Talk:Atheism/Archive 36

This is an archive of past discussions about Atheism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

→

Criticisms section

Isn't there some way we can integrate this into the article or at least re-name it? Criticism sections don't seem very encyclopedic. Aaron Bowen 17:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with this criticism section. It doesn't seem to draw too many trolls, and it's fairly balanced. Any attempt to integrate its content into the rest article would probably be clumsy. johnpseudo 17:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I object to the idea of a criticism section in general. Also the idea that integrating relevant material into the article would do anything but enhace it if done correctly is erroneous. If not, the section can be broken up and re-named to Religious response and/or Agnostic response or something like that. I think it should be noted that Global warming, another FA incidentally and perhaps the most controversial article in terms of current edit wars, doesn't even have one and neither does Evolution. Basically consensus is moving away from criticism sections because they're just not encyclopedic. Aaron Bowen 03:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Aaron makes a good point. There is a strong and very credible movement to integrate "Criticism" sections into the body of an article where individual points from both sides can be matched against each other (ie, point-counterpoint). While I haven't looked at what it would take to accomplish this gracefully, I support the move to integrate. Doc Tropics 03:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Aaron, yes there are lots of ways. This section is also being discussed above, but I would stay away from that and let it come out here with fresh views. I am in the process of figuring out exactly how to do just this (delete the section and integrate it into the body) and have a bunch of good ideas but will leave them out of this until some time has passed and others have voiced their opinions.

I don't know about points and counterpoints though. That just seems like it is more debate. I think that if it is done in that manner something would have to be done to avoid the whole problem I see with the current criticism section - that it generates a continuing counterproductive debate where people try to answer one point with another ad nauseum (point, counterpoint, countercounter point, etc). I also disagree that answering one argument with another makes something neutral. By definition each article is non-neutral in the sense that it is entirely the defense of the topic on hand. This is a good thing. I don't want continualy inane counter-arguments just for the sake of neutrality.

As I wrote above, I have ideas already on this, but first, does anyone else believe this to be a problem? If yes, what solutions would they use?

Thanks, Harley 11:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about integrating relevant points, I don't think we need to violate WP:UNDUE and bring up a counterpoint to every fact stated here, but instead need to integrate well-known (I'd rather use that term than valid) criticism or comments into the article. Aaron Bowen 21:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, we are talking about the same thing. I just see things a little differently. I think even a well known criticism shouldn't necessarily have a counterpoint for the sake of neutrality (which the current version does). This is in reference to the third paragraph of the criticisms. Harley 00:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How about the title "Religious response"? Aaron Bowen 02:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be an apt title. Aaron Bowen 19:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Critics of atheism (and even theists) aren't necessarily religious. Weak atheists criticize strong atheism. Criticism of atheism isn't necessarily a "response" either. It could be part of a general presentation of the pros and cons. johnpseudo 19:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah like I said above it might require two sections, however ciriticism by other atheists should be mentioned when the differentiation is made in the text. Aaron Bowen 23:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no distinction- they make the same criticisms. johnpseudo 01:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, maybe I'm not being clear enough. When we're discussing the differences between the different forms of atheism, that's the perfect time to integrate the criticisms they have of each other into the text. Aaron Bowen 05:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any material we have to support the attribution of particular arguments to particular brands of atheism. Most of the criticisms we have originated from theistic writers, but that doesn't make them religious criticisms- they could be used by anyone. johnpseudo 16:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're in favor of the monstrously unencyclopedic criticism section? Aaron Bowen 00:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What is so "monstrously unencyclopedic" about it? It doesn't seem to violate Wikipedia policy, in that it presents both sides fairly and doesn't attract trolls. johnpseudo 00:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the current Criticisms section, it points to the main article, and summarizes the major arguments. Dionyseus 02:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue with the criticisms section is that it exists - where possible, it is preferable to integrate criticisms into the article, not sequester them in a special section. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aaron and Chihuahua. I was a little surprised when I started using Wikipedia to find that articles had criticism section, I could be wrong but I don't think I've ever seen one in Britannica. Marcus Taylor 01:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Merzul. And thanks for the edit summary! That was incredibly considerate of you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua has expressed opposing views very recently on this topic. I suggested deleting the whole criticism category in Atheism not long ago and she clearly wrote that I had no support for integrating it into the main body of the text. I argued quite well to integrate it at the time, showing useful evidence from the Wikipedia:Criticism, which she conveniently ignored at the time (seemingly out of stuborness).

It is nice that logic has finally prevailed. I hope noone is dumb enough to suggest this is a personal attack - this is factual information.

Marcus, I don't think it is surprising, that there are criticism sections. Everyone wants to be right, and attacking your opposition is a useful way of achieving this. Hence the huge amount of criticism sections. Really wikipedia is not and can not ever be neutral because the people writing it are not neutral. People hold their own beliefs to be true, and opposing beliefs to be wrong. The best we can do is try and stick to the topic at hand and not wander into debate. Debate should occur outside of the explanation of the term. Harlequinn 05:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay- I see that the Criticism section has been removed. Why? People keep on talking about how "unencyclopedic" it is, and how "surprised" they were to find it here. But it doesn't violate policy, and like I said earlier, until we can figure out how to gracefully integrate the criticism content into the rest of the article, the section should remain! johnpseudo 18:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The diff is here - as you can see, the bulk of the criticism has been integrated. If you feel any significant criticism was left out, adress that. But don't throw the baby out with the bath. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The current attempt at integration is a simple cut and paste job, putting information where it doesn't belong, breaking up the flow and throwing away the perfectly reasonable and logically structured section we already had. johnpseudo 18:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to comment here... Feel free to revert, but it is a lot easier to discuss it when we have one admittedly clumsy version to start with. I'm not trying to impose anything on you. I'm happy to revert it myself. --Merzul 18:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Great work everybody! The article looks much better now and is improving every day. Aaron Bowen 04:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

First attempt

Most of the stuff seemed to find a home. The most difficult part of the criticism section was the rather self-evident intro. I try to incorporate this into theoretical atheism, but the prose is now very clumsy. I hope someone will fix it :) Another thing, I think I lost the link to criticism of atheism. Other than that, all the material should be somewhere. What do you guys think? --Merzul 18:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there is no urgent need to delete the criticism section. Unless someone can immediately suggest some graceful grammatical changes to smooth out your integration attempt, I suggest we revert. johnpseudo 18:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we improve the phrasing, rather than reverting. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? Can we all agree that the article is worse now than it was with the Criticism section? johnpseudo 18:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No. I for one find it an improvement - which is not to say we cannot improve on the flow and phrasing, but I am delighted that Merzul did the initial bulk work of integration. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm too slow for this discussion, and keep getting edit-conflicts... Uhm, so I reverted myself, but was reverted :) I mean we can run with this for a while, and if it is a bad idea, I'm happy with reverting it all. I think the first question is about the placement and integration of the criticism. The grammar can be improved, but the flow and logic issues are of course more important. --Merzul 19:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Right there with you. IMO, we should try to improve the flow and phrasing. We can always revert later (like, several days later, lets give this a real chance) if consensus is that the integration is not working. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bleh- what a mess! Who exactly will be in charge of doing this revert and sorting out what edits are related to this Criticism section-removal attempt and which aren't? Can't we try to reach some basic level of integration on a talk sub-page before we change the main page? johnpseudo 19:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've created a draft area at Talk:Atheism/criticism-removal-attempt that is basically the article as-is (as of Merzul's 19:45, 30 May 2007 edit) without templates or categories. Would this work for you folks while you work out the flow and grammar? Can I revert the main article in the meantime? johnpseudo 19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point, it is quite a mess, but I can go through the change log and implement any non-criticism related changes. I actually do believe now that this has improved the article. Especially, in terms of WP:NPOV, the relevant criticism is coming closer to where they belong. For example, there is now material objecting to implicit atheism, and some stuff questioning weak atheism. I do think this is more fair, and more balanced reading.

