This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Negative and positive atheism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 26 April 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This page was
proposed for deletion by
Alexbrn (
talk ·
contribs) in the past. It was contested by Xoloz ( talk · contribs) |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
— Chrisdone ( talk) 13:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Article implies that children are implicit atheists. Which is simply non-sensible as it imposes that the child or baby do not believe in God, not do not know not to believe in God - an entirely different concept which theists in religion know and understand. JasonMoore ( talk) 05:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I mean, I know he's a prominent atheist and all, but do we really need "this is what Dawkins thinks of this" on every single Wiki atheism page? Unless he has something specific and pertinent to say, merely pointing out this almost random person's point of view on the subject seems unnecessary. Consider removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.75.240 ( talk) 19:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I haven't heard anything for a few days, so I jumped in and did a complete rewrite of the article, keeping some sections largely intact, borrowing material from other sections, and completely changing other parts. I think the article has an entirely new flavor now, one which I'm for the most part pleased with, but I have some concerns.
My most severe concern is the lack of sources. Although I've sprinkled sources around in various places, there are still many parts that seem to qualify as original research, and even some of the sourced parts seem to be using the sources merely as "reference text" for original research.
I'd appreciate it if everyone could take a hard look at this article and see what claims I've made that are simply unsupportable without external sources. That material can either be removed or, preferably, we can find sources to support it. (I've unfortunately been unable to.)
Also, while I think I've managed to condense what I've learned from the discussion on this talk page into an article that is mostly uninflammatory, I realize that that of course may not be the case. If you see any claims I've made that seem to be misleading or downright incorrect, please flag those as well, either by changing them directly or through discussion here. I think I've managed to make only fairly benign claims that don't seem to be hotly debated, but I suppose we'll see!
Thanks again all. -- Dlugar 05:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Any chance of archiving some of the old talk page material? I assume my changes will spark plenty of new discussion, and I'm getting kind of tired of wading through the pages and pages already here.
I have some comments about some of the recent edits here.
Capitalized "God" typically refers to a Supreme Being (not necessarily Jehovah), and seems to be most commonly what is referred to when discussing weak and strong atheism. Most people do not seem to include minor deities or the like when discussing the division; if they did, the article would more properly state "gods do not exist", which I think is not a very common way of expressing the concept. I'd prefer to revert back to using the capitalized "God", but want to hear what others think.
These were removed from the "weak atheist" section. Is there some debate that these are weak atheists? Also, I think the change to the paragraph below re-introduces the very ambiguity that I sought to erase.
Similarly, changing the wording in the Strong Atheist paragraph seems to also re-introduce some ambiguity. (The phrase "The only requirement is to believe that god does not exist", while technically correct, might be misread as some as "... is to not believe that god exists".)
Anyone care to discuss? -- Dlugar 05:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, this edit completely changes the meaning of this paragraph, again implying that a weak atheist is the exact equivalent of an agnostic.
Furthermore, it removes one of the few references that I was able to find for this article. The reference is one of the only non-personal-web-page articlesthat I was able to find addressing the difference between strong and weak atheism. The article stated that explicit atheism and strong atheism are identical, and likewise implicit atheism and weak atheism.
I felt that I was cheating a bit by saying that this was not the only position to take (without having references to the contrary). This recent edit goes to the complete other extreme, denying that the position exists at all without providing any references to the contrary, and deleting the reference to the position. I will definitely revert this edit without seeing some sort of reference, or at least discussion. -- Dlugar 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
For weak atheism:
For weak atheism:
If somebody could develop a method of testing for such a deity, and repeated trials confirmed the possibility, and if from what I know, the method was valid and without confounds allowing for other explanations, then I would be inclined to change my mind.
I do not, however, believe that any scientifically valid method can test for such a deity,. And, as the studies purported to demonstrate the existance of certain manifestations of a deity, when I can find the details (which is rarely, I suspect for good reason), these tests generally appear to be unreliable or invalid.
Basically, I might believe it if were tested accurately and precisely, and would try to be open-minded in looking at such an experiment. I just don't think it's even remotely probable, based on my knowledge of the scientific method.
