Talk:Atheism

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Discussion on this article has been archived.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.

In case anyone is still interested in these:

Atheism/DR Dispute Resolution version of article
Talk:Atheism/DR Dispute Resolution talk page

Where is this going?

Does anybody agree about anything? Shall we vote? Is concensus possible? I am doubtful. Sam [Spade] 03:02, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We won't be going anywhere for a while yet, Sam. While Felonious Monk:

chooses to ignore (or reasonlessly condemn) arguments against his convictions
merely continues (with amazing stamina) to recite conviction of his own correctness, without acknowledging that his views are partisan
won't even accept a common definition of the word 'disbelief'

He claims that we haven't provided authoratative evidence: there is a wealth of it in the discussion above. He claims that his sources are impeccable, but chooses to cite Christians and Hindus when referring to Buddhist views. He chooses 3 personally edited definitions of 'disbelief', completely ignoring the etymology of the word. To him, to dislike, disinter, disabuse, disadvantage, etc. etc. are passive, non-privative words. I ask him to stop being so disagreeable. According to FM, nearly everyone disagrees with him, because they don't actively agree with him.

FM - if you accept the OED, then why don't you pick it up and read it? Check out the article on the prefix dis-. Check out it's root as having a privative sense.

As for citations from the www, it appears that FM's interpretation is so biased by his lack of understanding of the privative stance regarding words such as 'disbelief' and (more contentiously) 'atheism' that he cites urls that I interpret as strengthening my position.

Straw Man. My arguments would be straw man arguments if the opposing views were qualified. They are not qualified, so they aren't straw man arguments. I am asking FM, etc. to qualify their assertions so that they cannot be interpreted in ways that they consider to be straw man positions. If someone says 'absence of belief' to me that means absence of belief. It does nothing to state any other quality or property concerning its subject, including the capacity or otherwise to believe. Therefore, while FM et al. continue to use unqualified definitions they are susceptible to attacks which they disagree with; they therefore mistakenly apply terms such as "straw man". FM, if you wish to say that I am constructing a straw man, you have to look at what it is I am opposing, and demonstrate that your argument is distinct from that view. This normally is done through careful qualification. You don't like that, because I guess it moves away from the sound-bite crud that the TV and media have fed you. Actually, in academic circles a qualified statement is far more potent. It is careful to delineate the subject of it's definition, which means it is far harder to argue against. Generalisations are inherently weak.

FM continues to say things like In it's common and academic definition, Atheism is merely the absence of belief in God/gods. Well, yes, according to FM's restricted view on the world, that may be the case. Based on his restricted view of disbelief, that may be the case. Walk into the real world for a minute, and it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. (20040302 10:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC))

I have a hard time navigating between your factual errors and illogical leaps. I've provided dozens of academic and common reference sources that are all consistent with the definition of atheism as: "Atheism is the lack of belief in, or the denial of, God or gods." The validity of my references and information stands in stark contrast to the absence of yours. When you find a credible, neutral academic reference that supports your personal definitions for atheism and disbelief be sure to post them; so far you haven't.

Academic reference sources that agree with the (my) definition that "Atheism is the lack of belief in, or the denial of, God or gods.":

The Encyclopedia of American Religious History: "Atheism, literally the absence of belief in God..."
The Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences: In its narrowest sense the term atheist applies to one who categorically denies the existence of any gods. But in its wider sense it properly applies also to skeptics, materialists, positivists and all other who do not accept the claims of theism.
Agora, the Online Undergraduate Research Journal of Humanities: The term atheism has several subtle meanings. Theism literally refers to a belief in a God or gods. Since the prefix “a” means “without,” the term atheism literally means “without theism.” Therefore atheism is the absence of a theistic belief. However, this term encompasses two meanings. Essentially, atheism holds to a weak epistemological position – it is simply the negation of theism. Regarding this weak atheism, a person simply does not include God/gods in his metaphysics.
The Philosophy of Religion website: Weak atheism is defined as the absence of belief in God... A strong atheist, on the other hand, is someone who has the positive belief that God does not exist.
Encyclopedia of American Religious History: Atheism, literally the absence of belief in God...

