| Revision as of 01:08, 31 October 2013 editXan81 (talk | contribs)168 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:49, 5 January 2025 edit undoScjessey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,029 edits →Atheism in the purest sense of the word |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{notice|The '''definition of atheism''' has been repeatedly argued on this talk page. Before suggesting substantial changes, please make sure that your view is entirely supported by ] and has a ].}} |
|
{| style="background: #EE2244;" |
|
|
|
{{Round in circles|topic=the '''definition in the first paragraph'''}} |
|
|- |
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|{{notice|The '''definition of atheism''' has been repeatedly argued on this talk page. Before suggesting substantial changes, please make sure that your view is entirely supported by ] and has a ].}} |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|{{Round in circles|topic=the '''definition in the first paragraph'''}} |
|
|
|} |
|
|
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes}} |
|
|
<!----- // ADD NEW DISCUSSIONS TO THE *BOTTOM* OF THE PAGE // -----> |
|
<!----- // ADD NEW DISCUSSIONS TO THE *BOTTOM* OF THE PAGE // -----> |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1date=31 May 2006 |
|
|action1date=31 May 2006 |
| Line 26: |
Line 22: |
|
|action3oldid=126689566 |
|
|action3oldid=126689566 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4 = FAR |
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|
|
|action4date = 2022-11-26 |
|
|
|action4link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Atheism/archive1 |
|
|
|action4result = demoted |
|
|
|action4oldid = 1123028232 |
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FFA |
|
|maindate=8 June 2007 |
|
|maindate=8 June 2007 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|class=FA|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Atheism|class=FA|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Atheism|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|class=FA|importance=High|religion=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|religion=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Theology|class=FA|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Theology|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WP1.0|v0.7=pass|class=FA|category=Philrelig|VA=yes|WPCD=yes|small=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{DEFAULTSORT:Atheism}} |
|
|
{{Controversial-issues}} |
|
{{Controversial-issues}} |
|
{{Calm talk}} |
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{to do}} |
|
{{to do}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
{{archives |auto=short |search=yes |index=/Archive index |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=weeks }} |
|
|
__FORCETOC__ <!-- Force table of contents to appear- it refuses to otherwise --> |
|
<!-- Force the table of contents to appear- it refuses to otherwise --> |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|counter = 52 |
|
|counter = 56 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|algo = old(21d) |
|
|algo = old(21d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Atheism/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Atheism/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Atheism/Archive index |
|
|target=Talk:Atheism/Archive index |
|
|mask=Talk:Atheism/Archive <#> |
|
|mask=Talk:Atheism/Archive <#> |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
|
}}{{bots|deny=Yobot}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
<!----- // DISCUSSION TOPICS START BELOW // -----> |
|
<!----- // DISCUSSION TOPICS START BELOW // -----> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{hat|This talk page is for discussion of how to improve the article. It is ] for general discussion.}} |
|
== Atheism as form of belief? == |
|
|
|
===Differences=== |
|
|
|
|
|
* atheism is personocratic (it is non-personocratic, but studies the "personocratic criterion" and in philosophy and not only; categories are grouped with the hypernymic criterion of focus) (focused on the denial of the supposed precosmic cosmogonic person); naturalism is physiocratic/naturocratic (it is the pure metaphysics of physics; without a personocratic bias ) |
|
Atheism is a form of belief, not believing is the same as believing (believing by not believing). So this mutter, should be corrected. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
* atheism is a negation; naturalism not |
|
:This has been argued to death. The usual rhetoric is to respond with "Baldness is not a type of haircut", "not believing in Unicorns isn't a form of belief", "not eating isn't a type of meal" or some such, ] (]) 22:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* atheism as a term is famous nowadays; naturalism is not and doesn't have enough followers (it's not self-evident on philosophical doctrines people to easily move from one idea to a better defined) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Similarities=== |
|
::Beautiful senselessness. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
* usually (but according to Pew Reseach, Robert Sapolsky and many others) they both accept '''only''' science (partially won't do, because theists do the same; partiality here is a bad criterion for categorization) |
|
