Talk:Atheism

Archives

Discussion on this article has been archived.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

• Archive 1: Discussion prior to December 14, 2001
• Archive 2: December 2001
• Archive 3: January 2002
• Archive 4: December 2002-August 2003
• Archive 5: January 2004
• Old debate on uppercase "God" vs. lowercase "god" with poll, and resolution
• Archive 6: June 2004
• Archive 7: August 2004
• Archive 8: October 2004
• Archive 9: October 2004
• Archive 10: November 2004
• Archive 11: November 2004
• Archive 12: November 2004
• Talk:Atheism/Archive 13
• Talk:Atheism/Archive 14
• Talk:Atheism/Archive 15
• Talk:Atheism/Archive 16
• Talk:Atheism/Archive 17
• Talk:Atheism/Archive 18
• /Archive 19
• /Archive 20

Let's break up the textual monotony!

What can we do to break up the textual monotony? Some images? How about a timeline in History? Some type of graph/chart in Statistics? Adraeus 03:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I have no idea if enough data exists to support such a thing, but I'd love to see a chart that graphs the waxing and waning of major religions over the millenia as percentages of the human population on the planet. I thinkit would be useful to show that (say) even though worshipers of Moloch were a big deal in the -2000s (I'm making my data up), they had trended away to nothingness by the first century. It could, of course, also show all the "unaffiliated" folks.

Otherwise, yes, some pie charts of the present situation would help, as might a photo or drawing of any famous atheist philosophers.

It would probably also help to archive a great deal of the debate on this page. Atlant 10:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

wow, that would be quite a different project. also almost impossible, since it is difficult to say when one "religion" ends and the next begins, not to mention the scarce population statistics of the Bronze Age :)

But how about an image of poor Löffler, my medieval atheist, being burned? There is an image of that by Diebold Schilling the Elder. But we may not want to emphasize an "atheists were burned at the stake!"-type statement visually. dab (ᛏ) 12:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But we may not want to emphasize an "atheists were burned at the stake!"-type statement visually.

I dunno; isn't that what we're headed for again? People might as well know. :-) / 2

And yes, I understood that my proposed chart would need a lot of data that's really not in evidence. Atlant 13:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Such a graph is, like dab said, nearly impossible; however, if you provide the data one of us can create the graph. ;) Adraeus 17:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, here's some data on Major religions Ranked by Size. Puts "non-religious" at 14% of the world population, some 800 million. Maybe we should make our own graph of it? Indefual 13:22, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

---

How about some photos of some atheists in charming native costumes, or doing some kind of traditional atheist dance? --BM 17:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eh? That's the first non-serious comment I've read from you... unless you're actually being serious? Adraeus 17:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I tried typing 'atheist', 'costume' and 'dance' into google, but was unable to find anything. Oh well. Aaarrrggh 09:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hilarious, this mini thread gets a thumbs up from me >8)--Lord Shitzu 18:28, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

---

If we are to use images of atheist-philosophers, who would we show, why, and where? Adraeus 17:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that Epicurus is an obvious choice; J.J.C. Smart would be another, as would Karl Popper or Bertrand Russell. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can ask John for a photo and for permission to post that photo of him in Wikipedia, if we decide to go with him. Bertrand Russel is a somewhat good option, however, his rantings and ravings about the lunacy of theism and Christianity don't bode well for those readers. Epicurus and Popper are definitely good options. Adraeus 18:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Epicurus is a good choice! [2] he almost looks like God himself, too ;o) Charles Bradlaugh is another obvious candidate. Maybe Loeffler and Bradlaugh's cartoon? dab (ᛏ) 17:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Voltaire? Naw, just kidding. Adraeus 18:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

not just a gallery of pundit's heads, please. ever resourceful google has a few suggestions. I particularly like this one, for example. Or how about this proponent of "Christian Atheism"? dab (ᛏ) 18:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't we have the invisible pink unicorn show up at some point? Aaarrrggh 09:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. A photograph of Richard Dawkins would be good, as he's a well-known and outspoken aetheist. He wrote a good article for The Guardian on September 15, 2001 about religion and 9/11, which I'd like to work into this article in some way. He writes of the hijackers: "Those people were not mindless and they were certainly not cowards. On the contrary, they had sufficiently effective minds braced with an insane courage, and it would pay us mightily to understand where that courage came from. It came from religion ... To fill a world with religion ... is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used." [3] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:32, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking about this before, and I think I may have come up with a fairly good idea. Why don't we use a few pictures of well known atheists, starting in chronological order as the article itself progresses? For example, we could start off with Epicurus, then move onto perhaps some enlightenment thinkers such as Paul Baron d'Holbach, towards more modern outspoken atheists such as Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins. Perhaps we could do something like this, where we follow the chain of outspoken atheist/rationalist types? I personally think this would be better than just adding a picture of one random atheist, and might help illustrate the continuity of the basic principles of the ideas associated with atheism quite well. Aaarrrggh 14:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is definitely the direction I think we should be taking.

Atlant 15:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:15, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins' atheism is controversial considering his overt overly negative conception of theism, religion, especially of Christianity. I think using his photo would be more of a "slap in the face" to theists. Because theists are part of the readership, we don't want to do that. Moreover, while Dawkins is a popular atheist, he's primarily involved with zoology, and associating his image perceived by theists with atheism would only further their negative perception of atheism and its adherents. Can we not find a less-abusive and civil figure in philosophy or the philosophy of science that can represent atheism fairly? Adraeus 02:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I personally think that Richard Dawkins should probably be included in this article. He is certainly a very high profile atheist (possibly the most high profile living atheist at the moment??), and I don't personally think that an article on atheism should necessarily be tamed in order not to offend certain people and certain sensibilities. It is true that many find his style aggressive and perhaps confrontational, but it is also true that he is a very high profile atheist who is as respected by some as he is abhored by others. The fact that he is practically evangelical with his atheism and such a controversial figure makes his inclusion more necessary, not less, in my opinion. Aaarrrggh 16:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right, of course Dawkins should be mentioned (I say this through gritted teeth, because though I like him as a person, I find his approach to atheism alternately embarrassing and infuriating). He's nothing to do with zoology, incidentally. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nothing to do with zoology? Is that why he has a BA degree in zoology, was an assistant professor of zoology at UC Berkeley, and was a lecturer and reader in zoology at Oxford University? Because he has "nothing to do with zoology, incidentally"? Adraeus 22:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Photos of the Invisible Pink Unicorn

File:Ipu.gif

Aaarrrggh sugests:

Couldn't we have the invisible pink unicorn show up at some point?

