Discussion on this article has been archived.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

• Archive 1: Discussion prior to December 14, 2001
• Archive 2: December 2001
• Archive 3: January 2002
• Archive 4: December 2002-August 2003
• Archive 5: January 2004
• Archive 6: June 2004
• Archive 7: August 2004

Weak or strong atheists may be (and in fact are) members of the international spiritual, charitable, and cultural association called Subud. At the minimum, Subud requires one to be open to insight from a source that is not explicitly known. Religious persons in Subud call this source "God" or a "creative energy in the universe" while atheistic or agnostic persons refer to it as coming into contact with intuition or the unconscious. E.g., there are various therapies such as Primal Therapy (see http://www.primalinstitute.com/theory.html) that are cathartic and energizing (like the Subud meditation exercise is), yet do not require belief in God. Aliman 21:47, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I did not mean to make any statement regarding subud, which I am unfamiliar with. I was rather pointing out that an atheist is not spiritual in nature, but rather that atheism precludes spirituality. Sam [] 22:13, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Although an atheist may well be able to follow Subud [1], I have never heard of he term, and it appears to be religious/spiritual, and uses the same incomprehensible gobledegook. It does however seem to be broadly compatible with humanism, though perhaps not secular humanism. Anyway, it has no place in this article. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:43, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the link to Subud. I see a difference between the words "religious" and "spiritual" that some people (at least Sam Spade and Dunc Harris, and probably many others) do not accept. To some, the words "religious" and "spiritual" have the same meaning. This is fine, b/c in some coarse sense they are in fact the same. In a more nuanced sense, however, there are slight but critical differences. However, it is not my purpose to argue that specific point right now. Rather, I want to point out that b/c this distinction isn't accepted, that the article got edited, and now the article is in error. That is, when I originally edited, the wording looked like this: <...religious or spiritual organizations which allow atheists as members. Some examples are the Naturalistic Pantheists, Brianism, Subud...> However, after more edits, the article now looks like this: <There are religious belief systems, including much of Buddhism, Unitarian Universalism, Subud and Universism, which do not require belief in a deity.> And, as I've said here, Subud has no beliefs, creed, dogma, nor any kind of religious tenets. Thus I've deleted it-Subud is not a "religious belief system" as the article stated. Subud may be "spiritual" in some sense (although it need not be), but it certainly is not overtly a "religious belief system." Aloha, Aliman 12:05, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade said a person cannot be both spiritual and atheist (i.e., atheism precludes spirituality). Dunc Harris said that words used to describe Spirituality are incomprehensible gobledegook. However, in order to be consistent with these views, shouldn’t the entire section on “atheist religious organizations” in the Atheist article be deleted? From your points of view such wording is unintelligible. I submit to you both that you argue that atheism precludes spirituality, and if you are successful then we can delete that section of the Atheist article that mentions “atheist religious organizations.” Aliman 12:26, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

as far as I can tell the organizations listed don't require any sort of spirituality, much less Godliness from their members. Mentioning religious groups which accept atheists seems fine to me, so long as its accurate. Sam [] 17:58, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From Naturalistic Pantheism's intro: "Naturalistic Pantheism is a form of Pantheism which holds that the universe, although unconscious and non-sentient as a whole, is a meaningful focus for human spirituality." From the principles of the Unitarian Universalist Association: "Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations" and listed among the sources of the traditions they follow: "Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature" and "Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life." In general, see the definition of spirituality, which indicates spiritality as being a focus on personal experience and revelation as the way to true understanding of the universe but does not necessarily require any gods to be involved. It looks to me like atheism and spirituality are indeed compatible. Bryan 23:02, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well we don't agree, but does it really matter? It seems to read fine to me as it is now, and heck, including Subud (and what about that "self reliance" religion of N korea?) seems pretty harmless. If atheism precludes spirituality is an important question, but is not something the article narrative should be expressing an opinion on. Sam [] 23:15, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking of Juche. Sam [] 23:20, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You said none of the organizations listed required any sort of spirituality in their members, I pointed out examples disproving that statement. It had nothing to do with the text of the article itself. Bryan 02:15, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are right about it being irrelevant to this article, and I suggest you discuss it further at Talk:Naturalistic Pantheism if you’re interested in the subject. If you'd like to see a discussion of why I think Naturalistic Pantheism is devoid of spirituality, as well as having nothing to do with pantheism, see Talk:Pantheism/Critique. There is even more info at Pan-atheism and Pseudo-pantheism. Cheers, Sam [] 00:52, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First, Sam Spade said: "...Mentioning religious groups which accept atheists seems fine to me, so long as its accurate. Sam..."