::Baldness can be a type of haircut, Wolfie. I think you were going for "Bald is not a hair color". But obviously, not believing ≠ believing. ~ ] (]) 18:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Atheism need not be a belief; it may be a simple lack of interest. See ], or apatheism. "an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant..." __ ] (]) 18:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Or, for example, ] which is for people who do "not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact". ] (]) 00:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::The definition of atheism is contested. Disappointingly, this article's opening hierarchy of definitions appears to be OR which misrepresents the sources used (as I wrote above, with no response). ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 06:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Misrepresents the sources, how so? Rowe, "in the broader sense of the term" is referring to the kinds of deities rejected, as does Nielsen who writes for the Britannica "Atheism, '''in general''', the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. . Our opening sentence essentially paraphrases this definition of rejection. Rowe points out the commonly understood narrowest definition, is the ] belief that there is no God, but since there are, in fact, many ], Blackburn correctly refers to "a god" and not "God" when he states that atheism can be "...the belief that there exists none." --] (]) 14:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::In other word, pure ]. Rowe calls his definition "broader", WP somehow turns it into a "narrower" one. The tripartite interrelated definition WP gives is found in no source. There are further problems: a lead should summarize the article body ... this one starts by expounding a novel theory. In general, my impression is this article attempts to engage in the atheism debate rather than observing it disinterestedly, and some past editors have perhaps become a bit too attached to the ingenious OR they opened the article with. It would be much better to open with a statement that the definition is contested (easily sourced), rather than attempting to nail atheism down with a synthesized bit of thinking. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 07:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Rowe calls a "disbelief in every form of deity" definition a "broader sense" than merely "disbelief in God". Which is true, though using "atheist" for disbelief in a specific god includes believers in competing gods, and is a rather uncommon usage. Both of those senses are, indeed, narrower than the other two senses in our lede. ~ ] (]) 07:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::... which is a broad/narrow distinction that differs from the one in the article, and is OR. The very fact the opening sentences need this kind of exegesis should be ringing alarm bells (along with the other problems I raised.) ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 09:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Rowe's definitions seem to confuse more than enlighten thus we can remove/replace it. Someone may have inserted it when another editor objected to using the term "position" instead of "belief"; we once had a philosophy text to source that usage, but I don't know what became of it (alas, perfectionists abound... ;). There are plenty of other sources available for the definition that atheism is a position/belief asserting that no deity exists. Yet Nielsen states (and Edwards supports) that although atheists affirm nonexistence of some deities that this is inadequate (thus too narrow) and it is the broader sense of rejection that is adequate. Dictionary definitions and our sources actually DO give us the broader senses of disbelief and lack of belief, as well as the narrower senses of belief and doctrine. That some people (often with agendas to push) have problems with one or more of these is better left in the body of the article where such navel-gazing gets its due weight and no more than that. -] (]) 13:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::I think this article should be locked even from wikipedian insiders, so that no one can ever correct the horrendously poor grammer and syntax. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::::::::::::::"Grammar", I think you mean. --] (]) 20:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
There are only two options. Either a) Athe-ism = a belief that there are no Gods, and is a philosophy. Athe-ist = someone who believes there are no Gods. Or, b) A-theism = no god belief, is not a philosophy, and can describe every sentient and non-sentient thing in existence, except Theists. A-theist = not a God believer, and could describe anything but Theists. Athe-ist defines a person, A-theist doesn't. ] (]) 07:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::::And yet historically the word "atheist" has been used probably more often of believers in gods than in nonbelievers in gods. In any case, your comment is not based on the literature. --] (]) 20:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I would define an atheist as “one who has no belief in deities” not “something which has no belief in deities”. In general, any sort of -ist is a person, not an inanimate object. ~ ] (]) 11:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Incorrect. "atheist" can be an adjective: an "atheist" book is an inanimate object, but a perfectly reasonable use of the word. See also -ist words which can be used in an adjectival sense: abolitionist, royalist, fascist, Baptist, anarchist, racist, etc. But you went wrong when you said "I would define..." It doesn't matter, in Misplaced Pages, what you would do. --] (]) 21:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Calling a pencil or a book ''atheist'' is a '''reasonable''' use of the word as an adjective where by whom, when? Is there a scholar that has been using it in this manner? Has it been used in a national news story in any country in this manner? I have never witnessed this usage of atheist as an adjective for an inanimate object except in a few atheist discussion groups as an extreme case of set theory. It is NOT common practice and would be laughed at by most people. ] (]) 21:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::The Oxford English Dictionary lists "atheist" is both noun and adjective. And, as I pointed out, there are lots of -ist words which can be used adjectivally, as in "atheist book". Nobody laughs when people call '']'' an atheist book. And if my pencil says "Atheism is cool", nobody will laugh if I call it an "atheist pencil". They might laugh if it doesn't carry any atheist message and I call it an atheist pencil on the grounds that it isn't specifically a theistic pencil, but unfortunately we are in the position where some definitions of atheism would suggest that possibility. My point is that we should not rush to rule out adjectival use of "atheist" just because we don't like what we consider excessively generalised conceptualisations of the atheistic.