Talk:Theism/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

Abrahamic religions

Changed "The Abrahamic religions" to "Most Abrahamic religions" on the grounds that the Baha'i Faith is an Abrahamic religion which is (to my understanding) inclusive monotheistic. Heartofgoldfish 03:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the recent paragraph added - it did not have, in my opinion, a tone appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. For instance, it made frequent use of the 1st person "we", and was focused on the connotations of the term "theism" and our intellectual obligations in dealing with the term. Dshin 00:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Theism Classification

There seems to be something wrong with the deity-belief classification scheme. As it stands now, it does not recognize the belief that a deity created nature and also interacts with it. Mainstream Christianity, for instance, does not seem to satisfy any of the four category definitions. A more natural approach seems to replace the deism category with monotheism and polytheism, and to mention deism outside of the classification scheme. Dshin 18:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it - this was an edit someone made recently. Mdwh 00:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The claim is made that Christianity is an example of pluralistic exclusive monotheism. This assertion seems to be self-contradictory. What is the meaning of "pluralistic" in this context? This word is usually understood to mean something that contradicts the term "exclusive". If some other meaning was intended, it should be made explicit. Dshin 21:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding inclusive and exclusive monotheism: I found definitions for these terms, consistent with our definition of monotheism, and so I placed them inside the classification scheme. I removed mention of monistic/dualistic/pluralistic subdivisions of exclusive monotheism until we have some satisfactory definitions for them. Dshin 00:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Theistic Sikhism?

At least according to the definitions here at Wikipedia, Sikhism should qualify more as a pantheistic religion. - 81.15.146.91 15:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Deity

Deity is no longer neutral, Bryan. Have a look at the deity article. Were finially starting to make some progress w the religious articles, and distinctions are being made. Deity has decided to exclude monotheism. If you don't agree, hash it out on talk:deity. Until then, we need to be consistant. Sam [Spade] 01:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be unilateral at all, BTW. I held off on this until the concensus came along. See my talk page, talk:God and Talk:Deity. Sam [Spade] 01:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, aside from the disambig notice at the top the deity article still encompasses the monotheistic god. I'll bring it up over there. Regardless of the status of "deity" at the moment, however, I still object to the capital G. That's the name of a specific god, and "theism" is about as non-specific as you can get. Bryan 01:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Good recent edits Bryan. They don't seem to want the chart at atheism, maybe it can go to one of the spin-offs of atheism, weak atheism or whatever? Maybe all of them, since they havn't much content and are hard to understand? Sam [Spade] 20:35, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Theos = Deos = Deity = Gott = God

All these words have a fundamentally similar word origin, except God / Gott, which goes back to an Indo-Euro word meaning "libation" immanence, or imminence. Very interesting stuff, to me any way. Personally I'd like them all to link to God, but I know the community isn’t ready for that at this time. The longer I stay here the more I learn the subtleties of consensus ;) Cheers, Sam [Spade] 20:38, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Theos is not cognate to deus. Zeus is (and Tyr). dab (ᛏ) 22:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not according to their respective Wikipedia articles. See Dyeus; Deus, Zeus, Theos, Tyr, divine, deity, etc. all apparently come from the same root. However, Gott/God does not; it comes from a word that originally meant "to call" or "to invoke". -Silence

Lead section neutral point of view

To be encyclopedic, a neutral point of view must be presered in the lead section and throughout any article.

As the policy says, "In the context of Wikipedia this usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article."