Putting up a photo of the IPU (which, of course, would simply be an empty box, or a background with nothing in the foreground, or what-have-you) would actually be very funny, and exactly on point. However, it would probably royally tick-off those Wikipedians who seem to have a near-fatal allergy to humor.

I think we should go for it!

Atlant 12:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've put one up. I used the standard logo, but there's a nicer looking one, which is actually a picture of a pink unicorn (see left). It's just not as common, though I'd prefer it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:59, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I guess I'm one of those people with the near-fatal allergy to humor; but I wouldn't like a picture or non-picture of IPU to be associated with this article. Atheism isn't a very visual concept, I guess, and actually I don't feel a great a need to break up all that "textual tedium" with images or pie-charts. --BM 13:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the IPU is "internet atheism" and shouldn't be featured in the intro of a serious article on atheism. But we can put it under "contemporary atheism" somewhere. If we must have an image in the intro, it should either be Epicurus' mugshot, or a relevant title page, e.g. of Holbach's book. dab (ᛏ) 13:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

File:Invisiblepinkunicorn.gif

The Invisible Pink Unicorn, a logo of the atheist movement. [1]

It seems a pity to have an article on aetheism with showing the aetheist logo. This is a visually dull page but anything other than the logo is going to be relevant only indirectly. No one is known for being a famous aetheist and nothing else. I suggest we have some sort of poll here, first to decide whether to use the logo, and then, if the answer is yes, to decide which one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

while I'm familiar with the IPU, I'm not familiar with the logo. It is an emerging meme, at best, and it's certainly preimmature to call it "the atheist logo" (immature is used adverbially here, btw, no personal attack implied; just in case). I'm happy to have it in the article body, somewhere, just not in the intro. dab (ᛏ) 13:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean "premature"? I called it "a logo of the atheist movement" for that very reason. The more common logo (right). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

doh. apologies. You didn't, though, you said "It seems a pity to have an article on aetheism with showing the aetheist logo."dab (ᛏ) 13:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I meant in the cutline. See right. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:02, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

sorry, I may be confused. I parsed your sentence as "It seems a pity to have an article on atheism without showing the atheist logo." (since "It seems a pity to have an article on atheism with the atheist logo." seems to be BM's, not your, position), but you may have to spell it out for me again. dab (ᛏ) 14:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a very obscure "logo". Nobody who is not familiar with IPU would recognize it, and not even most of them. As for IPU, her celebrity status on alt.atheism to the contrary notwithstanding, most people are not familiar with her either, even atheists. In general, I don't think we need to be so deferential towards a satire that has expanded a bit beyond alt.atheism to become a very, very minor Internet meme. I think it trivializes atheism to associate the main article in the Wikipedia about it with IPU. Anyway, Wikipedia already has an article on IPU, and we don't need to drag her into this article except, at most, as a "See also" link. It doesn't bother me at all that the page is "visually dull", as long as it is accurate and informative. I don't think we have to bend over backwards to find images to tart it up. --BM 14:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's as obscure as you say. It gets around 5,000 hits on Google, 13,000 on Google groups, and it's notable enough for its own Wikipedia entry. It would be somewhat obtuse to have an article on atheism that doesn't mention it and show it, especially as the point of the article is to educate people, not just to tell them things they already know. Anyway, we can have a poll. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:16, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Are you talking about IPU or the logo? IPU is not obscure on the Internet, I would agree, although if you don't hang out in alt.atheism, you might not have come across her. I would say her notability is borderline, and it would be more trouble than it was worth to nominate the Wikipedia article for VFD. (I thought about it, before spending a lot of time improving the article.) For an Internet phenomenon, those Google hits aren't that many, by the way. As for the logo, until I was involved in the editing of the IPU article I was unfamiliar with it, and I knew about IPU. The present article is about more than two thousand years of the history and philosophy of atheism -- not "Atheism on the Internet". Please write Atheism on the Internet, if you want. It might be interesting. For example, it might cover various Internet atheist phenomena as alt.atheism, IPU, the Evil Atheist Conspiracy, and the many atheist web sites. Why, I think "weak atheism" is mainly an Interet phenomenon, and you could throw that in, too, along with IPU and EAC. But that is not this article, and I think it is a bit narcissistic for an online encyclopedia to give various Internet manifestations too much prominence in serious articles about philosophical topics, and tends to trivialize them. --BM 14:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and "strong atheism" is merely a phenomenon originating from arrogant ignorance. Quit trivializing "weak atheism" as some sort of trend. Weak atheism has been in existence far longer than your beloved "positive" atheism. Adraeus 02:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had heard of it, and I don't post on or read Usenet. The present article isn't called History of Atheism. Of course, its history and philosophy will make up the bulk of article, but that's no reason to exclude other aspects that may be of interest to readers, and this is one of them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:38, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of the Invisible Pink Unicorn until I came to Wikipedia. With that said, I don't think mentioning the IPU is encyclopedically significant. The IPU logo is also without any decipherable, relevant, and useful meaning to a so-called "atheism movement"... other than it being a logo with practical uses. Adraeus 02:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

em rules and en rules

the dashes. see Talk:Atheism/dashes. dab (ᛏ) 18:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request peer review?

