Talk:Atheism/Archive 23

Nothingness After Death

How about the atheist belief that there's no life after death, but simply disappearance of consciousness and decay of body? Is that an integral belief of atheism? --Menchi 20:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Atheistic beliefs are not components of atheism. Atheism only concerns the existence of gods. An atheist is someone without god-beliefs of any kind for whatever reason. That does not preclude atheists from holding nontheistic beliefs. Adraeus 20:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It can be argued (I have argued it, in fact) that the notion of life after death makes no sense from an atheistic standpoint; it can also be argued (and I've argued this too) that it doesn't make much more sense from a theistic standpoint either. Just as theists believe many things that don't really make sense, so do atheists. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many Buddhists believe in life after death and/or reincarnation, without believing in a god. It's also possible to believe in ghosts and a spirit/astral realm without believing in gods, as many "New Agers" do. Also, many theistic religions have no concept of life after death - the ancient Hebrews are an example (see: Jewish eschatology). In short, atheism has nothing at all to do with life after death, even if there's a commonality regarding the supernatural.

MFNickster 19:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

But it's not clear to me (or, so far as I can see, to many people) exactly what the Buddhist notion of rebirth is — and certainly not clear that it can be accurately decsribed as life after death. The main problems are metaphysical, though there are ethical problems too.

In any case, as I said earlier, what makes sense and what people say aren't always directly correlated. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the point remains that atheism only has to do with belief in gods, and for that reason there is no "atheist belief" that there is no life after death. The fact that many religions promote that idea (and tie it in with god beliefs) is completely irrelevant to atheism and to this article.

MFNickster 02:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem stems from two defintions of atheist; one is "atheist" as in "one who does not believe in god"; the other is "atheist" as in "irreligious atheist", which is the most common usage of the word by laymen in the United States (and as far as I can tell elsewhere as well). Indeed, most of the latter category of atheists do not believe in life after death; they generally think it is oblivion, though I have also met many (including myself) who have no belief in life after death. The difference is kind of subtle, but basically the latter group doesn't believe they will live on after death, but they don't preclude the possibility of it happening. However, they also generally doubt that any religion has it right, and don't think it will be anything like Heaven or Hell. A number seem to hope for (rather than believe in) reincarnation or some similar afterlife. I've met a few, though, who genuinely don't want an afterlife, and just want it all to end.

I'd say generalizing afterlife beliefs for atheists would be pretty hard, because I doubt there have been any surveys done on it. Titanium Dragon 08:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you're talking about - a lot of atheists reject claims of life after death for the same reasons they reject the existence of a god: lack of evidence. It pretty much comes down to whether you believe the testimony given. In the case of many Christian sects, it is God/Jesus who grants eternal life and that's what ties the concepts together, but they don't necessarily go together. MFNickster 05:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's name names. A lot of atheists do indeed reject immortality or life after death for the same reason they reject belief in God. Nevertheless, there is at least one thoroughgoing atheist who did not: JME McTaggart. His atheism is of the strong variety, but he's been neglected by mainstream atheist writers (doesn't appear in most books on the subject) because of his unique brand of mysticism and denial of the reality of time.--Dannyno 08:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I've known Atheist to believe in life after death. Heck I know of one who believes in ghosts. I humor such things but to me it's all nonsense. What I'm getting at is that you can believe in all sorts of silly things without believing in any god or gods. It can't be argued that atheist by default "believe that there is no afterlife" though I'm sure that most, in the least, are unconcerned with the idea and view it as unlikely (at the very least). LucaviX

Removal of lots of links

I've just replaced a large number of links which were removed on the basis that "Wikipedia isn't a link-farm". That's something to bear in mind when deciding whether or not to add a new link, but it's not good grounds for removing links, and certainly not for such a wholesale removal. If there are arguments against including individual links, then we discuss it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Mikkalai (talk · contribs) has again removed the links, still without the courtesy of discussing it here. I've reinstated them until a proper explanation is given. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid that them removed it again because you reverted my edit without cortesy of blurting a single word in the edit summary as if I am a random vandal. Meanwhile I thought I gave a very detailed explanation in the comments:

• wikipedia is not link farm. if other encyclopedias contain useful info, put it here. Catholic encyclopedia is public domain. Use it.
• please read Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally. If links have useful info, put it here

Over a time anons and other good-meaning contributions piled dozens of links here. Clearly, such a vast topic as atheism can command millions of webpages. And if 0.1% of them contain important info, we are looking at 1,000 ext links. You want them here?

