Talk:Atheism: Difference between revisions

Discussion on this article has been archived. If you wish to comment on an ongoing discussion, you may quote it here or simply refer to it. Post new comments below the list of archives please.

• Archive 1: Discussion prior to December 14, 2001
• Archive 2: December 2001
• Archive 3: January 2002
• Archive 4: December 2002-August 2003
• Archive 5: January 2004

---

Changes

I used diety whereever it was possible without being innaccurate (i.e. against the information cited). I also moved this portion: "In Europe's Middle Ages, atheism was regarded as amoral, often criminal; atheists could be sentenced to death by burning, especially in countries where the Inquisition was active. While Protestantism suffered from discrimination and persecution by the then dominant Roman Catholic Church, Calvin was also in favor of burning atheists and heretics."

Until someone can show me an example of an atheist being burned, or otherwise mistreated. Jack 05:11, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Avowed atheists were few and far between at the time when burnings, hangings torture, etc. were carried out. However for an example of someone who, while probably not an atheist, was hanged for statements which implied disbelief in Scripture see the case of Thomas Aitkenhead. This makes you realise why atheists, by-and-large, tended to keep their opinions to themselves before the scientific revolution made their views more acceptable, believing, no doubt, that discretion was the better part of valour. -- Derek Ross

Your comment interests me, but I don't see you saying that this passage can be verified. Indeed, I don't hear you disagreeing with me that their essentially were no atheists at that time. IMO Neitzche was the father of atheism, along w others in the 19th century (deism was a yet another culprit). I would like to have the origins of atheism explored in this article, a section relating to criticism, and really an over all fleshing out of this article (I think I'll focus on my strength, helping provide the criticism section). With so many of you guys around, I would think you'd have more to say about your faith (or lack thereof ;). How about mentions of atheist charitable organizations, or think tanks, or whatever it is you guys do as a ... group? Jack 05:43, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I doubt that the passage can be directly verified. The reasons being that the majority of atheists, myself included, will quite happily pretend to be devout believers if it keeps us out of jail, off the rack, etc. Thus atheist lack of interest in God tends to protect us by making us invisible. But the maltreatment of heretics, who can't generally hide to the same extent, because they care too much about God and their beliefs, clearly shows how severely even non-believers in minor points of doctrine were punished for their beliefs. That can certainly be verified. It's difficult to imagine that someone who did not believe in a major point of doctrine like the existence of God would be treated more leniently.

I doubt that many atheists have read Neitsche so I'm not sure why you think of him as the father of atheism. Most of us have probably come to our own conclusions without any help from mad, misunderstood Germans and as for us as a group -- well -- er -- probably most of us don't care enough to form a group. Of course as always there are exceptions, and no doubt that's why various Rational Humanist and Secular Humanist groups have been formed. If you're looking for atheist think tanks, you should be able to find rightwing and leftwing flavours since I suppose both Objectivist and Socialist think tanks should count.

Finally I agree with you about the development of the article. There's certainly room for more of the things that you mention. -- Derek Ross

well, I ment in terms of a founding father, but then I had no idea there were atheists so long before him, in the 1600's and so forth as Snoyes links show. Anyways, he should be mentioned here, as his "God is dead" statement certainly influenced modern atheistic thought (if not inspiring all of atheism, as I had previously suspected). p.s. I would be quite happy to see you help in fleshing this article out! Jack 06:32, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yup, atheism has been around longer than Buddhism, Christianity or Islam. Some of the Greek philosophers were atheist in 300BC and before, Diagoras, Democritus and Anaxagoras to name but three. But then it was relatively safe to be atheist and show it at that time. -- Derek Ross

You really seem to know your sources, I think this article can use as much as you have time (and interest) to write :D Jack 07:17, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

I challange all to read the article as it is, and add to it where needed, rather than wasting everyones time over arguments which can easilly be solved by proper sourcing, compromise, and wikiquette. Jack 05:16, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thomas Aitkenhead

Capital-g god is impermissible, period. I am astonished at the disingenuity of claiming that this is not a reference to a specific deity - and one whose worshippers currently exhibit a great deal of intolerance towards atheists in the Western world.

The only objector in evidence to the distinguishing of strong vs weak atheism is one particular person who has been going to great lengths to edit this article so as to marginalize atheism and atheists, and to shove their particular brand of theism down throats.

For persecution of atheists, see the murder of Aitkenhead. For a modern example, look at the treatment Madalyn Murray O'Hair got.

