Talk:Atheism/Archive 5

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

User:12.231.81.82 added the following to the article. Am posting it here for record.

[Minority report: As an agnostic I would like to point out that whoever wrote what follows below is operating under a popular misconception of what agnosticism is. The issue is religious belief that an ad hoc hypothetically invisible god might exist (theist) and the absence of that belief (atheist), or the outright denial and repudiation of such religious belief that an ad hoc hypothetically invisible god might exist, on principle (agnostic).

Here is the whole situation in a nutshell:

Theism is characterized by a belief that a magic invisible god might exist.

"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

Agnostics, also atheist, go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in the existence of gods:

"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism and Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html ]

- Hemanshu 20:01, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Whatever Huxley and even infidels.org said, in modern usage the term "atheist" means denial and repudiation of the existence of a god associated with this universe. Agnosticism is something like non-belief, lack of belief, etc., wrt such a god. Every atheist (quite a few) and atheist organization I know (with the possible exception of infidels.org) defines atheism that way. Agnostics may define themselves any way they please, but that's another topic. Fairandbalanced 01:25, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to be that most atheists and atheist organizations seem to not claim absolutely that a god does not exist, but instead takes their position on lack of evidence that supports the multiple claims of deities. Since they view such claims as usually as silly as the existence of Santa Claus, Bigfoot, etc, they find the likelihood of a deity existing to be less likely than one existing, thus they are not neutral, but recognize a god could exist outside of their knowledge. - Lord Kenneth 01:57, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Bryan's questions regarding edits made by User:JackLynch

User:JackLynch asked me to explain my dispute with his changes here on talk:, so here they are.

In the opening paragraph, he changed this line:

The literal meaning of the term is therefore without a belief in a god or gods, making any person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods an atheist -- including both those who assert that no gods exists and those who, for whatever reason, do not make any assertion regarding the existence of gods.

To this line:

The literal meaning of the term is therefore without a belief in a god or gods, making any person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods an atheist.

ie, removing everything after the dash, which IMO was an important clarification of the term's meaning.

At the end of the first paragraph, he changed this line:

Atheism is not synonymous with irreligion; the idea of an eternal non-created universe is an important concept in some religions and as such it is possible to be very religious and very atheistic.

To this line:

Atheism is not synonymous with irreligion.

Which also removed clarity, in this case an explanation of how one can be both "religious" and an atheist. Many Buddhists would fit under this description, for example.

In the second paragraph, he changed this line:

The term agnosticism (coined by T. H. Huxley in 1869) describes a form of philosophical scepticism in which the existence of gods is considered undecidable or in which inquiry into the existence is considered unproductive.

to this line:

The term agnosticism (coined by T. H. Huxley in 1869) describes a form of philosophical scepticism in which the existence of gods is considered undecided.

which is a significantly different definition of agnosticism from what's in its Wikipedia article, and simply incorrect as far as I am aware.

He also changed this line from later on in the article:

Nothwithstanding Cold War attitudes, atheists are legally protected from discrimination in the United States and they have been among the strongest advocates of the legal separation of church and state.

to:

Nothwithstanding Cold War attitudes, atheists are legally protected from discrimination in the United States and they have been the strongest advocates of the legal separation of church and state.

Removing the "among." I'd like to see some sort of evidence before stating categorically that atheists are the strongest advocates of separation of church and state. Bryan 02:33, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

wow, thats hard to read. Here goes

Atheism asserts that no God exists. Those that don't make any assertian at all arn't atheists.
"the idea of an eternal non-created universe is an important concept in some religions and as such it is possible to be very religious and very atheistic." you make a valid objection, it will be replaced, or rewriten.
Thank you for alerting me to the errors on the agnosticism page, I am looking into it.
"Nothwithstanding Cold War attitudes, atheists are legally protected from discrimination in the United States and they have been among the strongest advocates of the legal separation of church and state." I don't believe I can provide such documentation, and so the ambiguous statement will be restored or rewriten. Jack 03:03, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re point 1: that's incorrect. An atheist lacks belief in any gods. Some atheists also assert that no gods exist, but that is not a necessary implication of simply lacking a belief in any gods.

Re point 3: even with the changes you made to the agnosticism page, it still doesn't match what you've written here. You wrote that an agnostic believes the issue is undecided, whereas the definition is that an agnostic believes the issue is undecideable.

Actually, amending that; you've changed the agnosticism article to agree with this. So now I disagree with both the changes you made here and the changes you made to agnosticism. :)

Sorry about the formatting, I wanted to make sure all of my objections were precicely defined. Bryan 03:22, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Resources

Check out some sources on common definitions. See [1] [2] [3] or anthing else from a reliable source. I am shocked to think of what source of information many of the contributers to extreme POV articles have been using... Jack 03:39, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[4] appears to agree with "undecideable" rather than "undecided". agnostic has many different definitions from a collection of different dictionaries, with the first two agreeing with "undecideable" and the second two with "undecided" (IMO). A better definition to check in this case, though may be agnosticism; all four of those agree with "undecideable" (and indeed the Websters definition there appears to be an expansion of the Websters definition for agnostic that seemed to fall into the "undecided" camp above). The third one is from 1898 and appears written from a Christian POV to me, so I would advise against using that as a reference when others are available. However, it too looks more like the "undecideable" than the "undecided" definitions. I'm going to change that back in the article, and if there's further dispute we should take it to the talk:agnosticism page. Bryan 03:58, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I clearly don't agree to anything other than taking this portion of the debate to agnosticism. Fortunately, 10,000 heads are better than two ;) Jack 08:15, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

REVERTS ARE FOR VANDALISM

Do not revert useful, or even debatable additions, but rather vandalism only. The recent revert of my numerous spelling and grammer corrections, along w change from lower case to upper case "G" in God, was thoughtless, unneccessary, and contrary to the spirit of wiki. Make improvements, not reverts. Jack 02:35, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Look, I can discuss the differences between "g" and "G", I agree they have different meanings. However, it is clear that Wikipedia:Revert needs to be reviewed by those who feel reversion is an acceptable response to an emminantly debatable difference (and not to mention reverted the spelling and grammer corrections I had spent no small amount of time making) of opinion. Jack 02:47, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in these matters, but to me, God seems more POV than god as it implies worship. Furthermore, God seems only reserved for the Christian one, because I have never seen the God Zeus or the God Thor anywhere. And since atheism is a disbelief in all kinds of gods, narrowing it down to the Christian god seems wrong. Mrdice 02:53, 2004 Jan 13 (UTC)

I don't see the G/g as so much implying worship, as the English-language convention that improper nouns are lower cased, and proper nouns - as in the god named 'God' - are upper. The only place I've seen "the God Foo" is, if I recall, in David Eddings' novels (hey, I was young). Salsa Shark 03:04, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually, God is not only the Christian God, but the proper, reverent term for God amongst monotheists, and even some polytheists. See the article God for more info. IMO using the term "gods" is far more POV, since that does NOT include or refer to the one God worshipped by the vast majority of the world population [5] [6] Hindu's, BTW refer to Brahma as God, thus making the spelling "God" (when using english, of course!) the term appropriate for use in refering to the entity worshipped by over 70% of the worlds population. I seriously doubt atheists mean only to specify disbelief in the varied, ancient polytheistic gods, such as Zues, Thor, etc... ;) Jack 03:15, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm the one who did the reversion. I did because it wasn't the first time that someone changed the "g" to a "G" today, making it very POV, and I was afraid that it was the start of some kind of (pardon the pun) holy war. I was under the impression that most of your other changes were made only to make it difficult to revert all the "G" by hand to their correct, neutral, lower case form, making it Cheval de Troy vandalism. Also, I agree with what Mrdice said above. MikeCapone 03:10, 2004 Jan 13 (UTC)

