Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:17, 22 September 2005

POV terms such as "Weak" and "Strong" for Atheism

Rather than slandering certain atheist by calling them "weak" how about we stick to the term implicit? LucaviX

According to the guidelines, "the neutral point of view is not, contrary to the seeming implication of the phrase, some actual point of view that is 'neutral,' or 'intermediate,' among the different positions. That represents a particular understanding of what 'neutral point of view' means. The prevailing Misplaced Pages understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct."

That is to say, you can write about biased terms in a non-biased way. Rather than taking a stand on whether "strong/weak atheist" is a slander, you could instead include information on whatever debate exists over the terms. That would be neutral reporting. Removing the "slanderous" terms would be POV, because it involves a judgment call on your part. MFNickster 17:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

So how about we just leave the term "weak atheist" out of the article unless discussing the use of the term, and instead use the correct term in it's pleace? I'm an Atheist myself, and I have a problem with someone implying that I'm a "weak" atheist or that I'm not an atheist simply because I don't take a strong stance on the issue of religion. I'm rather unconcerned with the issue of rather or not any god exist, I don't say "There is no god" but rather I do not believe in any god or gods. I'm still an atheist, because I do not believe in any god or gods. I'm not an agnostic because I hold that whether or not a god exist could easily be determined if a god did indeed exist, and anyone can be a skeptic regardless of religion. LucaviX

Well, my impression of the term was always that it refers to the position being a "weak" one, rather than the person holding the position being weak. I don't know the origin of the terms, but they are in common usage (particularly on alt.atheism), so it would be disingenuous (IMHO) to omit them. I don't see a problem with replacing the "weak atheism" and "strong atheism" articles with "implicit atheism" and "explicit atheism," though I would prefer that they be merged into subsections of this article.

If we can get a consensus among the editors here, that might be a good approach. MFNickster 18:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The term "weak" may be a mismurmer, in any case many implicit atheist take issue with it. LucaviX

Obviously, since you are one of them! It would be great if you could do some research into the origin of the terms, and write up a paragraph on it. MFNickster 21:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I too would personally prefer it if people used the term 'implicit'. However, and this is a big however, people don't use the term 'implicit' - at least not nearly as much as they use the term 'weak'. So unfortunately, I think Misplaced Pages should also use 'weak' - Misplaced Pages is descriptive, not prescriptive. That's not to say that it shouldn't also mention that some weak atheists take offense at it, and mention that 'implicit' can be used as an alternative. I should note that IIRC at one point a few years back the article did use "implicit" and "explicit" primarily, and that didn't last very long. Bryan 21:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

"weak" and "strong" atheism are widely used (and no, not just on the internet) terms to describe a (purported, arguably) difference among atheistic claims. They are not and are not intended to be POV evaluative terms and to think that they are is simply to misunderstand them. Other words have been used (i.e "implicit/explicit"), and are more/less/equally problematic. To refuse to use the terms would be to subvert the value of the entry, but how clear does the entry make it that they are not subjective judgemental terms? --213.122.190.190 21:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the dichotomy as currently framed is that the entry somewhat obscures the difference between weak and strong atheists who actively reject theism, and "lack of belief" atheists (nontheists? "atheous"?) in the broader sense, who include those who may never have considered theism at all and thus cannot fairly be said to have rejected it (as well as those who have considered it but do not want to be characterised as rejecting it, though they do not accept it i.e. some of those calling themselves agnostic). Although "weak" atheists clearly do "lack" theistic belief, their lack is a philosophically justified rejection of belief, unlike others we can characterise as "lacking" theistic belief (babies, people from totally nontheistic cultures, small furry animals, and so forth). That Flew and others appealed to the privative etymology of atheism in order to reclaim historic atheist positions (Viz Holyoake, d'Holbach, Bradlaugh) that were somewhat forgotten with the rise of the agnostic label, does not mean that all "lack" is the same. I may lack money because I spent it all, or I may lack it because I never had it. Different thing. --213.122.190.190 21:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

