Talk:Atheism/Archive 16

message: The current header reads as follows:
:Atheism is popularly known as the denial of the existence of gods and alternatively as the condition of being without theistic beliefs. These different positions diverged from the original meaning, "without theism", due to interpretations of the a- prefix as either "not" or "without". The issues concerning self-identification and categorization as an atheist are complex as both involve adoption of the former definition, the latter definition, both, or a variation of either of the two.
The last sentence seems a bit extraneous to me. Though it is undoubtedly important, I am not sure if it is quite so important as to belong in the header - we already have two definitions, and it seems a bit redundant. Moreover, it is awkward. Is there a reason this final sentence is in there? It doesn't really seem to add anything to the header to me, but I don't want to delete it unilaterrally as the header seems to be one of those things which has been a cause of reversion. Titanium Dragon 13:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, self identification should to my mind be dealt with in the article's body, maybe even in its own section. --Nick-in-South-Africa 14:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Sentence of Header 

message: I refer those interested to my original points on this topic here:
Talk:Atheism#Couple_of_problems_with_the_.22The_Types_of_atheism.22_section
Someone still insists making mis-characterizing statements in the article over the controversy between weak and strong atheism, implying that the controversy is wide-spread. It is not. It is certainly not at university academic levels and above. As I've posted here many times before, many, if not most, credible, neutral academic reference sources use, or at least present, the broad definition (weak atheism) prominently. Hence, it is not just weak atheists who make the distinction and use the weak atheism definition, and the article cannot make that assertion. Is it only theists who insist that all atheism is the denial of God/gods? That is a much easier argument to make. 
I'm editing this paragraph yet again to remove biased characterizations and better reflect the nature and reality of the controversy, which again I remind everyone is limited to only some people.  
If this intractable someone continues to insist that only weak atheists make the distinction and thus creating the controversy, then for balance we should mention that it is largely theists who insist that the strong atheism definition is the only correct definition; controversy implies two sides, and balance requires identification of both:
"The distinction between strong and weak atheism is controversial. Some, primarily weak atheists, define atheism broadly...  Others, primarily theists, define atheism narrowly..."
We should consider a adding a section to the article outlining the controversy, perhaps.--FeloniousMonk 18:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeat of the problems with the [[Atheism#Types_of_atheism|"The Types of atheism"]] section 