You were in error. Review Wikipedia:Revert. Assume good faith. Discuss disagreements in talk before making unnecessary reverts. Jack 03:15, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what your problem is, Jack, but "god" remains uncapitalized in much the same way "dad" or "mom" remain uncapitalized. If you are referring to a specific "mom", for example, you would say: "Hey, Mom, can I eat an orange now?". It's painfully obvious you're a biased theist trying to screw up the page, and even then I would consider that vandalism. You are not trying to "correct grammatical errors" but to forward your weird religious agenda. Quit it, and use a dictionary if you have to. If I see that crap, I'll revert it myself as well. And this whole Wikipedia:Revert crap is obviously you trying to slow the "fixing your vandalism" process down. - Lord Kenneth 01:55, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

"God vs. god"

If anybody actually cares about the difference between "god" and "God", take a look at God and read the section relating to it. I am regularly amazed (sadly less and less so..) at the lack of scholarly behaviors on the wiki. Please investigate in at least the most remedial manner before resorting to ad hominem attacks and accusations of vandalism. And for anyone who is foolish enough to think otherwise, persons of various POV's are just as (and often more) capable of editing articles relating to subjects they may or may not cherish. Jack 06:04, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am not making any ad hominem remarks. Please look up the term before you use it. I say you are vandalizing the page because you made the page POV and then changed it back after someone corrected it. It's okay if YOU are POV, but when you change an article incorrectly and then refuse to let the fixes stand it's obvious that you are trying to make the article POV. "God" is not capitalized when used in the general sense. Neither is "mom", "dad", "aunt", or any other similar noun. Only when it is used as a pronoun is it capitalized. Atheists do not just not believe in a specific "God", but other gods as well. Atheists are not only atheists to the Christian or general "God". And quit trying to act like you're so scholarly, you don't even know the basic rules behind nouns and pronouns. Go somewhere else to push your weird agenda, and lay off this "atheists deny "God"! B.S. It's ridiculous, and it's grammatically incorrect. Sorry pal, but it's not just your god atheists don't believe in. - Lord Kenneth 02:39, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and the difference between "god" and "God" has already been well-noted here. I doubt you even read the web-page you linked to; if you didn't, it's atheism you don't understand. As noted on the page you linked to, When spelled with a capital "G" it is a proper noun, usually the name given in English to the one supreme being as postulated by the three major Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism. When spelled with a small "g" it is a common noun, referring to a postulated supernatural being of any religious system, as for example the gods of the Greek and Roman religions. And guess what? Atheists don't believe in "gods" or "god". It doesn't matter if it's plural or singular! Atheists don't just not believe in a specific god, it's "god" in general. Please go back to English class. - Lord Kenneth 02:43, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

For the article "God" to call the spelling with a capital "G" only a "proper noun" is a little disingenuous. It is similar (but different in a critical way) to calling "Man" a proper noun. The capitalized spelling, used for "the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe" (Webster's), is more essentially understood as the root of the word; the non-capitalized spelling is a derivative, evoking the general idea of God, but for lesser supernatural beings.

More to the point: God is not a god. So the article "Atheism" as presently written does not properly define atheism because it does not say that atheists do not believe in God, only that they do not believe in a god or gods. Johnstone 13:51, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

God is not a god? What is it, then? Your definition here seems to be very specific, excluding both all manner of polytheistic system (or labelling them as "lesser supernatural beings," which may be inaccurate or POV for some belief systems) and monotheistic creator-gods who are not perfect in power or wisdom or goodness. Would you consider a believer in the Greek pantheon to be an atheist, for example? Bryan 21:01, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that these particular theists who are intent on altering Atheism think their conception of god should receive special treatment because they think there god is "better than" other gods, and actually exists. It doesn't matter if you define god to mean an omnipotent, omniscient power or simply a being capable of supernatural powers. It's the same to most atheists either way, as most I know do not believe in god, as per the common definition of god or gods. I could as well say their is one great Fairy, better than all the other fairies, and insist that "afairieism" must include mention of this Great Fairy, fairy being capitalized. It's ridiculous. As for the definition of atheism, there is nothing wrong with that. I've seen more atheists describe themselves as "lacking a belief in god" than saying "I don't believe in god". The difference is a semantic one and probably due to the scientific nature of many atheists, because they do not claim that a god CANNOT exist... - Lord Kenneth 21:09, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

The word "god" with a lowercase "g" refers only to a "being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers, and to require worship, [but also] controlling a particular aspect or part of reality." (Webster's again, with my underlining). Such a definition does not include the omnipotent, omniscient God. I assume that most people will understand the words according to standard, accepted definitions. To be clear, the defintion of an atheist should be "one who does not believe in any god(s) or God". It's not about seeking special treatment. Its simply about writing an Encyclopedia that is as accurate and understandable as possible.Johnstone 03:37, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Is God a god? - Lord Kenneth 03:47, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)

Johnstone, it really helps if you use what Websters says precisely. Here's the actual entry for god(1,noun) from the online version:

"1 : Capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind 2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality"

Now, you changed "; specifically", to ", [but also]". The piece you replaced does not have the same meaning as the piece you used. Capitalized and specifically are used as selectors, to refine which meaning is intended. The semi-colon rather than comma before specifically also indicates a split rather than the simple continuation you used with a comma. Your rewriting changesd a selector to a restriction and gave rise to your claim that god was limited to only a being controlling an aspect and could not also be omnipotent and omniscient. Better to use the real Websters definition, which is consistent with the use in this article. Jamesday 21:24, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The "Division of Senses" section of the Explanatory Notes in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate dictionary explains "The sense divider specif (for specifically) is used to introduce a common but highly restricted meaning subsumed in the more general preceding definition." As far as this goes, it agrees what you have just written. However, the example that it uses: "pontiff . . . n . . . 2 : BISHOP; specif : POPE", is instructive. Now, while the word "pontiff" may actually mean "bishop", most people are unfamiliar with this usage, and would understand it to mean "pope". Similarly, while the word "god" (with lowercase "g") may mean "a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship", most people will understand it to mean "one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality". Thus, while using only the word "god" is technically OK, from a practical standpoint, it will be appear to be wrong to the large majority of readers, since the more general definition is not commonly known. Wikipedia should not be esoteric. See Wikipedia:Make_articles_useful_for_readers Johnstone 14:38, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

God is not a god. The reason: God is defined as (among other things) a being of unlimited power, while a god is defined as (among other things) a being of limited power. A being of unlimited power is not a being of limited power. QED. (For the record: I was wrong about the root of the word in my initial posting above. The word "god" existed in the English language before it was appropriated for the God of monotheism. It meant "the one invoked" or "the one sacrificed to", and was used to refer to pagan deities and the like. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608x.htm This makes absolutely no difference to my argument just presented.) - Johnstone 02:17, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your wisdom, John. You express my sentiment with great articularity. Jack 14:04, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Moved from article.