A common point that we atheist like to make is that the majority isn't always (or even often) correct. Anyway, I suggest that we include the term "weak" among others, but that we stick to using the proper term rather than the common term through the rest of the article. I know the "strong" and "weak" terminology was first coined on radio broadcasts, later picked up by popular atheist who had their own radio shows, and it spread from there because it reached so many people at once (giving it a darwinian advantage over the proper term), however "weak" and "strong" could at best be considered slang, and at worst be considered (at least initially) an attempt to frame a position as being more ideal. Irregardless I have no objection to the inclusion of the terms as terms of common usage, so long as the proper terms are used throughout the rest of the article. LucaviX 21:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way, no one to my knowledge is claiming that infants are atheist. I know that A-Theos may apply since they are not theist but it could be argued that in order to be an atheist you must first know of belief in the existence of a god or gods. I don't see why there's such a fuss (by one person) against using the term implicit, as it is much more fitting and the rest of the article stays pretty much the same. The paragraph on implicit atheism is way too long though and does need to be trimmed, I'd suggest making a seperate section dealing with implicit atheism and agnosticism, because they are not one and the same. LucaviX 21:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I've never liked the "strong-weak" terminology, and find the "implicit-explicit" terminology more clear and precise both as an adjective contrast and as a two word term ("implicit" as an adjective AND "implicit" as the first word of a two word noun phrase). This also lends itself to the very subtle contrast between an implicit atheist (who lacks theistic beliefs) and an implicit theist (who lacks atheistic beliefs). (I know what you "strong-weak" advocates think when you read that. I SAID it was subtle. Hint: Where is the line seperating what is a deity or a theistic belief with what isn't?) I also think the point should be made that the distinction only makes sense for those who hold belief structures in the first place. WAS 4.250 22:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I would posit that an implicit theist does not lack atheistic beliefs because no such beliefs exist. The beliefs of atheist come to an individual basis as atheism is not a philosophy nor a religion, but rather a state of non-belief and/or disbelief. Implicit theist more often hold theistic beliefs but are mild mannered about them and do not wear their religion on their sleeves, as opposed to explicit theist or fundamentalist (particularly fundamentalist, though not all explicit theist are fundamentalist) who tend to shove their religious views on other people. I'm a professional psychiatrist myself, so I have to be an implicit atheist. Could you imagine if I were an explicit atheist listening and talking to a religious client about what she believes to be "god's plan for her." I have to be very careful in how I deal with people or I could lose my job (or at the very least my clients). LucaviX 22:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The distinction between state of mind and behavior is poorly served in this article. WAS 4.250 22:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

There are many states of mind held by many atheist. Heck, some atheist believe in ghosts and such, some like myself carry no belief in the supernatural whatsoever (extending this to gods). I would suggest that in order to be an atheist one should first be aware of belief in a god or gods, though Atheos means "not a theist." LucaviX 22:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I would say that this distinction is one of the markers of implicit/explicit atheism. An implicit atheist may or may not have been made aware of god concepts, but by the standard use of the terms, they are still atheists simply because they are not theists.

For example, if you ask a person "which god(s) do you believe in?" They may answer:

• "Allah/Jehovah/Zeus/" (explicit theism)
• "I'm not sure, but I believe in a higher power." (implicit theism)
• "None at all, they're impossible." (explicit atheism)
• "None that has been described to me." (implicit atheism with exposure to theism)
• "What's a god?" (implicit atheism with no exposure to theism)

MFNickster 01:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with MFNickster. WAS 4.250 04:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Implicit atheist may also respond "I do not believe in any god or gods" while not saying that "no god or gods exist." I'm what you may consider a strong implicit atheist myself, I do not for a moment hold that a god may exist but I do not discount the possibility that one could conceivably exist in some form or another (it all depends on how you define god). By the same standard I do not discount the minute and infinitesimal improbability that I could be in a Matrix styled reality in which I am being fed chemical and electrical signals to control my thoughts and perceptions, I am instead ultimately unconcerned with such notions considering them of little relevance. LucaviX 01:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

there are epic battles about this very question scattered over the voluminous archives; although I think the terms are useless, I decided not to argue over them any more. I would appreciate an exact delineation between "weak atheism" and "agnosticism" or even "dementia" (absence of thought about the matter). As far as I can see, "weak atheism" is a term touted by atheists so they can inflate their headcount, and claim that atheism is the "default position" (since, even before you had a single thought, you're already an atheist! every tree is an atheist, since I've never seen a tree pray!). Silly, imho, but not worth all the edit wars. So, yes, I'd be glad to have the term explained properly and contained, rather than allowing it to permeate the article. dab (ᛏ) 06:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Now I come to research the issue properly, I find that the distinction between weak/strong or implicit/explicit atheism was made clear as early as 1920, by McCabe - who pointed out that dictionaries usually give atheism two meanings: "disbelief" or "denial". Something he further developed in his 1948 Rationalist Encyclopedia. Subsequently, philosophers like Flew, Nielsen, Smith, Martin and others have pointed out the broader privative meaning of "a-theism".