So am I a strong or a weak atheist? -- 71.192.116.43 22:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
From the "misconceptions" section:
But a paragraph later the article points out this exact state of belief, believing the lack of God to be vastly likelier than the existence of one, as a subset of strong atheism that isn't a faith-based position. Now, seeing as the whole point of this weak/strong dichotomy is that you can't be both, I changed this to say "An individual can believe one to be likelier than the other, but still not to what they see as a sufficient degree to warrant belief in either". -- AceMyth 04:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Within the article "Implicit and Explicit Atheism" I find a discrepancy between the top-right diagram (including its caption) that describes strong and weak atheism and the section titled "Critical Atheism." The issue is that while strong atheists are defined as "[those] who explicitly deny the existence of deities", its subset, critical atheists includes, under George H. Smith's "type C", "the view which 'refuses to discuss the existence or nonexistence of a god' because 'the concept of a god is unintelligible.'" This definition of type C falls outside the domain of explicit denial of the existence of deities. Instead, type C seems to regard this as a question containing no useful meaning and, therefore, a non-question. Mstalcup ( talk) 22:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that with regard to Agnosticism instead of using Strong/Weak to define the opposite extremes of the persuasion they use Strong/Mild. I like this much better and was wondering how others feel about this distinction. "Weak" seems to indicate a weakness of the individual, whereas "Mild" seems to be more of a commentary on the strength of their opinion on the matter. Also, "mild" in many instances can actually be a compliment, whereas "weak" is almost never a flattering adjective. Which would you rather be ... a mild athlete or weak athlete ... a mild intellectual or a weak intellectual ... a mild atheist or a weak atheist? Which is more accurate?
I think another thing that really bothers me about the "weak" nomenclature is that by definition "weak" is generally considered subjective and inferior to "strong". I think "strong" is a good adjective for those who are 100% confident in the non-existence of God, but that position does not make them superior to those who only believe it is unlikely that God exists. Davea0511 ( talk) 15:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not happy with the way the atheists concept of "proof" is portrayed. No scientifically trained person would claim that it is possible to "prove" anything by means of inductive logic based on empirical observations. We are merely able to justify some degree of likelihood. Thus, the case for high likelihood of the existance of other people's minds can be made by pointing out their anatomical/physiological resemblance to oneself and to behavior that one recognize as indicators of consciousness based on ones own conscious experience. The same logic should be applied to the question of the existance of a theistic god-concept. We cannot demand proofs, but rather arguments for different degrees of likelihood. -- 217.68.116.150 ( talk) 08:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Kolbjørn S. Brønnick
Right now 'weak and strong'. This is not in alphabetical order, and furthermore, uses a newer definition. I think using 'negative and positive' would be better. Coincidentally, that is alphabetical order, while retaining the same topical order since weak=negative and strong=positive. I like this better because it is historical and more aptly describes this, with 'negative' being no assertion and 'positive' being an assertion. It refers to the sign of whether the atheism incorporates an assertion of knowledge, or is simply agnostic regarding it as weak/negative atheism is. I realize in either case though they can be seen as insulting, as 'negative' can be vieweed as pessimism or something just as positive can be compliment. So really, maybe a third pair of terms could be found that are more acceptable with less inferences?
Also, mentioned earlier in the talk page was explicit/implicit. I also believe gnostic/agnostic also represents this. I have seen people treating this as a separate concept, but they seem synonymous to me. Tyciol ( talk) 03:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved per request. GTBacchus( talk) 22:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Weak and strong atheism →
Negative and positive atheism — I cannot find strong-weak in any scholarly literature,despite numerous searches - not even in Martin's 2007
Cambridge companion to atheism. He uses positive-negative, as do most writings that are not blogs or mirrors. I would prefer Hard and soft atheism as less judgmental, but that also has less currency. --
JimWae (
talk)
05:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The lede says:
Since agnosticism seems to have to be explicit, "agnostic atheism" cannot include implicit atheism. The term is certainly preferable to calling some atheists "weak" & others "strong", but the sentence cannot stand as is.-- JimWae ( talk) 17:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Also: While the term "gnostic theism" could fill out a new categorization of atheism (as implicit, agnostic, & gnostic), I hardly think we can say (as the 1st sentence presently does) that it is a popular term-- JimWae ( talk) 18:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Looking at some sources, it appears strong atheism has been defined many ways. I have tried below to organize them according to degrees of decreasing strength, where X is the statement "there is at least one deity"
Note that claims are public, while beliefs can be private. Acceptance can also be private, and one can accept something without having any commitment to it at all. Acceptance that "X is probably false" is the weakest form of strong atheism I have come up with - and is virtually indistinguishable from any weak explicit atheism I can think of except perhaps for total inabilty to discern any regularity in one's own thoughts. I think that if one rejects belief in X (for whatever reason), one must also "accept" an ontology devoid of deities. -- JimWae ( talk) 19:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
This article has seen literally years of consecutive editors trying to wrap their heads around basic set theory and terminology. People have even gone to the length of drawing Venn diagrams, for crying out loud. And the article still fails to get it right, as each new generation of editors seems to be determined to introduce some new source of confusion. So this has now been moved to a completely new title. The article seems to assume that the "positive / negative" distinction is equivalent to the "strong / weak" one. Probably because nobody bothers to read the sources they google.
The move means you will have to redraw the Venn diagram and you will also have to explain terminology properly. Please do it, or else move it back to the way things were, but don't leave it in this half-finished state. Thank you. -- dab (𒁳) 09:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I just had a quick squizz of this article and noticed that it seems to focus quite a lot on "God", which is the Christian deity. I don't see why this particular deity should be singled out for such attention. My understanding is that strong Atheists do not believe in any deities at all, and do not restrict their disbelief to the Christian monotheistic realm. I'm a strong Atheist myself, and I can assure you that I am certain that Ganesh, Thor and Tama-nui-te-ra don't exist just as much as God doesn't exist.
