Talk:Atheism/Archive 15

Voluntary injunction

I'm happy how this discussion has moved towards trying for a consensus.

I'm happy too! --Neigel von Teighen 23:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To avoid edit wars, I'd like to suggest a voluntary injunction. This will mean that in order to show good faith to each other, editors involved in this article will follow the guidelines pointed out below to avoid further conflict. (Of course, I can only enforce #2 based on policy.)

1. No one reverts more than twice in a 24 hour period, unless they change obvious vandalism like "I like poo" or similar edits back to the edit directly before it without changing anything else.
2. People breaking the 3 revert rule will be blocked for 24 hours in accordance with blocking policy.
3. Try to reach consensus here first. Vote on it if you have to.
4. If someone breaks a rule, try to reason with them without personal attacks. If discussion doesn't help, report them. Do not engage in breaking of rules yourself.

I'll unprotect the page now.

-- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 22:30, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Paul Holbach

Felonious Monk says that Paul Holbach (1723 - 1789) is an example of an early atheist who uses the weak "lack of belief" definition of atheism, I have been reading Holbach, and it is clear that he is what we would call a "strong atheist". For example, he says in paragraph 17-18 of Common Sense:

17. Can we imagine ourselves sincerely convinced of the existence of a being, whose nature we know not; who is inaccessible to all our senses; whose attributes, we are assured, are incomprehensible to us? To persuade me that a being exists or can exist, I must be first told what that being is. To induce me to believe the existence or the possibility of such a being, it is necessary to tell me things concerning him that are not contradictory, and do not destroy one another. In short, to fully convince me of the existence of that being, it is necessary to tell me things that I can understand.

18. A thing is impossible, when it includes two ideas that mutually destroy one another, and which can neither be conceived nor united in thought. Conviction can be founded only upon the constant testimony of our senses, which alone give birth to our ideas, and enable us to judge of their agreement or disagreement. That, which exists necessarily, is that, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. These principles, universally acknowledged, become erroneous, when applied to the existence of a God. Whatever has been hitherto said upon the subject, is either unintelligible, or perfect contradiction, and must therefore appear absurd to every rational man.

These kind of statements are hallmarks of a strong atheist. I have not found an actual definition of atheism. Felonious, can you produce a quote demonstrating that we must consider Holbach a supporter of the "weak" definition of atheism? While you are at it, how about the Voltaire and Aquinas quotes? --BM 14:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Once again, another straw man argument from BM. I've never said Holbach was a implicit (weak) atheist, or even uses the term implicit (or weak) atheism, or even is sympathetic to the implicit (weak) atheist position. What I have said is that Holbach (and all of my other cites) acknowledge the existence of implicit(weak) atheism in their writings. You really need to re-read my original citations: "And once again I'll remind you and Sam that Paul Henri Holbach (1772)... in their writings made the distinction between weak and strong atheism, then known as "implicit" and "explicit" atheism."

Still don't understand why it's a straw man, BM? You're claiming I've insisted Holbach an atheist who supports the weak "lack of belief" definition of atheism, that I've suggested "we must consider Holbach a supporter of the "weak" definition of atheism." I have not. You are misrepresenting what I have claimed when I cited Holbach. I think we can really expect better technique in rhetoric and debate from someone who invokes on alleged BA in Philosophy from Harvard, magna cum laude no less. Either make your arguments on their points without the blatant logical fallacies, or your run the risk being ignored and dismissed. I have my doubts as to many of your claims here.

No, I understand how you were using Holbach. You didn't claim that he was a weak atheist, and I never said you did. You said that he gave a definition of atheism that was consistent with the weak definition you have been arguing is primary. I can't find in either Common Sense, or The System of Nature, where he gives a definition of atheism. I haven't read through both of them in their entirety; so I'm asking you for the quote or a reference. Or perhaps it is in some other work. If you say he didn't give the weak definition but made the distinction between weak and strong atheism, OK, that is slightly different, but I would still like the reference. --BM 17:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Funny, but your own quotes of Holbach presented above do not even support your own claim that he is clearly a strong atheist. Both quotes form is as near a perfect justification as I've read for implicit atheism. Holbach said: "Whatever has been hitherto said upon the subject, is either unintelligible, or perfect contradiction, and must therefore appear absurd to every rational man." Maybe I should have claimed he was a weak atheist... --FeloniousMonk 16:54, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My goodness, the quoted paragraph 18 from Common Sense is the classic strong atheist argument that God (at least, the ominiscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, transcendent God that is understood by Christians) is impossible because his alleged attributes are unintelligible, contradictory, and absurd. How can someone who says directly that God is "impossible" be merely a weak atheist? That is about all the more stronger atheism as it gets (as my Rhode Island friends say). If you are reading that paragraph as implicit atheism, it is hard to rely on any of your statements. --BM

I could respond to the specifics here, but I'd sooner not get involved in that as I can't see how speculating about whether Holbarch writings catogarises him personally as a strong or weak atheist beares upon improving the Wikipedia article or indeed how it devalues FM's citation of Holbach as having used the 'lack of belief'(weak) definition.