--] (]) 23:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::If it helps, see: --] (]) 23:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::When I hear “atheist book”, I think of books like '']'' or '']'', and not like '']''. Seems like I interpret that phrase to mean “books written from an atheistic perspective”. ~ ] (]) 22:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: Well, yeah, that's what the adjectival form means in the English language. An "atheist perspective" is also adjectival, of course :-), and nobody laughs at that --] (]) 23:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::: Sure. You can have socialist ideals, but ideals aren't socialists. You can subscribe to a racist ideology, but ideologies aren't racists. You can read an anarchist manifesto, but manifestos aren't anarchists. In general, -ists are people. ~ ] (]) 04:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The idea that Atheism as defined simply as a "lack of belief in any god(s)", and can thus include "any non sentient or sentient thing in existence", is easily remedied by defining atheist as a person, thereby making it impossible for any non-sentient thing to be called an atheist. So please, stop using that ridiculous line of reasoning to try and pigeon-hole the meaning of atheism as just the belief their is no god, it's not going to work. ] (]) 16:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm sorry, but it is not Misplaced Pages's job to "easily remedy" problems caused by the difficulties in defining atheism. Like it or not, "atheism" can be used as a noun or an adjective. We may think it unfortunate that the way atheism is sometimes defined means you could end up talking about "atheist pencils" even if the pencil sports no obvious atheist message or symbol, but Misplaced Pages cannot unilaterally remedy that. But nor should we use this problem, if it is a problem (and that's not for us to say), to try to impose a particular definition on this article. --] (]) 21:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Surely you meant “atheist” (not “atheism”) can be used as a noun or an adjective. Personally, I don‘t find it confusing that an inanimate object can be X-ist without being an X-ist. Though you may well confuse your readers talking about “atheist staplers”, “atheist diamonds”, and suchlike that have no semantic connection to atheism. ~ ] (]) 04:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
My argument wasn't that atheist will always and everywhere imply "a person", (that's not how language works) but that the argument that atheism, as defined by "a lack of belief", necessarily implies "atheist pencils", is false, as long as the word "atheist" can mean JUST a person. In other words, it doesn't matter that a pencil "lacks" belief in god, what matters is whether "atheist" is understood as a person, or "sentient thing", because IF it is then a pencil cannot be an atheist. I'd say in most cases (though I don't have a citation), it'd be a safe bet to say atheist is understood as a person. Honestly this seems rather obvious to me, the only reason there has been any argument about this at all is because theists want atheist to carry the same burden of proof as they do, i.e. "belief there is no god." ] (]) 10:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:Misplaced Pages does not define a word, just reports other's definitions. Get a ] of what you want to use and discuss it here; if it already has not been discussed ]. I suspect part of the problem is that atheist and atheism have many meanings. From its "parse-the-word" definition and "dictionary definition" to various groups' definitions. The definitions are irresolute. |
|
|
|
|
|
:As far as requiring proof of one's "belief there is no god", it would seem to open up the requirement one having to prove an infinite number of things they don't believe in. There are many claims of different gods, see: ]. You might be able to ask for proving one's claim for only one god, but not the 20,000 or more gods that have been documented by anthropologists. Generally, the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the denier. ] (]) 03:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::This is an age-old argument. I personally think that people who grow up within a religious-structured environment become used to thinking of others in terms of belief, due to environmental recognition, which is there is the presupposition among religious people that atheism is a belief, or why people who have abandoned a heavily faith-based environment may embrace the concept of disbelief in a 'religious-like' manner, but that's all rather irrelevant to wikipedia because that's my own original research. What I would point out, though, is that there is a large amount of confusion between the boundaries of atheism and secular humanism. Whilst many atheists are secular humanists, and vice verse, it is not universally true for all and because it can be more readily argued that secular humanism is a belief system, there is bound to be a bleed-over between the two for those who aren't experts on the subject. Maybe worth highlighting the two? I dunno. Just running my mouth off here. ] (]) 10:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Funnily enough, my own experience, far from suggesting that "there is the presupposition among religious people that atheism is a belief", suggests that among religious people there is a presupposition that atheism is a ''lack of belief'', and in many cases a strong resistance to the view that an atheist actually has belief. But there you are, that simply confirms the need for reliable sources, since two Misplaced Pages editors' good faith impressions can be diametrically opposite. ] (]) 12:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Antony Flew and this article on Atheism == |