However, I'm fine with working on the sub-page, if you think this has no hope. Note, that I have tried to improve some of the flow problems, there are a few issues left, e.g. atheists in fox-holes, but please take a new look and see if you really think this has damaged the article. --Merzul 20:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad it has started. From here it can be worked on to flow into the text. Good start. I'm also glad to see other people as delighted with this as me - especially since I didn't have to do the work!!!! Harlequinn 11:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

Now, I'm more or less happy with this version, so I have saved it as a link here, and you can do the revert. There are only very minor issues left. Here is an overview of what was done:

Text	Destination
The most direct criticisms of atheism are claims that a god exists and arguments for belief in the existence of God, such as Blaise Pascal's famous wager. There are various other arguments against atheism as well, usually in the form of rebuttals of atheistic rationale.	To the intro of Atheism#Theoretical_atheism. I think this makes sense, and I never really liked the idea that arguments for God's existence are "criticism" of atheism.
Prior to the 18th century, the existence of God was so universally accepted that whether true atheism even existed was questioned. This is called theistic innatism—the notion that all people believe in God from birth; within this view was the connotation that atheists are simply in denial.	Moved to the bottom of Atheism#Implicit_vs._explicit because this contrasts very nicely with implicit atheism.
It is also asserted that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis—that atheists make deathbed conversions, or that "there are no atheists in foxholes." Atheistic philosophers such as Joseph McCabe, Paul Kurtz, Antony Flew, and Michael Martin dispute this claim; also, atheist organizations of military personnel have been created in response.	Moved to Atheism#Anthropocentric_arguments, where the claim that atheism makes life meaningless already figured. Perhaps this would make more sense at the "psychological arguments" section.
When the existence of atheism is accepted, critics assert the unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of God as indication that strong atheism requires a leap of faith, making it no more likely to be true than theism. Common atheist responses to this argument include that it is equivocation to conflate religious faith with all unproven propositions—that weak atheism is not a positive claim, and thus requires no more faith than not accepting the existence of Santa Claus, an Invisible Pink Unicorn, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster;[48] and that the unprovability of God's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[106]	Moved to the bottom of Atheism#Strong_vs._weak, because this the debate about whether atheism is a positive assertion that requires a leap of faith is very relevant to the discussion on weak vs strong atheism.

So let's discuss... --Merzul 20:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start with the implicit atheism addition

"There are multiple demarcations concerning the degree to which theism is not accepted. Minimally, atheism may be seen as the absence of belief in one or more gods. It has been contended that this broad definition includes newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God". George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child without the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist." Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief.

Whether implicit atheism is a feasible position is a controversial issue. Prior to the 18th century, the existence of God was so universally accepted that even the possibility of true atheism was questioned. This is called theistic innatism—the notion that all people believe in God from birth; within this view was the connotation that atheists are simply in denial. There is a strain of calvinist thinking according to which, we all have an intuitive sense of the divine presence, the sensus divinatis, so non-belief in the divine, according to this view, can not be implicit."

Do we have any sources that compare theistic innatism to implicit atheism? Otherwise, it could be an OR synthesis of information. At the least, the statement "Whether implicit atheism is a feasible position is a controversial issue." needs a source. Besides that, it's just hard to follow, because the implicit theism and implicit atheism are addressed separately, and none of this content seems to draw these two ideas together. And again, I'm afraid that if we did add too much new content to compare these two ideas, it would have to be OR. johnpseudo 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are all retards

Ok, this is quite a serious problem, but I'm fairly convinced this isn't my invention. I will try to find appropriate sources for this, but I mean:

d'Holbach: "All children are born atheists..."
Theistic innatism: "all people believe in God from birth"

It should be obvious that these views are incompatible. I will look for sources that connect these ideas, because I'm sure I've seen people criticizing implicit atheism. --Merzul 22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Next, the theoretical addition

"Theoretical, or contemplative, atheism explicitly posits arguments against belief in gods. These arguments assume various psychological, sociological, metaphysical, and epistemological forms. Theist philosophers have presented arguments that a god exists, such as the argument from design and Blaise Pascal's famous wager. Theoretical atheists find these arguments unconvincing, and may use one or more of the following arguments to support their views:"

I like the idea of putting a mention of Arguments for God here, but the language is just disjointed. Maybe it could be framed more like "Theoretical, or contemplative, atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods, responding to common theistic arguments such as the argument from design or Pascal's wager." Also, not all theoretical atheists have even heard of those arguments, much less can we claim that they "find them unconvincing" without a source. johnpseudo 21:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, your wording is certainly better, but I don't quite follow why all theoretical atheists must have heard of these arguments. I consider myself a theoretical atheist, but it is not so much that I know exactly how to refute Plantinga's modal ontological argument, I simply know that philosophers of religions find these arguments unconvincing, and this is not hard to source -- almost every atheist book on "arguments" spends more than half of it on refutation. --Merzul 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You state "Theoretical atheists find these arguments unconvincing". Do you mean "Some theoretical atheists find these arguments unconvincing"? johnpseudo 22:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see the problem now. I mean "some atheists" and it is specifically those that base their disbelief on logical and evidential arguments, so it might be the case that these things fit better in that section. When it comes to evidential arguments, you evaluate the sum of the evidence by weighing for example evil vs. love, and so on. However, if a person just believes God-talk is meaningless, then he probably doesn't need to bother with arguments for the existence of God. --Merzul 23:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Pascal's Wager isn't an argument that God exists, it's an argument that one is better off believing in God than not believing in God. This is the problem with including "criticisms" of atheism here; they aren't really about atheism, they are about theists and their arguments, and neither the editors nor the readers are generally capable of judging their validity as criticism without a lot of further study. There are numerous lengthy explanations of why Pascal's Wager is a foolish and fallacious argument even on its own terms of picking one's beliefs for their utilitarian value, let alone as an argument that God exists, which it simply isn't -- no serious modern philosopher, including theistic philosophers, accepts it as an argument against atheism. The reasons why PW fails as an argument belong on the PW page, where one can find them if one has an interest in the subject (as opposed to an interest in atheism). If these "criticisms" of atheism are appropriate to the Atheism article, then why not add every single argument -- no matter how shoddy -- ever published against belief in God to every single article about religious belief? The "criticisms" aren't encyclopedic, they aren't descriptive of atheism, rather their presence on the Atheism page serves as theistic apologetics. The Atheism page should not consist of, or catalog, arguments for or against the existence of God, it should describe atheism. -- Jibal 02:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a need to present these arguments? Do they enhance one's understanding of what atheism is? I suggest they should only be very briefly mentioned, and not in any way that is likely to attract edits that constitute a debate. As has been said, the better part of whole books take up logical and philosophical arguments for this stuff. If a article on this topic doesn't already exist, I suggest that would be the place for it, and link to it.

"Atheism explicitly posits arguments against..." A funny sentence. It doesn't make much sense since posits means to assume as fact or to base an argument on. So if it is an assumption of fact then it is a flimsy argument with no logic/philosophic/scientific base (since one is simply assuming). If it as an argument base then why mention argument? It's like saying "explicitly bases their arguments arguments against a belief in gods". So we could say "explicitly posits against belief in gods" or "has explicit arguments against belief in gods".

What is the "argument from design"? Is there an article? Re: "find them unconvincing" - I agree - source please. Harlequinn 11:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The sentence about "theoretical ... atheism explicitly posits arguments ..." would make a lot more sense if it said "presents arguments" or "puts forth arguments"; "posits" is simply the wrong word. But the language is still confused and muddy (welcome to Wikipedia). The fact is that "theoretical, or contemplative, atheism addresses pro-theistic arguments, such as the ontological argument, the argument from design, or Pascal's Wager, with logical and theoretical counterargument". Who is or is familiar with or convinced of the pro-theistic arguments is irrelevant to what theoretical atheism is. -- Jibal 02:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Third, the axiological addition

"Axiological, or constructive, atheism rejects the existence of gods in favor of a "higher absolute", such as Humanity. This form of atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God. Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and Sartre all used this argument to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness.

One of the most common criticisms of atheism has been to the contrary—that denying the existence of a just God leads to moral relativism, leaving one with no moral or ethical foundation, or renders life meaningless and miserable. Blaise Pascal argued this view in 1669. It is also asserted that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis—that atheists make deathbed conversions, or that "there are no atheists in foxholes." Atheistic philosophers such as Joseph McCabe, Paul Kurtz, Antony Flew, and Michael Martin dispute this claim; also, atheist organizations of military personnel have been created in response."

Deathbed conversion has nothing to do with morality- it has to do with belief in an afterlife. I see no connection with the psychological section either. Strangely, it doesn't seem like heaven/afterlife is mentioned anywhere else in the article. johnpseudo 21:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the problem here. This section did flow a lot better with the idea that atheism is a state of denial, and that true belief surfaces in times of crisis, so it makes sense to keep them together. --Merzul 22:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, gee, that would be fine if atheism were a state of denial, but it would be extremely POV to present it as such. That sort of language doesn't belong in an article about Atheism, unless it is confined to a section describing theistic characterizations of atheism. But if we have such a section, then we should also add a section to every article about religion, mentioning that atheists describe religion as superstition, irrational belief for no reason, a state of denial about the finality of death, and so on. -- Jibal 02:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The end-result is the Atheism#Implicit_vs._explicit. Note that the considerable atheist response to this particular issue makes it a very significant piece of criticism. There is even an article about atheists in foxholes. --Merzul 12:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally, the strong/weak addition

"Many atheists object to the 'weak/strong' terminology because it can convey the inference that the 'weak' position is less philosophically rigorous than the 'strong' perspective. The principle argument which distinguishes the two positions concerns whether or not it is possible to prove that something does not exist. A sizable segment of the atheistic community is critical of 'strong' atheism, seeing it as a position that is no more justified than theism, or as one that requires equal conviction.

