Talk:Atheists in foxholes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Atheists in foxholes article.
Article policies
WikiProject Atheism
Atheists in foxholes is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
For more information and how you can help click Show →

I like wit dry, like good champagne, served deadpan in a chilled glass. User:Wetman "No atheists" did NOT mean MANY atheists found their knowledge that religion is false "challenged." It did not say "few" nor did it say they were "challenged." It said "no atheists," period. I'm removing that Christian apologist junk. Fairandbalanced 00:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, being an atheist does rule religion out. That is one of the reasons why the WW II atheists marked "Buddhism" as their religion. Luis Dantas 00:49, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually that is not true. Atheism is not equivalent to irreligious. Atheism means lack in or denial in a deity. However, there are religions who do not believe in a deity. Buddhism and Jainism for example do NOT believe in any deities but do believe in various spiritual matters. It is thus incorrect to say that being atheist rules religion out.


Since the express is "there are no atheists in foxholes" would it not make more sense to title the article that way64.12.116.201 19:15, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Common usage

I HAVE A BOOK HERE CALLED The World War II Desk Reference, written by Haskew and Brinkley with the help of the Eisenhower Center for American Studies and they claim, without question, that it was U.S. Army Chaplain William T. Cummings, on Bataan in March 1942. I'd go with the book if I were making the decisions here...

In Oliver Stone's "Any Given Sunday", the reverend tells the football team "There are no athiests in foxholes" after a loss. I don't think it's stated or implied that anybody on the team is at all religious (this is the only religious scene in the movie, IIRC). I think it's simply meant in a metaphorical sense: you lost today, but you showed up and played hard, which means you believe in this team.

I've never used this expression, but if I heard it, I wouldn't be at all offended. I'd take it to mean "Yeah, life is tough, but you're working hard on something because you believe in it."

(Use this however you wish -- as a pop culture reference, or note that there's an additional metaphorical usage, or ignore me.)

I'm not "ignoring" you, but I find it hard to see how your example can be used when I don't understand the usage you are describing -- I've not seen the movie myself, but I don't see how it works with the meaning you are describing unless there was some context I don't know about. Aris Katsaris 03:15, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


  • I've never heard of the second use of this term, More recently it has been used as an accusation that atheists are unpatriotic or disloyal or do not join or support the military. Maybe I'm out of touch, but can someone verify this term is being used this way? As I said, I've only heard it used in the first way. Bad ideas 02:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah seriously, it just sounds like someone misunderstood the saying. --Yath 15:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it spawned from somebody misunderstanding the saying. Foxholes are bunkers dug in warzones occupied by troops. "In foxholes" could be replaced with "in combat" to acheive the same meaning. Captaincool53 00:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


I've read those television quotations and it appears to be used as a 'cheap shot' against atheists, as the translation implies reticence or cowardice in combat. There is no questioning it's validity, since it is an absurd phrase. It is also disrespectful to the thousands of atheists who have sacrificed their lives valiantly in war. Having thought about it's meaning further, I have come to the conclusion that in early 20th century, the phrase was a kind of joke, meaning, "One must have faith to occupy a foxhole for any length of time...." The use of the phrase is coupled with nervous, light laughter at the thought of a foxhole, amidst shelling/bombardment and trenches lined with machine gunners.....The idea behind the phrase is, the situation *ironically* would force you to believe in a God... But today, it seems to be taken literally and out of this context, which is a shame and very insulting. (this was also posted in the athiesm discussion).-A101