Salsa Shark 05:50, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Um.. he wasn't atheist. And she was protested against and so forth... where are these burnings at the stake, or other such fearful persecutions? Jack 05:54, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I can't find much on this aitkenhead at all. And by US legal terms, since his death was legally carried out it wasn't murder. That was the law at that time and place. I thought you atheists were moral/cultural relativists? Jack 05:59, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

And I thought that you believers in God were Muslims. Looks like we were both wrong :-) For information on Aitkenhead's case see How the Scots Invented the Modern World (ISBN 0-609-80999-7). As for Burnings at the Stake, they were legally carried out too. So they weren't murder either by US legal standards, merely legal penalties for crimes. Most people would still think of them as persecution though. -- Derek Ross

Calvin's Geneva was indeed rather repressive. It is true that Calvin and his followers burned far more theists that had rather different views from theirs than they did atheists. But they certainly did persecute atheists:

"Calvin strongly squelched religious objections, too. The magistrates executed Jacques Gruet in 1547 for blasphemy and atheism. Gruet owned "immoral books" and often showed indiscretion in his speech. He often expressed his opinions openlyj and often criticized Calvin and the magistrates. Pierre Amio refused to attend church or adopt prevailing standards of dress. Calvin imprisoned him for his rebellion." [1] (section 3)

"Two manuscripts by John Calvin bear witness to the dramatic story of the Protestant Reform in the State of Geneva during the 16th century. In one of them, Calvin justifies, eloquently and at considerable length, the first death sentence that he ordered and obtained in 1547 for Jacques Gruet, the author of a famous breviary of atheism Des trois imposteurs (estimated 50, 000/80, 000 euros). No autograph manuscript by Calvin of such importance has been sold at auction in the last 25 years." [2] (section: "John Calvin")

So not only did atheists exist, but they were persecuted even by reformers like Calvin. - snoyes 06:17, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Excellent. Lets place a link to that within the article. Thats just what I've been asking for, citations. In case you guys ever think I'm being unreasonable, just give me a citation, and I'll smile :) Jack 06:20, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I know its POV, but saying "Calvinism" and "reformer" in the same sentance makes my mouth taste bad ;) If atheism is the opposite of theism, calvinism is the opposite of me ;) Jack 06:33, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Our goal is NPOV, and our tool is sources!

The article is littered with capital-G God references again! Didn't we just come to a compromise agreement a few hours ago to use "deity" instead of "god" so the issue wouldn't be a problem any more? I don't have time to deal with yet another edit war right now, but come tomorrow unless there's some good reason why that compromise is suddenly unacceptable I'm going to implement it myself. Bryan 06:37, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Read the above. I placed deity instead of God wherever it didn't outright contridict available sources. Remember this: our goal is NPOV, and our tool is sources Cite any edits you dubious edits you make, I am ever watchful :) Jack 07:05, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Not even slightly good enough. After weeks of arguing against using capital-G god, we finally come to some semblance of an agreement on a compromise, and then you immediately go and blank the talk: page off to Archive 5: January 2004 and stick capital-G God all over the article again. I am quite convinced at this point that you are hopelessly POV on this subject (much evidence is present in the archived talk I linked to), and so I'm taking those capital G's out; I see no need to repeat the entire argument over again. Bryan 23:48, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've also removed those external links you put in the definition. No other Wikipedia article I've come across has seen fit to include dictionary links in the definition like that; instead, use wiki links when you want to refer to the definition of a term, and save the external links for the external links section. Bryan 23:52, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Your opposition to citation ... angers me. If you cannot accept the facts when they are presented to you (rant deleted by author) you are incapable of editing an encyclopedia. Jack 03:24, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's not an opposition to citation, but rather to the format. External links should go in the external links section, by and large, and when there's a term within the article itself that needs clarification you should link to a Wikipedia article to do that. How many other Wikipedia articles are there that have external dictionary links in their definition? Anyway, your citations are not particularly good, especially not in terms of supporting your particular argument here. For example, take a look at your theism definition link [3]; the very first line is "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world." Doesn't that contradict your previous assertions that God is not a god? You have a history of not judging citations very well. Bryan 04:33, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. ad hominem's have no place here. Jack 04:51, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's not an ad hominem if it's actually relevant to what you're doing to the article. Back in Archive 5: January 2004 you brought up many external URLs to support your arguments that turned out to be very poor citations, and I just showed in the paragraph above how I don't think your theism citation doesn't say what you thought it did either. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to question the validity of your citations based on that. Bryan 05:09, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Any interested parties can review the references or whatever. Jack 05:14, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's what I did. I reviewed, and then I edited. Bryan 05:53, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Marx's papa

Marx's father was a lawyer, not a rabbi. --Jose Ramos 11:42, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

The NPOV header ends the edit war for me. Its not right, but at least our reader has an advisory so that he knows what he is reading is biased. Jack 06:10, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. We can now at least get on with the rest of our Wikilives, and leave it to others to deal with this mess. Bryan 06:17, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Great, yet another dispute header. Thanks for creating a mess and not cleaning it up.—Eloquence

