Talk:Atheism/Archive 10

Dispute Resolution Closure

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Skyler! Sorry I skipped out before this dispute resolution began, I've been involved in several endlessly-repeating arguments recently and didn't want to get back into one that ate up a month of my time earlier this year already. I promise to stick around next time as penance. Should I give some sort of "official" opinion on how things stand, or would you prefer if I don't do anything in the eleventh hour after being absent for most of the discussion? Bryan 03:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How things currently stand is that there was basically a "walk-out" on one side. Andre, Nick and Adraeus have stepped away from the table. So, while the dispute is over, nothing was actually resolved. You mentioned above that you think the article as it stands now is fine, but the problem is that after 3 days of no discussion, I will be requesting that the article be unprotected and I would expect that it will change drastically shortly thereafter. The only difference will be that we are one more notch up on the dispute resolution process and if users continue to revert edits without discussion, it will be considered a hostile act and I will personally, as an impartial observer, request arbitration against that user.

To make one thing clear, I am not here in any official capacity. I am not a member of the Mediation Committee and am not even an administrator. I simply wished to help after User:20040302 mistakenly posted his request for mediation on the Association of Members Advocates page (an association of which I am a member). Also, I wish to make clear that I have not taken any side in the matter as far as the dispute goes. I have followed Wikipedia policy. Policy is that compromises must be made in the absense of a person clearly being factually wrong or vandalizing. All parties have acted in good faith here, so the only solution is discussion. Actions taken after this (other than to restart discussion) must be considered to have been made in bad faith.

Bryan, if you were on the side of Andre, Nick and Adraeus in the dispute and would like to continue resolution efforts in an attempt to keep matters from getting ugly again, I will be more than happy to consider the dispute still open and we can continue to work. If this is not the case or you are not willing (for whatever reason), the article will be unprotected on Friday and unreasonable actions without prior discussion will be considered hostile.

I get the impression from Nick that I have handled this process incorrectly and from Adraeus that I am simply on the opposite side of him and want to destroy the article. I'm sorry to any who feel this way, but all that can be done is to end or resolve the dispute so that contributions to the article can continue. That is, after all, what Wikipedia is all about. Skyler1534 04:32, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Hm. I'm not really sure I can "pledge allegience" to any particular side here. I consider the current version's definitions of weak and strong atheism to be correct and the efforts to equate weak atheism and agnosticism to be misguided, but I notice that at one point Andre said that agnostics were always atheists and I don't agree with that either. I've got a lot of catching up to do if I'm to pick up the current disagreement. As for whether this is "official" Wikipedia policy or not, I'll go with whatever works. I recently got involved in another dispute that went all the way to arbitration and sadly I haven't seen the "official" steps of dispute resolution working so well. I guess all I can suggest is that perhaps we could try to describe the argument itself in a concise summary and then add that description to the article? Since it seems to come up again and again, that may be a route to a more stable and NPOV article. Bryan 05:36, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bryan, see Atheism/DR for my attempts to do just that. One of the significant changes I have proposed to the article is to move the issues of strong/weak atheism down the article - I consider that atheism qua atheism has a lot to offer before needing to discuss differentiations. One of the issues that has been brought to light for me regarding the term is that it has two significant categories of usage- one is general community usage, and the other is finely examined usage as found in academics and philosophers involved in the promotion (or discussion) of atheism as a Weltanschauung. The current protected article does little to mention this, and yet it appears to be a fundamental cause of edit wars. A key objection that I had in the article was the blurring of definition so much that it first of all appeared to say that anyone without belief in God is an atheist, and this definition is the defacto correct one. Then, the article extensively uses the term to refer to those who actively disbelieve in God. As I wrote at Atheism/DR:

"Many people commonly use the term to indicate the belief system represented by those who actively do not believe in the divine. There are many individuals and organisations that declare themselves proactively atheist, and the rest of the article adopts such an interpretation. Otherwise we would have to talk about why babies weren't sentenced to death for being atheists, struggle to explain what was going to be taught in British schools, and be at a loss as to how the CIA factbook estimates (world population) 12.5% to be non-religious and about 2.4% to be atheist."

Regardless, from what I understand of the DR process, it will be the article at Atheism/DR that will replace the current article, so it may be better for you to cast your eye over that, rather than the protected page. (20040302 09:05, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Looks even better. Not sure if it's a good idea to move the strong/weak distinction right to the very end of the article, but I can't think of anyplace else to put it aside from immediately after the "interpretations" section and that's right at the beginning again. Skyler, may I try adding a paragraph at the end of the "divisions within atheism" summarizing the dispute here, mentioning some of the POVs I've seen that oppose the weak/strong distinction? That seems to be a good place to put them, IMO. Bryan 00:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bryan, please add your proposed paragraph to the section on the Talk:Atheism/DR page that it applies to. Please also add your reasoning for adding the paragraph and any other changes you may want to make to the section. They will be discussed and if they are agreed upon, I will add them to the article.

Welcome Bryan

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

• The POV that Atheism means only those who reject God actively (this is the theist POV, largely)

• That atheism has strong and weak variations, strong being the common meaning, and weak including many others. (the atheist POV as I see it)

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

I think you've misstated the issue: I see absence of belief as an attribute. It's an attribute common to atheism, agnosticism and any number of others positions, whether they be passive positions or active beliefs. About.com (not a scholarly reference but one that is nonetheless accessed by millions) states about Atheism: "The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this."

About your personal definition of atheism -" since atheism is the belief that their is no God"- You think it doesn't take a stance? It's pure POV, as is "Atheism is an (anti)spiritual act, not a default". A significant number of Rationalists do not so much assert that Atheism is rational, but that Theism is irrational. Therefore for them Atheism is no more than a default position. Consider the words of Isaac Asimov: "I prefer rationalism to atheism. The question of God and other objects-of-faith are outside reason and play no part in rationalism, thus you don't have to waste your time in either attacking or defending." Clearly he viewed Atheism as merely a default position. Further, one could easily argue that since no one is born with beliefs, say, as a Theist or Deist, Weak Atheism is indeed everyone's original default position. Also, if you're so convinced that Atheism is a "(anti)spiritual act", perhaps you should try to include that point in the article...

I think that any article that overtly favors any POV and is vigorously defended by ideological ax-grinders by definition should have dispute header. I'll place one myself for such an article. As far as compromise here, I don't see a lot of compromise. I see several editors who are not Atheists trying to dictate to several Atheists what constitutes Atheism, based on their POV (based solely on a priori knowledge as best I can tell). Do Jews get to define what and who is Jewish? Hindus? So why is it you claim Atheists cannot do the same? Especially when they can provide extensive scholarly references in support of their position? I reject your definition of Atheism and hence your idea that this is any sort of compromise. I support a purely neutral definition of Atheism consistent with what is found on religioustolerance.org:

Atheism is confined to one factor: the existence or non-existence of a deity:

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

--FeloniousMonk 21:11, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk et al. For the record, I am not a theist. This means that according to the definition of some editors, I am an atheist. Do not be so quick to label people into categories that appear to suit you. However, as it happens, I do not consider myself an atheist either - and who are you to tell me who I am?

I understand why atheists wish to say that they merely lack belief - this is to do with the idea of otherwise falling into a 'faith' of disbelief. Well, so much for the rationalist project. As I see it, we choose our beliefs and convictions, whether or not we are conscious of the fact.

I note that many atheists have been actively bringing about a change in which the word is used - and the fact that this is reflected on WP comes to no surprise. There are always socio-political projects going on, and I hope that the current article can reflect that. The British education project has redefined it's broader scope, and now does NOT include atheism - because I guess, what is the point of teaching a non-movement? Instead, they are proposing to include "secular philosophies such as humanism". (BBC news, today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3959255.stm ), so I notice the shift in understanding of the word.

