion, no more and no less. I hope you didn't find them hostile, and I assure you that nothing I am writing in this paragraph is intended in a confrontational way either. I'm just trying to explain myself and come to a reasonable consensus with you on a topic that is obviously of some importance to us both. Thanks for being willing to talk things through with me. Jwrosenzweig 23:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Again I would ask you to notice, you said "Try not to be so defensive." Can you see why I might take that as a little condescending or demeaning? I think "Please try not to be so defensive" or "You seem defensive to me, and I wish you wouldn't be" are better options -- they place us on more equal footing. Do you see what I mean? You may think it excessive of me to ask you not to "command" me, but I find that even the smallest courtesies often mean a great deal. It would make me happy if you would do your best to avoid the kinds of directives that I'm pointing out, and I hope you'll agree. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 23:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hrm, well, I meant "you should [go through...]" Moreover, whether a suggestion is phrased as "command" is irrelevant. Read my old and somewhat outdated article, "Understanding and coexisting with criticism". Within the article, I explain how I work and how those in my company work. I'd prefer we dispense with the needless pleasantries. Our goal is the same: to compile a reasonably complete article regarding atheism. Our focus should be on achieving our goal, not on how "nice" we are to the other.

I wouldn't rely on others to deal with their emotions rationally. That reliance influences vandalism and other strange behaviors. Adraeus 00:09, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Morning. I don't usually get involved in such intractable discussions on wording but I would say that, from a "fairly" impartial standpoint, that the "babies are atheists" statement is asking for trouble. If it is effectively placed in the introduction and even if it is simply the presentation of a particular view it will almost certainly be a focus for continuing battles. The exact corollary, and more plausible idea to me, is that humans are born deeply religious but they worship the great nappy changing parent. You can class me of any creed you like from this but the point is anything that seems to be recruiting the newly born or "as soon as dad came" is a great risk to the sanity of this article, if it ever did have any. MeltBanana 02:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say! Sam [Spade] 02:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's no scientific evidence to support your "plausible" idea; thus, it is not an "exact corollary." To emphasize its inexactness, atheism is not nonreligion; it refers to the unbelief or disbelief in "supernatural" entities known as gods. In fact, there is far more evidence against it, than for it, produced by developmental psychology in the form of theories known as moral development.

Your "exact corollary" is mere opinion not based on facts. Adraeus 02:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Adraeus' point and appreciate his citing of references here to support his positon. I'd like to see more of it; unsubstantiated claims presented remain in the realm of opinion.--FeloniousMonk 06:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to break indenting -- I don't see the point in counting all the colons at this point. On the baby question, I included it based on previous examples. I confess to being personally put off at the notion of an atheist baby -- frankly I think another possibility is far more likely -- but I felt my POV shouldn't intrude. If others agree that it should be put out, though, I have no objection. Adraeus, I appreciate your position on criticism, and feel you state it well at the essay you linked to. However, you are not acting in your professional capacities here, nor is this your forum in which you are given reign to dictate how criticism is best managed. Our conduct here, whether either of us likes it or not, is governed by Wikipedia policy, including Wikipedia:Wikiquette, which I think you'll find takes a rather different view of criticism and praise. I'm not saying your remarks are a flagrant violation of policy. I'm merely noting that the founder of this site and the consensus of this community actively seek to promote a more positive collaborative spirit than the essay of yours seeks to promote. Because of this, I will continue to note occasionally when I see your tone becoming more curt than I feel Wikipedia policy requests. However, now that you've made your style more clear to me, I will do as much as I can to be quietly understanding when I feel you've been brisk with me. I hope you will note my position (as I have noted yours), and occasionally take the extra time for what you see as "needless pleasantries" and what I see as important steps towards building a collaborative community. Thanks very much. Tomorrow, I'll rewrite the proposal with the changes I've agreed to, and we can take a look at it again, hopefully with the input of others. Happy editing, Jwrosenzweig 04:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It sure is frustrating how quickly this topic can become heated. Anyway thank you Jwrosenzweig for your patients.