Anyone want to do this? Wikipedia:Peer_review Adraeus 09:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Asking more people to bring gasoline to a fire rarely helps extinguish the fire. This article is simply about one of "those" topics and it will NEVER be successfully completed to everyone's satisfaction using the Wikipedian collaborative-editing model -- sorry.  :Atlant 11:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What issues require peer review, in your opinion. It might be helpful to write them down. I don't suppose it is the use of en dashes versus em dashes. --BM 12:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Peer review is a step towards featured article status, not some sort of cry for help. Try Wikipedia:Articles in need of attention or RfC, if its not already listed there. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I din't interpret the question as Adraeus proposing that the article be put through the process for Featured article. I could have been mistaken. By the way, the article has been on RFC forever. I guess we should leave it to Adraeus to clarify what he meant. --BM 13:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is there to clarify? My question only requires clarification if you're assuming my intent is something other than good faith. Now with regards to the actual topic, rather than BM's insinuations, I thought Wikipedia:Peer review was a more formal version of Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but now that I've actually read the introduction to Wikipedia:Peer_review, I guess not. Considering that atheism is already listed for RfC, nevermind. (Wouldn't featured article status be nice though?) Adraeus 02:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heck yeah, thats my goal w every article. The way to it w this page would be writing for the enemy so as to achieve a page everybody can live with. All reasonable parties anyhow. Get that done and the filling in the blanks and minor details (like an image) is all thats left. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 19:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BM's question has yet to be answered. What are thought to be the substantial areas of dispute in the article? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BM's question is not answerable since his question was asked based on his misunderstanding and reinterpretation of the original question. Adraeus 22:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well try my question then. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What constitutes a "substantial area of dispute"? Adraeus 09:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anything other than bickering about punctuation and asking for clarification when none is needed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The introduction is probably the most substantial area of dispute; however, that's probably because we haven't cleared up several issues. For starters, the introduction barely summarizes the article. The article's summary is focused on the History of atheism. Adraeus 14:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is getting a little tangled, and we are talking past each other. When Adraeus asked whether this article should be submitted for peer review, I assumed he intended it as a form of dispute resolution. Naturally, I asked him to clarify what he thought the dispute was about. We've had so many disputes over the months, but it seems like most of them have settled down and we've all compromised our way to relative harmony (or maybe it is exhaustion). I didn't think there were any remaining hot disputes, and that we were down to arguing about dash length, and the like -- just, you know, to keep ourselves in arguing trim. Then, Sam raised a possibility that hadn't occurred to me, which was that Adraeus wanted the article peer-reviewed as a prerequisite to a Featured Article nomination. So, at this point, I'm a bit lost, since Adraeus still hasn't said why he thinks the article should be peer-reviewed. --BM 11:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, SS raised that possibility after Adraeus had said that he'd thought that Peer review was "was a more formal version of" RfC. In other words, your assumption about his intentions was correct; I admit that his later comment doesn't make sense (BM's "question was asked based on his misunderstanding and reinterpretation of the original question"), but there you are. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, his assumption about my intentions is DEAD WRONG. Maybe now my later comment makes sense, eh? Fitting that you would assume the worst. Here, I'll outline my intent with the initial question: bring more people to the party. There you have it! Nothing wildly mysterious. Nothing you can possibly imagine—apparently. My objective for the initial question was that simple. When I discovered that peer review was designed for featuring an article, I said NEVERMIND. Does the emboldened text help CLARIFY issues for you? I sure as hell hope it does. Adraeus 14:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Putting it on PR will most probable only be useful if we request community comments on a particular topic. If we want to raise this to FA quality, we have quite a long way to go. I do not think it can be done, since too many editors are phrase-hugging and uncompromising. Never mind, it's a fair article, even if not brilliant or accomplished, and as such a good resource on the topic. If you do want community input, put it on FAC anyway and see what objections are raised. dab (ᛏ) 11:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In general I agree. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

dab, I also agree that changing this article is a lot of work and that some changes that I would consider improvements are currently impossible. (That said, changes which others might regard as improvements, but which I would consider a loss of ground, are also impossible.) However, I wonder what YOU think still needs to be done to the article to make it FA quality -- regardless of whether that is achievable, or not. --BM 12:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since I introduced myself to editing this article, I've made my objective clear to all who wouldn't deafen their ears: increase the quality of this article so that one day it may be a featured article. I've said this on numerous occasions, which is why I am distraught when some editors (namely, BM and Mel Etitis) dare to accuse me of acting contrary to good faith. READ Wikipedia:Assume good faith BEFORE YOUR EYES FALL OUT FROM THE EMBOLDENED TEXT. Adraeus 14:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't really know what you're talking about, but it would be very useful if you could answer the question that BM and I have asked.

On the question of featured articles, I must admit now that I never think about them, I don't look at them, and I've no interest in the process. I'm only interested in making Wikipedia better, and more specifically in making the articles on which I'm working better; if that happens to result in a featured article, fine. I don't have any objection to the featured-article process (well, a faint feeling that it can turn into a bit of an ego thing if people aren't careful), I'm just not interested personally. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You don't know what I'm talking about? Heaven's me, that's typical! What would be more useful is if you could not ignore the answers I give to your questions. Yes, that would certainly be useful. Even more useful would be you leaving Wikipedia but you're not that productive. I hope the sarcasm isn't lost on you. After all, sarcasm is useful. =*( Adraeus 18:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to interject that boldfacing or h1'ing comments does not particularly increase the likelihood of my paying attention to them. dab (ᛏ) 19:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Relationship to definition of god

The meaning of "atheism" depends on the meaning of "god" to some degree. Self definition as an atheist is denying some specific concept of god and not every possible concept of god. Example, many atheists today would accept that they are not disbelievers in "the universe", which is one possible concept of god. Also, in defining someone else as an atheist one is saying their beliefs do not include what I conceive of as qualifying as a god. Example, Christians were considered atheists by many when the religion was young. It is often the case with a new belief that its followers and teachings are labeled more for what they don't believe than for what they do believe. Context matters. 4.250.198.191 00:12, 11 Apr 2005