"Some writers, especially online, use the term "strong atheism" (also "explicit" or "hard" atheism) for the denial of the existence of gods, and "weak atheism" (also "implicit" or "soft" atheism) for mere lack of belief, without the active denial of gods. In the freethought tradition, analogous terms are "positive" and "negative" atheism. Within this scheme, agnosticism represents a rationale for weak atheism. However, none of these terms are in common use. Another use for "hard" and "soft" atheism is describing whether one believes if the existence of gods is an impossibility (hard atheism), or if the existence of gods is possible but no evidence indicates one does exist (soft atheism). The term nontheism has come into use to cover both strong and weak atheism as well as agnosticism. " This paragraph is unnacceptable without the disclaimer that "Some see this as an attempt by atheists to exaddurate the size of their extremely small [7] minority." JackLynch 04:26, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, it's not. Quite turning Atheism into your theistic battlegrounds, and go fight your Jihad elsewhere. That "smear", as SalsaShark put it, is blatantly POV, as it isn't factually true and fits in with the definition of atheism perfectly. You're really starting to piss me off with your whining when people correct your defacement. I'm going to insert that back in, there is no reason to take it out as those are very commonly used terms (at least in online circles) which have no bias. - Lord Kenneth 04:33, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

You do know that these stats that you posted are pretty meaningless since a very large part of these numbers are made up of "cultural xians/jews/etc" and that people answer polls that way because it's the way they have been raised, not necessarily what they actually believe in or follow these religion's teachings. The actual number of agnostics/atheists is unknown and, anyway, isn't relevant here (what has majority to do with it anyway? Most believed the earth to be flat at one point...) since it's actually your suggested disclaimer that brings a POV problem; the removed paragraph was just neutrally reporting a practice. In any case, it's not the first time I see you try to give this page a POV (I'll add that I agree with Kenneth's comments about the "god/God" debate). Keep to the NPOV please. --MikeCapone

This isn't about if atheism is correct or not. Its not even precisely about the numbers. Its about an attempt generalize just about anybody who isn't specifically a theist into an atheist, which is factually wrong. JackLynch 07:13, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Considering that the literal defintion of atheism is "not a theist", I see nothing particularly egregious about it. Bryan 07:47, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Your right, I should have said "an attempt generalize just about anybody who isn't a specific type of theist into an atheist". You are correct to say "the literal defintion of atheism is "not a theist", what I am pointing out is that agnostics, non religious persons, ordinary secular non-church goers are not by necessity atheists. While some of them (apparently about 2.44% of that larger 14%) do agree to being callled atheists, the rest do not, and it is innaccurate and unfair to lump them into that catagory. Atheism is very specific ly not following God. The others are indifferent, uncertain, unmotivated, angry at God, or what have you. The specifics of why they arn't specific types of theists isn't the issue here, because while they may not go to church, that in no way makes them atheist. JackLynch 07:59, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, I think your definition of atheism is excessively narrow. But that's not really important in this instance. How exactly does the paragraph in question mislead people about the number of atheists that are out there? The paragraph is discussing various sub-types of atheist (and also mentions a term that includes atheists within its categorization), if you're not an atheist to begin with it's irrelevant. Bryan 08:16, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Because soft atheism isn't atheism at all. And my definition is strict. And even if I'm wrong, the idea that I might be right could at least be given a sentance. JackLynch 08:24, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If you want to debate defintions, then debate definitions rather than trying to disguise it with this survey thing. There's already a paragraph on the prevalence of atheism that mentions the distinction you're trying to draw; it's the one immediately below the strong/weak paragraph. The sentance you're insisting on adding is out of place in one discussing definitions. Bryan 08:52, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

AGAIN, JACK: You have NO justification for taking that paragraph out. You keep on saying that "reverts are for vandals", but look what YOU are doing. ATHEISM IS -NOT- your personal theistic battleground. I'm getting very angry at your snotty, sniveling attitude. It's not us who are making these changes, it is YOU. YOU are the one doing reverts, not us, and we certainly aren't the vandals. The other changes you made that someone took out in a revert when you changed "god" to "God" were an honest mistake and should stay, but these other ones are NOT NPOV and SHOULD NOT STAY Again, please stop. If atheism makes you angry or something, perhaps that might be a sign that you are not exactly objective about it. - Lord Kenneth 05:11, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

I just protected the page.

The version I reverted to was the consensus version (i.e., not JackLynch's version, which seems to have zero support). Note that my attention was drawn to this page as part of a routine copyedit for language and clarity, and that the version I have protected was last edited by myself (but I changed nothing of substance, simply improved the language and clarity, and have no particular attachment to it). If anyone woud prefer to see an earlier revision instead, just say the word.

Jack: chill out and settle down. I'm going to leave the protection on for 24 hours. Have a good sleep in the meantime and, if you still want to argue when you wake up, see if you can establish a case here on talk. Tannin 08:37, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Correction: I protected Bryan's version. No matter. Tannin 08:45, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My case was pretty good (check it out above) and I'm really relaxed (I've been chatting on IRC all along, happy as a clam) but whatever, I wanted it protected anyways, I just would have prefered w either of my edits, not w User:Bryan Derksen's edits. Isn't that taking a you side? ;) JackLynch 09:00, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes it is, Jack. It's taking the side of a clear consensus, as opposed to that of a single contributor. It would have been an injustice to protect the page in the anti-consensus state. Bear in mind three things: (a) it's only for 24 hours to allow a cooling off, (b) you have every opportunity to create a case for your point of view here on talk in the meantime, (c) the thing that tipped me over the edge and decided me that the page needed to be protected was that (as it seemed at the time) you had stooped to dishonest edit summaries. Since then, I have read your apology and assurance that the misleading summaries were not deliberate but simply mistakes. Fair enough.

In any case, I'll remove the protection 24 hours from now (or perhaps some other sysop will be kind enough to do it for me, as I suspect that I'll be away from the computer taking bird photographs if the weather here is any good - which it ought to be, it's high summer after all).

Please don't hop straight back into the edit war: settle it here on talk. If you can't persuade anyone to support your case, then it probably isn't a very good case. If you can create a new consensus, then good luck to you. Tannin

Yeah, really sorry about the spelling thing. That was due to an honest attempt to correct spelling (I spell "exaddurate" wrong alot) which got muddled in an edit conflict. JackLynch 09:34, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Apologetics

In hindsight and after reflection I realize I was wrong to engage in an edit war. Rather I would have been better to make new suggestions, and new, different edits until an agreement was had, and this is what I will strive to do in the future. I was angry due to what I feel to be unfortunate decisions and statements by others, but I should have behaved differently. Apologies to all, and I will go forth to sin no more. ;) JackLynch 10:22, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I reccommend Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:Conflict resolution to any/all. Reading those pages is what swayed me to take a 2nd look, and they seem like a very solid guideline. JackLynch 10:34, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Does that mean you're going to quit fiddling with the spelling?

Weak atheism vs. agnosticism

JackLynch seems to assert that "weak atheism" is an attempt by online writers to include agnosticism as a type of atheism. I would like to see evidence for that assertion. For one thing, there is obviously a philosophical difference between saying "I don't believe in God" (weak atheism) and "I think the question whether God exists is unanswerable / irrelevant" (agnosticism). To me, the distinction seems to be fairly clear:

"I believe God doesn't exist / cannot exist" - strong atheism
"I don't believe in the existence of God / it has not been proven" - weak atheism
"The question whether God exists is unanswerable / irrelevant" - agnosticism

—Eloquence 03:00, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

That is based on a misunderstanding of the views of agnostics. Your above statement for agnostics is not an overview of agnisticism, but rather an extremely small portion of their philosophy. The best way to sum it up is

agnosticism is the view that the existance of God is undecided.