Flew seems to have coined "positive" and "negative" to describe the difference between disbelief and denial when it comes to rejecting theism. He was working from the 1950s. Martin organises one of his books by using the dichotomy. So there is clear justification in the literature for using "positive" and "negative". The notion that insisting that atheism be defined broadly is NOT a device to increase numbers. On the contrary, since atheism became publically confessable, atheists have used a broad definition. d'Holbach does, PB Shelley does (remember, Necessity of atheism is signed "tho' deficiency of proof, an atheist), Holyoake did, Bradlaugh did, and so forth and so on. Rather, the insistence that atheism is *ONLY* the claim that god does not exist, is a repressive tactic (see Berman's work on the history of atheism for back up). Indeed, whoever it was above who said "By the way, no one to my knowledge is claiming that infants are atheist.", is wrong. D'Holbach explicitly says that infants are atheist. Please, whatever goes in the article must be backed up by the literature and the history of atheism. Unfortunately too many people do not know what they are talking about. The job of this entry is surely to put them right. --Dannyno 20:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I throw my support behind Dannyno and disagree strongly with dab. Additionally, I recommend you read the talk page archives, as this has been discussed and consensus was to include both weak and strong atheism in the article. Andre (talk) 20:35, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Andre is right. WP:RTA. This topic was debated ad nauseum for many months long ago here as the archives attest, and is a settled issue; the article's coverage of strong/weak atheism represents many, many months of hard-won compromise. Claiming they are "pov terms" indicates a lack of understanding that atheism is not a single monolithic position, but is a spectrum of positions, each with it's own shades and subtleties. FeloniousMonk 06:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Settled issue?

1. 'A' means an absence of, doesn't it? So then just as the only reasonable thing to say about what characterizes asymmetry is that asymmetry is characterized by an absence of symmetry, the only reasonable thing to say about atheism is that atheism is characterized by an absence of theism.

2. But FeloniousMonk and Andre (see just above here) insist that the issue is settled, and THEIR side has prevailed, so that is the end of discussion, but isn't it true that there are NEVER any settled issues in Misplaced Pages? Isn't it true that the policy is that any decisions about articles or policies should NEVER be regarded as permanently binding? Following is a quote from the policy:

From Misplaced Pages:No binding decisions: Misplaced Pages strives for consensus to build an encyclopedia. Decisions which are made about articles or policies should not be regarded as binding. Later objections to a decision might represent a change in consensus that may need to be taken in account, regardless of whether that earlier decision was made by a poll or other method. In order to reach the best possible decisions, we hold it important to listen carefully to each other's arguments, and to try to find mutually acceptable solutions in conflicts. Polls are the exception and not the rule, and where they do exist they are not binding. It is the nature of the wiki to be ever-changing. New people visit every day, and through new information and new ideas, we may gain insights we didn't have previously. It is important that there is a way to challenge past decisions, whether they have been reached by poll or consensus. Decisions should therefore practically never be "binding" in the sense that the decision cannot be taken back.

