Discussion on this article has been archived.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
• Archive 8: October 2004
• Archive 9: October 2004
• Archive 10: November 2004

In case anyone is still interested in these:

• Atheism/DR Dispute Resolution version of article
• Talk:Atheism/DR Dispute Resolution talk page

Does anybody agree about anything? Shall we vote? Is concensus possible? I am doubtful. Sam [] 03:02, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We won't be going anywhere for a while yet, Sam. While Felonious Monk:

• chooses to ignore (or reasonlessly condemn) arguments against his convictions
• merely continues (with amazing stamina) to recite conviction of his own correctness, without acknowledging that his views are partisan
• won't even accept a common definition of the word 'disbelief'

He claims that we haven't provided authoratative evidence: there is a wealth of it in the discussion above. He claims that his sources are impeccable, but chooses to cite Christians and Hindus when referring to Buddhist views. He chooses 3 personally edited definitions of 'disbelief', completely ignoring the etymology of the word. To him, to dislike, disinter, disabuse, disadvantage, etc. etc. are passive, non-privative words. I ask him to stop being so disagreeable. According to FM, nearly everyone disagrees with him, because they don't actively agree with him.

FM - if you accept the OED, then why don't you pick it up and read it? Check out the article on the prefix dis-. Check out it's root as having a privative sense.

As for citations from the www, it appears that FM's interpretation is so biased by his lack of understanding of the privative stance regarding words such as 'disbelief' and (more contentiously) 'atheism' that he cites urls that I interpret as strengthening my position.

Straw Man. My arguments would be straw man arguments if the opposing views were qualified. They are not qualified, so they aren't straw man arguments. I am asking FM, etc. to qualify their assertions so that they cannot be interpreted in ways that they consider to be straw man positions. If someone says 'absence of belief' to me that means absence of belief. It does nothing to state any other quality or property concerning its subject, including the capacity or otherwise to believe. Therefore, while FM et al. continue to use unqualified definitions they are susceptible to attacks which they disagree with; they therefore mistakenly apply terms such as "straw man". FM, if you wish to say that I am constructing a straw man, you have to look at what it is I am opposing, and demonstrate that your argument is distinct from that view. This normally is done through careful qualification. You don't like that, because I guess it moves away from the sound-bite crud that the TV and media have fed you. Actually, in academic circles a qualified statement is far more potent. It is careful to delineate the subject of it's definition, which means it is far harder to argue against. Generalisations are inherently weak.

FM continues to say things like In it's common and academic definition, Atheism is merely the absence of belief in God/gods. Well, yes, according to FM's restricted view on the world, that may be the case. Based on his restricted view of disbelief, that may be the case. Walk into the real world for a minute, and it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. (20040302 10:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC))

I have a hard time navigating between your factual errors and illogical leaps. I've provided dozens of academic and common reference sources that are all consistent with the definition of atheism as: "Atheism is the lack of belief in, or the denial of, God or gods." The validity of my references and information stands in stark contrast to the absence of yours. When you find a credible, neutral academic reference that supports your personal definitions for atheism and disbelief be sure to post them; so far you haven't.

Academic reference sources that agree with the (my) definition that "Atheism is the lack of belief in, or the denial of, God or gods.":

• The Encyclopedia of American Religious History: "Atheism, literally the absence of belief in God..."
• The Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences: In its narrowest sense the term atheist applies to one who categorically denies the existence of any gods. But in its wider sense it properly applies also to skeptics, materialists, positivists and all other who do not accept the claims of theism.
• Agora, the Online Undergraduate Research Journal of Humanities: The term atheism has several subtle meanings. Theism literally refers to a belief in a God or gods. Since the prefix “a” means “without,” the term atheism literally means “without theism.” Therefore atheism is the absence of a theistic belief. However, this term encompasses two meanings. Essentially, atheism holds to a weak epistemological position – it is simply the negation of theism. Regarding this weak atheism, a person simply does not include God/gods in his metaphysics.
• The Philosophy of Religion website: Weak atheism is defined as the absence of belief in God... A strong atheist, on the other hand, is someone who has the positive belief that God does not exist.
• Encyclopedia of American Religious History: Atheism, literally the absence of belief in God...

Academic reference sources that agree with the (your) definition that "All atheism is the denial of the existence of any gods, while one who simply lacks belief in God is neither an atheist nor a theist.": None. 0.

--FeloniousMonk 22:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is from the latest OED (complete edition). I accept that the OED has worked tirelessly for over a century to deliver definitions of terms that are accepted both commonly and by academics.

I (as many people do) accept the OED definition of atheist. I also accept the OED definition for disbelief.

I also accept that atheism is not always interpreted as being privative. I cannot accept that it is 'just factually wrong' when someone asserts that it can be used in a privative stance.

I would like to point out that it appears FeloniousMonk and his supporters do not seem to find a distinction between the terms 'unbelief' and 'disbelief'. The OED could have defined atheist in terms of unbelief, but it does not. (20040302 09:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Look. It's generally pretty easy to find definitions in dictionaries that support your view regardless of whether or not they are right. Dictionaries suck in that respect. See webster's definitions:

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
disbelief n 1: doubt about the truth of something
atheism n 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

People that write dictionaries are not responsible for being experts on every single subject. That's why dictionary definitions favor vernacular definitions over acedemic ones. I'm not saying that vernacular definitions are invalid. They are, in fact, valid and should be included, but they are still vernacular defintions. The terms strong and weak atheism have been around for a long time in academia.