That of course includes weak atheism (a term I have never heard outside of this page, and which I am wondering if deserves mention, it clearly has not inspired a page) Jack 03:03, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Er, that last paragraph is a non sequitur. Why does your definition of agnosticism "of course" include weak atheism? It seems to me that "I don't believe that God exists" and "I believe the existence of God is undecided" are clearly different statements. In scholarly circles, "weak atheism" is probably more commonly known as "negative atheism", but given that the modern atheist movement manifests itself most strongly in the form of communities such as the ones you find online, it seems entirely appropriate to favor the definitions provided by said movement.—Eloquence 03:24, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

I have argued the definition of agnosticsm with Jack previously, and at this point I feel fairly confident in saying I think he's simply wrong; he claims that agnosticism means "the existance of god is unknown" whereas most of the sources I've found (including ones he's directed me to) indicate that it means "the existance of god is unknowable." This is a significant distinction, and it makes agnosticism independant of the question of atheism/theism. For example, Immanuel Kant was an agnostic theist [8] - he believed that one could only believe in God on the basis of faith, not through empirical knowledge or logical deduction (so says my cursory reading of that article, anyway). The common colloquial usage of the term is now a fuzzy "uncertain about god's existance," true, but this is an encyclopedia and I think it's entirely proper to be using the techincal meaning of terms in their appropriate contexts. Otherwise, we lose an important shading of philosophical perspective. Bryan 03:53, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You are completely right, Bryan. Here is a link explaining agnosticism much the way you do: http://www.skepdic.com/agnosticism - Lord Kenneth 04:33, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

I hope I'm right, at any rate - I just did some extensive revisions of agnosticism based on it and I worry that it may result in another edit war. Oh well, such is life on Wikipedia, what with being bold and all. Bryan 09:16, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Moved from article

" the idea of an eternal non-created universe is an important concept held by some members of religions and philosophies such as Buddhism and Taoism."

This suggests more than one innaccuracy. It suggests that Buddhists and Taoists are Atheist (they arn't) and that the idea that there is an eternal, non created universe is atheistic (it isn't, I believe in an eternal, non-created universe, as do many others). Jack 10:30, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

How are Buddhists not atheists? Last time I checked, Buddhists considered Budda a teacher, not a god. As for the second part, about eternal non-created universes, you might be right. - Lord Kenneth 03:22, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

read some sources

The more I think about it the less happy I am with the anti-science attitude here on the atheism page. Has anybody else read any other articles on this subject [9] [10] [11] [12]? I'm about to dispute both the factual accuracy, and the neutrality of the page. I reccomend you all do a bit of studying, and try to make this article worthy on an encyclopedia entry. Jack 22:39, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any "anti-science" attitude, if anything, you're going to find a pro-science attitude on the atheism page (unless you butcher it again). I don't see how your links are relevent at all. Do you REALLY need to continue trolling, Jack? Oh no, go whine to Ed again! - Lord Kenneth 03:20, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested in why I am not responding to kenneth, feel free to consult User:Lord Kenneth and/or User Talk:Lord Kenneth. Anyone elses objections or comments will in all likelyhood be responded to in a prompt manner. Jack 03:43, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Three of those sources are nearly exact duplicates of a single-paragraph-long article from the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. The amount of useful information in that paragraph is trivial. The fourth ([13]) is longer, but appears to be a rather POV source (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia); it uses Biblical verses as its references, and consider this description of one of the types of atheism it defines: "Since there is no God, there is no right nor wrong, and human action is neither good nor bad, but convenient or inconvenient. It leaves human society without a basis for order and human government without foundation (Romans 1:10-32). All is hopeless, all is wretchedness, all is tending to the grave and the grave ends all." This is pure bunk, I can't think of any other way to put it. What sort of an argument are you trying to base on this stuff? Bryan 05:51, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am not at this time attempting any argument, that appears to be useless. I am attepting to display to you what an acceptable, non-biased encyclopedic entry on atheism looks like, so that you might have some small amount of common ground with me as to what makes a good entry. With comments like "these sources are useless at best" (what is that supposed to mean? whats worse than useless? Have you been damaged by my alternate, non atheist sources?) I havn't much confidence, but lets see what we can do. Jack 06:11, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Worse than useless would be something that's actively misleading or biased. If you consider that International Standard Bible Encyclopedia article you linked to to be an example of a non-biased encyclopedic entry on atheism, then I don't think we have much common ground. You'd probably be better off writing Biblical views on atheism or something along those lines. Bryan 06:45, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia is definitely not *NPOV* on this topic. Secretlondon 07:04, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

There are two sentences in here that I find very odd "These concepts and terms are extremely controvercial and are not in wide use." - why extremely controversial? "American courts have regularly, if controversially, interpreted the constitutional requirement for separation of church and state as protecting the freedoms of non-believers" . This whole article seems to be written from a god-fearing, US perspective. Secretlondon 07:08, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

adherents.com is not a NPOV site either... Secretlondon 07:28, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

I removed the dispute headers for a bit, since I edited the article. I'll keep an eye, hopefully they won't need to go back! Jack 07:30, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

And I readded them. You've made some very POV changes. Secretlondon 07:34, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. What don't you like about adherents.com? I don't like this source

http://a1692.g.akamai.net/f/1692/2042/1h/medias.lemonde.fr/medias/pdf_obj/sondage030416.pdf

but you don't hear me crying about it. Anyways, where are disputes of citations handled? This is the third or fourth time somebody has questioned the quality of my sources. Lets see your NPOV sources :) Jack 07:37, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Its not that I don't like the source (although it is clearly biased), but you quoted it in a misleading manner. (see below) --snoyes 07:48, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Jack, that edit stating that the 2.44% might be an overestimate is hopelessly POV and grossly inaccurate. The website you were citing says that the number might be lower than the quoted one, because it also includes non-religious people in its count of "atheists". The cia however has differentiated between non-religion (12.x%) and atheism (2.x%). This is very POV indeed. --snoyes 07:38, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Estimates for atheism alone range from 200 to 240 million. But these come primarily from China and former Soviet Union nations (especially Russia). Prior to Communist takeovers of these regions and government attempts to eradicate religion, both places had very high levels of affiliation with organized religions (especially Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Taoism), as well as high levels of participation in and belief in traditional local traditions such as shamanism, ancestor ceremonies, spiritism, etc. Since the fall of Communism in former Soviet nations and the relaxation of anti-religious policies in China, observed religious affiliation and activity has increased dramatically, especially in Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam.

China probably does have the largest number of actual atheists of any country in the world and many Russians clearly remain atheists. But at this point, it is impossible to accurately determine how many of those classified as atheists or nonreligious during Communist-era USSR and by the current Chinese government are actually atheists according to their personal beliefs, and how many are unregistered religious adherents or participants in less-organized traditional systems that are oriented around ancestors, animism, shamanism, etc. Many people are unaware, for instance, that China has one of the largest, most active Christian communities in the world, and that in many former Soviet nations religions such as shamanism, Islam and Russian Orthodoxy remained even while official government reports announced the elimination of religion in these regions.