This aside; A specific question for you to answer please BM. You changed the atheism article to put in the Oxford Eng dictionary definition under the general intro, the OED atheism definition encompasses the weak definition. Does that mean you now accept that the weak definition is valid and appropriate for inclusion into the Wikipedia general definition of atheism? --Nick-in-South-Africa 15:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nick, frankly I'm astonished at your question. I've been saying all along that the article needs BOTH definitions. I know I'm long-winded, but my writing skills must really suck if this was not clear. I've been open about my POV, which is that I don't think the weak definition is the one that "most people" would give as the definition of atheism, and I personally think the weak definition is not a particularly enlightening or helpful one. But it is quite clear that it is a common definition, especially in academic discussions of atheism. It is obviously very prevalent in English language on-line sources for example, and many, probably most, perhaps even all, notable thinkers in the freethought tradition have used this definition. Of course it needs to be in the article. But the strong definition also does. I don't think any of the editors have produced a convincing case that one or the other is the primary definition (although I'm more persuaded, naturally, of the truth of my own POV). So I don't think we can neutrally say in the article which is the primary definition. It is not really necessary to say which is primary, anyway. It is amazing that such a minor issue has blocked progress on the article all this time. On Holbach, he is relevant because FM has cited Holbach as an early user of the weak definition, along with Aquinas (even earlier) and Voltaire (somewhat a contemporary of Holbach). Holbach seems like a fairly interesting figure, and I notice the Wikipedia doesn't have an article on him; so maybe I'll write one. --BM

BM - I must have missed your agreement, if so I’m sorry for that. I thought you agreed with Sam. I understand Sam Spade's position to be that he wishes...or rather 'insists' that the general definition of atheism in the intro only include strong/ positive atheism and that weak/passive atheism be only dealt with in the body of the article and that either Wikipedia NPOV policy should be set aside with regards atheism or that he is simply incapable of being NPOV in this matter.

He has thus far explicitly rejected the inclusion of the weak/ passive definition in the intro general definition (with a couple of enigmatic self contradictions) despite being shown ample evidence that the weak and strong definitions are common, are valid and has been for centuries. The frustration FM, Adraeus and myself have with Sam relates to Sam's very clear slant and seeming personal crusade driven by some sort of agenda on this point and his rejection of the evidence that both the strong and weak definitions are valid.

It seems you BM agree with FM, Adraeus, myself and a few others. That is that we all agree that the general definition of atheism in the intro should cover both the meaning of the strong and weak definitions and should cover both without preference, is that correct, please clarify this again for me.....?--Nick-in-South-Africa 12:08, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think the article should not indicate any preference for one definition over the other, and should give "equal time" to both of them. I'm not sure how common the weak atheist definition is. If the universe being considered includes the theist "man-in-the-street", I think it is not very common. And I am skeptical about the statement that it has been "valid for centuries". But it is certainly common enough in English-language academic and on-line sources that it needs to be mentioned in the article. Someone reading about atheism online is going to encounter it and would think it odd not to have a discussion of it in the Wikipedia. My personal opinion is that weak atheism is an incorrect position and that the definition of atheism that goes along with it isn't helpful. I think it would be better if people didn't have to be confused by it. But there are lots of incoherent/confusing positions that are actually held by significant numbers of people, and I can't banish them from the Wikipedia, either, or else the religion category would be empty. --BM 13:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My $.02 here. So far as I recall over the past few months, I think Sam is the only person to steadfastly oppose any mention the definition of weak atheism (but even there, I think he may have compromised somewhat at a few points). What is primarily at issue is not whether to mention the definition, but how to phrase the introduction so as to not imply bias for/against one or the other. As for the commonness of the weak definition, I suspect if you do a wide range of in-the-street interviews, you'd find plenty of people who would agree with a statement formulated something like "An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god". However I suspect that most of these same people would not accept the generalization of this in the form of something like "All people who do not believe in god are atheists." That is the heart of my problem with presenting the weak atheism definition. The categorical statement is an unecessary extrapolation of the weak atheism position for polemical purposes and is not integral to a definition of weak atheism. older≠wiser 14:32, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Bkonrad, I think you are probably correct about the outcome of your hypothetical survey. The man-in-the-street would accept a definition that makes an atheist a person "who does not believe in god". However, it would probably not occur to the man-in-the-street that "not believing in god" is different from "believing that there is not a god", unless it was pointed out. Generally people aren't that rigorous in their speech, and if you say you "don't believe in ghosts", usually your position is not merely that you lack a belief in ghosts (although that *is* literally what you are saying). Your position is likely to be that you believe that ghosts do not exist. Same with gods. --BM 14:53, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another point, for me the decisive one, is that if we don't include both definitions and give them equal time, we will constantly have people coming upon the article, thinking it strange that one of the definitions is missing, and editing it in. Thus, deciding to exlude one of the definitions is a decision to have edit wars. Stability alone drives us towards being neutral. --BM 17:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's quite good that both of you, BM and Nick, have reached an agreement. It seems that everything changed (towards a rational discussion) during my one day absence. You're on the good way. --Neigel von Teighen 23:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Consensus Building - Please state position on motion