Academic reference sources that agree with the (your) definition that "All atheism is the denial of the existence of any gods, while one who simply lacks belief in God is neither an atheist nor a theist.": None. 0.

--FeloniousMonk 22:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Common and academic views of Atheist and Disbelief

File:OED-Atheist.gif

This is from the latest OED (complete edition). I accept that the OED has worked tirelessly for over a century to deliver definitions of terms that are accepted both commonly and by academics.

I (as many people do) accept the OED definition of atheist. I also accept the OED definition for disbelief.

File:OED-disbelief.gif

I also accept that atheism is not always interpreted as being privative. I cannot accept that it is 'just factually wrong' when someone asserts that it can be used in a privative stance.

I would like to point out that it appears FeloniousMonk and his supporters do not seem to find a distinction between the terms 'unbelief' and 'disbelief'. The OED could have defined atheist in terms of unbelief, but it does not. (20040302 09:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Look

Look. It's generally pretty easy to find definitions in dictionaries that support your view regardless of whether or not they are right. Dictionaries suck in that respect. See webster's definitions:

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
disbelief n 1: doubt about the truth of something
atheism n 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

People that write dictionaries are not responsible for being experts on every single subject. That's why dictionary definitions favor vernacular definitions over acedemic ones. I'm not saying that vernacular definitions are invalid. They are, in fact, valid and should be included, but they are still vernacular defintions. The terms strong and weak atheism have been around for a long time in academia.

The vernacular definition is included in the acedemic definition and theoretically that should be all that you need, but I understand that you guys have problems with this, so I personally am willing to make the following compromise to split the definitions apart: Define the word in similar way that a dictionary would. Eg:

Atheism
n 1: One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a god or gods.
n 2: One who lacks a belief in the existence of a god or gods.

This supports both definitions without saying that one is better than the other, and does not try to claim that there is some sort of arugement over what the word means. Does that sound reasonable? UVwarning 18:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thats no good for several reasons. For one you didn't capitalize "God". For two, you can't present these two interpretations in the intro. For three, you can't present the "lacks a belief" definition as tho it is uncontested. Rather it must be in a seperate section, dedicated to the "strong/weak atheism" concepts, and the differences those definitions have w the standard defintion. Sam [Spade] 19:49, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, can you explain why these two interpretations cannot both be in the intro? Or why the "lacks a belief" definition "must be in a seperate section"? Personally, I'd like to see a little bit more context around them, but I don't have any objection in principle to UVwarning's suggestion. The introduction is for setting up what is coming in the article and I don't see why this important distinction should not be mentioned in the intro. I mean seriously now, are you still contesting that "lacking belief" is one of several common understandings of atheism? older≠wiser 20:08, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

The lack of context is key. And of course I contest that "lacking belief" is one of several common understandings of atheism. It isn't. But it is apparently common enough to deseve mention, in a seperate section devoted to the differences of definition, and the ramifications of such. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 21:14, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think there has been abundant evidence that "lacking belief" is one common understanding -- I would hope that by this point we could agree to disagree about personal POVs and attempt to work out acceptable phrasing rather continuing to "push each other's buttons" so to speak. You had previously found similar language (Atheism is the lack of belief in, or the denial of, God or gods.) acceptable [1]. Does anyone else have objections to this as an introductory sentence? older≠wiser 21:26, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

I support that definition.--FeloniousMonk 22:23, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's a irrevocably POV position. You do not have anything credible to support your claim that "lacking belief" is not a common definition or understanding of atheism. It is. And in case you've forgotten, I've provided cites and links to literally dozens of reference sources that disprove your claim. Do I need to repost them all here again?--FeloniousMonk 21:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't. If you did, it would be page flooding. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 21:36, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just kidding. Cute new handle, BTW. I hope all Americans here voted today as well.--FeloniousMonk 22:23, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

UVwarning, I agree with and support your definitions.--FeloniousMonk 21:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Look Ha! Fiction!

Disbelief: The act of disbelieving; a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief.

Atheist: n. 1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. 2. A godless person. [Obs.] Syn: Infidel; unbeliever.

Atheism: n. 1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. 2. Godlessness.