In the Western world, Europe is by far the place with the most self-avowed nonreligious, atheists and agnostics, with the nonreligious proportion of the population particularly high in Scandinavia. The Encyclopedia Britannica reports approximately 41 million atheists in Europe. The self-described nonreligious segment of society in Australia and New Zealand is also high, at around 15%. In Australia less than a tenth of one percent described themselves as atheists in the latest national census (1996). In the U.S. about 7.5% of the population describe themselves as nonreligious, 0.7% describe themselves as agnostic, and a smaller number describe themselves as atheist (Kosmin, National Survey of Religious Identification, 1990). "

Take a look Jack 07:41, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You have not at all answered my question about how you quoted that page. It groups together atheists an non-religious people and says that the estimate for the number of atheists is smaller than the group they give (atheists & agnostics & non-religious people). The cia, where the numbers are from, *does* differentiate between atheists and non-religious people. Therefore the criticism of the cia data as being possibly too high is totally inaccurate and misleeeding. --snoyes 07:48, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Take a breath, maybe go have a cup of tea, rub your eyes, and read it again. I'm not citing the number of 2.44% with it, I'm citing that ALL measurement in communist countries (where at sometimes nearly all of a given communist nation has been counted as atheist) in neccesarilly influenced by religious represion. Think about it. What is life like for a religious person in China, or N korea? Wouldn't it be best to just pretend that your an atheist? Jack 08:03, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

And I could make the same point about countries where becoming an apostate might even get yuo killed... Morwen 08:05, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

"Atheism is estimated at 2.44%[6] of the world's population, but there is reason to think these numbers may be exaggerated [7]." where [7] is the link that states that the number of atheists is lower than atheists&non-religious people&etc. That sentence is very clear in its meaning: there is reason to believe that the 2.44% is exaggerated. Well, there is also reasons for it being too low (like morwen mentioned). You are free to cite that link if you use it in a responsible manner. Ie after giving the arguments why it might be exaggerated. Which you have done below: "To the contrary, there are the circumstances of Communism, where people are forced to feign atheism, due to severe repression of religion[14]". So I don't see what your problem is, except that you want to inject your POV (that 2.44% is exaggerated) into the article at multiple places, without giving the other side of the argument (that the estimate might be too low). I would support an article: measuring atheism, where this controversy can be addressed in detail. (But I fear that unless you are kept in check, it will basically state that the number is exaggerated.) --snoyes 08:14, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, you think I am making too many citations? Lets see you write about the repression and so forth against atheists with citations from reliable sources. Removing factually accurate information from me, and valid opinions that are expressed by some, is not what the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is about. Jack 08:23, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Of course I don't think you are making too many citations. Firstly, your sources aren't reliable because they are clearly biased, so your appeal for me to produce reliable sources is somewhat strange. That said, I actually will look for unbiased sources. Secondly - I only removed information that was already stated further down. (namely that in communist countries the official % of atheists may be exaggerated.). --snoyes 08:30, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and you still haven't refuted my claim (made thrice) that citing [7] in the same sentence as the CIA statistics is misleading. --snoyes 08:32, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Moved this to here, as no evidence is presented to support the assertions.

Atheism is estimated at 2.44%[15] of the world's population. People are considerably more likely, about 12.8%, to describe themselves as "non-religious". Atheism is more prevalent in Europe and Russia than in the United States and is rarely found (outside of communism) in the Third World. For instance, according to a 2003 poll, 33% of French adults say that "atheist" defines their position on religion rather well or very well.

Note the errors here:

The link cited does not contain the 2.44% figure. (Certainly not in any obvious location on the page.)
Specifing such a vague and rubbery number to two-decimal-point accuracy is ludicrous
We should be very very wary about accepting figures on religion from this source in any case. The CIA is a natonal security organisation - i.e., it is not a recognised sociological or anthropological research institute.
In any case, we would be foolish to take our figures on this question from any nation that is prone to religious extremism - i.e., not Iran, Pakistan, the USA, or any other nation that is right out there on the bleeding edge of religious belief.

I have no objection to putting figures in here, but blatantly dodgy ones like these, no way.

Tannin 08:33, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

try this, maybe you like the format better? [16]

Your other objections shock me, where are sources judged on the wikipedia? Jack 08:41, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The 2.44% is in there. But I'd also be very interested in some numbers that come from a neutral source. But perhaps more importantly (as any self-respecting statistician will tell you), is to know exactly how they conducted their statistical survey. --snoyes 08:46, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's in the new and corrected link. It wasn't in the original. Tannin

Yes, it was. Scroll down to "world" and read it there. --snoyes 08:59, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

oi, you people. It WAS in this link [17] a better and more thorough link, you just have to scroll down. It allows you to review the religious demographics by nation. I only gave the other because you seemed to be having problems. Jack 08:58, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

what else needs doing?

does london want to remove the objection headers, or what else needs done? We clearly need to agree on how to discuss those dubious CIA figures, this article deserves a NPOV discussion of how many atheists there might be (maybe high and low numbres, both cited, and then a median from a reliable source?). I want mention of how communism religious repression might lead to exaggeration of whatever numbers are given. Jack 09:11, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Oh, but it is already/still in there:

"Atheists who openly express their views have been mistreated, ostracized, discriminated against or killed. For this reason, it is possible that atheism is more prevalent than polls suggest, as people may be reluctant to express their true views. To the contrary, there are the circumstances of Communism, where people are forced to feign atheism, due to severe repression of religion[6]."

As you say, we should cite various studies. --snoyes 09:17, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Where is a study showing that atheism is more prevelant than polls suggest? Cite that please. Also, where are atheists repressed. I don't know of that happening in modern times. Cite that please. If you cannot, such conjecture should be removed. Jack 09:26, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

stories shared

Hey, Jack, fair go. Lots of places.

You tried being an athiest in Iran lately? (For example.) I had an interesting conversation with an Iranian refugee a while ago. He was in fact a Christian, but his point was that it didn't matter what your belief was, if you were not Muslim, you were in huge trouble. His tale of escape from the regime was chilling, all the more so because he told it in such a matter-of-fact, low-key way. He had obviously taken huge risks, but didn't want to talk about them much.

Or, for that matter, you can even try it in a "modern", "democratic" country like the USA or Canada or Australia. There are substantial barriers placed in the way of athiests in our "free" countries. Few of them are official, but they are suibstantial nevertheless. For example, athiests are barred from becoming members of Rotary, and until recently were barred from joining the Boy Scouts Association. Athiests are actively discouraged from attending the 30% of Australian schools that enjoy 70% of all educational funding and produce maybe 90% of our doctors, lawyers, and captains of industry. In short, even here in Australia - a much less religious country than the USA - if you are an athiest, it pays to keep very quiet about it.

In consequence, any figures you see on athieism in countries like the US or the UK must be treated with deep suspicion. If we have learned one thing from psychological and sociological survey research over the years, it is this: people answer questions with the answers that they think people want to hear, and athiests in (e.g.) Australia or New Zealand have had a lifetime's practice at giving "nice", "conventional" (i.e., lip-service to religion) answers - just as much practice, indeed, as their Christian counterparts have had in the former Soviet Union. To be sure, the ultimate penalties are less severe, but social pressure is social pressure, and we humans, social animals that we are, bend to social pressures as a stalk of grass bends before the breeze.

