Talk:Atheism/Archive 27

message: Isn't strong atheism a sub category of weak atheism? weak athism can be summed up with the statement "I do not belive in a god" and strong as "I belive there is no god" a strong atheist is therefore also a weak atheist, but a weak atheist is not neccesarily a strong atheist. I recomend revising the diagram. 24.237.198.91 08:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's correct. What's wrong with the diagram? Mdwh 03:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The diagram shows a clear separation within the circle, as if to say that "strong" and "weak" atheists are all atheists, but "strong" atheists are not also "weak" atheists. IMHO, the diagram isn't very helpful and should be removed or replaced with one showing the differences between the categories instead of trying to diagram the categories themselves. MFNickster 03:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see any separation? There's a purple circle inside the blue circle, with no gap in between. If you mean that "purple" is separate from "blue" - well, this is the correct way to indicate a subset in a Venn diagram. If someone can make a better diagram then that's fine, but I don't see how the existing diagram is wrong. I think it helpfully shows the distinctions between weak/strong and implicit/explicit. Mdwh 03:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see I've read it wrong - the labels at the bottom gave me the impression that the center dividing line was for both "implicit/explicit" and "strong/weak," although the colors should have clued me in. But that itself is an example of why the diagram is problematic. Worse, it doesn't serve to explain anything about the distinctions... you might as well show a simple table with the terms in it (perhaps with some shading as well). MFNickster 08:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah yes, I agree with you here. It would be better if the weak/strong labels were closer to their respective regions, possibly with arrows, rather than on either side of the dividing line. Mdwh 22:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strong and weak Atheism

message: I reverted this sentence because it seemed a bit confusing and didn't seem to belong in the opening paragraph, though it is true that Buddhism is (generally) agreed to be a non-theistic religion.  OhNoitsJamieTalk 16:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Atheism, Non-theism, and Buddhism

message: Why does this article not capitalize Atheism and Atheists as I see that Christianity and Christians are capitalized in the Christianity article? --Revolución hablar ver 20:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because 'atheist' and 'atheism' are not proper names (although technically 'Christ' isn't either). MFNickster 21:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: define "proper" names, please. --Revolución hablar ver 23:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look on Wiktionary MFNickster 00:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization

message: -snip-
:As no one objected to the suggestion, this discussion has now been moved to User talk:Alisyd on the grounds that it is, though an interesting discussion, irrelevant to the atheism article, and thus serving only to distract from Wikipedia's purposes. Please feel free to continue the debate there ad libitum. -Silence 13:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of atheism 

message: The article agnostic atheism was previously split from atheism. The article is currently selected for deletion. If you have any opinions on this issue, please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agnostic atheism. Thank you. Adraeus 00:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How absurd. Agnostic atheism has over 30 times as many Google hits as agnostic theism, four times as many references, and a tenth as many dubious claims (in fact, while "agnostic atheism" is primarily a disambiguation page for helping clarify to users what use of that term might mean, "agnostic theism" makes dozens of actual claims about the nature of knowledge, God, etc., most of which is probably original research; even its only citation, from the "rebuttal" section, doesn't seem to use the term "agnostic theism" and is actually about a mostly-unrelated topic: whether agnosticism is actually a subtype of atheism), yet its never been proposed for deletion and doesn't even have any "cleanup" tags on it, presumably because it's so long and has so many pretty pictures. -Silence 14:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  agnostic atheism 

message: "LaVeyan Satanists are technically atheists, because they do not believe in the existence of any deities in a literal form."
Those people have a bible and a belief in a higher power or being so they are NOT atheists.  Obviously someone wants to tie Satanism and Atheism.  I've removed it because they are not "technically" or otherwise atheists. (Anonymous User) May 25, 2006
:What "higher power" do they believe in? And I don't see that having a Bible changes anything - a Bible makes one religious, it doesn't make one a theist. Mdwh 22:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LaVeyan Satanists