So following on from all this is there anyone and I include Sam Spade, that doesn't now accept that the general definition of atheism should include both the negative/ weak and positive/ strong meanings in the intro to be written neutrally and without favour to either. I'm proposing that we state our positions to allow us to find out if there is a reasonably broad consensus and if so where it lies.

The motion The Wikipedia article on atheism should in its introduction cover the meaning of both strong/ positive and weak/negative/ passive atheism in neutral language without favour to either.--Nick-in-South-Africa 15:11, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)....please add your names.

For the motion

1. Nick-in-South-Africa
2. BM
3. Neigel von Teighen
4. Yath 23:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Bryan 00:28, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
6. User:Davin (usurped) 01:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 11:07, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
8. --FeloniousMonk 19:20, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Against the motion

1. I believe that's going too far into it for an introduction. I like the introduction as it is now written. Everything else should wait for after the introductory paragraph, In my opinion.:

Atheism is defined either as the denial of the existence of deities, or alternately as the condition of being without theistic beliefs. The word originates from the Greek prefix a-, meaning either "not" or "without", and theosmos, theos meaning God, and mos, belief.

I think it is neutral and gives plenty of introduction into both passive and assertive atheism for an itroduction. Pedant 21:47, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

• I of course second that. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 21:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Firstly I oppose voting on matters such as these (article content, POV, etc...), the wikipedia isn't a democracy, or majoritocracy, but is instead consensus based. Secondly beginning an article with a dictionary definition is generally frowned upon, and for good reason: It isn't encyclopedic. The weak definition shouldn't be in the intro at all, of course, but this is an improvement, more accurate than what was there before, and I don't expect better at present. In other words, I don't approve of the intro, but won't stand in the way of the current consensus. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 17:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I concur exactly what Sam said, the current definition is good but should not be the final version. However, the passive athiesm probably should be there. I would like everyone to start calling weak or negative atheism, Passive athiesm. Why? because weak and negative are downer words and it belittles those that are passive athiests. Wikipedia cannot be a party for this, so as it stands, passive is the only descriptor that can be used to describe those who are not strong athiests. In the end however, passive might not cut it as an appropriate descriptor. "implicit atheism" vs. "explicit atheism" should probably be used. See the article on about.com about strong vs. weak. --The Sunborn

Unfortunately, "weak" and "strong" are the adjectives that appear to be most commonly used for those terms and so whether you personally prefer them or not those are the terms that we should use in Wikipedia. It's not our place to try to coin neologisms or influence the usage of a term. Bryan 00:28, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yup Ive dealt with the weak strong point before with Sunborn. Taking ones tea weak or strong implies no value judement as to which is better and neither is in this context a downer, negative or a pejorative, so it is with atheism.--Nick-in-South-Africa 12:35, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that calling this "voting" is a little bit unfortunate. Perhaps it should be called "making a list of people's positions so we know where consensus may lie." The results won't be particularly binding on the form of the article. However, given that most people support giving the strong and weak definitions equal standing in the introduction (for which extensive evidence has been provided in the discussion archives), it will provide ammunition for shooting down any disbelief-only edits, if and when they should pop up in watchlists. --Yath 23:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yup thats exactly the point Yath, so Ive changed it from a vote to a statement of position. --Nick-in-South-Africa 05:50, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Atheism has both strong and weak forms, since Wikipedia policy says that a lead section should summarize the article, I think weak atheism should be included in the lead. If "weak" carries too much negative connotation I have no problems in using another wide-spread term for it, but it should defintely be included. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 11:07, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Atheism having strong and weak forms is an opinion, or interpretation, not a fact. Focus on weak atheism takes away from any summary, synopsis, or introduction to atheism, as does the wording "gods". I will accept the former for the time being, but the latter needs repaired more promptly. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you Sam, but both definitions are in use, and many web sites about atheism use this distinction as if it were universally accepted. Wikipedia should not become one of those web sites: I would like to see, in addition to the weak/strong distinction being described, that it is made clear that many people do not make this distinction and have other terms for the various "weak atheist" positions. --BM

Good call, we should talk about the weak/strong as a way of categorizing Atheism. However, it is only one way of doing things, and as such should probably not be done in the introduction.--The Sunborn