Tannin 09:44, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Splendid POV, have any sources? I have spoken to atheists IN iran! They had no problem telling me first that they were muslim, and second that they did not believe in god, and found the subject of religion repugnant. I have heard from muslim friends of mine that atheism is seen as a lesser evil, since at least it doesn't promote a false God or false teachings, and isn't seen by many muslims as apostacy at all. And as far as what you said about atheists in america... I nearly bit my tongue off ;) Have you any idea what those rascals are doing to us? Take a look at this example [18] [19] of how the boy scouts have been sent packing, no longer allowed to clean up after homosexuals and transgenders, because their youth group counts as a "church" and churches arn't allowed in the parks in California. The monstrous discrimination which heartless anti-theists are wreaking opon altuistic children here in the states is sickening. Anyways, we all have ourt stories to tell. Lets share everything we know (with citations!) that can help this article the best it can be, and lets do it fairly, in a bi-partisan, NPOV manner. Thank you Jack 12:56, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Your filthy bias shows yet again, Jack. Of course, you're afraid to respond to me, so I'll just let these other level-headed people blast your ignorance away. "Cleaning up after homosexuals and transgenders"... you are a disgusting pig. - Lord Kenneth 00:39, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

Jack has accused me of stalking over on my user_talk: page and has told me to "Back off, or I am going to take necessary measures." Needless to say, I don't consider this to be a particularly compelling argument for the changes he's been attempting to make here. His claim here of seeking a bipartisan approach strikes me as rather hypocritical. Bryan 01:28, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Careful, if you call him what he really is (troll, vandal, whatever) then he'll go report you on Request for Mediation, like he did to me. This guy really isn't serious. He's just a religious fanatic out with an agenda. Let's just watch this page and make sure he doesn't try to pull any more "fast ones". I'm also having trouble dealing with trolls on scientific skepticism. - Lord Kenneth 02:37, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

Tannin, I think you'll find private schools enjoy 70% of all Federal funding. It is the primarily the responsibility of the states to provide funding for public schools, and they do so to the tune of $14 billion (2000), compared to $4.4 billion (2003) Federal private school funding. -- Tim Starling 01:26, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

Not to jump in, but...

It seems to me, in reading, that first, the article itself does need some help, and second, neither User:JackLynch nor User:Bryan Derksen should be listed as a problem user on Wikipedia:Conflicts between users (though other contributors here might fit the bill). I would suggest to both parties that they take a one week break from editing this page and come back to it at a later time. It seems like they may be able to work out a compromise version.

Among the puzzling things in this talk section is the assertion by bothUser:Secretlondon and User:snoyes that adherents.com is POV and biased.

From the front page of adherents.com comes the following:

We present data from both primary research sources such as government census reports, statistical sampling surveys and organizational reporting, as well as citations from secondary literature which mention adherent statistics. Adherents.com is an Internet initiative and is not affiliated with any religious, political, educational, or commercial organization.

Clicking on a page at random, "Largest Religious Groups in the U.S.A.", and conducting a cursory examination for sources of data yields the following: the Pew Research Council, the Graduate School of the City University of New York, the Barna Research Group of Ventura, California, Business Wire, the World Christian Encyclopedia, and Harris Interactive, a polling firm.

Could the users explain where and how they feel this particular source is biased? - Scooter 06:04, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say that adherents.com is biased. I just stated that the way that JackLynch used the link was misleading. Also, I don't see how adherents.com could really be biased (except by omission) - because, as you quoted, they don't gather any statistics themselves, but rather collect that of other sources. --snoyes 06:44, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We're in agreement, then. I must have misunderstood your earlier comment. - Scooter 21:23, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I will agree to scooters request, and I will take a 1 week hiatus from atheism as well as agnosticism. I suggest others do likewise. Cya. Jack 07:02, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As I recall, I started editing these two articles primarily in response to Jack's changes. So if he's taking a break I might as well too. :) Bryan 07:09, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help, if only in a small way. - Scooter 21:23, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What needs to be done here

Get some good surveys from Europe, USA, Russia etc. for "number of adherents" section
Separate "Atheism in history and society" into different sections for medieval Europe, revolutionary France, Soviet Russia, China, modern US, modern Germany etc.
Cite some actual prominent modern atheists such as Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan

There's no reason to single out a specific culture's treatment of atheism. The more the better.—Eloquence 08:19, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

replace the dispute headers

This article is unnacceptable as it now stands. I may be on hiatus from editing this page, but I voice my profound objection of your taking that to assume there is no longer an objection (how could there possibly not be after what has been done? I don't know of a more POV article on the entire wikipedia). Jack 01:44, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What exactly are your objections, Jack?—Eloquence

"Because of the communist goal to eradicate religion as an irrational belief system"

This insinutes religion is an irrational belief system.

I've rephrased this slightly. Better?—Eloquence

Yes, quite. Thank you :) Jack 10:49, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Some [3] distinguish between a narrow, strict category "strong atheism" (the explicit rejection of the existence of gods) and "weak atheism" (a lack of belief in gods but no explicit rejection). They also use these two terms in describing whether one believes in the existence of gods as an impossibility (strong atheism), or that the existence of gods is possible but no evidence indicates one does exist (weak atheism). In the freethought tradition, terms such as "positive" and "negative" atheism are used."

this section needs a counterpoint, and these views are simply innaccurate. Review any unbiased information source. You will find no such definitions of atheism. You only find these terms at biased sources.

There are no "unbiased information sources" on a subject as this -- there are only sources which collect different points of view neutrally, as we do (all of them "biased"). This definition is clearly held by some people, whether you like it or not. There are plenty of atheist websites which use the weak / strong distinction, and it is also used in atheist literature:

The word `atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusally. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts there is no such being as God,' I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral,' 'atypical,' and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter. [Antony G.N. Flew, "God, Freedom, and Immortality: A Critical Analysis", p. 14. Prometheus, 1984.]

Also, from Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language, 1947:

What is called positive or dogmatic atheism, so far from being the only type of atheism, is the rarest of all kinds. . . . Every man is an atheist who does not believe that there is a God. R. FLINT Agnosticism sec. 3, p. 53. [s. '03] [20]

Agreed with User:Eloquence here. There is not going to be a completely objective view on this. The best we can hope for is to accept certain sources as less biased, and attempt to find a consensus; i.e. "It is estimated there are between X (source here) and Y (source here) atheists worldwide, depending on (caveats, "wiggle" language below)." - Scooter 13:49, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Atheism is more common in Europe than in the United States, and more common among scientists, particularly natural scientists, than among the general population (see scientists' belief in God). However, due to some societies strongly promoting atheism, and some strongly condemning it, atheism may both be overreported and underreported in different countries.

Atheists who openly express their views have been mistreated, ostracized, discriminated against or killed. In communist countries, people have been forced to feign atheism, due to severe repression of religion. "

I want citations of all of this. Clearly the amount of atheists is in dispute.

