Talk:atheism

Translations from Wikipedia

Wikipedia lists the following interwiki links, which are probably translations of "atheism":

af: ateïsme

ar: إلحاد

bn: নাস্তিকবাদ

be: атэізм

bs: ateizam

br: dizoueegezh

bg: атеизъм

ca: ateisme

cs: ateismus

co: ateisimu

da: ateisme

de: Atheismus

es: ateísmo

eo: ateismo

fa: بیخدایی

fr: athéisme

fur: ateisim

ko: 무신론

hi: नास्तिकता

id: ateisme

ia: atheismo

it: ateismo

he: אתאיזם

jv: ateisme

la: atheismus

lv: ateisms

lb: atheismus

lt: ateizmas

li: atheïsme

lmo: ateismu

hu: ateizmus

mk: атеизам

mt: ateiżmu

ms: ateisme

nl: atheïsme

ja: 無神論

no: ateisme

pl: ateizm

pt: ateísmo

ro: ateism

ru: атеизм

sco: atheism

scn: ateismu

simple: atheism

sk: ateizmus

sr: Атеизам

fi: ateismi

sv: ateism

vi: thuyết vô thần

tr: ateizm

uk: атеїзм

ur: دہریت

yi: אטעאיזם

zh: 无神论

Cheers! bd2412 T 16:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Old Discussion

What the hell happened to the old discussion here? Look we lost the distinction between atheism and strong atheism. Definition 1 is a transformation of definition 3, that doesn't distinguish itself in any meaningful way. Definition 2 is the classical definition for strong atheism. What was wrong with the previous wiktionary entry which made this distinction clear? What the current obfuscation? Qed 06:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am reversing the two definitions which remain, and I am not privy to the prior definition or the discussion. The way I have left it makes the first definition more inclusive than the second. That is: every atheist is in a state of a lack of a belief in God (definition 1 in the new configuration), and some atheists actively disbelieve in God (definition 2 in the new configuration).

While I am supportive of increased awareness of the difference between strong atheism and weak atheism, I suspect this may be better left to wikipedia. Spblat 03:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"It's not a religion"

I restored the "religion" category. Here's why.

I agree that atheism is not a religion. However, atheism is a topic which concerns religion. The category is not "religions," the category is "religion." And I believe atheism falls into this category. Am I wrong? --Spblat 03:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree - it's about religion, so the category should stay. bd2412 T 03:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes

I believe this article warrants identical changes to the atheist one. Therefore I have added nearly identical usage notes in the spirit of compromise.

First definition

            1. Absence of belief in 'the existence' of God or gods.

I think the emphasized text above could imply actual existence of God or gods which would represent a bias and is inappropriate for the definition.

I propose "the" be changed to "a" or "an". Which ever is gramatically correct.

"1. Absence of belief in an existence of God or gods."

I'm not sure exactly why, but "an" simply seems incorrect, to say nothing of value neutral. The wording should stay. If you'd like a wider audience, you may want to bring this up at our Tea room; almost no one here reads talk pages. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 17:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

- - - - - I don't know who changed "God" to "a god" in definition #1, but that change is incorrect, so I have changed it back to "God". Ask anyone who believes in any of the Monotheistic religions: it is "God". "a god" only makes sense to a non-believer, or in the context of something less than Supreme Being. Putting "a god" here violates neutrality; it denies the very concept "God". You don't have to believe in God yourself to understand this distinction. (I don't believe currently, but I was raised Christian, so I understand the thinking.) The whole point of "atheism" is to contrast with the various "theisms", so you need to get the "theism" part of the definition correct! If you are atheist (as I am), you lack theistic belief, both Monotheistic ("God") and Polytheistic ("gods").

Similarly, I've changed the second definition [strong atheism] to mention "God". From "... there are no gods" to "... there is no God nor gods". While this change is less critical, it is still important. After all, Polytheism is greatly diminished in these times; most people either "believe in God" .. or "don't believe in God" or are unsure. To keep talking about "gods" instead of "God" is to fundamentally misrepresent the dominant spiritual dialogue of our times.

