Talk:Atheism/Archive 30

message: I was asked to provide a rationale for my edit, well the rationale is a glaring ugly big box right under the external links heading. Anyway, I don't like to re-revert, but I think the article was much better served by a short list to resources. Also, I'm taking a WikiBreak from everything except one or two articles, so I will no longer watch this page, and I wanted to bring this up for discussion before I leave. My approach was a bit too brutal; but the current list clearly misses the point of WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Any ideas for a more balanced approach? --Merzul 23:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: About 1/3 of this article consists of citations. While this may be attributed to rigid adherence to Wikipedia policies, the effect of such citations is the creation of a sense of clutter and randomness in the article. I've had this comment from multiple "average Joe" readers, and I beleive that Wikipedia's duty should not be to obscurity in rule-abidance, but rather good service to the "average Joe" reader. Sorry, mates, but this seems to be a problem among many Wikipedia articles- a sense of narcissitic edits and content which, rather than providing more informative pieces, promotes the editors within the Wikipedia community. Off the cuff remarks, I know, but this sort of stuff will be the downfall of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.226.196.158 (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: * My unhelpful entry was later stricken. 
* I accept (now) that "all" is too strong, and we should go back to "many".
* On "entails, minimally":  This replaced "is" - which offered up a real definition, viz., "Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities."  The problem here was that if disbelief were to be taken in one of the suggested senses, viz., "lack of belief", atheism would turn out to be nothing more than lack of belief in the existence of any deities.  This would be a real problem because, as a definition of atheism, it is far too weak, yielding - as it does - the false view that anyone who lacks belief is an atheist.  I replaced "is" with "entails, minimally" because that avoids the real problem just alluded to.  Even the strict understanding of atheism - i.e., one which has it that an atheist believes that deities do not exist - can live with the view that this entails that atheists lack belief in deities (setting aside the possibility of inconsistent doxastic states in individual minds).
** Roger,  I confess I fail to see how "entails,minimally" actually changes in anyway the problem of your suggested weak sense of "disbelief".  "Entails" and "minimally" don't modify the verb(change its sense). Do these actually avoid the statement of a "real definition"?  If anything the logical words entail and mimimally make the statement, thus definition, too strong.  Thus,I find myself in agreement with others that nothing seems to be gained by this particular edit, except to add confusion.  Furthermore, the weakest senses are a part of the historical scope of atheism, although subject to the discussion and refinement as is done in the body of the article.Modocc 03:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on Mdwh's entry above 

message: Someone please add ":Category:Disengagement from religion" whenever this article is available for editing.  --WassermannNYC 10:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category to add 

message: I am an atheist.  The problem with the introduction is it is more narrowly defined than common usage.  Its not minimal.  The cited definitions clearly state disbelief in God OR gods.  In other words, deity OR deities.  It is difficult for some to comprehend, but to be an atheist it is not necessary to disbelieve in "deities".  One can believe in spiritual extensions of our known self-aware nature.  Some may say this is belief in deities.  Yet regardless of how one characterises such belief, atheists like myself are agnostic can be either agnostic or on the fence with respect to belief in spirit and afterlife, yet refuse to believe in paternalistic supreme beings.  All my life, I have told others that the greater good of our spirits and/or community is clearly greater than any deity, especially any with powers which cannot be held to account.  Instead of "Atheism entails, minimally, the disbelief[1] in the existence of any deities", the cited definitions only support the statement that "Atheism entails, minimally, the disbelief[1] in the existence of a deity or deities.[2]"  This best paraphrases common usage and the definitions.  It is is far more inclusive and does not force any one's spectrum of what is "atheism" into a dogmatic pigeonhole.Modocc 19:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed --Frantik 03:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The adminstrative change to the introduction nullifies my objection, for the new statement does not give the false notion that there must be a positive rejection in all things unexplained. Thankyou wikipedians!!!!!!!! :).Modocc 21:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheism that is inclusively defined 

message: I feel as if since this is a real important article to wikipedia it should be at least a GA. I am wondering what all of you think we need to do to make this a GA or even a FA. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 20:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look around a bit: At the top of this page there is a "to do" list, and you can click "show" on the failed GA template to see results from previous attempts, which might point you to needed improvements. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What can we do to make this article GA 