I agree. However, the facts so far are fairly uncontroversial. Please do add citations and statistics.—Eloquence

Agreed with User:Eloquence again. This is fairly straightforward, but cites where we can get 'em. - Scooter 13:49, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There ARE reliable sources, despite what some might say. Such sources should be cited with clarification that the number may be greater, or smaller, due to circumstances described. I also insist opon documentation of contemporary persecution of atheists. As my wife pointed out, classic persectutions are a non-issue. The inquisition burned EVERYBODY. Read "the grand inquisitor" by Dostoyevsky some time. Thats it for the moment. I'll probably be back to cite my sources. :) Jack 02:12, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Are you serious? Of course the Inqusition did not burn "EVERYBODY", the burnt people who were perceived as a threat to clercial power structures. The more people's belief diverged from the officially tolerated ones, the more likely they were to be persecuted.—Eloquence

I believe there are advocacy groups for atheists in the United States, at least, who may have some citations, and their assertions may be phrased in a factual way, such as "The Council of Atheists (or whatever) believes that as many as X atheists may be underreported in the U.S. due to laws which allow prayers before legislatures." This is a fact; IOW this Council or whatever did say that. It needn't be reviewed beyond that, IMHO...that's the beauty of NPOV. - Scooter 13:49, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Certainly, in fact it reminds me of the wikipedia! But you don't HAVE to be a witch, or an atheist, or a troll, or whatnot. All it takes is the accusation coming from the right place. It doesn't matter your religious beliefs or other such "proofs", if the accuser was sufficiently above the accused in hierachy, they went to burn on the stake. In "the grand inquisitor" Jesus himself returns to the earth during the inquisition, and is promptly tortured and burned. Atheists had no special status, nor any special danger. The true danger is always for the radical. Jack 05:04, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, this doesn't make any sense. First, you are confusing the Inquisition and the much less regulated witchhunts. It was the specific function of the Inqusition to go after heretics, a group to which atheists obviously belonged. The "if the accuser was sufficiently above the accused" argument is more applicable to the witchhunts, which often happened without any central organization, but even in this case, atheists were obviously at greater risk of being accused if they publicly pronounced their beliefs.

I think there is also some misunderstanding here between thoughts and actions. Of course nobody is prosecuted for simply believing the wrong things, how would anyone else know? They may suffer if they fail to abide by certain societal rituals, but these are actions, not beliefs. The failure to partake in a ritual, the protest against it, this is the action of a radical, and atheists were, of course, more likely to act in such a radical fashion than those who shared the beliefs of the Church.—Eloquence

I also don't understand the point that Jack is making here. That theists only persecute other theists? That's certainly not correct... - Scooter 13:49, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hehe, no, that wasn't my point. Let me just simplify. The Inquisition killed based on factors other than sincere devotion, or lack thereof. they wiped out entire towns. Sincere Christianity was no protection from them, nor was atheism a special concern. IMO, (and by all accounts) they were quite mad, and killed for quite odd reasons (warts, cat ownership, strange appearence, etc...). Jack 13:54, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You are right to see my point is confused however. With E's text intersperced with portions I was objecting to, its difficult to make much sense from it myself. Additionally, we appear to be focusing on an area I was not objecting to (the historical persecution of atheists) which I only mentioned in passing to prove a point (about my actual request for citations of contemporary anti-atheist persecutions). Jack 13:57, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In conclusion, please cite sources, and replace the headers (there is clearly a good deal left to object to). Jack 13:59, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Jack, the dispute headers are meant for disputes. We are in agreement that there should be citations and more facts in this article. Dispute headers only generate conflict and hard feelings -- let's instead try to work together on improving this article in the areas where it needs to be improved. (Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that with so many atheists here, the main article is still a bit disappointing. On the other hand, we do have many detailed articles on related subjects.) I seem to recall that you tried to add some statistics to this article which others removed. Perhaps we could include these in an NPOV manner-- what were they?—Eloquence 14:48, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

You can find them in the history. I'd be more helpful, but scooter asked me to take a week off, and that seems reasonable considering. The sources I cited, and my method of interpreting them was obviously upsetting for tannin and others, so I'm not real confident its a great time to put those back in. I think its best that things are done slow, and (at least until next weds night) not by me :). I may not be an atheist, but I don't think that in any way reduces my ability to produce a NPOV article. Making factually accurate, fair and balanced articles is what I am here to do (its what we ALL should be here to do ;) Jack 01:56, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

oh, and I'll trust your judgement about the dispute headers for now, but I want you to know I Strongly object to any/all mentions of strong/weak atheism which do not have at least one sentance pointing out that they are not seen as accurate by some (IMO they are ONLY seen as accurate by a radical minority, but that view is clearly not going to be allowed in the article). Jack 01:59, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I understand that you do not like the distinction. However, the weak/strong atheism POV is one which has been documented with sources (including one dictionary which refers to positive vs. negative atheism), whereas the POV that this is an invalid distinction seems to be primarily yours. I have no objection to including that POV if you can find either 1) a reasonable number of non-prominent people or 2) a prominent expert on the subject who agree(s) with you.—Eloquence

Capitalization of G

theism

\The"ism\, n. [From Gr. ? God; probably akin to ? to pray for, ? spoken by God, decreed: cf. F. th['e]isme. Cf. Enthusiasm, Pantheon, Theology.] The belief or acknowledgment of the existence of a God, as opposed to atheism, pantheism, or polytheism.

a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm) n.

  1.
        1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
        2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
  2. Godlessness; immorality.[22]

The attempt to mistate information subtley thru ignoring the one God [23] is not ignored by me. I find it offensive, and more than it being merely personally offensive to me, it is contrary to the spirit of factual accuracy an encyclopedia is ment to promote. I am of course refering to this passage, and past edits like it "Greek-derived theism (from Θεϊσμός, theismos), meaning a belief in a god or gods" recently edited. Jack 09:41, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this, but cases could probably be made for both spellings. Failing a consensus, the issue could be resolved in a vote. I would like to invite those who prefer the "god" spelling to make a case for why they prefer that version before we resort to voting, though.—Eloquence

Atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods. Only believers capitalise the G in god, as far as I know. I understand that some Christians may find that offensive, however some Jews find writing out the name of God offensive - and we don't have G*d throughout the encylopedia either. As far as I am concerned god means any old god, from whatever belief system, whereas God means _the_ Christian god. Secretlondon 18:06, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

One possible compromise, and one suggestion on the proper form of god/God:
1. What about using the word "deity"?
2. The only greek to english online translation site I found that would translate "theos" was here. It is interesting to note that it translates "theos" as "god" (note small 'G'). I investigated to see whether all translated words are given uncapitalised, but found out that only nouns that are properly spelled in capitals in english are also given in capitals: "Hellas, Greece" is given in capitals as a translation of "ellas", whereas "bear" is given as a translation of "genno". --snoyes 18:53, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Your all dancing around the issue. Read some entries for "God" "theism" and "atheism" in other encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc... They all spell God "G"od. And a vote would prove nothing whatsoever. I am 100% positive that atheists outnumber believers among interested parties on this issue here, and besides, if this is a place (I happen to know that its not) where the majority opinions of the editors are to be presented as fact regardless of documentations and other such proof then I don't want anything further to do with such a cesspoll (intentionally humorous mispelling) of dubious informations ;). Jack 00:59, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Jack, you haven't made a very good argument for the "God" spelling either. Just because other encyclopedias do it a certain way doesn't mean we have to. Other encyclopedias do a lot of things wrong or not at all.—Eloquence

Considering that most, if not all of the encyclopedias you are referring to are being produced in predominantly christian countries there would be good reason for them to be non-neutral on the issue of the capitalisation of 'god'/'God'. (One writes for one's readers). We aim to produce a truly neutral encyclopedia, which includes removing the old biased claims that other encyclopedias make. --snoyes 16:51, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm having a discussion with Jack about this here, you guys might want to check it out. MikeCapone 16:58, Jan 25 2004 (UTC)