---

The above text was moved to Talk for obvious reasons. Adraeus 09:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He makes a very good point. For example few atheists concieve of, much less disbelieve my God. Usually its an anthropomorphic Calvinist God their rejecting, in my experience (A God I also reject, incidentilly). Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 09:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The first point the anon makes doesn't stand up. Of course atheists don't disbelieve in the existence of the universe, they just don't believe that it's god (just as most atheists don't disbelieve in the existence of Jesus, but again, they deny that he was divine). Much of what's in the passage is in any case covered elsewhere in the article. It's just a rather poorly written personal essaylet by someone who hasn't read the rest of the article very carefully. I agree with Adraeus in taking it out. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

there's a good point in there somewhere, but it is not well put at all. We are not required to clean up anon's text for him. The point is made, more or less, in the article already, therefore remove. dab (ᛏ) 11:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I'm not sure that you are right about the nature of the God that strong atheists typically reject. I am sure it runs the gamut from anthropomorphic God-in-the-sky, to the Deist Creator-God, to the pantheist God that you worship. In my experience, strong atheists are quite sophisticated in their knowledge of religion and philosophy, and know about a variety of possible conceptions of God, rejecting all of them. This is only my personal experience, and I wouldn't make generalizations from it in the absence of data. However, you shouldn't either. --BM 20:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

our definition of atheism relies on the deity article, which in turn defines a deity as essentially supernatural. Atheists according to this reject the supernatural. I don't know if there are atheist spiritists, but they are in fringe territory since it is almost impossible to separate deity from spirit, historically. Calling the Universe "God", to the atheist, is just silly terminology, since it's already called "the Universe", and since it is not supernatural at all, but rather the sum of everything natural. Atheists would also reject anything "outside" the Universe as an oxymoron. dab (ᛏ) 20:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'spiritist'; could you explain? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think your last comment, dab, is always true. For instance, not all atheists would reject Star Trek-space travel as oxymoronic, and there are certainly some theoretical astrophysicists who would disagree with the idea that there exists only a single "Universe". Rationally, to claim there is only a single "Universe" — directly or indirectly — is premature considering our exploration of time/space is so limited. Adraeus 23:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

of course with "Universe" I do not mean "known Universe", but universum, i.e. "all" by definition. As long as hyperspace is describable with natural laws, there is no reason to call it "supernatural". With 'spiritist' I mean, belief in (disembodied) spirits. Polytheistic gods are not different in essence from disembodied spirits, so I believe it would be misleading to call an occultist without belief in a single God an atheist. dab (ᛏ) 05:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It sounds, then, as though you're lumping dualists in with what you mean by 'spiritist', in which case I have to disagree; there are many atheists who are dualists (I'm one of them), just as there have been many theists who are physicalists. Moreover polytheists gods are different from mere dismbodied spirits (for a start, of course, they needn't be disembodied), and polytheistic religions generally make clear distinctions between the two. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

wait a minute, by "dualist" do you mean Zoroastrian/Gnostic-style belief in two deities? Then you are clearly outside our present definition. An atheist needs to reject both monotheism and polytheism (including the special cases of Henotheism and Dualism). We say that an atheist rejects theistic beliefs. Theistic beliefs are belief in deities, and deities we define as supernatural. A "physicalist theist" believes that there are powerful but natural beings (such as aliens)? Not a theist, then. Polytheistic gods may be embodied, they need not even be immortal (megas Pan tethneken), but they need to be supernatural in some way, otherwise they are just an elite (human, alien, elvish or what have you), but not gods. dab (ᛏ) 11:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I realize, belatedly, that you mean the "other" dualism, belief in an otherworld. You need then to decide that both worlds are really on a par, and their conjunction may be considered the "Universe", or, if you assume a hierarchy, one of these worlds as "natural", and the other as "super-natural", and if you furthermore assume that the supernatural world contains "entities" (excluding the boundary case of an "empty otherworld", probably applicable to Buddhism), you are, by our definition, a theist. It sounds like you may be a polytheist after all, Mel. (I am myself uncertain whether to classify myself as a polytheist with atheistic leanings, or vice versa, or a naturalist with a taste for philosophical monotheism, hell I don't know. Luckily, nobody cares :) dab (ᛏ) 11:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dualism is a heavily overloaded term. I think Mel is probably labelling himself a dualist in the Cartesian sense. In the philosophy of mind, a materialist considers that there is only the material world, and that "minds" as separate entities do not exist. A dualist asserts the existence of "minds" and "mental" objects as separate from material "bodies". This gives rise to the famous "mind-body problem": what is the nature of the interaction between "minds" and "bodies"? Probably most atheists who have considered the problem are materialists, but I don't think an atheist is obliged to adopt any particular view regarding the mind-body problem. The world of "minds" and "mental" objects need not be identified with the "supernatural". Christians with their notion of persistent, ghost-like "souls" that go to "Heaven" to be with "God", etc, seem to conflate the two, though --BM 11:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

as long as you assume the "mind" space operates strictly causal, you remain a materialist, the mind-body problem is reduced to the question of interaction between two weakly coupled, but entirely 'natural' subspaces. As soon as you assume the 'mind' space is somehow exempt from cause and effect, you are in 'spiritist' and/or 'theist' territory. Early polytheism is not clearly separable from spiritism / animism / ancestor worship. If you believe in ghosts and (non-material/non-causal) souls, but not God, you may classify yourself among early polytheists, typologically. dab (ᛏ) 12:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BM's right about my position (sorry, I didn't make myself clear; it's because in philosophy 'dualist' is rarely used to refer to anything else but mind–body dualism).