message: The opening sentence says: "Atheism entails, minimally, the disbelief[1] in the existence of any deities.[2]"  I think to the average person atheism means the belief in the non-existence of a supernatural creator of the universe, called in English "God".  Maybe back in ancient Rome atheists disbelieved in lesser supernatural beings, called "gods", but I don't think that is how it is defined today.  Just a thought.  I'm sure that a lot of discussion has gone on already. Steve Dufour 10:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Advertising is a rich source of Bandwagon arguments, with many products claiming to be "number 1" or "most popular", even though this is irrelevant to the product's merits. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html Dimror 11:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I worship Thor, will you call me an atheist? No, then I'd be that crazy guy who worships Thor.  Atheism is the lack of belief in any deities. --Savant13 11:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would you define a "deity"? For all we know Thor might be an alien from another planet.  As far as I know nobody has ever said that he created the universe. Hence, it seems to me anyway, a person could believe in the powerful non-human being "Thor" and still not believe that the universe has a supernatural creator. Steve Dufour 15:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A supernatural entity which is omnipotent (in any context), created existence as we know it, has unlimited power over anything, and is above logic. At least, this is how monotheistic theists define it. Polytheists on the other hand assign one ability or element (for pagans) to each god, so the above doesn't apply to Thor.--Orthologist 16:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many dharmic religions have deities which did not supposedly create the universe.  People who worship them are not considered atheists.  --Savant13 19:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A deity is generally defined as an entity which has one of the above qualities, sorry about the misunderstanding. The majority of gods said to exist by most religions have a lot of these characteristics, however.--Orthologist 20:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think to the modern Western person an "atheist" is a person who does not believe that the universe has a supernatural creator.  Worship does not come into it.  BTW I understand that in ancient Greece and Rome, and perhaps China too, some educated people did not believe in the gods but still took part in worship since they thought it was good for the social order. I really have no idea how the opening sentence should define "atheist", it's a tough question. Steve Dufour 20:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, atheism derives from the greek word "atheos" (un+god), which means that an atheist is one who does not believe in any form of deities. However, this doesn't prohibit him technically from believing in the supernatural, although I don't think that there are any atheists believing in something supernatural.--Orthologist 20:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: To be a theist (deist) you must have a certain belief of the existence of a "deity". The atheist doesn't have that belief. Atheism doesn't state what are the "deity's" characteristics to refute "it" in basis of it's characteristics. It just says that the atheist doesn't hold this belief that the theist holds. Atheism includes but doesn't equal antitheism. Theism includes but doesn't equal monotheism.Dimror 20:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. But the definition of atheism doesn't need to include definitions of each concept in it -nor do any definitions. While it is true that atheism and theism are opposites, there is agnosticism, the middle ground. However, you're right: atheism doesn't imply antitheism, but it is true that only a minority of atheists -like me- advocate religion.--Orthologist 21:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think agnosticism isn't a middle ground. As a position it has nothing to do with belief in "deities". It has to do with the deities' characteristics. Thus if an agnosticist holds the belief of a theist, he's a theist. Otherwise he's an atheist. Dimror 21:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: But all dictionaries define agnosticism as "the view according to which it is impossible to prove whether there is a deity or not". Surely, its strenght depends on the agnosticist to decide, but this is it, basically.Orthologist 14:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But being a theist or an atheist has to do with having or not having theistic beliefs, not proving sth. about them... So agnosticism doesn't in any way answer the question "do you believe in #%$%##$?" It goes on and says "I don't know if #%$%##$ exists". Ok, the agnosticist doesn't have knowledge about the existence or about specific characteristics of #%$%##$, but that doesn't address at any point the belief/absence-of-belief option. He still either is a theist, either not. Dimror 15:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Eg. neither the theist has any knowledge about his "deity's" existence. He just believes in it and he's an agnostic. That's why he's called a believer. If he knew he'd have no use for belief (and would be an unbeliever, disbeliever) and would be called a gnostic. Dimror 15:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: God misnamed?

message: I know Suppose, I am a strong atheist about God and a weak atheist about gods, what kind of atheist am I? Am I only a weak atheist or something else?Modocc 00:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The endless logical alternatives are enough to make anyone's head spin.:-) Thanks.Modocc 02:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. My conclusion is that atheists are actually free to size the supposed deity candidate up or down, and even undress or tar the guy. :-)Modocc 03:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weak and Strong? 

message: could the article be unprotected - it's been closed doors for a while now..... Petesmiles 01:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unprotection? 