Theist critics argue that weak atheism is an attempt to tip the burden of proof in favor of nonbelief, and assert the unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of God as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith just as much as theism. Common atheist responses to this argument include that it is equivocation to conflate religious faith with all unproven propositions—that weak atheism is not a positive claim, and thus requires no more faith than not accepting the existence of Santa Claus, an Invisible Pink Unicorn, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster; and that the unprovability of God's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility."

I know that you didn't add this, but I'm skeptical as to whether the statement "A sizable segment of the atheistic community is critical of 'strong' atheism" is supported by our sources. Also, the current source does not support your "Theist critics argue that weak atheism is an attempt to tip the burden of proof in favor of nonbelief" addition. That sentence is also a bit long and unwieldy. I would support combining these two paragraphs and removing any material unsupported by our references. johnpseudo 22:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this seems like a very good idea. Unfortunately, I really have to go to sleep now, so I thank you for a very fruitful discussion. We'll see what other people make of this. I'll be back tomorrow, but I'm still fine with this all being reverted, I have really enjoyed editing and discussing these issues. Thanks again, Merzul 23:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Much worse than the weasely (but true) claim that a "sizable" number of atheists (um, what "atheistic community"? There's no such entity any more than there's a "blue eyed community") is critical of 'strong' atheism, is that it's a non sequitur from the first sentence, which is simply false -- there are not "many" athests who object to the weak/strong terminology, and certainly not for the reason given. I have never heard of a weak atheist complain that the term makes them look non-rigorous. Those sophisticated enough to enter into the discussion are usually aware of the "strong/weak claim" terminology used throughout philosophy, mathematics, and science, and that it is strong claims that are harder to support and thus their acceptance is less "rigorous" -- indeed, that's the objection to strong atheism, that it makes too strong a claim to be demonstrated. Which is a far cry from saying that it is no more justified than theism -- many weak atheists believe there is no, or probably is no, God, but think it's a mistake to assert it as a fact. It is mostly theists who make the "no more justified" argument, stating that one can no more prove that God doesn't exist as prove that God does exist. Richard Dawkins, among others, responds by pointing out that he can't prove that there aren't fairies at the bottom of his garden, either, but it would be foolish to be neutral about their existence; they almost certainly don't exist, and the same can be said (strong atheists claim) about God. (There are also strong atheists who make a stronger claim than Dawkins, arguing that there necessarily isn't a God because the concept is ill defined, incoherent, self-contradictory, etc.)

This section, as well as much of the rest of the article, is OR -- it consists of naive impressions and arguments of various editors, rather than sourced discussion from the extensive literature. -- Jibal 02:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the article. I'd suggest starting with the obviously wrong stuff (see "awkward sentences") and working your way into the contentious stuff. I'd especially appreciate any attempt to narrow down your complaints of "naive impressions" and OR to specific sentences or sections so that we might continue our work/discussion. johnpseudo 02:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that this part "it is equivocation to conflate religious faith with all unproven propositions" needs revision. The language is difficult (equivocation and conflate are not commonly used words), and the whole things stinks of a mini-debate.

Plus I think that religious faith is a assumption rather than a fact in this rebuttal. What if theist are referring to the meaning of faith in the context of all knowledge being a faith based. See Faith#Faith_as_the_basis_for_human_knowledge for a better explanation.

The part "not a positive claim, and thus requires no more faith than not accepting the existence of Santa Claus" is also problematic since most people start their lives fully believing in Santa Claus (or the Tooth Fairy, or Unicorns). A childs belief is based on faith that their parents are telling the truth (it sucks when they find out their parents are liars). Does it not require just as much faith to start believing in the knowledge of others over your parents?

And "that the unprovability of God's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility" sucks too. It doesn't imply anything. If this argument is trying to imply that the probabilities are not equal, then just get out there and say it. And furthermore, the probabilities of what? Of god existing or not existing? or the ability to prove god exists vs the ability to prove he doesn't exist? it is not clear at all. Can we have some maths to show the difference between the two please - otherwise it is an ubsubstantiated claim (if their is a reference, I'd like to see the maths taken from the reference - otherwise it is opinion, not mathematical fact).

My point is, this argument sucks. If it is an ambiguous and egregious, then why have it. Their is no problem in just mentioning that there are arguments for both and that they are not within the scope of the definition. Lets face it, neither of these arguments (either theist of atheist) is going to convince anyone in this context, so lets get rid of them.

Harlequinn 11:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism revisited

Having looked again at the article, and considering the comments in the discussion, I really do think we need a very brief "criticism" section which does not get into the rights/wrongs but just gives pointers and links to readers - some of whom have no idea that there are any rational criticisms (whether valid or not) of atheism. It seems to me there are essentially four:

That God in fact exists.
That atheists overclaim the strength of their arguments, and at most one can say that there is significant uncertainty about whether or not God exists.
That atheism is harmful to individuals, either in this world (on average reducing life expectancy, health, happiness and number of descendants) or the next (eg Pascal's Wager)
That atheism is generally harmful to society, leading to social breakdown and, in some notable cases, totalitarian rule with intolerance, oppression and mass murder on a scale far larger than was practiced in the name of religion.

Now I don't suggest that the article should imply that these criticisms are valid, but at present I don't think their existence is even acknowledged. NBeale 06:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

invalid criticisms are necessarily not rational. And none of the "criticisms" you offer is rational or valid. 1 and 2 are the purest possible forms of petitio principii (begging the question), and 3 and 4 are ignoratio ilenchi -- they are utterly irrelevant to the truth of the atheistic assertion. Nuclear weapons are harmful to individuals and to society, but that has no bearing on whether nuclear weapons exist or whether nuclear physics is correct. This is the same sort of argument as that the theory of evolution is false because it leads to eugenics -- say what? There are far more rational (though still incorrect) arguments against evolution than that, and the same goes for your "essential four" against atheism, which categorization is purely your own unsourced product. I think there could be some discussion of 4, not as a criticism of atheism, which it is not in any sensible way, but of the possible social consequences of atheism becoming more widespread -- even a prominent atheist like Daniel Dennett has cautioned about going slowly in this regard. However, that discussion would also have to include the fact that modern Europe, which has undergone a radical reduction of theism in the last few decades, with churches being converted in theatres and dance halls, has not suffered any of these dire consequences, and that totalitarian rule had nothing to do with atheism -- Stalinist atrocities were a consequence of Stalinism, not atheism, many citizens of communist countries remained believers, as became evident after the fall of the USSR, Hitler was a Christian, the Nazis wore "god is with us" on their belt buckles, etc. Far from being "rational criticism" of atheism, #4 as you have stated it is fallacious propaganda, and its uncritical inclusion would serve to mislead rather than inform. -- Jibal 03:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-06 12:46Z

Presumably for 3 and 4? And if we source these adequately would you be happy for something like this (not necessarily exact words) to go in the article - making it quite clear of course that these criticisms are not necessarily valid, but simply exist. NBeale 14:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean what are your sources for these being the primary criticisms of atheism. How is the first claim a "rational criticism", as you state? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-06 14:29Z

If they are included, then atheistic counters would have to be included too. But point #1 is essentially "atheists are wrong because my religion says that my god exists": maybe that one really is the "primary criticism of atheism", but it's hardly a rational criticism (unless someone can actually produce a deity). And the others aren't rational either, but could maybe go into a "misunderstandings" section (the supposed "harmful effects" of atheism, even if true, would not indicate that atheism is incorrect). Atheism is simply a disbelief in deities (anyone who disbelieves is an atheist, regardless of whether they self-identify as such: just as "aleprechaunists", who don't believe in leprechauns, don't generally self-identify as such): no rational argument against atheism (or aleprechaunism) is possible, short of demonstrating the existence (or likely existence, sufficient to make continued disbelief unreasonable) of a deity (or leprechaun). --Robert Stevens 16:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What I think about each point... (essentially agree with Brian and Robert)

This "criticism" is such a truism that I was annoyed every time I saw it. So, if God does exist, then atheism is wrong... Of course, but instead it is more useful to place specific criticism of atheist rationale in the suitable sections to give a more balanced reading.
What atheists over-state their arguments? Do you mean Schellenberg, Oppy, or perhaps William Rowe? Of course we all know what you are referring to, but Richard Dawkins is not the one spokesperson for all atheism.
I'm very sceptical of claims that some ideology is more conducive to happinesses. Most of them basically compare Sweden and the US, and draw wild conclusions. I don't think we should include any of these studies. This debate does fit in psychological arguments section if we must. I know Zuckerman argues that atheism makes you happy.
This is of course something we've heard a lot recently, and could be included somewhere. One option is this section, because the right philosophers are mentioned.