Regardless of any novel developments, as you say, (FM) there are definately two current positions regarding atheism, which is all I ever asked of the article. Moreover, the original article, from Persecution down, concerns itself with those who positively assert that there is no deity. To demonstrate this, as (another) thought experiment, substitute the word "baby" (as an example of a mere unbeliever), for the word atheist in each case, and re-read the article. I now agree that the ideas of weak and strong atheism are older than I initially thought. Issues concerning the status of babies are dealt with below. (20040302)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:FeloniousMonk

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

"Clearly he viewed Atheism as merely a default position" (FeloniousMonk)

"say what?" (Sam [Spade])

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atheists have more than a seat at the table, they are the majority on this page (and perhaps even the wiki generally). But that doesn't mean they can define the term as they like, despite references. I made fun of the references you recently presented because they agree w me (as does asimov, incidentily ;). They present things in a balanced manner, offering a view of both sides. They show the variety of interpretations of the term. Oh, and thanks for appointing me as "Sr. Admin", thus far on the wiki today I have been dubbed "Jehovahs witness" as well as "Sr. Admin". Has anyone a further title to offer? (hint, I prefer "Emporer" or "Patriarch"... maybe "Pope"? ;) Sam [Spade] 22:50, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My mistake, I constantly confuse your handle with UncleEd for some reason. This isn't the first time I've done this.

Exactly how do you see my references supporting your position that Atheism means only those who reject God actively is the more correct definition? They do not. They each in their own way acknowledge that Atheism is merely the absence of belief in God or gods.

Since you wear your faith on your sleeve, answer with a yes or no this question: Do you accept any God other than the Christian God, The God of Abraham, as valid?--FeloniousMonk 23:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

God is, no matter what name you call him. And why is my personal denomination in question here? I consider myseilf a interdenominational Christian, and I assume everyone has some relationship w my God, the one God who is All, the Absolute infinite, The God of Monism. See User_talk:Sam_Spade#Theology_and_logic. Sam [Spade] 23:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but other's have very different concepts of God, many that outright exclude inclusion in your idea of God. They reject your God, even though you claim your God is monistic. Their own very different personal God is anathema to your personal God. Do you reject their idea of God, yes or no?--FeloniousMonk 05:24, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Oh, and your references agree with me because even tho they are factually innaccurate (they present false definitions of atheism), They are balanced, and provide accurate definitions as well. Thats all I expect, an ounce of neutrality, rather than a partisan snowjob. The facts will speak for themselves, in time. Sam [Spade] 23:46, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly: my supporting references are "factually inaccurate" but are "balanced" and "provide accurate definitions"? Regardless... The fact remains that the references are not just consistent with, but indeed are both the academic and the common vernacular definitions of Atheism, and they both include the distinction between Weak and Strong Atheism. The fact that they are taken from several Dictionaries of Religion as well as a Religious Encyclopedia indicate strongly that they are indeed neutral. "Partisan snowjob"? I think we can safely say that that is not the case here. I think you meant that you'd prefer a different partisan snowjob.--FeloniousMonk 05:24, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While I don't exist on any side of this arguement. I know one thing, you can't let a religion self-define itself. While I am the first to say Atheism is not a religion, everything should be stand-offish. while denying Atheists their own definition of Atheism Your point scares me because while agnostic, and according to one side here, atheistic, we need a outside critical examination and definition. However, I am quite impressed with your blockquotes. Ideally, we would have the atheists make the article and then have someone who is neither an atheist or a theist to copyedit it. However, this is hard to do because one side considers agnostics atheists. ---The Sunborn

I wasn't clear in making my point that what Sam calls the "partisan atheist" definition of Atheism is actually the common and academic definition of Atheism as shown in references, but that he fails to recognize it as such only because it is often made by Atheists themselves. My fault for not being more explicit. I'm preparing more blockquotes in support of this point for the edification of all here.--FeloniousMonk 23:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

On the meanings of words

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

Here, here! Thats my position as well. Present the verifiable POV's in a neutral manner, and let the reader make up their own mind. Sam [Spade] 00:22, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And a hear, hear from me too. I think the dispute has been just how common and in what circles these different definitions are used, rather than that the two different definitions exist. Bryan 01:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is what certain prescriptivist editors have been railing against all along, but now that they have mostly quit the arena, and we have this extra "dispute resolution" club to thwack them with, the descriptivists seem to have free rein to put this stuff in. --Yath 03:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we should attempt to characterize which defintion of atheism is more commonly used or which is used by which group. I think that anyone who discusses or considers atheism at any length at some point has to confront the two meanings, and any extended debate about atheism has to be clear about which definition it debating. I think we would do our readers a disservice if we pick one meaning or the other as the default meaning for atheism. We should use atheism when discussing aspects of atheism that apply to either definition, and a more specific term when discussing something that is specific to one or the other meaning of atheism. Weak atheism and strong atheism seem to be the most commonly used unambiguous terms. Are there specific objections to using those terms when relevant? Nohat 04:31, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree and support this.--FeloniousMonk 07:02, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unless I have misunderstood Nohat, I disagree on editorial grounds. Primarily itmeans qualifying vast amounts of the atheism article. The entire sections "Persecution of Atheists", "Persecution in the name of Atheism", "Atheism today", and "Statistics" are all concerned specifically with "atheism" in relation to the many individuals and organisations that declare themselves proactively atheist, as opposed to the broad categorisation of atheism that depends upon mere lack of belief, which includes babies, etc. I refer you to the article at Atheism/DR for a proposed solution. (20040302)

I disagree with using "Strong" and "weak" atheism outside of a small section describing their meaning and usage. They are not widely used, and they have their own articles. This article aught be about Atheism itself, not some new phrases using the term. A section yes, the whole article qualifying "strong" and "weak" atheism as tho they are the accepted terminology? Certainly not. I think people need to consider the provocative, POV stance which the use of these terms makes. Thats fine for individual atheists (free speech and all), but not OK for a NPOV encyclopedia. Sam [Spade] 13:40, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

--FeloniousMonk 18:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Strong Atheism returns about 1,640 hits and Weak Atheism returns about 1,580 hits. Sorry, but I found that statistic to be a little strange, so I checked it. You need to enter it as "strong atheism" in quotations or it is returning links for every page with the word "strong" or "atheism" in it. Skyler1534 20:33, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Conducting a "phrase search" reduced the results by a wide margin. The point still remains that terms are common and in vernacular usage by both atheists and neutral third-parties as the sources I've cited here shows. I have addtional references I can cite should anyone feel that this fact needs further support or that what I've provided here already is insufficient in making the case.--FeloniousMonk 21:02, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Resumed

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

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

As far as I can tell, the debate over whether to include the definition of atheism as "active disbelief and denial of the existence of gods" has been resolved in favor. Does anyone remain who opposes it? If not, there seems to be no need for dispute resolution and page protection. --Yath 23:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Myself and other's here disagree with your definition and do not consider the matter closed. That Atheism is an active position is a non sequitur. Atheism can involve the positive assertion that there is no deity. Atheism can also be the absence of a belief that there is a deity. Any claim that Atheism must be an active stance is a logical fallacy.--FeloniousMonk 01:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh. In my opinion, to support your position, you would have to demonstrate either (1) That descriptive linguistics is inapplicable or inappropriate, and that the NPOV policy is, exceptionally, not necessary for this article, or (2) that the "atheism is denial" definition is held by an insignificant minority. Are you prepared to do one of those? Or do you have some justification I haven't considered? --Yath 05:54, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I misread your response, so disregard the above. You say, "Any claim that Atheism must be an active stance is a logical fallacy." May I infer from that, that you intend both viewpoints be included? In that case, you must have misread my post, because we are in agreement. I said include the definition of atheism as active disbelief, not to have it exclusively. And it isn't my definition, I'm not making this stuff up (as your list of dictionary definitions below attests). --Yath 06:12, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, some people want to utilize the broad, default definition: people who havn't taken a stance = atheists, thruout the article. Thats totally unnacceptable, since thats an uncommon definition. Discussing the various usages of the term, in individual sections, is the solution. Sam [Spade] 00:20, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Sam here. The term atheism is inherently ambiguous. Accepting one definition over the other as the default would be POV. That's not acceptable. The reality is that atheism incorporates both ideas. Nohat 01:08, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I fully agree with Nohat here. (20040302 11:45, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Sam, a lack of belief in God or gods, aka: Weak Atheism is the common definition of Atheism. Anyone, yourself included, who makes claims to the contrary should present some credible and neutral support for your position. Perhaps you can explain and justify your claim that Weak Atheism is an uncommon definition in light of it being a central feature in each of these reference sources (either that or demonstrate exactly how these references are wrong):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--FeloniousMonk 01:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(sorry to split your response, FM) To quote Nohat: Weak atheism is still rejection of God, just not on the grounds that God doesn't exist; instead they reject God on the grounds that there isn't enough evidence that God does exist. Well, I agree with Nohan, and disagree with FM. However, I acknowledge that there are people (FM included) who have a different POV. I am willing to accept that the definition of WA as defined by Nohat is a common view, and one that applies to the history/persecution. etc parts of the article. I still disagree that a mere lack of belief is enough. To me 'lack of belief' in God is not a fallacious argument when applied to babies, because 'lack of belief' is a status that I would give to those things unable to hold beliefs, whereas 'rejection' I would say is a fallacious argument when applied to babies, because they are incapable of rejecting things like God. (20040302)