The vernacular definition is included in the acedemic definition and theoretically that should be all that you need, but I understand that you guys have problems with this, so I personally am willing to make the following compromise to split the definitions apart: Define the word in similar way that a dictionary would. Eg:

Atheism
n 1: One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a god or gods.
n 2: One who lacks a belief in the existence of a god or gods.

This supports both definitions without saying that one is better than the other, and does not try to claim that there is some sort of arugement over what the word means. Does that sound reasonable? UVwarning 18:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thats no good for several reasons. For one you didn't capitalize "God". For two, you can't present these two interpretations in the intro. For three, you can't present the "lacks a belief" definition as tho it is uncontested. Rather it must be in a seperate section, dedicated to the "strong/weak atheism" concepts, and the differences those definitions have w the standard defintion. Sam [] 19:49, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, can you explain why these two interpretations cannot both be in the intro? Or why the "lacks a belief" definition "must be in a seperate section"? Personally, I'd like to see a little bit more context around them, but I don't have any objection in principle to UVwarning's suggestion. The introduction is for setting up what is coming in the article and I don't see why this important distinction should not be mentioned in the intro. I mean seriously now, are you still contesting that "lacking belief" is one of several common understandings of atheism? older≠wiser 20:08, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

The lack of context is key. And of course I contest that "lacking belief" is one of several common understandings of atheism. It isn't. But it is apparently common enough to deseve mention, in a seperate section devoted to the differences of definition, and the ramifications of such. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for ]] 21:14, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think there has been abundant evidence that "lacking belief" is one common understanding -- I would hope that by this point we could agree to disagree about personal POVs and attempt to work out acceptable phrasing rather continuing to "push each other's buttons" so to speak. You had previously found similar language (Atheism is the lack of belief in, or the denial of, God or gods.) acceptable [1]. Does anyone else have objections to this as an introductory sentence? older≠wiser 21:26, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

I support that definition.--FeloniousMonk 22:23, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's a irrevocably POV position. You do not have anything credible to support your claim that "lacking belief" is not a common definition or understanding of atheism. It is. And in case you've forgotten, I've provided cites and links to literally dozens of reference sources that disprove your claim. Do I need to repost them all here again?--FeloniousMonk 21:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't. If you did, it would be page flooding. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for ]] 21:36, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just kidding. Cute new handle, BTW. I hope all Americans here voted today as well.--FeloniousMonk 22:23, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

UVwarning, I agree with and support your definitions.--FeloniousMonk 21:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I call your bluff, UVwarning Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. is available at http://dictionary.reference.com/

Disbelief: The act of disbelieving; a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief.

Atheist: n. 1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. 2. A godless person. [Obs.] Syn: Infidel; unbeliever.

Atheism: n. 1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. 2. Godlessness.

It is a sad state when one can no longer trust citations from 3rd party URLS. What are you trying to do? Nail the coffin-lid shut for the arguments of FM? Who needs to worry about accusations of sophistry, when we are bing fed misdirected sources?

The more references you mis-cite the less ground you give yourselves. Such total lack of credibility undermines your partisan arguments.

I also guess you have never opened the OED? It is stuffed with deeply academic pages devoted to words such fleering. Every professor I know depends upon the OED for a starting point regarding academic definitions. Fah. Vernacular. Go to Oxford and say that there

The primary definition of atheist in nearly every mainstream, non-partisan dictionary is that an atheist is one who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God. This is a commonly held view. Individuals like FM who wish to water that basic definition down, or replace it with another view held by many, but then use floods of URLS (that actually often argue against their case, if they were able to understand what was being said) to attempt to browbeat the situation does not help. What is sick is that they then claim that I and others are attempting to subvert the purity of their actions regarding the goal of NPOV.

UVwarning, with your misquotes, I am deeply unimpressed.

regarding UVWarnings definition, I consider that, in the light of the way in which UVWarning and FeloniousMonk intepret 'disbelief' (being a lack of belief), the second definition of UVWarnings is completely redundant. Therefore, I propose, that all we need is:

Atheism: One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a god or gods.

Which takes me all the way back to what I wrote in the main article, or to be precise: (take note, UVW)

Atheism is generally defined by most dictionaries and encyclopedias as the "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God or gods." (Atheism article: 12:49, 22 Oct 2004), which was reverted as being vandalism. (20040302 22:26, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC))

And / or Godlessness. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for ]] 22:35, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

20000302- why didn't you post the entire definition from dictionary.com? You're committing the very error of ommission that you accuse UVWarning of, but you've done it purposely. Intentionally. All the while chiding others I might add. Oh the irony. This shows you to be less than credible, indeed, suspect.

The entire definition at dictionary.com reads:

Disbelief \Dis*be*lief"\, n. The act of disbelieving;; a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Disbelief n 1: doubt about the truth of something [syn: incredulity, skepticism, mental rejection] 2: a rejection of belief [syn: unbelief] [ant: belief]

Syn: Distrust; unbelief; incredulity; doubt; skepticism. -- Disbelief, Unbelief. Unbelief is a mere failure to admit; disbelief is a positive rejection. One may be an unbeliever in Christianity from ignorance or want of inquiry; a unbeliever has the proofs before him, and incurs the guilt of setting them aside. Unbelief is usually open to conviction; disbelief is already convinced as to the falsity of that which it rejects.

Shabby stunts like selective editing and personal attacks will get you nowhere here, fast.--FeloniousMonk 22:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not at all. I was citing from his source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, ©1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc., and I left it at the definition, not wanting to embarrass you with the quotes. Let us now take the SET of definitions from the URL, with the quotes, which is composed of 3 different dictionaries. Still can't quite get it right, can you? (20040302)

dis·be·lief

n. Refusal or reluctance to believe.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Disbelief

Dis*be*lief, n. The act of disbelieving; a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief.