Any person without theistic belief belongs to one or another state, the two most obvious being the active denial of belief or the passive absence of belief. This is a fact readily verified by simple logic, it is not opinion. The choice of descriptors, weak/strong, implicit/explicit may reflect an opinion, but the nature of the states they describe are quite real. Both states need to be afforded equal consideration and time in the article. Weak atheism is just as real of state as strong atheism, Sam. Are you still insisting that all atheism is an active rejection of theism?--FeloniousMonk 19:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How about my latest attempt? It might not be perfect; but its better, no? --BM 20:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excellent. I made one extremely minor, but in my view highly signifigant change. The current version of the intro would fullfil my concerns, but I think an even better one would contain a link to gods, and address beliefs in the supernatural, mysticism, belief in the paranormal, etc... Skepticism should also me mentioned in the intro, probably in regards to the afor mentioned esoteric phenomena. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 21:26, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oxford english dictionary

I don't have one, and they won't let me view it online without an account, but I'd like to see the precise wording of the Oxford quote. Does it say "gods" or does it say "God" or "God or gods" or what? I removed mention of the dictionary both because it is generally innappropriate to cite a dictionary in the first sentance, but mainly because I didn't want to misquote the Oxford dictionary by my edit. Not knowing what the Oxford dictionary precisely says makes me a bit nervous in general w this reference. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:13, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The "anon" who is glad to revert and make accusations of "vandalism", but is unwilling to discuss matters in talk (violating our Voluntary_injunction, sadly enough) is going to earn the article a dispute header if he insists, since I'm not going to continue to revert, nor allow the factual innaccuracy of "gods" to go unchallenged. God is not a god, nor is God uniquely Christian, as a quick review of Deity, God and gods should make clear. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 17:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey, BM, I think you misunderstand the disagreement w that anon. Also, I don't think anybody wants the article saying

"Atheism is defined either as the belief that God or gods exist...[1]" ;)

Lets discuss it, ok? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 19:13, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oops. --BM 19:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:D Hehe... [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 21:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Couple of problems with the "The Types of atheism" section

There two problems with the section that need to be addressed:

Spoon feeding --The section spoon feeds the reader. Spoon feeding is against the wikipedia guidelines as well as being poor scholarship.

• "Some atheists distinguish between two variants of atheism:" --This implies that only atheists make this distinction. Plenty of others who are not atheists make this same distinction as well, many of them are indeed theists. I'll be rewording this to reflect that this is not just an atheist-only distinction.

• "Many writers who identify themselves as weak atheists define atheism broadly as "lack or absence of theistic beliefs", and regard atheism as encompassing non-belief, disbelief, doubt, and denial of the existence of God or gods. Others prefer to define atheism narrowly as the "denial of the existence of God or gods", and do not use the term 'atheist' to refer to those who simply lack theistic beliefs, using other terms (for example, agnostic) for them." --Again, this implies that only atheists make this distinction. It spoon feeds the reader into accepting that weak atheists are the only ones who make this assertion and distinction, which indeed, is not the case.

Generalizations and characterizations --There are several obvious unsupported generalizations and characterizations made in the section:

• "Some atheists distinguish between two variants of atheism:" --Again, plenty of others who are not atheists make this same distinction as well, many of them are indeed theists. I'll be rewording this to reflect that this is not just an atheist-only distinction.

• "The strong/weak dichotomy is, in itself, controversial." --That is a is a mis-characterizing, over-generalizing statement. The distinction between weak/strong is controversial only for some people. There is abundant evidence that there is no controversy for a large percentage of writers, theist and atheist alike, and hence it is not even a dichotomy. I'm rewording it to read: "The distinction between strong and weak atheism is for some people controversial."

--FeloniousMonk 21:16, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you on the "two types of atheism" phrase. That is what it said before, and I didn't change that, but should have. If you want to remove or replace, fine with me, and now that you point out the problem, if you don't do it, I will probably do it myself before too long.

I don't think my wording puts the definitions into the mouths of weak atheists or strong atheists. I agree that more than just atheists have a difference of opinion about these definitions (e.g. Sam, who is a theist). That is why I put the definition into the mouths of "writers. --BM 22:01, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for catching and correcting my misspellings on the page.--FeloniousMonk 22:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've reverted Sam's recent edits to this section, which were inarguably POV and largely unsupported by the facts, evidence, or consensus here.--FeloniousMonk 00:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam: God versus god

