Talk:Atheism/Archive 32

message: I just made these words up, but maybe they will help you other guys understand. I think of "theism" as a "God exists belief" and atheism as "No God exists belief." Perhaps it is because these words don't exist (as far as I know) people are using theism and atheism to mean this, and in fact your definition really is more correct than mine or others and theism and atheism really are and in fact work with both approaches as classifications rather than propositions. Either way, this is definitely what the people arguing about the definition mean--the words theism and atheism involve existence or non-existence.--24.57.157.81 02:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's definitely what "people" mean? I wish it was that simple. johnpseudo 02:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I wish you wouldn't take things so literally, though I was just going to change it just in case that happend. I mean "the people that treat atheism and theism as propositions, postulations, not classifications or perceptual states." It's changed now. --24.57.157.81 02:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Perceptual states? — If I hear a dog bark, then I'm in a perceptual state. A perceptual state is one that involves sensory perception. Perceptual states are mental states, and I suppose that what you really mean is that by saying that atheism consists in belief in God's existence being mentally absent atheism is said to be a negative mental state.—Editorius 13:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "God's existence being mentally absent" is a cognitive condition, a perceptual state, a psychological posture, a circumstance of mind, a mental situation etc.--24.57.157.81 20:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. It superfluous to what I was talking about (and use better headings if it's not supposed to be under the topic I started). And it almost seems like you (JimWae) are assuming philosophy is an empirical science, that perhaps one day someone will "discover the truth" that "existence is not a predicate." That is such a gross misinterpretation of philosophy, coming from someone who speaks in terms of predicates and propositions, that it makes me ill so I certainly hope you're not doing that.--24.57.157.81 01:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What you really mean: More than 6 years and 30 pages of criticism and complaints about the article are without merit and are a result of the stupidity of the readers. --24.57.157.81 23:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Exsistotheism and Nonexsistotheism

message: *believes X does not exist
*believes the term X does not refer to a real entity
*denies the existence of X
* --
There is a debate in philosophy over whether or not existence is a predicate & whether "X exists" is a proposition - this should be mentioned & linked to in the article --JimWae 13:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perceptual states? — If I hear a dog bark, then I'm in a perceptual state. A perceptual state is one that involves sensory perception. Perceptual states are mental states, and I suppose that what you really mean is that by saying that atheism consists in belief in God's existence being mentally absent atheism is said to be a negative mental state.—Editorius 13:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "God's existence being mentally absent" is a cognitive condition, a perceptual state, a psychological posture, a circumstance of mind, a mental situation etc.--24.57.157.81 20:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. It superfluous to what I was talking about (and use better headings if it's not supposed to be under the topic I started). And it almost seems like you (JimWae) are assuming philosophy is an empirical science, that perhaps one day someone will "discover the truth" that "existence is not a predicate." That is such a gross misinterpretation of philosophy, coming from someone who speaks in terms of predicates and propositions, that it makes me ill so I certainly hope you're not doing that.--24.57.157.81 01:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What you really mean: More than 6 years and 30 pages of criticism and complaints about the article are without merit and are a result of the stupidity of the readers. --24.57.157.81 23:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternatives to "believes in the nonexistence of X"

message: (unindent) I think the analysis here is essentially correct, I'm not very fond of the overly inclusive definitions, but why do you say that analytic philosophy prefers the narrow definition. If g is the proposition that "God exists", B(x) denotes the predicate that I believe in proposition x, then why is \neg B(g) any less analytical than B(\neg g)? Isn't Michael Martin an analytic philosopher who is actively pushing d'Holbachian atheism? --Merzul 21:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying it is. Analytical atheism (as I've called it) is the propositional attitude B applied to the proposition g is false. The proposition is analytical, the propositional attitude is simply a defining characteristic of a person. Since the analysis of attitudes B and not B would be the analysis of different propositions, namely, it seems, one should B or one should not B, they would be a different -ism: d'Holbachianism (which would be what I'm calling d'Holbachian atheism.)--24.57.157.81 22:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And with a cursory glance at what he says, obviously Michael Martin is full-fledged d'Holbachian atheist, seeing as he uses all the terms. Whether or not he's analyzed the propositions of d'Holbachian atheism, I don't know. This article for instance, is not in the style of what I would call analytical philosophy. --24.57.157.81 22:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And, amusingly, I just decided to look up to see what Wittgenstein says about atheism, getting all excited that "Oh yes this is what I mean" and lo and behold there's Michael Martin j'accuseing him with "Is there any interpretation that makes Wittgenstein's view neither noncontroversial nor clearly wrong?" --24.57.157.81 23:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hehe, yes, Martin indeed...  See also William L. Rowe#Friendly atheism and the linked Martin article. Yes, these are different -isms. I think there is a strong correlation between "unfriendly atheism" and preferring the d'Holbachian definition. --Merzul 02:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad-hoc section break 