This talk may be carried out at each and every broad page, where everyone feels himself an expert: religion, communism, capitalism, politics, democracy, etc.

The rules are both grounds for addition and for removal. Otherwise we will quickly will be overrun by spammers. And I shouuld have asked you why do you think the link to an internet radio station is so encyclopedic.

Here are two basic answers to your concerns, found in rules:

• if a particular site (eg these internet radios) are notable, the please write an article about them. If not, goodbye link.
• If a particular reference site contains useful information put it here. This concerns, in particular Catholic Encyclopedia, which is public domain, so you even do not have to trouble yourself with copyediting.

That said, I am restoring my edit. Please notice also that I removed less than half of the articles. I did not have an opinion about the remaining links yet. It is quite possible they are some spam, but I didn't touch them, although they look suspicious. mikka (t) 23:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome to restore some of my deletions, if you provide serious reasons for their inclusion. I will take your word and will not argue, with the exception of internet radios and encyclopedias, allrefers, etc., against which I object most seriously. mikka (t) 23:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. I'm afraid that I didn't understand your first comment.
2. Unless you think that a single article froma single source is all that a reader needs, or that every piece of useful information and every argument and opinion can be cramnmed into one Wikipedia article, then it is only fair (not to mention NPoV) to point to alternatives. the Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, has a particular, PoV approach to the notion of atheism; we certainly don't want to present that here, and merely mentioning it isn't enough; the link allows the reader to see for herself.
3. If the link list looks like getting close to 1,000, then we can worry about it; slippery-slope arguments, however, don't convince me.
4. If a link is spammed, then it can be removed; you haven't shown that any of the links that you removed were spammed, however.
5. The internet radio station is relevant to the topic of atheism, and to various points made in the article. there is no Wikipedia policy against its inclusion. Nor is there any policy against including links to encyclopædias, etc. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm coming here following a request for comment on the Pump. To be honest Mel, I would have to say most of the deleted links were a good call on mikka's part. Some of these, like the camp-quest.com site are blatant spam as self promotion. Others are very low quality (the cybamall.com site is dreadful) or just discussion forums.

As I see it, the only questionable deletions would be:

• freethoughtradio.com - no particular reason not to link to a web radio. This one looks reasonably well done, presumably relevant and free (although I couldn't get it to work myself) - probably keep
• Catholic Encyclopedia - most likely used as a reference at some point. The CE is generally good quality even though its often POV and can be out of date - best moved to the References section
• Infidel Guy Radio Show - Another radio station, but this one is totally commercial and requires subscription - delete as spam
• ExChristian.net - Its not totally irrelevant, but its not particularly well done. A bit POV to only support Christian->atheist conversion, but I guess exMuslim.net etc. don't exist. - borderline
• Erkki Hartikainen lecture - reasonable credentials, but these lecture notes are incomplete and several sections are just bullet points - probably delete

Of course other folk might have different opinions. -- Solipsist 18:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the point is that mikka might have given these reasons from the beginning, i.e. arguing each deletion, saving this talk page from some more bad karma. begging the question, "why are atheists so grumpy?". dab (ᛏ) 13:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I'm pretty cheerful! I get to spend that prayer time wikipedifying instead! Explodicle 21:43, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

INTRODUCTION

While I am not disputing the claim that atheism is popular religion among scientists according to polls, is it necessary for this claim to be in the introduction of the article? How is listing how many scientists consider themselves atheist relevant to the the introduction of atheism as oppossed to placed in the body of the article. By that argument, should the introduction to Christian include "majority of American presidents have been Christians and a majority of Western world leaders are Christian" . Don't you see how this create a POV and is a subtle but devious endorsement of the religion? Shouldn't that apply here - anon.

Hmmm, you seem to have a different attitude to U.S presidents and other world leaders than any non-American I know. The claim that you make would be more likely to be a subtle (or not so subtle) criticism of the religion than otherwise. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Lol...what makes you think I'm a non-American? Because I used the term "Western"? Athough I sorta understand your point....nonetheless, I don't see how the percentage of scientists being athiesm is appropriate for the introduction. I can understand if the percentage of the world being atheist might be appropriate, but I have a feeling that wouldn't be sufficient to those who have a certain agenda and want to pick and choose how atheism is being introduced. The percentages should be moved to a different section. - anon

Yes that is POV. The introduction refers to rationalists and humanists. But this is a thautology. Rationalists (according to wikipedia) assert that the truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma or religious teaching. Secular humanists (which is the link in the introduction) assert that there is nothing supernatural. So no surprise that thaey are atheist. --pippo2001 22:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