Man, how much can one simple phrase be twisted? All it means is that if you are in a situation where your only protection from the enemies' insessant machine gun fire and shelling is a shallow trench, you might very well start believing in some sort of god in a hurry, no matter what you thought of it before. Case in point, an millitantly atheist Soviet Union brought back the chaplancy for the duration of WWII. And while we're on the topic of the USSR - there atheism was the official state religion, there was no logic or rationality involved. You either believed that there was no god, or you were in a heap of trouble. They even outlawed genetic research in the 50's because the Communist Party believed that genetics was a Western attempt to prove god's existense scientefically. If you want an interesting experiment, find someone who was born in USSR or (or anywhere in the Warsaw Pact/Yugoslavia area) and try to question them on atheism (they'd have to be atheist, of course) You might find that most are not very capable of providing logical reasons for their belief in the absense of a deity. It just is, and that's all there's to it. Omegarad 07:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
If I may, I think you're confusing events a bit. It was not about proving or disproving God's existance, but about genetics and evolution by natural selection. Darwin's idea was considered "bourgeois", a product of capitalist thinking where competition was considered some kind of high goal of nature. But the communists "knew" that nature was built on good communist cooperation, so they banned the "false" idea and favored an alternative propounded by a good communist thinking in a communal fashion. Lysenko's biology repressed Soviet agriculture for decades. For example, plants were placed very closely to each other so that they could "cooperate" and grow very healthy, only they didn't, because plants smother each other when they grow too close. But they didn't need facts, they had ideology!
See Lysenkoism for more information. --Suttkus 08:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Godless unpatriotic atheist from ex-Yugoslavia here. Omegarad, you had some questions, I believe?
Your comment shows a slanted view of things - First off, the Soviet Union's mid-war revival of the chaplancy was a pragmatic act of harnessing as much support from as many sides as possible - and I'm talking manpower support. The church also acted as a channel for patriotism. I don't think the whole thing had anything to do with being in a tough spot and turning to supernatural agents for support. Second: atheism was not the official state religion of the USSR. I don't know where you got that idea... The USSR was secular, and religions were (a lot of the times violently) surpressed. But never was atheism the state religion. Read more here: Religion in the Soviet Union. If you, however have a link to the part of the Soviet constitution where atheism is proclaimed "the state religion", I'd be more than happy to see it. Third: I find it lovely how you replicate that wonderful fallacy of simply throwing every damn communist country into one basket - countries in "the Warsaw Pact/Yugoslavia area" differ greatly (among other aspects, in their attitude towards religions during communist times), and simply stuffing them all together and saying they're all the same is a ridiculous sweeping statement on par with, say, the statement "all Americans are stupid". We both know that's not true, even if you hear it often on the Internet.
And lastly, regarding the Warsaw pact/Yugoslavia area atheists' absence of logic re their atheism. Personally, I was simply not raised into religion. That's all. I never went to church, and I never felt any need to do so. I may have been taunted about this in school (I was the only kid in class who didn't go to Sunday school), but I never felt the need to go to church on simple peer preasure alone. I simpy don't believe in a higher being. Is this being illogical? Can you give me a logical reason why you differ from me in that you believe in a higher being? Wouldn't your answer to that question be: "It just is, and that's all there's to it." ? TomorrowTime (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I don't really feel like fighting about this by inserting pov tags or anything (had enough of that at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Big Bang) but this article is pretty seriously POV. Note: I *am* an atheist and I *do* think the statement is offensive; it's still pov though. Mikker (...) 00:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Which bits are POV? Mdwh 00:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok... here we go again :). This is just one random person's take on it, I don't want to claim what I'm saying is the gospel. I'd argue the article balance is skewed because, while it contains this: "Atheists or psychologists are likely to see it as a fallacious and pseudo-psychological pronouncement that lacks substantial backing and is predominantly intended to discredit atheists and atheism. Religious persons may note that the statement equates faith with fear, implying that someone can acquire true faith purely through fear of death" (which, I note, is unreferenced thereby failing WP:V) it doesn't contain anything on why religious ppl might think the statement is true. What the first 2/3rds of the article does, in effect, is say: here's what it means; here's why it's wrong. So, it seems to me anyway, that the article is unbalanced & pov. It seems to have been written entirely from an atheist perspective, and it asserts the truth of claims which ought to in the mouths of third parties. Mikker (...) 00:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
That's not really POV, that's an issue of citation. I'll put a tag up, I'm busy right now otherwise I'd go find a reference. And really, as for being written from an atheist's perspective: not really. It doesn't mention the deep-rooted psychological issues some religious believers have that everyone knows their beliefs are true deep down inside but reject them, but can we find a source which actually cites this? It is kind of hard as people don't really defend the statement as far as I've seen, though I'm sure we could dig up a quote by Pat Robertson or someone to illustrate the beliefs of the people who make the silly claim in the first place. Titanium Dragon 02:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is Ernie Pyle not given credit for the phrase, etc?

