Talk:Nontheism

Delete?

I think this article should be deleted. The main reference about the origin of the term shows that it was artificially created precisely to avoid the term atheism, but it means the same thing. We already have an article about that... Atheism. Nontheism (as if anyone is every going to look it up) should redirect to Atheism. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the first to think this. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course it was artificially created to contrast with atheism. What is your point? The question is whether the term is notable, not whether it is artificial. Nontheism is a term coined in 19th century literature to express a concept distinct from atheism. This article is by no means good, as it rambles along and goes off on tangents, but there is no point in deleting or merging. Instead it should just be fixed by somebody with a clue. Any argument for deleting or merging will need to be based on notability. --dab (𒁳) 19:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep. In my opinion, deleting this article is a bad idea. Atheism and nontheism are not the same thing. By the logic of whoever proposed this deletion, we can also get rid of the food article because we already have an article on pineapples. I agree with the above comment that this article isn't particularly well-written, but that can be fixed. If anything, this article needs fixing rather than deletion. Skysmurf (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

After the AfD

The AfD has closed as a (somewhat ambiguous) "keep". Given that concerns are still out there, I'd like to propose some actions short of actually deleting the page. First, I'd like to take the sections of this page from Christianity through Hinduism, and move them to a new page: Nontheistic religions. I think that's the most important thing. What would remain here would be the more general aspects of this page, including those at the interface between nontheism and atheism. One option would then be to leave this page in that form, while another would be to merge that material into a new section of Atheism and religion, with this page becoming a redirect to that. I would lean towards favoring the merge/redirect, but I don't feel strongly. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we were commenting on the AfD at the same time. My concern is with the article that might develop out of Nontheistic religions. Such an article seems possible only by violating WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, or both. Getting those sections out of this article, however, I agree is the most important thing: I would just move them to the trash basket. And I would support merging the remaining material, although there wasn't total support for that at the AfD, as I recall. We may just have to have this be an article on the nontheistic I-don't-believe-in-God-but-don't-associate-me-with-those-atheists "movement," if anyone can actually build an article out of the sources that were proffered in the AfD. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean about the religions article being potentially SYNTH, or, I think, something like WP:COATRACK. However, there were a lot of sources brought up at the AfD (I'm thinking particularly of the long list by JimWae) that might suggest that such an article could satisfy sourcing requirements, and it seems to me to be better to approach it that way than to try to shoehorn both the nontheistic religions and the similar-to-atheism usages into this single page. To me, that combination makes the SYNTH issue worse. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• The main issue I have, and so far unresolved to any acceptable solution, is covered under Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This does give allowances for exceptions dealing with neologisms. The article Prima facie, does seem to be well referenced. Of the 40 references, of which 4 could be verified without going to a library (so narrows the internet coverage part), I read a lot of interesting things but nothing to shed light on Nontheism, as "we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.". The clarity would be "about the term" and not "use of the term". I explored links #1, #37, #38, and #39, and could find no direct connection that included anything "about" the term. #1; "WORSHIPPING AN UNKNOWN GOD" is a "paper" that discusses things like "negative theology", "devout agnosticism" and even a paradox, "There is a paradox here: if God is inconceivable, is it not self-refuting to talk about him at all, even to state his inconceivability?". There are to links in the reference but one is redundant. #37 and #38); are links to parts of the article. #39 leads to "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy", and I thought, "Now we are getting somewhere". This very long article touched on many things but I could find nothing on "Nontheism". I typed this into the search bar and did find mention of the word under two links; "Theological Voluntarism", and "Process Theism", which gave in-dept and very lengthy discussions concerning those titles, but only touched on "Nontheism".

There is a trend in America to change what is referred to as British spellings of words, especially by omiting the hyphen. Since I am from the U.S. I find no fault (my POV) in this. I can also see a position that a belief does not actually conform to something currently acknowledged. Adding a hyphen to reflect "Non-theism" would not make a non-word, or neologism, an accepted word but just a variation in spelling of a new word . I have a belief, that has roots from the start of where modern Christianity claims the beginning, but has still been referred to as heresy so I can be sympathetic.

Being involved in Wikipedia I do have an issue with this encyclopedia being the vehicle for creating new words or advancing neologisms to prominence. This is presently supported by Wikipedia, even though this article survived an AfD, which leaves it open to being renominated, and currently on more grounds than one. Wikipedia gives reference to neologisms, "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title. I have seen there is an article on Antitheism but from what I gather those that profess "Nontheism" do not share this belief.