While I'm at it, I personally don't use, or hear "atheism" used, as definition #1 ("absence of belief"). To me it has always been simple: "I don't believe in God" = there is no God = atheism. "I don't know whether God exists" = uncertain or unknowable = agnostic. This to me is a more satisfying usage of the two words. So I would prefer to see definition #2 (active disbelief) be placed first; I think that is the more common usage. However, I'm not going to tamper with that, unless there is broader consensus. I appreciate the counter-argument that the broader, weaker, definition, be placed first.

ToolmakerSteve 06:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"God" as a capitalized word is a name, as opposed to a......I don't know.....type of entity.....species? Anyway, suffice to say that God is a god (confusing, yes). In any case, atheism is an absence of belief in any of them, and so the lowercase should remain. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please study writings about "God" if you are going to keep editing this. The concept "God" is its own category. That is part of the nature of "God". "God" is NOT "a god". There cannot be a species "God", of which "God" is one entity, and "god" is the general notion. "God" is "God" -- that is the whole point. If you think otherwise, you don't understand "God", you don't understand Monotheism, you don't understand the last 3,000 years of religious discussion, in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Seriously. Please leave this definition alone. ToolmakerSteve 07:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A few more comments on the concept "God". Strictly speaking, "God" is not "God"s name. "God" is that which is beyond naming. Do not confuse the general concept "God" with any specific notion of "God". That is, if you talk to some Christians, and you hear them talking about "God", you may get the idea that the word "God" refers to "The Christian (notion of) God", in which case you understandably want to broaden that specific entity to include some whole category. But regardless of whose notion of God you hear about, the underlying fundamental concept of "God" is uncategorizable, is beyond words, does not exist in space and time, cannot really be talked about: "God is God". This is quite different than "God is a god", or "The Christian God is one form of belief in a god." To write one of these sentences is to fundamentally misunderstand the concept ("God") being discussed. God is NOT a god. God is that which --uniquely-- is beyond any attempt to categorize. God, Allah, Yahweh, whatever word one uses is merely a stand-in for "that which is beyond naming" or "that whose name cannot be spoken". Not "cannot" as in "should not", but "cannot" as in "is literally meaningless to do so" (because any attempt to put a word down, is inherently less than what we are attempting to speak about). This is a deep, deep topic. To understand what atheism is, one must understand what belief is absent. So, Atelaes, your very replacement of "God" with "god" shows that you are a particular kind of atheist. You can not possibly believe in God, because you have no such concept, you have only the concepts "god" and "gods", and understandably those weak concepts hold no sway on you. I am a different kind of atheist. Or more specifically, I am agnostic. I have examined this from many angles, in both spiritual and secular settings, and I have not discovered any basis for belief. But it is very important to understand that which I have no reason to believe, and that which many people today do believe. "God" and "god" are quite different concepts. While there are many differences between the various Monotheistic religions, the notion that there is ..something.. that is more than "a god" is central to that category of beliefs. The capitalized word "God" attempts to capture this crucial distinction. ToolmakerSteve 09:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I do believe in G-d, and while He is nothing like (say) the Greek gods, He is "a god" in a generic sense. As you say, He is beyond all description — and yet, there are plenty of words that can describe Him, such as "holy", "omnipotent", and "perfect". One of those words is the noun "god". It's horrid, it has the wrong connotations, it makes Him sound like less than He is; but there you have it. —Ruakh_TALK 15:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So I thought about it further, and I realized that there is a testable hypothesis here. I went on Google and ran a search for "I don't believe in God", and a search for "I don't believe in a|any god|gods" OR "i don't believe in gods". My word, there's simply no comparison: it's about 105,000 hits to 3,350. By and large, anglophone atheists do consider G-d to be a specific entity in Whom they disbelieve. So, I've changed it back. Thanks for your input! :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 19:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellently done. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