It is a sad state when one can no longer trust citations from 3rd party URLS. What are you trying to do? Nail the coffin-lid shut for the arguments of FM? Who needs to worry about accusations of sophistry, when we are bing fed misdirected sources?

The more references you mis-cite the less ground you give yourselves. Such total lack of credibility undermines your partisan arguments.

I also guess you have never opened the OED? It is stuffed with deeply academic pages devoted to words such fleering. Every professor I know depends upon the OED for a starting point regarding academic definitions. Fah. Vernacular. Go to Oxford and say that there

The primary definition of atheist in nearly every mainstream, non-partisan dictionary is that an atheist is one who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God. This is a commonly held view. Individuals like FM who wish to water that basic definition down, or replace it with another view held by many, but then use floods of URLS (that actually often argue against their case, if they were able to understand what was being said) to attempt to browbeat the situation does not help. What is sick is that they then claim that I and others are attempting to subvert the purity of their actions regarding the goal of NPOV.

UVwarning, with your misquotes, I am deeply unimpressed.

regarding UVWarnings definition, I consider that, in the light of the way in which UVWarning and FeloniousMonk intepret 'disbelief' (being a lack of belief), the second definition of UVWarnings is completely redundant. Therefore, I propose, that all we need is:

Atheism: One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a god or gods.

Which takes me all the way back to what I wrote in the main article, or to be precise: (take note, UVW)

Atheism is generally defined by most dictionaries and encyclopedias as the "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God or gods." (Atheism article: 12:49, 22 Oct 2004), which was reverted as being vandalism. (20040302 22:26, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC))

And / or Godlessness. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 22:35, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

20000302- why didn't you post the entire definition from dictionary.com? You're committing the very error of ommission that you accuse UVWarning of, but you've done it purposely. Intentionally. All the while chiding others I might add. Oh the irony. This shows you to be less than credible, indeed, suspect.

The entire definition at dictionary.com reads:

Disbelief \Dis*be*lief"\, n. The act of disbelieving;; a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Disbelief n 1: doubt about the truth of something [syn: incredulity, skepticism, mental rejection] 2: a rejection of belief [syn: unbelief] [ant: belief]

Syn: Distrust; unbelief; incredulity; doubt; skepticism. -- Disbelief, Unbelief. Unbelief is a mere failure to admit; disbelief is a positive rejection. One may be an unbeliever in Christianity from ignorance or want of inquiry; a unbeliever has the proofs before him, and incurs the guilt of setting them aside. Unbelief is usually open to conviction; disbelief is already convinced as to the falsity of that which it rejects.

Shabby stunts like selective editing and personal attacks will get you nowhere here, fast.--FeloniousMonk 22:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not at all. I was citing from his source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, ©1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc., and I left it at the definition, not wanting to embarrass you with the quotes. Let us now take the SET of definitions from the URL, with the quotes, which is composed of 3 different dictionaries. Still can't quite get it right, can you? (20040302)

dis·be·lief

n. Refusal or reluctance to believe.

Disbelief

Dis*be*lief, n. The act of disbelieving; a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief.

Our belief or disbelief of a thing does not alter the nature of the thing. --Tillotson.

No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness that disbelief in great men. --Carlyle.

Syn: Distrust; unbelief; incredulity; doubt; skepticism. -- Disbelief, Unbelief. Unbelief is a mere failure to admit; disbelief is a positive rejection. One may be an unbeliever in Christianity from ignorance or want of inquiry; a unbeliever has the proofs before him, and incurs the guilt of setting them aside. Unbelief is usually open to conviction; disbelief is already convinced as to the falsity of that which it rejects. Men often tell a story in such a manner that we regard everything they say with unbelief. Familiarity with the worst parts of human nature often leads us into a disbelief in many good qualities which really exist among men.

Disbelief

n 1: doubt about the truth of something [syn: incredulity, skepticism, mental rejection] 2: a rejection of belief [syn: unbelief] [ant: belief]

Since you cultivate ambiguity in yourself with selective editing, but excoriate it in others, I'm presenting rest of the definition of atheism you ommitted from dictionary.com.