Fine, and I agree. However, there's a difference between the words "religious" and "spiritual." Spirituality doesn't necessarily have anything to do with God nor anything transcendent, while religion usually does have elements of belief in God and/or belief in something transcendent. (From Spirituality: "...Others hold that spirituality is not religion, per se, but the active and vital connection to a force, power, or sense of the deep self."). Given this aspect of the definition, it seems appropriate to mention Subud in the Atheist article because Subud does not require religious belief, and accepts atheists as members. Aliman 11:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Spirituality has everything to do with the transcendent, to suggest otherwise makes the term meaningless. Sam [] 23:17, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Second, Sam Spade said: "...atheism precludes spirituality..." (let's call it APS) and, as Bryan perspicuously pointed out, it seems that this statement (APS) is in error, given the definition of "spirituality" (cited above from the Spirituality article.) An atheist can certainly have a "vital connection to a force, power, or sense of the deep self." Neuroses and patholgoy in general stem from buried unconscious drives which, in part, result from repressed traumatic experiences from early childhood. Various therapies (e.g., Philosophical Counseling, Cognitive therapy, etc.) deal with resolving these unconscious problems, and some take a spiritual (NOT necessarily religious) approach to doing so. At the root of most therapy is developing that vital connection to the deeper self, and ridding one's self of irrational ideas (such as an omnipotent God sitting up on a golden throne, inexplicably blessing people with wonderful bounties one moment, and torturing them with Holocausts and Pol Pots the next). An atheist (or non-atheist) can fully and beneficially participate in these various types of therapy, even if the therapist does take a "spiritual" approach. So, at one end, APS is a complete error, and at the other end it's an exaggeration. Either way, it has a hard time standing up to scrutiny.