At this writing there's about 4.1 million hits for "I don't believe in Allah". Clearly people consider Allah to be a specific entity in Whom they disbelieve, too. About 160,000 "I don't believe in Buddha"'s, though John Lennon has padded that number. About 22,100 for "I don't believe in Vishnu". So what? "no deities" and "any deities" includes them all. ~ Robin 20:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Implicit atheism removed

Somehow, our definition of atheism, had the implicit definition of atheism front and center when that definition doesn't even make it into other dictionaries (including the ones referenced in the entry). I removed it. Please consult other dictionaries before adding it back. See, for instance, this list.Griswaldo 16:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Atheism is the position of knowing about the concept of a god and explicitly rejecting it, not merely having no position on it. (Another dictionary check: Chambers has "the belief that there is no god".) Equinox ◑ 16:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Unbelief

What does the addition of "unbelief" do to improve the definition? "Unbelief" itself is a term needing definition, and, if one does look at its wikidef, one finds it does NOT include the positive belief that deities do not exist. --JimWae 08:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that, as stated in the usage notes, some (many?) authors do not make the distinction implied by having three separate senses; or at least they ignore it when they write. Indeed, the notes seem not so much to describe usage, as to further discuss the definition of the term (still a useful thing to do). This is reflected in the apparent difficulty in matching the citations with particular defined senses. — Pingku^dimmi 12:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The format presents the 3 meanings as if they are subsumed under "unbelief". 1> They are not. The belief there are no deities is not really covered by the definition of "unbelief" (nor does "disbelief" cover absence of belief). 2> What "unbelief" itself means is not without issues. 3> How does "unbelief" improve the entry?--JimWae 23:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The word "unbelief" is a red herring. At issue is the approach taken. Perhaps counterintuitively, the intent should be not to teach people what the word means, but to describe how it is used - even if you don't agree. In this case, the nice philosophical breakdown of what the concept entails appears not to be backed up by empirical evidence of usage. Presumably, not all people who use the word "atheism" are philosophers, or even care about such fine philosophical points. — Pingku^dimmi 05:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "absence of belief" (the one that includes "implicit atheism") is NOT the way the word is really used (and is a poor definition in that it includes infants and even monkeys as atheists, and mathematics as a type of atheism) - nevertheless,(besides Martin, Smith & Flew) it does appear in several dictionaries--JimWae 06:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

While David Eller in Natural Atheism (2004) claims we're all born atheists (quoted on atheist page), I know of no atheist who would go so far as to classify monkeys as atheists. The most expansive definition of “atheist” I’ve encountered has been “one who has no belief in gods”, but never “something which has no belief in gods”. ~ Robin 01:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If an absence of something is described as an -ISM, and monkeys can be called hedonists and egotists, then why not? Monkeys have an absence of belief in a deity (so do ants, carrots, and rocks). (Even the pope might have AN absence of belief when he sneezes - until someone blesses him;) If it were "a lack of belief" one could say monkeys do not have the capacity, hence they do not have a "lack"; and sneezing popes do not lack a belief when they are not thinking about that belief. But "lack" usually implies a deficiency, and that will not do to define atheism. The problem lies in defining any -ISM as not having some belief. More tellingly, how is Marxism atheistic and not mathematics? Not by an absence of belief in deities. Marxism takes a position on the issue, math does not. And Darwinism? </rant>

George H. Smith considers capacity a necessary condition in Atheism: The Case Against God (1979): “The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist.” (also quoted on atheist). You answered your own question re Marxism. ~ Robin 02:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Smith does not make capacity a necessary condition. He talks about it, but he never says it is essential, and never says an infant cannot be an atheist. He skirts the issue by not dealing with it directly - an issue that many others who have adopted this def say does include infants as atheists. If capacity were a necessary condition for Smith, then "a person with no belief in a deity" would not be a complete def of "atheist" - this is more dire for a def of "atheist" than for "atheism" because it is hard to see how "capacity" would apply to atheism. However, "absence of belief in a deity" is still an incomplete set of conditions for atheism. for it does not differentiate Marxism from mathematics from Darwinism - according to the absence def, they are all forms of atheism. The rejection def does distinguish among them. Incidentally, I don't think Marx ever came right out and said there was no God. Perhaps he did somewhere, but his focus is more on how such belief undermines "progress" --JimWae 03:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The very words of one or both of Smith & Martin (and definitely of Flew) show the absence def offered is a persuasive definition - a program to change the definition/meaning of a word rather than an observation about how the word is actually used. They justify that program on sparse etymological grounds. --JimWae 03:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