|
|
|
|
|
Antony Flew is mentioned in this article on Atheism in the paragraph titled - Positive v's Negative. One might consider that in mentioning Flew in an article on Atheism one should also mention that Flew was an atheist for most of his life but chose in the end to be a theist and believe that God does exist. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:According to his bio page here, that's true, but the place on this page where I see him mentioned doesn't really deal with that issue, just some distinctions between different classifications of atheism, as opposed to Flew's personal belief system. Therefore, I think that pointing it out would be sort of off-topic within that particular section of the page, and could be a distraction. --] (]) 20:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree with Tryptofish--] (]) 22:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::Ditto. Flew's conversion to vague deism in his dotage may be germane in ], but not here. ~ ] (]) 03:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I agree with Robin Lionheart above me. Flew hold in a version of vague ], not Thesim, and i would be surprised if there exists a reference of Flew calling himself a "Theist". ] (]) 02:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::He's mentioned because of his contribution to the clarification of the meaning of atheism. Clearly he changed his philosophical views later in life, but that's not relevant to the section --] (]) 20:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Some very interesting and very important statistics == |
|
|
|
|
|
Dont you think that in section ''Demographics'' must be also statistics about people's ]. I think it is necessary as long as it's shows '''the real rate''' of people's religiousness. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or statistics about religion's importance by country, provided here- ]. It's also shows '''the real rate''' of people's religiousness. |
|
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The third definition in the opening == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have not read this article or the preceding Talk comments, so, if what I write here is redundant, then I apologize. But the third definition -- "the position that there are no deities" -- is ambiguous. On the one hand, a person who takes that position might insist on the truth of a negative, but to do that requires an act of faith, and few atheists are foolish enough to do that. After all, atheists are generally people who do not believe things on faith. On the other hand, I take the position that there are no deities, not as an act of faith, but because no evidence of them is known to exist. Therefore, my taking of that position is provisional, because, if evidence were discovered, I would consider altering my position. ] (]) 00:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
And finally the last suggestion: another '''very intersting study''' by Gallup. According that, '''Religiosity Highest in World's Poorest Nations.''' The link is here ''http://www.gallup.com/poll/142727/religiosity-highest-world-poorest-nations.aspx''. That's '''really interesting statistics''': how mush is given country '''poor''', ''the rate of religiousness in that country is higher.'' Really interesting thing. And given the USA alone, situation is the same: more pure is a given State, the higher is religiousness rate. I think this information is very ''exciting''. I wonder why till today there is no any information I mentioned above. |
|
|
|
:It does ''seem'' a little ambiguous, but I can assure you it reflects the body of scholarly work on the subject. -- ] (]) 16:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::The sources states that in a narrow sense it is a position. It does not matter how people come to that position as there is no one path to reach it, any more than for theism (faith, reason, evidence etc are not unique, but universal).] (]) 05:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hi, 'believing in God' and 'believin in the existence of God' are 2 different things. Cf. my comment below. ] (]) 01:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:It is not ambiguous. The below statement is a statement of opinion, not fact. In order to make this statement, you would have needed to review all of the evidence, which you certainly have not, and correctly interpreted it. You're a human being capable of misinterpreting evidence. It is also a statement of faith, you're putting your faith exclusively in your own five senses since you personally have not experienced a deity with those senses. |
|
|
:"I take the position that there are no deities, not as an act of faith, but because no evidence of them is known to exist." ] (]) 17:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hello, |
|
|
::Believers do not believe in god because they think there is compelling evidence that god or gods exist. That's not what 'believing in god' (or gods) mean. |
|
|
::I noticed that dictionary definitions sometimes defined atheism as the lack of belief in the existence of God and others as the lack of belief in the existence of god of Gods. |
|
|
::The 'existence'-definition is misleading. The belief is not in the existence but 'in god'. |
|
|
::I keep reading sterile exchanges between theists and atheists about whether god exists or not, with atheists coming up with the no-evidence argument. These debates are restricted to the US to my knowledge. In the rest of the world we know that you don't convince someone into believing in god or stop believing in god. You don't talk someone into being in love or stop being love. |
|
|
::What you can show the person is that their claim that they are in love is fake. |
|
|
::Not a believer myself, not preaching my relgion. ] (]) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hat|reason=Collapsing off-topic discussion per ]}} |
|
|
