Talk:Atheism

Request for possible change, Please let me know.

As this is the first comment I make as a member of this community I apologize for it being one of 'negative' but I think it is important for us to keep a good reputation and spread a message of Love.

I have been comparing the two entries Atheism and Theism and noted a stark discrepancy between them.

Theism defines where the word comes from, what it means and new usage of it, and ends there.

Atheism on the other hand is defined probarly, but then give a subjective view (the Author) of who or what atheist believe, and then continue to talk about outcome of atheism, historical atheist and so forth in a very negative way, which is both irrelevant and give a bad signal to our readers.

As a Creationist I find this very unsuitable. The "Atheism" should be equal to the "Theism" in its impartiality. For example, I have no doubt many people reading this not being Creationist would demand that we add the Inquisition, Crusades etc to Theistic history, just as Communism is added to Atheism, and we would indeed not agree with this as we do not consider that Christian behaviour nor suitable in any way.

I wish to (with the blessings of others) that we remove all negative points, such as Communism, Deaths caused by atheism, suicide etc to a different section, say "Caused by Atheism", and keep the 'Atheism' thread neutral in opinion.

I am afraid that any Humanist, Atheist, Secularist etc would become rather defensive reading the current entry and this would serve the opposite purpose we are trying to achieve.

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

-- Stephen

-

Changes: God to metaphysics:In the human culture, there is more than one god and there is also others possible explanations besides gods, like UFOs. Metaphysics is the best word to be used here since it don´t take sides to any religion.

"atheistic view of the world" to "atheistic/agnostic view of the world": Science and Evolution are agnostic. They don´t need nor use god to explain themselves, but also don´t disprove any god.

"Nothing in science requires a God. Of course, not much else requires a God either, and no (sane) person associates it with atheism. I've never heard of anyone complaining that car manufacturers are atheistic because cars do not require a belief in God to be built. Or that surgeons are atheistic because they do not require a belief in God in order to perform surgery. So why complain that biologists are atheistic because their job does not require a belief in God?"

I think a Wiki has a goal to be impartial, trying to assign Atheism to Evolution and science is just wrong, ans this article is too partial, it just make sounds Atheism as a bad thing.

- Cristiano

This is not an impartial wiki. It is dedicated to creation science and the creationist worldview. Only creationists are permitted to edit the CreationWiki. Limit your future changes to the discussion pages. These changes to the atheism page were previously noted and reversed. Do not undo the actions of the administrators or your IP will be banned.

--Chris Ashcraft 23:23, 2 Jun 2005 (GMT)

Does the creationist worldview include bashing atheists? --JasonSC 23:45, 17 Oct 2005 (GMT)


 * No, but the atheist worldview includes bashing creationists. Go to EvoWiki and Wikipedia and you'll find all that stuff and more. Scorpionman 13:37, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

Ah, I see, EvoWiki had said that about you... Sorry for trying to elucidate one thing that you surely don´t know nothing about... Well, be happy with your partial fairy tale... cya, Cristiano

Do you really think the EvoWiki is impartial? If I were to post material that favored the creation or intelligent design point of view, do you think it would remain? --Chris Ashcraft 01:38, 16 Jun 2005 (GMT)

"Evolution may be better called evolutionism as it is considered a religion by many." I'm not aware of anyone who thinks that evolution has anything to say about religion or God. People may believe that it removes God from the process of speciation, but it clearly doesn't disproove God's existance. It is possible to believe that God caused evolution to start, and many people do believe that. Discussion of a natural process such as this one does not disproove God or tell you how to live any more than does discussion of gravity, propagation of disease or the Coreolis effect. I think that statement is misleading because God is nowhere mentioned in the theory of evolution and nobody has tried to make it that way. --Komencanto 07:53, 15 Jun 2005 (GMT)

There are many religions that do not worship a diety, such as Buddhism. A religion is simply a belief system that overwhelms ones thoughts and actions. Other definitions describe it as a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Evolutionists clearly qualify as religious followers. To believe in evolution probably requires more faith in things unseen than the religions that worship God. --Chris Ashcraft 01:38, 16 Jun 2005 (GMT)

Hmm...so any "activity pursued with zeal" qualifies as a religion? So watching/playing sports, studying for an important exam, or running for mayor are all religions now? Interesting... --JasonSC 23:50, 17 Oct 2005 (GMT)

