Talk:There are no atheists in foxholes

message: I like wit dry, like  good champagne, served deadpan in a chilled glass. User:Wetman
"No atheists" did NOT mean MANY atheists found their knowledge that religion is false "challenged." It did not say "few" nor did it say they were "challenged."  It said "no atheists," period.  I'm removing that Christian apologist junk.
Fairandbalanced 00:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's debateable too, because Buddhism and Jainism are not religions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hate to burst your bubble, but atheist don't "deny" a god.  We just believe in one less than you do.  Maybe a better choice of words would have worked better.  ie: Atheists don't believe in god(s).198.36.23.114 (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, many atheists do say that there is no god. Not only do they not believe in a god, they state that they know there isn't one.168.216.10.217 (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

text:  The classical definition in philosophy is that atheism is the belief that there is no god, which is semantically equivalent to don't believe in the existence of any god, etc. It's a positive assertion about the belief in the non-existence of any deity. With this comes the burden of proof. Everything else would be agnosticism. The "we believe in one less than you do" is just witty meaningless non-sense. 187.65.198.179 (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is refutable using the following argument ad absurdum: "...atheism is the belief that there is no six-tonne invisible spaghetti monster dwelling under the rock at the bottom of the garden. With this comes the burden of proof. Everything else would be agnosticism." There is no burden of proof required, for possibility that such an entity exists at the bottom of my garden is so ridiculous as to require none. The same applies to deities.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.145.125.243 (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Atheism

message: Since the express is "there are no atheists in foxholes" would it not make more sense to title the article that way64.12.116.201 19:15, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Hi, journalist Ernie Pyle is often credited with coining this phrase, so is there some source for the claim that it was actually William Clear?  I have no idea myself which one said it, but if there is some dispute, then we need a good reference, or possibly we should make it clear that the matter is not settled.  At very least, Ernie Pyle deserves a mention.  Anyone have anything concrete? Leeborkman 01:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Ernie Pyle not given credit for the phrase, etc? 

message: This is a great phrase, because it can mean so many different things.  Some atheists consider the phrase an insult to atheists, presumably because they think it means something like: "Any person who claims not to believe in God is kidding themselves because they will always change their minds when put under enough pressure", or a nastier version "any man facing death who claims to be an atheist is lying".  But this phrase can be taken in many other ways.  I personally (as an atheist) take the phrase to mean "humans, being human, may clutch at any feeble hope when the situation is desperate", which does not offend me at all, as it's a general comment on human desperation, not really about atheisim or atheists at all.  A much wilder interpretation I have seen around here is "Atheists are cowardly scum (so don't expect to find any of them on the front-lines)", which would be incredibly offensive (if anyone ever actually intended the phrase this way).  This is why I have repeatedly asked that interpretations should be backed by reputable sources, ie for any interpretation we need to show that there are intelligent, respected people who actually interpret the phrase that way.  It is pointless (and incorrect) to dogmatically state any particular interpretation as the correct meaning, although this is what has happened again and again here and on the related articles.  Thanks. Leeborkman 02:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and believe the interpretation in the article should either be removed or others should be added.  I'm an atheist, and similar to you I've always considered, if anything, theists would find the saying offensive.  To me, the phrase implies that religion is just a way to deal with fear of death, not that it has any truth behind it.  If you beleive you're going to die, what do you have to lose by starting to "believe" in there being a god that'll grant you an eternity of happiness for believing in him?  Its not like atheists believe that people that die incorrectly believing there's a god will be punished.Funkadillo 13:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now there is a whole NPOV paragraph .... Krym66 (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinterpretation?  No, just lots of ''different'' interpretations 

message: What is this article suppose to be about? The phrase "...atheists in foxholes", or something else, in which case it should have a different title? The article is unfocused from an encyclopedic standpoint. A good way to start would be to follow normal Wikipedia proceedure and start the article with its title: Atheists in foxholes is/means/etc. 70.20.238.20 01:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't get it. As the fellow below shows, this article is to showcase the exacerbated capacity some people has to get offended, and whine about a silly catch-phrase as if it was meant to be a real claim.
Let me tell you all something about war. You always hear Christians talking about atheists dumping their beliefs and suddenly believing in god or some junk like that. It's a myth. During and after many wars, soldiers adopted a cynical attitude towards god, religion, reality and that kind of stuff. A lot of them adopted a more agnostic outlook on life. In the words of my veteran grandfather, "God? Where was that f*ucker?" Or "God? Has anyone around here seen him recently?"
You didn't answer his question. This isn't a debate forum, it's an encyclopedia. We need to refocus this article on the phrase "atheists in foxholes" and its uses, not a refutation, that can go on your blog. Thank you above user, I think you're dead on, I'll see what I can do. --Smilingman 21:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfocused 

message: I can find no definition of the word “barbituary” in the sentence “The phrase could also hint at a Marxist idea that theism is a barbituary for pain and struggle…”. Is this a real word, or was “barbiturate” the intended word? — Chris Page 15:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "barbituary" a word? 