::I am not interested in editing this article, so feel free to ignore this comment, but the third definition ''is'' ambiguous, for the reason I stated; it doesn't merely ''seem'' ambiguous. And it is unequivocally ambiguous, not just "a little ambiguous." If the body of scholarly work on the subject overlooks or writes off this ambiguity (if that's what you mean), then so much the worse for the body of scholarly work on the subject. ] (]) 16:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The third definition is strong or ] as in "there is no ] and no divinity either". It is true it can be provisional, as in "there is no divinity unless one becomes evident". Nevertheless, positive atheism is notable hence its inclusion in the lede. Also the degree it's provisional or not largely depends on context and individual assessments which falls a bit outside its scope, although I am reminded of Richard Dawkins' ]. ] (]) 18:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I agree with everything you say here, but I want to emphasize that the difference between a strong atheist (in Dawkins' terms) and a provisional one is crucial, because the former, like a strong theist, believes irrationally, as a matter of faith, and deserves no more respect a strong theist who claims to know that a god exists. |
|
|
::::I disagree with Dawkins' description of the strongest atheist after that a "strong atheist." It is "''De facto'' atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. 'I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'" I consider myself a stronger atheist than that, without being a "strong atheist" in Dawkins' sense. That is because I would not say that I don't know for certain that a god doesn't exist. I would say that nobody ''can'' know for certain. But I have no more doubt about the non-existence of a god than I do about the non-existence of flying pigs, while I acknowledge that I can't "know" the non-existence of either. |
|
|
::::I concede that I may be conflating logic and feelings here. Logically, I acknowledge the possibility that a god exists, but I do not ''feel'' that there is any possibility. The person who uses Dawkins' phrase, "I don't know for certain," sounds as though he ''feels'' that there is a possibility, however close to zero, that a god exists. How's that for nitpicking? ] (]) 02:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::See ]. It makes a clear distinction between knowing (we do not or cannot know) and not believing because we do not have a belief in a god (or a divinity) and we may believe there is no god (provisionally on account of one's agnosticism). ] (]) 04:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Possible image? == |
|
So, I have made 3 suggestions to put in the article this 3 statistical informations. Guys, please your opinions '''to any of this sugestion one by one''', and please-please your comments must be ''reasonable''. Thanks in advance. ] (]) 22:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:I am not exactly sure what you are suggesting. Can you show the reliable secondary sources that are informing your viewpoint? ] (]) 23:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::Is not it obvious: I suggest to put all above mentioned statistics in the article's section called ''Demographics''. As of sources, first 2 of them in mentioned articles (about '''Church attendance''' and '''Importance of religion by country''') and the last one in the '''link''' I mentioned above (I mean Gallup's study). In my opinion this figures are important for the topic.So what you think? ] (]) 00:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:Church attendance statistics seem irrelevant, especially to an article on atheism. Nor do rates of church attendance indicate a “real rate” of religiousness. (Some of American Atheists' ad campaigns specifically target atheists who go to church, and there are devoutly religious people who don’t attend church at all.) ~ ] (]) 04:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::There is actually a Misplaced Pages article on ]. Have a look there. ] (]) 08:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per other language wikis and the ], would ] be good for illustrating the article? ] (]) 08:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Have added that image to the Etymology section ] (]) 21:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
Well, OK, what about Gallup is reserch about ''comparision of poor condition of coutries and their religiousness''? I think it's necessary in this article. And if even there is a same information in another article, it is not a reason to '''not''' include this figures here. ] (]) 11:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== create page: ] = ] == |
|
And '''second''', you did '''not''' respond about figures of '''Importance of religion by country'''. Why? Please also your comments about it. And please don't pretend that such statistics are not '''concern''' to this article. Thanks in advance. ] (]) 11:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ] = ]: Atheism based only on the lack of empirical methodologal proof (only ]: scientific observation and scientific experiments are safe for conclusions ). |
|
:You will find that you are more likely to get a reasonable response to your comments if you show some manners... ] (]) 12:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not all atheists are '''empirical atheists'''. Some accept axiomatic foundations (see: ], ], ] , see also: ]). Some atheists accept the ], etc. |
|
:And in answer to your suggestions, the correct place for further demographic information is generally in the ] article, though as far as I can see it is already covered there. Regarding the 'Importance of religion by country' data, one needs to be careful about making assumptions not actually borne out directly by the source (and incidentally, our article on the subject seems to contain some unsourced data). ] (]) 13:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
see: ] (see academic documents on all possible methods of proof). |
|