What I would not like to see is anyone jumping on a "proverbial band wagon" concerning my comments. I am assuming good faith and request the same. I see there are on-going discussions and choose to see how these play out, and request that my observation be weighed with the evidence. I feel, at present, I could argue a new AfD (that was also acknowledged as tainted) and feel I have justifiable grounds to do so. I can however, see a difference in what is perceived as a "mainstream" idea not conforming to some actual beliefs. Although I was against a keep consensus I am not against a particular belief (and my comments there reflect this) just the word as it now stands, which is not backed up by definition or any clear secondary sources. The question to me would be if an understood belief does not conform to what is written, short of inventing or creating a new word, what would be the solution? One would be to provide reliable secondary sources to back up this use, another would be to find an acceptable word (or other title) in use where the differences could be expounded on, and a third would be do nothing and see if a consensus on Wikipedia would (by whatever steps) allow the use of the new words, effectively changing Wikipedia policy. 205.242.95.130 (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that your comments are very thoughtful. As I've been thinking further about the issue since last commenting here, I continue to like the idea of moving the Nontheistic religions material, as it uses the word as an adjective to describe something that is well-sourced, and I may well do that, boldly, fairly soon. However, what that leaves of this page, which I'm increasingly leaning towards leaving here rather than merging into another page, may well be a good candidate for another AfD, perhaps after giving other editors a little time to see if they can improve it first. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to sign my above comment. I am sure I will be reminded by an illustrious bot. I was in a hurry to conclude to go finish a job so I will make sure to sign this. If there is lack of secondary source then that will be up to those that wish to see how it will play out right? I just hate to see useful information get buried as I hold similar views, that float somewhere around middle and don't swing one way or the other, concerning politics so have to maintain being an Independent. Having 40 references, that refer to books not easily obtained might look nice, but concerning this controversial title, I was turned off the second hour I couldn't locate anything and can imagine what the casual reader might think. I have looked at this with an open mind, read the above long winded articles, spent a considerable amount of extra time, and conclude a less than well sourced new "word", striped of all passionate discussions, is still a minutely sourced neologism, no matter what we try to add back into it or around it, so my advice is to use good sources and references. Good luck, Otr500 (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I see that Editor2020 has just made a series of edits that I think improve the article significantly. My plan at this point is to move the Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism sections as discussed above, and leave the rest of the page here. What will remain here will still need work, but I think it's starting to move in the right direction. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Full support on the above proposal. The page is on my radar - if you want to go ahead and split out the content I'm willing to spend an evening improving what's left :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 16:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I just did. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Concerns over synthesis

This article survived an AfD because a distinction could be drawn from atheism, although there was a general acknowledgment among the "keep" votes that it needs a lot of work. My concern was that the article suggests that Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Hegel, and secular Christian theology all belong together. The section on Buddhism, for example, argues that Buddhism really should be considered nontheistic, even though there are gods in it. There are citations for each piece of evidence in that section (or they could be provided for the tagged statements), but the assertion that these add up to the conclusion that Buddhism is nontheistic at all, let along nontheistic as opposed to atheistic—to say nothing of whether the categories of "believer," "agnostic," "atheist," and "nontheist" capture the varieties of religious experience—is an unpublished synthesis. Even if such a source could be found, it would certainly violate WP:NPOV to privilege its view in the structuring of the article, akin to whether we should have a section on Buddhism as an example in the article infidel or cult (for which statements sources surely exist). The same goes for the other examples of nontheism offered. Since I voted to delete the article because of these concerns it would be unseemly for me to expunge the offending material, claiming that only the narrow distinction between nontheism and atheism gained support in the AfD. But that is the case, so someone else should correct this article. I suggest a hatchet. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There aren't gods in Buddhism. Gods were believed in in the milieu in which Buddhism sprang up, but what the Buddha teaches is that whether they exist or not is irrelevant, and that belief in them or disbelief in them is also irrelevant. -- Evertype·✆ 08:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Philosophy" section needs more relationship to the term "nontheism"

The philosophy section is just kind of hanging out there, with no relation to the word "nontheism". Some sources are needed that relate the word "nontheism" to those topics (Hegelianism, Post-theism, Theological noncognitivism). Without secondary sources that relate the term "nontheism" to those topics, this is synthesis. --Noleander (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Nontheistic" religions

I removed the word "also", for obvious reasons. I deleted the word Christianity from the section "Nontheistic religions" because it is including the word of a religion directly related to theism, with no explanation and references or sources, under a section that implies inclusion to that section and possibly belief (or belief of non-belief), which is "also" very controversial and contentious. The entire section needs references , considering, "Nontheistic traditions of thought have played roles...", which would bring unanswered questions such as "what traditions of thought"?, where is the source for this?, etc..., but I am not familiar with Buddhism and Hinduism. Otr500 (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly understandable that it would sound incongruous with respect to Christianity. I think the problem came from having just separated out the separate page on Nontheistic religions and leaving a summary sentence here. I've added it back (but not the "also"), with sourcing from that page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Krishnadas Kaviraja Goswami described in Chaitanya-charitamrita Adi 6.38:

‘chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana

seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana

If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala (previous name for Shri Chaitanya-bhagavata), he immediately becomes a great devotee.

So all the great atheists which comprise of 99.99% of the world’s population can become maha-vaishnavas if they get the supreme good fortune of reading this book. Thus in my personal opinion, when this book is published and distributed in mass quantities all over the world, it will break open the gates of the flood of the love of Godhead brought by Lord Chaitanya and His associates and will hasten the advent of the predicted Golden Age in all its glory.