It's wrong to say that because the mind is causally related to the body therefore it's material; that makes an assumption which is either question-begging or ungrounded (or both). Moreover, those who hold that mind doesn't have effects on body (such as epiphenomenalists) are usually materialists. And I don't see how believing in non-causal minds would bring one in to polytheism... what's the connection? You seem to be simply identifying such a position with polytheism by definition, but that's not really on (and certainly lies outside normal definitions of the term). But this isn't the place to debate such a complex and difficult issue. I avoid the articles related to such matters, but I'd be happy to discuss it by e-mail, or on my Talk page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this should be taken to Talk:deity. We seem to agree that atheism means "absence or rejection of belief in deities", so what we should argue about is how to define deity, otherwise our definition on atheism is worthless. 'materialist' doesn't mean 'belief that the world consists of little hard polyhedrons' anymore. It means belief that there is a set of abstract natural laws that have no exceptions and are fully consistent. Whether these operate in 'mind' or in 'body' space is irrelevant. But I agree to terminate this discussion at this point, since it will not lead to modifications of the present article. See you on Talk:deity sometime, maybe? dab (ᛏ) 12:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather not get involved with Talk:Deity, to be honest. And use of 'materialist' to refer to immaterial minds would be rather odd. But if you want to discuss this on User talk:Mel Etitis/Mind and body, I'd be happy to set out my views and arguments at greater length. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

gladly. WP is not a discussion forum, but it may lead to improvements on deity eventually, so it seems justified to have that discussion. dab (ᛏ) 13:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Some atheists reject the undefined or unprovable or nonobjective object others claim to hold in awe, worship, and/or pray to as it is not rightfully called god in their view. So their rejection is not so much a rejection of the object they call god as it is a rejection that what they call god is rightfully called god. Other atheists claim to reject objective proveable or anthropormorphic gods while reserving judgement for objects they lack evidence for or believe in but call by another name (laws of physics - I don't stop believing in them just cause you want to call them god). 4.250.27.212 23:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Use of the term currently and over time is mixed in with discussion of the belief in The concept currently and over time and Analysis of the term currently and over time. While no one frame or structure is best, perhaps a section labeled Use of the term would help. 4.250.27.212 00:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some who are atheists by one or more definitions of the term never-the-less claim not to be atheists. Some who claim to be atheists never-the-less behave in ways that appear to be evidence they hold theistic beliefs (pray, reverance, church attendance, giving money to a church, bowing to an idol (an Indian software engineer I knew; his grandmother in India mailed him a stone carved god !) 4.250.27.212 01:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What would help this article meet the needs of its typical English speaking reader? 4.250.27.212 04:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

if you call the laws of physics "God" you're just fooling with semantics. You can also call them "Zebra" without having an effect on Zoology. Participation in religious rites you don't believe in obviously doesn't keep you from being an atheist. There may be a strong ethical code not to deny your position among some atheists, but for others it may be just as acceptable to participate in any religious behaviour whatsoever, since they don't think it matters in the least. dab (ᛏ) 12:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm refering to belief structures the believer does not call "the laws of physics" but after applying Occam's Razor they boil down to that. Most people I talk to who believe in Pantheism can't point to a single real world provable result if Pantheism were true that differs from the results if "the laws of physics" are true. They believe in "Entities multiplied beyond necessity". I find no reason to distinguish atheism from atheism with belief in entities that result in no known difference to the objectively verifyable universe, which I believe to be the case for many believers in Pantheism and the like. 4.250.27.74 18:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What constitutes a "god"? Is a "god" only such a being if imbued with monotheistic (Christian) traits? [4] [5] Or is a "god" simply "any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force"? [6] Apparently, the definitions of atheism in the article are inapplicable if the non-academic uses of the term "atheism" really apply to theists — today. But is such re-application valid given the etymological construction of "atheism" meaning "a-" "-theism"? How would we make this distinction more clear? And is revamping the introduction and Types of atheism to make the distinction clear necessary? Adraeus 19:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you both have a point. Pantheism is often virtually indistinguishable from atheism (I rediscovered that on Brethren of the Free Spirit, yesterday.) Maybe it really does boil down to a matter of terminology. As long as we have the "supernatural" in the definition of deity, the laws of nature do not qualify as (part of) a deity. But I am not so sure anymore the "supernatural" (whatever that means) is really a prerequisite :o\ If Emperors can be divine, it seems that simply accumulating enough "mana" (which may be a perfectly natural substance) makes you a deity. dab (ᛏ) 07:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The term supernatural is actually a reference to a belief in the supernatural. That is, to designate something as "supernatural", one must believe in the supernatural. ... "supernatural" is a null phrase, being self-contradictory, in that if something exists, it is "natural" and must conform to the "natural laws" of the Universe in which it exists. From this it follows that something "unnatural" cannot exist except as imaginary items, and that this must necessarily include instances of the so called "supernatural". As the consensus model of our Baryonic Universe precludes most of the attributes which people would claim are required for gods, and as no evidence or necessity for such beings appear to exist, ... gods [are] less likely than tooth-fairies. — Hermit. [7]

Adding to that, the definition of supernatural in some contexts may simply be "of or relating to scientifically inexplained phenomena". For example, I may claim "the standard monotheistic God is inherently supernatural" which would mean — as an implicit atheist — that the monotheistic God may be beyond our current scientific models of "reality". Adraeus 07:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

yes, but the question is, can you believe that there is no such thing as "supernatural" phenomena, other than as-yet-unexplained nature, and still believe in deities? Anyway I have replaced super- with preter- on deity now, which makes for a somewhat looser definition. dab (ᛏ) 09:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A person can believe in anything and still believe in deities.

• "All belief is essentially irrational, as belief can only occur where acceptance is not compelled, for if acceptance is compelled, then belief is not required to accept that thing. Belief is thus the acceptance of some thing as being provisionally true where: contradictory evidence exists which throws doubt upon or compels the rejection of the thing being accepted as truth; or where insufficient evidence exists to compel or suggest acceptance of the thing as truth." — Hermit.
• "Belief is the impress made upon our minds when we are under the spell of or in subjection to another." — Hypatia of Alexandria

Bottomline: "A believer does not require evidence that justifies his/her beliefs in order to believe." — Adraeus ;)