Yes, they can be. In fact, we have an expression: "He\she (watches football\follows politics,etc) religiously." Of course, evolutionists don't like people thinking you can have religion without a deity. That might lead people to think evolution is a religion, what with the constant denial of any other view, campaigning against them, preaching evolution as the ONLY possible explanation of origins. PrometheusX303 20:14, 5 January 2006 (GMT)

Reading CreationWiki's own definitions of religion, I am not sure in what way evolution classifies as a religion. The article on 'Religion' states three different definitions of religion: evolution does for sure not fall under definition 2 (formal) and 3 (organizational). Also, evolution does not address any of the fundamental questions listed under definition 1 (the functional definition). One may be an evolutionist and use some aspect of evolutionary theory to incorporate in one's ethical position or one's view on human identity. This is, however, up to everyone individually and evolutionary theory itself does not claim how such should be done. Unless someone can convince me of the opposite, I suggest that the passage on evolution in this article is changed. nooijer

I hope I can keep this short.

You said: "I'm not aware of anyone who thinks that evolution has anything to say about religion or God. People may believe that it removes God from the process of speciation, but it clearly doesn't disproove God's existance."

This website is made from and for people who believe evolution has something to say about religion and God. There are people such as Popper who saw the metaphysical aspect of evolution. Also to follow logically from the evolutionary viewpoint shows that religion would only be part of man's development to a better understanding of the world. Taking some sections of social evolution to the extreme, even belief in a deity and the books people believe in are simply constructs of man to help them understand a mysterious world and universe, and to keep people suppressed, manageable, making a community with is able to survival, survival being one of the main evolutionary urges in living beings.

So because evolution touches on where we come from as human beings, it does also touch upon religion and our concepts of "god".

You also said: "It is possible to believe that God caused evolution to start, and many people do believe that."

It is possible for anyone to believe almost anything. But it has been argued that the God that caused evolution, which, according to evolutionists is an unguided process, is not the God spoken of in the Bible. It is a god of someone's own thoughts who has to bow down to whatever naturalistic scientists say. If those scientists say that evolution is true, then in a person's mind God must have done things that way. But if Deity says in quite a plain way that he created everything in six days (with the context and definitions pointing to normal days), but mainstream scientists says something different, it is the mainstream scientists that will have the stronger voice, and people will try to fit their god round what the evolutionary scientists have said. Thus the god, the main controller, isn't the god in the person's mind, but the scientists who have the final word in what God actually did, even though they were there to see, they don't have all the evidence, there is evidence against what they say, and can and do often get things wrong.

You said: "Discussion of a natural process such as this one does not disproove God or tell you how to live any more than does discussion of gravity, propagation of disease or the Coreolis effect. I think that statement is misleading because God is nowhere mentioned in the theory of evolution and nobody has tried to make it that way."

Discussion of natural processes do not disprove God, I agree. But when everything even in the unobserved, unobservable past has to be described naturally, by natural means, and then it is taught and shown as the only thing that can be deduced scientifically then the question has to come up: why? The answer isn't because true science, operational science based on observation and experimentation and repeatability, says so, but because of an philosophical agenda towards naturalism. Operational science helps us observe and define what is known as the coriolis effect, the propogation of disease, and what gravity does. Each of these has been observed and tested. Each of these required human presence to document such things. The distant past is outside of such observation and testing and rests more on philosophical assumptions and belief systems rather than what we experience.

The problem is not that God is nowhere mentioned in evolution. Few creationists would complain that God is nowhere mentioned in laws governing electricity and electron flow, based on the belief that Deity put such laws into motion at creation. The problem is that it speaks of a history beyond science proper based on philosophy, rather than evidence, that only natural explanations are valid for anything universally despite the problems with the theory, despite the inadequacy of natural forces on their own, thus logically leaving Deity locked in oblivion. The circumstantial evidence it has either is full of holes, like the fossil record, or the use of miniscule changes in moths or plants to promote a theory of mega-change or trans-genera/family change and increase in genetic complexity; or that evidence has other possible explanations including intelligent design, like the intercomplexity of living creatures.

USA atheism statistics need to be clarified in article
It is likely true that "....according to the American Religious Identification Survey taken in 2001, the number of adults in the U.S. identifying with "no religion" has doubled since 1990; from 14.3 million (8%) in 1990 to the current 29.4 million (14.1%).