I also strongly dislike dispute headers, and will be perfectly happy to see the necessary changes made in order for it to be removed. Jack 19:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, for me it seems to be a choice of this or a resumption of the edit war that started the past few weeks of arguing in the first place. I don't actually think the article as it stands is NPOV myself, but obviously Jack does so there it is. What's the procedure for resolving such situations other than simply waiting for one party to get tired of reverting the other's edits and storm off in a huff? I've already added an entry on this article to Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles. Bryan 01:34, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Um.. the guidelines are pretty simple Bryan. Check out wikipedia:revert. It says to make improvements, rather than simply undoing imrpovements made by others. Your ment to be a writer and an editor here, not a saboteur. Jack 02:23, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I was talking to Eloquence, not you. We've had this argument about whether a reversion can be an improvement many times before, and it is not relevant here. Bryan 03:33, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Jack: Criticising others for things you do yourself (reverting) is trolling. Please stop it. - snoyes 03:42, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The normal thing to do in situations like this is to try to find a compromise. For example: We can use the capitalized God in quotations and the lower case god in our text. We can elaborate on the problem by phrasing it differently, e.g. "one absolute God, a god, or many gods". We can try to substitute the remaining God/god uses with a different term. Please experiment with these solutions, and try to accommodate each other's viewpoint. If you both leave this article, I will simply remove the NPOV dispute header as I consider this a minor issue.—Eloquence 08:20, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

All of those sound like good options to me. My main complaint has always been the singling out of God as the primary entity that atheists don't believe in, when atheism is much more general than that. Shall I try making the changes, or leave it up to someone who wasn't directly involved in the previous edit wars? Bryan 19:28, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I should also mention that as soon as Jack indicated he'd leave this article as-is with the NPOV header he went over to agnosticism and resumed the reversion war there. It's now in the same state as this article with an NPOV header, so perhaps the same solution can be applied there. Bryan 19:30, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the same soloution should be applied consistantly thruout. And I am VERY dubious of either Bryan or myself making necessary changes, but I guess we'll see. I must say I am rather unhappy with the removal of the NPOV dispute header before any changes were made, but I don't feel like quarrelling w eloquence, so I suppose I'll back up off that for now. Jack 21:49, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Comment moved here from article

User:170.35.224.64 wrote

(XXX: Poor example; though Jewish rabbis symbolicly equate Amalekites with atheism, the actual story of Amalek in the Jewish and Christian Bible does not make this connection.)

I moved this here. Bmills 13:09, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

and this

(XXX: somebody needs to edit this, if you read the Jewish and Christian scriptures you'll see Amalek is not connected with atheism. This is a misrepresentation.)

Bmills 16:25, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I came here by following the link on Wikipedia: requests for comment asking for comments on capitalization of god. There was no date, so forgive me if this has been dealt with already.

I looked over the archives and have this to add:

• the Greek word theos does, as someone posted, mean a god (any god). However, O Theos (o means something like "the" or "he") means God (the god of Christianity).
• god, uncapitalised, means any god -- the god of the wind, the god of fire, etc. God, capitalised, refers to the Christian god.
• When trying to decide a definition for atheism, it's useful to look up its opposite: theism. Merriam Webster defines theism as

"belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world." Interstingly, it defines atheism as "1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity."

• really, the definition of atheist seems to rely on context. In discussions of Christianity, to profess atheism is to deny belief in God. Generally, to be an atheist is to not believe in gods.

Dunno if that helps or says anything new...

Exploding Boy 12:27, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Conventions in capitalization

Santa Claus would be capitalized even though it describes a fictional character. Of course the spanish (latin?) santa would not be capitalized unless used in the context of a proper name of a real or imagined person. The name of the Christian deity would be capitalized because they believe in the personal agency of their god. Christians beleive there is only one god, and they call him God. To write about the one God would be to affirm the Christian belief that their God is the only god, unless in the context of saying the one God of Christian faith. There is an abundance of ways around this conflict, including use of the term "deity" (already done) and coupling reference to Christian faith with any reference to the proper noun God. If parties can't work this out along those lines, maybe I'll come back and sort through the article's references to dieties, but i'd rather not need to bother. Then I would have to go see what articles have developed about monotheism, and the history of monotheistic religion such as Egyptian worship of Ra, etc., Soul kitch 23:20, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

dispute header

I am not going to have a revert war (as User:Bryan Derksen appears to be attempting), but this article either needs to be NPOV, or have a dispute header. Either it is disputed (thus needing the header) or not. It is unaccptable option for it to be disputed without the header. Sam Spade 06:31, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This dispute is the exact same one that we spent the last few weeks of January working over. The situation won't change just because you've changed your user name and left the article alone for a while. Bryan 06:35, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Charities

All this stuff about charities is a complete red herring unless someone cares to add a balanced discussion on the morality of giving/dependence/etc. Bmills 16:33, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Poll

Talk:Atheism/Godvrs.god poll

Ethics of atheism

Cut from "definition" section:

Some advocates assert that atheism is synonymous with irreligion; other advocates object to this assertion, arguing that members of deity-embracing religious organisations could secretly hold atheist beliefs. Additionally, a number of atheistic "churches" have sprung up, as well as religious organizations which allow atheists as members. Naturalistic Pantheism is such an example, Brianism is another.