"Appropriate mention" does not mean spinning the mention to favor your own pet point of view. --Adrigo 18:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I feel like I should quote you back: "Appropriate mention" does not mean spinning the mention to favor your own pet point of view. At first I thought that it was someone else that told you that, but apparently you wrote it yourself.
Although there have been hundreds of edits on this page, go back as far back as you like and you will always find theism defined as belief that there is a God / there are Gods or belief in God(s). At no point did it say that it is the belief that there might be deities, or if so it was quickly reverted.
Please provide evidence that the definition of theism as the belief that there might be deities is not your own pet point of view. Quotes from authoritative people or documents are welcome. Against you, there are most dictionaries that were ever written, if not all of them. --Jules LT 19:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Quote from Adrigo as he unilaterally and without sources reverts the article to his own version: "Jules, your side cannot unilaterally control the content of every article in Wikipedia, you have to negotiate with the other side to make sure all points of view are fairly represented in each article". Jules LT 20:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

We have already jointly agreed to stipulate that deities are hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture), haven't we sir? --Adrigo 20:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

We agreed that deities are hypothetical (unproved). I NEVER agreed that stating "There might be gods" is the definition of theism. Please do PROVIDE SOURCES. Jules LT 20:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
If I am a theist, by definition I believe that there exists a deity or deities. That's what the word means. Belief that there might be a deity is not theism. It isn't atheism either. In fact, it's closest to agnosticism, depending on the reasons for the uncertainty. But theism is, by definition, belief in a deity or deities. See any dictionary you wish.—chris.lawson (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
You say, "If I am theist, I believe that there exists a deity or deities." The neutral point of view is to say that if one is theist one believes there MIGHT BE a diety or dieties. Deities are hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture), right? --172.192.78.130 19:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
This is incredible! You clearly have a warped concept of "Nuetral Point of View." Let me be explicit by using bold text:
Stating that dieties are hypothetical is a Point of View
To the theist, deities are (not "might be"). To the atheist, deities are not (not "might be"). Only to the agnostic, deities might be. Let me use a different verb to be clear.
To the theist, deities exist (not "might exist", they have no doubt). To the (strong) atheist, deities do not exist (not "might not exist"). Only to the agnostic (and perhaps weak atheist), deities might exist.
In order to write from a nuetral standpoint, you must write how each group believes things to be, not how all groups believe things from the agnostic "might be" standpoint. That's like saying "George Bush MIGHT BE president" because you're a democrat who's mad about the Florida election fiasco. Whether or not your opinion is valid, the FACT is that Bush is president, so you must write the FACTS. The FACT is that THEISTS believe that God(s) EXIST(S). Not that they might exist, but that they do exist.
So, for the last time, please stop trying to insert your pathetic attempt at writing into this otherwise fine article. Your minority opinion has been heard and countered. Just because you have a minority opinion doesn't mean you're correct. Just because the majority disagrees doesn't mean it's some sort of tyrannical majority rule. If you were screaming that we should modify the Earth article because Earth is obviously flat, you would have a second incorrect minority opinion.
Go back to school, learn some basic logic and writing skills, and then try again. --Michael 20:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You insist:

Stating that dieties are hypothetical is a Point of View

Isn't that just your theist bias showing a little bit? <grin> Stating a fact is not a POV (bias), old boy. Am I mistaken? Can you produce evidence that gods are anything other than hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? Theists do not say that they know there is a god or gods, they just believe that there might be one, right? 'Might be' means hypothetical, right? (By the way, you can leave out the argument _ad hominem_ like the, "Go back to school" comment. It does not help your argument because it is logical fallacy, and it just makes you look like you don't understand one of the most basic principles of valid argument there is. And Wikipedia reinforces that by saying that the policy is "Comment on the content, not on the contributor," right?) --172.190.120.70 22:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Guys, please do not feed the troll. Conversations on Wikipedia with banned users are discouraged; just delete any comments he makes. If he wanted to have a discussion instead of trying to force his POV down our throats with unilateral evidence, he'd be welcome to; since he instead continues to try to use IP tactics to force his POV on others, he's forfeited his right to talk here. But, since the conversation's already begun, I'll mention:
It's clear to everyone but him that stating that "theism is the belief that there are gods" is true and not POV, and stating that "theism is the belief that there might be gods" is untrue and POV, and renders the term meaningless because almost everyone (theists and atheists alike) believe that there "might be gods" (i.e. that it's possible for gods to exist); if he'd bother to look up "might" in the dictionary, he'd learn that "might" does not mean "hypothetical", it means "possible" (specifically, dictionary.com defines its use in this context as as "Used to indicate a possibility or probability that is weaker than may"). The only thing that distinguishes theism is the belief that there are gods. If the vandal is interested in trying to redefine the term "theism", then he is free to make his own website or write his own book and start promoting that view; but Wikipedia is not the place for such original research, and never will be. -Silence 16:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I have just read the debate between the theist and the atheist. Personally I am not really bothered about bias and the difference between probibal and hypothetical. However what I would like to say is that I think that the theist user: "silence" cheapens his argument by resorting to such tactics. Why does he want to restrict other user's points of view by trying to get them deleted. Is he woried that people capable of logical thought will migrate across to Atheism? It is not a particularly mature way to debate such a topic. Also, micheal would be right in saying that the world is not flat, there is no evidence to support that theory just like there is no evidence or proof of a god existing. 20:08 - 6/09/06 - Unregistered user