message: Ahha! I posted this definition somewhere above but I'll post it again here and discuss it. It's "d'Holbachian atheism" but now I see that name too is insufficient. It's the definition from American Atheists:
:"Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own." - American Atheists 
So, what I think we have is this:
#Analytical Atheism: "the position that the proposition God exists is false." 
#Mental Atheism (i.e. absence of belief definition): "the mental state characterized by non-affirmation of God's existence"
#Doctrinal Atheism: Definition above.
All of these can be described as an absence of belief. That phrase is huge can of worms and should be avoided altogether. In fact, the word belief should be used as little as possible to avoid confusion. I was going to try explaining some of the problem but damn it is hard to get right. Basically the problem boils down to "belief" meaning more than one thing, most importantly material belief and epistemological belief. Sometimes they can work together or separately and no one notices, other times, they clash and the word becomes equivocable, resulting in misinterpretations.--24.57.157.81 08:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctrinal atheism 

message: Paul Bell in MENSA magazine... In my opinion, these kinds of claims raise a WP:REDFLAG, and so who is this Paul Bell? And MENSA Magazine probably isn't peer-reviewed, so I'm concerned with the credibility of this study! I would like something like of this quality (has nothing to do with the topic, it's just a study with 691 correlations published in a real journal), before including "studies" of controversial nature. Is everyone fine with this, has anyone seen the actual study? Does it merit inclusion, or are we giving some half-scientific study undue weight? --Merzul 15:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religiosity and intelligence... 

message: A have been very brutal in the recent edits. In the process I might have lost some information. I have tried to achieve the following:
# I tried to keep only reliable and much used sources in the references section, so I tried to move the Austine Cline refs into notes.
# I tried to removed duplicated refs when they didn't add much value.
# I have removed the dictionary definitions as the talk page experience shows this doesn't convince anyone. I think a better idea is to try to address the issue with one footnote linking to web-pages that contain list of other definitions from reliable sources.
One of the main things to do is to trim the Further Reading section, by either moving to the refs, or deleting them if they aren't relevant. Good luck, and if this fails, feel free to revert. I'm going to sleep now. --Merzul 22:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brutal refactoring. 

message: Currently this section doesn't really help our readers. I will now remove the entire section, but if anyone can then produce a section with say at most 10 of the most essential readings on atheism, then that's fine, but I don't think I can make such a selection, and a further reading will just invite people to add more and more books. --Merzul 17:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading section 

message: Hi John, Merzul, Mdwh. I think we may be getting there. To address the points: (a) we could add or "rejection of theism" to cover this; (b)by citing REP and using their wording we are safe from OR so  think it's OK for us to say "common meaning" (c) That's why I suggest we say "as distinct from" rather than "as opposed to" (d) we can say "agnostics who do not believe in God".  Hence how about: "The common meaning of Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God, as distinct from Theism and Agnosticism(ref SEP, REP).  However the term is sometimes used (ref eg Blackburn, REP) to mean "absence of belief in the existence of god or gods" or "rejection of theism" and thus to include Agnostics who do not believe in God, even if they deny that they are atheists(ref eg Kenny)." NBeale 18:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: johnpseudo 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd proposal

message: I agree with johnpseudo, and hadn't noticed that the Britannica does admit "positive belief" is more common. Also, one of the most influential modern proponents of the negative definition, Anthony Flew, similarly admits it's not common usage here, I'm quoting very selectively:
: What I want to examine is the contention that the debate about the existence of God should properly begin from the presumption of atheism, that the onus of proof must lie upon the theist. The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively... The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage. 'Whyever', it could be asked, 'don't you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?' 
I like his honesty, we have here one of the leading proponents of the wider definition, admitting it is unusual. I think it is sufficient evident that we should prefer the more common, narrower definitions in the lead paragraph, but give due weight to Flew's arguments and present the case of why he thinks atheism is the default position. We don't eliminate any views here, but we should flip things around, going from narrow to wide. --Merzul 10:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is good evidence that the narrower defs are more common