message: (I've now refined this into a much better syllogism below 08:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem I feel is that you express this as a dichotomy of just true and false. Science has shades of grey (it's not maths after all) in that there is a probability of hypothesis being proven true or false (which over time can migrate from one to the other). If we consider a hypothesis of god entities (one or many, take your pick) then my feeling is that it is unlikely. This doesn't make me an agnostic but a tick under a strong atheist (along with Dawkins). Using true and false unreasonably fills the agnostic camp. Ttiotsw 07:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment. I am more concerned with valid reasons for disbelief. Of course one can believe or disbelieve something without a valid reason for doing so. --24.57.157.81 07:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is a large issue with the concern Ttiotsw expresses. As I understand, it is possible to be both a strong atheist and an agnostic - one who believes, but not to the point of claiming knowledge, that god(s) do(es) not exist(s). That would accurately describe myself. Huxley contended that the approach-to-divinity of agnosticism necessarily resulted in atheism - or am I confusing him with someone else? ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 12:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am looking for valid reasons though. I am looking only for justified belief/disbelief. If you believe God does not exist but you cannot justify it critically, you do not have a valid reason for believing God does not exist.--24.57.157.81 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You seem to think the article should take a stand on these issues, rather than report on the subject as it has been examined in the literature. You make complaints but don't offer any external sources to corroborate, which makes it appear that you are doing original research. Is your issue really with the 'arrogance' of other editors, or with the authors of the works in question, such as George H. Smith, A.J. Ayer, Kai Nielsen, and Antony Flew? MFNickster 20:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can go filibuster yourself, since I'm done here. You can't even intelligently respond to a Socratic argument.--24.57.157.81 20:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last try

message: Arguments have assertions. The assertion here is "The proposition God exists is true." If the argument for this assertion is sound, valid and the premises are true, then one is justified in believing the proposition God exists is true, and therefore in believing God exists. If the argument is not sound, one is justified in disbelief that the proposition God exists is true.
Another assertion is "The proposition God exists is false." If the argument is sound, one is justified in believing the proposition God exists is false, and therefore in believing God does not exist. If the argument is not sound, one is justified in disbelief that the proposition God exists is false.
As mentioned under Agnosticism above, if neither argument is sound, one does not know if the proposition is true or false. If one argument is not sound, both arguments must not be sound as the assertions are logically opposite. --24.57.157.81 07:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to think the article should take a stand on these issues, rather than report on the subject as it has been examined in the literature. You make complaints but don't offer any external sources to corroborate, which makes it appear that you are doing original research. Is your issue really with the 'arrogance' of other editors, or with the authors of the works in question, such as George H. Smith, A.J. Ayer, Kai Nielsen, and Antony Flew? MFNickster 20:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can go filibuster yourself, since I'm done here. You can't even intelligently respond to a Socratic argument.--24.57.157.81 20:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Refined version

message: Democratic atheists can each choose the best criteria of their threshold(what is or isn’t a deity), and maybe get introduced to a candidate deity, “Hi there. ‘He’s just this guy you know.’” or just the idea of it.  
They can then assess their situation... "am I ignoring this one?", "am I confused?", "am I not comprehending?", "where are my glasses?", "do I believe any of it"(et cetera) or "am I registering disapproval(s)"?  "Should I vote?" or "abstain from voting if I am not sure?", "what if I just give it 9?" or "would a forty-two out of nothing be good enough?".  
And whenever it seems we are losing it, "Don’t Panic.". Aye! :-) Modocc 07:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: “Democratic” atheists...

message: I thought I'd try combining the refs, although it's all pretty complex.  If this kind of combination has been rejected in the past, feel free to let me know with a comment on my talk page.  Otherwise, I thought I'd try to re-finagle it so we could combine the ones in the first paragraph while keeping the rest in tact. Mackan79 02:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Combining Refs

message: :In modern times, opponents continue to conflate atheism with such beliefs as communism, nihilism, irreligion, and antitheism. Antitheism typically refers to a direct opposition to theism; however, antitheism has also been used, particularly in religious contexts, to refer to opposition to God or divinity, rather than to the belief in God.[28] Under the latter definition, it may actually be necessary to be a theist in order to be an antitheist, to oppose God itself and not the idea of God. This position is seldom expressed, though opponents of atheism often claim that atheists hate God. Under the former definition, antitheists may be atheists who believe that theism is harmful to human progression, or simply ones who have little tolerance for views they perceive as irrational (cf. faith and rationality).[29] A related stance is militant atheism, which is generally characterized by antireligious views.[30]
I propose getting rid of all or much of this paragraph. While the first sentence is usable, and fits with the section ("pejorative definition"), the 2nd to 4th sentences are an unrelated digression, and the 5th and 6th sentences have nothing to do with the section. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-01 15:37Z
:Support Not only this paragraph, there seems to be a lot of digressions and ill-written or irrelevant information scattered all over. --Hirak 99 14:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: Cleanup or delete the last paragraph of "Pejorative definition: atheism as immorality"