A great many (most?) religious believers think that some at least of their beliefs are rationally grounded, and are prepared to offer arguments. Many believers hold that all central religious beliefs can be rationally demonstrated; indeed, the Catholic Church still says, officially:

If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty

from the things that have been made,

by the natural light of human reason

let him be anathema

(Decrees of the First Vatican Council)

So no, I don't think that it's tautological to say that someone who depends on reason is an atheist. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The Catholic Church is not the only alternative to atheism. --pippo2001 20:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I didn't say that it was; I was giving a prominent example. But in any case, just one example is enough to showe that we're not dealing with a tautology — a tautology can't have any exceptions. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

atheism isn't a religion :) yes, the percentages should go to the article body. rationalism and humanism should be mentioned in parallel with atheism. It is true that secular humanist atheists are a bit of a tautology. dab (ᛏ) 22:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I added a link to Atheism#Contemporary_atheism, does that help? — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 01:34, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Help to do what? What is the point here? That since scientists are atheists, there must be something true in atheism? It is one of the many aspects of atheisms. Not sure it deserves a place in the introduction. It is also wrong that atheism is a common position, for that matter. It is a small minority in western world, no matter how enlightned. --pippo2001 02:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

What's you evidence for that? I don't mean people identifying themselves as C. of E. or whatever; we've been though that. Many, many people treat their religion as a social organisation, and have no real religious beliefs. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The changes look good...but I'm not sure about the last senntence...."the view is "common"....that should definitely be reworded or explained clearly or quantitively. - anon

huh? nobody is saying "atheism is true". the intro is just summarizing the development (practically inexistent in 1700, widespread minority in 1900). "common" is unhappy and weasly. maybe "substantial minority in industrialized countries", but that is a bit awkward. I would have used "widespread" if I hadn't just said "wide spread" in the preceding phrase. That scientists are typically atheists doesn't make atheism any "truer", it just locates atheism on the philosophical landscape. Atheism is inseparable from the Age of Enlightenment, the rise of rationalism and natural science. A natural scientist as a person may of course be religious, but only in as much as he separates his religiosity from his profession. dab (ᛏ) 10:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

But don't you see that you are contradicting yourself? Above you claim that scientists should be quoted in the introduction to 'locate atheism on the philosophical landscape'. But in your edit you wrote: "if rationalism and atheism belong together, so does science and atheism". Do you want to claim that a scientist must be atheist to be consistent? I will not revert, it's up to you. --pippo2001 20:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course a scientist doesn't have to be an atheist to be consistent; science says nothing about the existence or non-existence of god (it merely narrows the gaps for those who appeal to a god of the gaps). That science and atheism are more often than not found together is a contingent fact, not a definition. As a contingent fact, it belongs in the article. (The same is true of atheism and philosophy, as well as of many other academic disciplines, but let's leave it there for the moment.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

yes, science has to be atheistic to be consistent, in the sense that God may not enter scientific arguments. The scientist is of course a person, and may well hold personal belief in God, but in his work as a scientist he cannot make any argument based on this belief, so that for the purposes of his work he must be an effective atheist. The pious scientist may of course still argue that God is above science, and above comprehension, so that his personal belief need not be in contradiction to his work. dab (ᛏ) 14:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

this is a nonsense. science does not contradict the existance of God and it never will. Hence personal feelings on God and scientific inquiry may never overlap. --pippo2001 04:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

That very much depends on your definition of God. It does and has contradicted the existance of numerous gods and even Gods. Many people don't really like to admit it, but science leads to a God of the Gaps, which is why so many fundamentalists are against science - because it is a very powerful way of explaining the world and leaves no space for a God. Science precludes the existence of certain types of gods, though it does not preclude the existence of a deist one nor a pantheistic one, though I'd argue the latter is not really the same sort of God as the meaning of the word when someone says they are an atheist. Titanium Dragon 08:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

But you're rejecting something that he didn't say... On the other hand, your statement is historically and factually false; personal belief and scientific enquiry have often overlapped — religions have made many claims about the nature of the world that have conflicted with scientific evidence and theories. If one's belief in god is bound up with the claims made by a set of texts or other teachings, then finding that those claims are sometimes false might well affect one's belief in god. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC) I think that the inclusion of most scientists being atheists is significant, as indeed many people think of the scientific community as atheistic, and rightly so. However, I'm not entirely sure if it was inserted to be NPOV or inserted as an argument to authority. Modern atheism originated among intellectuals, particularly scientists, and it is a major cause of strife in the US and is breeding anti-intellectualism among the more religous segments of the country, helped along by their fundamentalist leaders who wish for the rejection of science and who use the overwhelming atheism among the scientific community in an attempt to boost their arguments against science. Some claim they misunderstand science, but I'd argue they mostly misrepresent it. But that is neither here nor there. I think that it should probably stay in the intro paragraph. It should definitely be mentioned in the article though, if it isn't mentioned in the intro, as it is notable. Titanium Dragon 08:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

POV complaint might be misdirected, but...