All in all, I think that removing the criticism section was a Good Thing, and there are good places to add criticism within the body of the article. --Merzul 22:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well to respond briefly: (1) it is simply ridiculous to suggest that there are no rational arguments for believing (or not believing) in God. The most that anyone philosophically literate can claim is that, on balance, the arguments for/against are more persuasive than the arguments against/for. (2) When Anthony Kenny and other agnostic philosophers disagree with atheism they are not referring specifically to "British Birds" Dawkins. (3) There is a lot of data on this, and it pretty well all points one way: happiness, health, longevity and number of children. Of course Atheism may be bad for the individual (evolutionarily) but true (though how, given naturalism, human minds could have evolved to hold such a belief is a big philosophical problem for atheists). But it is a perfectly rational criticism to say "we don't know whether atheism is true or not, but we have good empirical data that is it harmful." (4) Indeed. Even Dawkins notices that Stalin, Mao & co are a bit of a problem. NBeale 22:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There are in fact no rational arguments for believing in God -- even the Catholic church says so. OTOH, there are many rational arguments for not believing in God. Believers base their belief on faith, not rational argument. And Plantinga's naturalistic argument that supposedly is a big problem for atheists is not viewed as a problem at all by atheists because they don't make Plantinga's circular theistic assumptions. The fact is that the refutations of Plantinga's argument are a big philosophical problem for him, but he doesn't care because he's an apologist -- someone who moves from conviction to supporting argument, rather than the other -- rational -- way around. So please spare me, and spare this article, from your theistic apologetics. If you think that a criticism of, say, string theory on the basis that it would be bad for for the future of physics if it were true is a "rational" criticism, then you have no clue what it means to be rational. Your "perfectly rational criticism" is in fact a perfectly classic example of a fallacy of irrelevance. -- Jibal 03:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as FYI, in addition to criticism sections, it's not uncommon for religious positions to have whole articles on criticism, sometimes fairly extensive ones, e.g. Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Conservative Judaism, Criticism of Mormonism, etc. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and there is a criticism of atheism article, yet other Featured Article on religion like Bahai and Sikhism doesn't have a criticism sections. --Merzul 23:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget Global warming, perhaps the most controversial article on here at the current moment, it's also an FA Merzul. Aaron Bowen 17:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to NBeale: #1. All of the "arguments for god" require some pretty huge leaps of faith, especially when the theist arbitrarily decrees that the thing being argued for happens to have all of the traditional attributes of his own preferred deity. #2. This seems to be the "nobody can prove that there is no god" fallacy. #3. Being an atheist in the United States is quite stressful, this is well-known. But the data doesn't point "all one way": IIRC, Christians (especially in the Bible Belt) have higher rates of divorce and marital breakdown, are more likely to spend time in prison, and so forth. And why do you include "number of children"? Yes, some fundies breed like rabbits (and may have a prohibition on contraception), but how is this a positive indicator? Most families are as big as the parents want them to be. #4. Stalin, Mao etc are "not a problem" because atheism does not purport to be a moral code. Religious "evildoers" are much more of a problem for theism. You also cannot demonstrate that atheism (per se) "leads to" these bad things. Very, very few atheists have been totalitarian dictators... --Robert Stevens 08:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The relative representation in prison of atheists vs. their total numbers is minute vs. theists. Of course, this is correlated with education and income. Atheists are generally smarter, better educated, more successful, and more ethical. -- Jibal 03:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't say these arguments are incontrovertable, simply that they exist and are not irrational. #1:Whether a "leap of faith" is "huge" depends on your POV: belief in other minds requires a "leap of faith". #2:A trusism is not a fallacy #3:It's "red states" vs "blue states" I think: the survey that purported to show divorce rates by faith group is very bad. The fact that religious belief substantially increases your evolutionary fitness is quite interesting, philosophically, since most atheists seem to suggest that evolution is the only ultimate reality about humanity. #4:The relationships between atheism, marxism and dictatorship are not accidental.

The list looks like a good candidate for List of fallacies though...--Svetovid 11:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms sections are not encyclopedic, we definitely don't need one here. I'd like to commend everyone who worked so hard to integrate the previous one. Aaron Bowen 17:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Asked to comment - need to recognise the wider world

Hi - Merzul has asked me to comment. I havent had time for a detailed review but here are what I see as the most serious problems:

Annexation of Agnosticism. It is hardly mentioned, apart from saying "The allocation of agnosticism to atheism is disputed; it can also be regarded as an independent, basic world-view". The fact is that everyone in the whole world who has any opinion on the matter, apart from some self-declared atheists, considers agnosticism to be a separate world view. Even Richard Dawkins does! Now I realise that the majority of the people editing this article seem to be of the "annexe agnosticism" camp and I fully accept that there are complexities and that the border is by no means well-defined. But frankly this article is so partisan in this respect as to have lost touch with reality.
Airbrushing of criticism There is almost no acknowldgement that any rational criticisms have been, or can be, levelled at Atheism: about one sentence. By contrast there is a section in the article on Christianity on "Criticism and Current Controversies" and a whole article on "Criticism of Christianity".

I'm not going to try to change anything at the moment because Merzul suggested that I might leave it to the currently active editors to respond. I await this with interest. NBeale 19:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

1. The vast body of scholarly works, including those referenced in the article, seem to regard agnosticism as a sort of "conjoined twin" of atheism, by which I mean there are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. I'm pretty sure that no gods exist, but I have no way of being absolutely certain (who can be?). By most scholarly definitions, that makes me an agnostic atheist; however, since there is a complete lack of empirical evidence for the existence of gods, I believe that they do not exist. That puts me firmly in the atheist camp. I think your "lost touch with reality" statement is ludicrous on this basis, but not entirely unexpected considering the source.

2. To be blunt, I wasn't aware that any rational criticisms of atheism existed, or could exist. I'm not sure how a rational person could expect atheism to attract as much rational criticism as any form of theism. -- Scjessey 19:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scjessey. Your comments beautifully illustrate my point(s). No-one denies there is a relationship between Atheism and Agnosticism, but this article is written from the PoV that Agnosticism is a minor province of Atheism and that agnostics, even if they are great philosophers (like Anthony Kenny) are atheists without knowing it. Indeed someone who didn't already know that ITRW Atheism and Agnosticism are distinct would find this article, and indeed this discussion, incomprehensible. And the lack of awareness to which you refer is precisely what an enycolpedia article should address. Does anyone really think that Atheism - unlike any worldview in history - is beyond rational criticism? NBeale 05:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well let's see, I'm still thankful that NBeale's expressed his opinion. Precisely because of his bias, his view is very helpful in assuring neutrality, and hence the credibility of Wikipedia. Personally, I'm not a fan of annexing agnosticism either, I do believe blurring the distinctions is unhelpful. I don't think this is such a great tragedy, we can slowly try to find sources and give more weight to the "outside world". The key area to add such criticism is in the section about weak atheism. Second, I'm not so sure that WikiPedia's love for controversy and criticism is a Good Thing. But Scjessey is right about the lack of criticism. Normal atheists hardly get any kind of media attention at all, so for us to add any real "criticism and controversy", we would have to cover the New Atheists and Richard Dawkins in particular. I don't think we really want to bring Dawkins controversies in here, do we? --Merzul 20:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over individual atheists should go on the individual's page; for the same reason that criticism of individual churches goes on the church's page and not the Christianity page. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with NBeale. I have long thought that this article makes a needless fuss over "weak vs. strong atheism". Atheism proper is "strong" atheism. Yes (yes!), agnosticism and "weak atheism" are closely related, but going into this merely sidetracks the discussion. Mention it, link to weak atheism and agnosticism (this is a wiki! people can click on links and read on over there), and be done. I haven't even tried to implement my views on this, since this article has historically seen an incredible amount of obsessed bickering over this "weak atheism question" (which I agree exists, but find profoundly uninteresting to this article), apparently by atheists bent on inflating the demographics of atheism. dab (⁳) 06:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