FYI: This 172.* person is banned from editing anything outside their arbitration case, and any comments they make can and should be reverted on sight and the IP used to make them temporarily blocked. ~~ N (t/c) 16:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't correspond with banned users, but I just have to ask this - if I believe there might be a god, but I don't believe that there is one in fact, what the hell am I? If I'm a theist, then how do you distinguish between me and someone who believes there is actually a god? ~~ N (t/c) 19:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Since the banned user will not be responding here (and we should stop temping him to, come on), I'll do my best to explain what his view seems to be: apparently, he thinks that if a view is not rational, it does not exist. Or at least, if it's not rational, it doesn't merit mentioning in an encyclopedia, even to help people understand how other people think and thus gain a better understanding of the word. No, it's much easier to just close your eyes to the world until everyone who disagrees with you goes away.
The user also has a misunderstanding of what the word "might" does; it almost seems like English isn't his first language, if he believes that "might" in this context means "hypothetical" rather than "possible". He apparently does not understand, or does not wish to understand, that it is unnecessary to put statements of belief into a bizarre phrasing just because they're true or untrue or hypothetical or literal or whatever; the construction of statements of belief does not change regardless of whether the belief is a true one or a false one, or regardless of anything else to do with the belief's truthfulness or applicability to reality. For example, elephants exist. I believe that they exist. Therefore I can say, "I believe that elephants exist" (or "I believe in elephants" if you prefer). Now, let's imagine a hypothetical world where elephants don't exist, except in mythology, but I still believe in elephants. Now, I will still say "I believe that elephants exist", even though they don't, because all I'm saying is what I believe, not what is. Theism is the same way. Regardless of whether deities do exist or not, it is still 100% proper wording for a theist to say "I believe that deities exist" or "I believe in deities". It is no more necessary to go to excessive lengths to discuss whether they do exist or not here than it is to go to excessive lengths to discuss whether leprechauns do exist or not on the leprechaun page; those who believe in them aren't likely to be swayed by reasonable arguments, and those who don't believe in them would just have their time wasted by an encyclopedia going to ridiculous measures to tell them what they already know as plain as day. The same for Santa Claus, Batman, or Flying Spaghetti Monsters.
More importantly, even if the theism page did specifically go into the issue of what reasons there are to be theist vs. atheist, the banned user's attempts are absolutely the wrong way to go about that. Making a new section for such information would be the only appropriate way to do that, not doing something ridiculous and meaningless like putting "might" all over the article. That doesn't say anything, it just makes the page vastly less useful and informative and meaningful to any reader. -Silence 20:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
OMG! The first intelligent post on this page in days! Amazing! (My hope is somewhat restored!) Although, everything with Donald is nothing new, as seen here. He's been trying to bludgeon his view into people for ages (literally years). I'm surprised that he just doesn't get a homepage where he can talk about and define things as he wishes (thus joining the many other Net Kooks out there). It also saddens me that he self-identifies as an atheist... it makes the rest of us look bad. Ah well...ciest la vie. (or whatever the French say) --Michael 20:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Some suggestions

I just changed the entry a little bit

Added Nontheism and Confucianism / Zen buddhism / Taoism/ Also slightly modified the ordered/unordered to better reflect the amount of acceptance of [g|G]od(s)

I also have some questions / suggestions:

Reply to David Latapie 00:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


Should all that outline stuff go into paragraph format?