To what do you refer? What Martin? What words of Flew's? ~ Robin 07:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

see below

As for "rejection", there are many people who call themselves atheists who do not claim deities do not exist, but do deny they believe in any deity - much like one can reject belief in UFOs without claiming they do not exist. This definition is also supported by Encyclopedia Britannica --JimWae 06:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Some people say the concept of God makes no sense and that " 'God exists' is a meaningless sentence" which is thus neither true nor false. Such people are generally regarded as... atheists, yes? Specifically, these are ignostics or "theological noncognitivists".--JimWae 06:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Re is this what you are requesting?: sort-of. What we really want to find are books that use the term this way, as opposed to reference works (secondary sources) which say the term is used this way. Robin Lionheart has added a line from Dawkins to [[atheist]] which is semi-relevant: "Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’" - -sche (discuss) 20:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Persuasive definition

Flew

Antony G.N. Flew, "God, Freedom and Immortality: A Critical Analysis" The Presumption of Atheism, Prometheus Books, (1984), Page 14

to his credit, explicitly acknowledges this as a "new" definition:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flew01.htm

My presumption of atheism is closely analogous to the presumption of innocence in the English law; a comparison which I shall develop in Section 2. What I want to examine is the contention that the debate about the existence of God should properly begin from the presumption of atheism, that the onus of proof must lie upon the theist.

The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter.

The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism,going arbitrarily against established common usage.' more at http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm ...we need to give a new and much more comprehensive meaning to the term "atheist." Whereas it is currently construed as referring to a person who positively disbelieves that there is an object corresponding to what is thus tacitly taken to be a or the legitimate concept of God, I would now urge that the word be hereafter understood not positively but negatively. Let the originally Greek prefix "a" be read in the same way in "atheist" as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as "amoral," atypical," and "asymmetrical." In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the nonexistence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist.

Martin

Michael Martin, "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification," Temple University Press, (1992), Page 463 Michael Martin:

"...an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist." http://www.andrsib.com/martin/defined.htm

The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, edited by Michael Martin, 2007, Cambridge University Press

If you look up “atheism” in a dictionary, you will find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly, many people understand “atheism” in this way. Yet this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek “a” means “without” or “not,” and “theos” means “god.”1 From this standpoint, an atheist is someone without a belief in God; he or she need not be someone who believes that God does not exist.2 Still, there is a popular dictionary meaning of “atheism” according to which an atheist is not simply one who holds no belief in the existence of a God or gods but is one who believes that there is no God or gods. This dictionary use of the term should not be overlooked. To avoid confusion, let us call it positive atheism and let us call the type of atheism derived from the original Greek roots.negative atheism.(p 1, General Introduction by Martin)

---

Split 4th meaning?

Current 4th meaning:

1. (possibly nonstandard or dated, speaking selectively) The absence of a particular religious belief or of belief that a particular (or any) god or gods exist(s); disregard for moral obligation, wickedness. (Atheism in this broad sense does not exclude religious belief; in the Roman Empire, for example, Christians were accused of "atheism" because they refused to believe in the gods of Rome, although they did believe in a single god.)
   • 2008, Karen Armstrong, The Case for God, p. 102:

     Christians were also accused of atheism because they refused to honour the patronal gods of Rome and thus endangered the empire.

   • 2009, Diarmaid MacCulloch, A History of Christianity, Penguin 2010, p. 779:

     At the time, doubt was generally given the blanket label atheism, just as a whole variety of sexual practices of which society pretended to disapprove were given the blanket label sodomy.