11 Significant and credible reference sources I provide above do not support your opinion on this. Do you have any credible, neutral references you can cite in support of your claim that Weak Atheism requires an active disbelief in God/gods, not a passive disbelief as is commonly understood? Atheism is literally the lack of belief in God or gods, without qualification. No claims or denials are made - an Atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. The broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Nohat's definition is factually incorrect. He does not understand Weak Atheism, and confuses it with Strong Atheism. Strong Atheism by definition requires a denial of deities, Weak Atheism precludes it. Attempts to say the two are essentially the same make errors of both fact and logic. Clearly there are many people who simply lack belief in God/gods without making a decision to do so; they are either unaware, apathetic or feel the point is moot for whatever reason. They also happen to be the most numerous type of Atheist.--FeloniousMonk 16:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FM, it appears that you and I have differing opinions of the term disbelief. For me, and most dictionaries, it is necessarily distinct from lack of belief.

Websters: Synonomous with: Distrust; unbelief; incredulity; doubt; skepticism.

This is how I am to understand disbelief. I agree that WA involves disbelief. I disagree that WA involves a mere lack of belief. (20040302)

Yes, we do disagree. Do you have any credible, neutral references you can cite to support your claim that Weak Atheism is not a lack of belief, but a beleif? The references I've provided do not support your claim.--FeloniousMonk 12:50, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I do not need to change my POV to suit you - I expect the article to demonstrate varying POV that are popularly held. We are not involved in promoting socio-political agendas here, but in attempting to write a fair, NPOV article. Most of your issues are addressed further down the discussion. Nevertheless, I will provide sources, once we have actually addressed another core issue which this particular point rests upon. Do you agree with me that (1) disbelief requires a stance, or (2) do you claim that disbelief is cognate with absence of belief, either in the qualified manner as held by BKonrad, or the unqualified manner as held by Adraeus et al. The reason why the argument rests on this issue is to do with interpretation. I have pointed out that some of the sources you cite appear to support my viewpoint - on the basis that disbelief is in accordance with the dictionary definitions etc. that subscribe to position (1) of this list. If you hold position (2), then we will never agree on the interpretation of provided references. (20040302)

Disbelief is a belief

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

- Charles Bradlaugh in his "A Plea for Atheism" states: "Atheist does not say 'There is no God,' but he says: 'I know not what you mean by God; I am without idea of God; the word 'God' is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, '

- He then goes on to show the reasons why atheist may reject some concepts and why. But it seems the atheist doesn't just disbelieve rather can not see a reason (in one example) to believe according to the proof. Actually, he states "Atheism, properly understood, is no mere disbelief; is in no wise a cold, barren negative; it is, on the contrary, a hearty, fruitful affirmation of all truth, and involves the positive assertion of action of highest humanity. "

- I would like to note again that theism stems from theos or god and "Generally it is the belief in gods or goddesses, or the belief in a creator of the universe who is actively invovled in maintaining and ruling it." (note, they do not say "the belief in God or gods"). And atheism which "The literal meaning of the term is therefore 'lack of belief in a god.'" Lack of belief, not having a belief, or without a belief is not 'disbelief' or 'belief' that something doesn't exist. While a willful disbelief in something may be 'lack of belief', 'lack of belief' is certainly not a willful disbelief.

- that said while someone disbelieving in any gods may be an atheist, this is not a full definition of the term and is only giving a piece of it. While many say they aren't theist, yet can not be atheist, this is a fallacy. They don't want to be associated with a negative term that society has made negative, yet with a full definition they still fall under that catagory. One that lacks theism or lacks a belief in a god or gods is simply atheist.

--Jayon 01:40, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Definition of disbelief

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

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

1. doubt about the truth of something

2. a rejection of belief

http://www.brainydictionary.com

1. The act of disbelieving;

2. A state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true.

3. Refusal of assent, credit, or credence;

4. Denial of belief.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disbelief

1. doubt about the truth of something

2. disbelief - a rejection of belief

http://www.wordreference.com/

1. doubt about the truth of something

2. a rejection of belief

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Ed.

Refusal or reluctance to believe.

Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary Unabridged

1 The act of disbelieving

2 Mental refusal to accept (as a statement or proposition) as true

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998

1 The act of disbelieving;

2 A state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true;

3 Refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief.

Princeton University WordNet 2.0 - 2003

1: doubt about the truth of something

2: a rejection of belief

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

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

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

- That is the problem with terms we use. It's such that infinity does not imply a number, but rather a condition of no limits, yet that doesn't stop someone from using the concept as such though it may be flawed. Atheism simply is 'not theism'. So naturally, if one were to apply a label to something and know that something can not hold a belief, would it not be without that belief then? This is why someone was making the baby claim earlier. I for one agree with it, but do not agree putting it as a definition or description seeing as 'atheism' has too much negativity attached to it.

--Jayon 01:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Summary and back on topic

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

Positions A/B

Position A: The article should only state the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Correction

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

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

Sam [Spade] 20:31, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Position B is untenable: Nobody defines agnosticism that way: From Agnosticism: The view that the existence of God, gods or deities is either unknown, or inherently unknowable. The term is also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities. (20040302 02:33, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC))

FM considers weak atheism to be the mere absence of theism. So, FM asserts that rocks and babies are atheist, in that anything that has a mere absence of theism is atheist, just as anything that has no color (e.g. thought) is colorless. This appears to be due to FM reading 'disbelief' as being cognate with 'mere absence of belief'.

However, as I (and Websters, etc) consider the word 'disbelief' to be something that is not a mere absence of belief, but a conviction regarding the issue, I do not think it is possible for babies, rocks, etc. to disbelieve. This means (for me, etc.) that disbelief requires an active position - a conviction regarding the subject, in this case, the divine, or God. (Note, FM, I am not attempting to denigrate your view here, but trying to understand the nuances of differentiation.) It appears from the various definitions of atheism kindly gathered by FM that I concur with the following: Websters 1, Funk & Wagnell, Websters 2, OED, NDR. I do not entirely agree with the definitions from: Agora, PoR, EoRH. This is because the latter definitions admit babies and rocks as atheists. I also consider the latter sources to be significantly less authoritative than the former, though I completely admit this is POV.

Also, I prefer (and agree with) Nohat's distinction between weak atheism and strong atheism: Weak atheism is still a rejection of God, just not on the grounds that God doesn't exist; instead they reject God on the grounds that there isn't enough evidence that God does exist., which is distinctly a disbelief (as I understand the term).

I also disagree with the way in which agnosticism is being used in positions A and B. I do agree that agnosticism should be mentioned, but I basically agree with those who (in my mind accurately) distinguish between belief and provability. I consider agnosticism to be concerned with the proof of God, and atheism to be concerned with the existence of God.

Position A: The article should only state the following:

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

- Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god or gods. Not a belief that there is a lack of beliefs though it may include that. Atheism is simply 'not theism' is it not?