Our belief or disbelief of a thing does not alter the nature of the thing. --Tillotson.

No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness that disbelief in great men. --Carlyle.

Syn: Distrust; unbelief; incredulity; doubt; skepticism. -- Disbelief, Unbelief. Unbelief is a mere failure to admit; disbelief is a positive rejection. One may be an unbeliever in Christianity from ignorance or want of inquiry; a unbeliever has the proofs before him, and incurs the guilt of setting them aside. Unbelief is usually open to conviction; disbelief is already convinced as to the falsity of that which it rejects. Men often tell a story in such a manner that we regard everything they say with unbelief. Familiarity with the worst parts of human nature often leads us into a disbelief in many good qualities which really exist among men.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Disbelief

n 1: doubt about the truth of something [syn: incredulity, skepticism, mental rejection] 2: a rejection of belief [syn: unbelief] [ant: belief]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University (20040302 23:23, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Since you cultivate ambiguity in yourself with selective editing, but excoriate it in others, I'm presenting rest of the definition of atheism you ommitted from dictionary.com.

The entire definition of atheism at dictionary.com reads:

a·the·ism n. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

The doctrine that there is no God or gods. Godlessness; immorality.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

atheism n. [Cf. F. ath['e]isme. See Atheist.] 1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. 2. Godlessness.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

atheism n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

--FeloniousMonk 23:05, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

20040302-- disbelief does not equal belief. The entire definition for disbelieve from your preferred reference source:

dis·be·lieve

v. dis·be·lieved, dis·be·liev·ing, dis·be·lieves
v. tr.
To refuse to believe in; reject.

v. intr.

To withhold or reject belief.

--FeloniousMonk 23:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. I never asserted that disbelief equalled belief. That was Sam Spade. Go check out the archive (its archive 10). My sole point has consistently been that disbelief is not privative. It requires activity on behalf of the individual, it is not a passive, or default status. Yet, as I previously mentioned, I am very happy to allow you to keep your view, as it makes the 2nd definition of UVwarning completely redundant for you. So though we would read the single definition in different manners, you and I would both consider it to be adequate. Therefore, let us be happy with:

Atheism: One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a god or gods. (20040302 23:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC))

"Atheism is the lack of belief in, or the denial of, God or gods." is (more) factually accurate, consistent with and supported by the academic definition of Atheism as I've repeatedly shown. And we've already agreed on this definition on the DR page.

We also agree with One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a god or gods., because you recently argued that disbelief and lack of belief are synonyms. I'm glad to see that you put a (more) in; it's the beginning of a concession of some sort, though I am not sure about finding any objective authority regarding your assertion. As the definition stands, I am not sure that I agree with it. I gather Sam does. But first I ask you to either agree with me that 'lack of belief' and 'disbelief' are not synonyms, or use 'disbelief' in the definition. (20040302)

It is not clear that disbelief is indeed not privative or even an act as you say. Disbelieve, it's verb, is defined as "To withhold or reject belief". Clearly some sort of action or statement is required to reject belief, but withholding belief requires no such action or declaration.--FeloniousMonk 23:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, To withhold is like.. a verb. So how does it not involve action? (20040302)

Yes, it is a verb in the same sense as keep is a verb, in fact, it's a synonym. Withold's verb intransigent definition is To refrain. As actions go, that not very assertive. Give and assenting are also verbs, clearly very different ones.--FeloniousMonk 00:06, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I love it when we agree with each other, FM. It seems to be so rare. refrain, witholding, etc. are not passive. They may not be very assertive, but they are not passive. Refraining from talking would hardly be refraining if I was dumb. Refraining implies effort. Similarly, witholding the truth requires the effort of a lie. To withold is clearly not a passive verb. (20040302 00:23, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC))

I disagree. Refraining does not necessarily imply effort or action.--FeloniousMonk 01:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I guess you didn't mean 'intransigent'? (ie uncompromising), but rather that the verb has an 'intransitive' sense, which merely means that it does not take a direct object in the same way as "a bird flies", or "a dog runs"? And to be honest, the verb "refrain" does imply effort and action. Even the most passive verbs (e.g to suffer, to receive) indicate the expenditure of energy (effort) albeit with no choice. Moreover, my experience of refraining have always involved considerable efffort. When I refrained from smoking, or eating fatty foods, or sugar it was not easy; it was effort, and I was refraining. I do not do not consider that I refrain from activities that I would not do. Otherwise I would be refraining from eating doggy-do at every opportunity! (20040302 09:37, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Show me a source that defines "weak atheism" as an act. Definitions for the general term atheism don't count. I'm talking about the specific term "weak atheism" which is a form of atheism. If you can't provide even one source that supports what you are saying then shut up. UVwarning 23:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/presumption.html

Some weak atheists argue that atheism is the default position because he who asserts must prove. Theists make the positive claim that God exists. Weak atheists do not make the positive claim that God does not exist, but merely withhold their assent from the theists’ claim that God does exist. According to the weak atheist, because it is the theist that makes an assertion, it is the theist that bears the burden of proof. He who asserts must prove, and so unless the theist can offer some convincing argument for God’s existence, the weak atheist will be justified in his atheism.

As mentioned before, I consider the weak atheist to be actively involved: They don't make postive claims about God, but they do withhold their assent from the theists claim that God exists.

