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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MFNickster 01:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MFNickster 01:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Again, you're misconstruing the meaning of "belief"...that is the core of the confusion here. Wikipedia has a fine definition of it. There is otherwise a glaring lack of clear thinking here regarding what a "belief" (or ethereal [1] "lack of belief") is. Also, see Merriam-Webster's definition of "belief" [2]. It is otherwise 'dancing on air' to not ground this discussion in commonly accepted definitions of words. --66.69.219.9 00:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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