Im just asking, because if it should, i'll try to do it.... Homestarmy 21:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Agnosticism part of theism/non-theism classification?

I know I'm not the only one to think this, but I may be the only one who actually cares enough to request a change. Rather than making it myself, I thought I'd get some opinions, if anyone else cares. Here goes: I postulate that agnosticism doesn't belong under the "non-theism" category any more than it belongs in any of the others. Being agnostic does not automatically make one a non-theist; I've met people who claim to be agnostic theists as well as people who claim to be agnostic atheists. I imagine there may be agnostic deists, agnostic pantheists, and so forth. (Some people consider deism a sub-category of theism, but that's not the subject of my post here.) Anyway, I suggest that it be removed from the "non-theism" category.

I'm sure lots of people would disagree with my suggestion, so I'd like to hear others' thoughts before making a change that might incite controversy. -- Othersider 01:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's possible that it's classified that way under the grounds of "Their not sure of being compleatly theistic", but im not entirely certain. Homestarmy 04:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Most, but not all, people who identify as agnostics are nontheists. If agnosticism is listed under non-theism, there should be a caveat pointing out that the two are not necessarily linked. -Sean Curtin 05:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with what Othersider and Sean have said. Although the page does say "commonly divided into these categories:" I think there must be some way of pointing out that Agnosticism can be clarified as something other uniquely non-theist. Are there any ideas on how to make this a less black/white definition, while keeping some type of helpful categorization structure (that currently exists). --Ncosmob 05:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Page reorganization StephenFerg 02:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made a series of pretty dramatic reorganizations of this page. I'm done now. I hope everyone thinks they're an inprovement and a good basis for going forward. StephenFerg 02:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • You seem to be making a very extensive amount of changes to the article and it sure sounds like you know some things on the subject, but if I may ask, do you happen to be getting your information from any one general reference source or anything? It's just that, if some people come in and want to improve the article, it might be much more difficult to verify it all line by line or something, because there aren't any actual references for anything yet and there's not much to assume about where the information ultimetly is coming from :/ Homestarmy 01:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I've done some pretty radical restructuring, but my main aim is to organize and polish rather than to add, delete, or change. I've tried to preserve most of what people previously had written. A lot of my changes are based on general background knowledge. I have a Ph.D. in philosophy, with a minor in oriental studies that included a lot of study of oriental religions. I did my thesis on the history of ideas covering the period of the scientific revolution and the popularity of Deism. In addition, I've been using a variety of sources including the good old Webster's dictionary.I'm a relative newbie to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure of the right technique to reply to your post. I hope this is the right way to do it.User:StephenFerg 01:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah, it's ok, it's just your supposed to put them on user talk pages, i'll move your comment there. Is there a way you could perhaps reference the Webster's dictionary while you edit, like maybe write in parenthesis with the version of webster and the page number if you want to keep it simple while your new, people can make it more reference-y later. It's just Wikipedia has this WP:V thing, where everything has really got to be referenced for an article to be considered pretty good, especially because it's all open source and stuff and it's hard for people to get inside other editor's heads to verify their information that way heh. Homestarmy 02:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks. I absolutely agree with WP:V and I appreciate your comment. I've done as much as I can to improve the theism page. I think I should give it a rest for a few days and let other folks look at it and work with it. And I'll go wash my laundry and balance the checkbook. Then I'll see if I can't come back in and provide some citations. StephenFerg 02:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Atheism change