However, the amount of people becoming atheist/agnostics in the USA has likely not changed according to social researchers. 

Creationist 21:15, 15 December 2005 (GMT)creationist

Theistic evolution
While most evolutionists are indeed atheists, there are many who also believe in God. This information needs to be included in the article, under a title "Theistic Evolutionists". Now of course that whole idea is just as stupid as evolutionism since the Bible has no indications that God used evolution to create, in fact the Bible says he created the world in six days which counters the belief that God created over "billions of years". Scorpionman 13:35, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Go for it! My only thought is, since this article is about atheism, theistic evolution should only be discussed insofar as it is relevant to understanding atheism ... Ungtss 14:47, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I dont see "theistic evolutionists" having any relevance to atheism.

--Chris Ashcraft 22:13, 27 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Neither do I. Atheism and theism have to do with believing in a god.  Whether a theist believes in evolutionism or creationism is irrelevant to the topic of this particular article.  PrometheusX303 22:28, 27 June 2006 (CDT)

Re: "An atheist is a person who is either without beliefs in God, or one who actively believes there is no God."

Er... No. An atheist is a person who is either without beliefs in any gods, or one who actively believes there are no gods. You are including your own special treatment of your particular god into the views of those who make no such distinguishment. This is a misrepresentation. Roy 15:20, 2 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Roy, I believe you are mistaken. Roy, please use a Philosophy Enyclopedia to defend your view. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy atheism "means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."  Similarly, according to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, probably the preeminent reference tool for philosophy, "Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief."   Atheism is derived from the Greek word "atheos" - "a" meaning no  or without and "theos" meaning God. Creationist 09:42, 9 December 2006 (EST)creationist


 * I am not mistaken. Here is one such definition, from :


 * Atheism: (Gr. a, no; theos, god) Two uses of the term:
 * 1. The belief that there is no God.
 * 2. Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic." 


 * I think that is what the author meant, but you are correct that, as written, it is specific when it shouldn't be. I changed it to reflect that.  I also decapitalised God because theos originally refered to many Greek gods.  PrometheusX303 21:47, 2 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Well, I tried. Mr. Ashcraft, may I trouble you for an explanation as to why you reverted the changes?PrometheusX303 10:30, 3 July 2006 (CDT)

''When “God” is the name of a god, as in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (“Allah” is just Arabic for “God,” and many modern Muslims translate the name when writing in English), it needs to be capitalized like any other name. When it is used as a generic term, as in “He looks like a Greek god,” it is not capitalized.'' PrometheusX303 18:19, 7 July 2006 (CDT)

I improved the beggining of the article to reflect the most common definition of atheism among philosophers and to clarify a controversy
Here is what I wrote:

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy atheism "means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." Similarly, according to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, probably the preeminent reference tool for philosophy, "Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief." In addition, recently there have been a number of attempts by atheists to redefine the meaning of atheism in order to shift the burden of proof in relation to the question of the existence of God. Atheism is derived from the Greek word "atheos" - "a" meaning no or without and "theos" meaning God.


 * By doing this you have deliberately omitted the second valid (though less common) meaning. Your comment about shifting the burden of proof is a transparent attempt to avoid supporting your own claims. I also note that the sources you cite make the same error pointed out previously, and assume that atheists disbelieve your specific God, not just any and all gods. Roy 16:07, 31 December 2006 (EST)

No, that's not what he did. It says that atheism is a lack of belief in any god. What are you doing here anyhow? Scorpionman 23:21, 30 January 2007 (EST)


 * It says no such thing. Roy 09:01, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the definition is a bit misinterpreted. Wikipedia defines atheism as: "Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. Oxford Dictionary and Encyclopedia Britannica defines it similarly. It is also defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism.. What is meant by this, and later explained in the comprehensive article - is that the explicit position (such as defined on this site) relates to Strong/Positive/Active atheism, which is the affirmation of nonexistance, or denial of existance. Atheism is primarily the absence of faith, this is atheism de facto. But it is also a broader term, which is why there's been made sub-terms such as Strong, Weak, Explicit, Implicit atheism. Your definition at creationwiki is similar to explicit atheism. I've contacted Standford as the reference in their article is also being used by a extreme right wing wikipedia - hopefully I'll get an answer soon. I can't seem to find the source for this definition though, only a private article written by someone on Standford - not as an offical definition.--Syvertsen 18:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Atheism is a philosophical denial of the existence of God.[1] A more active stance affirms the nonexistence of God, and proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief." The first sentence is the same as the "a more active stance"-description.--Syvertsen 20:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

==Atheism became an organized religion, complete with heroes, semi-gods in the form of revolutionary leaders, practices, and doctrines throughout perhaps almost every Communist nation that ever existed, and Nazi Germany.== 1) Most atheists aren't religious or view themselves as being religious. All the atheists I know, including myself, simply don't believe in god OR religion.