Sam, I think I know what your point about 'God' is, and I think it is valid. But, I don't think you can telegraph it by just capitalizing 'god' in various places. First of all, the other editors don't get the point of this, and neither will readers of the article. We need to think about how to get it more explicitly into the article. But I'll let you explain the point. --BM 22:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Its best explained by reviewing Deity, God and gods. The gist of it is that certain conceptions of God are so esoteric and abstract as to be able to be mathematicaly provable commodities. This would include The Ultimate, All, and the Absolute Infinite at minimum. Other concepts of God (monotheism) may include these concepts, but even if not, their conception of God maintains that he is necessarily unique, and is possessed of certain maximum qualities (often immanence, omniscience, omnipotence, or others, this varies). These two conceptions are (capital) G-od. gods are far lesser entities, even to those who believe in them. Indeed, one can be a monotheist and still believe in gods, so long as you think of them as minor spirits (angels, devils, djinn, etc...) or aspects of God, rather than possessed of maximum attributes. The denial of minor entities is not relevant to most people’s conception of atheism, since many people deny (or fail to worship) some entity or other. It is the blanket denial of the Ultimate that is presented when one invokes atheism. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:03, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is a theistic tirade that does not bear upon this space of consensus building or improving Wikipedia, it is better suited to some or other bulletin board whose focus is allowing folk to ‘gob off’ their personal atheistic or theistic tirades. I fail to see how Sam’s post helps move us towards any consensus as it’s blatant axe grinding as sadly (from a time management POV) seems to be his wont.

Back to the point on consensus building; good people please add your name to the appropriate section above on the consensus building question --Nick-in-South-Africa 23:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"It is the blanket denial or, or absence of belief in, the Ultimate that is presented when one invokes atheism." you mean... ;-)

That justification for capitalization of "god" is what's esoteric and abstract here. Your argument assumes what is in the minds of the readers. Some may indeed being thinking about God (whatever/whomever that may be) and so see the need for capitalizing the proper noun. But certainly others will just read the term "god" as a concept that can mean just any old supernatural being. The capitalization of god in this instance is unjustified. --FeloniousMonk 23:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

God, capitalized, is a proper noun, referring to a specific entity. The unfortunate and inappropriate split of the God and deity articles isn't a mistake that needs to be repeated here. The Hebrew god, who is referred to as God as a proper noun, is simply another god. That said, there are those who like to define atheism as "denial of my Yahweh/God", and this definition can be included due to its popularity, but it is not the only mainstream definition, and due to NPOV policy should not be the only one in the introduction.