Hi, journalist Ernie Pyle is often credited with coining this phrase, so is there some source for the claim that it was actually William Clear? I have no idea myself which one said it, but if there is some dispute, then we need a good reference, or possibly we should make it clear that the matter is not settled. At very least, Ernie Pyle deserves a mention. Anyone have anything concrete? Leeborkman 01:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misinterpretation

The person who wrote this article has misunderstood the true meaning of the phrase. The meaning of it is not that atheists are cowardly, that deep down they are in denial or that there were no atheists in the armed forces, but rather it is a comment on the unsafe nature of foxholes. The message of the phrase is that foxholes are such a dangerous place to be, that noone would be in one unless they believed a higher power was protecting them from a very likely death.

Do you have a source for that interpretation? JoshuaZ 01:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Foxholes are immensely safe... compared to standing outside a foxhole in the middle of combat. This interpretation would suggest that the atheists are standing outside while the religious people are digging foxholes. The atheists I know are smarter than this. I actually find this interpretation backwards, wouldn't the religious person be more likely to stand around assured God would protect him while the atheist dug for his life? Mind you, despite being religious, I'd dig like crazy. I'm just saying... --Suttkus 17:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Well for starters Suttkus, whether or not standing on open ground is dangerous, it still is nigh-on suicidal to sit in a fox-hole, waiting to be shelled. It would be rather brash to say that the statement doesnt mean fox-holes are dangerous because standing in front of the enemy is more dangerous. As for a source on the above interpretation, JoshuaZ, the only source anyone could have on the correct interpretation for the statement would be to ask the man who made the statement, which I doubt anyone here has done. The best "sources" we've seen from most of the people here have been articles on atheist websites (like they're not at all biased). So asking for a source is pretty pointless. 220.253.84.126 13:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
If foxholes are so dangerous, why do the world's armed forces encourage you to know how (and when) to dig them? Foxholes are a defensive structure. That's their purpose. If they were more dangerous than the surroundings, nobody would be digging the things.
Besides, aren't they primarily used against machine guns rather than shells? --Suttkus 05:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, I'm pretty certain that the phrase just means that people become irrational when put under stressful situations. That's all. I think that very few people who have used the phrase sincerely think that there cannot be, or never has been, an atheist in a foxhole.--69.242.35.210 19:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misinterpretation? No, just lots of different interpretations

This is a great phrase, because it can mean so many different things. Some atheists consider the phrase an insult to atheists, presumably because they think it means something like: "Any person who claims not to believe in God is kidding themselves because they will always change their minds when put under enough pressure", or a nastier version "any man facing death who claims to be an atheist is lying". But this phrase can be taken in many other ways. I personally (as an atheist) take the phrase to mean "humans, being human, may clutch at any feeble hope when the situation is desperate", which does not offend me at all, as it's a general comment on human desperation, not really about atheisim or atheists at all. A much wilder interpretation I have seen around here is "Atheists are cowardly scum (so don't expect to find any of them on the front-lines)", which would be incredibly offensive (if anyone ever actually intended the phrase this way). This is why I have repeatedly asked that interpretations should be backed by reputable sources, ie for any interpretation we need to show that there are intelligent, respected people who actually interpret the phrase that way. It is pointless (and incorrect) to dogmatically state any particular interpretation as the correct meaning, although this is what has happened again and again here and on the related articles. Thanks. Leeborkman 02:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and believe the interpretation in the article should either be removed or others should be added. I'm an atheist, and similar to you I've always considered, if anything, theists would find the saying offensive. To me, the phrase implies that religion is just a way to deal with fear of death, not that it has any truth behind it. If you beleive you're going to die, what do you have to lose by starting to "believe" in there being a god that'll grant you an eternity of happiness for believing in him? Its not like atheists believe that people that die incorrectly believing there's a god will be punished.Funkadillo 13:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OK,one interpretation is that atheists are cowards and another is that they all convert in time of danger. Both are essentially equivalent and both are absurd. There is substantial evidence of atheists in foxholes and I have not seen any evidence of spontaneous conversions to Goddism. When I am in danger, I think of survival and perhaps my wife if there is time. Musing about philosophy and religion is a good way to die sooner, and atheists are generally rather practical and prefer to stay alive so long as they are mentally alert. Fairandbalanced 01:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources?