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

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

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

- using the literaly translation of theism being the belief in a god or gods, would it not seem natural to assume atheism to be 'not theism' or without the belief in a god or gods. The terms used today by some people (while they probably need to be addressed) should be noted that they narrow down the definition to one who denies the belief in a god or gods and some people or religions define it even narrower claiming anyone an atheist who denies existence in their god or gods. Many claim they are not atheist simply because they do not want to be in the negative light that is cast about the word since they don't 'deny' any existence rather just don't believe it exists due to unreasonable evidence. But if they do not hold a theistic belief then they are not theist or 'a-thiest'. They may be intelligent enough to avoid the title by saying they just don't know (agnostic) which avoids answering whether they hold any theistic belief or not, therefor avoiding a negative label. If one says they are not theist, then they are simply atheist.

--Jayon 02:18, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Position C

Position C: Atheism is disbelief in the divine. Some consider Atheism to be a state of merely lacking theism, while others consider Atheism to be a conviction against the existence of God. Atheism itself is often divided into strong atheism, and weak atheism. Strong Atheism is the rejection of God on the grounds that it is impossible (generally using reason, etc.) for God to exist. Weak atheism is still a rejection of God, but on the grounds that there isn't enough evidence that God does exist.

IMHO we all agree that atheism is indeed disbelief in the divine. (apparently not) All of us also either assert that disbelief is a mere lack of belief, while others consider it to be a denial or conviction, and I consider Nohat's definitions of weak and strong atheism to be sensible and rational.

In brief, (along with Nohat and others) I do not think that weak atheism is well-defined as being cognate with the mere (aka passive) absence of belief in God. (20040302 22:40, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))

In retrospect, it appears that Nohat's definition of strong atheism (which I like) at least tacitly involves a conviction regarding provability - this would mean that in fact agnosticism may need to play a larger picture in the article than at first I thought. However, we would need to be specifically clear concerning the definition of the term, as I also do not consider agnosticism to be a passive stance. (20040302)

As addressed previously, rocks and babies lack the capability to be either atheist or theist--stop reviving this straw man argument. I very strongly disagree about opening the article with the statement "Atheism is disbelief in the divine." The article should at the least begin with a statement that all parties can agree with and that does not implicitly exclude one or another common understandings of the term. I find Position B the best statement so far. older≠wiser 23:20, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I agree it would be a straw man if it weren't for the fact that some people assert that babies are indeed atheists. We have discussed this before. I find the idea ludicrous - but that is merely POV. I ask you to consider the statement "thought is colorless" - is that a meaningless statement because thought cannot have color? Or is it informative? Similarly "babies are atheist" is grammatically and semantically analogous IFF we assert that atheism is indeed the mere lack of belief in God, just as colorlessness is the mere lack of color. My purpose is honest. I agree with you - I think it is mistaken to apply definitions of atheism in such a broad manner. I find the concept of theism/atheism as a metaphysical dyad unwieldy and un-useful, though I find the concept of color/colorlessness as a metaphysical dyad useful and sensible. Therefore, to me, it is not sensible to say that atheism is the mere lack of theism. Stating that no-one calls babies atheists because they are unable to believe in the first place actually doesn't work too well: I have atheist friends who say "I would like to believe in God, but I just can't" - We cannot say that they are not atheists, just because they aren't able to believe in God! I would happily call them weak atheists. They call themselves atheists, therefore they are actively atheist. They have a conviction about their beliefs. Why is that so hard? (20040302)

Oh. Here is some evidence. Not such a straw man:

All young children are atheists

--Nick-in-South-Africa 07:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Humans are born as atheists.

--Adraeus 11:53, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Babies, when born, [...] are weak atheist.

--Andre 15:33, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

I likewise failt to appreciate the "straw man" comment. Its not our fault if our opponents don't have a strong case. if you have a sound argument to replace theirs, lets hear it. Sam [Spade] 23:58, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bkonrad, would you not agree that -against your own criteria- it makes sense to at least qualify a statement such as 'atheism is the lack of belief in god', by explicitly restricting it to the population that is able to get involved? Then we would not have this 'straw man' argument/counter-argument. If we can agree on a fully qualified statement, then we can subsequently work on the editorial. Something like "Atheism is defined either as (1) the disbelief in God, or (2) the lack of belief in God by those who are capable of belief in God." Unwieldy, but it gets us out of the straw men - as has been stated earlier, babies and rocks is an old argument - let's address it through careful definition, rather than sweep it under a carpet by leaving it as an ambiguity left unaddressed. And, as a statement, it is far harder to argue against. (20040302)

No, because there is no need to qualify "lack of belief" as not applying to rocks or babies because it sophistry to assert that it does. In short, the qualification is unnecessary. There is no ambiguity except in the minds of those looking for extentuating exceptions. older≠wiser 01:16, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

It is sophistry to assert that it does. This is a faulty premise. Your argument is unsound. I have argued the case that it is not at all sophistry to make the assertion: I have given evidence that people hold the view which you consider so ludicrous that you call it sophistry to deny. There is indeed differing POV grounded in that ambiguity - unless you agree with NISA, Adraeus, and Andrevan. I understand their argument well - they use the a- prefix to demonstrate that atheism is a dyadic opposition to theism. Their view is quite clear (look in the archives) that everything is either atheist or theist. It is a easily stated position. Anything that lacks belief (therefore rocks, and babies too) is atheist. I just have a different view regarding atheism. Your position, as I understand it, differs in that it indeed qualifies the limits of atheism to the limits of what may believe in God. These are distinct positions. (20040302)

And your arguments have been shown to be without merit, hence my characterization of them as sophistry. Perhaps I missed something, but in looking through the previous discussion I could not see anyone other than yourself postulating that babies could be considered as atheists. In order to lack belief in any meaningful sense, one must be capable of having belief. It is nonsense to assert otherwise. older≠wiser 02:06, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Maybe you don't believe the 3 citations above are real? Or you didn't bother to check the relevant archive (8)? (Try a search for 'children', and 'born'.) Also your statement that my arguments are without merit is, as yet, unfounded. I would appreciate a compassionate demonstration of their lack of merit, preferably something more substantial than a bare assertion. On to your final statement, a question: Do you think that one must be capable of having belief to be an atheist, or do you think that one must be capable of believing in God to be an atheist? In other words, do you think that anyone who is capable of belief is capable of belief in God? (20040302)

- "lack belief" in a meaningful sense doesn't have to be meaningful to the one lacking the belief does it? Say one grew up not being around any theism and not developing any theistic idea. While many may refer (and correctly I might add) that the person is atheist or 'not theist', that person does not lack belief (in a theistic sence) in their own mind or in any meaningful sense (did i say that correctly?). That person would still be atheist in the most true sense of them being 'not thiest'.

- At the beginning, it was said "... All of us also either assert that disbelief is a mere lack of belief, while others consider it to be a denial or conviction, ...". Disbelief may be lack of belief, lack of belief, however, is not disbelief. That makes a definition with 'disbelief' conflicting with the full meaning of atheism although it may be a part of it...

--Jayon 03:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Position D

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

This one is easy to judge, because it isn't factual. No one defines atheism that way, so the article shouldn't say that they do. It is clear enough that you do not approve of the definition of weak atheism as mere lack of belief ("We cannot say that they are not atheists, just because they aren't able to believe in God!"), but your personal distaste for it should not be a criterion for judging what what gets included in the article. --Yath 00:52, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure that you read that correctly - try re-reading the quote in context. Regardless, you are correct- I agree with Nohat's definition of weak atheism: Weak atheism is still rejection of God, just not on the grounds that God doesn't exist; instead they reject God on the grounds that there isn't enough evidence that God does exist -- Nohat 19:13, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC).