message: the references are all broken Sad mouse 03:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, an angle bracket got deleted at the end of the last "good" ref. I also found two other refs that had been damaged by recent article reorganization and fixed those. Bryan 03:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I really think that the recent addition of some of the text below:
Many people who self-identify as atheists do tend to share common skeptical concerns regarding the evidence of the world's many deities and creation stories as well as questioning the goodness and morality of religions that have brought us such things as holy wars and inquisitions.
does not belong in the intro.
#It is not cited.
#Religion and particularly the supernatural encompass far more than deities and creation stories.
#The tone of the bolded text is particularly inappropriate to this article.
Please consider removing it.--Birdmessenger 19:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the editor who added those bits, Steven Argue, does not seem to be participating on this talk page. I will post to his talk page and ask him to state his reasoning (as well as any cites he may have to support these assertions.) KillerChihuahua?!? 19:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "questioning the goodness and morality of religions that have brought us such things as holy wars and inquisitions" 

message: Not all atheists are opposed to belief in a deity or deities; see WP article antitheism. The clarification is relevent. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all atheists are opposed to belief in a deity or deities, that's true enough in the sense that not all atheists actively promote their non-belief. They are still opposed to such belief enough to not hold them. My issue is not with this fact, but with the "normally defined" wording, which belongs among the worst kind of Wikiweasling. Nobody claims atheism is equivalent to "antitheism". Antitheism is a subset of atheism, and properly has its own section with  template here. I disagree with your insistence that antitheism must be linked from the (already overlong) intro. We don't list other things atheism is not equivalent to, either, without the implication that atheism is equivalent to nihilism, satanism, vandalism or pedophilia. You can rest assure that anyone reading the article will understand your point. We even have a bleeding diagram showing the difference between "weak" and "strong" atheism, for crying out loud. The problem is not with the article being unclear, but with it droning on and on for too long about terminology so that nobody is very likely to read it in its entirety. Which in turn motivates you to cram whatever you happen to want noticed into the intro. Which extends the intro beyond readability. I hope I have made clear that my position is not in factual disagreement with yours, except for points of article layout and organisation and stylistic issues. dab (ᛏ) 17:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, antitheism is not necessarily a subset of atheism. Read the article, there are two primary forms of "antitheism": the first denotes "opposition to belief in God", whereas the second denotes "opposition to God". Only the former can be construed as requiring atheism. Overall, antitheism is a complex and very loaded term that we probably should cover minimally, if at all, in atheism's intro (though certainly there's room to address antitheism/atheism misconceptions later in the article). Also, "Nobody claims atheism is equivalent to 'antitheism'." is simply untrue. Also, of the above examples you gave, most are absurd; the only one that would, perhaps, be a good idea to mention alongside antitheism is an incorrect thing to equate atheism with is nihilism (though all nihilists may be atheists). I have to disagree with your point, though, that the article is clear in explaining that atheism isn't "opposition to God/theism". I could easily see someone skimming through a fair amount of the article without realizing that; I see no harm in avoiding such a common misconception with a few words in the intro, as long as there's room. -Silence 17:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: do you see the, what, 26 archive links at the top of this page? I have watched this article from about number 7. I am extremely bored by these discussions about mere terminology, and all I want is make the article readable again. I know my examples were absurd, they were of course intended to point out the absurdity of KillerChihuahua's assertion that the statement needs to be in the intro because it is true. I really don't give a rat's ass about the various definitions of "antitheism" because I think this is a term that creates more bother than its worth. I'll leave you to unravel it at antitheism to your heart's content, but featuring it in the intro here is just not helpful. What do you mean, "atheism isn't 'opposition to God/theism'"? Of course it 'is', meaning it comprises. You left out the crucial "equivalent": "atheism isn't equivalent to 'opposition to God/theism'": here you go: pure terminological hair-splitting unconductive to a better article. Atheism is the state of not believing in God or gods, that's the full definiton, entailing all that atheism is not. I don't see any claim of "atheism=antitheism" here, certainly not in the antitheism section, so I don't know what you mean when you say my assertion that "nobody claims" is false. I meant, of course, nobody here claims this, nor is any such claim referred to. I am prepared to believe that there was such a claim made on Usenet back in 1991 if you tell me so, but I would fail to see how this is at all relevant. Ah, and there is no room. We seriously need to branch out a lot of material, maybe beginning with exporting the whole statistics section to Demographics of atheism or something. dab (ᛏ) 18:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa! I do not insist, I did not add this bit, I did not state that this needs to be in the intro. I responded to an edit summary of "the point is that "antitheism" is not 'normally defined' at all. it is a minority coinage with an agenda" with the statement that it is indeed defined, in the Oxford English dictionary. I am more than open to the concept that it is not necessary in the intro or indeed at all in this article. But do not put words in my mouth nor impugn me with motivations and positions I do not hold. Absurdity of "my assertion that the statement needs to be in the intro because it is true"??? Indeed. dab, 99 times out of 100 I find you civil, reasonable, and one of the editors most careful not to mis-characterize other editor's positions. In this case I find this not to be so. Please reconsider your statements about me. I defy you to find a single instance, ever, of my stating something should be in an article because it is true. I find this highly offensive. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assume Good Faith much? FeloniousMonk 19:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  DAB, this isn't hairsplitting at all, many atheists would be profoundly offended to be called antitheists and by any definiton weak atheism is not antitheism. The distinction is an important one that is endorsed by major sources such as the OED. I don't understand why you consider this hairsplitting. JoshuaZ 19:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, Jim.  And dab, you are way off track here -- putting words in another editor's mouth is simply wrong.  Bad day? •Jim62sch• 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Atheism - antitheism