I think the crux of this disagreement, Sam, is your unwillingness to accept the evidence (cited in the archives of this discussion page) that atheism-as-lack-of-belief is a POV deserving of inclusion. Do you deny that it's well-known enough? I can't seem to find your reaction to those references. What is your response to them? --Yath 23:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My response was to cite contridicting references. I accept all the evidence, I simply find some sources suprior to others. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the capitalization of God, every expert source does that. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A contradiction would be a source making the claim "No one defines atheism as the lack of belief in deities." I haven't seen anything like that. What we have is a lot of sources saying that atheism is sometimes defined as lack of belief. How do you discount them? --Yath 00:18, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Only proper nouns are capitalized. People, places, things. Rationalizing that all such instances of the word god must refer to a thing and thus are to be capitalized is uncompelling for most people. Not "every expert source" capitalizes god in the manner you claim. Apparently some sources are indeed superior to others.--FeloniousMonk 00:35, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Sam's comment is a theistic tirade. He is just trying to explain his POV, which is fine on a Talk page. His POV is basically that 'God' is not merely a 'god' or 'deity'. This is not a view that is any way unique to him. There are conceptions of the monotheistic 'God' of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, as well as the Hindu concept of Brahman according to which God is not merely a god or deity. Under this view, 'God' is not a supernatural being, but rather is conceived as the Divine Ground, Existence or Being itself, the ground of being, the monistic substrate, etc. Gods and deities are beings, supernatural though they may be. God is conceived not as *a* being but as Being itself. By this view, it is not enough to say that an atheist denies 'gods' or 'deities', because the theist with this conception probably also denies them, or at best thinks of them as symbols. Many atheists may not even be aware of this conception of God and it is hard to say whether they deny God as the ground of being (etc) or not. Other atheists are aware of it, and deny God as well as gods, think this conception is incomprehensible, or disagree with the relevant theories of metaphysics. This is why I consistently define atheism as the denial of God or gods, but with this conception of God in mind saying that atheism is the denial of deities is not quite accurate or sufficient. I am pretty sure this is what is behind Sam's campaign to replace 'god' with 'God'. --BM 00:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 00:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was wondering when Sam would bring up capitalization again. :) This is yet another point that's been fought over since he first arrived here, a while back he started a poll on the subject: Talk:Atheism/Godvrs.god poll. The result was IMO pretty clear. Bryan 01:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the solution is fairly easy. Consistently refer to "God or gods", not "gods" or "deities". Unless someone is prepared to differentiate between atheism as the denial of supernatural gods and deities versus atheism as the denial of the "ground of being"/monist substrate interpretation of "God". These are actually quite different, which many atheists (or even theists) may not realize. Denial of gods and deities is a position against the existence of supernatural beings, or at least a position against a class of supernatural beings, and is an ontological position, i.e. what objects exist? Denial of God (as interpreted by Sam, and many others) is a part of metaphysics --BM 01:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bryan, I just looked at the poll. Obviously most people voted for an interpretation of "God" as an member of the set of "gods/deities" and saw no difference beween denying God and denying "gods/deities". No doubt many theists as well as atheists think of God as a supernatural being and are not familiar with the monistic "Divine Ground", "ground of being", "Absolute Infinite", etc line of thinking about God. Sam didn't do a very good job of explaining. However, while a somewhat advanced theological topic, it is not at all unique to Sam. It is a common strand of thought in the Hindu conception of Brahman, in Protestant theologians (such as Paul Tillich), and even in the Roman Catholic doctrine of "divine simplicity". I don't think it can be so easily dismissed as the poll did, but it is a complex topic to go into in a short article on atheism. Other articles on the Wikipedia only touch on this. The solution, as I said above, is to define atheism consistently in relation to "God or gods" or as lack of "theistic beliefs" and let it go at that. At this point, we aren't actually giving arguments in the article for atheism, anyway. The ontological arguments for the denial of gods and deities as supernatural entities are quite different (and a lot easier to understand) than the metaphysical arguments related to substance, etc, which are involved in rejecting monist metaphysics. --BM 01:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The substantive communication which ended up resolving things did not occur on that poll page. If you scroll way down to the bottom, you will see things suddenly wrapping up, and concensus declared. That was due to User:Eloquence removing all mention of God or gods and replacing it w deity. Unsatisfactory, but an acceptable stop gap measure needed at the time, because tensions were high. A particularly unpleseant troll had been involved in talk:Atheism and I was about as annoyed as I get on the wiki (mjy comments within the poll are reflective of that). Shortly after eloquences compromise, bryan and I went to mediation, and the atheism page cooled down for some time, until recent changes forced me back into the maelstrom ;) Just thought I'd give you some context. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 10:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To add my own 2 pence worth, the statement God of gods is itself POV, regardless of whether theologians consider God to be a god or not. Obviously, many atheists (and other theists) regard God as merely one among many gods. To make an explicit distinction between gods and God is ignoring the position of these individuals. By your argument we should similarly list all gods (Allah, Jehovah, Brahman) to avoid Christian bias. --Axon 12:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Axon for the same reason to a different extent. To state "God or gods" is extremely Victorian and politically correct. "God" is contained within "gods." When one needs to apply an idea to a single god, the correct term is "god" and not "God." Adraeus 12:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Victorian and politically correct? And I thought I'd heard it all. Equally, one could make a similar argument that simply referring to gods ignores those individuals who consider God to not be a god, but something seperate (although one can't help feeling that, semantically, they are fighting a losing cause). I'm not arguing against "politically correct" (whatever that means) inclusivity, rather I'm saying that using the phrase "Gods and gods" excludes those who think the two are one and the same, and simply referring to "gods" excludes those who think they are distinct. Listing all possible gods so as to avoid Christian bias is also not a solution, so some compromise needs to make itself available. --Axon 12:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just in case someone thinks it was an anonymous vandal, 129.59.26.46 was in fact me (Titanium Dragon). I changed a few instances of "God or gods" to just "gods" or "deities", but I believe I preserved at least one in order to maintain the link to the God page, as opposed to the deities page (which gods also links to). The concept of "God", as in the universal one, is no more or less a god than any other. Just because some people believe all the gods are the same one doesn't mean atheists aren't going to deny this combined god's existence as well. I didn't mean to throw in stuff without consent, and I understand if it is reverted, as it was my fault for not noticing that this section was a dispute over that very phrase. Maybe we should just refer to it as "deities"? "God or gods" not only is redundant, but also is a very awkward construction which is best avoided. Titanium Dragon 12:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the phrase "gods and/or supreme being (i.e. God, Allah, etc)" seems far more neutral compromise, although some might object to the explicity distinction between "gods" and hypothetical supremes beings. --Axon 12:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hypothetical supreme beings are gods/deities by definition. Again, it is redundant and overly verbose, not to mention terribly awkward. Singling out supreme beings is just not going to be NPOV, as there are literally hundreds of them. It would be tolerable to have one link to the God page somewhere on the page (maybe under the guise of "Supreme being" or something), but it doesn't need to be repeated ad infinitum. Titanium Dragon 13:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is simply incorrect in many ways. God is not a god, nor a deity. Also, there is only one supreme being, by anyones conception. As far as "tolerable", that isn't at issue, rather we must consider what is necessary for NPOV and factual acuracy. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Show me a source which states this omni God is neither a god nor a deity. I have never come across one. Even the wikipedia definition shows God as being a deity. Titanium Dragon 14:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Besides, if you are going for the extreme case in which God is not defined as a god (which is to say, it is more of a philisophical force, a way of referring to the universe as a whole, or something similarly estoteric), then it doesn't even belong in this article, given that atheism is, by definition, a lack of belief in any gods. If "God" is not a "god", then it doesn't belong in this article anyway as it is NOT a god and atheism is not the same thing as irreligion, though a large number of atheists are irreligious. Titanium Dragon 14:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Etymological error in intro.