My issue directly above was actually about the need to qualify what may be three differing views of what is meant by weak atheism: Namely, (1) The definition as supplied by Nohat. (2) Weak atheism is the lack of belief in God by those who are capable of belief in God (derived from Bkonrad's response to my argument as being a straw man. (3) Weak atheism is the dyadic opposition of theism - the state of not being theist. (as held by NISA, Adraeus and Andrevan)

2 and 3 differ on the issue of babies. 1 differs on the basis of whether or not weak athesim is a rejection. Let us indeed start off by being inclusive. (20040302 01:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Position E

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

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

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

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

I suppose that all discussants agree with one of the three positions above even if we don't agree with the need for qualifiers. Is that correct? (20040302 01:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Is there anyone other than 20040302 who postulates that it is possible to consider rocks and babies as atheists? If not, I think there are essentially only two viewpoints in play here (certainly many nuances, but basically they fall into either of two camps as summarized by Position A and B above. older≠wiser 02:06, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Andrevan, Nick-In-South-Africa, Atraeus actually hold that view. I guess there are others. (20040302)

Secondly No. Position B suggests Others consider all atheism to be the denial of the existence of any gods, while one who simply lacks belief in any gods is an agnostic. I do not hold that position, though I do hold the position Atheism is the disbelief in God. Strong Atheism is the rejection of God on the grounds that it is impossible (generally using reason, etc.) for God to exist. Weak Atheism is still a rejection of God, but on the grounds that there isn't enough evidence that God does exist. I trust you can see the distinction. I reject the position regarding agnosticism within Position B. (20040302)

My apologies 20040302, I did miss the comments in earlier discussion that you point out (I was searching on "rocks" and "babies" not "children" or "born") and the comments have been accreting so quickly on this page that I had missed portions of your replies to me. Until you pointed it out to me, I found it difficult to fathom that reasonable people would postulate babies as being atheists because they lack belief. For me, and this is a subtle point perhaps, but the key term is "lack". This is not simply "absense of", but carries an implicit connotation indicating that the "something" lacked is something which had once been present or which is at the least familiar enough for the absence to be noticed (I don't mean to imply that "belief" is the default condition and "lack" is somehow aberrant though). So I guess my personal POV is that one cannot be an atheist due to ignorance (although one might be through apathy). I can now see that the three positions you describe are applicable. I can see now that some proponents of atheism want to assert atheism as the default condition of human nature and that the condition of belief is a subset. I'll have to ponder this a bit more. older≠wiser 02:51, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

It's inaccurate to characterize this as only proponents of atheism claiming that an absence of belief in theism is the default nature of humans; anyone not introduced to theistic beliefs would find the notion of a default theistic nature odd. As do many Buddhists, likely.--FeloniousMonk 13:21, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Apologies, I do not understand what you are saying. Please could you clarify for the less quick-witted among us (like me)

I agree with you FM - that it is not necessary to be a proponent of atheism to hold view E3, though I guess it is not central to Bkonrad's views. I also think you are correct to assert that many consider a default theistic nature to be 'odd'. This is why some of us struggle with the idea of placing all reasoning people into an atheist/theist dichotomy. (20040302 13:52, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Yes, it is not central and FM is misreading my characterization. I say some proponents of atheism appear to be asserting atheism as the default. You are equating atheism with absence of belief in theism. This is a disputed point. I (and I do not think I am alone) feel that the lack of belief in entities that are incapable of belief is meaningless. I am most definitely NOT asserting theism as a default nature (although there are some who do). However I also do not agree that atheism is a default either. Insofar as atheism is a rejection of god(s) and the supernatural, I suspect that many in the fields of psychology and anthropology (and perhaps even neurobiology) would hold that humans do indeed have a predisposition to believe in something beyond the physical realm. I do not think that the assertion of a fundamental "blank slate" regarding theism is a univerally accepted position, possibly not even by all atheists. older≠wiser 14:52, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

That is an interesting point - and one that I guess would be best left open. Certainly, I consider theism as one of many artefacts of a psychological response to mortality. Though the thought that theism/atheism are anything more than socio-cultural terms used to model belief systems is something I would struggle with, and the idea that theism is the sole religious response to mortality is something I would resist - e.g. look at ancestor worship. I would certainly argue that for societies that don't admit the theism/atheism dyad it doesn't make sense to force them into either side of that dyad, though I imagine some protagonists would do so, especially those who hold to view E3. (20040302 15:09, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC))

How about simply not mentioning agnosticism at all there? Just have it as Others consider all atheism to be the denial of the existence of any gods, and then go into detail about that viewpoint farther down in the article in one of the sections more specifically devoted to it. The article's about atheism, after all, not agnosticism. Bryan 05:04, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is sensible, though I think Yath's purpose was to find equivalences of definition; this could be more easily expressed (and avoid the can of worms that agnosticism brings) by saying: Some consider all atheism to be the denial of the existence of any gods, while one who simply lacks belief in God is neither an atheist nor a theist.: However, following the discussion with Bkonrad, I prefer the distinctions as made in Position E, and I consider point B to be incomplete: There is no need to force the number of views down to two, and so far we have found at least three positions regarding the definition of atheism, and two positions regarding the definitions of strong/weak atheism. My question right now is does that cover points of view among the discussants? I also wonder if it would not be more readable if we moved the weak/strong atheism definitions away from the introductory paragraph. (20040302 13:04, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC))

- I would have to agree that qualifiers are definitely needed. Just by stating 'God' shows that one is of an Abrahamic faith and more than likely, christian. If you really mean 'a god or gods' and if we want to be less sexist 'a deity or deities', then 3) The absence of belief in God seems to be the most appealing to the actual meaning of the word 'atheism' or lack of belief in a god or gods or basically 'not theism'. While this definition may include rocks, babies, and the like, it is pointless unless you want to pick a fight -- there may be many that would reject this statement.

- To say that atheism is the denial in the existance in a god or gods is narrowing the definition. While it may still be true, it's not the entire definition. You could say more, "Atheism: the lack of belief in the existance of a deity or deities (such as God, Allah, Zeus, etc.) which is used when refering to one who denies the belief in a deity or deities. A specific religion might refer to one as atheist if they do not hold or reject the belief in their deity or deities, and in this case, atheist is usually used negatively toward the person." That may be way off, someone could clean that up though, no?

--Jayon 02:48, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Position F

Position F: The article should simply state the following:

Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a deity.

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

This definition benefits from simplicity by avoiding qualifiers and caveats, and is the only one wholly consistent with the prevailing academic and common vernacular definition.

This definition is consistent the most widely held academic definition:

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

Agora, the Online Undergraduate Research Journal of Humanities[7]:
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[8]:
Weak atheism is defined as the absence of belief in God... A strong atheist, on the other hand, is someone who has the positive belief that God does not exist.

Encyclopedia of American Religious History, by by Edward L. Queen, Stephen R. Prothero, and Gardiner H. Shattuck
Atheism, literally the absence of belief in God, has always been a minority viewpoint in American culture.

It is consistent with credible dictionary definitions:

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

Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1957
atheism: Disbelief in the existence of God; the state of godlessness. Atheism: unbelief in or denial of God or any supernaturalism

Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language, 1947
atheism: The denial of or disbelief in God, as a First Cause, or Ground, of the universe. As dogmatic atheism it denies, as negative atheism it does not believe in, and as critical or skeptical atheism (or agnosticism) it doubts, the existence of god.

It is also consistent with common relevant online referrences: wordreference.com Religioustolerance.org About.com

And lastly, it is consistent with these references cited in the article itself:

• Krueger, D. E. (1998). What is atheism?: A short introduction. New York: Prometheus.
• LePoidevin, R. (1996). Arguing for atheism: An introduction to the philosophy of religion. London: Routledge.
• Mackie, J. L. (1982). The miracle of theism: Arguments for and against the existence of God. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Martin, M. (1990). Atheism: A philosophical justification. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
• Martin, M., & Monnier, R. (Eds.). (2003). The impossibility of God. New York: Prometheus.
• Smith, G. H. (1980). Atheism: The case against God. New York: Prometheus.
• Stein, G. (Ed.). (1985). The encyclopaedia of unbelief (Vols. 1-2). New York: Prometheus.

--FeloniousMonk 14:24, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In general, I have no problem with position F , except that it sustains the inherent ambiguity that was addressed in Position E. Positions E2 and E3 are not explicitly addressed int Position F. I applaud the removal of definitions of weak and strong atheism from the intial statement, though where they are defined, we will need to address differences of interpretation.

I currently hold that we do need to express the two separate subviews of F(2) concerning the qualification of absence of belief. I believe that expressing the distinction may well prevent future wars on this article, even if such differentiation is not found in articles elsewhere. I feel we have a responsibility towards this, as WP is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.

Also, I am still uncertain regarding the opening statement. I do not consider 'disbelief' to be cognate with 'absence of belief'. See discussions and definitions above. Also, position F(2) reads almost identically to the opening statement, to the point of redundancy focused merely on the exchange of 'lack' and 'absence'. Something like:

Atheism concerns the issues of not having belief in a deity.

