Talk:Atheism/Archive 31

message: What exactly changed and what is or was the meaning of this?  I'm struggling here. Modocc 01:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd paragraph ends "with a more limited scope."????

message: Some logical considerations:
:(1) "Atheism is ..." specifies both necessary and sufficient conditions for being an atheist.
:(2) "Atheism entails ..." specifies only necessary conditions for being an atheist.
Therefore, only formulations of form (1) are definitions, because therein there holds the relation of equivalence:
:"Somebody is an atheist if and only if s/he ..."
In contrast to this, formulations of form (2) aren't definitions, because therein there merely holds the relation of entailment / implication:
:"Somebody is an atheist only if s/he ..."
So to say that "Atheism entails the absence of belief in the existence of God/gods" is to say that "Belief in the existence of God/gods being absent from somebody's mind is a necessary condition for her/him being an atheist".
:This is certainly true! Nobody who doesn't lack belief in the existence of God/gods is an atheist. In other words, if you don't lack belief in the existence of God/gods, you're not an atheist.
:
:By thoughtfully using "entail" instead of "is" in the initial statement, it is not claimed that lacking belief in the existence of God/gods is both a necessary and sufficient condition for being an atheist. Actually, I maintain that lacking theistic belief is not also a sufficient condition for being an atheist. In my opinion, consciously lacking theistic belief is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for being at least a weak atheist.
:
:The problem with using "entails" instead of "is" is that the readers of an encyclopedia expect to find a definition of the expression in question in the initial statement. That is, they want to learn what <expression> is, and not just what it entails. And what is more, I'm sure very many readers don't know the logical difference between the relation of definitional equivalence and the weaker relation of entailment/implication.
: 
:From the strictly logical point of view, I now have to concede that the formulation with "entails" is impeccable. This fact notwithstanding, I suspect that many readers will misinterpret it, erroneously thinking that it specifies both necessary and sufficient conditions for being an atheist, which is in fact not the case, since it specifies only a necessary condition for being an atheist.
:I'm afraid many readers will commit the following fallacy:
:"I read that atheism entails the absence of belief in the existence of God. So anybody lacking belief in the existence of God is an atheist."
:This fallacy is called "affirming the consequent", and it's a formal logical fallacy:
:If p then q (p only if q)
:q
:Therefore p
:That atheism entails the absence of theistic belief means that everybody who doesn't lack theistic belief is not an atheist, but it doesn't mean that everybody who lacks theistic belief is an atheist.
:Only the following type of inference is valid:
:p if and only if q
:q
:Therefore p
:That is, if we write that "Atheism is the absence of theistic belief", then the inference from "theistic belief is absent from x" to "x is an atheist" is formally valid.  
:Editorius 16:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the readers commit the fallacy of reading more into our words than what they say, that is not our problem.  The current phrasing is as clear as possible, given the widespread necessary/sufficient disagreement you outlined above. johnpseudo 16:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Let's not assume our readers are more stupid than we are :) But other than that, people complained bout the previous solutions too. You can see the archives, much agony is about the use of an ambiguous word like "disbelief". Another options would be saying something like Simon Blackburne: "atheism is defined either as the absence of belief or positive belief in non-existence", but this is a bit of an over-simplification. This doesn't consider what Editorius above considered necessary and sufficient, namely explicit weak atheism. I have not seen a better idea than first stating the necessary condition, and then describe the various ways that the sufficient condition can vary. Perhaps it can be better expressed, but this solution is finally something that (at least formally) does justice to all definitions. --Merzul 18:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "is" versus "entails"

message: In some societies, notably the USA, atheists still find themselves victims of discrimination and prejudice.  For example a US politician recently 'came out' as an atheist rather than it being common knowledge all along.  Some say that it's unlikely that an atheist would ever reach high political office in the US because of the stigma that's attached to it.  I think this warrants a mention. --Eamonnca1 17:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern acceptance

message: i have noticed that the following  topic has been deleted if there is no meaningful reason for its deletion  i will replace it
Theism and Atheism harmony
There has been an attempt to provide hamony between theism and atheism see International Creed for Peace the ICP argument
(Motegole 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not objecting to spreading peace and harmony, but unless a source can be cited to support it, we can't put it in.  Cerevox 04:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theism and Atheism harmony 

