Talk:Atheism/DR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Part 1: The introduction
2 Part 2: Etymology
3 Part 3: Interpretations of atheism
4 Part 4: Atheism and Morality
5 Part 5: Persecution of Atheists
6 Part 6: Persecution in the name of Atheism
7 Part 7: Atheism today
8 Part 8: Statistics
9 Part 9: Divisions within atheism
10 Overall article comments/adjustments
11 Dispute Resolution Process Questions/Comments
- 11.1 May I edit the DR page?
12 This article appears defunct now, and not in the right namespace

[edit] Part 1: The introduction

Please add your comments here.

Atheism is the disbelief in, or denial of, God or gods.

No particular problem - though why not just divine? (20040302)

No special reason, except then we'd be unique amongst reference sources in stating it that way. They all say "God or gods", pretty much. But divine would be ok too. Sam [Spade] 00:33, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Divine" is not as precise as God/gods, or even deity/deities. It is only an oblique reference to God. Additionally, Sam is right, it is not a common way of defining atheism.--FeloniousMonk 14:51, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My reasoning is that most of what is covered by issues of God/god/gods, etc. can be more simply dealt with by 'divine'- I have no strong issues about this -

Regardless, there are all sorts of problems saying "God" without defining what God means to an atheist! - If Bob disbelieves in e.g. god the omnipotent, god the judge, god the creator, but believes in the possibility of omniscience and omnipresence, is Bob a theist or an atheist? I guess that depends upon interpretation - for those who think that omniscience is cognate with the divine, Bob is a theist - yet for those who think that omniscience does not entail the divine, Bob could be an atheist. Hmm. :-) (20040302)

I don't care what God means to an atheist, it is intrinsic to their position that they misunderstand the nature of God. Rather my concern is how an atheist can objectively be labeled. Sam [Spade] 14:19, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Many atheists feel it is intrinsic to the theist's position that they misunderstand the nature of atheism and the likelihood of God. Do you think personal opinions like that are really helpful here? If you do, then you should enlighten the atheists and define the nature of God for everyone so we can proceed.--FeloniousMonk 14:51, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough - though I feel that 'misunderstand the nature of' may be more adequately expressed as 'disbelieve in', as 'misunderstand' is your POV, not theirs! They would say that theists misunderstand the nature of God! (20040302)

I feel that as an opening definition "Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a deity. Atheism can involve the positive assertion that there is no deity. Atheism can be the absence of a belief that there is a deity." is more accurate and consistent with both the academic and common definitions. I'm open to reasoned arguments or appeals otherwise. --FeloniousMonk 14:51, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See my response on Talk:Atheism. I am happy to move the discussion over here, though the movement needs to be consensual. (20040302)

Deity is unnacceptable, read deity. I prefer God or gods, but will accept Divine. Sam [Spade] 15:19, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

God/gods works for me: "Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Atheism can involve the positive assertion that there is no God or gods. Atheism can be the absence of a belief that there is a God or gods." --FeloniousMonk 15:36, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Atheism is the lack of belief in, or the denial of, God or gods.

is acceptable. the other can go into a section devoted especially to stong and weak atheism concepts, and their contrast w the popular definition. Sam [Spade] 20:13, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Atheism is the disbelief in or denial of, God or gods.

This is acceptable to me, if we are not to qualify different views. (20040302 01:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC))

- Wiki defines theism as

"...two meanings: Primarily it is the belief in gods or goddesses. The word originated in Ancient Greece and signified belief in the traditional gods, the Olympians.

It can also mean the belief in God, a god, or gods, who is/are actively involved in maintaining the Universe.This secondary meaning is shown in context to other beliefs concerning the divine,..."

- This is important because the 'base' definition of atheism is that it is 'not theism'. Look at many dictionaries definition of theism (and theist if separate) first and then atheism (and atheist if separate), if the definition of atheism is 'not theism' then they are being 'true to the language' (if one can actually say that). The etymology states "The literal meaning of the term is therefore 'lack of belief in a god.'". This is the very basic and full definition and seems like nothing needs to be added. The 'disbelief' or some active stance would narrow down the definition. This needs to be pointed out if one is going to do that in a dictionary or encyclopedia. Especially since there is more space here than a ' normal' encyclopedia.

- While the proper noun "God" may be included this again narrows down the definition. Of course, if they don't believe in any god, they obviously don't believe in God. This is unnecessary as part of the definition, however it should be noted that many (in this hemisphere anyway) do note it as not believing in God.

- It should be pointed out somewhere that some view the definition (as above) as not believing in their god(s). Since they believe that their god(s) is all powerfull and the only, it would seem natural that they would assume anyone not believing in it/them to be atheist. For instance, the Romans veiw toward christians (and other religions that rejected their pantheon) or some chrisians toward other some other religions.

-Jayon 23:52, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

- The beginning now has: Atheism is the condition of lacking theistic belief.

- Theism is not expressed as a 'condition' (which can be misinterpreted by the way) so atheism should not be expressed as such.

-Jayon 16:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) ( that's me --> 64.123.10.122 16:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC))

In brief, Atheism is disbelief in the divine. Some consider Atheism to be a state of merely lacking such beliefs, while others consider Atheism to be the active disbelief or denial of the divine. Some religious communities consider the term to be cognate with Infidel and atheist can be found being used in a pejorative manner.

- Is this the one we are to argue for or against? I will have to argue against if that is the case. 'disbelief' seems like an active stance (such as the way dictionary.com defines disbelief) and narrows the definition down. It is 'not theism' or 'without the belief in a deity' (which doesn't appear to need to be plural). 'divine' seems ok, but rather odd (POV of course). The other two sentences seem just fine, but could use some work. Maybe the following would be ok?

- Atheism is not having belief in the divine. The term atheism includes those having an active stance of disbelief or denial toward the divine and is often viewed as such. Some religious communities consider the term to be cognate with Infidel and atheist can be found being used in a pejorative manner.

- I need to work on my writing ability, so maybe someone else can brush it up. Maybe the first sentence would be more appropriate with 'the lack of' instead of 'not having' and 'a deity' for 'the divine', but I'm unsure which seems most appropriate.

- Jayon 21:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By its strictist definition, atheism entails an absence of belief in God or gods, but in common usage it usually refers to a disbelief in all things transcendental or supernatural. This does not always preclude belief in the possibility or probability of an advanced extra-terrestrial species that exerts "god-like" powers because this is a naturalistic notion that does not require, by neccessity, admittance of transcendental or supernatural forces. I think that common usage is highly important to the definition of a word, and I see no reason to exclude mention of it in the introduction. When most people use the word "atheist" they refer to philosophical naturalism, and in spite of this technically being a misusage of the word "atheism," it is important for us to bow to common usage. Pointing out that atheists generally reject Buddhism is too specific, and "divine" is both generally used to refer, either literally or poetically, to that which approaches or is like God (E.G.: "To err is human, but to forgive is divine") and has common roots with "deity." Therefore, I think that a word that calls to mind all things that are not naturalic would be ideal. Contest the appropriateness of "supernatural" and "transcendental" if you will, but "divine" simply doesn't work in my opinion. Bill Mutz 00:26, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)