I am an atheist, myself. And I agree that the charge of POV simply for the lack of links is missplaced. However, I do agree with a general complaint about the links having been actively removed. Whether I find the arguments in Plantinga's article particularly convincing does not detract from the fact that he holds a chair in philosophy at Notre Dame -- by no stretch of the imagination an insubstantial credit. The McGrath article I found fascinating for a number of it's comments in credit of atheism. I, personally, think the article is improved with the McGrath link, and is in no way harmed by the Plantinga link. Rather than disputing the POV complaint, I'd rather like to hear the strong reasons that the links should have been removed. Parker Whittle 05:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I've restored the 2 links referenced above. The article is certainly not harmed by adding links critical of the atheist position; I find the links of high quality, even if I disagree. It is certainly common to have such links. Check out Creation Science. Parker Whittle 19:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Positivists

The sentence "According to logical positivism, "Does god exist?" has the same status as "What colour is Saturday?"; they are both nonsensical, and thus have no answers." is rather misleading. The Positivists' explanation of the two sentences would be very different: the latter is, as it were, analytically nonsensical — if one understands the words and the syntax, one can see that the question involves a category mistake (days of the week aren't the sorts of things that can be coloured), and so one cannot say that relevant experience is impossible, because there is none; someone who argued that the question was meaningful wouldn't merely be philosophicall mistaken but cracked. The former, on the other hand, makes enough sense that one can meaningfully say that no relevant experience is possible; it is, as it were, sythetically nonsensical. On this view, believers aren't cracked, just philosophically mistaken.

Note also that most of the positivists accepted that statements can have meaning aside from cognitive (or factual, or descriptive) meaning; they can have emotive meaning, for example. "God exists" and "god doesn't exist" can both have emotive meaning, whereas "Saturday is yellow" is simple nonsense. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Is the section necessary at all? It struck me as odd that this information was suddenly here in the middle of the page. It's true that logical positivism implies atheism, but I don't think it's important enough to mention in this article. It's not as if logical positivism was specifically aimed at refuting religion; they think many (most?) sentences are meaningless. Furthermore, it's a pretty weak position anyway. Has anyone (noteworthy) even been a logical positivist in the last 50 years? 212.9.22.233 09:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Yes, you're probably right. If there aren't any protests, I'll be bold, and remove it.
2. There are a couple of living positivists, though their positions are mostly modifications of the original versions. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Czech Republic statistics

The numbers are valid (though the methodology of the census could be questioned). It has been discussed before here and it would likely deserve article of its own. Pavel Vozenilek 13:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

What like an article on religion in the Czech Republic or perhaps even atheism in the Czech Republic? Go for it!. Dunc|☺ 14:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Laziness and lack of time. Pavel Vozenilek 19:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

"reified"

I [removed] the word "reified" from the section on mysticism/esoteric interpretations of god. Mystics and esoterists would maintain that it is the exoteric, normative theists who are reifying (making into an object or thing) the Absolute into a personal god. Thus the claim that esotericists are reifying when they think of the divine as the Absolute is POV. --goethean ॐ 15:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Definition

I'm sorry if this has been raised before, but I think the definition could be clearer. At the moment the position of weak atheists who have nonetheless actively rejected belief in God is not adequately distinguished from people who do not have a belief in god but have not rejected such belief - this might apply to people living in societies without theistic religion (or otherwise brought up that way), or to very young children or babies, or to animals. Both sets of people "do not believe" as allegedly distinct from "believe that not..", yet it would seem important to make the role of rejection explicit. A weak atheist does not merely lack theistic beliefs, they have rejected them, just like 'strong atheists have.