Many people have claimed that people's interpretations should be backed by reliable references, or otherwise the interpretation is invalid. However, the only truly reliable source would be the lieutenant-colonel who made the statement, and unless someone is actually going to find him and ask, I think it would be foolish to consider one interpretation to be better than the other on grounds of evidence, especially seeing as many people's "references" are just atheist websites, which could hardly be regarded as unbiased given the feelings of atheists on the statement. The fact of the matter is that the meaning of the statement is open to interpretation by the reader, and while many atheists are happy to look for a chance shout black and blue about discrimination etc., I believe that people should leave thier own opinions and hangups about religion out of the article. 220.253.84.126 13:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


heres one 'the fool says there is no god'... ! Portillo 11:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unfocused

What is this article suppose to be about? The phrase "...atheists in foxholes", or something else, in which case it should have a different title? The article is unfocused from an encyclopedic standpoint. A good way to start would be to follow normal Wikipedia proceedure and start the article with its title: Atheists in foxholes is/means/etc. 70.20.238.20 01:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


Let me tell you all something about war. You always hear Christians talking about atheists dumping their beliefs and suddenly believing in god or some junk like that. It's a myth. During and after many wars, soldiers adopted a cynical attitude towards god, religion, reality and that kind of stuff. A lot of them adopted a more agnostic outlook on life. In the words of my veteran grandfather, "God? Where was that f*ucker?" Or "God? Has anyone around here seen him recently?"

You didn't answer his question. This isn't a debate forum, it's an encyclopedia. We need to refocus this article on the phrase "atheists in foxholes" and its uses, not a refutation, that can go on your blog. Thank you above user, I think you're dead on, I'll see what I can do. --Smilingman 21:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is "barbituary" a word?

I can find no definition of the word “barbituary” in the sentence “The phrase could also hint at a Marxist idea that theism is a barbituary for pain and struggle…”. Is this a real word, or was “barbiturate” the intended word? — Chris Page 15:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "offensive"

I am not sure why "use of the phrase" should be considered offensive by atheists. If anything, it could be considered offensive by soldiers, and by theists, since it really says that belief in God is born of fear, which is precisely how atheists explain the obviously widespread phenomenon of theism. Soldiers might consider the phrase offensive because it suggests everyone is scared witless in combat. That there are, of course, rare cases of "atheists of foxholes", doesn't disprove the point of the phrase, it just shows that heroic stoicism will in some cases beat primate fear. dab (𒁳) 12:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, on an individual level, it could be seen as patronizing and suggesting that atheists are unserious or unreflected or inauthentic about their personal credo. That being said, I completely agree with your removal, of course. If there are atheists affronted by this phrase, the outcry should be referenced and notable. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] picture

Let's put a picture that represents an opposing sentiment towards the article subject. What's next, a Red Sox logo for the Yankees page? Great job Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.186.128 (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plays on the Phrase

There are no Democrats at the World Trade Center. --mitrebox (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not to revisit this issue but...

I don't think this article makes it clear what the definitions/interpretations are of this phrase beyond the only one listed (which I notice has no citations to validate it) and spent more time talking about a group that has taken it to be their catch phrase/mission statement (and a section which I deleted as they have their own seperate article and don't need more space here as it added nothing to what the phrase means).

I don't necessarily disagree with the interpretation given but having grown up in a household where WW2 movies were a staple (Guadalcanal Diary, Bridge On The River Kwai, etc.), I was under the impression that men who fear judgement (i.e. going to hell for their sins) are going to do their best to keep from being killed (like bunkering down in a foxhole). A person who doesn't believe in the afterlife, having a soul, and/or a god would be less inclined to fear death and it's consequences (in this context) and thus, not in the foxhole with the religious grunts as they have nothing/less to lose by their own "belief system". That was my impression of what the phrase meant anyway. It's hyperbole (probably offensive to some) and maybe that's addressed in a legitimate, sourceable article but I honestly don't know where to go to get a reference. This is the way it was explained to me and what I have heard from others (and yes, anecdotal evidence, yadda yadda yadda). 144.92.85.41 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)