In the spirit of Occam's Razor: Belief is not bound by rationality. Despite evidence that falsifies (or suggests falseness of) objects of belief, the number of objects of belief is infinite and expansive, like the universe [as we know it]. To directly answer your question: we can accept — based on evidence, assertions, and sound models of "reality" provided by trusted sources (including logic devised through critical thinking) — that the attribute "supernatural" is a misnomer, a null attribute, contradictory, and/or ambiguous (being uniquely defined from points-of-emission), and we can retain theistic beliefs. Adraeus 10:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

no. I would not consider something that is self-contradictory a belief, because it is not even a statement. If we define deities as "supernatural", you can not at the same time reject the concept of supernatural and accept the concept of deity. It's not about true or untrue, it's about consistency (come on, this is straightforward). You claim the concept of 'supernatural' is self-contradictory in itself, but I do not accept that. Nor is credo quia absurdum - it is the position that there are (whatever are means, here) things unaccessible to any human notion of causality or consequence. This is not self-contradictory in itself, although it is of course unverifiable. It only becomes that if you at the same time accept and reject this position. dab (ᛏ) 10:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Before I can properly reply, you'll need to rewrite your response in order to preserve the coherence of your original meaning. Adraeus 11:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

um. struck out tangents to increase coherence. Maybe we should just drop it, though. dab (ᛏ)

I still can't derive reason from your reply, and I don't want to reply as if I know what you are talking about; otherwise, we'll get off-topic. I think you are somehow misreading what I wrote about beliefs and the oxymoronic nature of "supernatural", or you simply have not given that which I wrote enough consideration. Excluding the "no", your first claim doesn't make any sense. Your second claim ignores mental illness, delusion, and self-deception. And your third claim seems to state that beliefs require consistency. (Beliefs are not bound by reason, logic, and consistency. Beliefs can be in whatever-whenever regardless of logical ridiculousness. See also: Christianity [8] [9]) Further clarification of the quotes above, too, seems unneeded and extremely difficult. I'd simply be repeating myself if I tried. Adraeus 11:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well, it seems you just disagree with me then. You link to the same (atheist) text by one Chad Docterman, twice. If we talk about that, we'll get sidetracked, but I don't think it would raise any scholastic eyebrows. I don't think we'll get any further if you expect me to ponder the intricacies of your implications, while you are at liberty to dismiss my statements as 'making no sense'. Maybe you should give it some more consideration. Yes, I assert that a belief that can be stated is necessarily consistent. Just because some atheists say the concept of God is not consistent doesn't make it so. A mystic may want to express the ineffability of his experience with self-contradictions, but that is outside the concept of "belief". A belief implies a statement, e.g. "The Holy Spirit emanates from the Son". You say that, and then you say "this, I believe". This belief makes sense assuming you grant that "Holy Spirit", "to emanate" and "the Son" are meaningful concepts. If you do (of course you don't, but assuming), the statement may be true or untrue, but it is not self-contradictory. "Linear, singularity and trinity equate to evil math within Nature's Cubic Creation." or "green ideas sleep furiously" or "the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe" are not statements, and therefore they cannot be believed or disbelieved. dab (ᛏ) 12:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Beliefs do not require verbal admissions of holding. Beliefs can be demonstrated by behavior and "knowledge" of other subjects. Beliefs are not required to make sense to be held true. Beliefs are not required to be falsifiable. Beliefs can regard anything regardless of logical ridiculousness. Belief allows us to deceive ourselves. Belief is irrational. "God is and God isn't." That doesn't make sense? How can God be and God not be? Right. That's a logical error; however, belief doesn't require logic to be held true. Simply because there's a flaw in a belief doesn't necessitate a belief to be false. A belief can never be false to a believer. A belief can always be held true. Adraeus 18:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taoism and Buddhism (in History section)

We currently have the following:

the practical application of these worldviews to religious thought remains atheistic

This could be a whole lot clearer. I'd clarify it myself, if I were entirely sure what the intent was. (This somewhat goes to the above "what constitutes a god" discussion, perhaps, as many of the proposed criteria are found in assorted branches of Buddhism, though none are necessitated by its basic precepts.) Alai 05:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This relates to atheism in behavior rather than atheism in belief. Atheism in behavior is inadequately dealt with in this article. The article as it stands is more about atheism as it relates to professors of philosophy having a tete-a-tete than to a pantheist, a Catholic, and an atheist discussing the implications of atheism to stem cell research, capital punishment, prayer, or purpose in life.

"the practical application of these worldviews to religious thought remains atheistic" So what is the "practical application" of atheism? A behavior section would be useful. Maybe Atheism and behavior should exist ? 4.250.27.129 19:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking Atheism and behavior would be rather stublike: "Atheists act like everyone else, but they use different justifications." --Yath 20:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't really follow. In many respects, Buddhists (to particularise) don't act like atheists; and how does this relate to "religious thought"? I'm inclined to rewrite this as saying that deities and worship thereof isn't required by Buddhism, and would be seen by almost all adherents as subsidiary to its fundamentals, or some such form of words. (Am vaguer about the role of deities in Taoism.) Whether this would clarify or completely change the original intent I'm honestly in the dark about. Alai 06:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't really follow this. It would probably help me if you could say how atheists act, and then I could judge whether or not Buddhists act like that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyone want to collaberate?

The article as it stands alludes to but does not deal with in a clear, direct, specific way the concerns expressed in response to my abortive first attempt. Let us alter the article in an attempt to address the above concerns in a more clear way than it does now. Please do not simply revert any change. Some changes can be seeds for the clarity needed. Anyone care to COLLABERATE in an attempt to better address the issues discussed just now? 4.250.132.149 16:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heck yeah! Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 20:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you put your proposed wording on this Talk page and let people discuss it first. To be honest, your first attempt was not very clear, and it was probably reverted because the editor didn't know where to start in working it into the article in a reasonable way. --BM 21:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suggest adding the following as the second sentence: "In contexts where there are disagreements concerning "What qualifies as deities?" there are thus disagreements concerning "What qualifies as atheism?" (for a possible example see pantheism)." I did add this as the second sentence of the article. My prior attempt to add a comment to the END of the article was thrown away. THIS attempt was thrown away. One might get the idea that some people think their prose can not be improved upon. Nhaaah that can't be it. So, guys, where do we go from here? 4.250.132.149 01:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you want your prose and style critiqued, call upon Mel Etitis. I'm certain he'll be reasonably harsh, and lesser than I would.Adraeus 01:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that sentence was justifiably removed because it is completely unclear and vague, and anyway making it the second sentence dives into details far too early in the article. By the way, there is already long paragraph concerning definitions of God in the Types of Atheism section. --BM 11:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I asked "where do we go from here?" BM refers me to "paragraph concerning definitions of God in the Types of Atheism section" which is a good place to start. The last sentence "Most (though not necessarily all) atheists who deny the existence of deities as supernatural beings would probably also deny this and similar conceptions of God, or consider them to be incomprehensible." While without doubt perfect in every way (just my sense of humor, I figure I'm just gonna get shot down again, so I might as well make light of it) I feel it doesn't adequately cover "Maybe it really does boil down to a matter of terminology." (by dab (ᛏ) 07:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) in the previous section). Evidence to date indicates you won't like my choice of words in dealing with this, so perhaps someone with more karma (slashdot useage) here can help out.