I was tempted to try and clarify this myself, but then I thought it might be better to raise the issue here first. --Dannyno 11:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

And it's a good thing you did. This has been argued over and over and I believe the current page represents the consensus. Please review the page history, you'll see what I mean. Andre (talk) 21:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Dannyno should realise that this distinction between strong and weak atheism is a central part of Internet discussions of atheism, and has assumed an importance there that goes a very long way beyond either its usefulness or its tenability. In fact the distinction is vague and open to multiple definition, is almost entirely irrelevant to most of the real issues (hence its absence from any works in the philosophy of religion of which I'm aware), and seems more to do with allowing people to draw up battle lines than anything else. My advice is: don't get involved. Back away slowly, and then run like hell. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, having reviewed the archives properly (newbie alert!) I can see similar debates have been had before, so I will cool my boots. By the way, although I agree that the weak/strong distinction does have a common rhetorical use esp. in Internet discussions (alt.atheism FAQ etc), there is a basis in the literature - it's the kind of distinction Flew was making in "The Presumption of Atheism" and elsewhere with his "Stratonician" form of atheism, i.e. defending a position analogous to "innocent until proven guilty" as opposed to "proven innocent". I'm pretty sure Michael Martin makes the distinction too, as does George Smith, from memory. But, though most atheist writers in history have not wanted to commit to a "god definitely doesn't exist" position, a few have. So yes, there's a rhetorical function to the distinction but whether or not it is ultimately tenable is not something an encyclopedia entry needs to pass judgement on. It's in the literature and should be reflected in the entry. We're not writing an apologia. Anyway I won't insist on starting any old arguments again, but I will make sure I participate if it comes up in the future :-)--Dannyno 08:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to check Mike Martin's book, but I'm not denying that there's host of distinctions that can be made, some of them being useful in very specific cases — it's just that I don't think that any of them is of general philosophical interest, and none of them corresponds to the weak/strong distinction found here and on Usenet.

I beg to differ. Look at the literature from Flew onwards and going back to apologists like Holyoake and Bradlaugh: the distinction has been both philosophically and rhetorically important. If you do check Martin's "Atheism: a philosophical justification", you will find the contents are in two sections. Part 1 is "negative atheism", and Part 2 is "positive atheism".

I did some digging in my book collection, and the best summary of the situation is in Bill Cooke's history of the Rationalist Press Association, "The Blasphemy Depot" (2003). Talking about assaults on atheism by "agnostics", he notes: "From the vantage point of a hundred years, we can see that he debate about the relative merits of agnosticism over atheism suffered from a high level of confusion as to the nature and purpose of both positions. It was only in a series of seminal works of atheist philosophy from the 1950s to the early 1990s that these confusions were laid to rest. This literature has established forever the intellectual respectability of atheism. What was so helpful in these books was the distinction made between positive and negative atheism. This distinction had implicitly recognised before the 1950s, and underlay the division between those who preferred the term 'agnostic' to 'atheist'. Joseph McCabe was the first person to specifically allude to the distinction, but it was until Antony Flew in the 1950s and 1960s that it was authoritatively articulated." I can confirm that McCabe draws the distinction in his Rationalist Encyclopedia of the 1940s. But also, and this is often overlooked, the commonest generalist dictionary definition of atheism is "denial or disbelief" in the existence of God - which allows for the positive/negative distinction too. Ample justification for including it, but also for making it clear. So much for not restarting the argument, sorry folks. --Dannyno 08:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Pantheism and irreligion

Much as I hate to dredge up the whole pantheistic thing again, but honestly, I don't think that section is really appropriate in the greater context of the article. It seems utterly tangential and unimportant, and doesn't really mesh with the rest of it. It seems kind of choppy as well. Essentially, I think its unimportant because if you define God to be the Universe, then you aren't speaking of the same meaning or word; as such, I think it would be appropriate to remove the paragraph. It is a supernatural belief (maybe), but it doesn't strictly fall under the definition of atheism. Also, I'm fairly certain that mostly its just farcical; if it isn't pantheism, then its simply an exercise in trying to heighten their God above other gods by using different terminology, which is a moot distinction to atheists who reject gods in general. I think we should nix the section. Also, as a more general comment, in the US most of the time when it is used by laymen atheist not only implies not believing in a god, but that the person is an irreligous atheist. This should probably be pointed out in the article as well; it currently points out that atheism is not synonymous with irreligion, but in common usage it often is. Titanium Dragon 08:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

More views on Athiesm

There is NO Christian view on athiesm in the article, don't you think it's a good idea to put it there?

There should always be a balance to maintain NPOV, but what do you mean by "Christian view" of atheism? Anything you can add that is factual would be helpful, just keep in mind that commentary and rhetoric would be out of place here. MFNickster 19:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)