Excuse me, what does it mean ''to show some manners'' ?? I have very normal manners and dont try to change the subject of the issue just because you dont like it! I just asked to make '''reasonable responds''', and there is nothing bad in it ! Misplaced Pages '''is not your ownership''' and if you disagree with some suggestions, ''it must be reasonable'', you can't just refuse them ''without reasons''. Thats the Rules of Misplaced Pages. And never again try to teach me the manners !! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not all methods of proof are formal. But those who have rigorous logical foundations are used by atheists who debunk the personhooded self-axiomatization, teleology and religious cosmogony. Logical monism is wrong (see: experimental logical foundations . ] has many arguments: separation of personhood per brain, Everettism = many-worlds interpretation, logical, axiomatic and cosmological pluralism, etc. |
|
And ''second'', I am disagree with your comments: if there is an article about ''Demographics of atheism'', thats not a reason to '''not''' show some figures here. We have section '''Demographics''' here, so why not it can be added there? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am asking to some other User, who are not prejudice, to join to this discussion to make any normal solution according to the Misplaced Pages Rules. Thanks in advance. ] (]) 16:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
Not all atheists have the exact same views. Atheist popularizers like many new atheists, attack religion with merged forces but usually avoid to elaborate to the different atheistic movements. ] (]) 03:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
: Much of manners is about tone of voice. Just the phrase "you can't just refuse them ''without reasons''. Thats the Rules of Misplaced Pages. And never again try to teach me the manners !!" show extremely poor manners. A more polite way to phrase the same line would be "I do not fully understand why you object. Could you please clarify a bit more". |
|
|
: More on the content. I think from the above that there are 2 types of argument. |
|
|
: The first being that this data is infamously difficult to collect as every religion, country and ethnic group differently defines church attendance. Even though Gallop is generally ok, it would probably be preferable to have additional sources, especially those that were not involved in data collection (ie secondary sources). |
|
|
: The second argument relates to the question whether we should include this information even if it can be reliable sources. The tendency seems to be that there are several articles on Misplaced Pages that cover this. So is it necessary to add this at this top level article. Over anything else we want to keep articles as concise as possible to support easy reading. ] (]) 17:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Dear User Arnoutf, OK, thats good ''we want to keep articles as concise as possible to support easy reading''. But I have 2 questions to you: '''first''': in the section '''Demographics''' we have many figures. Why cant we add just 2 more sentences about Gallup's reserch? (btw now I am talking '''only''' about reserch where there is ''comparision of poor condition of coutries and their religiousness''). Don't you think that mentioned statistics are also interesting for the people who read this article? And '''second''' question: you said ''there are several articles on Misplaced Pages that cover this''. Can you show at least one artilce in Wiki, where this topic ''is covered''.(Again, I mean '''only''' Gallup's reserch where there is ''comparision of poor condition of coutries and their religiousness''). Thanks in advance. ] (]) 17:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::IP 46, since you asked, I am an "not prejudice" other user, and I concur that your approach and manners here have been suboptimal. You'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar... |
|
|
:::Nevertheless, to answer your main point, no, I don't think the inclusion of those statistics are relevant, or appropriate here, mainly for the reasons elucidated by Robin Lionheart, and Andy gave you some good advice in his second post too. Thanks. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 17:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Robin Lionheart responded '''only''' about one suggestion (Church attendance). The '''2 others''' are not responded yet. I still dont get an answer about another question: is there any article where this topic (Gallup's reserch)''is covered''. And I dont expect respond now. Nevertheless, I just wanted to make article better. ] (]) 18:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I fully accept that 46. is here to try to make the article better. My take on the content is: |
|
|
:::::#I think that church attendance belongs in articles about religion, instead of about atheism, because it is ] to conclude from non-attendance that people are atheists (as opposed to agnostics or seculars, etc.) |
|
|
:::::#About religiousity by country, it may fit better in ], but again, any article about atheism cannot confound agnostics, etc., with atheists. |
|
|
:::::#About wealth, that information clearly fits best at ]. |
|
|
:::::--] (]) 21:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I don't think this stuff belongs here, it belongs at the articles about religion etc as mentioned by Tryptofish. ] (]) 23:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please provide evidence of your claim. (which sounds reasonable)]] 07:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::I'm not sure I understand how including more statistics about other subjects will improve an article about atheism. Could that be clarified by the OP? --] (]) 20:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Atheism in the purest sense of the word == |
|
== Opening the definition box in case any hope might be left therein == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Atheism comes from the Greek word ''atheos'' (without god/s), up to that we all agree, the problem is that then each person opts for one or another meaning, making this "-ism" very confusing. |