3. The important point Andre and FeloniousMonk and others seem to be missing in this case is that even those so-called strong atheists, those who have sound reason to hold a strong conviction that there are no gods in evidence because there are no gods in evidence, they also have an absence of theism just like all other atheists, and that is all that is essential to atheism, just as an absence of symmetry is all that is essential to asymmetry.--Adrigo 17:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The absence of belief is common to positive and negative atheism, but it is not a settled issue (for purposes of this article) as to whether such absence is all that is essential to (or necessary for) atheism. Those who assert that atheism is mere lack of belief insist (like Adrigo) that all that is necessary to atheism is such lack. In contrast, those who assert that atheism is a belief in the nonexistence of deities (including some atheist philosophers, like Ted Drange, for example) insist that atheism consists not just of a lack of belief, but an active denial. According to the latter POV, while lack of belief (in gods) is essential to atheism, it is not all that is essential. Adrigo's recent edit (which I've mostly reverted) takes a position against this POV, giving the impression that the issue is settled in favor of equating atheism with negative atheism, with positive atheism being a mere subset. This runs counter to actual usage of the word by many theologians and atheologians, as well as against the most popular usage among the general public. Misplaced Pages's role is descriptive, rather than prescriptive. It describes what is--not what should be. My personal usage of the word "atheist," like Adrigo's, assumes that lack of belief in God or gods is all that is necessary, but this does not change the fact that many others use the word differently, and that Misplaced Pages should represent both usages neutrally. Rohirok 19:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I mainly agree with this, and I have something I want to do to the entry to try to make this kind of thing clearer, since it's hopelessly confused at the moment. Atheism has been defined by some atheists in a very broad way since the 18th century, but there are differences between professional/academic philosophers who are mainly interested in reasons for and against belief, and thus generally see positive/negative in terms of types of rejection, and others who see positive/negative in terms of the difference between rejection and simple absence. The concerns are different. As Rohirok correctly says, the entry just needs to document all this. I'm going to have a go shortly :-) --Dannyno 19:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the part about 'ontological position' must be edited out. Rohorok says, "Misplaced Pages describes what is." That is correct, and what is is that the only thing all atheists share in common is an absence of theism. Even so-called strong atheists have the same absence of theism that so-called weak atheists do. This is not a point of view as Rohirok says, it is an undeniable fact (a 'what is') that Misplaced Pages must make clear if it is to be taken seriously.--Adrigo 20:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Adrigo, you claimed that lack of belief in God/gods is all that is essential to atheism. This is a particular point of view that is not shared by all atheists (I gave one counter-example, there are others), let alone others who use the word. True, lack of belief is common to both types of positions, but this is not the same as saying that lack of belief is all that is essential to atheism. There are two main differences in usage of the word: (1) atheism is mere lack of belief in God/gods, and (2) atheism is denial of God/gods (the belief that God/gods don't exist). According to usage (2), an atheist must believe God/gods don't exist. Anyone who doesn't believe this isn't an atheist. In other words, belief that God/gods don't exist is all that is essential, and lack of belief in God/gods is not all that is essential to be an atheist. What you added to the article is consistent with position (1), but inconsistent with position (2), and so fails the NPOV test. The article must not take position (1) over position (2), but simply describe both. Rohirok 04:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Rohirok, you argue, "Adrigo, you claimed that lack of belief in God/gods is all that is essential to atheism." That lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods is all that is essential to atheism is not a claim, it is just a simple fact that all that is essential to atheism, and the one thing common concerning ALL atheists, at a bare minimum, is an absence of theism, an absence of the religious belief that there might be a god or gods. Anyone who holds such a belief is theist. Anyone who does not hold such a belief, including all those who are actively agnostic like me and Thomas Huxley, those who actively deny and repudiate the religious belief that there might be a god or gods, is atheist. Any further questions on this simple point sir?--Adrigo 19:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

my preference is the same as Adrigos, in other words I understand atheism very inclusively. That has the historical development of atheism in its favour. However, there is a legitimate more restricted or narrower use of the word atheism - especially in academic philosophy, for reasons that should be obvious - that defines atheism in terms of rejection of atheism and explicitly does *not* regard "absence" of theism as a species of atheism, unless that absence is the result of one of many forms of rejection (not just strong forms) This goes back to Paul Edwards at least, but there is also some ambiguity in other writers such as Bradlaugh earlier than that. How, adrigo, do you propose to explain this to readers of the article? Because it does need explaining, otherwise people will get confused if they read Smith and then read Edwards' encyclopedia articles. It's not unusual for technical and informal definitions of words to differ - viz, even more radically, "inferiority complex". --Dannyno 08:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I must still point to an essential distinction: anyone who thinks there might be a god is simply someone who isn't a strong atheist (whether you equate it with "atheist" or not). A theist is someone who holds the religious belief that there is a god or gods. See Talk:Agnosticism for talk about this distinction. Jules LT 17:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

For the subject at hand, I think we should first report the two different usages first and then explain where each came from. This is not clear in the article. What would you think of a section at the beginning of the article summing up briefly all the meanings that have been attached to the word and extremely briefly where and when this meaning was used. That would be very informative and direct people to what they want to know inside the article.Jules LT 17:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not unattracted to that suggestion. I'm having a go at working on chapter and verse of all these distinctions, and/but it's not a bad idea to have some bullet points right at the beginning. --Dannyno 22:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the proposition, 'There might be a god'

Incidentally, on "there might be a god", I have a difficulty with what "might" means there. Does it mean "it's possible" (and thus compatible with negative atheism/agnosticism-as-suspension-of-judgement), or does it mean "fairly likely", or does it mean "might, or might not - the sides are evenly matched"? --Dannyno 22:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean, 'compatible with atheism'? The conjecture, "There might be a god" is theist conjecture, right? Arguing _ad ignorantiam_ for accepting such conjecture because there is no proof it is false is one of the favorite passtimes of those of the theist persuasion isn't it? --Adrigo 23:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It is "There might (or might not) be a God". Both are possibilities and the likeliness of either depends on one's POV. Whatever the likeliness an individual attributes to the propositions "God exists" and "God does not exist", this translates as "God might (or might not) exist". This is equivalent to "God might exist" since this also encompasses the two possiblities, but "might (or might not)" is less confusing.