I just wanted to point out some of the problems with the agnosticism reference in your proposal above (if you are planning on keeping it in). Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief in god or gods, it has everything to do with knowing the nature of god or gods. So you can have theistic agnostics who believe that God exists, but he is unknowable, and you have atheistic agnostics who believe that the nature of god is unknowable or unknown to the point of lack of belief. Atheists who use the "absence of belief" definition, do not take agnostics as a default atheist because of this. There is an overlap of atheistic agnostics and weak atheists though.

As for the baby reference, you may believe that babies are religious (or not), but atheism is not non-religion (there are religions who are atheist). The point is just that since a baby does not start off believing in a God or gods (because he does not know of any) he can be implicitly described as an atheist. I know this might make some theists cringe. But, if you think of atheism the way atheists do, there are no connotations associated with being an atheist, and it doesn't mean the child is unable to take on a theistic belief system (in fact they usually accept whatever their parents teach readily). Regardless of how you do feal, this is how atheists feal. Whether it belongs in the definition or not... I don't know. --GDarwin 04:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the statement "All humans are born atheists"

I don't want to debate the factual accuracy of the statement, I just want to ask whether it's really worth arguing over, and whether it's relevant enough to put in the article.

After all, one could just as easily write "All dogs, trees and amoeba are born atheists", taking the "atheism = lack of theistic beliefs" definition. The question is, does it really add anything to the article? I'm sure you could add "babies' views on George W. Bush" to that article, but I don't think it would enhance it: I'm wondering what it does to enhance this article, and why people think it's important what babies think?

Why not keep the focus on adults, or at least children old enough to express their opinions for themselves, unless there's a specific need to do otherwise? Shane King 08:10, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Do I actually have to explain this to you again? All humans are born without theistic beliefs. All humans are born without beliefs in a god or gods. All humans are born without a belief in a monotheistic God. All humans are born as atheists. Either you simply haven't accepted the common definition of atheism or you phrased your questions incorrectly: the statement "all humans are born as atheists" refers not to "what humans initially think" but to what humans initially don't think--the initial condition of human existence is atheism.

Understanding atheism as the condition of theistic unbelief requires at least an understanding of cognitive science. That is, to understand that all theistic behavior is learned is to aid understanding that atheism is a condition of human existence, not just a disbelief in a god (or gods.)

Does mentioning this psychological fact add value to the article? Yes; however, its mention is inappropriate in the article's introduction. A proper explanation of the statement that includes sufficient detail from developmental psychology would be better placed in a subsection regarding atheism as a condition of human existence.

This brings me to wonder why we are working without skeletal structure of the article. Adraeus 08:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All humans are born without beliefs in a god or gods. All humans are born without a belief in a monotheistic God. All humans are born as atheists. This is an unproven and unprovable assertion (and one that Andraeus has been repeating over and over and again convincing absolutely no one except those who already accept the assertion). older≠wiser 13:27, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

That's funny. So you want us (and hence the reader let's not forget) to accept that All humans are born with beliefs in God or gods? That God exists and we all have an innate belief in him is also an unproven and unprovable assertion (even more so as it goes against all evidence). And one I remind you that theists have been repeating over and over and again convincing absolutely no one except those who already accept the assertion. Apparently a point with no small amount of irony that is lost on some.

That newborns possess no beliefs is a patently obvious fact supported by readily available evidence. It requires no proof. The burden of proof always lies with those making a positive assertion, not a negative one. If anyone is foolish enough to assert that infants are born with beliefs of any sort, it is up to them to justify any belief in that assertion.

