Talk:Atheism/Archive 25

message: "...This definition includes as atheists all nontheists, both those who believe that there are no gods, and those who merely don't believe that gods exist."
If someone believes there are no gods, then obviously they don't believe gods exist. If someone believes gods don't exist, then they don't believe there are gods. Granted, technically you could say that the former could believe that even the idea of gods doesn't exist, but I'm sure hardly anyone would dispute the fact that some people believe in them. Could someone tell me exactly in what way these two are different? Ralphael 02:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a distinction that has been explored in books on theism (and atheism) and in the discussions here - read the archives for all the gory details. Basically, "atheist" and "nontheist" both mean "not a theist," but some use "nontheist" as an alternative to "atheist" which they take to mean someone who denies the existence of god(s). The term "weak atheist" (and "implicit atheist") can cover those who "don't believe gods exist" if they are unfamiliar with theism - these people do not "believe that gods do not exist" because they don't know what gods are. That's just one example, so read the archives and you will get the whole picture. MFNickster 04:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Basically, you missed out the converse: yes, if someone believes there are no gods, then they don't believe gods exist. But if someone merely doesn't believe gods exist, then this doesn't necessarily mean they believe there are no gods. Mdwh 23:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is ambiguously expressed, though I also know it's one of those things that's tough to express precisely. Say we define 'to believe proposition X' as 'to hold X to be true', and we also define 'to not belive X' as 'to hold X to be false'. If someone holds the proposition 'gods exist' to be false, this implies the person holds the proposition 'there are no gods' to be true (i.e. 'gods exist is false' implies 'gods do not exist is true'). And yes, I've seen this issue debated many a time. I think the statement "merely doesn't believe gods exist" is ambiguous. Perhaps "merely doesn't hold a belief regarding the existence of gods at all" would be better. Or does this lead to other problems? smhhms 09:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's safe to say that we define 'to not believe X' as 'to hold X to be false'. If anything, the extensive debate here has shown that definition to be inaccurate. The statement may be ambiguous, but our purpose here has been to clarify it (which I think we've done successfully). The only problem is when someone new comes along and challenges it yet again. MFNickster 19:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Saying "assert that there are no gods" rather than "believes that there are no gods" helps somewhat to clarify the difference, I think - I think it's clear that some atheists make that assertion, whilst others don't. Maybe "doesn't hold a belief" would also be better - I can't think of other problems that would create, and wouldn't object to that change. Mdwh 15:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Personally, I'm not so keen on "those who fail to believe in gods", though I think the statement as a whole is better than the previous one. smhhms 09:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The problem with "fail" and "deny" is that they can, in my opinion, carry an implication that God does exist - it's a statement from the point of view of a theist. Mdwh 15:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Where are you getting this? Do you have anything to back it up, or is this just your opinion? MFNickster 13:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: By whose logic? I'm not saying that's incorrect, but what is the basis for the distinction? I don't see any a priori reason that the terms shouldn't be synonymous. MFNickster 14:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with MFNickster, this is an encyclopedia article and the distinction should only be made if it is a fairly well established one. I don't see any a priori reason either, and whatever the case for the distinction might be, it would be preferable to state who made the case, particularly given it is in some dispute. smhhms 11:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Doesn't this mean basically the same thing?

message: Very large percentage of atheists consists of those people who have either studied logic or philosophy or excessive science. Logic is always flawed and half philosophy has the tendency to do introduce such concepts. Most of them also believe in Darwin's Theory of evolution which ultimately results in such kind of beliefs. How do they explain the concept of God even in the most ancient men we have found on this planet? PassionInfinity 08:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: PassionInfinity, are you saying that belief in logic will inevitably lead to belief in logic? -- Ec5618 14:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all, please don't waste your time if you really think this dicussion is. Secondly, by "Logis is Flawed", I meant that if you stick to logic only, it results in lots of Paradoxes. Ec5618 is quite right althogh not perfect. Logic can be used to prove the existence of God as well as the non-existence of God! Really... what exactly does that mean? Should I blindly trust Logic? You cannot teach Einstein's theory of Relatively to a dog. Can you? No matter how logical you are. It is impossible. What is so difficult in understanding that there may be somethings even more complicated that our minds just can't grasp? This universe is even more complicated than any of us have ever imagined! I will talk about Darwinism and other things later. Those arguments come afterwards. Thanks! PassionInfinity 10:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this conversation doesn't relate directly to the article, but to the principles of thought and communication and philosophy in general, I hope you don't mind if we move this to User talk:PassionInfinity, at least until we reach some sort of agreement or conclusion that would lead to a change to the Atheism page as it currently stands? Or at the very least, this probably would be more topical in Talk:Logic than here. -Silence 14:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheism and Logic 