message: In the most recent issue of Newsweek, and reprinted online at msnbc.com is an extended story and debate (10 pages of debate and 6 pages of introduction and background) on the question of Religion: Is God Real?  The participants in the debate are Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation and Rick Warren author of A Purpose Driven Life.  Obviously, these two individuals are among the current voices of their respective groups. 
The story begins here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889147/site/newsweek/ and the abridged text of the discussion is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889148/site/newsweek/.  I think that these are useful additions to the atheism page, because they show the contemporary state of the debate.  They are not necessarily authoritative, and clearly reflect the two participant's particular POVs, but they do reflect the ongoing, and rising, discussion of faith and atheism in the United States.  I will also copy this to the Sam Harris page.  Thoughts?  Edhubbard 16:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't NewScientist have a similar feature recently with Dawkins debating some other guy? ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 16:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't see it, but I would guess it was Dawkins vs. Alister McGrath, who has been an outspoken critic of Dawkins... indeed, some might even say that McGrath's fame comes from being Dawkins' most outspoken critic.  I haven't seen the story, or a link, so we'd have to look at that. Implicit in your question is a bigger question, which is do we want to have every news story that's going on right now about prominent athiests and thier critics?  When does this move from useful linking to just overwhelming recentism?  This is part of why I wanted to see what people thought before adding these links.  Edhubbard 16:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add links to Newsweek/MNSBC story?

message: These sections are hopelessly confusing, and restate the same thing over and over. The definitions for terms in the first section aren't given until the 2nd section. Essentially, both sections need to be merged together and made more concise. In any case, it needs to be rewritten from scratch. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-02 15:00Z
I've set up a rewrite area at Atheism/temp. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-02 15:24Z
Support I have come to the same conclusion independently. Instead of being a crisp encyclopedia article, there seems to be lots of text here which refer to confusing and badly presented material. --Hirak 99 14:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I was referring to the original version. --Hirak 99 20:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I support a simplification, we don't need so much detail on how to define this term, there are two subarticles on issues of weak/strong and implicit/explicit, and it's not that interesting! Just because there's a pointless turf war over who gets to have the default position, doesn't mean the issue is particularly interesting. I supporting making room for more of the relevant stuff, following ze German example. Some of the cutting here has been brutal, but it's moving in the right direction I think. --Merzul 00:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need to rewrite "positive/negative defintion" sections

message: :moved from user talk:brian0918
I am concerned about your edits to Atheism.  It seems to me as if you are working against the efforts of the wikipedia community, possibly as part of some religious agenda.  I certainly hope this is not the case, but your persistent efforts to change the article against the efforts of the majority concerns me.  --Savant13 13:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Your Edits to Atheism" 

message: How to deal with them? Do we just add footnotes to back up "many atheists". The right thing would be to probably rephrase the statements. What do you all think? --Merzul 22:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasels? 

message: I've changed "point out" to "suggest" in the burden of proof because although to many atheists this seems self-evident it is in fact highly controversial.  Of course it is irrational to believe something if, when challenged, one can offer no reason whatsoever for a belief.  But the idea that you should only believe things for which you have conclusive and irrefutable evidence or proof is as Self-refuting idea.  And philsophers like Anthony Kenny argue that the default position is Agnosticism not Atheism. NBeale 09:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well actually I think that atheism would be the default since when you are born you have no concept of gods and have to be told that they "exist" or come to a sort of deity yourself in order for the concept of gods to even appear.71.193.233.96 14:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Contrary to NBeale there is no controversy. It would be a sorry day when scientists (or ideally anyone) have a default position of "whatev-ah" when asked about something. No, they may not know now but certainly they know how to find out if they were so tasked. The scientific method is a methodology and it's default position is to not say it cannot know these things (agnostic) but that it is unlikely unless proven otherwise (weak atheism). It is only in maths (which is not a science) that a certain proof can be provided (usually). Ttiotsw 16:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burden of proof