message: --An earlier comment states that belief is a strange word for use as the atheist's postion.  However, if "belief" is strange here, then "assert" is even odder. Assert is an overt act "To state or express positively"--from dictionary.com. One however can feel that no gods exist without making any overt assertion of such to anyone.  Can a person on a desert idland not be a strong atheist? Maybe "feel" would be better than either believe or assert?
I also have no idea what the comment that "one is naturally a disbeliever" means. Just because I don't believe someone named Johnny Appleseed ever existed does not mean I disbelieve that himans existed before I born, with some exceptions. The existence of a supernatural being logically preceeds that being's name. Does a Christian disbelieve in Allah, or does he or she think that the concept of Allah is an approximate construct in his or her true god, with the ancient deities mentioned being lesser approximations? The concept of belief is not as black and white as it is made out here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  216.144.203.153 (talk • contribs).
::I am assuming the he sentence in question is:
::"This encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not."
::The way assert is used here is describing a particular subset of atheists, not all atheists as the next part clarifies. Unless you want to argue that there are not some atheists who positively assert that there cannot be any gods, I don't think the change is warranted. Nowimnthing 19:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assert vs. Belief 

message: I wanted to mention that I had previously edited out a sentence in the criticisms section due to a lack of citation. This was on an older account of mine, however. At the time of edit, I was still very new to Wikipedia, and worry that this edit may have been bad manners on my part, as I did not first discuss the edit before making it. Basically, the sentence stated that an Atheist is, by the truest dictionary definition, an evil / immoral person. While I have encountered this definition in some dictionaries, it still strikes me as not belonging to this article, in that the term may not necessarily be in realtion to anti-theology. Does anyone have any disagreements with my edit? Grendel 14:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on Criticisms Edit 

message: How about we come up with a list of things to do. like determine quotable sources based on popularity and effectivness. Perhaps cut down certain reasoning to making a point rather than making an impression.
Im up for any other ideas anyone might have. I feel like this page has a lot of potential! Somerset219 03:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  organizational suggestions 

message: Could we perhaps cut way down on the explainations of atheism, or perhaps make a seperate article for it. Having a graph on how "developed" your atheism is, to me, a bit "over the top".  I think the first paragraph of the article sums up atheism nicely.
The only reason for "levels" of atheism, are for people with levels of doubt and insecurity. take a look at the christianity page and tell me where there are different levels of christians. They have denominations, which is a paragraph, but thats about it. Atheism is about skeptism, we should focus on the points that make atheists what they are, not what their afraid to be. maybe im wrong here... anyone got any insights? Somerset219 03:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, there are a lot of atheists who identify along those lines. That alone makes it a good idea to differentiate between them in this article. --Ted 05:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Differentiate, fine.  Differentiate in multi-paragraph sections per typology, with paragraph-length quotes in each section, as currently is?  Problem.  That overlong chunk of this bloated 95KB article reads like a philosophy class term paper.  The Literate Engineer 10:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types and Typologies of Atheism seperate article 

message: antitheism is an atheist who hates theists. this is just stupid, why is this categorized? what do you call a christian who hates muslims?... an american?  in other words how is this relevant to atheisism. This page is about what atheism is, not how some people who are atheists behave. Somerset219 03:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An antitheist is an atheist who actively disbelieves in all forms of god(s), as opposed to an atheist who passively does not believe in any god or gods. I have no idea where you got that idea (certainly not from this page). --Ted 05:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that's not correct - you are describing a strong (or in some respects, explicit) atheist. Antitheism is not just about what an individual believes; it is taking the position that theism is wrong (or misguided) and that nobody should believe in god(s). It's a step beyond mere disbelief into polemics, activism and advocacy. MFNickster 06:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it helps to explain that atheism doesn't automatically imply antitheism, a misconception that more than a few people seem to have. MFNickster 06:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I move for the deletion of antitheism 