Any objection to changing "Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of gods or deities" to "Atheism is a belief that god(s) and deities do not exist"? My reasoning is that "lack of belief" is a negative representation of Atheism.Vamptoo 05:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I object, because, dubious argument about "negativity" aside, atheism is not accurately defined as a belief that gods do not exist. Some atheists would take that view, but many would not. And certainly any definition here should chime with that found at the atheism wikipedia entry. --Dannyno 09:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like comments from others as well, though I do agree that the Atheism page needs to be changed as well.Vamptoo 17:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem is because many Atheists like to emphasize varying, yet often, subtle differences in what precisely they believe Atheism is, so easily generalizing it can be difficult unless you write some sort of essay arguing that it is one thing or the other. (Which, of course, Wikipedia shouldn't do.) Homestarmy 17:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The same thing could be said about the varying, yet often, subtle differences in what precisely Theists believe. But that avoids the point that "lack of belief" is defining Atheism from a negative position. The argument isn't the meaning it is how it is portrayed.Vamptoo 18:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You're conflating grammatical and 'moral' negativity. Please don't. "Lack of belief" is one of the only ways to define atheism so as to include what many atheists have actually thought. It simply isn't true that atheism is "the belief that god does not exist". And that's the test,not that the more accurate alternative is somehow "negative", which it isn't. --Dannyno 21:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any references? Atheism is quite simply the knowledge that there are no supernatural events or beings.Vamptoo 21:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
But I don't have such knowledge - yet I don't believe in God, so what does that make me, if not an atheist? Mdwh 23:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It's true that for many Atheists it isn't, but for other atheists it probably is true that they have a "belief that God does not exist". And hence, the dilemna. Homestarmy 22:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
There really is no dilemma, if someone believes there are any supernatural beings, they are not Atheists. Atheists are secure in the knowledge that no God, god, gods, or deities exist or have ever existed.Vamptoo 21:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with a "negative" definition, if that's what the definition is. Are you saying you think that your two definitions are equal, and you prefer the positive phrasing? Or are you saying that you think the current definition is simply wrong (in which case, whether it is "negative" or not is beside the point)? Mdwh 22:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Defining Theism as "the lack of belief in Atheism" would probably be more correct, but I don't suppose a Theist would like that either. There is no need to define Atheism in negative terms. I can define Theism negatively too, but that doesn't make the negative definition the preferred definition.Vamptoo 21:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
No it wouldn't, because "atheism" is not an entity which people do/don't believe in. If you have a way to define atheism is a "positive" manner without changing the meaning, then sure, go ahead. However, your proposal does not do that. Mdwh 23:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we exactly understand each other, the problem is that Atheists often like to define themselves as people who "lack believe in God", (I presume because they dislike the notion that people may think they have faith about something) but there are also undoubtably atheists who have a belief that there is not a god of any sort. Having the belief that there is no God does not necessarily make one a believer in the supernatural. Homestarmy 22:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed yes. Both should be covered, but note that the latter sort ("strong" atheism) is a subset of the former: If someone believes there are no gods, then clearly they also lack belief in any god. Mdwh 23:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Vamptoo said: "Atheism is quite simply the knowledge that there are no supernatural events or beings." This is untrue, and it is not at all as simple as that. Your idiosyncratic definition would mean that Richard Dawkins, for example, does not count as an atheist, because he doesn't claim to know that there is no God. I can supply any number of references, but you can find most of them in the bibliography appended to the wikipedia atheism article. Most of the atheists cited there did not claim to know that there is no God. --Dannyno 10:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I was agreeing with Homestarmy, not Vamptoo ... I agree with what you say about Vamptoo's comment. I'm not sure what you mean by "my idiosyncratic definition". Mdwh 02:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I was responding to Vamptoo, not at all to you. Confusion all round. --Dannyno 20:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yea? Well, im talking to nobody at all in this comment, so hah! Now who's most confused? :D Homestarmy 20:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, so we can all agree that the correct definition of atheism is 'lack of belief in any gods.' Changing. Retsudo 19:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, no, that's merely one definition..... Homestarmy 21:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Recent Changes regarding adding the word "perception"

My view is that the word perception doesn't belong in the article. I'd have to agree with Retsudo here:

"Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of gods or deities, which they usually base on reasoning or the lack of evidence to the contrary."