message: I am not sure why "use of the phrase" should be considered offensive by atheists. If anything, it could be considered offensive by soldiers, and by theists, since it really says that belief in God is born of fear, which is precisely how atheists explain the obviously widespread phenomenon of theism. Soldiers might consider the phrase offensive because it suggests everyone is scared witless in combat. That there are, of course, rare cases of "atheists of foxholes", doesn't disprove the point of the phrase, it just shows that heroic stoicism will in some cases beat primate fear.  dab (𒁳) 12:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, on an individual level, it could be seen as patronizing and suggesting that atheists are unserious or unreflected or inauthentic about their personal credo. That being said, I completely agree with your removal, of course. If there are atheists affronted by this phrase, the outcry should be referenced and notable. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, of course it is offensive. It is implying that the atheist is a liar, and is in fact religious. If you don't believe in gods and ghostly spirits and stuff then why would you ever consider praying to a god when you are in mortal danger? That is simply just not happening. I cringe every time i see that in survival/war movies, when the atheist (which is aways portraited as different from the other soldiers which are reigious) starts praying. It is so obvious that the producer or writer are christians and wanted to show this to everyone... Why oh why would an atheist ever consider praying?? Its just as stupid as in thrilers when they are supposed to be nervous and the non-smoker says "Give me a cigarrette" and starts smoking it, and the other guy (smoker) says "I thought you didnt smoke?"... "No, i dont". And we are supposed to think "OMG!! This is a really tense moment, even the non-smoker starts smoking.". Arrghghgh! WHY would a non-smoker consider having a nicotine product to help "calming the nerves"??? He simply would not!!! He wouldnt even know if/what kind of effect that would have on him, having no previous experience from smoking. It's like "ha ha we smokers know that you want to smoke, too!!!". The "no atheists in foxholes" is the same thing. If you have never ever prayed, and you don't believe in a "god", then WHY would you start praying??? That would be bad for your concentration, and in that situation you need to focus on surviving. Praying would be plain stupid. By showing that scene in a movie they are saying that "the atheist" is stupid. Yes, it IS offensive.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.108.52.23 (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Someone could make a similar argument about being offended by Martin Luthers "I have a dream". They could argue that Dr Luther was  patronizing them by claiming that it could only be in a dream that an equal society could occur. Just because this might be someones view doesnt mean the article on "I have a dream" should focus on why they disagree with his statement. This statement was made and is generally accepted to have been made by a religious person - the article should therefor focus on what that person intended. The opposing view can be presented but it should not be the focus of the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krym66 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be comparable if Dr King's speech consisted of "White people are disingenuous pricks". At the time, the vision he laid out in the speech WAS a dream. He never claimed it couldn't happen. The statement we're discussing here unambiguously declares that atheists are god-fearing hypocrites/cowards (depending on which meaning you subscribe to).  --King Öomie 13:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  As it can be seen the problem that makes atheist cry like babies to their mom is that they compare being called theist to being called prick, so the problem is just prejudice, intolerance, lack of self-control and hatred.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.65.198.179 (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "offensive"

message: Let's put a picture that represents an opposing sentiment towards the article subject. What's next, a Red Sox logo for the Yankees page? Great job Wikipedia!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.186.128 (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try and adopt this article and get a more appropriate image 
Krym66 (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: picture

message: There are no Democrats at the World Trade Center. --mitrebox (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plays on the Phrase 

message: I don't think this article makes it clear what the definitions/interpretations are of this phrase beyond the only one listed (which I notice has no citations to validate it) and spent more time talking about a group that has taken it to be their catch phrase/mission statement (and a section which I deleted as they have their own seperate article and don't need more space here as it added nothing to what the phrase means).  
I don't necessarily disagree with the interpretation given but having grown up in a household where WW2 movies were a staple (Guadalcanal Diary, Bridge On The River Kwai, etc.), I was under the impression that men who fear judgement (i.e. going to hell for their sins) are going to do their best to keep from being killed (like bunkering down in a foxhole).  A person who doesn't believe in the afterlife, having a soul, and/or a god would be less inclined to fear death and it's consequences (in this context) and thus, not in the foxhole with the religious grunts as they have nothing/less to lose by their own "belief system".  That was my impression of what the phrase meant anyway.  It's hyperbole (probably offensive to some) and maybe that's addressed in a legitimate, sourceable article but I honestly don't know where to go to get a reference.  This is the way it was explained to me and what I have heard from others (and yes, anecdotal evidence, yadda yadda yadda).  144.92.85.41 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're somehow implying that atheists wouldn't mind dying...  --King ♣ Talk 18:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not to revisit this issue but... 