The entire definition of atheism at dictionary.com reads:

a·the·ism n. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods. Godlessness; immorality.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

atheism n. [Cf. F. ath['e]isme. See Atheist.] 1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. 2. Godlessness.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

atheism n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

--FeloniousMonk 23:05, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

20040302-- disbelief does not equal belief. The entire definition for disbelieve from your preferred reference source:

dis·be·lieve

v. dis·be·lieved, dis·be·liev·ing, dis·be·lieves
v. tr.
To refuse to believe in; reject.

v. intr.

To withhold or reject belief.

--FeloniousMonk 23:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. I never asserted that disbelief equalled belief. That was Sam Spade. Go check out the archive (its archive 10). My sole point has consistently been that disbelief is not privative. It requires activity on behalf of the individual, it is not a passive, or default status. Yet, as I previously mentioned, I am very happy to allow you to keep your view, as it makes the 2nd definition of UVwarning completely redundant for you. So though we would read the single definition in different manners, you and I would both consider it to be adequate. Therefore, let us be happy with:

Atheism: One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a god or gods. (20040302 23:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC))

"Atheism is the lack of belief in, or the denial of, God or gods." is (more) factually accurate, consistent with and supported by the academic definition of Atheism as I've repeatedly shown. And we've already agreed on this definition on the DR page.

We also agree with One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a god or gods., because you recently argued that disbelief and lack of belief are synonyms. I'm glad to see that you put a (more) in; it's the beginning of a concession of some sort, though I am not sure about finding any objective authority regarding your assertion. As the definition stands, I am not sure that I agree with it. I gather Sam does. But first I ask you to either agree with me that 'lack of belief' and 'disbelief' are not synonyms, or use 'disbelief' in the definition. (20040302)

It is not clear that disbelief is indeed not privative or even an act as you say. Disbelieve, it's verb, is defined as "To withhold or reject belief". Clearly some sort of action or statement is required to reject belief, but withholding belief requires no such action or declaration.--FeloniousMonk 23:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, To withhold is like.. a verb. So how does it not involve action? (20040302)

Yes, it is a verb in the same sense as keep is a verb, in fact, it's a synonym. Withold's verb intransigent definition is To refrain. As actions go, that not very assertive. Give and assenting are also verbs, clearly very different ones.--FeloniousMonk 00:06, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I love it when we agree with each other, FM. It seems to be so rare. refrain, witholding, etc. are not passive. They may not be very assertive, but they are not passive. Refraining from talking would hardly be refraining if I was dumb. Refraining implies effort. Similarly, witholding the truth requires the effort of a lie. To withold is clearly not a passive verb. (20040302 00:23, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC))

I disagree. Refraining does not necessarily imply effort or action.--FeloniousMonk 01:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I guess you didn't mean 'intransigent'? (ie uncompromising), but rather that the verb has an 'intransitive' sense, which merely means that it does not take a direct object in the same way as "a bird flies", or "a dog runs"? And to be honest, the verb "refrain" does imply effort and action. Even the most passive verbs (e.g to suffer, to receive) indicate the expenditure of energy (effort) albeit with no choice. Moreover, my experience of refraining have always involved considerable efffort. When I refrained from smoking, or eating fatty foods, or sugar it was not easy; it was effort, and I was refraining. I do not do not consider that I refrain from activities that I would not do. Otherwise I would be refraining from eating doggy-do at every opportunity! (20040302 09:37, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Show me a source that defines "weak atheism" as an act. Definitions for the general term atheism don't count. I'm talking about the specific term "weak atheism" which is a form of atheism. If you can't provide even one source that supports what you are saying then shut up. UVwarning 23:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/presumption.html

Some weak atheists argue that atheism is the default position because he who asserts must prove. Theists make the positive claim that God exists. Weak atheists do not make the positive claim that God does not exist, but merely withhold their assent from the theists’ claim that God does exist. According to the weak atheist, because it is the theist that makes an assertion, it is the theist that bears the burden of proof. He who asserts must prove, and so unless the theist can offer some convincing argument for God’s existence, the weak atheist will be justified in his atheism.

As mentioned before, I consider the weak atheist to be actively involved: They don't make postive claims about God, but they do withhold their assent from the theists claim that God exists.