NBeale I wouldn't compare criticism of atheism with criticism of Christianity but with criticism of Theism of which we have very little documented. Christianity is a much larger subject given it's syncresis of many earlier religious sources. It is also the origin of social and political ideology whereas atheism is sometimes added to a political system (e.g. some forms of Marxism/Leninism, though not all varieties of communism). It is pleasing that it is compared to a regular religion but this is a bias as atheists are usually excluded from inter-faith dialogue and are not considered, legally, to be a religion in most countries. Ttiotsw 07:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Though atheism and agnostic are considered in the same camp, I personally don't see why they are joined. To me the fence-dwellers are neither theist nor atheist and though I'm happy that they swell the statistics its a ghost population of little practical use any more than someone being agnostic on, say NP completeness, is useful for criticism of computer science. Just as most theists have strong doubts about all other gods other than their own personal or doctrinal god, atheists have doubts about all gods. Agnostics don't have these doubts but have doubts that they are able to have doubts; they haven't actually decided to doubt either (all - 1 = monotheists) or (all - 0 = atheists). Theists and atheists are thus variations in the answer to the same question whereas agnostics have not answered the question in the same way. Ttiotsw 07:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A brief comment from an occasional visitor to this page... I agree with NBeale on one of his points. As an ignorant Joe Soap, I expect to see some sort of brief mention of agnosticism early on in an article on atheism. Yes, it is difficult, and fraught with all sorts of definition and boundary-drawing problems, but I am surprised not to see an early reference to it, even if it is only to draw attention to the definition difficulties. It seems pretty reasonable for someone to come to this article from a starting point of not being quite sure whether it's atheism or agnosticism he/she wants to look up. A pity that the article cannot go some way towards confronting the issue, and the confusion in the public mind, if that's what it is, early on in its text. Snalwibma 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward - re annexation agnosticism

Well there seems to be something of a consensus on this point. Perhaps a good start would be to adjust the opening sentence to something like this: In common use, Atheism is the position that asserts that no god exists[1], as distinct from theism and agnosticism. The definition is sometimes extended to "rejection of theism"[2], thus including agnosticism or to "absence of belief in deities", sometimes called nontheism.[3]NBeale 04:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Rejection of theism" includes some weak agnostics, however it does not include strong ~~agnostics~~ agnosticism. Thus, to say it includes agnosticism is inaccurate. -Modocc 05:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No. As Anthony Kenny explains in his chapters "Why I am not a Theist" and "Why I am not an Atheist". An Agnostic rejects both thesim and atheism. NBeale 07:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

With respect to strong atheism, nothing is wrong with that position. Moreover, strong atheism has nothing to do with the problem here, because you proposed the statement "...extended to "rejection of theism"[2], thus including agnosticism...". With agnosticism, many theists are weak agnostics, that hold that "god is unknown, but I believe", whereas other theists claim knowledge. Moreover, weak atheism is not a position that includes strong agnosticism, which is the claim that god is unknowable. The definition can include many strong agnostics, however that does not mean that the atheism definition includes their agnostic position or agnosticism. Therefore, the completely inaccurate clause "...thus including agnosticism..." has to go. Also, "disbelief in gods" is a commonly accepted definition and includes weak atheism. The marginalization of weak atheism, the "disbelief" definition, as well as similar definitions with your suggested lede is unnecessary and unfounded. _Modocc 16:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than trying to adjust the definition of atheism in order to specify its relationship to agnosticism (a quick route to an edit-war if ever there was one!), maybe simply add something to the effect that the relationship between the two is unclear and the subject of debate. Dodging the issue, maybe - but at least it would acknowledge the existence of something called "agnosticism" and provide a link to the relevant article. --Snalwibma 05:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC.

Hi S. The nuances of the relationships between Atheism, Agnosticism and Theism can be discussed in the article. The fundamental point, which I don't think is at all controvesial, is that in common discussion Atheism means something disctinct from Agnosticism, but that other definitions of Atheism include it. NBeale 07:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Any kind of "controversy" statement between different positions/definitions would need reliable sources. A statement such as "no consensus on usage" is more appropriate and more readily sourced, if necessary. Also, if a summary history of the atheism/agnosticism relation can be short and informative, it could be appended to the lead section(it might help flesh out what is meant by "gathering a more specific meaning" perhaps); and the summary would need to be brief, accurate and helpful. _Modocc 16:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Kenny

Perhaps, to move forward, we should look at some prominent agnostics, and see how their writing is distinct from atheism. I will start by giving my impressions of this paper by Anthony Kenny. It is a very very interesting paper, because I think he discussing a notion of devout agnosticism, a form of Christian spirituality that doesn't try to speak about God, the essay ends by saying "To leave God unnamed, then, is not equivalent to disowning him; on the contrary it is to refuse to claim an ownership which would be blasphemous." I think this form of non-theist Christianity will be more and more common, so I strongly recommend reading that article.

There is also a very nice classification by Anthony Kenny in that article:

...there is an ambiguity in saying ‘I do not believe there is a God’. Someone who says such a thing may mean ‘I believe there is no God’: the speaker is a positive atheist, someone who positively believes in the non-existence of God. Or what is meant may be something less definite: ‘I have no belief that there is a God’: such a person is only a negative atheist, someone who lacks a belief in the existence of God. A negative atheist is an a-theist or non-theist in the sense of not being a theist or believer in the existence of God. But the negative atheist is not necessarily a positive atheist: she may lack not only a belief in the existence of God, but also a belief in the non-existence of God. If the question had been ‘Is there a God?’ she would not have answered ‘yes’ and she would not have answered ‘no’; she would have answered ‘I don’t know’.

Within negative atheism there is a further crucial distinction to be made. Those who lack the belief in God may do so either because they think that the statement ‘God exists’ is meaningful but uncertain, or because they think that the sentence is not really meaningful at all. ...
Those who fail to believe in God because they think that the truth-value of ‘God exists’ is uncertain may be called agnostic negative atheists, or agnostics for short. They are people who do not know whether there is a God, but think that there is, in this area, a truth to be known. Those who think that religious language is meaningless think that the sentence ‘God exists’ does not have any truth-value, even an unknown truth-value; they think there is no truth to be known here at all. To refer to this class of negative atheists we might use the (superficially paradoxical) expression ‘positivist negative atheists’, or, more concisely ‘positivists’.

It seems to me then that Anthony Kenny also agrees that agnosticism is a form of negative atheism, so our treatment isn't that far off, but agnosticism clearly rejects "positive atheism", so this might have to be made more clear. Is this a fair assessment? --Merzul 09:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi M. I think this is closely related to Kenny's 2005 book The Unknown God: Agnostic Essays - which I nearly bought in Heffers but decided not to - and which I think is a collection of philosophical essays. His 2006 book What I believe has (as Ch 3) "Why I am Not an Atheist" which begins: "Many different definitions may be offered of the word 'God'. Given this fact, atheism makes a much stronger claim than theism does. The atheist says that no matter what defintion you choose, 'God exists' is always false. The theist only claims that there is some definition which will make 'God exists' true. In my view, neither the stronger nor the weaker claim has been convincingly established". He goes on "the true default position is neither theism nor atheism, but agnosticism ... a claim to knowledge needs to be substantiated; ignorance need only be confessed." NBeale 21:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting. I'm puzzled by his statement that no matter what definition is offered, the atheist would claim that 'God exists' is false. I think Kai Hansen makes an excellent point that if you take modern concepts of God in some forms of Process Theism or for example Paul Tillich notion of God, then no atheist can reasonably assert that "God exists" is false. The only atheist response is to dispute that the given definition of God is consistent with confessional prayer and so on, basically argue that what is being described is a fundamentally non-theist concept. This is why I think "rejection of theism" as the most adequate definition, because depending on the definition of theism, this rejection takes different forms:

God is an old man with a beard. That does not exist!
God is a maximally great being. Whaa?
God is Love. Is Not!

Something a bit more sophisticated than that, I hope, is a proper definition of atheism...

Still, I fully agree that agnosticism is the default position. However, I don't think Anthony Kenny disputes the classification of agnosticism as a form of weak atheism. His main concern is that it is distinct from atheism proper. Perhaps the problem with our article is that in many places we have blurred the distinction between "negative atheism" and "strong atheism". I need to think about this all. I will stand back for a while and see what other people say. Thanks for your comments, Merzul 22:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the definition of weak atheism is now slowly being mixed with that of agnosticism. As you can see on the agnostic article, weak atheism is now a subset of agnosticism. The problem obviously is that we don't really want two words having so many contexts such that they mean the same thing, or too many things. It would probably be good to look at the history of the word to make sure we can keep with the traditional meaning.

agnostic - from gnostic, which itself stems from the greek gnostos, which means to know, or known. So agnostic means: without (a) knowledge (gnostic) of god, in this context.

atheist - from greek atheos: without (a) theos (god). No god.

I don't like the crossover. Weak atheism is agnosticism without a doubt. Within the last three weeks I and multiple other people argued the exact same argument as Anthony Kenny (look in archives if interested).

I guess the problem is that cutting out weak atheism will anger a whole lot of people attached to the term. Even if you logically show them that it is agnosticism and that it belongs there, I doubt that they will listen (hey, I hope I'm wrong).