Witholding is a verb. It is an action. QED.

They also have a position regarding who bears the burden of proof. This necessitates mental conviction. Any other requests? (20040302 00:16, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC))

That weak atheism is an active withholding of belief that god exists would only be true if:

1. Belief in god were a justified belief, i.e.; god existed.
2. Weak Atheism's position requires belief.

So, the question is: What belief associated with Weak Atheism is it you are claim requires proof?

Only with the most convoluted of logic can anyone claim that withholding an unjustified belief requires some sort of affirmative declaration. First, the term "God" hasn't been defined - so what the atheist thinks of it cannot be automatically assumed. Theists cannot simply assert that whatever they have in mind must also be something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that whatever this god turns out to be, the atheist must automatically deny it. This concept might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or denial. --FeloniousMonk 01:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I begin to think that you have misinterpreted my stance, FM. For the fact that I appear not to have divulged it clearly enough, I apologise. Regardless, I consider your reasoning about active witholding to be flawed. I reject that "active withholding" necessarily entails anything to do with god(s). My point was a little less strong: that withholding entails an active position of some sort, so my reading from POR requires that one cannot be a weak atheist by default; indeed one must have a viewpoint - that viewpoint being reflected by the citation. Actually, I explicitly point out what it is that the article defines as withheld by a weak atheist: namely, "assent from the theists claim that God exists". Now this has nothing to do with God, but everything to do with actively not agreeing with theists. I consider their position very sound, BTW. Moreover, I would say that most weak atheists would place the same burden of proof on strong atheists as well as theists. Of course, the placement of burden remains an activity, albeit a gentle one. (20040302 09:19, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC))

That's funny that you are using that article to suport your view. It planly states that atheism may be considered a default position. I was expecting you to find some crappy source that would agree with your claim, but this is far more pathetic that I was expecting. The article you found doesn't even agree with you. I think that pretty much closes the case on this issue. If you look at just about any source on weak atheism the unambiguous term "lack of belief" is almost always used. That fact that you have only managed to find one article that happens to use the term "withold" and that contradicts your belief anyway I think speaks for itself. UVwarning 22:06, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What it plainly states is that Some weak atheists argue that atheism is the default position . That is a true statement. However it is problematic to base a general definition on what some atheists argue. older≠wiser 22:30, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not basing a general definition on that. I'm basing it on all of the other sources out there that seem to be pretty clear. 20040302 was supposed to come up with a source that supports his claim that atheism is an act and not a default. This article does not support that, and in fact it actually contradicts it by saying that it may be considered default (i.e some argue that). UVwarning 23:04, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What I think 20040302 claimed, and which I agree with, is that the citation under consideration can be interpreted as saying weak atheism is a volitional act (and without convoluted logic I might add). Weak atheists withhold their assent. In other words, even though some may attempt to claim weak atheism as some sort of inherently normative position from which any sort of theism is an aberration, in fact the entire framework of the weak atheistic argument is a reaction against theism. Now, please understand, I am not trying to say that this understanding should be supressed from the definition of atheism, but it should be expressed as simply one of several understandings of the term. As far as I am concerned, there is no objectively correct definition. There are no empirical facts per se regarding atheism that can be confirmed or disproven by the scientific method. Human value systems are not mathematical sets which clearly and unambiguously divide into neat categories. In my opinion, the only truly factual statements we can make about atheism is to describe the different understandings that various groups of people have of the term without granting special privilege to any one understanding. older≠wiser 01:52, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

I envy your elegance, Bkonrad. Yes, that about sums it up. (20040302 09:28, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Bkonrad(older≠wiser): First of all, I believe that your understanding of what 20040302 has claimed is faulty. Here is a direct quote from one of his arguments: "I disagree that WA involves a mere lack of belief."

No, he got it. And I agree with that quote. WA involves volitional acts. (20040302 09:28, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Also, here are a few of the many, many sources that not only contradict what 20040302 thinks, but that also state that Weak Atheism does not mean to imply an action at all in the definition:
about.com
"A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods - no more, no less."
brainyencyclopedia.com
"Weak atheism or negative atheism is the lack of belief in any gods without the conviction that no gods exist. It is equivalent to the term nontheism."
philosophyofreligion.info
"Weak atheism is defined as the absence of belief in God. On this definition, strictly speaking, anyone who isn’t a theist is an atheist."
free-definition.com
"The difference between 'strong' and 'weak' atheism might be summed up as follows: strong atheism is the 'belief' that there are no gods, while weak atheism is the "lack" of belief in God." UVwarning 04:53, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is more to it than you wish to see, UVwarning. BKonrad is better at expressing my concerns than I am, but I totally agree when he states: "The only truly factual statements we can make about atheism is to describe the different understandings that various groups of people have of the term without granting special privilege to any one understanding."

What that means to me is that we can give a definition for atheism - along with it's provenance - and we will always have facts. If we safely put the various definitions into the mouths of those who have defined it then no-one can dispute us. Take for instance the scan from the OED. No-one here disputes that the OED defines atheist as above. Showing traditional, reliable sources and authors for our definitions strengthens the article in that it is guaranteed NPOV. Our struggle here appears to be to find a common ground for definition. Well, 10 large archives of talk appears to be evidence that we will not make headway in that direction. (20040302 09:28, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC))

I obviously meant WorldNet dictionary. Not webster's. Get over yourself. They are right next to eachother on the link that you yourself pointed to. I'm sure that you noticed that, but I guess you would rather pretend that I was lying.