Witholding is a verb. It is an action. QED.

They also have a position regarding who bears the burden of proof. This necessitates mental conviction. Any other requests? (20040302 00:16, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC))

That weak atheism is an active withholding of belief that god exists would only be true if:

Belief in god were a justified belief, i.e.; god existed.
Weak Atheism's position requires belief.

So, the question is: What belief associated with Weak Atheism is it you are claim requires proof?

Only with the most convoluted of logic can anyone claim that withholding an unjustified belief requires some sort of affirmative declaration. First, the term "God" hasn't been defined - so what the atheist thinks of it cannot be automatically assumed. Theists cannot simply assert that whatever they have in mind must also be something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that whatever this god turns out to be, the atheist must automatically deny it. This concept might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or denial. --FeloniousMonk 01:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I begin to think that you have misinterpreted my stance, FM. For the fact that I appear not to have divulged it clearly enough, I apologise. Regardless, I consider your reasoning about active witholding to be flawed. I reject that "active withholding" necessarily entails anything to do with god(s). My point was a little less strong: that withholding entails an active position of some sort, so my reading from POR requires that one cannot be a weak atheist by default; indeed one must have a viewpoint - that viewpoint being reflected by the citation. Actually, I explicitly point out what it is that the article defines as withheld by a weak atheist: namely, "assent from the theists claim that God exists". Now this has nothing to do with God, but everything to do with actively not agreeing with theists. I consider their position very sound, BTW. Moreover, I would say that most weak atheists would place the same burden of proof on strong atheists as well as theists. Of course, the placement of burden remains an activity, albeit a gentle one. (20040302 09:19, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC))

That's funny that you are using that article to suport your view. It planly states that atheism may be considered a default position. I was expecting you to find some crappy source that would agree with your claim, but this is far more pathetic that I was expecting. The article you found doesn't even agree with you. I think that pretty much closes the case on this issue. If you look at just about any source on weak atheism the unambiguous term "lack of belief" is almost always used. That fact that you have only managed to find one article that happens to use the term "withold" and that contradicts your belief anyway I think speaks for itself. UVwarning 22:06, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What it plainly states is that Some weak atheists argue that atheism is the default position . That is a true statement. However it is problematic to base a general definition on what some atheists argue. older≠wiser 22:30, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Fact.

I obviously meant WorldNet dictionary. Not webster's. Get over yourself. They are right next to eachother on the link that you yourself pointed to. I'm sure that you noticed that, but I guess you would rather pretend that I was lying.

It is also obvious that discussions with Sam and 20040302 are pointless. We need a mediator. I'm new to wikipedia. How do we go about doing that? Or do we just keep discussing until we puke? UVwarning 23:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, No. You cite Webster's, I read Webster's. I truthfully noticed only when you pointed it out now. You mis-cited. I had quoted from Webster's before, and was shocked to see the definition that you provided. It doesn't do you any good to mis-cite. That's all I was saying. As for WordNet- You rate that over the OED and Websters? Come on. (20040302 23:37, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC))

That doesn't explain or justify your pointed oblique insults like Who needs to worry about accusations of sophistry, when we are bing fed misdirected sources? and characterizing his position with a heading titled Look Ha! Fiction!. Your response to UVWarning reads more like a frothing, trollish rant that a dispassionate point about mis-citing references. I have no doubt as to your intent there.--FeloniousMonk 23:48, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For that matter your characterization of my position and method at Where is this going?at the top this page is pretty insulting and trollish too.--FeloniousMonk 23:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well I apologise to anyone who feels that I have insulted them. It is not my intention to insult whatsoever, and I am completely willing to continue this discussion with civility, restraint and manners. However, I also expect such behaviour from other discussants. Secondly, my intentions are to write a good article. It is understandable that we find it astounding that different people have such completely different views from our own, and indeed it can hurt when someone claims to have greater knowledge than ones-self, or to be told that they know something that the other doesn't, or read claims that one is foolish, sophistic, silly, misguided, uneducated, theistic/atheistic, etc. So let us be civil, polite and restrained towards each other. (20040302 00:09, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC))

I agree we all need to be respectful. Both sides.--FeloniousMonk 01:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's so complicated??