After reading this and several of the following paragraphs, I realized that the entire beginning of the article reads like a defense of atheism against charges leveled by various believers, that being an atheist is somehow "bad".

Before I altered the cut paragraph, it asserted that it's not necessarily "irreligious" to be an atheist! :-)

But no such defense is necessary, so let's not confuse our readers with tricky rhetoric. No one's accusing anyone here.

If there are people out there in the real world beyond the pages of Wikipedia who say that atheism is bad, let's quote them. It's the best way of de-fanging the tiger. Reduce the power of their accusation to "That's your opinion!"

Now, let's explain why various advocates despise atheism. Is it because these advocates believe everyone should be "religious" and that in their opinion it's wrong to be "irreligious"? Then the article should say that these advocates think this way. Etc. --Uncle Ed 22:21, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I placed a link to amalek in this regard, to express the severity of sentiment against atheism, and some explanation/articulation of it. This was roundly disaproved of, and so I have since refrained from seeking sources citing persons objecting to atheism, but rather focus on promoting factual accuracy (which has gone profoundly badly as anyone with time or interest can easilly asess. Sam Spade 02:59, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I replaced the link to Amalek with a reference to II Thessalonians in the Bible, which talks about destruction of those who persecute Christians. Actually this isn't strictly a denunciation of unbelievers, but it was the best I could find. The story of Amalek in the Bible (the way you had it worded) is not given in any sense as a denunciation of an unbeliever, although Jewish commentators have interpreted it that way. Thus it was factually incorrect to state that the story of Amalek in the Bible was an example of the Scripture of a particular faith denouncing an unbeliever. (The Jewish Rabbi writings might contain such denunciations, but the Scripture itself does not. Amalek isn't even identified as an unbeliever, per se. As a person, he's barely mentioned at all; most of what the Bible says about Amalek is about the nation of Amalek descended from him, and they are condemned because of actions they took as a nation, not because of the actions of Amalek.) It's actually surprisingly difficult to find a "denunciation of unbelievers" in Scripture; I'd like to find a better example than the one I used, but I can't think of one yet.

Here's a quote from a page: "Why am I making these accusations? How can I call these celebrities anti-American and atheists?" Since being called an atheist is called an accusation, and lumped in with being "anti-American" (which is a whole other topic, I admit), I would say the linked page is using "atheist" in a negative way. Would anyone care to analyze this? (first link from google search "liberal atheists") link: [4] --User:C. McNeil 18 Feb 2004

This is just some dumb rant against celebrities who are not christian. But how is this relevant here? - snoyes 23:20, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

this is almost acceptable

the article as it stands (after my last two edits, and the many reasonable edits by others) is about an inch from being great. I think very little else needs done. In fact, it is so good, that if my recent clarifications are not reverted w/o discussion by some troll, I'm not sure I need to be a part of the process of making it any better. Sam Spade 02:42, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am glad that we pass your high standards. Nevertheless I have reworded your intro as it didn't pass mine.—Eloquence 03:04, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Now were back where we started. Goodbye quality article, hello atheist POV. Sam Spade 03:09, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I for one feel like we are moving forward.—Eloquence

Same here. Considering that on Talk:Atheism/Godvrs.god poll Sam just indicated that he prefers the definition of atheism to be "the rejection of God, Blaspheme of the Holy Spirit, the unforgivable sin," I don't think he's much of a useful authority on NPOV. Bryan 03:18, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I like your optomism. What do you think of this edit? Sam Spade 03:14, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

back this up, or back off

"In modern usage as reflected in most dictionaries, atheism is the disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of any and all gods." Sam Spade 03:19, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How about [5] [6] [7]? :) Bryan 03:24, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Those are great references. I think I'll use them to place an accurate definition into the article, thanks. Sam Spade 03:28, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cheers to Eloquence

You have honestly suprised me with your reasonable nature, believe it or not. Rather than sacrificing article quality based on personalities or POV, you seem to have the interests of the reader at heart. Good recent edits. Sam Spade 03:45, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think the article is now satisfactory. I no longer find it to be offensive, nor particularly innaccurate. Because I dislike this subject, and because there have been so many troubles great and small for me on this page, I will be leaving it for now. I think that everyone here can stand to take a minute to thank Eloquence for his fine abilities as both an editor, and negotiator. It is finially clear to me how he has earned his status here. Thanks once again Eloquence, and goodbye all. Sam Spade 04:51, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)