It is also obvious that discussions with Sam and 20040302 are pointless. We need a mediator. I'm new to wikipedia. How do we go about doing that? Or do we just keep discussing until we puke? UVwarning 23:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, No. You cite Webster's, I read Webster's. I truthfully noticed only when you pointed it out now. You mis-cited. I had quoted from Webster's before, and was shocked to see the definition that you provided. It doesn't do you any good to mis-cite. That's all I was saying. As for WordNet- You rate that over the OED and Websters? Come on. (20040302 23:37, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC))

That doesn't explain or justify your pointed oblique insults like Who needs to worry about accusations of sophistry, when we are bing fed misdirected sources? and characterizing his position with a heading titled Look Ha! Fiction!. Your response to UVWarning reads more like a frothing, trollish rant that a dispassionate point about mis-citing references. I have no doubt as to your intent there.--FeloniousMonk 23:48, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For that matter your characterization of my position and method at Where is this going?at the top this page is pretty insulting and trollish too.--FeloniousMonk 23:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well I apologise to anyone who feels that I have insulted them. It is not my intention to insult whatsoever, and I am completely willing to continue this discussion with civility, restraint and manners. However, I also expect such behaviour from other discussants. Secondly, my intentions are to write a good article. It is understandable that we find it astounding that different people have such completely different views from our own, and indeed it can hurt when someone claims to have greater knowledge than ones-self, or to be told that they know something that the other doesn't, or read claims that one is foolish, sophistic, silly, misguided, uneducated, theistic/atheistic, etc. So let us be civil, polite and restrained towards each other. (20040302 00:09, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC))

I agree we all need to be respectful. Both sides.--FeloniousMonk 01:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for not taking the time to read the 10 archives of this talk page, but what's this whole debate about? Does anyone here disagree with the statement "An athiest is someone who believes there is no god?" What's going on!? --RobertStar20 01:45, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes: atheists. That definition is inaccurate. Atheism is not a belief. It is, simply and only, a lack of belief, and not a lack of belief only in one (your) god, a lack of belief in gods or goddesses in general, from lack of evidence or evidence against them.The Rev of Bru

I agree, others don't. Some of them think "Atheism= everything except devout believers", including agnostics, babies, rocks, the uncertain, thoughtless, ignorent, disinterested, etc... [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for ]] 01:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nobody thinks that "Atheism= everything except devout believers" It doesn't do any of us any good for you to make these strawman arguments. Please think carefully about what you say before you speak. UVwarning 21:20, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, many people do disagree with that statement, and have a different definition. Occasionally, we try to establish whether or not both points of view will be included. These discussions are invariably derailed and transformed into discussions about whether or not the definition as atheism as "lack of belief" is consistent and sensible. I've tried a couple of times to get back to the question of whether both viewpoints will be included, with little success. Give me another week and I'll probably try again. --Yath 02:35, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They will both be included. The debate as I see it is how, and where. Anyone who thinks the idea of atheism by default is less than a radical break w human concensus is sadly mistaken however, and to place such an outlandish claim in the intro would bring shame to us all. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for ]] 02:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, what would be shameful is if bigoted, hateful users, with a POV such as yourself, were allowed to define the things that they hate, sam spade. Anyone who claims, publicly, to 'revile atheists' is far too biased to have a valid NPOV. Go see if you can find any rational atheist that agrees with your nonsense definition. The Rev of Bru

Rev, try to behave please (20040302)

Rev, exactly when and where did Sam Spade say he "reviles atheists"?

Sam, is this true? Have you stated on wikipedia that you revile atheists?

I would have to question the fitness and ability of anyone to remain objective and maintain a NPOV who makes such an obviously bigoted POV statement.--FeloniousMonk 22:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade said " I revile atheism, it is true." to Jwrosenzweig in talk on 23:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)(in his talk page.) He also made a statement to the effect that he would rather die than be considered an atheist, which I am attempting to find atm. Oh- I wasnt going to bring this up, but he also accuses me of being a 'sockpuppet,' 'anti-theist' and such like, repeatedly. I assume this is some sort of insult, but I'm not sure what it means.The Rev of Bru

Based on the other things he has said I wouldn't be surprised. One of the things he said to me as you probably saw was "You miss the point that atheism is the gravest of all sins, not some sort of natural default." It is very clear to me that Sam has a bigoted POV adjenda. UVwarning 23:12, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I remember Sam recently used the term monstrous default to describe atheism as well. Ideological POV doesn't get any more clear than that. I've checked around and found this; I won't comment on it or it's validity other than to say the section detailing previous activities here at Talk:Atheism is extensive and seems very familiar, and some respected users commented as recently as 10/13. Also, this discussion is illuminating as well.

Sam, so in addition to my question, "did you say you 'revile atheists'?" I must add: Have you ever used the handle "Jack Lynch" wikipedia? Considering all this, combined with the 3 rejected requests for arbitration naming Sam specifically, and the alleged "revile atheists" comment, if any of it proves to be true I'll be concerned about the appropriateness of his continuing to contribute here in good faith and ability to maintain some level of objectivity.--FeloniousMonk 01:10, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here Bryan implies that Sam went by another Username. Bryan, care to add to or explain to the rest of us what went on before here? Sam, care to comment?--FeloniousMonk 01:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"I agree we all need to be respectful. Both sides.--FeloniousMonk 01:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