I've been confronted to Adrigo on that matter in Talk:Agnosticism for some time now, I'm getting tired and I'd like some other people to give an appreciation of the debate, if they can gather the strength.

Only the subsection "There might be a God because there is no proof that hypothesis is false?" is relevant: before that, I've been accumulating quotes in support of a mention that " agnosticism accept all beliefs as possibilities, albeit of variable likeliness, because those beliefs can't be proved wrong". Please answer on Talk:Agnosticism, not here, This debate is irrelevant on the atheism talk page. I only wanted to correct what looks like nonsense to me, that Adrigo put here as fact (namely: "saying that God might possibly exist is theism"). It might have gone unnoticed and he would have interpreted that as silent consent.

Jules LT 00:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"Belief" System vs. "Religion"

"NPOV" flag invoked because it is ludicrous to keep striking out the reference to atheism as a belief system. Based on Misplaced Pages's definition of "belief", this is absolutely a rational definition of atheism.

BTW, if it is not a belief...what precisely is it?--66.69.219.9 22:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Your edits state that it's only considered a belief. However, the consensus among editors is that it has two important definitions: either a belief that there are no deities, or a lack of belief in any deities. So when you placed your comment in the intro, you made the article inconsistent, as if it were saying "Atheism is A or B" and then "Atheism is B". Do you see how both statements can't be in the article at once? --Yath 22:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Refer to the definition of "belief" in Misplaced Pages. Regardless of "editorial consensus" it's nonsense to say that atheism is a "non-belief"...from an epistemology standpoint, that carries the same merit as a "non-thought." --66.69.219.9 22:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is it nonsense? --Yath 22:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

How can one hold a "non-belief" in terms of judgment? This has no basis in epistemology, the study of human thought and 'knowledge.' Everything that enters one's consciousness goes through internal judgment. Being coy about it doesn't change that one iota. --66.69.219.9 22:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Then what am I if I have never had the proposition of theism enter my consciousness? I'm certainly not a theist if that's the case.

MFNickster 01:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

What we have here is the article stating that atheism is, in fact, sometimes defined as a lack of belief. No one can sensibly argue whether it's possible to be in such a state. The argument is whether the term, "atheism", is used that way enough for the article to actually report it. In other words, is it a notable enough use. The consensus, arrived at with much gnashing of teeth, is yes. That is why you have been reverted several times, and will undoubtedly be reverted again soon. --Yath 00:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, you're misconstruing the meaning of "belief"...that is the core of the confusion here. Misplaced Pages has a fine definition of it. There is otherwise a glaring lack of clear thinking here regarding what a "belief" (or ethereal "lack of belief") is. Also, see Merriam-Webster's definition of "belief" . It is otherwise 'dancing on air' to not ground this discussion in commonly accepted definitions of words. --66.69.219.9 00:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. The opposite of black is not white, it is 'not black', which includes grey of course. The opposite of 'belief in God' is a lack of belief in God, not a disbelief in God. The fact that *you* hold that you either believe in God or believe there is no God, does not mean that other people agree with you. A classic atheist position is that they see no evidence for God. This means if evidence appeared they would reconsider their position. A person that really did not believe in God, would not reconsider their position under any circumstances, since they hold it to be an ultimate truth.WolfKeeper

This 66 guy is violating 3RR & inserting the same POV vandalism in Scepticism and Agnosticism--JimWae 01:51, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) While I agree that it is somewhat disingenuous to claim atheism is not a belief system, as the disussion above and in voluminous archives indicates, this is a highly contentious point . And as Yath says above, the article is describing how the term is used, not applying prescriptive (and POV) standards. PS, I've been reduced to using an older broweser and I think I have inadvertently truncated the article (I suspect it is the length). I'd appreciate it if someone could fix it. Thanks. older≠wiser 01:54, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