message: I'm a bit surprised to find that there isn't an atheism portal already - or am I missing something. -- Solipsist 23:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the style of dual portals like Portal:Mind and Brain, I think it might be wise to use a portal name like Portal:Atheism and Agnosticism, since the two concepts are often grouped together or conflated and we might otherwise have too many arguments between people fighting over what qualifies as an "agnostic" topic and what qualifies as an "atheist" topic (largely due to the variable definitions). These are also the two most common and popular nontheistic terms, so it makes sense to use them for a portal. -Silence 23:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wot no Atheism Portal

message: Old one
:Some atheists claim to base their stance on rational or philosophical grounds, arguing that their position is based on logical analysis, and subsequent rejection, of theistic claims. These arguments against the existence of deities claim a number of different problems with theism. Chief among these problems is absence of evidences supporting theistic claims. Also, instead of simplification of explanation (of how nature works) theism tremendously complicates it by introducing new questions like origin of god(s), their dwelling, style of life, exercising their powers, conflicts with laws of physics, unpredictability, etc.
:"Within the framework of scientific rationalism one arrives at the belief in the nonexistence of God, not because of certain knowledge, but because of a sliding scale of methods. At one extreme, we can confidently rebut the personal Gods of creationists on firm empirical grounds: science is sufficient to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there never was a worldwide flood and that the evolutionary sequence of the Cosmos does not follow either of the two versions of Genesis. The more we move toward a deistic and fuzzily-defined God, however, the more scientific rationalism reaches into its toolbox and shifts from empirical science to logical philosophy informed by science. Ultimately, the most convincing arguments against a deistic God are Hume's dictum and Occam's razor. These are philosophical arguments, but they also constitute the bedrock of all of science, and cannot therefore be dismissed as non-scientific. The reason we put our trust in these two principles is because their application in the empirical sciences has led to such spectacular successes throughout the last three centuries."
:Many atheists hold that, as their view is merely the absence of a certain belief, it is the default position. Thus, they hold that the only defense that atheism really needs is a good offense. If theism's arguments are refuted, atheism is all that remains. As such, many atheists have argued against the most famous 'proofs' of God's existence over the centuries. Whether all of the theistic arguments have been refuted is often hotly debated.
:"Throughout the centuries, theistic philosophers have offered logical arguments in support of God's existence. Most of these can be divided into four major classes - ontological, cosmological, teleological, and moral"
:In general, atheists contend that these have been categorically refuted.
:There are also many atheists who attack specific forms of theism as being self-contradictory. One of the most common arguments against the existence of a specific God is the problem of evil.
:"The problem of evil is probably the most enduring and the most potent argument atheism has to offer against many varieties of theism. Christian apologist William Lane Craig aptly styled it atheism's killer argument. In brief, it seeks to establish that the existence of evil in the world is logically incompatible with the existence of a benevolent God, and that it is more reasonable to conclude that God does not exist than that he does exist but does nothing to stop evil."
:Indeed, Epicurus is credited with producing a perfect logical triangle on this basis -- if one admits that evil exists in the world (as one must), and if one further assumes that some sort of divine being exists, there are only three possibilities (since that being is obviously not both able and willing to preclude evil from occurring): able, but not willing (malevolent); willing, but not able (insignificant); neither willing nor able (insignificant). Most people, it is thought, if given the choice between a useless or malevolent god and simple atheism, would choose the latter.
:Other well-known positive arguments include theological noncognitivism, incoherency arguments (which seek to prove contradictions within the nature of 'god'), atheistic teleological arguments, and the Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God.
* In the new one I just organized and added more things, took out POV and placed the "default position of atheists" in the first paragraph of scientific reasons. Somerset219 19:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  major edit on Philosophical reasons 