2) We also don't have 'semi-gods' and every person who is religious or not has some sort of 'hero' in their life. Has nothing to do with your beliefs. Religious people also have revolutionary leaders, again this has nothing to do with religion. You are just trying to bad-mouth Atheists to brainwash the weak religious believers. There also has been religious leaders that have harmed humanity, again you're putting fear into religious people using communism, like America did during the cold war, apparently communism is bad, but some countries and their people actually want it. North Vietnam for example, and many in the south.

Nazi Germany, was and Germany as a whole is heavily religious. Most of the senior Nazi's were religious including Adolf Hitler. You are trying to portray that atheist beliefs made him kill all those Jews, when it was infact his religious beliefs. He believed God was on his side the entire time.

The Pope during the 30's also ignored Hitlers atrocities.

"1) Most atheists aren't religious or view themselves as being religious. All the atheists I know, including myself, simply don't believe in god OR religion."

Congratulations. Your point? I know a lot of Christians who claim that Christianity isn't a religion. I know Muslims that claim Islam isn't a religion. A lot of Buddhists and Taoist claim their belief systems are not a form of religion because neither one require the idea of God. Your personal opinion does not matter in the intellectual field.

"2) We also don't have 'semi-gods' and every person who is religious or not has some sort of 'hero' in their life."

To a certain extent for right, but your taking a line and putting it out of context. It was referring to Marxism. Marxism does idealize hero's to God like status. That is hard to get around. Che is a good example. He is thought as a communist martyr. My favorite rock ironically is communist. Half their songs they idealize the Marxist heroes.

"Religious people also have revolutionary leaders, again this has nothing to do with religion."

Yes. That was the point.

"You are just trying to bad-mouth Atheists to brainwash the weak religious believers."

It's an article. Chill out dude. Brainwash? It that what you accuse everyone of doing when they disagree with you?

"There also has been religious leaders that have harmed humanity, again you're putting fear into religious people using communism, like America did during the cold war, apparently communism is bad, but some countries and their people actually want it. North Vietnam for example, and many in the south."

Correction, most want NEO-MARXISM, which is quite different. That I don't deny. as for North Vietnam, I'll let you finish that debate with the dead.

"Nazi Germany, was and Germany as a whole is heavily religious. Most of the senior Nazi's were religious including Adolf Hitler. You are trying to portray that atheist beliefs made him kill all those Jews, when it was infact his religious beliefs."

Or you could be taking out of context. The only place where Hitler is referred to is in reference to evolution, not atheism.

'Marx did not invent the idea of evolution, but it became an integral part to communist followers, and in the ideas of Hitler's National Socialism.'

"He believed God was on his side the entire time."

Not the Christian God though. If he was anything, he was pagan. The discovery channel et al made a documentary called "The Occult Conspiracy". The documents the religion of Hitler. Almost eveything about Nazi germany is pagan... not christian. period. Get your facts straight.

"The Pope during the 30's also ignored Hitlers atrocities."

Not this one again... Read "The Myth of Hitler’s Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis" by Rabbi David Dalin. The Pope help save some 700,000 Jews. You called that ignoring?

if there is any typos sorry. I wrote this is like 5 minutes.--Nlawrence 03:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

1) The definition of religion:

1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader

Neither of those applies to Atheists. I don't call myself an Atheist. For example in NZ i'm known as a Pakeha (white person) by the indiginous people, but I don't call myself a Pakeha.

2) The full quote was "Atheism became an organized religion, complete with heroes, semi-gods in the form of revolutionary leaders, practices, and doctrines throughout perhaps almost every Communist nation that ever existed, and Nazi Germany."