I am thinking these are very different meanings. One is believing in the wrong god (selectivity). The other is opprobrium for behaviour (or speech). The implication re behaviour could be that one has the wrong religion but it could also be that they have no religion. --JimWae 07:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I started to think that (these senses should be spilt) myself, as I looked for examples of the sense(s). I haven't found any examples of "atheism" being used to mean "wickedness", although supposedly the OED has some. I'm going to split the senses and let god sort them out. - -sche (discuss) 07:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Quotations for sense 1

I cannot see that the quotation for 1914 provides a source for any distinct sense of atheism.

Now they had lectures also on Confucianism, Mohammedanism, Buddhism, with an optional course on atheism for students in the final year.

The quotations for 1910 and 2011 are examples where atheism and agnosticism are not lumped together, but are not clear indications that they could not have overlapping meanings.--JimWae 22:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the intent was to show atheism as a religion (that does not work for the 2011 one) - but that argument, applied to other quotations, would make agnosticism a religion too --JimWae 22:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The 1914 quotation distinguishes atheism from non-theistic religion (Buddhism, Confucianism). It's actually redundant, in that way, to the 1910 quotation, and could be moved back to the Citations: page if we want to avoid having so many quotations in the entry. - -sche (discuss) 01:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Three categories of atheism (in the modern sense)

Three categories of atheism

• Explicit positive/strong - included in all 3 defs, specified by denial of existence def
• Explicit negative/weak - included by the rejection def and the absence def (specified by deny/reject belief in a deity)
• Implicit weak - included only by the absence def

Explicit atheists are aware they do not believe in a deity. Implicit atheists are not aware they do not believe in a deity. All strong atheists deny existence, no negative/weak atheists take/defend that position.

Explicit and strong are overlapping - some explicit are strong/positive, some are weak/negative Weak includes some explicit (rejectionists) and all implicit.

Both explicit weak and explicit strong reject belief (or deny they believe) in a deity. The explicit strong go one step further and also deny existence. The explicit negative do not take, or do not defend, that step.

Only "explicit strong" deny the existence.

In:

Usage notes

The term atheism may refer either to:

(rejection of belief): an explicit rejection of belief or denial that any deities exist (explicit atheism),

The last line describes explicit atheism, which may be ok because both explicit types do reject, but the next line shapes things differently

(absence of belief): an absence of belief in the existence of any deities (weak atheism or soft atheism),

is not ok, because "absence" actually covers all 3 categories, not just weak (and not just implicit) --JimWae 19:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A "strap" means a strip of leather. A "strap" also means such a strip specificially for flogging. It is OK that the latter is a subset of the former. Lots of words are like that. ~ Robin 19:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Quote that distinguishes "rejection" from "absence"

I believe this has been requested again. It is in the citations--JimWae 11:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• 1965, Philosophical Concepts of Atheism, in Basic Beliefs: The Religious Philosophies of Mankind, Ernest Nagel, reprinted 1997 in Critiques of God, edited by Peter A. Angeles, Prometheus Books, 1997

  ...atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief, or with disbelief in some particular creed of a religious group. Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist — for he is not denying any theistic claims. Similarly in the case of an adult who, if he has withdrawn from the faith of his father without reflection or because of frank indifference to any theological issue, is also not an atheist — for such an adult is not challenging theism and not professing any views on the subject.... As I see it, atheistic philosophies fall into two major groups; (1) Those which hold that theistic doctrine is meaningful, but reject it either on the grounds that (a) the positive evidence for it is insufficient, or (b) the negative evidence is quite overwhelming; and (2) those that hold that the theistic thesis is not even meaningful, and reject it (a) as just nonsense, or (b) as literally meaningless, but interpreting it as a symbolic rendering of human ideals...

Or a procedural matter of not concluding the RFV discussion first. ~ Robin 08:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Where is that discussion taking place?--JimWae 00:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for verification#atheist ~ Robin 07:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)