|
I'm very clear that 1) the current first ¶ of the lede asserts a definition of atheism and that 2) it comes up short of what that thing is in the world big time. It therefore will need to be addressed sooner or later. The deficiency is that it fails to make clear that Atheism is the failure to found belief on faith and the insistence that it instead be grounded in reason. I'm sure this is very contentious and has been the result of much milling nonetheless, this isn't going to go away just because the notice above is redboxed. However this is to be addressed, I want to join efforts with others that I'm sure have tried to say something like that. It's certainly extremely well backed by many sources. Neither is it elsewhere in the lede or evident in the TOC. ] (]) 02:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If it is not too much to ask, I would like another meaning to be added that I see is not in the article (since the page is protected I cannot do it myself), being an atheist because even though the gods exist, they do not deserve worship or their worship is not necessary. Two great examples would be ] '''the Atheist''' and the emperor-philosopher ]: |
|
:::I don't see any sources for your claim that there is a "deficiency" in our definition along the lines you suggest. Please cite sources from the literature to support your claim, so that we can discuss them. --] (]) 21:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Diagoras was an atheist because he did not believe that the gods deserved worship; |
|
:"Atheism is the failure to found belief on faith and the insistence that it instead be grounded in reason"? Weasel-worded sophistry, and nothing more... ] (]) 02:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* Marcus Aurelius was "atheist" because he believed that the good gods did not care whether they were worshipped or not, only whether you were good to yourself and your neighbor, while the bad gods did not deserve worship. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "non-worship" or atheism of evil gods is represented in popular culture with ], gods exist but there are mortals who are atheists due to the fact that they do not believe that gods deserve any kind of worship. |
|
::Yello ATG, I purposely didn't try to make a statement that I propose go into the lede in my words. I take it others will be able to get the point. ] (]) 04:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, I don't see it is discussed that, for example, christians are "atheists when it comes to Satan", but wouldn't fear or hatred of him be a form of worship even if it was from a negative perspective? |
|
:::From my point of view, founding belief on reason not faith is no "failure". Quite the opposite — like ] is wont to say, faith is an excuse people give themselves to believe things for no good reason. But atheism has naught to do with where your beliefs are grounded. It's simply a nonbelief in gods; you can still believe all sorts of other nonsense yet be an atheist. ~ ] (]) 07:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The box at the top of this talk page isn't really intended to prevent discussion, just to avoid having the same conversations over and over again without getting anywhere. If someone can come up with an idea that is ''genuinely'' a new one, and ''genuinely'' an improvement to the page, then great. But, please be forewarned. --] (]) 19:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::(adjusted indentation). i.e. a Failure to do what most do in fact. Failure is an objective term here not a qualitative one. Are you already getting balled up in petty semantics and missing the fundamental semantic point? See ] and many, many other sources for the larger picture. ] (]) 03:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::"Failure" as it appears in your original post indicates a non-neutral viewpoint. Nobody here is going to change the definition to include non-neutral wording. ] (]) 03:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} The point is that the Atheist has a rational life stance and the narrow definition in terms of deities is both false and evasive of that essential point. Stop ] on wording when I've made clear that I'm not proposing any specific wording. ] (]) 14:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:"Atheist has a rational life stance" looks like wishful thinking, or self-flattery. An atheist may easily hold irrational views on a variety of topics, including (lack of) belief in a deity or deities. Rationality is not a prerequisite to atheism (nor is organization, in case that's where this is headed.) Do you have reliable sourcing for "that essential point" that says otherwise? __ ] (]) 15:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::Indeed. I personally know one atheist who believes in psychics, and another atheist who is a libertarian. ~ ] (]) 19:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I know lots of atheists who believe the universe created itself. - Thomas Lachowsky <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:{{ec}} The term "atheism" means different things to different people, and as long as those differing views are given coverage by reliable sources, this article must reflect those views. Trying to pigeon hole atheists won't work. Attempts to narrow the focus of the article will not be viewed favorably. -- ] (]) 15:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 17:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:: Also, many theists would claim that their belief in the existence of god is rational. Whether it is or not is the main (but not the only) subject of the dialectic between theists and atheists. --] (]) 21:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:This case would seem to fall under other articles, such as ], ] and, well, ]. What you are seeking to add is no longer considered a form of atheism, as evidenced by the fact it is not reflected in the reliable sources we have drawn from. -- ] (]) 17:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:: Furthermore, there is yet no consensus as to what triggered the expansion of the universe from a 1-dimensional point of infinite density and infinite smallness. This solitary aspect keeps ] in the realm of ] - a set of commonly accepted beliefs backed by no fact. |