Oh really? Sam [] 01:36, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, when someone publicly makes bigoted statements on wikipedia, and their ideological POV is implicit in those very same bigoted statements, and for months their particular ideological stance precludes them from considering any opposing credible evidence, propositional knowledge, or article-building consensus, then asking and determining if their past includes a history of disruptive POV actions under present or past usernames (such as: User:JackLynch) is legitimate under the policies. It also makes any statement identifying a "bigoted POV agenda" a statement of fact, not a personal attack as you claim on User_talk:UVwarning.--FeloniousMonk 06:00, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam and I have a history on this article dating back to January of this year in which many of these same issues came up and resulted in him lodging several complaints against me. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Sam Spade and Bryan Derksen has some leftover material from that time, and I can confirm that he changed his username around February 10 or so. Unfortunately Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bryan Derksen was deleted at some point and no longer appears retrievable using ordinary sysop powers, but fortunately the summary of our dispute I wrote up that used to be there is still stashed in a text file here on my hard drive; I can dig it up and repost it in a personal subpage if you like. We had a successful mediation and Sam no longer seems willing to engage in edit wars but our disagreement over the issues has remained largely unchanged and I still check carefully for POV edits when he shows up in my watchlist. Bryan 07:57, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bryan, thanks for the reply. Was it your opinion that the complaints Sam lodged against you were without merit, intended simply to harass and/or silence you? I ask this because others have made this allegation and we should know if this is indeed a pattern of abusing the processes intended to protect those who edit in good faith, and hence something the rest of us who do not share Sam's POV need to be wary of here. Having read the Talk:Atheism archives 5/6/7/8 tonight, I can say that since Jack/Jack Lynch/Sam Spade made his January debut here, he has been repeatedly making exactly the same arguments over the exact same issues as we've discussed these last four weeks, despite being shown both his errors of fact and logic time and again for over 10 months. All of which confirms our recent experiences and observations here.--FeloniousMonk 08:34, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many; including some prominent Buddhists (though definitely not all) describe much of Buddhism as atheistic, and this would fall within the definition of weak atheism and this is not a particularly new usage. The fact that some prominent Buddhists describe Buddhism as athesitic is not POV. Here are 2 sources:

Christmas Humphries was president of the Buddhist Society, London [2], from it's foundation in 1924 for 59 years until his death in 1983. He was a prolific author on Buddhism, particularly Zen Buddhism. Humphries was also a prominent British High Court judge and as such will have been especially adept in the nuance of the English language. In "Buddhism" (1954). On page 79 under the title "No God, No Soul" he writes "As between the theist and atheist positions, Buddhism is atheist".

Also "The Varieties of Religious Experience", William James pg 50: "the Buddha himself stands in place of a God; but in strictness the Buddhistic system is atheistic".

This again supports the point in question that the term ‘atheist’ within its general definition should support the meaning of weak atheism as well as strong atheism. Indeed I posit that most atheists are passive or weak atheists , in the same way that most folk are without belief in many other categories of supernatural entity such as goblins and the Tooth Fairy. This passive ‘without belief’ stance does not of necessity require active cognition or any kind of consious choice. Lack of belief can span the spectrum from incompetence to ignorance through mere indifference (passive) to scepticism and on to an active rejection (active). All in this spectrum fall within the set of those being without belief in the Tooth Fairy or goblins.

So it is with atheism and all gods and any particular God. It is POV to treat any and all deities somehow differently to any other supernatural entity and most certainly POV to seek to limit the general definition of atheist to only include active or positive atheism and this is clearly what some seek to do here

Sure, some folks have an understanding of atheism that is limited to active disbelief and some folks describe as atheist those who are in fact theists but happen not to believe in their God. That's fine, clearly this is also common usage and understanding and should thus be covered in the article, but the general definition should be inclusive not exclusive and congruent with the etymology which is exactly how many use and understand the term.

Again in the wider definition ‘Atheist’ can be and is used to descibe anyone that happens not to be a Theist, and this has been well supported in these discussions.--Nick-in-South-Africa 15:47, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

well said Nick. I agree. The Rev of Bru

I too agree, and applaud that you support your point by citing a credible reference source.--FeloniousMonk 19:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quite. With the steadily increasing number of cites showing people using the more-inclusive definition, it's getting rather silly for anyone to to continue insisting that nobody uses that definition. Just describe them both. Bryan 00:57, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I had previously removed myself from this discussion, but well put, I support this definition. Good luck to you. Andre (talk) 01:12, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Well, it is interesting that you choose two old school westerners to represent the Buddhist postion. I have great respect for both men, but we should also appreciate that they are not the best representatives of Buddhist thought. That said though, there is no question that by some criteria, some aspects of Buddhism are atheistic. But we need to be careful what definition of atheism is being used and which aspects of Buddhism. Neither Buddhism nor atheism is a monolithic entity.

It is also revealing that you choose to equate the belief systems of billions of people to a belief in fantastical creatures like goblins or the tooth fairy. Your definition of atheism is not unlike George Bush's understanding of the world--If you're not for us, you're against us. Somewhat overly simplified of course, but the point is, you can't make up a definition and then claim that everyone who you deem to meet the criteria set forth in your definition are to be counted as "not one of them thar theistic types", so hence they must be atheists. I do not want to suppress the presentation of such an understanding, but it is pretty clearly a facile attempt to inflate the scope of persons within the definition of atheist. older≠wiser 02:10, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