That would be a good start. Where I'm going with all this is:

To what extent is this about disagreements about the results of experiments (I call that reality) versus words used to communicate and model reality versus our emotions and choices in response to reality. Does praying for rain work? Do we call whatever is most powerful God? Do we stand in awe before life or do we investigate and conquor it? Three ways of being an atheist. Three ways of NOT being an atheist. People can and do mix and match. 4.250.198.65 23:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Praying for something is actually an attempt at conjuration a la witchcraft.
• Prayer is actually a method for centering yourself, aligning your thoughts with religious ideas, and for reflecting on previous behaviors. Outside religion, "prayer" is called concentration.
• A "god" in Greek mythology is not necessarily the most powerful deity.
• Let's leave philosophical teaching out of the article. This is an encyclopedia. It is not a podium. Adraeus 00:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would anyone like to comment on the following proposed addition

Atheists do not believe in dieties, gods or God. Atheists do not believe in using the terms or concepts of deities, gods or God to describe, communicate or model that which exists. Atheists believe that regardless of the emotional and behavior choices one makes in response to all of existance, treating some segment of existance as if it were sacred or supernatural or a diety does not make it so. 4.250.27.129 16:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article already states this. Anyway, your proposed paragraph is simply repetitious, or else it draws one into vague notions like terms or concepts "modelling" that which exists. I don't understand the point of the last sentence. --BM 16:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article covers belief ("the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities.") I am suggesting it also cover use of the term and behavior as it relates to atheism. Using other words: The article has the philosophy, the history, the etymology, the types, and the views. The semantic, sociology and psychology aspects are a tad weak. 4.250.27.129 19:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

4.250.27.129 makes a very good point, atheism is the specific disbelief in something, not a general state of ignorance.

Prayer is a conversation with God, or at least a spiritual movement towards him. Sometimes that involves requests, repentance, mantras, sometimes a libation, or other physical act. It varies depending on the person, everyones relationship with, and understanding of, God is slightly different.

This article needs a substantial rewrite, which I suggest be attempted early and often. Waiting to achieve concensus on the talk page prior to additions is simply not possible on this of all pages. Anyone who doesn't believe me can look at the archives. We can argue all day, but this is an encyclopedia, not a debate forum. The work needs done.

Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 20:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities. We've covered the definition of strong atheism, Sam, and we've covered the historically and evidently accurate definition of weak atheism. Continuing to push your baseless point-of-view that there exists only strong atheism is not helping the legitimacy of your participation.

Prayer is actually a method for centering yourself, aligning your thoughts with religious ideas, and for reflecting on previous behaviors. Outside religion, "prayer" is called concentration. Any "prayer requests" can be simply relegated to conjurative witchcraft disguised as "prayer". For example, "God, please give me the strength to kill these men." Or "God, please give me a Super Soaker 9000." "God, give me a winning lottery ticket." That's not prayer. Aside from cognitive delusions, there's no such thing as a "conversation with God", literally. Such a description of prayer merely gives rise to the validity of "God told me to kill those children." Mantra? That's a chant—witchcraft. Libation—cult behavior. The problem is that most religionists don't know how to pray so they make up all sorts of so-called prayer methods. Prayer is just meditation, and because it's meditation, don't expect praying for the health of another to somehow affect the health of another. That's just one more magic trick. Prayer is personal and proper meditation benefits only the one praying.

The article already covers the anonymous user's concerns. Judging from the quality of the attempted edits by the anonymous user and the anonymous user's demonstration of understanding of the topic, I don't think the anonymous user has read the entire article, done any extra-Wikipedia research, or even completed higher education of English composition. Adraeus 21:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for clearing all that up for us. --Goethean 22:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sam - for prayer to be a "conversation with God", you would have to believe in god in the first place. To an atheist, prayer might look like nothing more than hocus pocus and magic spells - "If I say the right magic words, the invisible man will come and help me." Yes, totally rational. Aaarrrggh 22:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is merely a thread hijack--the anon did not mean to assert that active disbelief was the only definition of atheism. --Yath 00:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Atheism

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism. The tribal gods of the early inhabitants of Palestine are of little or no philosophical interest. They were essentiallly finite beings, and the god of one tribe or collection of tribes was regarded as good in that it enabled victory in war against tribes with less powerful gods. Similarly the Greek and Roman gods were more like mythical heroes and heroines than like the omnipotent, omniscient and good God postulated in mediaeval and modern philosophy. As the Romans used the word, ‘atheist’ could be used to refer to theists of another religion, notably the Christians, and so merely to signify disbelief in their own mythical heroes.

The word ‘theism’ exhibits family resemblance in another direction. For example should a pantheist call herself an atheist? Or again should belief in Plato's Form of the Good or in John Leslie's idea of God as an abstract principle that brings value into existence count as theism (Leslie 1979)? Let us consider pantheism.