Sadly, I've found a major error in the intro: theosmos is wrong and should be replaced by theismos. Also, -mos isn't a suffix in greek: -ism- is correct (-os isn't part of the suffix. Is an inflectional ending). The etymology of atheism is: a- + theós (< the-os) + -ism- > a-theism- > atheismós.--Neigel von Teighen 22:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

God is not theismos. God is God. ConfessedSockPuppetJunior 00:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

God is God? What is God? Define "God." There are many gods existing in the imaginations of many people inhabiting Earth and many of those gods are "true gods" too. Whose "God" is real? Or is this declaration of "God being God" simply a POV matter for you, ConfessedSockPuppetJunior? I think your username answers the latter question well. Adraeus 11:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Consensus

Is there something like consensus on the version that we have right now, as edited by me, Sam, Felonious Monk, and Yath. The reason I ask is that I have just reverted a large edit by Adraeus, which seems to me to lose a lot of ground and to be full of problems, small and large. --BM 10:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would have preferred if Adraeus had made smaller edits. I found the changes to the headings an improvement, and maybe a few of the other edits. The introduction, in particular, wasn't helped ([2]). Articles shouldn't open with a statement about the Oxford English Dictionary's definition. --Yath 11:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would you mind being the one to fix it this time? I don't want to "use up" another revert. In addition to the unfortuate change to the intro, he also essentially reverted the Types of Atheism section, which several people worked on yesterday including Felonious, and which definitely was better than the previous. Some of these changes seem motivated by animus towarrds me, who he persists in calling a troll. --BM

According to BM, the changes made "lost a lot of a ground"; apparently, that ground specifically belongs to him and his posse. Considering BM's fullscale reversion, I've concluded that he never analyzed what actually was changed or thought of reasons, and merely reverted on the basis that I, Adraeus, made the changes.

• The introduction was optimized to address the concerns of all involved in this discussion. Archive 14 demonstrates that consensus was reached for the paragraph promoted by mgm.
• Etymological specificity was removed from the introduction to allow for a rigorous explanation later in the article.

You removed information. If you were going to add etymology back in somewhere else, where is it? --BM 11:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There was a section on etymology but you seem to have deleted it. Adraeus 11:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The comparison of atheism to agnosticism was removed. Agnosticism regards the how. Atheism regards the what. Strong agnostic theists are possible.

The statement is consistent with the articles on strong agnosticism and weak agnosticism in the Wikipedia. Where are your sources? This whole section was gone over by several people yesterday and is not the work of just me. --BM 11:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is it now? Where are your sources? Both articles you referenced support the removal of the comparison. Note the sentence: "Neither type of agnosticism is irreconcilable with theism (belief in a deity or deities), but both are typically irreconcilable with strong atheism." Irreconcilable means incompatible. If both types of agnosticism are incompatible with strong atheism, according to those articles' editors, tell me: how is it that you feel justified in saying otherwise? Adraeus 11:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The claim that theists can be strong atheists to certain god-beliefs was removed. That claim obviously emerged from someone's imagination. Essentially, this removal was a matter of logic. A theist can never be also an atheist because a theist believes in gods and an atheist does not.

This isn't made up. The notion that once can be an atheist WITH RESPECT TO a particular god or gods is common. Nobody is saying theists are atheists. However, theists are commonly atheistic WITH RESPECT TO particular gods. You also removed a lot of other text, much of which was from Felonious. --BM 11:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Being atheistic with regard to specific deities and being equivalent to a strong atheist are entirely different things. The former article stated that strong agnosticism is another form of weak atheism which is simply not true. Adraeus 11:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Grammatical inconsistencies and errors were repaired in a few of the sections. Take a look. The article is much smarter now and moreso than it has ever been before.

Adraeus 11:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BM reverted the article a second time through a series of edits. In doing so, he reintroduced poor grammar and false information.

• 16:33, 14 Dec 2004 BM (Bring back deleted paragraph about atheism "with respect to" particular gods)

That deleted paragraph is false information.

• 16:30, 14 Dec 2004 BM (Reinstating deleted material on weak atheism as edited by BM and Felonious Monk.)

No correct information on weak atheism was deleted. The wording was simply improved.

• 16:25, 14 Dec 2004 BM (Removed "popularly" from intro. Also mysterious statement about self-identification, which is very telegraphic, vague, and anyway doesn't belong in intro. Expand this point later if you want.)