Regardless, your point is a non sequitur. It only has relevance if you define atheism as a movement, not a state. The movement of atheism (an elective group) requires belief and choice. The state of atheism (having no theistic beliefs) requires none.--FeloniousMonk 18:09, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So you want us (and hence the reader let's not forget) to accept that "All humans are born with beliefs in God or gods"? Of course not. Did I say that? No, the point is that it is an irrelevant and baseless assertion. There is no basis for definitively asserting either position as true. That newborns possess no beliefs is a patently obvious fact supported by readily available evidence. Really, what evidence is that? Are you able to read their minds? The burden of proof always lies with those making a positive assertion, not a negative one. Both statements are positive assertions. We simply do not know and are not able to definitively say what infants do or do not "believe" about the world. I put believe in quotes, because quite obviously "belief" in this context is not the same as for an adult. If anyone is foolish enough to assert that infants are born with beliefs of any sort, it is up to them to justify any belief in that assertion. I'm not asserting any such thing, simply that it is patently foolish to assert ANYTHING regarding the status of an infant's mind (such as it is). your point is a non sequitur. It only has relevance if you define atheism as a movement, not a state. Making the assertion that infants are atheists only makes sense if you define atheism as some sort of mathematical set. Human value sytems are not mathematical sets and do not easily fall into arbitrary binary divisions. You are mistaken in saying that my point is a non sequitor. It is relevant because the assertion that infants are atheists is not a logically necessary component of weak atheism. That is, it is possible to formulate a coherent position of weak atheism without making such an assertion. I do not posit atheism as a "movement". Atheism as a "state" only has significance when applied to entities capable of belief. While one might describe entities such as rocks as atheistic, it is rather pointless and irrelevant. older≠wiser 19:07, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

So you doubt that there's evidence that newborns are indeed with no beliefs? "We simply do not know and are not able to definitively say what infants do or do not "believe" about the world"? To answer both I'd direct you start with the evidence provided by Adraeus yesterday and then reading current research in developmental psychology:

But that's overkill, basic common sense puts the lie to claims that newborns possess beliefs on a purely logical basis: If newborns were indeed born with beliefs then they'd require little or no introductory education to concepts of Santa Claus/God/The Tooth Fairy/whatever. I will gladly admit that most are born with a predisposition to believe in Santa Claus/God/The Tooth Fairy/whatever to explain things we do not understand, but that in no way supports making the narrow definition the primary definition, much less the only definition.

Again, your issues arise from the fact that you insist on defining atheism as a movement, not a state. The movement of atheism (an elective group) requires belief and choice. The state of atheism (having no theistic beliefs) requires none. You have yet to make the case for why the primary, introductory definition in the article should be of atheism as a movement only. As for your point that "Atheism as a "state" only has significance when applied to entities capable of belief. While one might describe entities such as rocks as atheistic, it is rather pointless and irrelevant." I agree, so it's best to leave out references to infants, et al.--FeloniousMonk 19:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FM, you continue to either misunderstand or misrepresent what I say. So you doubt that there's evidence that newborns are indeed with no beliefs? "We simply do not know and are not able to definitively say what infants do or do not "believe" about the world"? To answer both I'd direct you start with the evidence provided by Adraeus yesterday and then reading current research in developmental psychology: None of the sources provided specifically address the development of beliefs. They address moral development which is not the same.

basic common sense puts the lie to claims that newborns possess beliefs on a purely logical basis: Once again, I am not saying that newborns possess beliefs. I am saying 1) that it is impossible to determine precisely what a newborn's consciousness is like and definitively asserting anything about it is mistaken and 2) that it is patently silly (and I think intentionally provocative) to apply the designation of "atheist" to a newborn. I don't deny that some make this assertion, but IMO it is foolishness. There is no necessary correlation between a weak atheistic position and the assertion that infants are atheists. The latter is an extension of the position asserted by some atheists (by no means all atheists and not even all weak atheists).

Again, your issues arise from the fact that you insist on defining atheism as a movement, not a state. No you are once again either misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I do not insist on defining atheism as a movement. I understand that there are strong and weak positions and both should be included in the definition. All I'm saying here is that the assertion regarding infantile atheism (pun intended) is out of place in the introduction.

You have yet to make the case for why the primary, introductory definition in the article should be of atheism as a movement only. I am not asking any such thing. Please stop misrepresenting what I said. The assertion that infants are atheists is not a necessary correlate of of the weak atheistic position and it is an unnecessary distraction to try to properly qualify it in the introduction. Rather than clutter up the introduction with such tangential aspects, it should be covered in the section on weak atheism.