• Atheism can involve the positive assertion that there is no deity.
• Atheism can be the absence of belief (by those who are able) that there is a deity (disallowing babies).
• Atheism can be the opposing metaphysical dyad to theism (allowing babies).

Hmm. More editorial would be necessary. (20040302 14:55, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC))

What is your obsession with babies here;-)?

Lol I got a smiley from FM :-) things are looking up. (20040302)

Absence of belief is just that: an absence of belief. I do not agree that it is action or active position. Ask a Buddhist raised away from theism if they actively chose to not believe in God/gods. Never occurred to them. Not a choice.

It's been my position all along that the original opening statement is preferable to most of what is presented here, except that it and most here are too convoluted, equivocal, and lack simplicity.

Position E had the following issues:

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

The definition of Weak Atheism is factually incorrect. The Philosophy of Religion website[9] defines Weak atheism 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." Agora, the Online Undergraduate Research Journal of Humanities[10] says: "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." Weak atheism in not a reject of God, it is the absence of belief. I suggest you cite some credible, neutral reference sources show us where you're right.

You are not asked to believe the position of E1, just acknowledge that others hold it. Regardless, you are yet to discuss your position concerning the apparent distinction between your views on the term 'disbelief' and those of the definitions as held by nearly every dictionary in existence. I have already told you that I cannot begin to cite sources until we have reached either an agreement, or an agreement to differ regarding the interpretation of the term 'disbelief'. I have also stated earlier that I do not consider the AGORA site, nor the PoR website to be authoritative, so it does no good in a debate with me to quote from them, as I do not accept their status as authoritative.

So exactly what sources do you consider authoritative then? Rejecting others presented here without presenting alternatives or even reasons makes your rejection a non sequitur- If you personally choose to ignore or reject scholarship found on credible and neutral sources, that is your personal choice done at your own risk of relevancy, and is no way binding on wikipedia to follow suit. In fact, just the opposite, wikipedia policy enjoins us to create articles that represent the current state of understanding and knowledge. Both the Online Undergraduate Research Journal of Humanities and philosophyofreligion.info are well-established, credible publications relied upon by many. As far as my using them to debate you here, there is no real debate, I'm presenting opinion supported by credible and scholarly references, and you continue to reply with continually repeated unsupported assertions, errors of fact, and Straw Man arguments. It's no debate.--FeloniousMonk 17:12, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've no problem acknowledging that some people hold erroneous views, the fact that they hold them does not mean that they get to represent them a propositional knowledge in any way though. Building an accurate encyclopedia requires that any information offered as factual be justifiably so.

My definion of disbelief/disbelieve, the absence of belief, is consistant with the sources I've cited and does not necessitate the disbeliever making an positive assertion:

Oxford English Dictionary
atheism: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.

disbelieve: 1. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact, b. a person making a statement. 2. Not to believe in; to have no faith in.

Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1957
atheism: Disbelief in the existence of God; the state of godlessness. Atheism: unbelief in or denial of God or any supernaturalism.

disbelief: lack of belief, unbelief.

Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language, 1947
atheism: The denial of or disbelief in God, as a First Cause, or Ground, of the universe. As dogmatic atheism it denies, as negative atheism it does not believe in, and as critical or skeptical atheism (or agnosticism) it doubts, the existence of god.

disbelieve: Not to believe; to hold not to be true or not to exist; to refuse to credit.

I am curious regarding the careful selection of definitions that you choose from. See above for more definitions.

Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1942.

disbelief: Refusal of credit or faith; denial of belief; unbelief; infidelity; scepticism.

Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, 1943.

disbelieve: Not to believe; to hold not to be true or not to exist; to refuse to credit.

OED FULL Definition.

disbelieve: 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the reality of. (With simple object or object clause). b. a person making a statement. 2. absol. or intr. Whatley Commonpl. Bk. (1864) It is very evident that the opposite to credulity is scepticism, and that to disbelieve is to believe. 3. intr. with in.: Not to believe in; to have no faith in.

It is because of your selective interpretation of the term disbelief that we cannot continue sensible discussion. I acknowledge that your interpretation is one of several valid interpretations. You appear to dismiss any other reading than your own as being errors of fact. FM, I am asking you to understand the necessary plural nature of WP - it is written by massive numbers of editors, all of whom have varying POV. The fact that you consider my views to be erroneous does not make them erroneous for me. There is no point in providing citations, as we cannot even agree a common language.

Take for instance, the way in which you and I read a paragraph from, say, 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.

My reading is that this demonstrates that weak atheists identify themselves as beings so. Firstly, they have an argument. They actively withold assent. They have a point of view ("because it is the theist that makes an assertion, it is the theist that bears the burden of proof") against which, he seeks justification. Your reading differs. This is because of the way in which we differ in our interpretation. You can continue to fling 'straw man' at me if you wish, (it appears to be phrase of the day!) but that doesn't change my reading. This is why I ask you merely to accept differing POV regarding definitions. We will be here forever if we attempt to sway everyone to our way of thinking, won't we? (20040302 23:19, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC))

The point that I have to make concerning the nominal Buddhist is that she would certainly not agree to being labelled as an atheist either. This is the position that you find so hard to understand. Buddhism traditionally (check out e.g. the Anguttara Nikaaya Sutta) has said that questions regarding the existence or non-existence of phenomena such as God are the wrong sort of question. This indicates that there is no way that a knowledgable Buddhist would claim to be either a theist or an atheist - they are the wrong sort of dyad. (20040302)

Again another Straw Man. Being an Atheist no more requires the consent of the person who lacks the belief in God or gods than being an American requires the consent of someone born in the US. Found on the Buddhism page: "...(some Hindus) consider Buddhism to be a heresy as it tended to be atheistic (Buddhism, additionally rejects the Vedas, traditionally believed in Hinduism, as divine revelation, or the word of God) even though Buddha himself was ambivalent about the nature of God and such notions of heresy are alien to Hinduism as it is a liberal and tolerant religion." Religioustolerance.org states: "Buddhists do not share most of the core beliefs of historical Christianity. These include: ...transcendent or immanent or any other type of God, Gods, Goddess, and/or Goddesses."--FeloniousMonk 17:24, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, not a straw man. Your definition of atheist is only one definition of atheist. Being an atheist requires identity as an atheist. Being called an atheist requires only that you belong to the definition of atheist belonging to the individual who calls you that.

The references you have chosen concerning Buddhism are pretty reductive third party viewpoints. The first is the POV of some Hindus, the second is authored by B.A. Robinson, a Christian theologian. Citation from Sutra or other traditinal Buddhist text is reasonably authoritative if you wish to make a strong claim about Buddhists. I did. (20040302 23:19, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC))

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

"by those who are capable of belief in God" is an spurious qualifier that serves no purpose other than to imply that belief in God/gods is being rejected, implying Weak Atheism is really deprecated Strong Atheism. It's unnecessary, by definition anyone capable of holding a belief is capable of believing in God, as any number of 4 year-olds will attest.

So do you hold that dogs - which are able to believe their food will arrive when the packet rustles - are able capable of believing in God? Therefore all animals are atheist, right? Moreover, a newborn is not yet cognitively developed, so the claim of those who hold that newborns are atheist is indeed a dyadic position. Again, I feel that there is a need to qualify, quite carefully, the differences of opinion. Secondly, I disagree with your interpretation of "by those who are capable of belief in God". To me this is a reasonable statement, that should accord with those who consider the ability to believe in God to be a necessary precondition for being marked as an atheist. (20040302 16:09, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Spare us the Straw Man arguments. Many people go through their entire life's either completely unaware of, or totally indifferent to Theism; Buddhists for example. By definition they are Atheists. And this state of unawareness or indifference means they did not by making a conscious choice to be Atheists. To exclude this significant category of people, likely multiple millions if not billions, from the article because you and others either cannot grasp this simple fact or willfully choose to ignore will only lead to a mediocre, POV-addled, and factually incorrect wikipedia article. Again, the phrase "by those who are capable of belief in God" is unnecessary and implies a choice.--FeloniousMonk 16:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By definition they are Atheists. Well, according to one definition of atheism, you are correct. According to another, you are incorrect. But hey- vivé la differance. As mentioned earlier - I find the idea of being an atheist without identifying ones-self as an atheist to be pretty outlandish. I have no problem about being called an atheist without knowing it. It appears that you wish to live in a world brimming with atheists- well that is your Weltanschauung. Of course it is no more objectively true than any other Weltanschauung. I believe that the world has many millions of people who don't want to be labelled either atheist or theist, and to exclude this significant category of people, likely multiple millions if not billions, from the article because you and others either cannot grasp this simple fact or willfully choose to ignore will only lead to a mediocre, POV-addled, and factually incorrect wikipedia article. (20040302 23:26, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Do you find the idea of being an American or Frenchman without identifying ones-self as an American, Frenchman or whatever to be equally outlandish? That's the problem you face employing your logic. Would being identified as a Theist without identifying ones-self as such also be equally outlandish?