Sorry for not taking the time to read the 10 archives of this talk page, but what's this whole debate about? Does anyone here disagree with the statement "An athiest is someone who believes there is no god?" What's going on!? --RobertStar20 01:45, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes: atheists. That definition is inaccurate. Atheism is not a belief. It is, simply and only, a lack of belief, and not a lack of belief only in one (your) god, a lack of belief in gods or goddesses in general, from lack of evidence or evidence against them.The Rev of Bru

I agree, others don't. Some of them think "Atheism= everything except devout believers", including agnostics, babies, rocks, the uncertain, thoughtless, ignorent, disinterested, etc... [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 01:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nobody thinks that "Atheism= everything except devout believers" It doesn't do any of us any good for you to make these strawman arguments. Please think carefully about what you say before you speak. UVwarning 21:20, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, many people do disagree with that statement, and have a different definition. Occasionally, we try to establish whether or not both points of view will be included. These discussions are invariably derailed and transformed into discussions about whether or not the definition as atheism as "lack of belief" is consistent and sensible. I've tried a couple of times to get back to the question of whether both viewpoints will be included, with little success. Give me another week and I'll probably try again. --Yath 02:35, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They will both be included. The debate as I see it is how, and where. Anyone who thinks the idea of atheism by default is less than a radical break w human concensus is sadly mistaken however, and to place such an outlandish claim in the intro would bring shame to us all. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 02:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, what would be shameful is if bigoted, hateful users, with a POV such as yourself, were allowed to define the things that they hate, sam spade. Anyone who claims, publicly, to 'revile atheists' is far too biased to have a valid NPOV. Go see if you can find any rational atheist that agrees with your nonsense definition. The Rev of Bru

Rev, try to behave please (20040302)

Rev, exactly when and where did Sam Spade say he "reviles atheists"?

Sam, is this true? Have you stated on wikipedia that you revile atheists?

I would have to question the fitness and ability to remain objective and maintain a NPOV who makes such an obviously bigoted POV statement.--FeloniousMonk 22:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In support of the wider inclusive definition

Many; including some prominent Buddhists (though definitely not all) describe much of Buddhism as atheistic, and this would fall within the definition of weak atheism and this is not a particularly new usage. The fact that some prominent Buddhists describe Buddhism as athesitic is not POV. Here are 2 sources:

Christmas Humphries was president of the Buddhist Society, London [2], from it's foundation in 1924 for 30 years and a prolific author on Buddhism, particularly Zen Buddhism. Humphries was also a a prominent British High Court judge and as such will have been especially adept in the nuance of the English language. In "Buddhism" (1954). On page 79 under the title "No God, No Soul" he writes "As between the theist and atheist positions, Buddhism is atheist".

Also "The Varieties of Religious Experience", William James pg 50: "the Buddha himself stands in place of a God; but in strictness the Buddhistic system is atheistic".

This again supports the point in question that the term ‘atheist’ within its general definition should support the meaning of weak atheism as well as strong atheism. Indeed I posit that most atheists are passive or weak atheists , in the same way that most folk are without belief in many other categories of supernatural entity such as goblins and the Tooth Fairy. This passive ‘without belief’ stance does not of necessity require active cognition. Lack of belief can span the spectrum from incompetence to ignorance through mere indifference to scepticism and on to an active rejection. All fall within the set of those being without belief in the Tooth Fairy or goblins. So it is with atheism and all gods and any particular God. It is POV to treat any and all deities somehow differently to any other supernatural entity and this is clearly what some seek to do here

Some folks have an understanding of atheism that is more limited to active disbelief and some folks describe as atheist those who are in fact theists but happen not to believe in their God. Thats fine, clearly this is also common usage and should thus be covered in the article, but the general definition should be inclusive not exclusive and congruent with the etymology which is exactly how many use and understand the term.

Again in the wider definition ‘Atheist’ can be and is used to descibe anyone that happens not to be a Theist, and this has been well supported in these discussions.--Nick-in-South-Africa 15:47, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

well said Nick. I agree. The Rev of Bru

I too agree, and applaud that you support your point by citing a credible reference source.--FeloniousMonk 19:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)