message: The "Pejorative definition" section seems to include a lot of content that would belong better in the "Forms" section, including a lengthy discussion on "Practical atheism".  I was going to suggest moving the section wholesale to "Forms", but that doesn't make total sense.  Really, if we want this subsection to be related to typology, it should propose a typology (namely, classifying definitions of atheism based on their level of derision), but I'd be happy with making it exclusively about the pejorative definition. johnpseudo 20:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you mean, and the different typologies seem to have come about due to the pejorative definition, so they're hard to separate.  I think that we need to improve Typology's cohesion- the information presented needs to be in terms of a larger discussion of typology instead of being subjugated to the subsection's topic. Am I making any sense?  I'll make an edit and maybe you'll see what I mean. johnpseudo 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up "Pejorative definition" 

message: This article need s a section on "Fear of atheism" to explain why do people fear atheism and in the past ages would go as far as burning atheists on the stake. In my humble opinion there are two main reasons 
1. Religious people belive that in the afterlife they will be jugded for all their deeds during their mortal life, they may fear that atheists will be tempted by the prospect that they can escape punishment for their bad deeds if they are not caught during their life.
2. Religious organisations used all their powers to discredit atheism as something immoral and bad.
:There's some stuff already on atheism being viewed as immoral (especially at Discrimination against atheists, which probably has more of what you are looking for?). It's just not described as a "fear" - are there sources for "fear of atheism"? Mdwh 10:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently I do not have any sources to support my claims but I am sure such sources could be found. And the belief  that atheists are immoral is not the same as the belief  that atheists "may actually" be more willing than religious people to commit serious crimes like murder, rape etc. (of course no serious researcher would publish such a statement). Mieciu K 10:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fear of atheism 

message: the ICP argument  attempts to provide hamony between theism and atheism in other to justify its conclusion that Independence, Freedom and Justice inherent in the Human mind  are realities for peace
 
1, theism is near atheism in its highest form, 
in the Christian concept of God, the human being is the representative of God,  God is believed to exist in the thoughts, beliefs, and Actions of human beings; therefore  a belief in God will be a belief solely in the human being who represents GOD. 
 
2, atheism is near theism in its highest form, 
in the concept of no god, there are no evidence of god except for imagination  of people , god exists only in thoughts of human beings (theist and atheist alike) ; therefore a belief solely in the human being will be a belief in god in the the Christian concept of god sense.
the ICP argument holds that the Human mind is the creator of form and therefore places thoughts and beliefs of human beings above the evidence of religion or science
what is the atheism point of view? (Motegole 10:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the ICP argument 

message: I realize it's probably not kosher to use comments in the way I just did, but according to SandyGeorgia's suggestion that we fix awkward prose, I read through the entire article and marked where I saw awkwardness. I also added some "fact" templates after statements where I think we may be making questionable statements and could use more support. johnpseudo 18:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Awkward sentences and citations needed

message: Are all of these terms synonyms?  If so, we should make that clear, instead of offering only "positive" as a synonym for strong in the "Strong vs. Weak" section. johnpseudo 20:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Strong = positive = explicit/Weak = negative = implicit?

message: Isn't it odd to have a section with only one subsection?  I've always thought that if a section only has one subsection, the information presented in the subsection's title could have just as easily be presented in the section's title.  It does seem to break things up neatly, though.  Also, does the "association with a positive assertion" idea really have no place within the "distinctions" section?  This is probably one of the most commonly-made distinctions out there. johnpseudo 15:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Distinctions section

message: I agree with what Silence brought up about the third sentence.  First, although the before-and-after dashes are technically correct, they look really ugly when combined with the commas and citations.  Second, the length needs to be reduced for it to be easily readable.  Perhaps we can move the three explanations of range, degree, and recognition out of that sentence.  Or if we could cut the text of the explanations by 50% or so, I think that would help. johnpseudo 16:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third sentence

message: I notice that the lumping together of Hinduism and Buddhism has crept back into the lead, as well as the use of sources that only talk about Buddhism and Jainism to refer to Hinduism.  A citation that I added for a completely different purpose is now being used in the lead to make a point the opposite of what it intends.  I have edited those sentences now to clarify these points again.  Buddhism and Hinduism are different religions.  Please do not use references about Buddhism to cite statements about Hinduism. The phrasing issue is that the sentence made the assertion that "Hinduism" had been considered atheistic, rather than saying that atheistic schools exist within Hinduism.  The reference I provided was somehow being used to support a statement that it did not make. Buddhipriya 02:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinduism and Buddhism again 