"Popularly" is the correct term and its inclusion addresses Yath's concern above in addition to Wikipedia's policy regarding definitions. Adraeus 11:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unprotection

I'm not so sure this page should have been unprotected, and I definitely think we need more admin involvement. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think your account needs more admin involvement. Adraeus 12:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then follow the dispute resoloution process, and quit running your mouth about it here. Until you do something substantive thru the proper channels, your constant accusations are nothing but obstructionist ad hominems. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It depends on whether Adraeus' edits get any further support, or if he is a minority of one. If there are still two larg-ish groups that disagree, who are going to carry on an edit war, then the article needs to be protected again. Yesterday, there seemed to be a consensus around the text, including Felonious and Nick. So, if it is just Adraeus, he will be stymied by the 3-revert rule, and the page doesn't need to be protected again. Anyway, he is out of reverts for today, having now reverted 3 times. In fact, he overstepped the 2-revert limit for which the administrator requested voluntary compliance -- which does not show good faith. By the way, Adraeus has a good point about agnosticism being not necessarily a weak-atheist position, and that should be made more clear. However, agnosticism and unwillingness to adopt positions on faith are the mainstays of many a "weak atheist" position so it is not unreasonable to mention agnosticism as long as it is clear that agnosticism is an epistemological position to which theists can subscribe as well. I've done one revert this morning, and a series of edits which I didn't think of as a revert, but which from Adraeus point of view amount to a revert, apparently. So, I'll honor the 2-revert rule, meaning someone else needs to carry the ball now. If something close to yesterday's text is reinstated, then I will try to make the status of weak/strong agnosticism more clear in the "Types" section. --BM 12:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agnosticism has its own article. Further clarification of agnosticism-related information should be done in the appropriate articles. See also strong agnosticism, weak agnosticism and agnostic atheism. Explaining agnosticism in the atheism article is neither required nor wanted. Adraeus 13:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I tried to incorporate that in my most recent edit. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I rather prefered Adraeus' version, because it seemed slightly more concise and did not contain some rather poor phrasing (ex. "God or gods" being repeated). However, some aspects of your version should certainly be incorporated. The "merger" didn't seem to be much of one though from my POV and reading of it, and seemed more like a revert, espeically of my minor changes (including the grammatical one of "policies" to "policy"; "has been the policies" is improper grammar, and there is no reason to change it from "has been the policy" to an improper construction. "Have been the policies" doesn't sound right to me.) Titanium Dragon 13:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:35, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Weak atheism in the intro, Sam

Hey Sam. Earlier, I asked how you responded to certain references that included a definition of atheism as lack of belief. The question was a bit off-topic in a section about "God vs. god", so I'll reopen the subject in a fresh header.

Here are the references: [3] [4], kindly provided by FeloniousMonk. There seem to be at least 20 of them, and in my opinion, many are reputable sources.

With so many sources providing the weak atheism definition, it seems to me that we have no choice but to include weak atheism on a similar footing as the atheism=denial definition.

What do you think, Sam?

--Yath 12:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

well, if you look at my most recent edit (reverted by andreas) you'll see thats exactly what I did. I may not agree about the equal footing, but I am clearly willing to compromise as far as this article is concerned. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see. I wasn't sure if you had just left it in there from exhaustion, or what. The most relevant comment that I could find was pretty adamantly opposed ([5]). --Yath 12:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I still feel that way, but as I said I am willing to0 compromise, and sway with the flow of consensus (particularly the concensus of reasonable minds, such as yourself). I think the reader would be best served by a greater emphasis on denial of God, w weak atheism relegated to a a section on views within atheism, or types of atheism, or whatever. But I'm not here to enforce this, or any other view, but rather to involve myself with this article in a manner accomadating to progress. At this time, progress seems to involve placing all definitions equally in the inro, and I accept that. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It looks like the current header already contains both definitions (I refer to the one unlocked by MGM), though it does not explicitly use the terms "strong" or "weak", it does seem to contain both definitions. Going into minutae in the header (such as defining those terms explicity) would dilute it. The introduction should be clear and concise. "Denial of the existance of gods" is the explicit strong atheist view, while "not believing in gods" (or something similar, I forget the precise wording) encompasses both views but seems (in contrast with the first) to imply the weak atheist viewpoint. As the only difference between the two is the explicit denial, I do not think we really need to change the header much. Titanium Dragon 13:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to work on it, I'm going to hold off for awhile, so as not to appear overly aggressive. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adraeus' Reverts

I call the attention of the administrator monitoring this page to the fact that Adraeus has now reverted 4 times this morning. Please enforce Wikipedia policy. --BM 12:59, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I'll check the edit history and take action if this is indeed correct. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 13:02, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • The edit history of December 14 (today) clearly shows 4 reverts on Adraeus' part. I've blocked him for 24 hours as per Wikipedia policy. I'll also unprotect again, since this effectively stops the edit war. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 13:11, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Adraeus won't you slow down and not fix the whole article overnight? Make a little edit and see how it sits. You know how tense people are about this thing, no need to wade in like a Caterpillar D9. --Yath 13:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mgm, can you revert the last (illegal) revert that Adraeus made? --BM 13:56, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I could, but it won't be any easier for me. My rollback won't work here. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 14:02, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

OK, Well, I fixed it by going back a bit, then applying a series of edits. I hope this doesn't count as a revert. --BM 14:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)