message: I find the false dichotomy between Christianity and atheism implied in the final sentences of the first paragraph to be inappropriate.  I have tagged it as original research.  With any luck, sources will help to clear up how to address this problem.  siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your signature doesn't need to be on its own line (and it certainly doesn't need three). In fact, it's kind of distracting to do so. --King ♣ Talk 18:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as the lengthy debate above proves, it is by no means "clear" that the quote is made in the context of supporting religion. All sorts of interpretations can be - and have been - made.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implied false dichotomy 

message: This page cites "there are no atheists in foxholes" as being an aphorism in the following sentence, but it seems that snowclone is more appropriate here:
While primarily used to comment on the specific experiences faced by combat soldiers, the aphorism is often adapted to other perilous situations such as "there are no atheists on a sinking ship" or "there are no libertarians in a financial crisis"
Wakablogger2 (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aphorism 

message: I cut this because the link disproves it.
In the book Ghost Soldiers, author Hampton Sides credits the origin of the phrase to "Father Michael Cummings,a Catholic missionary who volunteered to serve the US Army in the Philippines following the Japanese attack.  He later died aboard one of the Hellships on the way to Japan." In the form "There are no atheists in the trenches", the idea dates back at least as far as World War I.Fred R. Shapiro, Yale Alumni Magazine, "You can quote them" column, March/April 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.101.164 (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut cummings reference 

message: I think the notable examples are a bit off the topic. The sentence doesn't arque that no atheist has ever been to war, but rather argues that even atheists rely on some sort of higher power in those extreme situations. Currently it is just a list of atheists that have been to war. I'm removing it unless someone has some sources about persons who firmly held their beliefs throughout the war. (Cruiserweight (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The proverb is commonly cited as a truism, i.e. "a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder or as a rhetorical or literary device." Counterexamples demonstrate that this is not the case. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing the counterexamples demonstrate is that the proverb's statement is not universally true. But there is no proverb whose claim is universally true. They are just informal folklore-ish statements about patterns in life, that happen often enough to be noted. Giving counter-examples to proverbs is silly. Of course there are counterexamples, no one is claiming otherwise. The point of the proverb is that what it says happens often enough to be notable. Now the proverb's wording is inaccurate in this sense ("there are no.."), but this is common with the proverbs - again they are not rigorous math statements. 213.240.234.31 (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable counterexamples 

message: Should Bhagat Singh Be in this list? Circumstatnce surrounding his death and his avowed beliefs would make a intresting example or counter example.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.203.155.113 (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Bhagat Singh 

message: I am removing the tag about notability guidelines. While the article could use a little cleanup the citations are acceptable. WP:N#N#General_notability_guideline Frederick Green (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability Guidelines 

message: Brian Wansink and Craig S. Wansink of Cornell University surveyed published literature and concluded with the following observations: "Using two large-scale surveys of World War II veterans, this research investigates the impact of combat on religiosity. [One study] shows that as combat became more frightening, the percentage of soldiers who reported praying rose from 42 to 72 %.  [Another study] shows that 50 years later, many soldiers still exhibited religious behavior, but it varied by their war experience. Soldiers who faced heavy combat (vs. no combat) attended church 21 % more often if they claimed their war experience was negative, but those who claimed their experience was positive attended 26 % less often. The more a combat veteran disliked the war, the more religious they were 50 years later." <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237199731_Are_There_Atheists_in_Foxholes_Combat_Intensity_and_Religious_Behavior>  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.144.75 (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific Data 

message: Not once is the word "foxhole" even used in the Joe Simpson story that was added, let alone any informtion to inform the reader further about the phrase. It's random and even comical that it was added. 
The point of the article is not to unfold random people's epiphanies for or against their faith in a God. It's about the aphorism. Stay in the lane. Kats2501 (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joe Simpson story removed 

message: "Our men know there are no atheists in foxholes. They know they have only two final friends—their gun and their GOD. Proceedings. United States: Agricultural Department, Des Moines Chamber of Commerce, 1937, p 69 (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Proceedings/daM1AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22there+are+no+atheists+in+foxholes%22&dq=%22there+are+no+atheists+in+foxholes%22&printsec=frontcover, retrieved 01/23/2024) 144.198.114.10 (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage reference from 1937