He is pushing the same agenda in several articles. I have aksed him repeatedly to specify the proposition that atheists, agnostics, &/or sceptics believe. He comes back only unresponsively with ad hominems and claims that his view is the generally accepted one. To say that agnosticism & scepticism are "belief systems" and to insist on that terminology rather than their being a "point of view" is clearly an attempt to push an agenda --JimWae 02:04, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

I blocked him for 3RR violation. Andre (talk) 02:00, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Belief simply means that you think something is true. Atheism is a belief; it is the belief that there is/are no God/gods. I don't think that it would to be correct to call it a religion, but it is defiently a belief. I believe that the sky is blue, but that is not a religion. Phantom784 20:13, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Read the section on neutral atheism, and it will be apparent that not all atheists agree with your description of atheism--JimWae 20:20, 2005 September 8 (UTC)

--JPotter 23:21, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Bright

I made my only edit to the Atheism page and summarized it thusly: To assert that the rejection of 'belief' in anything undemonstrateable is itself a belief is an absurdity.

Over the past twenty years before their murders I had several conversations & visits with Madelyn & Jon Murray both in Texas & in New York. They helped me articulate the Atheist viewpoint and I think that it is useful that the Atheism page at Misplaced Pages should reflect it. Essentially the idea is that 'belief' is what is accepted as true in spite of having no basis which can be rationally, logically or scientifically demonstrated, tested or proven. Belief is, then, irrational, without logic, untestable, etc.; religions are based upon beliefs.

Atheism is not defined in terms of belief, then, except in the sense that it is a viewpoint which simply rejects any need for any beliefs. It is certainly not a 'belief system' which has no 'beliefs' because such a definition is recursive - meaningless. Even the word Atheism is itself a poor word to describe the viewpoint that no beliefs (in the sense I have explained belief) are necessary or even desireable in life. Religious people like to define things in ways that comfort them, of course, and describing people who acknowledge no need for or value in 'beliefs' as people 'without belief' or 'without faith' is a splendid example of how religious people describe people unlike them in a way that comforts themselves.

There are an awful lot of 'atheists' in the world, to be sure. I'd like to see all people who live without a need for belief, religious or otherwise, simply described as the 'logical, rational people', the people they spend their lives striving to be, and leave it at that. This is my first entry here on the talk page. 207.189.131.233 19:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Just use simple definitions people. Agnostics do not know what to believe. That is not a belief itself, it is confusion. There may be some people who call themselves agnostics and then state their beliefs but those people are not really agnostics. Some atheists do have a "belief." Those are the atheists who specifically do not believe any god exists and will state so. Other atheists simply lack belief. Those people do practice a "belief system." - 24.7.186.18 21:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

This has been argued to death many times before, so I'll just counter with a standard defense: if you don't believe in unicorns, leprechauns, or eskimoes, does that make a-unicornism, a-leprechaunism, and aneskimoism "belief systems?" If not, why not?

MFNickster 00:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly.207.189.131.233 00:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, if it comes to a point where there are coherent "-isms" to talk about regarding such positions, then yes, I'd say they would amount to a belief system of sorts (although a value system might be a less inflamatory description). (PS I'm not trying to defend the POV insertions recently reverted) older≠wiser 01:08, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, then - but I would then argue that your beliefs about unicorns, leprechauns and eskimoes are not in any kind of special category, separate from (or part of) any other beliefs you hold. Your "belief system" is no more about gods than it is leprechauns, unicorns or anything else you don't believe in. It only has special significance for theists, which is to say that without theism, there is no such thing as "atheism." It can only be a "belief system" in that frame of reference. MFNickster 01:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with MFNickster. And perhaps we "believe in logic", since it is so fundamental, but if some one is using occam's razor to avoid a set of infinite complex and contradictory with one another(Jesus was the messiah/Jesus was specifically not the messaih...ect) explainations, then I would not consider it to be a "believe system". Perhaps some Atheist believe that there definitively is no God, but others simply don't believe in one(assume that there is not one) until sufficient evidence suggest that there is one. Often in mathematics, assumptions are made in proofs which are shown to be false, which asserts the proof's premise be deduction(as long as there is one one alternative left). These assumptions are not definitive assertions, merely rational, temporary assumptions to avoid confusion stemming from infinite possibilities(All of which can not be true at once).Voice of All(MTG) 07:02, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Atheists don't 'believe' - they don't accept as true things which can't be shown to be true. Atheists have no need for the concept of 'belief' (a.k.a. 'faith'). When you write that Atheists 'believe' you stop making sense. The Atheist page is currently defining Atheism as a belief system with no beliefs again. If it's OK for the Misplaced Pages 'Jesus' page to be left intact even as it passes for 'fact' that Jesus performed miracles then I wish it would be OK for the Misplaced Pages 'Atheism' page to do a better job of explaining Atheism than as a belief system with no beliefs.207.189.187.70 13:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but it's obviously not the case, because it implies (through the definition of "believe") that atheists think nothing is true. Atheists in general have many beliefs (as do most people), the only thing in question is the basis for the belief. As many others have pointed out, you can accept as true a proposition that has been "demonstrated to be true" by someone else; you are taking it on faith that the demonstration is valid. I have certainly not performed experiments such as the Miller/Urey synthesis of amino acids, Michelson/Morley, etc., but I accept the results as true until someone claims that they are incorrect and gives evidence to back it up. Can I believe nothing unless I've seen it with my own eyes? MFNickster 05:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually the Jesus article does not claim that there is factual evidence that he performed miracles, merely that some people believe he did, others that he didn't. And as for the word "belief" it is not a synonym of faith as you seem to think it is. The common dictionary definition states that to believe is to accept as true or real, to credit with veracity, to have an opinion, etc. although it is also applied to those who have religious faith it is not exclusive to that usage. --TM 15:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