|
|
|
::Well, I have to disagree with your take, I never said the meaning I posted is or must be the main meaning of the "-ism", I just said it should be added as another meaning alongside the rest that already appear. Maybe as a part of the "Etymology" section or the "History" one, or an independent one as "Popular culture" (in reference to D&D). |
|
|
::And about "is no longer considered a form of atheism", depends on the person you ask, there are many atheists that are atheists no because they know 100% there are no gods, but because even if the gods exist (good, neutral or evil ones), there is no point in worshipping them. |
|
|
::This article is not about what form of atheism is correct (this is not religion where there's an orthodox view and the rest of meanings are heresies), but what atheism means, and not adding the most essential meaning of the word ''atheos'' (lit. "without god/s") is a little ridiculous. |
|
|
::And about the other "-isms" you mentionated, they explain about point of view from the perspective of the relationship '''between''' god/s and humankind, not from the '''lack of''' relationship, in othe words, atheism. |
|
|
::] (]) 18:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm sorry, but if you and "many atheists" believe in the existence of one or more gods, even if those gods are not worthy of worship or don't need it, then you are all ''theists'', not atheists. -- ] (]) 19:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I don't believe in gods, so I'm an atheist in the mainstream meaning of the word. But you're wrong, atheist came from ''atheos'', without god/s, therefore (again) even if gods exist, you are an atheist if you don't worship them. |
|
|
::::Atheist also was used for people that were proper believers but were forsaken by their gods, using (again) the original meaning of the word: "without god/s". |
|
|
::::This article is about Atheism, all meanings of the word should appear, don't matter if they're modern or not. |
|
|
::::] (]) 16:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I think your point is not without merit. In practice, I like many atheists understand the word "atheism" to mean both "there are no gods in my world-view" and "there are no gods in my life", and the second part of that is possibly the more important part. Many atheists will say they are not interested in debates about the theoretical possibility that there is a god out there somewhere, because even if one does exist, it would make no difference to their lives. Now you are imagining a person who actively believes there is a god, but gives it no place in their life - Scjessey is right that atheism is not the best word to describe that, but if you tone down the active belief to a "dunno", that is actually where many atheists would position themselves. ] (]) 17:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::(But to be clear, I am agreeing with Scjessey that this doesn't belong in the current article unless you have reliable sources showing that a significant body of informed opinion uses the word in this way. I am agreeing with you that atheism can have as much to do with a lifestyle choice as with an intellectual opinion, but if your characterization of Diagoras of Melos and Marcus Aurelius is correct, they are at best tangential to what atheism is today.) ] (]) 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I would argue the section on ] fully explains how the meaning of the word has evolved to the one we use today, so the construct posited above is already adequately covered. -- ] (]) 19:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC) |
I have not read this article or the preceding Talk comments, so, if what I write here is redundant, then I apologize. But the third definition -- "the position that there are no deities" -- is ambiguous. On the one hand, a person who takes that position might insist on the truth of a negative, but to do that requires an act of faith, and few atheists are foolish enough to do that. After all, atheists are generally people who do not believe things on faith. On the other hand, I take the position that there are no deities, not as an act of faith, but because no evidence of them is known to exist. Therefore, my taking of that position is provisional, because, if evidence were discovered, I would consider altering my position. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Not all methods of proof are formal. But those who have rigorous logical foundations are used by atheists who debunk the personhooded self-axiomatization, teleology and religious cosmogony. Logical monism is wrong (see: experimental logical foundations . Pluralistic physicalism has many arguments: separation of personhood per brain, Everettism = many-worlds interpretation, logical, axiomatic and cosmological pluralism, etc.
If it is not too much to ask, I would like another meaning to be added that I see is not in the article (since the page is protected I cannot do it myself), being an atheist because even though the gods exist, they do not deserve worship or their worship is not necessary. Two great examples would be Diagoras of Melos the Atheist and the emperor-philosopher Marcus Aurelius:
The "non-worship" or atheism of evil gods is represented in popular culture with Dungeons & Dragons, gods exist but there are mortals who are atheists due to the fact that they do not believe that gods deserve any kind of worship.
Also, I don't see it is discussed that, for example, christians are "atheists when it comes to Satan", but wouldn't fear or hatred of him be a form of worship even if it was from a negative perspective?
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