message: I mean seriously half the article reads like this "aeitheists say that don't believe in things that don't believe that say they beleive unless they do which is why they say when they do"
<--This was either written by Yogi Bera or a Philosophy Major (ie, someone who is really stoned and at the same time hates rational thought with a Ronald Reagan inspired passion)--172.136.191.115 14:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Do you still have that chart? I'd love to take a look. If it's clear and pretty enough, we might even include it in the article. -- Ec5618 14:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd be interested to see how it compares to the typology I set out under "typologies" just up the page a bit --Dannyno 14:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually considering putting it up last night, but I chickened out because there are still a few problems I'm trying to work out with it. If you have any advice, additions, or other changes, I'd love to hear them, so I can help gain a clearer understanding of the terminology we're using throughout Wikipedia. I put the chart on User:Silence/Atheism (where I used to have my rewrite of the atheism article) rather than here because I think I've already flooded this page too much already, eheh.. -Silence 15:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Kind of like mine, then (only obviously not as good - joke :-) ).  But rather confused as between strong and critical atheism.  --Dannyno 09:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I the only one who thinks this article was written by a bunch of philosophy majors? 

message: The article is certainly heading in the direction I envisioned long ago. I'm happy that I don't have to deal with the same constant vandalism and arguments in the articles to which I now contribute! Good luck, and dare I say, Godspeed. Adraeus 11:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good job! 

message: After seeing some interesting charts on Talk:Theism, I decided to try my hand at some, but without trying to cram everything into a single chart; instead I divided it into as many sections as necessary to fully explore the range of significant combinations. So, how's User:Silence/Theism look? Oh, now I've also made a one-chart version, User:Silence/Theism2. -Silence 19:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The chart above (the image) seems incredibly simple, but its possible we can use it as the basis for this article. We needn't cover every aspect of atheism in the article, though we should mention that there is a wide spectrum of beliefs (or lack thereof). I can see how a chart of all options might be helpful to editors, but the diagram is probably so confusing/contentious to readers it wouldn't help the article. -- Ec5618 21:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheism/Theism Charts 

message: Am I the only one that thinks this section was a poor addition?  I've never heard of it -- and reading the section to me, it seems more, i dunno, "anti-theistic agnosticism" to me.  --Quasipalm 03:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Militant Atheism?

message: "Colonization" was recently changed to the British spelling. I don't have any problem with this, and it makes sense that Armstrong would have written it that way as she's British, but can someone please just double-check that book and see that it really is spelled that way in the book?--chris.lawson 00:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karen Armstrong quote 

message: Adolf Hitler wasn't actually christian, he was a theist, but not a christian, while there are a few historians who dispute this, I'd say most historians with an intrest in the area think he was an atheist, I suggest that "Adolf Hitlers Christian beliefs" or whatever it say's in the articile be changed to "Adolf Hitlers theistic beliefs". Apparently there's extensive evidence that he eventually planned to exterminate christianity.
:From a brief search of literature online, it appears that Hitler did have Christian beliefs.  See this site for more on that.  At the very least, he cunningly appealed to Christian beliefs in his writings and speeches, and most Germans at the time were certainly Christians (Lutheran and Catholic, mostly) and did not find such appeals inconsistent with their religion. Christianity in Germany at the time had a very anti-Semitic tenor, owing much to Martin Luther, who himself derived much of his sentiment from New Testament portrayals of the Jews.  Regardless of whether Hitler's appeals to Christian doctrine were sincere, the Christian beliefs of most Nazis provides a counterexample to anti-atheists' claims that the existence of unethical people who have a certain belief system indicates that the belief system itself is unethical. Rohirok 03:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 seems to demonstrate that Hitler wasn't a Christian. The book may be POV, I don't know, but it certainly casts doubt on the assertion that Hitler was Christian. Personally I am almost sure he wasn't, but surely even you'd admit that there's a signficant chance that he wasn't christian, and qualified people dispute the claim that he was christian, so calling him Christian is also a violation of NPOV. To present him as being Christian with certainity is a factual mistake, better would be to talk about Hitler as a theist, as I don't think anyone seriously debates that he wasn't a theist.
anybody who self-describes as Christian is a Christian; I don't know of any other criterion. People's adherence may change in the course of their lives though. I suppose there is no doubt that Hitler self-described as Christian when he was young. He probably had other things than religion on his mind during the war, but he certainly discouraged the Germanic-Occult stuff that was going on in the Nazi party. Hitler is certainly not notable for being a Christian, so I don't see why he should specifically be mentioned as one. You may want to try to impose your standards of 'burden of proof' on List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people -- it seems anyone who ever so much as smiled at someone of the same sex is immediately featured there. Baad 16:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler's Christian beliefs (was Factually inaccuracy) 