I do agree with the statement: "atheism precludes belief in the transcendent," but it could be argued that "value," in and of itself, is not something that is purely instrumental. If the argument for "inherent value" is taken far enough (which I won't argue here), the statement "atheism precludes belief in the transcendent," also, at the very least, comes into question. Aliman 11:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Spirituality refers to ones relationship with the trancendant. Taking this into account, the majority of your above statements are not relevant. Psychology does indeed have some relationship with spirituality, but this is not always the case. Look into Jung. I don't understand your statements regarding value. Sam [] 23:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Third, Sam Spade, please clarify this group of words, because it is a sentence fragment (in terms of English grammar, I mean): "If atheism precludes spirituality is an important question, but is not something the article narrative should be expressing an opinion on." E.g., if you remove the first word of this group of words (the word "If"), then the group of words becomes a sentence. There are, of course, other alterations of this group of words that could be made to turn them into a sentence, but I don't know which alterations to make. Thanks in advance for clarifying this. Aliman 11:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think what he meant there was "the question of whether atheism precludes spirituality is important, but not something the article narrative should be expressing an opinion on." Bryan 15:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bryan is correct. Sam [] 23:26, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fourth, just as a head's up, I'm going to consider putting "Subud" back into the atheism article, especially if it can be done in one sentence to show that it need only be "spiritual" in a very weak and generic sense, and that it's certainly NOT necessarily religious. The problem rears it's head here that much of what is written about Subud is written from a religious point of view, and those of us who are atheistic or agnostic (from the classical theistic point of view) have only a small voice. I.e., do a Google search, and almost everything that comes up (including things that I've written on the internet) will have the word "God" in it. But, Subud need not have any type of religious component. Aliman 11:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind you mentioning Subud, so long as what you mention is NPOV and factually accurate. Sam [] 23:26, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I guess I shouldn't put anything more on this page because it is too long? It says "44 KB" at the top. Therefore, I'll put the response to User:duncharris on the Talk:Spirituality page rather than here. (Duncharris said: "Although an atheist may well be able to follow Subud, I have never heard of [t]he term, and it appears to be religious/spiritual, and uses the same incomprehensible gobledegook [sic]." The gist of my response is that "there is room for "spirituality" within a scientific/materialistic worldview." See Talk:Spirituality for the argument. Aliman 11:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ignore that length warning, it's just advisory. At some point when the discussion above gets old and obsolete enough it'll get moved into an /Archive page and the warning will go away. Bryan 15:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I disagree w Bryan, the page needed archived, as all pages do when they near 32k. Sam [] 23:26, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Millerc writes in an edit summary: (God is a proper noun, god is a common noun; if you aren't refering to a specific god named God or quoting someone else's misusage, then don't capitalize.) I don't see how it follows the article ought not capitalize the word God here. Atheists don't believe in, among other things, God, no? - Nat Krause 07:20, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but God is a particular instance of a god (according to most people), so he's included when you talk about gods. And atheists don't not-believe only God, so IMO it's best to avoid using that one specific god's name if possible. This is an issue that's been argued extensively before, check out /Archive 5#"God vs. god", /Archive 5#Capitalization of G, /Godvrs.god poll and /Archive_6#Conventions_in_capitalization for some historical background on it. Bryan 17:23, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, as always. Every respected source of reference describes atheism as the "denial of God" [2], [3], [4], etc... The only reason the wiki doesn't explain the term in the same way is due to what is perhaps the primary weakness of NPOV, that those w strong feelings on a given subject (particularly advocates) tend to make up the majority of those willing to edit the topic regularly. This is an ugly fact of wiki-life in no way exclusive to atheism, many if not most pages regarding emotionally charged topics have a similar failing. Until we find a way to enforce NPOV, I see no reason to hope for the wiki becoming a respected source of information. Sam [] 23:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Until we find a way to enforce NPOV, don't you mean until we find an authoritarian way of enforcing a POV that agrees with your's? millerc 21:32, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about we change it to "god, God, or gods?" Andre 04:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This argument is absurd; Sam sums up the reasons admirably. But in addition, our typical reader doesn’t care that atheists do not believe in god or gods – since the vast majority of readers will agree with them. It is that they do not believe in God that makes atheism a worth topic for inclusion. Banno 10:18, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, essentially everyone "does not believe in" or at least does not worship, some god or another. It is the denial of God that defines atheism, a crude inspection of the etymology of the term tells us that. Sam [] 11:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The etymological definition has since expanded to include disbelief in any god, not just the Abrahamic god. Obviously, someone who lacks belief in that god but worships another would not rightly be called an atheist, except perhaps by some of the more extremist religious believers. It is this lack of belief in any god that defines atheism. The origin of the word is irrelevant to its current meaning, just as with many, if not most, words. Davin 00:46, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is exactly the same argument that's been gone over before. Banno's "atheism is only about my particular god" argument was done here: /Archive 5#Capitalization of G (about three quarters of the way down the section, on January 28). You can read my responses to this argument there if you like, but to summarize: "no it isn't." Atheism is about all gods, which includes the one that any given monotheist believes in but also much more than just that. Bryan 01:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By that argument, polytheists whose belief systems don't include a supreme omnipotent God are actually atheists. -Sean Curtin 00:34, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Sean, and restate request to change to "god, God, or gods" - not necessarily in that order. Andre 04:27, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why not request to change to "a god, gods, God, Goddess, Allah, YHWH, Ra, Baal, Elohim, Zeus, Jupiter, Ganesh, Shiva, Thor, Loki, etc."? Because its a silly quibble. millerc 21:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The alternatives to ‘God’ are either ugly or erroneous. But for reasons Sam has stated, the argument will continue for a few weeks, reach status for a few months before starting again when a new bunch of editors move in. In the meanwhile those outside the discussion can again have a giggle at the pratts over at atheism. Nobody cares, folks – do what you like.Banno 11:54, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I think the real question in all of this, is why so many religious people who believe in God (here I do mean the name of a particular monotheistic deity) feel the need to define a minority view point in opposition to their own beliefs (a view point which encompases much more than just a silly argument over the existance of a deity named God -- ask 10 people who believe in "God" just what "God" is, and you'll get 10 different answers, but theist rarely ask what others mean by the word God). Are they really so self absorbed, that everyone else's view point has to revolve around their own? The answer is so obvious I shouldn't even have to comment on it.