I am a Buddhist that you would call atheistic, of the Theravada tradition. However, the only time I call myself an atheist is when I want to provoke Christians--albeit not a very Buddhist thing to do. It should be noted that it has been said that the whole concept of existance of deities is of no use and pondering about it is just a waste of time, the same goes for the first cause. So in the strictest sense the atheism that you speak of is nothing more than agnosticism, unless we accept the conclusion of The good reverend of Bru that we are all atheists because we don't believe in every deity. I am really feeling that the editing the Wikipedia is like trying to figure out the first cause--something always is missing and setting you back. --[[User:Sunborn|metta, The Sunborn ☸]] 04:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you want to cite stances of theism/atheism, please cite primary sources. Though I respect William James for his contributions to pragmatism, regarding his stance vis a vis traditional buddhist philosophical schools his views are faulty, but of course he was choosing to define the subject in a manner that suited his purpose. Christmas Humphries was not taken very seriously by academics (or many Buddhists) even during his lifetime - and many Buddhists who were invited to teach found his history as a hanging judge rather hard to accept. But rather than merely denigrate him, let me briefly explain. Buddhism asserts sunyata. Buddhist Sunyata is (reductively) concerned with the absence of any essence regarding phenomena. For Madhyamakas, Existence and truth are sociolinguistic projects that do not bear light in terms of objective reality. Therefore, most Christian philosophies of God (that depend upon objective, essential reality) consider Buddhism to be atheist. However, within Buddhism the ontological status of God is accepted as being equivalent to any material object - e.g. a fire engine, as long as God is not qualified with any special, transcendant status. Therefore most Buddhists assert omniscience and omnipresence, but deny essence, omnipotence, transcendance, God the judge, God the creator, etc. This leads me to my next struggle about defining atheism as to be the absence of belief in God. What belief in God? One may say any belief in god - but then what sort of boundaries do we put against that definition? What about belief of God as a metaphor for the community? What about belief of God as a concept? Or a crutch during bereavement? In other words, it's only when we start adopting philosophical assertions as to what we mean by belief of God in terms of some objective reality that we can start denying them. Buddhism does not subscribe to objective reality or acontextual truth. this means that Buddhists cannot be theists (for theists that assert the necessity of objective reality and truth, however see Tillich, who wrote rather well on redefining theism in a broader stance that depended less on foundations of objective, acontextual truts). Moreover, questions of whether or not God 'really' exists is meaningless to them. So most philosophies that are based upon ontological states of existence or non-existence fail for Buddhism.

I believe in God, just as I believe in tooth-fairies, elves and tree-spirits. I believe that tooth-fairies and elves exist as a mythological/fantastic concept popular in escapist fiction with important connections to our subconscious. In fact we all have a pretty good idea about what elves look like, so it's pretty hard to say that they don't exist as a social concept. Does that make me a theist? - after all, I believe in God and tooth-fairies. My disbelief is in God's objective existence, but then I have a similar disbelief regarding the essential existence of fire engines. (I am not an idealist or a nihilist. These views are far more subtle than they may appear to be. I believe in an external reality, and in fire engines, just as you do. But I deny them having any special ontological or essential status that allows for me to say that they 'really' or 'truly' 'exist' outside of a sociolinguistic state. If you will, the atoms that make up the fire engine are there, but what we call fire engine depends upon the day to day conventions of the world around us. Now apply the same logic to the atoms.) This means that if I am an atheist, then I am also an a-fireenginist, which is absurd. It would also reduce the philosophical sense of atheism to be a mere truism, which I do not consider to be useful.

There are populations today that believe tree-spirits exist in an objective sense. I believe that they believe in tree-spirits. Who am I to assert my views are superior to theirs? (A variation of the liberal dilemma.) What sort of objective authority is there that can show me this? Scientific method? But that only works for those who subscribe to it's being efficacious. Therefore, it is far better not to try to say "Tree-spirits are this or that" but to say "The Manumamu of Brazil traditionally assert that Tree-spirits are...". Likewise the same for atheism. As mentioned above, if we write the article without attempting to make unqualified, unsourced claims about atheism, we will all be here till the sun dies. Though I have presnented many reasons and sources that show that atheism (even weak atheism) is generally defined as involving some form of volitional activity, that this is reflects only some views, and that there are other views. But I believe it is important for us to give up the challenge of coming up with a reductive, syncretic, pseudo-objective statement, and replace it with a statement that shows provenance, sources and variation. I am in favour of inclusion. (20040302 10:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC))

All well and good but Olderwiser's response and Sunborn's POV point hardly bears on the point in question, I don't see dragging George Bush into this as relevant or particularly helpful.

The object here is not to support or denigrate any metaphysical or religious position or get sidetracked into a discussion on the virtues or otherwise of folks belief systems. It's to resolve the general definition of the term atheist. The point I was making was not to represent Buddhist belief nor to lend support to Buddhism in general or any particular school of Buddhism. I cited Humphries because of his clear authority and because his usage of atheism in the weak sense was extremely clear. It's obvious that he sees someone as either a theist or not a theist ie an atheist, this is the weak, negative or passive sense if you don’t believe in any God or gods you are an atheist. I was not seeking to support nor find fault with any theistic or atheistic views, indeed the mention of Buddhism, goblins and the Tooth fairy was incidental to my core purpose. This was simply to demonstrate that the term 'atheist' very commonly encompasses the meaning of it as detailed in the weak sense. This together with the etymology support inclusion of weak, negative or passive atheism within the general meaning ie simply being without theism, no parameters whatsoever. In that regard I think I and others have made the point crushingly, and I think on this point, and this point alone it's time to concede.