It may be their perception, but we are getting into point of view then, which has no place on *any* Wikipedia article. Everyone has perceptions, but we're talking about how Atheists view their own set of beliefs. No one else's 'perception' enters into it, hence, the word is not relevant. Pursey 10:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but what is here now is even less NPOV, as it states as fact that there is a lack of evidence to the contrary of God not existing, rather than stating Atheists believe there to be a lack of evidence. Besides, "usually" is too ambiguous anyway and the entire idea makes a generalization which has no hope of verifiability, (since, of course, once cannot define "usually" in strict terms) there appears to be absolutly no point to the second part. Homestarmy 14:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
My reading of the recent edits made it read as though there was a "perceived" lack of evidence for the existence of god, ie. that there was evidence god existed. Pursey 14:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't think of a better way to stop it from affirming the opposite though, and assumed that it would read neutrally with "percieved", but if it was really wrong, I can understand. However, I had already tried just removing the sentence once and had gotten reverted, so I didn't want to get into an unconstructive edit war. Do you have any suggestions? Homestarmy 14:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I believe its now fine as is. Pursey 14:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
But it is stating as truth that there is no evidence for God's (or a god's if you prefer) existance, and invites a reference war. I can probably find plenty of references where atheists all over the place insist that their belief is based on a supposed lack of evidence for God's existance, but then could also find probably just as many references insisting that this is ridiculous, (And I wouldn't have to have apologetics sites vs. infidel.org either) and having Wikipedia affirm that there is a lack of evidence certainly isn't neutral. Plus, "usually" is a weasel word, and not having the word makes it a hasty generalization, this sentence is very problematic in many ways. Homestarmy 14:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Because I'm out of useful discussion, I'd suggest putting the entire article in an incinerator and performing Folk dancing around the ensuing flames. Seriously though, I'm not sure but it needs to deal with each of our concerns. I'm fine with you taking another stab at editing it, I assume good faith, of course :) Pursey 14:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The only ideas I can think of that make sense are to use qualifiers such as "which they often view as based on reason or how they view a lack of evidence to the contrary." Which seems rather wordy and still difficult to find citations for, (and would probably get reverted) or delete the sentence again (and likely get reverted again), or engage in a reference war, referencing the statement as it is now, and then making a sentence detailing how many theists, philosophers, I think a pope or two, and other folks consider the supposed lack of evidence to be a foolish assumption, and referencing that. I think that would get rather off-topic, and come to think of it, what is a separate description of Atheism even doing in the article on Theism? Should it be turned into a discussion on the relationship between Atheism and Theism through history, because then I might be able to adapt the reference war I mentioned earlier into making the section useful that way.... Homestarmy 15:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Well, there's a page on Atheism isn't there? So, if you feel it'd be better off that way, I'd have no objection to you having a shot at it. Pursey 15:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I seem to of run into a bit of a problem, I can't find any notable Atheists who specifically espouse the attitude that Atheism is based on a lack of evidence to the contrary, just that they dismiss the evidence to the contrary as false in some manner, which isn't exactly the same. I'm also running into another problem where most of my search results consist of Wikipedia or compleatly non-notable blogs and personal websites, and i'm having a hard time finding history between Atheism and Theism, just mostly people in modern times railing against specific religions in general :/. I don't suppose you might happen to know of any prominent Atheists in less modern times who may of been critical of Theism in general, I thought I might find something on the Richard Dawkins article, but it makes him out to be much more concerned with religion, of which Theism is not necessarily comprised of. Homestarmy 16:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I dont mean that to be rude, but the most atheist sites and books specifically state that one of the reasons the author does not believe in god is that there is no evidence to support a 'god hypothesis.' Claiming that there is evidence about god is a new one. Anyone with such evidence should probably publish it and win several prizes, become the most famous scientist in history and earn a lot of money. There is no evidence for any gods that isn't better evidence for something else (e.g. the eye is very good evidence for evolution, not creation 6000 years ago) - that is an example - please dont take it to mean that all theists believe the world was created 6000 years ago. Try looking on infidels.org