It says Atheists, not Marxists(Marxism). I don't believe Atheists (incl Marxists) idealise heroes in a God like status. Some people think of Che as a martyr, great leader, hero, legend etc, but never a 'god'. My biggest hero is Randy Rhoads (he was religious btw), but I never think of him as a God, though I do joke about it, or him being a 'Guitar God', but really he is just my hero and a legend.

"Religious people also have revolutionary leaders, again this has nothing to do with religion."

I meant that the article was trying to show Atheists only idealise semi-gods in the form of revolutionary leaders, which is false in two ways, one being that Atheists don't believe in Gods or Semi-Gods and the second being that even if Atheists did believe in Semi-Gods (which seems contradictory), they wouldn't only be revolutionary leaders. My point was that religious people also idolise Revolutionary leaders. Because of all this contradiction I fail to see the link to religion and the point of that quote seems pointless.

3) "It's an article. Chill out dude. Brainwash? It that what you accuse everyone of doing when they disagree with you?"

I know but mainly religious people read this website, they are then mis-educated into believing facts that aren't necesarrily true. At least a neutral site like Wikipedia accepts both sides of the story and backs up every statement unlike this site.

4) North Vietnam, and many in the south wanted to be Nationalist, but seeing as American ignored them even though Ho Chi Minh and heled the Americans during WW2, they had to bring in Communist ideologies, which gave an excuse for America to turn away Vietnam and back France. Most Vietnamese just wanted the Americans to leave during the war aside from those who had already betrayed their country and would ultimately be killed.

5) Read this website about Hitler and religion, particulary the second article (The Christianity of Hitler revealed in his speeches and proclamations): http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

6) "Not the Christian God though. If he was anything, he was pagan" "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter" - Adolf Hitler in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

Though I do believe Hitler had pagan influences, this os obvious through many symbols he used in his Nazi government such as the Odal rune, the swastika etc etc

Though Christianity is partially copied from the Pagans as well as many other religions.

7) You may want to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_Pope

The author redacted parts of his book after he was heavily criticized. "Pius XII, the wartime pope, privately approved of sheltering Jewish refugees in church property, but he never publicly condemned the shipping of Jews in concentration camps and the killing of Jewish lives" http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2008/11/pope_pius_xi_pope_pius_xii_and.html

Again, sorry for any mis-spellings. BTW, if one day God shows himself to me, i'll eat my words happily.

Two things, MrCrowley:


 * 1) (Donning my administrative hat): In future you will kindly remember to sign your contributions to talk spaces. To do this, type four tilde symbols (that's the wavy line segment that appears as a shift-left-single-quote on your keyboard, to the immediate left of the number-one-and-screamer key), or else click the "signature" button on the editing toolbar.
 * 2) (Now speaking as an ordinary editor): The one day that God will likely show Himself to you, it will be too late. You'll be standing in the dock, and He will be the Judge, and as the Judge He will review the evidence of your life. And then He will ask for a search of the Book of Life, and your name will not appear in it. Bad news, mate. --TemlakosTalk 14:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: Much of what I've read, I would object to in a court of law as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. (Before you ask: I am neither solicitor nor barrister. Here in the States, legal advocates play both roles without distinction, of course. I've asked some of them to explain that phrase to me.)

Wikipedia neutral? Tell me another one. They maintain that creationism is pseudo-science. That ought to tell you their attitude. You see, I am a Wikipedia defector.--TemlakosTalk 14:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to convert this debate to your talk page. k?--Nlawrence 19:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggested edit change
Suggested edit change is because I want to reflect what Christian philosophers actually say as documented in the article naturalism. The article states; "A more active stance affirms the nonexistence of God, and proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.[2] Materialism (the disbelief in the spiritual realm), naturalism, the theory of evolution, and humanism stem inexorably from this world view." I propose a change to: "A more active stance affirms the nonexistence of God, and proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.[2] Atheism, materialism (the disbelief in the spiritual realm), the theory of evolution, and humanism stem inexorably from naturalism. I quote from The Nature of Nature: Examining the Role of Naturalism in Science pg. 137 an essay by Alvin Plantinga, a very influential Christian philosopher. Plantinga states; "Naturalism, so taken, is stronger than atheism; it is possible to be an atheist without rising to the heights (or sinking to the depths) of naturalism."--Tony 20:53, 21 July 2011 (PDT)