Humphries has never been an authority for Buddhism. Even the Dalai Lama would not make that claim. When Humphries wrote for a very Christian oriented society, (and being brought up surrounded by it), he was attempting to find reductive statements about Buddhism. Regardless, regarding your larger issue, I hold that most people disbelieve (volitionally) in the objective existence of Tooth fairies. I do. Many Buddhists also disbelieve in the objective existence of Fire Engines. I do too. Does that make me an a-fire-engine-ist? So the boundaries of belief and existence are relavant to the discussion of atheism.

Following etymology, one is not necessarily NOT an atheist if one believes in tooth-fairies, as long as one considers tooth-fairies to be gods (ie. most believers in the objective existence of tooth-fairies, who tend to be under eight years old). I believe in tooth-fairies, but as socio-mythological constructs used to encourage children not to be so worried about losing their teeth.

I think you have made no point crushingly. Many arguments against you are left unsatisfactorily answered: The volitional nature of restraining and withholding. Your stance on an adequate definition of disbelief. Your stance on whether or not disbelief is synonymous with lack of belief, and why, if they are synonyms, you object to the definition of atheist as "One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a god or gods". Your position that weak atheism is non-volitional is still contrary to dictionary definitions from OED etc. You haven't given good reason for why a definition of atheism should be based on 'weak atheism' - a term which not in common usage, and then against some very tenuous readings that justify your convictions. (20040302 13:48, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Yes many folks find the term atheist a pejorative and this perhaps motivates them in seeking to limit the definition so that the meaning covers as few individuals as possible. But this is POV and does not square with the etymology, nor much common usage. Seeking to limit the definition of atheism because one finds the term personally distasteful is exactly like seeking to limit the meaning of the term ‘liberal’ to remove as many folks from its definition as possible because the term is widely seen as a pejorative (in the US, though not elsewhere) --Nick-in-South-Africa 08:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, Bkonrad stated "I do not want to suppress the presentation of such an understanding". If we can get from "don't want to" to "won't", that's one less objection to including that particular POV. And if Sam Spade and 20040302 will chime in, we could actually get editing again! Granted, there may still be some disagreement over which POV gets top billing, but first things first. --Yath 08:35, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bkonrad may think you have misinterpreted him here. I also do not want to suppress the presentation of such an understanding, BUT I also do not want to promote any one understanding as being the sole objective understanding. I hope and trust that one thing that we can agree on is the need to adopt a plural approach to the subject of atheism. Do we not all agree that there are differences of definition and differences of view regarding atheism? Is there anyone here who claims to hold the 'one true' meaning of atheism? (20040302 11:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC))

A more valid question might be 'Are there any atheists who actually fit the theistic interpretation of atheism?' That is "Believe (in a faith sense) that god does not exist? That sounds more like LaVey Satanism, Nihlism or possibly a bizarre kind of Maltheism to me. Before we allow Bigots such as Sam Spade to define the thing they hate, could we check to see that anyone holds that view? Or at least have the statement: "Some Theists believe that Atheists believe that (their) God does not exist." Although that is horribly stilted, it may be the most accurate and NPOV statement. The Rev of Bru

There are plenty of positve atheists that hold strong opinons that that no gods exist, Richard Dawkins springs to mind. I would be hesitent to use your language. Faith in the religious sense of believing stuff despite lack of evidence and seeking to make a virtue of it has nothing to do with Dawkin's position or indeed many or even perhaps most rationalists who are atheists. They just dont look at the world in those terms. This quote from Dawkins rather illustrates the point and yet again bears upon the common use of 'atheism' tied up closely with its etymology....

Dawkins wrote "A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy Agnostic. He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative. But "agnostic" on its own might suggest that he though God's existence or non-existence equally likely. In fact, though strictly agnostic about god, he considers God's existence no more probable than the Tooth Fairy's.

Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence.

The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't' have to bother saying so"--Nick-in-South-Africa 02:00, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree Nick. Thank you for making a more eloquent point that I could. Again, I emphasise to others that being a a-unicornist or whatever does not mean that it is a position based on religious faith. The Rev of Bru 13:36, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As above, and in line with your own adherence to etymology, being atheist does not make you a-unicornist, unless you consider unicorns to be gods. There is no onus on anyone to say why they believe in anything they choose. As stated above, I believe in unicorns. I know what they look like. I have even seen them in films. They exist as fictional, socio-mythological entities that appeal to our imaginations. I have told you why I believe in them. Does that make me a unicornist or an a-unicornist? For those who have never encountered the idea of unicorns, according to you they are a-unicornist. How odd. (20040302 13:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC))

To edit again we don't need full agreement, policy states we just need a majority (which we've already reached on this one point): "There must surely be a point beyond which our very strong interest in being a completely open project is trumped by the interest the vast majority of our writers have, in being able to get work done without constantly having to fix the intrusions of people who do not respect our policy."--FeloniousMonk 09:23, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Guys, you are splitting hairs here. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, after all. I consider myself pretty much an atheist, and I don't see a reason to object to either of the definitions given. The best would be a negative definition, to avoid making a statement what an atheist actually does believe in (because an atheist may still believe in a wide range of things, putting him in categories as diverse as humanist, nihilist, cultist, fascist, pacifist, positivist, naturalis..... but that's neither necessary nor required for his qualification as an atheist): "an atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of God". I don't care what you end up writing, really. Just note that the true difficulty of defining an atheist lies in the difficulty of defining God (i.e. the concept he needs to reject to be qualified as one). For some definitions of God I may actually not be an atheist, but for the purpose of your average evangelist-missionary-at-the-street-corner, I am certainly one, and not insulted to be called one, whether I "lack belief in" or "believe in the imaginary nature of" God. dab 14:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)