message: Atheism in philosophical naturalism
Many, if not most, atheists have preferred to say that atheism is a lack of a belief, rather than a belief in its own right (see, for example, Krueger (1998, p.22-24); Smith (1979, p.15-16)). This keeps the burden of proof on the theist (see Flew (1984b)), as the only one making any positive assertions. "Belief" also has other connotations that many atheists may wish to avoid.
Nevertheless, some atheist writers identify atheism with the naturalistic world view, and defend it on that basis. The case for naturalism is used as a positive argument for atheism. See, for example, Thrower (1971), Harbour (2001), Nielsen (2001) and Baggini (2003). See also Everitt's discussion of an anti-atheist argument against naturalism (2004, Chapter 9, p.178-190).
According to Thrower,
Much atheism... can be understood only in the light of the current theism which it was concerned to reject. Such atheism is relative. There is, however, a way of looking at and interpreting events in the world, whose origins... can be seen as early as the beginnings of speculative thought itself, and which I shall call naturalistic, that is atheistic per se, in the sense that it is incompatible with any and every form of supernaturalism... naturalistic or absolute atheism is both fundamentally more important, and more interesting, representing as it does one polarity in the development of the human spirit. (p.3-4)
Julian Baggini argues that, "atheism can be understood not simply as a denial of religion, but as a self-contained belief system, if it is seen as a commitment to the view that there is only one world and this is the world of nature" (p.74). For Baggini, therefore,
the evidence for atheism is to be found in the fact that there is a plethora of evidence for the truth of naturalism and an absence of evidence for anything else. 'Anything else' of course includes God, but it also includes goblins, hobbits, and truly everlasting gobstoppers. There is nothing special about God in this sense. God is just one of the things that atheists don't believe in, it just happens to be the thing that, for historical reasons, gave them their name. (p.17)
Baggini's position is that "an atheist does not usually believe in the existence of immortal souls, life after death, ghosts, or supernatural powers. Although strictly speaking an atheist could believe in any of these things and still remain an atheist... the arguments and ideas that sustain atheism tend naturally to rule out other beliefs in the supernatural or transcendental" (p.3-4).
Michael Martin (1990, p.470) notes that the view that "naturalism is compatible with nonatheism is true only if 'god' is understood in a most peculiar and misleading way", but he also points out that "atheism does not entail naturalism".''
This is an ideology, not a type of atheism. However this is a big edit, so I'll put it hear for any discussion. Somerset219 20:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheism in philosophical naturalism 