One problem you might be having is that atheism is not a philosophy or dogma - it is very hard to group atheists under one heading, which is why the definition needs to be exact on what atheism means - simply, a lack of belief in gods, which in MOST cases was arrived at by thinkingRetsudo 18:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure there might be plenty of non-notable sites which may espouse this claim, but there must be notable references, and most of the atheist sites I keep seeing are blogs, personal website, or organizations which purposefully tone down their language and all that jazz. Infidel.org really is not very high up on the reference scale, they say each article may be written by "scholars" in their respective field, but each article would then have to be gauged on a case by case basis. You'll need to name specific articles, and more importantly, ones which can clearly stand for "most atheists", not just one atheist, since this sentence is a generalization. Homestarmy 18:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I recommend that you read and re-read the atheism article. You seem to be under the impression that there is some sort of central authority on atheism which produces dogma for the other atheists to follow. There isn't, hence why you cannot find what you seem to be looking for. However, you should be able to find any number of books and articles written by serious scholars discussing atheism and the typical reasons atheists give for their lack of beliefs, which will match up with the definition written here.Retsudo 16:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
That is not enough, there needs to be something explicitly linking the concept of Atheism to Theism, since this is the Theism article. Currently, all the sentence is is a definition of Atheism, it is not a criticsm of Theism, it provides no history concerning the relationship between Atheism and Theism, it does not even belong in the article in its current state, even if it didn't have problems. Plus, the atheism article is not exceedingly well referenced. Homestarmy 16:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
1) You seem to be the only one who doesnt consider it enough.
2) "Essentially it is a 'lack of Theism" -that seems like an explicit link to the concept of theism. Strangely enough, the criticism of theism by atheism is in the atheism article. And so, similarly, Deism is explained under the deism article and so on. I am pretty sure I have already pointed out the difficulty in referencing something that doesnt have a central dogma other than the extensive references listed in the Atheism article..... compared with the references in the Theism article... zero. Good point, I will put some fact tags on the theism article.Retsudo 18:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me do some research and thinking and I'll come back and discuss further :) By the way, thanks for participating so well in this discussion Pursey 16:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

agnosticism

Agnosticism isn't always a middle of the road position between atheism and theism. True agnosticism is the belief that the question is unknowable, not that the person doesnt know. That the person doesn't know whether or not the god in question exists is a type of atheism (you can't believe in a god you have never heard of, for example, so you are atheistic towards it.) I think it is worth restating here that everyone is an atheist towards the gods of other religions - avowed atheists just go one step further.Retsudo 18:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just trying to relate the section to the topic of "Theism", since it seemed so very unrelated to the topic as it stood. And no, agnosticism is definently not just that the question is unknowable, I have seen and heard plenty of agnostics say explicitly that "they don't know". (Of course, that's OR on my part, but then, so is your assertion) I've also noticed you've been in this debate over at other articles concerning this "Atheist to all other religions" jazz, which seems so obvious it seems utterly pointless, and will probably confuse readers over what atheism is precisely. Homestarmy 18:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
On this one, I'll go against Retsudo. From what I understand, Agnostic is generally "not knowing" rather than "believing that they cannot know". Pursey 19:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I should have stated that my objection is that agnosticism can mean either, not that it only means the above definition.Retsudo