The definition I support is factually correct, inclusive, and supported by many credible academic references. The other definition isn't.

I could actually care less how many atheists there are in the world, I'm interested in writing an encyclopedic article that is factually correct, balanced and free of POV nuance. Let's stick to the points and leave personal POV out of it.--FeloniousMonk 19:27, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you find the idea of being an American or Frenchman without identifying ones-self as an American, Frenchman or whatever to be equally outlandish? Well actually yes. If I were an Algerian in France, I might have some problem with being arbitrarily identified as French. Similarly, I'm sure there are many in the U.S. who would not self-identify as American and could rightfully object to an arbitrary classification (for example native peoples). Your definition is actually only factually correct if you subscribe to the world-view that you hold. People who hold a different view of the world find your definition false (at least in part). The article needs to address these differences of perspective fairly. You say the other definition isn't (factually correct, inclusive and supported by credible academic references). I think there have been ample credible references provided that show this is not the case. Please stop trying to assert your definition as being the only valid definition otherwise we will never be able to make any progress. older≠wiser 19:42, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

That's a Straw Man. Undoubtedly there there are Americans in the U.S. who do not self-identify as American and object to being considered such; our jails are full of them. They tried that line of reasoning with the IRS as justification for not paying taxes. See how far it got them...

"I think there have been ample credible references provided that show this is not the case." What references are you talking about? I've posted the vast majority of the citations to references here. And they all support this simple definition: "Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Atheism can involve the positive assertion that there is no God or gods. Atheism can be the absence of a belief that there is a God or gods." This not just my definition as you claim, but consistent with the following: Agora, the Online Undergraduate Research Journal of Humanities, The Philosophy of Religion website, Encyclopedia of American Religious History, Religioustolerance.org, Wordreference.com, About.com.

--FeloniousMonk 22:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have yet to see your definition supported by any citations, neutral, credible, or otherwise. Nor have I found your arguments compelling. But I do not implore you to cease your making them under the guise of "never be able to make any progress."--FeloniousMonk 22:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nor have I found your arguments compelling -- that about sums up how I see your arguments. A lot of tendentious repetition going nowhere. older≠wiser 23:11, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Considering the paucity of reference sources supporting your position and the abundance for mine, I'd have to question your ability to objectively discern a compelling argument then. There's a big difference between actual, genuine tendentiousness and having to repeatedly point out and correct wrong thinking and factual errors.--FeloniousMonk 23:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And there is a big difference between being convinced of your own correctness and the ability to recognize that other reasonable people may hold positions different from your own. older≠wiser 00:51, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Recognize that other people hold positions different from my own? Not a problem. Standing idly by while stilted POV and factual errors are used as justification to rewrite an encyclopedia article? Not a chance. Were their position consistant with and supported by the majority of academic and common understandings and definitions of atheism, I'd have no reason to repeatedly correct wrong thinking and factual errors.--FeloniousMonk 02:49, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Again, an unnecessary qualifier- "(including e.g. newborns)".

--FeloniousMonk 15:31, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually No. Currently we have identified among the discussants that there are distinctions of view regarding the inclusion or not of babies under the definition of WA in positions E2/E3. (20040302)

It's a silly point over a silly inclusion. The Encyclopedia of American Religious History, by by E.L. Queen, S.R. Prothero, and G.H. Shattuck, states correctly that "Atheism, literally the absence of belief in God..." I'm sure adults and infants are implicitly covered by that. Qualifications as to infant vs. adult is another way of sneaking the assertion of Weak Atheism being an active choice into the definition of Weak Atheism.--FeloniousMonk 16:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I also am finding this "that are capable of believing" bit to be a little peculiar. It seems like a cop-out, since one can always just say of someone who doesn't believe "oh, he's just not capable of believing." Is someone who's lived on an isolated island his whole life and has never heard of gods before "capable of believing"? This is a bit too fine a point to be included in a basic definition, and controversial to boot - it should be mentioned somewhere where these issues can actually be addressed in detail. Bryan 17:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

the problem is that you have redefined the term in a manner not only in contridiction to other books of reference, but also in contridiction of logic. Your definion of "atheism by default" prermise creates all sorts of foolish conclusions, such as babies, animals, rocks etc... being "atheist" due to not going to church. Atheism = denial of God, plain and simple. Sam [Spade] 18:11, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I haven't redefined anything. The "weak atheism" approach is supported by lots of sources, FeloniusMonk made a great list of some of them back on the 28th. New Dictionary of Religions, Encyclopedia of American Religious History, The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion, The Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, The Freethinker's Text Book, The Gospel of Atheism, etc. Even if you disagree with this interpretation, there's now ample evidence that this interpretation is in general usage in some significant circles and so should be treated appropriately here on Wikipedia. Bryan 20:11, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Freethinker's Text Book eh? I suppose I should quote from the catholic encyclopedia then, or perhaps give the baptist definition, since objective sources are clearly no longer essential? Sam [Spade] 20:25, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quite true, Bryan committed a fallacy of appealing to great numbers. Just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it true. My favourite example of this is the fact that everyone in the middle ages firmly believed that the earth was flat. Is the earth flat? Atheism must be an active belief. It is in contrast to monotheism, polytheism and in general theism. These all require active beliefs. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 20:31, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't find these comments especially helpful. I do not think Bryan is insisting that only one definition be presented -- I see that he is presenting evidence that one particular understanding is common. You may disagree with that understanding, but I think NPOV dictates that the article present all of the common understandings fairly and without prejudice. older≠wiser 20:40, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. I edit-conflicted with you while writing the following response: Bryan 20:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I never claimed that the ample references made it "true", though since we're arguing definitions that's actually not an unreasonable approach to take. What I said those references mean is that this is a widespread opinion, and so should be adequately represented and discussed in this Wikipedia article. As for Sam's complaint about "objectivity of sources", there's already a section in the atheism article that addresses exactly that; Atheism#Polemical_usage. Bryan 20:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I see. However, I still think Bryan is full of crap. Wiser, I agree, all views are equal because they are all equally wrong, including my view. --The Sunborn

Excuse me, but that sounds a bit like a personal attack there. Bryan 16:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's not acceptable here. Play by the rules and make your case on its merits, personal attacks and insults are not acceptable. BTW, why aren't the theists here pointing out this moral transgression?--FeloniousMonk 19:27, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

because this thread is unmercifully long? I strongly condemn the usage of "crap", and any other unpleasentries. That said, is this going anywhere? Does anyone agree about anything? Sam [Spade] 03:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are babies athiest?

Who cares? It's a completely irrelevent point in this discussion. Whether or not the term athiest applies to babies is outside the scope of reason. It doesn't matter if they are or if they're not, it's just a label, and any discussion about the issue is completely innane.