message: Atheism as immorality
The first attempts to define or develop a typology of atheism were in religious apologetics. These attempts were expressed in terms and in contexts that reflected the religious assumptions and prejudices of the writers. A diversity of atheist opinion has been recognized at least since Plato, and common distinctions have been established between practical atheism and speculative or contemplative atheism.
Practical atheism was said to be caused by moral failure, hypocrisy, willful ignorance and infidelity. Practical atheists were said to behave as though God, morals, ethics and social responsibility did not exist; they abandoned duty and embraced hedonism. Maritain's typology of atheism (1953, Chapter 8) proved influential in Catholic circles; it was followed in the New Catholic Encyclopedia (see Reid, 1967). He identified, in addition to practical atheism, pseudo-atheism and absolute atheism (and subdivided theoretical atheism in a way that anticipated Flew). For an atheist critique of Maritain, see Smith (1979, Chapter 1, Section 5).
According to the French Catholic philosopher Étienne Borne (1961, p.10), 'Practical atheism is not the denial of the existence of God, but complete godlessness of action; it is a moral evil, implying not the denial of the absolute validity of the moral law but simply rebellion against that law.' 
According to Karen Armstrong (1999):
 During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic... In his tract Atheism Closed and Open Anatomized (1634), John Wingfield claimed: 'the hypocrite is an Atheist; the loose wicked man is an open Atheist; the secure, bold and proud transgressor is an Atheist: he that will not be taught or reformed is an Atheist'. For the Welsh poet William Vaughan (1577 [sic]–1641), who helped in the colonization of Newfoundland, those who raised rents or enclosed commons were obvious atheists. The English dramatist Thomas Nashe (1567-1601) proclaimed that the ambitious, the greedy, the gluttons, the vainglorious and prostitutes were all atheists. The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist. (p.331-332) 
On the other hand, the existence of serious, speculative atheism was often denied. That anyone might reason their way to atheism was thought to be impossible. The existence of God was self-evident, and (apparently) necessary for the proper functioning of society. Thus, speculative atheism was collapsed into a form of practical atheism, and conceptualized as hatred of God or a fight against righteous social mores. This is why Borne finds it necessary to say, 'to put forward the idea, as some apologists rashly do, that there are no atheists except in name but only practical atheists who through pride or idleness disregard the divine law, would be, at least at the beginning of the argument, a rhetorical convenience or an emotional prejudice evading the real question.' (p.18) Martin (1990, p.465-466) suggests that practical atheism would be better described as alienated theism.
Other pejorative definitions of atheism
When denial of the existence of 'speculative' atheism became unsustainable, atheism was nevertheless often repressed and criticized by narrowing definitions, applying charges of dogmatism, and otherwise misrepresenting atheist positions. One of the reasons for the popularity of euphemistic alternative terms like secularist, empiricist, agnostic, or 'Bright' is that atheism still has pejorative connotations arising from attempts at suppression and from its association with practical atheism; as mentioned above, godless is still used as an abusive epithet today.
Mynga Futrell and Paul Geisert, the originators of the term Bright, made this explicit in an essay published in 2003:
Our personal frustration regarding labels reached culmination last fall when we were invited to join a march on Washington as 'Godless Americans'. The causes of the march were worthy, and the march itself well-planned and conducted. However, to unite for common interests under a disparaging term like 'godless' (it also means 'wicked') seemed ludicrous! Why accept and utilize the very derogatory language that so clearly hampers our own capacity to play a positive and contributing role in our communities and in the nation and world?
That several religious groups have adopted the disparaging names handed to them as a badge of honour (the 'Methodists', for example) seems to have only increased their ire.
Gaskin (1989) abandoned the term atheism in favor of unbelief, citing 'the pejorative associations of the term, its vagueness, and later the tendency of religious apologists to define atheism so that no one could be an atheist...' (p.4)
Despite these considerations, for others atheist has always been the preferred name. Charles Bradlaugh once said, in debate with George Jacob Holyoake, 10 March 1870, cited in Bradlaugh Bonner (1908):
I maintain that the opprobrium cast upon the word Atheism is a lie. I believe Atheists as a body to be men deserving respect... I do not care what kind of character religious men may put round the word Atheist, I would fight until men respect it. (p.334) 
For more on repressive definitions of atheism, see Berman (1982, 1983, 1990).
* Put in Persecution of atheists. Somerset219 20:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Secular ethics could use a lot of this material. Star Ghost 05:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  atheism as immorality 

message: The terms implicit atheism and explicit atheism were coined by George H. Smith (1979, p.13-18). Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as 'the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it.' Explicit atheism is defined as 'the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it', which, according to Smith, is sometimes called antitheism (see below). 
For Smith, explicit atheism is subdivided further according to whether or not the rejection is made on rational grounds. The term critical atheism is used to label the view that belief in god is irrational, and is itself subdivided into a) the view usually expressed by the statement 'I do not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being'; b) the view usually expressed by the statement, 'god does not exist' or 'the existence of god is impossible'; and c) the view which 'refuses to discuss the existence or nonexistence of a god' because 'the concept of a god is unintelligible' (p.17).
Although Nagel rejects Smith's definition of atheism as merely 'lack of theism', acknowledging only explicit 'atheism' as true atheism, his tripartite classification of rejectionist atheism (commonly found in the philosophical literature) is identical to Smith's critical atheism typology.
The difference between Nagel on the one hand and d'Holbach and Smith on the other has been attributed to the different concerns of professional philosophers and layman proponents of atheism (see Smith (1990, Chapter 3, p.51-60), for example, but also alluded to by others).
Everitt (2004) makes the point that professional philosophers are more interested in the grounds for giving or withholding assent to propositions:
We need to distinguish between a biographical or sociological enquiry into why some people have believed or disbelieved in God, and an epistemological enquiry into whether there are any good reasons for either belief or unbelief... We are interested in the question of what good reasons there are for or against God's existence, and no light is thrown on that question by discovering people who hold their beliefs without having good reasons for them. (p.10) 
So, in philosophy (Flew and Martin notwithstanding), atheism is commonly defined along the lines of 'rejection of theistic belief'. This is often misunderstood to mean only the view that there is no God, but it is conventional to distinguish between two or three main sub-types of atheism in this sense (writers differ in their characterization of this distinction, and in the labels they use for these positions).
The terms weak atheism and strong atheism (or negative atheism and positive atheism) are often used as synonyms of Smith's less-well-known implicit and explicit categories. However, the original and technical meanings of implicit and explicit atheism are quite different and distinct from weak and strong atheism, having to do with conscious rejection and unconscious rejection of theism rather than with positive belief and negative belief.
People who do not use the broad definition of atheism as 'lack of theism', but instead use the most common definition 'disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods' would not recognize mere absence of belief in deities (implicit atheism) as a type of atheism at all, and would tend to use other terms, such as 'skeptic' or 'agnostic' or even the heavy-handed 'non-atheistic non-theism', for this position.
* Cut out of article, this is a rewording of lack of theism/agnotism/weak and strong atheism. Just in different words (implicit explicit.) Somerset219 03:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the article on Strong atheism defines it as a form of explicit atheism, but without this section...there isn't an explanation of what explicit atheism is.  I think we should have at least a small section on the topic. -Alethiareg 21:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implicit and explicit atheism 