At its simplest, pantheism can be ontologically indistinguishable from atheism. Such a pantheism would be belief in nothing beyond the physical universe, but associated with emotions of wonder and awe similar to those that we find in religious belief. I shall not consider this as theism. Probably the theologian Paul Tillich was a pantheist in little more than this minimal sense and his characterising God as the ground of being has no clear meaning. The unanswerable question ‘Why is there anything at all?’ may give us mystical or at any rate dizzy feelings but such feelings do not differentiate the pantheist from the atheist. However there are stronger forms of pantheism which do differentiate the pantheist from the atheist (Levine, 1994). For example the pantheist may think that the universe as a whole has strongly emergent and also mind-like qualities. Not emergent merely in the weak sense that a radio receiver's ability to receive signals from distant stations might be said to be emergent because it is not a mere jumble of components (Smart 1981). The components have to be wired together in a certain way, and indeed the workings of the individual compunents can be explained by the laws of physics. Contrast this with a concept of emergence that I shall call ‘strong emergence’. C. D. Broad in his Scientific Thought (Broad 1923) held that the chemical properties of common salt could not even in principle be deduced from those of sodium and chlorine separately, at the very time at which the quantum theory of the chemical bond was beginning to be developed. Though the mind has seemed to some to be strongly emergent from its physical basis, it can be argued that developments in the philosophy of mind, cognitive science and neuroscience favour weak emergence only.

One strong form of pantheism ascribes mental properties to the cosmos. If the weak sense of emergence was adopted we would be faced with the question of whether the universe looks like a giant brain. Patently it does not. Samuel Alexander asserted, rather than argued, that mentality strongly emerged from space-time, and then that at some future time there will emerge a new and at present hardly imaginable level which he called ‘deity’ (Alexander 1927). It is hard to tell whether such an implausible metaphysics should be classified as as pantheism or as theism. Certainly such a deity would not be the infinite creator God of orthodox theism. A. N. Whitehead, too, had a theory of an emergent deity, though with affinities to Platonism, which he saw as the realm of potentiality and thus connected the atemporal with the contingent temporal deity (Whitehead 1929). Such views will not deliver, however implausibly, more than a finite deity, not the God of core theism. God would be just one more thing in the universe, however awesome and admirable.

The weak form of pantheism accepts that the physical universe is all and eschews strong emergence. Sometimes the weak form of panthism is rhetorically disguised as theism, with God characterised as ‘absolute depth’ or some equally baffling expression, as by Paul Tillich. At any rate, whether or not we accept pantheism as a sort of theism, what we mean by ‘atheism’ will vary according to what in the dialectical situation we count as theism. 4.250.33.72 00:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed text

Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic. [10]

I've just retrieved this, which was removed by Adraeus with the edit summary: "rv. redundant, and improper for a Wikipedia article". My first thought is that it should be tidied up, perhaps expanded a little and reinserted, as neither of the two reasons given seems to me to be true (in so far as I understand the latter), but are there any thoughts from others?

Oh, and why should Chinese religion be qualified as 'traditional'? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think I'd agree that the above is editorializing and would count as original research. It's also not entirely clear how the Russell link acts as a source for it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:20, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• The removed text is styled in a way inappropriate for a formal Wikipedia article as it is what one would expect to read on a message board rather than on Wikipedia. The removed text would have been redundant if the information regarding "atheists who refrain from identification with atheism for various reasons" had not been removed from the Types of atheism section. To that extent, if there's something useful to be gained from the anonymous user's edit, that is the re-inclusion of information regarding non-identifying atheists. (My dad, for instance, is an atheist by definition; however, he refuses to identify as an atheist due to the stigma attached to what is generally perceived as representative of atheism and its adherents. My organization, the Center for Atheism, is working towards the goal of de-stigmatizing the atheism brand.)
• See Adherents.com for information on Chinese traditional religion.

Adraeus 17:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But the text isn't about people trying to avoid stigma, but about people whose views match what we'd normally call atheism, but whose epistemological views lead them to avoid that term. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The removed text regards atheists who do not identify with "atheism" for epistemological reasons. A previous version of the Types of atheism section included a line similar to: "there exist those who refrain from identifying with atheism for whatever reason while satisfying the criteria for description as an atheist."

Note: Please use proper formatting when you respond to others. Adraeus 18:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see that 'for whatever reason' is duplicated by 'for epistemological reasons', especially when the actual wording was more specific than that.

I've no idea what you mean by the final line (does anyone else?), but it's not the first time that you've lectured other editors on their supposed lapses in etiquette — as I remember, your last one concerned someone daring to use the third person. One of the worst lapses of good manners is to lecture others in this way; you might add it to your list. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An epistemological reason, like a stigmatic reason, for non-identification with atheism is inherent to whatever reason (e.g., atheists are those without god-beliefs for whatever reason). Your suggestion that we include every reason for non-identification is patently ridiculous considering the existence of diversity in thought.

Every time you post in discussion I have to add colons to clarify to whom you're replying. Your combativeness is getting tiresome and, quite frankly, boring. I suggest you drop the smartass remarks and concentrate on the article. By the way, I hope you realize that by lecturing me on what constitutes "good manners" by your definition you lapsed in good manners. Moreover, you should also realize that I did not lecture you on proper wikiquette. Note "please". It was a request. Perhaps you should pay more attention to what's actually written rather than focusing on how nasty you can be to me. Adraeus 23:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. "Proper formatting" is a peculiar way to describe my approach indentation, given that the standard Wikipedia approach is to indent two or three times before returning to an unindented comment — otherwise the discussion finishes up over on the right, looking silly (see Wikipedia:Talk page#Standards and conventions of writing and layout). This isn't the first time that you've reprimanded someone for acting in accordance with Wikipedia convention.
2. You seem to be saying that, because one can't include every reason (and I frankly doubt that there are many), one should include none. A philosophically important reason, and one connected to the very essence of atheism (belief or non-belief) is the epistemological appeal to a certrain notion of justification, which leads some people to deny that they're atheists, despite their meeting the normal criteria. that seems to me to be a significant point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Returning to the discussion of the removed text, I think this is a valid point, and should have been cleaned up rather than removed. There is a much pithier version of this point in the article on Strong atheism, in the form of a quote from Richard Dawkins. --BM 13:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)