The definition of atheism is one who disbelieves or denies the existance of God or gods. The question seems to be, does the word disbelief pertain to an active assertion that there is not a god, or the lack of an active assertion that there is a god. I think we can all agree that the word denies is congruent with the first of those two options. Someone who denies that there is a god is someone who has an active stance of believing that there is no god. That said I think it becomes obvious that the word disbelief is meant to include the other option, lack of an active belief in god, otherwise why not just leave it at one who denies god? That much is pretty well backed up by the dictionary definitions of disbelief as a lack of belief. What argument is there for this to not be so? --Starx 17:32, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, it is quite possible to not believe in god and also not consider oneself an athiest. Others might apply the label, but is that fair? It is a POV. By comparision, by some accounts groups like Jehovah's Witnesses, the Church of Latter Day Saints, and Unitarians are Christians, while by other accounts they are not. It is a matter of who does the defining and for what purpose. Let us not labor under the delusion that there is an "objective" definition of atheism. There are competing definitions put forward by different POVs for different purposes. The article needs to address all of the common understandings of atheism fairly. It seems that some proponents of atheism would apply the term to anyone who meets the criteria set forth by the proponents, regardless of whether persons would apply the term to themselves. Others, quite rightly I think, find this objectionable, or at least of dubious ethical character.

I think the issue comes down to a matter of what degree "atheism" involves conscious choice. It seems some assert that atheism does not require any taking conscious choice regarding the existence of god, simply that they do not hold any beliefs in that regard. Others, it appears, hold that atheism does entail some degree of conscious choice, even if the choice is not necessarily an explicit denial of god--one might take the position that there is simply insufficent evidence to assume the existence of god. older≠wiser 19:00, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

I came on to actually write these two paragraphs. I couldn't have said it better myself. I know many Buddhists who would feel as uncomfortable about being labelled atheists as they would do theists. The point is not that they have an erroneous view of what atheism is - they merely have a different view to those who would label them as such. They would object to the label on the grounds that concerning their identity as Buddhists merely because it misses the point. The correlation is misapplied. It's not the right sort of assumption. (20040302 22:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC))

If someone who doesn't believe in god doesn't consider themselves an athiest then it's because their idea of what an athiest is is incorrect. Athiest is a word with a specific meaning, there is no need for any POV. I think both of the groups you mentioned above are rightfully considered athiests. There's no reason why we can't explain the different viewpoints and at the same time stick with the true meaning of the word. --Starx 22:17, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Starx, I disagree. We are allowed to have difference of opinion. If you think that there is no need for any POV, then what does POV mean? Is it an invention of sophists? 'Atheist' has a definition sure - but the day-to-day interpretation of that definition - the manner by which we have come to that term and used it in the engagement of our Weltanschauung, is inevitably varied from person to person. This is because words are sociolinguistic human constructs. We must embrace the variation of understandings that words have, not deny it. (20040302 22:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC))

I believe you are in error because there is no firm definition of atheism. Very few words have a firm definition, that is why dictionaries have multiple usages of the same words. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 23:08, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well said. A dictionary definition normally discusses different meanings. We know that there is no objectively definitive definition, because differing dictionaries have differing definitions. We can begin to see see how they fit into different language games, (and none of the dictionaries are so varied in their definition for us to get confused with e.g. the definition of 'cat') But dictionaries only reflect usage, the everchanging sociolinguistic flux that makes being a human so fascinating, which is the point I was attempting to make to starx (20040302 00:14, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Moreover, one may even be able to judge the success of a word-meme by it's genetic diversity - atheist is a powerful, successful word. It applies to abstract social differentiation based on belief structures. It is very much alive and open to varying interpretation. (20040302)

In regards to babies being atheists, I want to point out a subtule but important point here b/c I keep seeing babies, rocks, and dogs lumped into the same category. Regardless of how you define the term atheism, an "atheist" as a noun is a *person* who subscribes to atheism. You and I are people. Intelligent aliens from other planets might be people. Babies might be people, but rocks and dogs are not people, thus they cannot be atheists. I don't see anything wrong, however, with Rocks and dogs being described with the *adjectives* atheist/atheistic/atheistical. It is in no way a "foolish conclusion" to describe them that way as Sam seems to think. My only guess is that Sam is confusing his adjectives and nouns. I don't really see any difference between calling rocks atheistic, and calling thoughts colorless. They are both silly statements, but neither of them are foolish conclusions, they are just potential unimportant facts. That's all. UVwarning

You miss the point that atheism is the gravest of all sins, not some sort of natural default. Sam [Spade] 19:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now you are really getting on my nerves. This is just idiotic. Unless we can have some sort of rational objective discussion about atheism, why don't you just go away? UVwarning 21:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Need to link into the philosophical concept of personhood; babies are not persons. Small children may be indoctrinated and are persons, but their beliefs depend on what memes they are given. Dunc|☺ 21:18, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the very wiki article that you just pointed to: "A few philosophers have simply accepted that babies are not persons. However, most have not." I'm well aware that there are some disagreements about whether or not babies are people. That's why I used the phrase "Babies might be people" instead of outright saying that they are people. That's why it is reasonable to argue over whether or not babies are atheists, but not reasonable to argue over whether or not rocks are atheists. They shouldn't be lumped together like that. Furthermore, I don't believe that the term weak atheism was ever intended to be considered a belief. If anyone knows of any credible sources that claim otherwise, please provide them. UVwarning 21:57, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Position Alpha and Omega

Position Alpha and Omega: the article should simply state the following:

Atheism is a religion well-known for the holy wars it sparks about its definition. An atheist is someone who believes in atheism. Said person may lack belief or actively disbelieve the existence of God, a god, or gods, but this is secondary to merely asserting that one does. Atheists are more prone to argue about the nature of atheism than about the exact nature of the god or gods they don't believe in, in contrast with most religions, for whom definition of the religion itself and of its subject matter are strongly intertwined. The conviction held by some atheists that all babies are de facto members of their faith is viewed by others as a facile attempt to boost the religion's rating in polls.

Just a kind reminder for everyone to lighten up just a little. For the record: I consider myself an atheist, but not a fundamentalist one -- and thank God for that, too. :-D JRM 22:08, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

Haha! I am one of those suspicious of the intent to ad infants to the atheists flagging poll numbers ;) Sam [Spade] 01:51, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No poll is going to include infants. I don't think anybody really cares about whether or not babies are atheists. The only reason why it comes up is b/c it is an easy illustration of the fact that atheism is not necessarily a belief. UVwarning

Theists care. Your POV would mean "all babies go to hell". Sam [Spade] 13:28, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are assuming before you even know the definition of atheism that all atheists go to hell. That's false logic. Look.. it is often said that all nonbelievers go to hell. Babies are nonbelievers, but they don't go to hell. They are obviously an exception. Substitute the word atheist for nonbeliever and you have the same thing. UVwarning

Atheists arn't non-believers, thats the error in your reasoning. Atheists are deniers of God, true believers in nihilism. Sam [Spade] 15:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

At the risk of starting Yet Another War of Definition: from nihilism: "Nihilism as a philosophical position is the view that the world, and especially human existence, is without meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value." This would seem to mean atheism <> nihilism. Some atheists may be nihilists, but surely not all. Belief that there is no god, or lack of belief in god, whichever way you want it, does not equate believing that existence is without meaning or purpose. This is irrespective of whether you believe that, or whether you believe atheists are deluding themselves when they disclaim it. (Help, I'm in a silly dispute! Get me out of here! JRM 16:19, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

Sam, yet again your aggressive defense of your Theism POV gets in the way of your ability to reason or even remember what you've said. You stated yesterday here that "Atheism is the lack of belief in, or the denial of, God or gods." --FeloniousMonk 19:06, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your pathetic ad hominems don't improve the quality of yiur argument. Denial of God is an action, a belief, not some sort of monstrous default. Please leave your frustrations with logic and rhetorical bile at the door. Sam [Spade] 19:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, Sam, but as you yourself have said here, Atheism is not necessarily an act of denial of God/gods or a belief that there is no God/gods. In it's common and academic definition, Atheism is merely the absence of belief in God/gods. In your post above you are factually wrong about both what constitutes atheism, what constitutes an ad hominem, and what constitutes acceptable behavior at wikipedia. Thanks for making your obvious POV quite clear and how it's influenced your personal definition of atheism. Wikipedia policy on Good Faith enjoins me to assume you are here to write an objective, factually correct article, not one that represents your theistic POV. We all expect each other to remain objective. I for one refuse to once again debate anyone spouting irrational, POV rhetoric, or from considering any point that lacks any credible supporting references. Both are completely without merit and not constructive to making this an encyclopedic article.--FeloniousMonk 20:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)