I propose making weak atheism a historical definition only and enhancing the agnostic article to show how the terms had become mixed, and having only strong atheism as the atheist articles main definition. Harlequinn 10:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I think we have to accept that some atheists define atheism as including weak atheism, and some indeed as including nontheism. In my view this is intellectually mistaken and although presumably done to boost the numbers (the fact that only a ~~tiny~~2.5% minority of humans are atheists in the classical sense is a real problem for at least some atheists) it means that statements like "most atheists have given no real thought to the existence of God" become true which is perhaps one reason why Dawkins doesn't use this definition at all. My basic problem with the article is not that it acknowledges "weak atheism" as a concept but that it pretends that this is the primary definition of atheism, which is not so ITRW. NBeale 20:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC) amended tiny to 2.5% NBeale 05:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It is fortunate, therefore, that the article is written using the consensus system. You often refer to your personal opinion as "in the real world", although this is demonstrably not the case. Your extraordinary comment about atheists being a "tiny minority" highlights how important it is for a large body of editors to work on articles like these. It is also important to understand that the atheist world does not revolve around Richard Dawkins, whose bold attempt to bring atheism into focus risks sacrificing or alienating a large body of atheists for the cause. The article must reflect all forms of atheism, or it is not worthy of the title. -- Scjessey 22:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi S: Whether 2.5% is a "tiny" or a "small" minority doesn't really matter to my point. Some atheists seem to think that there are no rational arguments against atheism, in which case it must be deeply puzzling that religion is so persistent, with eg Christianity growing rapidly in China. I think your point about Dawkins is spot-on, and it's not just Atheists he alienates. I agree that the article should refer to the wider definitions of atheism, but at present it gives no idea which is the primary sense. The wise comment of Editorius below would be meaningless if someone's sole knowledge of Atheism came from the article. NBeale 05:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather put it this way: The article ought to mention all forms of nontheism.

Religious indifference, agnosticism, skepticism, and atheism are forms of nontheism. — Editorius 01:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"One of the greatest Roman philosophers to affirm skeptical inquiry was Sextus Empiricus"

This seems to be inherently POV, and doesn't really tell us anything useful. I realize that this is cited, but can't we say something more concrete and verifiable than "greatest"? johnpseudo 18:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

well of course it is POV to say that S.E. was one of the greatest Roman philosophers. And also this article is not about "skeptical inquiry" but about Atheism. In theistic societies skeptical inquiry may lead to atheism, but in atheistic societies (such as the former Soviet Union and Communist China, which in the 20th century adopted atheisic ideologies and persecuted theists on an unprecedented scale) skeptical inquiry lead to theism for many people. NBeale 20:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

actually that whole section was in very bad shape. It gave the impression that Epicurus was a pre-Socratic, referred to the views of philosophers about which there is no remotely reliable evidence, and found it necessary to say "The Greek philosopher Socrates" without mentioning the nationality of many of the others! I was tempted to leave in that the greeks "explained the world in purely materialistic terms" to make the point of how bogus these explanations always turn out to be, but "attempted to explain" is surely more accurate. NBeale 20:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Added information on atheist symbols

I couldn't find information on atheist symbols on any other wikipedia article, so I added it here. Other articles discuss individual symbols, but there was no compilation of symbols relating to atheism. I'm new to wikipedia, so hopefully I'm not offending anyone by messing with an important page. The information seems to fit here and add something to the article.by doovie 06:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the symbols do add to the article. I particularly like our good friend The Flying Spaghetti Monster! FriendlyRiverOtter 08:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the entire section. With the exception of the atom, which is specific to American Atheists, all the symbols described are actually mocking theistic symbols. This problem has been previously discussed (see the archive), and it was thought best not to mention any symbols at all. -- Scjessey 13:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you are trying to keep this article as non-confrontational as possible, but information about atheist symbology is relevant. If not in this article, then I would welcome a suggestion as to where. I have tried to wade through the archives to find the related discussion, but I can't seem to find it. The reason I added this section is because I came here specifically looking for a list of symbols that various atheist groups identify with. I found articles related to individual symbols, but no clear list of these symbols. The question should not be "are the symbols offensive to someone," but rather, "is this information relevant to a discussion of atheism." Also, a certain portion of atheist thought IS mocking theist beliefs. I am not trying to introduce POV here, just to report something.

I could write an article on atheist symbols and then link to it in the "See also" section. The only problem is that there currently is no "See also" section.by doovie 06:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You have to understand that there are no atheist symbols. There are only the symbols of certain atheist organizations, and the symbols and characters that mock theists. Atheism is not a movement or a religion, so it doesn't have the necessary "branding" that such things require. It would be a bit like having a symbol for "not being a pilot", or "not being a person who likes cheese". Any symbol for atheism would have to be negative image to represent the absence of (or the opposition to) belief. The symbols you are looking for belong on the articles for the organizations or movements they belong to. -- Scjessey 11:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

About two months ago, I went to a talk on evolution vs. ‘intelligent design.’ Afterwards there was a conversation between an atheist and a creationist, in which I participated a little bit, but mainly just listened to, for it was a fascinating conversation. Andt the Flying Spaghetti Monster did come up. I thought it was maybe something they had made up previously, or something a philosopher or critic had said on TV, similar to the invisible (and non-active!) gardener example I had read in a philosophy book years ago. I had no idea there was actually a picture of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that the whole thing had gotten so much traction! So, yeah, I learned something and I’m glad it was in our article.

Furthermore, an article like this is going to tend to be analytic, logical, left-brain. I think it’s perfectly okay to add some fun and frolic and right-brain. It makes for a fuller, richer, better article. FriendlyRiverOtter 04:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the article on antitheism is the place to mention satire and satirical symbols aimed at theism. These are part of the recent rise of antitheism activism that is beginning to be documented. _Modocc 06:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that an extensive discussion of these things is not required here - there needs to be a sentence that mentions at least the flying spag monster and the invisible purple unicorn. These are rapidly becoming places of refuge for atheists in an increasingly (for them) hostile religious world. These are organisations created by and for the use of atheists. It's a mistake to omit them. However, I can quite understand the desire to postpone such changes until the hoopla over FA and front page status dies down. Great work though - and congratulations to those who pushed the article to this degree of polish - I know how hard it is! SteveBaker 00:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I still maintain that atheist symbols do exist, and there is such a thing as an atheist movement and an atheist community. An accepted dogma is not required to form a community. All that is required is that people identify themselves as a community. I'm not trying to start an argument here. I think I'll take some time this weekend to write a real article about atheist symbology. It is a more interesting topic than I initiall thought, and there is a little bit of history there. You guys can check it out and decide if it warrants a link on the main atheism article.by doovie 09:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

New Atheism, and can we print excerpts from Dawkins, Harris, etc?

People want the very latest. Maybe that’s a character flaw, but let’s work with people where they are. Let’s give them what they want! So, let’s give them a longish (maybe three-paragraph) excerpt from Richard Dawkins, another from Sam Harris, and maybe a third from some other “New Atheist.” Instead of just summarizing what Dawkins is all about, let’s just show them and let them make up their own minds. And then maybe people will become interested in Bertrand Russell and Robert Ingersoll, and the Greek philosophers, and so on and so forth. And if they don’t, that’s okay, too.

And regarding the fair use provisions of copyright law, from a longer work like a book, I believe you can quote a pretty good sized excerpt.

Now, I like our section on ethics. “Moral precepts such as "murder is wrong" are seen as divine laws, requiring a divine lawmaker and judge. However, many atheists argue that treating morality legalistically involves a false analogy, and that morality does not depend upon a lawmaker in the same way that laws do, [100] based on the Euthyphro dilemma, which either renders God unnecessary or morality arbitrary. [101]” That’s good writing. It explains a chain of reasoning very nicely. I would just like to see a good section become even better and suggest that perhaps we expand it. We might want to include by name the major ethical theories of Kantianism and utilitarianism, neither one of which requires a deity. These are the big ones discussed in every introductory philosophy class, and they are good theories, and they also have a tension that kind of plays off between them (I hope in a creative way that adds to a skill set, for we of course care about both human rights and human welfare). Other theories include virtue theory and social contract theory (and thusly there are obviously many forms of humanism!).

Another issue, many people seem to feel that without religion, life loses much of its meaning. We need to address this in a forthright manner.