message: Titanium Dragon replaced "God or gods" with gods or deities.  Please understand that God is not considered a god or deity by some, and that for these people, denying "gods" or "deities", is not the same as denying "God or gods".   It may seem dumb to you, but it contributes to the stability of the article to leave references to "God or gods" alone. --BM 14:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If God is not a god or deity then an atheist doesn't necessarily disbelieve in it, because the definition of atheist is "someone who does not believe in deities". If "God" (with a capitol G) is not a deity, then an atheist doesn't necessarily not believe in it. Just because many atheists are irreligious does not mean all of them are, and thus theoretically if you define "God" not to be a deity then some atheists might well believe in the concept. Titanium Dragon 15:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: In fact, come to think of it, I actually know a few "atheists" (who do not believe in any deities) to believe in the concept which Sam seems to be referring to (the concept of some great philisophical whatever/all of creation/Force-like conceptish thing), though they do not refer to it using the word "God" in particular, they seem to be addressing the same concept, which would rather imply to me that, if God is defined to mean such, we shouldn't say atheists do not believe in it. After all, I believe we have established atheists do not believe in gods, though whether they actively deny it or passively just don't believe in them is another matter. Titanium Dragon 15:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, if any specific entity is not a god then it is not the subject of atheism, because atheism relates to being without belief (weak) or actively asserting the non existence of (strong) all and any gods, to mention any specific god such as Allah, Yahweh, Thor, Zeus, Zaroester, Shiva, Granesh, Poseidon etc is POV unless we list them all. If there is some entity imaginary or real known as God that is not a god then a Wikipedia article is no doubt warranted on it and there should be a disambiguation page on God to separate it. The atheism article should perhaps contain within its body reference to the fact that atheism has no views on this specific 'God' entity.--Nick-in-South-Africa 15:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, I would venture the guess that most people, including atheists, are not aware of the philosophical/esoteric definition of God.  For those people, atheism is the denial of deities or gods as supernatural beings, including the god of monotheism, "God" in English.    But of those people who are aware of the esoteric definition, they don't call themselves atheists if they revere God, esoterically defined. Of atheists aware of the esoteric definition, it is hard to say what they make of it in general.  It doesn't make sense to say this God does not "exist", because this God is defined as Existence, Being itself, etc and one does not say that Existence exists or does not exist.    An atheist aware of this concept of God will most probably have a variety of objections to it, including that it is incomprehensible, bad metaphysics, or that theists can't get from their definition to a conscious God interacting intentionally with the Universe without committing logical errors, and if they can't, then their "God" is no more than a somewhat idiosyncratic redefinition of words.  Right now I don't have a good idea about how to deal with this in the article.  It seems like a fairly advanced topic. --BM 15:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was aware of it, but I don't refer to it as "God" and do not think it is really a good idea to do so because it is confusing. Really I don't consider the concept to really be a worthwhile one to begin with simply because it is so vauge as to be virtually meaningless, but it is interesting when it is more pinned down as it is in some belief systems. An irreligious atheist will likely have many objections to it, but a religious one might not. If you think about it, wouldn't a Jedi (that is, a member of the Jedi religion) be an atheist (they don't believe in any deities) but more or less believe in this conception of "God" with their belief in the Force? Titanium Dragon 15:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: In the Star Wars world, The Force might be a supernatural force pervading the universe, like chi, which the Jedi are able to manipulate.    But that is just guessing, since I don't think Lucas and the other SW writers are very clear on what The Force is supposed to be.  Though supernatural, The Force isn't a deity, and therefore isn't denied by atheism, although most atheists will deny it for the same reasons they deny deities.  "The Force" is not similar to the esoteric concept of God.   --BM 16:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Sam, I really don't know from where the 'weak/strong' terminology comes from and, also, I don't like it. But, again, it's used and we must accept it. About 'god v/s God', I'd use 'deity' or 'divinity' for this is a kind of 'universal' and neutral term accepted by both theists and atheists. If we use 'God', some may think we're talking about the Jewish/Christian God (although muslims also use 'God' for Allah) and if we use 'god(s)', it can be interpreted as the pagan greek, roman or germanic gods. --Neigel von Teighen 17:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem w that reasoning is that many, if not most people are refering to this very same universal when they say "God". I'm not sure how much you know about theology, metaphysics, theosophy, etc.., but a review of Pantheism and Panentheism would probably help alot, if your not well versed in these concepts. the summary is: many Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu's, Sikhs, Jains, etc... worship this very same, singular, infinite God. Sam Spade Wants you to vote! 18:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We should not assume what "many, if not most people" think. To do so is to spoon feed them again. God/gods covers all the bases for all readers, and should be used exclusively in the article.--FeloniousMonk 18:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Using simple deductive reasoning (which is admittedly in some ways over-simplifies), if one is not a theist, then one must be an atheist. How one comes to not accept theistic belief dictates what sort of atheist one is. Regardless of the terms, theist/atheist, weak/strong atheism, implicit/explicit atheism, the concepts are natural and arise from basic deductive logic.--FeloniousMonk 18:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Your reasoning is specious. So then it follows everybody is a theist until they consciously reject God. That is the natural conclusion to your logic. Nobody can be a theist until they have chosen to believe in God or gods. Again, using the most simple of logic and terms, a person is either a theist or an atheist. Your logic only makes sense to those who also assume god or gods exist, and so far, there's no universally compelling evidence that they do.--FeloniousMonk 19:18, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't want my POV in the article, that would be original research, POV, etc... I was just letting you know where I'm coming from here in the talk. What I want in the article is NPOV, and factual accuracy. Failing to adress the differences of definition of God and god serves noone, except those seeking to promote divisiveness and a swelling in the ranks of atheism. For example, I had a recent insightful conversation. My boy said that he thinks most "atheists" are simply rejecting a false god, such as the god of calvinism, rather than the real God who is all. I think this is likely true, and its quite funny, since I also reject the god of calvinism! How to explain it better, I don't know, but I;ll keep trying if need be ;) Cheers, Sam Spade Wants you to vote! 18:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  God or gods 

message: I think that the article organization is very cluttered and there are too many headings for each section that don't make sense together. You can see what I mean:
#Types of atheism
#Morality
#Persecution
#In Communism, Marxism and the Cold War
#Contemporary atheism
## Statistics
#Polemical usage
#Atheistic religious organizations
#Religious views of atheism
##Judaism
#See also
#External links
#References
There is no pattern, no "regular article" sort of approach, and Atheism covers many things, history, current events, influences and so forth. There are way too many long headers that focus on specific things for an article of this type. I tried rearranging it, but what I'm suggesting would require sections to be broken down and moved around. Does anyone agree that it isn't organized well? Ambush Commander 21:32, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
:I agree that the article is in pretty sorry shape, but thats due to the sort of squabbling which is likely to interfere w you repairing it. I agree w you generally, however, at least in theory. Sam Spade Wants you to vote! 22:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you in general.  It just got unprotected yesterday, and it is pretty hard at present to make large changes since each small change is pretty tentative while people see if they have consensus. --BM 22:18, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many main headers