message: I did this in a block, so I thought it might be prudent to list the changes I made. There are 33 in total.
* NPOV
Some politically motivated organizations that report or gather population statistics may, intentionally or carelessly, misrepresent atheists.
:Changed "carelessly" to "unintentionally"
::Some politically motivated organizations that report or gather population statistics may, intentionally or unintentionally, misrepresent atheists.
 Aside from atheists who lack theism for philosophical reasons, there are some explicit atheists who lack theism for social, psychological, practical, and other reasons.
:"Lack theism"? Rewritten.
::As well as atheists with philosophical reasons, there are explicit atheists who cite social, psychological, practical, and other reasons for their beliefs.
 Arguments that theism promotes immorality often center around the large number of wars and terrorism brought about by religious fundamentalists.
:Changed to:
::Arguments that theism promotes immorality often center around the contention that a great deal of violence, including war, has been brought about by religious beliefs and practices.
 They consider that reason guided by humanism and rational thought leads to a more fully expressed ethical life. Of course, many modern liberal religions have such humanistic concepts as well. 
:Modified first sentence and removed last sentence for relevance.
::They consider that reason guided by humanism and rational thought can lead to a fully expressed ethical life.
* Larger changes
When in the course of the history of ideas the denial of the existence of "speculative" atheism became unsustainable, atheism was nevertheless repressed and criticized by defining it very narrowly, casting it as unacceptably dogmatic or otherwise misrepresenting atheist positions.
:Verbose, changed to:
::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.
Although both terms are most often used by explicit atheists, nontheists who consciously reject theism, weak atheism also includes some implicit atheists — that is, nontheists who have not consciously rejected theism, but lack theistic belief, arguably including infants.
:Jumbled, changed to:
::Although explicit atheists (nontheists who consciously reject theism), may subscribe to either weak or strong atheism, weak atheism also includes implicit atheists &mdash that is, nontheists who have not consciously rejected theism, but lack theistic belief, arguably including infants.
Having considered the evidence for and against the existence of deities, others (explicit weak atheists) may doubt or dispute the existence of deities, while not actively asserting that deities do not exist.
:Removed first part of sentence, "Having considered" is assumed.
:: Others (explicit weak atheists) may doubt or dispute claims for the existence of deities, while not actively asserting that deities do not exist.
Agnosticism is distinct from weak atheism, though many implicit atheists may be agnostic, and implicit atheism falls under weak atheism. 
:Removed last portion of sentence. It is not applicable to the def.
::Agnosticism is distinct from weak atheism, though many implicit atheists may be agnostic.
 It is a popular view among many logical positivists such as Rudolph Carnap and A. J. Ayer (they didn't use this terminology), who hold that talk of gods is literally nonsense. 
:Removed parenthetic statement. Their use of terminology is a minor point that disrupts the sentence flow.
::It is a popular view among many logical positivists such as Rudolph Carnap and A. J. Ayer, who hold that talk of gods is literally nonsense.
 However, some ignostics dispute whether considering a nonsensical question nonsensical is a positive statement, any more than considering "What color is Sunday?" nonsensical would be.
:Removed example, already used first par. of sub-section.
::However, some ignostics dispute whether considering a nonsensical question nonsensical is a positive statement.
* Smaller changes
God may not exist, but the run-on sentence still does. Yikes. I changed 9 of them - you'll have to look them up yourself if you're worried.
Removed in text link to motherjones.com. The reference is still intact.
2001 The Czech Statistical Office – cleaned up grammar.
Added blockquote to quotes.
Oh, and I took off the copyedit tag.
Cheers --Bookandcoffee 03:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit – Oct 19/05

message: But Atheism does not make a claim "there is no god", it simply does not believe the theist claim "there is a god". Be it Strong Atheism, Weak Atheism, whatever, they do not make a claim, they dispute a claim made (that of theism). Therefor, to say atheism requires a burden of proof, implies that any hypothesis, story or even fairytale must be "proven" untrue. Such an assertian is ridciulous, I can say I am God - try prove I'm not, it's completely irrational. Canderra 17:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The above was left on the main article page, but appears to be a comment. I moved it here under this assumption. Fox1 (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: eeek, your right, sorry. Not sure how I posted this to the main article, I think it was meant to be in response to something else on this page but can't find it now. Canderra 16:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheism as much a belief as Theism