![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
A merge was suggested in April and recently updated. However, there has been nothing on the talk pages. The topics are distinct & cannot be properly merged into either article. If a merge is to happen, it would have to be to an article titled Types of atheism or something similar. Such an article is likely to become quite a hot topic among editors. I think there is too much "labelling" going on already, and labels have replaced clear definitions and descriptions. Also the labels keep slipping around (especially the loathsome weak-strong labels)-- JimWae ( talk) 19:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Implicit atheism is not really explained clearly anywhere in this article, is it? Perhaps something like this:
An implicit atheist is a person who does not believe in a god, but who has not explicitly rejected or denied the truth of theism. Implicit atheism does not require familiarity with the idea of a god.
George Smith. Atheism, The Case Against God. p.13
Propose we leave out Nagel as a source for this concept. He does not use the layering and distinction of Atheism as Smith. Nagel is in opposition to calling the position of unaware and ambivalent as Atheism and he use an entirely different reason for why Atheism is to be understood as an opposition.
"I shall understand by "atheism" a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism."
Ernest Nagel
It is a position of claiming Atheism as a denial of Theism. -- Muthsera ( talk) 21:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
This edit removed a rather useful section about WLC's take on the retroactive modification of the definition of atheism. This isn't a random blogger. WLC is a well respected speaker on theological topics relating to Christianity, and a frequent adversary to atheist thinkers in formal debate. The comment on the removal therefore seems somewhat disingenuous... Miskaton ( talk) 23:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Xenophrenic: Where in the source does it say "philosophical atheism"? Apollo The Logician ( talk) 12:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician ( talk) 12:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Or – presents an alternative item or idea ("Every day they gamble, or they smoke."). It's a language thing (English, in this case). I can't help your understanding of language use any more than that, sorry. If you told me that x is either a Tiger, or a subspecies of Tiger, I would have no trouble understanding you. Xenophrenic ( talk) 02:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I am confused why you are appealing to the talk page consdiering no consensus has been reached. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 09:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Implicit and explicit atheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Xenophrenic can you quote Nagel were he uses that terminology? Paddy Plunkett ( talk) 19:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually nevermind. Paddy Plunkett ( talk) 19:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
A merge was suggested in April and recently updated. However, there has been nothing on the talk pages. The topics are distinct & cannot be properly merged into either article. If a merge is to happen, it would have to be to an article titled Types of atheism or something similar. Such an article is likely to become quite a hot topic among editors. I think there is too much "labelling" going on already, and labels have replaced clear definitions and descriptions. Also the labels keep slipping around (especially the loathsome weak-strong labels)-- JimWae ( talk) 19:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Implicit atheism is not really explained clearly anywhere in this article, is it? Perhaps something like this:
An implicit atheist is a person who does not believe in a god, but who has not explicitly rejected or denied the truth of theism. Implicit atheism does not require familiarity with the idea of a god.
George Smith. Atheism, The Case Against God. p.13
Propose we leave out Nagel as a source for this concept. He does not use the layering and distinction of Atheism as Smith. Nagel is in opposition to calling the position of unaware and ambivalent as Atheism and he use an entirely different reason for why Atheism is to be understood as an opposition.
"I shall understand by "atheism" a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism."
Ernest Nagel
It is a position of claiming Atheism as a denial of Theism. -- Muthsera ( talk) 21:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
This edit removed a rather useful section about WLC's take on the retroactive modification of the definition of atheism. This isn't a random blogger. WLC is a well respected speaker on theological topics relating to Christianity, and a frequent adversary to atheist thinkers in formal debate. The comment on the removal therefore seems somewhat disingenuous... Miskaton ( talk) 23:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Xenophrenic: Where in the source does it say "philosophical atheism"? Apollo The Logician ( talk) 12:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician ( talk) 12:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Or – presents an alternative item or idea ("Every day they gamble, or they smoke."). It's a language thing (English, in this case). I can't help your understanding of language use any more than that, sorry. If you told me that x is either a Tiger, or a subspecies of Tiger, I would have no trouble understanding you. Xenophrenic ( talk) 02:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I am confused why you are appealing to the talk page consdiering no consensus has been reached. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 09:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Implicit and explicit atheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Xenophrenic can you quote Nagel were he uses that terminology? Paddy Plunkett ( talk) 19:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually nevermind. Paddy Plunkett ( talk) 19:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)