When Misplaced Pages makes room for discussions about religions it needs to add a few petabytes of storage in an initial attempt to contain all the talk because the talk about religion will be endless and unrestrained by logic or reason. In other words, I'm not going there. I'm not here to talk about the idea of Jesus and I regret bringing it up.

You invoke the authority of the dictionary to reject as my error the association of the words faith and belief as synonyms. I hereby invoke the same authority, without accusing you of intellectual sloppiness, and introduce you to the dictionary's entry for 'faith'. You'll note, I hope, that belief is not only a synonym for faith, but that faith is defined extensively in terms of belief and in the context of religion, to wit

  1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
  2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
  3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
  4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
  5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
  6. A set of principles or beliefs.

We now return you to the previous discussion where I agreed that it is absurd to explain atheism as a belief system without beliefs.207.189.187.70 16:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You're just confirming what I said, that faith incorporates the term belief, but that belief has a platitude of meaning outside of a religious context. Anyway, a belief system is a collection of convictions and stances concerning what one thinks is true, be they religious or not. The stance inherent in atheism is the absence of religious faith, right? So atheism is a belief system defined by an absence of religious faith. Where's the absurdity in that? The big problem with this discussion is that the anon that started it off is working on a definition of belief which strictly applies to religious belief, aka faith. --TM 17:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

To 207: Wow, I must have not worded what I said well...I don't think that atheism is a believe system. That is what I was trying to say. Some Athiest make assumptions, using logic, to avoid infinite, indescrete possibilites of high complexity(unmanagable). They would change their minds if something convincing happened. Other Atheist may beleive that there actually is no God, period; that would be a believe as it is irrational(can't be proven). Since only some Atheist have that belief, then it would not be appropriate to call all of Atheism a belief system.Voice of All(MTG) 18:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

To TM above: No, actually what you're saying about what I said is quite false and not at all true. My wording was quite explicitly to the contrary of what you are saying. What I said regarding atheism being a belief was:

"As is the case with similar non-deistic concepts in agnosticism, atheism comprises a belief system rather than a religion."

I'd say that I'm sorry for causing a hyperbolic, hyperspace "Twister" game regarding the definition of "belief," but many, many attempts were made -- and failed -- to ground the discussion in what Misplaced Pages and the dictionary say about the definition of "belief." It was the atheist community that -- unprovoked -- went running down the path of religious connotations...and quite laughably from my perspective. I even managed to keep my sense of humor when Andre, without any sort of appropriate warning, 'blocked' my IP address out of apparent lack of any intellectual ability to refute what I was saying, but on the tenuous technicality of committing the federal offense of violating the purity of the 3RR rule. In fact, Andre -- who clearly abused his Wiki-administrator privileges -- went on to say that he, too, agreed that it was disingenuous to stake out any sort of claim that Atheism wasn't a belief system. On that point, at least, he was right. And, as his personal page states, Andre is an atheist...and an IP-blocking one at that. --66.69.219.9 22:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

No. No. No. You do NOT agree with me when you say 'a belief system is a collection of convictions and stances concerning what one thinks is true, be they religious or not.' What I would agree with is that a belief system is an irrational (as in devoid of logic, of reason and lacking proof or demonstration) conviction about what is true. Atheism CANNOT be a belief system. Atheists DON'T HAVE BELIEFS, PERIOD. Atheiests reject beliefs. Atheists live without (as in free from) beliefs. That's what makes them Atheists! The idea of a belief system without beliefs is as nonsensical as the idea of an igloo at the heart of the sun and the comfort you derive from a feeling that Andre agrees with you won't ever give the idea any meaning at all.