And at some point, we’re going to have to battle against all the wikipedia “rules.” I mean, it’s the biggest bunch of artificial restrictions I’ve ever seen. For starters, if it’s good, it probably is going to be long, and that’s okay. Bandwidth is cheap! And then, just like I once ran across a medical book that said, “The days of a one doctor otorhinolaryngological textbook are rapidly coming to an end,” we might eventually have such a long and substantial and interesting article that each individual writer only knows the introduction and then his or her favorite section, and has to trust fellow writers regarding the other parts. I hope we will celebrate that for the success that it would be. FriendlyRiverOtter 08:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason to avoid long quotes is that whilst bandwidth is cheap, the attention span of our readers is not. As an encyclopedia it behooves us to condense book-appropriate discussions into something that someone will actually read while sitting in front of a screen. SteveBaker 03:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

All the lovely bits about New Atheism can be found in our article about antitheism, which is essentially what the "new atheism" is all about. Interestingly, new atheism actually redirects to that article. I'm impressed! Wikipedia is sometimes so well informed. :) --Merzul 20:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like us to run in friendly competition! It’s not like everything is all done and the main consideration is printing costs. To the contrary, wikipedia is very much in the process of becoming. Let’s do the best job we can right now, right here, whatever other articles are doing. FriendlyRiverOtter 04:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We could ask User:Richard Dawkins for a quote - yes, he is a fellow Wikipedian (although not one with many contributions to his name). Or we could ask him to contribute directly - that would be better than quoting him. This isn't an article about him or his views - it's an article that happens to heavily overlap what he's written about. His scholarly input would be valuable - for all of the controversy he brings, he knows an awful lot about the subject. SteveBaker 03:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Misquoting Dawkins

Uhm... The entire de facto atheism talk is from a section of Dawkins's book called "The poverty of agnosticism", where Dawkins is putting forth the thesis that if we are agnostic about God, we should also be agnostic about the tooth-fairy, hence he calls Huxley a "tooth-fairy agnostic". I'm fine with that being reverted, although I'm offended about the edit summary because it was not a "mis-statement" of Dawkins's position.

On the contrary, the quotation of him as almost expressing a form of apatheism is misleading. If we mention that Dawkins is uncertain about God, we should also mention that he is uncertain about the Juju on the top of the mountain, because that's the only fair reflection of his position, and that's how he always speaks. I think it is best to not mention anything more about Dawkins than the fact that he doesn't use the weak/strong distinction. --Merzul 00:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins doesn't have a book called The poverty of agnosticism. I Googled it and also can't find an essay by that name; perhaps it's a chapter in The God Delusion or something. But in any case, before making claims like these please get your references straight. Mikker ^(...) 09:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a section in The God Delusion, see table of contents, pages 46-54 are about the "poverty of agnosticism", the ref is in this article, so I assumed it was understood. What I should have written is: it is from a section of Dawkin's book "The God Delusion", the name of the section is "The poverty of agnosticism". Many apologies, Merzul 10:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't miswrite. Mikker just misunderstood. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-07 13:56Z

Indeed -- my bad. Mikker ^(...) 16:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't find Dawkins calling Huxley a tooth-fairy agnostic. D. isn't that stupid - Huxley was a very considerable thinker and didn't call himself an Agnostic for nothing. But the main point is that Dawkins uses "Strong Atheism" in a very different sense from that of the article, and since he is (alas) by far the best-selling book on atheism at present we need to reflect this. NBeale 21:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins calls himself a tooth fairy agnostic. He says that it is true, he can't claim absolutely there is no god because he has no proof, nor can he have. Yet, he says, he can say that there is about as much chance of there being found proof of the deity as there is being found proof of the tooth fairy. And that's why Huxley was mistaken to talk about the rich position of agnosticism. Huxley never acknowledged that, surely, probability comes into play....Wik idea 08:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

....good argument? Dawkins polished off Huxley's soft religiosity? Well, maybe. But if there is no proof for the existence of God, one might say, then doesn't that mean that there is no factual basis on which an assessment of probability can take place? If you say that there is a fifty per cent probability that a coin will land heads, and fifty for tails, that's because you've either (a) observed which sides it tends to land on before, or (b) are looking at the coin and estimating that because it's flat and got to sides it's most likely to be one or the other equally. I thought that Dawkins had already said there's no proof of anything about God. How can he talk about probability? Didn't think of that one, did he?! Oh dear. And what's more, isn't the case that people with faith make that it is a question of, precisely that, faith? If that's so, then everything Dawkins has said in The poverty of agnosticism chapter entirely misses the point! Hope this helps. Wik idea 08:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Lack of evidence for an idea doesn't prevent us of thinking about it in terms of probability--it just means we tend to assign it a very low probability. There is no evidence that i'm a very special octopus, writing this post. That doesn't prevent you from assigning a probability to this claim being true. The same applies to the question of the existence of fairies and Yahweh.--Butbutter 09:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are indeed right, my statement was unfair to Dawkins, his criticism is far more modest: "Huxley, in his concentration upon the absolute impossibility of proving or disproving God, seems to have been ignoring the shading of probability." I read the entire section more carefully now, and while Dawkins's is clearly arguing that Huxley should just as well be agnostic about teapots and tooth-fairies, it is of course unacceptable for me to state that so bluntly, when Dawkins was so careful. While I'm very much thankful that my mistake has been amended, and apologize for the tone in my rant here, everything except Dawkins being explicit about Huxley is still accurate. So, I don't think the extra sentence on Dawkins's religious alignment is needed and gives the wrong impression.

Dawkins uses strong atheism more narrowly than used here, because what he calls de facto atheism ("God almost certainly does not exist") is I think according to our distinctions also a form of strong atheism, because it is a positive assertion even if it is a probabilistic one. At least Michael Martin considers evidential arguments against God to be supporting strong atheism. But do we need to point out this difference? --Merzul 21:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins de facto label, initially referenced by NBeal, and the quote of what one was(which I added to clarify his reference) left out the statement that Dawkins is a de facto atheist "leaning toward" a strong atheist in the Spectrum of Theistic Probability article. I should have realized that this would be a problem. The phrase "leaning toward" is not specific, as it could mean leaning somewhat, moderately or even very heavily towards strong atheism. Perhaps the STP article needs to mention that he is uncertain in the same way that he is "uncertain about the Juju on the top of the mountain." _Modocc 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That said, its not a good indication that a label that he advocates is not completely indicative of his position. He can neither be said to be a strong or "de facto" atheist, but an unnamed position. The term "pseudostrong" atheist comes to mind as an appropriate label, in the sense that his position is "close to or deceptively similar" to strong atheism. Strong atheists normally assume fallibility and assert the nonexistence of the common conceptions, deferring to the rejection position only when naturalistic conceptions such as pantheism require it. The idea of pseudostrong atheism is similar, since it affirms the nonexistence of gods as probable, and also defers to rejection when necessary. _Modocc 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Two important links

The links to criticism of atheism and list of atheists, should probably feature prominently somewhere in this article. I will try one possibility, which isn't ideal, but much better than creating a see also section. --Merzul 22:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The list of atheists link is now prominent enough, but again, what to do about criticism of atheism... other than creating a criticism of atheism section ;) --Merzul 22:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism

My knowledge of Buddhism is limited, but as I understand it, of the two main branches of Buddhism -- Theravada and Mahayana -- only Theravada can really be considered atheist. Perhaps this article ought to be a little more specific about what types of Buddhism can be considered atheistic. I don't feel I know enough about the subject to make the edit, but if someone else would be so bold...

Great article by the way. Congrats on being TFA. Stebbins 00:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism is not necessarily atheist; it all comes down to how you define "atheist." The Pali canon makes frequent mention of gods, as do many other scriptures. That there are orders of intelligence "higher" than humanity is accepted (two orders, actually, asuras and devas.) The fine distiction is that these deities are irrelevant with regards to release. In fact, the Pali canon and other early scriptures describe the gods as waiting anxiously for Siddharta to attain enlightenment and begin teaching because they, too, were caught in the cycle of existence and wanted to escape.

So is Buddhism atheist? Buddhism accepts the existence of gods in both scriptures (all schools) and ceremonies (particularly in the Mahayana and Vajrayana schools), so no. However, gods are irrelevant to salvation and, in fact, worshipping them beyond basic respect is an attachment to the universe that impedes enlightenment, so yes. TechBear 13:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, all branches of Buddhism are clearly atheist. E.g. see Nagarjuna's famous proof of God's non-existence for mahayana arguments. Yidams and other Buddha aspects can not be gods or God. They lack personality and rather represent the very nature of mind. Buddha is never said to have created the universe. Though buddhas are skillful in helping all sentient beings, their power is limited by the obscurations and kleshas of the beings. A buddhist can become Buddha while a theist can never become God. Buddhas can not control what happens in course of human life (God generally can), instead a person directs his/her life independently by changing his/her karma. Buddha doesn't rule, he rather helps those who are the same as what he was many births ago to understand the nature of mind. Obviously most lamas, including Dalai Lama XIV negate God's existence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.85.122.122 (talk • contribs).

When I claimed that Mahayana was not atheistic, I was referring to the fact that many branches recognize a pantheon of bodhisattvas. Although they are not technically gods, they possess supernatural powers and are the objects of meditation and reverence. Because of this, Mahayana features elements and practices in common with theistic religions. I was thinking more from a practical standpoint than a doctrinal one.

