Talk:Negative and positive atheism/Archive 1

message: I added a section on criticisms of strong atheism (believing gods do no exist is just as dogmatic as theists' beliefs in gods) and strong atheist responses to those criticisms. Let me know what you think and where improvements can be made. Cheers. User:Davin (usurped) 18:35, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Expansion 

message: I've gone through article and have undone User:67.132.243.17's changes of strong/weak to explicit/implicit. Weak and strong are the more commonly used terms by a long shot. User:67.132.243.17 should seek consensus here before making such significant alterations to te article, and take the time to read the article's archived discussions; had he, he'd have seen that this issue was previously discussed and settled long ago. FeloniousMonk 07:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Strong/weak to explicit/implicit

message: "Statements of nonexistence merit positive claims: The nonexistence of gods is currently not yet certain enough at this point to merit positive claims. As such, these nontheists may hold that to positively assert the nonexistence of deities requires the same type of "faith" as theism itself. In believing the existence of no gods, one assumes a burden of proof similar to the theist, and neither has satisfied this burden of proof.  "
This is completely incoherent - the first two statements contradict eachother. "At this point"? "these nontheists"?
If anyone knows what the intended meaning of this is, please re-write it in English.
Otherwise I will just delete it. Poujeaux 13:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: gibberish

message: Since strong atheism and weak atheism are such closely-related terms (it is impossible to understand one without the other), with so much overlapping information, and since there is so little information on them (weak atheism is a stub, and strong atheism would probably be too if we removed all the unsourced statements), I suggest that the two be merged into a single article for Strong and weak atheism, on the same principle by which eutheism and dystheism were merged into Eutheism and dystheism. (And by which I plan to make a new article, Implicit and explicit atheism, if there is any support for this.) It will centralize the articles' information more, thus improving consistency and accessibility and overall benefiting our readers more. -Silence 15:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: There's much duplication in the weak atheism section and the reasons for weak atheism subsection of the weak atheism section.   I'm thinking about fixing that.   When I do so, I'm thinking about losing this line:  "Some [weak atheists]also base their rejection of strong atheism on the notion that it is impossible to prove a negative."   
Is anybody fond of the line or particularly think it belongs there?   Wiploc 03:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and did the edit.   If people are wedded to the line, we can put it back in somewhere.Wiploc 03:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impossible to prove a negative? 

message: ADEISM___________________________________________________________________________
Greetings, I wish to propose a new term. For some time now there has been debate about how "Strong" Atheism makes this type of Atheism seem to have a bit of a superiority complex and the term "Weak Atheism" seems kind of derogatory to those Atheists.
Therefore I would like to coin and propose a new term, a meme to put out into the memesphere and add to this article{or perhaps have an article on itself}; rather than use 'Strong" and "Weak", would it not make more sense to reeserve "Atheism" for those so-called{up to now} "Weak" Athiests/Athiesm, and exchange "Strong" Atheism into this new term I have coined{to my knowledge anyways}- "ADEISM". Which indicates the up to now so-called "Strong" Atheists not only disbelief in theistic deities, but even their denial of the plauability of a Deistic first cause? 
This also must be said adding the importance of changing the definition of "Anti-Theism", which till now has been largely relegated to so-called "Strong Atheism". Anti-Theism is only indicative of opposition to "Theism", I am myself deistically based but I oppose Thiesm and revelation, and I know Agnostics and others whom also are opposed to "Theism" but are not themselves "Atheists". 
Anyways, I thereby propose this new word for "Strong Atheism"-"ADEISM". And therfore w cna do away with this battle between "Strong Atheism{Atheists}" and "Weak Atheism{Ateists}", and the derogatory feel of it, particularly for some up to this point, so-called "Weak Atheists". And from hereon it, you will then have "Atheism" and "ADEISM".
Thoughts?
In Reason:
the very irreverand Bill Baker, faithless missionary.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
:Why not just use "positive atheism" and "negative atheism"? They're the more common terms in academia anyway. -Silence 21:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Adeism" sounds like absence of deism. Someone can be a non-deist and still be a theist. Too misleading. "Positive" and "negative" in this situation are the simple, neutral terms for what types of statement is being made (a positive statement is "I believe X"; a negative statement is "I don't believe X"). -Silence 01:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline text 

message: It looks to me as though there is a unique use of the word 'atheism' amongst certain philosophers as well as others.  Perhaps a distinction can be drawn between 'general acceptance' of the definition of a word and the peculiar use of a word within a given community or group.  Would it be possible to re-draft this article to ensure that it is clear that the particular use of the term 'atheist' in this article is not generally accepted amongst the community at large?  Both groups have every right to have their usage made clear but this article presupposes that the wider community's definition is wrong and the 'atheist philosophers' one is right.
-GuyIncognito 15:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which definition of "atheism" are you saying is not generally accepted amongst the community at large? Remember also that atheism has its own article, and this article is just about the concepts "weak" and "strong" specifically. Mdwh 17:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The definitions of words 

message: The section about Weak Atheism in existence of God describes it as the choice to disbelieve the existence of God or other deities on grounds milder than the outright rejection of the possibility, such as probabilistic considerations.
:I went and fixed that.Wiploc 18:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossing the border from fuzzy definition to outright contradiction 

message: I had a go at balancing the article, by trying to have about as much on the suggested reasons against as for. user:Coelacanhas been removed as poorly sourced or allegedly WP:OR. I think we need to be consistent here, and apply the same standards of sourcing/OR to the suggested arguments for an against. I have had a go at meeting Coelacan's criticisms without deleting any of the "reasons for" but if some of the reasons against are to be deleted then the reasons for that are subject to the same, or worse, criticisms should be deleted as well, I suggest. NBeale 15:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balancing the article