As I stated above, I agree with 207 that not all of Atheism is a belief system. Though I would say that strong Atheism is a belief system, as one cannot prove that God does not exist(and such negative do need proof, as a man in the 1300s can claim that manned spacecraft are impossible to build, and nobody could disprove him, even though since 1969, such craft will actually end up exisiting...).Voice of All(MTG) 02:51, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

And would someone please throw an epistemological life preserver to JimWae...? The poor guy is having a mental breakdown over the meaning of "belief." Sheesh. Maybe the double citizenship has caused him to lose his foundations? --66.69.219.9 03:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

To 207: When you say something like "Atheists DON"T HAVE BELIEFS, PERIOD" you're evincing your misunderstanding concerning the word "belief", which is the crux of this entire discussion. If people earlier on in this discussion settled on a definition of "belief" that applied only to religious meaning then we have to correct that mistake. I've referenced a dictionary for the term belief, and shown that it is not restricted to religious belief. To my understanding Atheists do have beliefs (and I don't need a caps lock to say it). They believe the Bible is false, they believe something should be proven before it is adopted as truth. That is the meaning of belief outside of a religious context. You keep going back to your own vague strawman phrase of "a belief system without beliefs" which noone, at least not myself, is proposing. Please provide your sources for what you take as a given that Atheists have no beliefs in the sense I have specified. Most people here are atheists I'm guessing, including myself, so you don't need to be so zealous and defensive with your language. For now I've put the term "system of thought" in the opening since "state" is pretty inappropriate to define a theological/metaphysical outlook. --TM 07:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I just want to summarize my posts here in 'talk' and leave it at that. I'm not here to impose a vocabulary or a viewpoint, but to simply enter my viewpoint for others to consider. I spent several visits with Jon & Madelyn O'Hair refining it. It is fair to say, honestly, that I'm expressing their viewpoint accurately in my own statements. Madelyn encouraged me to write a book, Jon was a guest in my home and I will always remember both their discussions with me while I remain shocked at the tragedy of their demise (& Robyn). I have to mention this because my conversations with them are very much a part of my sources. Zealous doesn't describe me - I'm not involved in the Atheism page in any substantial way.

I appreciate the dictionary as a reference but it isn't a sacred document that has the power to absolutely define the boundaries of anyone's discussion, including this one. It isn't a satisfactory source to patently supercede our own discussions here, either. I respect it enough to invoke it above. In the context of a discussion of Atheism the word belief has a specific meaning - convictions which are not rational or supported by reason, and this is exactly what Atheists reject. Moreover, it isn't the responsibility of any Atheist anywhere to disprove something that is irrational. It isn't an obligation of an Atheist to disprove the convictions of any belief system as a requirement of rejecting it, either.

Wouldn't it have been nice if the people who compiled the dictionary had been nice enough to provide a definition for a 'belief system'. Then we wouldn't even have to talk about the various meanings of 'belief' and we could have a nice, neat explanation of what a 'belief system' is - convictions which have no rational, testable foundation, and Atheists would be people who reject irrational convictions!

Anyway, I now support not using the term "belief system" on the grounds that Atheism does not have a set of guiding principles which belief systems require (as is stated in the article). But I still think usage of the terms belief/believe should not be restricted to the religious meaning. --TM 08:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Template

I've removed the NPOV template, as there are little or no blatant POV issues in the article. FeloniousMonk 06:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

And I have restored it, because it is apparent to everyone else that there is a substantial POV issue _regarding_ the article and what constitutes Atheistic beliefs.

It's not what's _in_ the article, Felonius...it's what keeps being POV-deleted from it: specifically an honest, straightforward description that Atheism incorporates beliefs.

Example deletion/POV vandalism: the deletion of the very NPOV comments from Madalyn O'Hair.

Offender in this case: JimWae, who is clearly overwrought on this topic and not being neutral at all.

P.S. Get well soon, Jim. — Unsigned by 66.69.219.9. Please see WP:SIG. Thanks. El_C 06:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)