As for theists not being able to become God, I've heard that Mormonism and certain forms of Hinduism allow practitioners to achieve a state of equality with God. Stebbins 12:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on FA

Brilliant article. And good luck with the vandals. This article is going to be attacked like Darwin was. Orangemarlin 00:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunetely thats very true. And wasn't this article featured before?--Surfaced 01:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why I never looked at the atheism article until seeing it on the first page. Round of applause. I am surprised, however, that George H. Smith's book Atheism: The Case Against God is not included in the Further Reading section.Albie34423 02:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god...this article's going to get hammered. I'll try to help with vandalism. Zeality 02:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

All bets are, he's not listening today. 70.65.101.17 05:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think 70.65.101.17 read the article and is beginning to accept atheism. :-D Brilliant article! JHMM13 08:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I add my congrats as well too all the editors that have contributed to this article since its creation and made it as good as it is today. I also am surprised that I haven't really looked closely at this Wikipedia article until now. Once again, bravo to all who contributed! Homologeo 08:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Position or belief system

The lead paragraph did say "Atheism ... is the position that ..." but this was changed to "Atheism ... is a belief system that ...". I think the second version is pov, because atheism is the absence or rejection of belief. I can't see how the word "position" is putting any point of view on the matter.-gadfium 02:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a lack of belief indeed. Anybody who calls it a belief system should start here -> Logic.--Svetovid 02:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Lack of belief is the non-philosophical, "belief system"/state-of-mind definition. The philosophical definition is atheism as a philosophical position. johnpseudo 02:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't make it a belief system.--Svetovid 02:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes- neither definition defines atheism as a belief system, which is why I object to using the phrase. Though the "lack of belief" definition in fact refers to the state of someone's mind/thoughts/beliefs, and therefore might be referred to as a belief system. A non-intentional belief system I guess. johnpseudo 02:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The word "atheism" is used in two ways as described in the introduction to this article: Atheism is either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods or the rejection of theism. I think the first meaning of atheism is the more common, and it is certainly a belief. I'm not sure exactly what a "belief system" is, but believing that gods do not exist is very different from lacking a belief in gods. If you reject theism then you do not believe in gods. If you affirm the nonexistence of gods, then you believe that gods do not exist. Suggesting that is a lesser belief than any other is POV. -- Lilwik 02:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I find your logic convoluted and unconvincing. However, using the word "position" avoids this fruitless debate.-gadfium 03:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that I did not say it in as clear and simple a way as I might have, but surely it is clear enough that I am believing in something when I believe that gods don't exist. No one is seriously suggesting that is not a belief. Right? -- Lilwik 09:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats correct, a belief is a position and there are different positions and kinds of belief. Some are "deeply held", others mild, and there are those that are tentative. The precise position, its strength or weakness is subjective and depends on the person. One need not believe in fiction, yet one can still imagine it as real. Its like the question, Is it fact or fiction? To affirm does not mean one must put much stock, faith or belief in it every time, although one can. _Modocc 09:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

However, if you had never encountered the concepts of "god," "goddess," or "gods" then you would be an implicit atheist because you would have no belief in gods. Would you classify that kind of atheism as a belief? If so you end up with an infinite number of "beliefs" regarding everything you've never heard of, which is a ridiculous way of describing things. Also, I don't suppose you've ever heard the old saying, "If 'atheism' is a belief, then 'bald' is a hair color," have you? ;-) -- HiEv 10:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Implicit atheism is not a belief, but I think it might still be called a "belief system" because a belief system could contain absense of belief as well as belief. Also, I expect that common use of the word "atheism" is refering to explicit atheism, which certainly is a belief. -- Lilwik 21:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Slight clarification of def

What this discussion highlights (amongst other points) is that the old wording "the position which either..." should be "either the position which..." since these are 2 distinct positions (the 2nd includes Agnosticism, the first doesn't). I think this point is non-controversial and I've made the edit to make it clear, though I'm still not happy with the definition as a whole. NBeale 05:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I see what you are saying, but as I argue below, these positions are related, so let's try to get to the bottom of this then. I wonder, if the fact that we have used "rejection of theism", while the cited source uses "rejection of belief in God", is causing some problem? The difference is that an agnostic can also reject the statement "God exists", and so they are agnostic theists, but if they also reject belief in God, then I'm not sure they differ much from an atheist. --Merzul 11:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with equating "rejection of theism" and "rejection of belief in God" is that theism comprises more beliefs than just its core belief that a unique personal god exists. Theism includes a particular set of beliefs about God's essence and behaviour.

Of course, everybody who rejects the theistic core belief in God's existence must reject theism as a whole, but it is not the case that everybody who rejects certain parts of the theistic conception of God's essence and behaviour must reject the theistic core belief in God's existence.

This means that the phrase "rejectiom of theism" is ambiguous, becasue it can mean:

(a) "rejection of theistic core belief in the existence of a personal god.

(b) "rejection of the theistic belief system as a whole"

For example, deists neither reject theism in sense (a) nor in sense (b), for they accept the theistic core belief and only partly reject the theistic belief system.

So, "I reject theism" can mean "I reject the theistic core belief", "I wholly reject the theistic belief system", or "I partly reject the theistic belief system".

Editorius 16:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Two positions (and Dawkins)

Please let's not have mindless reverts. The fact is that "affirming no god(s)" and "rejection of theism" are two distinct positions (as the Blackburn definition makes clear) So to say "A is the position which (a) or (b)" is nonsensical. Also Dawkins may (or may not) be wrong to use "strong atheism" in this way, but the fact that the most influential atheist author in the world uses the term in a completely different sense needs to be reflected, otherwise we are defining him as "wrong". Now I think he is wrong about many things, but that requires argument not just POV definition :-) NBeale 06:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Atheism is the position that either affirms or rejects" can logically mean:

1)"Atheism is the position that affirms, but not rejects",

2)"Atheism is the position that rejects, but not affirms",

3)"Atheism is the position that affirms and rejects".

Atheists typically hold each of these. One can reject one god as nonsense and simultaneously affirm that another god cannot exist.

I'm not so sure that Dawkins actually used or uses strong atheism differently, his seventh category is Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.',Spectrum of theistic probability. Its the same strong atheism we have here. He does not classify himself as such either, and only puts himself close to strong atheists and my characterization of his position as a pseudostrong atheist with respect to strong atheists is OR(original research). I don't think we are saying anything that contradicts him that would imply that he is wrong. _Modocc 07:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right on all accounts here, especially since ~~Kai Hansen~~ Kai Nielsen who is our source for "rejection of belief" ~~falls in into category 3~~ is an example of affirming non-existence of one concept while rejecting another as nonsense, the idea being that this rejection takes different forms depending on the concept of God.

Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived):

for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God;
for a nonanthropomorphic God (the God of Luther and Calvin, Aquinas, and Maimonides), he rejects belief in God because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent;
for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers, he rejects belief in God because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., 'God' is just another name for love, or 'God' is simply a symbolic term for moral ideals.

So rejection of belief for ~~Kai Hansen~~ Kai Nielsen includes the positive assertion of the non-existence of most real conceptions of God, and by real I mean those that people worship in the real world. --Merzul 09:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The man is called Kai Nielsen, not Kai Hansen!

Here's the link to Nielsen's excellent characterization:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-38269/atheism

Thanks! But heavy metal and atheism is the same thing, so I wasn't that far off. :) --Merzul 14:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I've fixed it now, in case someone don't think Kai Hansen is the source of our atheism. --Merzul 14:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Help is needed, the todo-list

This article still requires a lot of work, and some very important threads are perhaps lost in all the discussion. If anyone feels like applying their copy-editing skills, please see the list of #Awkward_sentences identified by JohnPseudo. There are some other issues, but fixing those awkward sentences is probably the best place to start. --Merzul 10:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Flew

Anthony Flew is now a deist. ===Vernon White (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is probably true, but he hasn't changed his view on "The presumption of atheism", that is, he still believes atheism should be defined "as absence of belief", and theism is a positive belief. It is simply the case that he has himself now found evidence for this positive belief in something. Hence, most of our usage of Flew is completely safe. The only slight inaccuracy is when was bunched together with the other atheist philosophers in foxholes... But that sentence is very inaccurate, note the source: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/society.html#foxholes. It is Lowder who cites McCabe's listing a bunch of atheists in foxholes, and some atheist philosophers who have been in the army! --Merzul 15:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed the sentence anyway. --Merzul 16:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Mr. Flew!

What was the decisive difference between the gods of theism and of deism again?

"Having made Nature, He allows it to run its own course without interference on His part. In this point the doctrine of deism differs clearly from that of theism."

(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04679b.htm)

The deistic god is the god of rationalist natural theology. He is the theistic god in retirement.

Editorius 16:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

I've been watching the troubled history of this article on and off for more than two years, and I am pleased to find it FAotd now. Well done, everyone. dab (𒁳) 17:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I came her to comment that large portions of the article have an obvious negative slant to them, apparently written by christians with an ax to grind. It's not over the top, tending more to being apologetic. Perhaps I've just spent too many years fighting this battle.... Hmoul 18:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)