message: I find no discussion of Honderich in the archives, but note he is editor of The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (2005), which (from the archives) says: "Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods. Thus much Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist."--JimWae 18:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ted Honderich is the editor of The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, but the author of the entry atheism and agnosticism is George Mavrodes.—Editorius 23:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honderich and more

message: I agree with JimWae that the Epistemological arguments section is poorly worded and unnecessarily opaque:
#"In the agnosticism of immanence, the consciousness is considered as an absolute, and all human thought is locked within the subject"
#"Skepticism, based on the ideas of Hume, asserts that certainty about anything is impossible, so one can never know the existence of God." 
We really shouldn't have to rely as heavily on technical jargon as we do in this section. johnpseudo 21:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Epistemological arguments

message: This sentence seems like it could use improvement.  The "to the...to the" grammar seems informal.  Also, this sentence presumably refers to the "rationale" section, but that section doesn't address these three topics explicitly. I suppose "social" would refer to the "Psychological, sociological and economical arguments" section, and "history" might refer to the Theodicean atheists bit, but that's a stretch.  Can we find any sources for social or historical rationales for atheism? johnpseudo 23:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other rationales for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical.

message: RE:
:With regard to range, atheism in the strictest sense is regarded as counter to all theism, including monotheism and polytheism. Such atheism entails no belief in the existence of a God or gods. In the broadest sense, atheism may be counter to all supernatural or transcendental phenomena, including spiritualism, animism, mysticism, magic, etc.
It is unclear here what "broadest sense" means - if those extra conditions ARE applied, it actually results in a narrowing (rather than a broadening) of who gets classified as an atheist. This is inconsistent with the way "broadest" is used in lede. --JimWae 04:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range 