And what, pray tell, might these other encyclopedias do wrong? Might I enjoy an example (I do so love citations...)? I myself am endlessly fascinated by their quality and impartiality, their shining beacon of neutrality. Neutrality is not changing a generally agreed upon definition to suit your own bias. God is the name of the Absolute Infinite, the one God who is all. He is not included among your "gods" and failing to mention him creates an error in your definition of atheism. You are implying that you only reject the false, lesser gods, and you fail to address the great "I AM". It's the typical straw man fallacy of atheists to summon up an image of a lesser "magic invisible god" who is of course ridiculous and impossible to reconcile with rational, scientific analysis. On the other hand, you seem unwilling to include in your definition of atheism a rejection of God, who is neither invisible, magical, nor imaginary. Perhaps this is a good sign for you spiritually (assuming you consider yourself atheist) but it is a misleading definition of atheism, not entirely removed from the slippery slope of "soft atheism" wherein you attempt again to avoid true rejection of God by wrapping the unwilling agnostics and uncertain into your redefined concept of atheism. Jack 17:20, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wow! The above shows that you are even more biased than I thought. I guess that you are so far along that you can't even imagine that some people could think that your deity doesn't exist, and because of it you can't imagine that for these people "a god or many gods" - general and neutral terms - means exactly what you are talking about. MikeCapone 17:25, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)

p.s. please do take a look at Mikes link, I feel I make a brilliant comparison betwixt the editorial staff here, and those of all other impartial sources of information. :) Jack 17:20, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wow from me also. I think at this point it's pretty clear that Jack is quite beyond impartiality as far as this subject goes. I no longer feel the slightest bit concerned about the various accusations he's leveled against me over this matter in the past. Jack, do those "unbiased, unaffiliated with religion" references you mention still include [24]? Bryan 21:46, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nope. Thats clearly a biased source on this subject. Its useful, but no more so than infidels.org, or somesuch. Try reading [25][26] [27] or something from an unbiased source. (unfriendly rant deleted by author). Jack 01:52, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Heh. Back on January 19th you created the header #read some sources and presented four links, consisting of those three and the one I mention above. You can read my original critique of them in full by clicking that link, but in summary; those three links all lead to the same article, a paragraph-long article from the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia that is less useful than a dictionary entry. Repeating the same reference over and over again does not make it any more significant. Bryan 02:59, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lets see you produce a source for your falsehoods. Lets inspect the quality of your documentation. Jack 08:07, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Alright. At the bottom of the first article, there's the lines: " The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved." At the bottom of the second article, there's this line: "The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright © 2003 Columbia University Press." And at the bottom of the third article, there's this line: "Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, Copyright (c) 2004." Combined with the word-for-word similarity between those single-paragraph articles, I think that looks pretty conclusive that they're all from the same source. Bryan 19:47, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have been more clear. I quickly realized that you were right about the three of my sources all going back to one original (thereby giving it rather mighty praise, I dare say). I should have complimented you, but I havn't been in a good mood for doing that (in regards to you in particular) in some time. I apologise. What I was looking for was for you to provide a source of your own, demonstrating that exclusive use of the "g" is useful in discussing God in regards to atheism. IMO this is done sheerly for propaganda and shock value purposes. Jack 20:29, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia itself? The article about god says "When spelled with a small "g" it is a common noun, referring to a postulated supernatural being of any religious system, as for example the gods of the Greek and Roman religions." Christianity, monotheism, or whatever else it is that you are referring to when you use the capital-G God would seem to fall into the grouping "any religious system". I'm not sure how that's supposed to be propagandistic or shocking, feel free to explain that part further if you wish. Bryan 21:41, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

God is not a god. Jack 21:56, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, we've discussed that already too. You seem to be just about the only one around here who thinks so. Bryan 22:01, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank God the truth isn't based on votes (nor concensus), or we'd all be off to hell in a handbasket. There is an interesting paragraph in the "wikiquotes" portion of my user page you might find informative. Jack 22:43, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Heh. The truth is of course totally immune to whatever we may say or do about it, but for the time being Wikipedia seems pretty much stuck with a consensus approach. There's been talk from time to time of introducing a peer review mechanism to mark certain versions of pages as "vouched for by an expert", but until something like that comes along there's not much that can be done about everyone here being roughly equal in their authority. I haven't looked at the edit history of the god article, so I don't know if you've already tried it or not, but perhaps that would be a good place to try adding something about what some people feel is correct capitalization protocol? Bryan 23:04, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Jack. A quick look through the theology and philosophy texts on my shelf showed that “G” is the accepted usage in such discussions. God also makes the point that “God” refers to the postulated “one supreme being”. The construct “God or gods” looks fine, unless one has some rhetorical intent. Banno 10:55, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But capital-G God refers to a very specific god, not to monotheistic gods in general; it's the name of a god, not a class of gods. It looks as silly a construct to me as saying atheists don't believe in "Zeus or gods" or "Ahura Mazda or gods." Perhaps a way out of this impasse would be to remove all the "god"s from this article and replace with "deity" and "deities"? Bryan 19:04, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've suggested this before, but nobody replied. --snoyes 19:11, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Bryan, how many times have you had a heated discussion with someone about the existence of Zeus or Ahura Mazda? Why are you intent on denying the prominence of that particular god referred to in the western tradition? Theology is dominated by God, not Zeus. To deny that is just vacuous. “Deity” is fine, if somewhat unusual. If it can be used to avoid this silly, trivial issue, then please use it.Banno 19:54, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(isn't it time someone archived this page?)Banno 19:54, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not denying that one particular god is most prominent in western tradition, I don't see how that's even relevant to what I said. I'm saying that atheism in general is not concerned with a specific god, and so mentioning one in the basic definition like this is simply misleading. What does it matter whether I've had heated discussions about the existence of other specific gods if I still don't believe in them either way? If I was in ancient Greece and I'd never even heard of Christianity before my objection to using "God or gods" would remain exactly the same; it has nothing to do with which gods happen to be currently the most prominent. Bryan 20:45, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Come on. How many people come to atheism looking for a brilliant intellectual discussion about people who do not believe in Zeus? The debate is an attempt to trivialise Theism by claiming that there is no difference between God and other deities. The point you are making is rhetorical, not logical. But you have cast your net too wide - In attempting to trivialise theism, you have caught the whole of theological thought, including atheism. Atheists are interesting not because they do not believe in Zeus, but because they do not believe in God. Banno 20:58, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not trying to trivialize theism and I really don't see how you're getting that from what I'm saying - we seem to be having two completely separate arguments here. I'm going out of my way to recognize the great range and diversity of beliefs that theism encompasses. You seem to be to be lumping atheism in with all sorts of theistic religions that don't feature God. However, I can definitely agree with you on one thing; let's just implement that "deity" compromise already and get this whole stupid argument over with. Bryan 21:57, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lets all keep in mind that the goal here is to make the wikipedia a quality information source, something to rival the brittanica, etc... The goal most definately is not to express your POV, even if (especially if!) the subject of the article is dear to your heart. Jack 21:42, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hear, hear. :) Bryan 21:57, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I will agree to "diety" inm the short term, as a compromise/concencus. Long term I think "God or gods" will end up being what it says, but lets leave that one alone for now. Big "D" or little "d" Diety, anyone? ;) Jack 01:13, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)