message: *This is an article about atheism. It is not an article about Nihilism & certainly not an article about Nietzsche & how he (& our anonymous 67. contributor) thinks he has defeated all attempts at rational morality. Despite that editor's insistence, scholars do not agree that atheism inevitably leads to nihilism nor to immorality. --JimWae 22:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh give it a rest. I am not "user Dot 6".  I am a reasonable, though quite opinionated person.  I DID leave comments above that you apparently didn't read, I just couldn't figure out where to leave them as I am relatively new to the quite errant Wikipedia.  Everything I have added has been constantly removed or edited in favor of atheism in an apologistic fashion by people who obviously do not know their philosophy.  I have been accused and already unfairly banned once because of the mob rule behavior of others here.  My beliefs are of no concern.  I believe I read on your own page that you are an "existentialist" (by a test), do I have the right person?  If you are, then as a consequence, you have no interest in truth, right, or wrong, so don't accuse me of such.
Not even Existentialists, which I am not really - though the test cannot tell, agree that FN has done away with all basis for morality. FN thought that Xty had become nihilistic & done away will any basis for morality - he gives many indications that he thinks a "true" morality can be found - one that need not involve a deity. But whatever he thinks, it is certainly NOT the last word on the subject --JimWae 01:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe his word is not the last on the subject, then perhaps you should read the many others who think the same such as Kirkegaard (and several other more recent names I could dredge up if necessary).  I thought Nietsche might be a little more friendly and appropriate for an atheism page than Kirkegaard. 67.187.9.149 01:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Your point reminds me most of Dostoevsky. His writing appeals mostly only to those in the first stages of "death of God", or who have drawn back from even considering it. Later in life it is either laughable or simply tortured philosophy. Sure, morals are no longer absolute without deities - but that does not mean they are without foundation --JimWae 01:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nietzsche & Atheism & Nihilism

message: I've been watching this article for over a year, and it has proven an awful sophist-magnet. It desperately needs a firm springcleaning, cutting it down to clearcut prose pointing out the essentials. It should absolutely be cut down to 60k, meaning that some 15k of ballast need to go (and good riddance too:) dab (ᛏ) 00:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it is not a bleeding belief system, and I don't see how that affects our ability to reduce article size per WP:SS (plus much of this article is just rambling, belief system or no, I know no other article where authors are so possessive about their phrasings). also, you might want to use a spellchecker. dab (ᛏ) 00:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is a belief system.  You seem to understand the implications of the philosophies mentioned.  If so, then you know that everything is merely belief and faith.  Again, as mentioned above, if atheism is not a belief system, then why are there so many atheist groups?  You wouldn't think they would have anything in common if atheism wasn't a belief system.  67.187.9.149 00:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "...this is not a platform for your personal views, but should give a clean and distanced overview of the whole topic."  I agree, which is exactly why atheism leading to nihilism should remain in the criticism section.  It is a valid philosophical criticism mentioned and maintained by multiple philosophers down through history.  Am I incorrect?  67.187.9.149 00:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in the criticism section.  No one has argued that it should not be. siafu 03:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: article length

message: I've just reverted someone's attempt to change "God" to "god". This is very controversial and I don't believe any decent text book would spell God, when used as a proper name as opposed to "a God" or "the God", with a lower case g. It's not standard and it looks to me like an atheist's attempt to impose some personal standard. --Lo2u (T • C) 10:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A lower case g