message: Here is what I think the error of the editors is. A "lack of belief" is not a philosophy, it is a perceptual state. It does not postulate anything, and all of philosophy is postulations about reality. So here atheism (and agnosticism, and some other related articles) are being treated as a category of perceptual states, rather than a category of postulations. If you define atheism as an "absence of belief" nothing is being postulated, no argument is needed. Then it is simply a category of a certain perceptual state. 
Now, perhaps what the atheists that define it this way actually mean, in terms of their philosophy, is some sort of other postulation that isn't being referenced. I believe one of the only options is that it is based on evidentialism--evidentialism is a postulation--it asserts what is reasonable and what isn't--and it (as far as I know) entails this perceptual state. Regardless of the reason, I think that perhaps editors, in trying to accomodate all possible views, have modified atheism to being defined by a perceptual state rather than a postulation. If atheism is defined by a perceptual state is not a philosophy and so shouldn't be in the philosophy category. It is fine to talk about perceptual states and how one arrives at those perceptual states within the article (reasons for perceptual states) but the article must be defined in the form of a postulation, not a perceptual state.--24.57.157.81 19:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weak atheism is a perceptual state.  Strong atheism is a philosophy.  The article simply must clearly state what all accepted definitions entail, regardless of it does that by using a postulation. johnpseudo 19:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "strong atheism" as in believing that God does not exist is true is a philosophy. "Weak atheism," as in "possessing the perceptual state of a lack of belief" is not a philosophy. Philosophies are not perceptual states, so we should not define the atheism in terms of a perceptual state. Just because someone uses a word to mean something else, in this case a perceptual state instead of a philosophy, does not mean they relatable on the same level, or even relatable at all. As for the definition of atheism as "the perceptual state of a lack of belief" this alone is not a philosophy. --24.57.157.81 19:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you say that "absence of theism" and "denial of theism" are not relatable?  And if different people refer to them with the same word, then they assuredly belong in the same place on wikipedia, whether or not they are both philosophies. johnpseudo 19:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not relatable on the same level. I see it as generalizing far too much. Just because the perceptual states are the same does not mean that the perceptual states were arrived at in the same way. How does one arrive at the perceptual state of "a lack of belief?" Why does anyone have a "lack of belief?" These are the questions people expect to be answered on a page about philosophy. They surely do not expect merely categorical divisions of perceptual states. They expect to learn why. And even if they were arrived at the same way it would not matter because atheism is a philosophy not a perceptual state. It is a categorical error to define atheism as being based upon a perceptual state. Atheism is based upon the postulation "God exists"--that's the reason "lack of belief" is discussed on the page, not the other way around.--24.57.157.81 19:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding "atheism is a philosophy not a perceptual state":  We've already established that this isn't true. Strong atheism is a philosophy.  Weak atheism is a perceptual state.  Regarding "These are the questions people expect to be answered on a page about philosophy": This is a page about the term 'atheism', not necessarily a page about philosophy. johnpseudo 20:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the article is about a term. If the article is merely about a term then it should be in a dictionary. If the article is about a concept, then it should be in an encyclopedia. The subject of this concept is philosophy, clearly, as the "lack of belief" definition is based on the philosophy. The perceptual state "lack of belief" is subordinate to the philosophy, to the postulation on which this perceptual state is apparently based. Would a "lack of belief" definition even exist without the postulation "God exists?" No. I say that this is a page should be about the philosophy of atheism. The various perceptual states involved are trivial when it comes to philosophy, because they are not postulations. --24.57.157.81 20:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You don't have to put them in separate articles, but yes making sure a discussion of perceptual states is separate from a discussion of philosophy makes sense to me. Perceptual states are trivial within an article about a philosophy. The perceptual state is subordinate in that the state obviously requires some sort of interaction with the postulation, whereas the postulation, being a postualtion, does not require anything. That relationship of the state to the postulation should be discussed--clearly it exists. The postulation is the definitive concept, not the perceptual states which relate to it. --24.57.157.81 20:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Check out the skepticism article. It's not perfect but maybe you can see the differences there between treating skepticism as a perceptual state (an "absence of belief") and treating skepticism as an actual philosophy. --24.57.157.81 20:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It does not matter what precludes anything. Where is the postulation? No postulation means no philosophy. If these articles are to be scholastic they are to respect their subject: philosophy. There is no such thing as strong and weak atheism in philosophy they are not different postulations, you've arranged them in terms of perceptual states which is not philosophy.--24.57.157.81 22:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "In general, atheism is the philosophy of the non-existence of God. The philosophy asserts that God does not exist; that theism is false. Arguments for atheism are usually arguments intended to contradict theism or theitical postulations with respect to God. Other arguments for the position are entailed from various other philosophies, especially within epistemology. Some atheists, however, define atheism as only a perceptual state derived from these philosophies, an absence of belief that God does not exist, not a philosophy unto itself." --24.57.157.81 22:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for making a suggestion.  A couple sections of this seem to include weasel words: Where can you find a citation for this form of definition (meaning one that says that atheism, in general, is a philosophy)?  Also, "some atheists define" is inaccurate.  The weak definition of atheism is widespread, even among academics and in published encyclopedias.  This lead paragraph does more than define atheism from a philosophical point of view- it pushes the POV of the strong definition of atheism. The philosophical aspects of atheism are no more important than the social aspects(which constitute the bulk of the article), but no social aspects are mentioned here. johnpseudo 23:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, what about "Atheism centers on the philosophy of the non-existence of God." or "Atheism centers on the proposition that God does not exist." For "some atheists define" you could change that to "Atheism is oftentimes defined as..." The social aspects would come in the next paragraph after the definition so I didn't include anything like that there. --24.57.157.81 23:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Centers on" doesn't define anything and is too vague to be useful.  In what way does it center on the philosophy of the non-existence of God? "oftentimes" is also vague.  I do like your original sentence "philosophy asserts that God does not exist".  Perhaps we could replace "Other definitions combine this absence of belief with belief in the nonexistence of God," in the second sentence with "Other definitions combine this absence of belief with the postulation that no god exists," or "...the assertion that no god exists," or "...the philosophical proposition that no god exists,". johnpseudo 00:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "centers on" is bit better than "broadly consists in" I'd say. I don't like using the word "combine" either, I don't think small changes to the current definition will help. Anyway, I have another idea for a definition to try that you might like better anyway, I'll put it down below (should be number 6). --24.57.157.81 00:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Atheism: A perceptual state is not philosophy

message: I had even a link Limboot 04:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen it suggested in some articles about Atheism that early Christians were called atheists during the Roman Empire.  It may well have happened some time between 150 and 373. But I'm moderately familiar with the sources on this, and certainly the earliest sources do not do so, so before asserting it as a fact we should find a reliable primary source - otherwise we should say "X suggests that ..."  And of course people in 150-200 were no more "the first Christians" than people in 1937-1987 were "the first US Citizens" NBeale 06:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is the fact that the first christians in Rome were called atheists forbidden in Wiki?