I think the word god/God may be used in three distinct ways, only one of which is causing the problem here:

1. Zeus is a greek god. Here were talking about a single diety from a pantheon, and I think everyone agrees.

2. In the beginning when God created... Here were talking about the monotheistic deity of a particular belief system, where its adherents commonly refer to the deity by the name God. Here, I think we might be able to all agree.

3. Allah is the god of... or is it Allah is a name of God? This is where we disagree. Depending on what one thinks either sentance might be correct. One should note that the second case has the implict assumption that God exists. Where the first sentance has no assumptions about if Allah exists or not, it is simply a description.

Some theists even go so far as to write sentences like Allah is the God of..., but this makes no symantic sense (unlike both sentences in 3). Its like saying Allah is the Allah of... You can't describe an entity by simply renaming it, thus we are forced to assume that "God" in this instance is a common noun (a descriptor). In English common nouns are lowercase.

Now can anyone tell me why, in an article about athiesm, why theists wish the entire article to automatically assume the existance of the monotheistic deity named God? millerc 21:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is not about atheists vrs. theists. This is about POV pushing extremists vrs. neutrality. Sam [] 14:46, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not all theists are insisting that atheism is only about their particular god, only some of them are. Those are the theists that I (and presumably also Millerc, Sean, Davin, etc.) am disputing issues with. Bryan 19:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are you familiar with roman usage of "atheist" against Christians in order to describe their early unwillingness to obseve roman holidays and/or worship roman gods? I don't see the point of trying to divide the individuals discussing these matters into the camps of atheist and theist. A well informed and NPOV seeking atheist aught to be just as able as anyone to understand the facts at hand. Sam [] 11:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Once again, I am not dividing the individuals dicussing these matters into the camps of atheist and theist, I am dividing them into the camps "thinks atheism covers all gods" and "thinks atheism only covers my god". All members of the latter group are of course theists, since only theists have gods, but not all theists are members of the latter group. As for the roman usage of "atheist", it's already mentioned in the article: Atheism#Polemical usage. Expand that section more if you like. Bryan 18:10, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Just use "god" or "gods" since it's universally applicable. Princeton's WordNet: god Atheism is the "lack of god-beliefs of any type for whatever reason." The common noun works well because it's a common noun. The proper noun doesn't work well because it's specific and according Wikimedia's Wikipedia's intent, specificity should generally be avoided. Adraeus 04:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's considered rude to revert someone's content without discussing it first. You could have asked for a source without reverting. Anyway, a source is provided now. – Quadell ^{(talk) (quiz)}[[]] 22:44, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to be rude. Anyhow, I've read the article you linked, and I still don't see their source. There is a table and two graphics, each with different sources, but the quote you've chosen to pull from the article ("52 percent of Americans claim they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist for president") appears in a big unattributed list of figures that also includes such gems as "The conservative Family Research Council calculates that 6 million likely Democratic voters have been aborted since Roe v. Wade." and "Half of all Saudis approve of Osama bin Laden?s rhetoric, but only 5% want him to rule over them." Which Americans expressed this opinion, and when? Who took the poll? As much as I like Mother Jones, I don't think their article you linked to justifies such a silly statement appearing in the Atheism article here. A wise man once told me that 47% of all statistics are made up on the spot :) ~leif @ 00:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that. -Homer Simpson | Talk 00:36, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I was disappointed Mother Jones hadn't provided an adequate source. I dunno. Should we remove it? Or should we say "Journalist Ross MacDonald, writing for Mother Jones Magazine, states that. . ."? – Quadell ^{(talk) (quiz)}[[]] 11:55, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)