I agree, so it's best to leave out references to infants, et al. Huh? What are we arguing about then? older≠wiser 21:39, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how relavant it is, but my memories of very early childhood (maybe 3-6 months of age) were not founded in ideas of belief (as in an identification with one conviction or another) - the preverbal environment was very immediate - attention was limited to what was happening directly around me. However, I recall a lot of ideas were based on the assumption that objects that made noise, etc. were actually alive. For instance, I saw the vacuum cleaner as a form of vampiric attention stealer. I was concerned for my mother that she didn't see how nasty it was - taking her away from giving me all her attention! In my mind it had intent. So, in one respect - the idea of some form of animate presence within inanimate objects - the ghost in the machine - or, if you will, a degree of (albeit negative) idolatry, was present very early on. Regardless I think it does not make any sense to talk about people being born atheist or theists except as a part of a provocative attention grabber. Such statements are used for socio-political purposes, not for encyclopedic ones. (20040302 08:58, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC))

I have no problem with leaving infants and young children out of the general intro, I’d support it on grounds of brevity. That said I can understand if others would sooner keep it in and I can't accept that keeping them is not valid unless one takes issue with the broad definition of atheism which has been repeatedly and properly supported here. To do that one would have to effectively refute the well supported validity of the broad definition, and that hasn't been done here.

Mentioning the fact that infants and young children are negative/ weak atheists is used as an example to illustrate the broad definition of the term 'atheist' (yet again one without-god belief, no parameters whatsoever). It serves to drive home the point that in the broad, well used, well supported etymological definition one is either an atheist or a theist, there is no ‘halfway house’. Those not theist are by default atheist, this includes those indifferent, ignorant and incapable. Describing infants and young kids as atheist given the broad definition is consistent and much more supportable than the more common tactic of describing a child as being born a Christian, born a Jew or Born a Muslim. This is simply wrong. Identical twins conditioned into different religions will tend to absorb the religious upbringing (more accurately the conditioning and indoctrination) that they have each been subjected to.

I don't think agnosticism should be covered within the introduction, simply because this article is not about agnosticism; it's about atheism. Rather the relationship of atheism to agnosticism should be covered in a section in the body of the article.

As an aside whilst I agree with Adreus on the substantive points I feel it would help if he tapped back his tone a couple of notches with most here with the explicit exception of Sam Spade who has actively shown himself very clearly to be unworthy of the default assumption of acting in good faith.--Nick-in-South-Africa 10:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I don't (and didn't) refute the validity of the broad definition. I refute that it's the only definition: clearly other definitions are heavily used. Pick up a random dictionary and it will almost certainly use the narrow definition. I refute that the broad definition should be referred to as a self evident fact: I think it should be introduced as something most (nealy all according to what you're saying?) atheist scholars believe is the correct interpretation, the fact that many (most?) non-atheist sources (such as dictionaries, other encyclopedias, etc) disagree should be well noted, and then a note to the reader that the rest of the article will be using the world atheist in the broad sense should be given. This would probably require a section in the article to cover in depth: logically it should be the first section so the reader knows what sense the word is being used in for the rest.

I would find that acceptable, would those who commonly use the word in the broad sense also find it acceptable? It's all I was asking for before, although it seems it got lost in the noise (and I admit, perhaps I wasn't eloquent about expressing it too). Words are notoriously maliable, and they mean different things to different people. I certainly don't disagree the word can be used in many different ways, and I think it's hard to say one way is right or wrong (only more or less popular). I'm happy for atheists to define the word however they want for the purposes of the article so long as it's made explicit and other interpretations are given a good explaination, and not described as "wrong", just not what atheist scholars believe. Shane King 10:26, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Please, can we assume good faith here? I said specifically I am not challenging the factual accuracy of the statement. I have no idea why you've gone off on a tangent explaining why you feel the statement is factually accurate.

I'm simply questioning why it's important enough to be in the article, in particular the introduction. Maybe it's worthwhile having a paragraph later on (although properly explained, not just "humans are born atheist"), but putting upfront what is really a minor issue seems wasteful. It seems we agree on that point!

I'm not convinced understanding atheism requires an understanding of cognative science. That might be an interesting article in and of itself, but whether it fits into this article I'm not convinced. The main atheism article should probably explain what it is, the history and varieties of atheistic belief, and provide brief overviews with links to further articles detailing things like the cognative psychology of it. At least that's the format most articles take: Christianity, Islam and Judaism are good examples of what I think this article should aim for.

That atheism is a "condition of human existence" seems a rather loaded statement: I'd much prefer those words weren't used, as condition has a number of different meanings, some of which theists would probably take issue with. If you could come up with a clearer title, I think it would work. Shane King 10:09, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

in case there is ever a vote on this, for the record, let me say, as an atheist, that I agree with Shane, it is silly to say 'all humans are born atheists'. I understand Greek etymology, and I know it can be argued, it is just not helpful. Atheism implies negation of theism. For theism to be negated, there needs to be theism first. a-theism in the absence of theism is just as good as a-gubbledigoop. dab 10:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dab, The fact that you are an atheist is of little relevance to the case you make. You should read the thread and check the myriad references rather than just wading in and seeking to rubbish a carefully argued and well supported case with comments describing the position supported by these references and arguments as "a-gubbledigoop". Making an unsupported assertion and throwing such comment around does not a cogent argument make, and that's being polite. To make your case you should put a cogent case and demonstrate why the etymology and numerous references that support it are invalid and only the Positive definition of atheism is valid? --Nick-in-South-Africa 11:08, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dab I thought so you are supporting the positive definition now at 14:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) (scroll up) you explicitly supported the negative definition, so have you changed your position or did you make a mistake in one or other of the posts, please clarify?--Nick-in-South-Africa 11:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, Dab, but your claim of the broad definition being "gubbledigoop" is incorrect and unsupported. Literally dozens of credible, neutral academic reference sources support the broad definition and elaborate on it; may I suggest you consider reading them.--FeloniousMonk 18:18, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let's get serious!

Before we continue writing and editing article introduction, let's finalize the structure first and then the content. We've clearly gone in circles several times discussing atheism, its criticisms and its academic support--the cause of that merry-go-around is most likely our lack of planning combined with the difficulty in presenting a topic that relies on philosophical opinion. I think, despite our various disagreements, we can create an article worthy of being a featured Wikipedia article. Let's get started.

Phase 1: Research Timeframe: TBD

Successful products begin with research. This phase pushes each editor to formulate a solid idea regarding atheism. (Remember we're dealing with scientific and philosophical facts, not original research!) The solidity of this idea relies on the extensiveness of the research committed. Leave no stone unturned. To complete this phase, acquired research must be organized into a formal format ready for distribution to editors. This means good grammar and no spelling errors. A bibliography must also be provided.

Phase 2: Design Timeframe: TBD

Successful products are organized. Editors create and propose designs of the content structure based on distributed research. After consensus is reached concerning a particular design, which most likely will be a collaboratively improved design, we move forward to the development phase.

Phase 3: Develop Timeframe: TBD

Successful products have substance. Editors are left to assemble acquired research from the initial phase into the structure designed in the design phase. After each editor has completed their individual assemblies, each assembly will be proposed for another consensus. The chosen assembly moves forward to the editing phase.

Phase 4: Finalize Timeframe: TBD

Successful products are refined. Editors will tinker with the chosen assembly until spelling and grammar are uniform with English language standards. Additions to content will require consensus approval. At the end of the timeframe allotted for finalization, editors will share their updated articles with the team along with notes explaining changes, if any. These documents will circulate and another consensus will be required before the final phase.

Phase 5: Publish Timeframe: TBD

Successful products are published. Self-explanatory.

Phase 6: Maintain Timeframe: Ongoing

Successful products are maintained. This is an ongoing phase. Editors will watch the article for vandalism and other strange happenings, and fix any problems that arise according to the finished product.

Before this process can begin, we need to establish a timeframe (e.g., 1-7 days/weeks/months) and a start date.

For the research phase (P1), I propose a timeframe of 4 weeks.
For the design phase (P2), I propose a timeframe of 2 weeks.
For the development phase (P3), I propose a timeframe of 4 weeks.
For the finalization phase (P4), I propose a timeframe of 1 week.
For the publishing phase (P5), I propose a timeframe of 1 day.
For the starting date, I propose TBD as soon as we agree on the timeframes.

Adraeus 09:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sample timeframe proposal

P1: # days/weeks/months
P2: # days/weeks/months
P3: # days/weeks/months
P4: # days/weeks/months
P5: # days/weeks/months

~~~~