I'd be grateful if someone could do a bit of a rewrite to fix this worldview issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild ( talk • contribs) 10:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
An editor has re-introduced unsourced content here, referring to "negative and positive atheism" used by Smith. It was removed with a request for a source citation, and has been re-inserted without the requested source. Is there any reason why it should not be removed? Xenophrenic ( talk) 13:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
implicit and explicit atheism used by the philosopher George H. Smithbecause that isn't supported in the sources; Smith uses "negative and positive", according to the source presently in the article right now. Xenophrenic ( talk) 03:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Negative and positive 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) 11:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I suggested this article be rewritten, at least near the top, for clarity. I am somewhat educated about atheism, but I'm not even sure I understood what it was saying.... Misty MH ( talk) 04:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Amongst the three names, "positive atheism", "hard atheism", "strong atheism" (the same as the other three names), which one is used the most frequently? It really matters, as I'm currently trying to translate the article into Chinese, however, seems that in the Chinese context, people tend to use “强” (strong), rather than “硬” (hard) or “积极” (positive), while in the English context "positive" is preferred. These words have been appearing throughout the article, and I have to choose one most frequent expression instead of mixing all of them up in the translated text. -- Unite together ( talk) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
We should mention that most agnostic atheists (the majority) are harassing gnostic atheists saying that personhood and physical foundations shouldn't be studied. Gnostic atheists work on debunking personhood as a mereological simple, as a self-axiom and final system, as a cosmofoundational agent in its ideal form. And they debunk the erroneous monolithicity of logic. // Some people present themselves as gnostic atheists but if they don't specifically and rigorously debunk the self-causality and cosmofoundationality of personhood and the unitarity of logic, then they're not gnostic atheists. Most agnostic atheists don't admit what they are; they simply use the term atheist. If you lower the probability of God but you don't rigorously cancel him/her/it you are an agnostatheist. Agnostorationalists admit that knowledge is infinite and it's impossible to have it all. 2.84.217.128 ( talk) 01:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Negative and positive atheism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 26 April 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This page was
proposed for deletion by
Alexbrn (
talk ·
contribs) in the past. It was contested by Xoloz ( talk · contribs) |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
— Chrisdone ( talk) 13:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Article implies that children are implicit atheists. Which is simply non-sensible as it imposes that the child or baby do not believe in God, not do not know not to believe in God - an entirely different concept which theists in religion know and understand. JasonMoore ( talk) 05:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I mean, I know he's a prominent atheist and all, but do we really need "this is what Dawkins thinks of this" on every single Wiki atheism page? Unless he has something specific and pertinent to say, merely pointing out this almost random person's point of view on the subject seems unnecessary. Consider removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.75.240 ( talk) 19:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I haven't heard anything for a few days, so I jumped in and did a complete rewrite of the article, keeping some sections largely intact, borrowing material from other sections, and completely changing other parts. I think the article has an entirely new flavor now, one which I'm for the most part pleased with, but I have some concerns.
My most severe concern is the lack of sources. Although I've sprinkled sources around in various places, there are still many parts that seem to qualify as original research, and even some of the sourced parts seem to be using the sources merely as "reference text" for original research.
I'd appreciate it if everyone could take a hard look at this article and see what claims I've made that are simply unsupportable without external sources. That material can either be removed or, preferably, we can find sources to support it. (I've unfortunately been unable to.)
Also, while I think I've managed to condense what I've learned from the discussion on this talk page into an article that is mostly uninflammatory, I realize that that of course may not be the case. If you see any claims I've made that seem to be misleading or downright incorrect, please flag those as well, either by changing them directly or through discussion here. I think I've managed to make only fairly benign claims that don't seem to be hotly debated, but I suppose we'll see!
Thanks again all. -- Dlugar 05:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Any chance of archiving some of the old talk page material? I assume my changes will spark plenty of new discussion, and I'm getting kind of tired of wading through the pages and pages already here.
I have some comments about some of the recent edits here.
Capitalized "God" typically refers to a Supreme Being (not necessarily Jehovah), and seems to be most commonly what is referred to when discussing weak and strong atheism. Most people do not seem to include minor deities or the like when discussing the division; if they did, the article would more properly state "gods do not exist", which I think is not a very common way of expressing the concept. I'd prefer to revert back to using the capitalized "God", but want to hear what others think.
These were removed from the "weak atheist" section. Is there some debate that these are weak atheists? Also, I think the change to the paragraph below re-introduces the very ambiguity that I sought to erase.
Similarly, changing the wording in the Strong Atheist paragraph seems to also re-introduce some ambiguity. (The phrase "The only requirement is to believe that god does not exist", while technically correct, might be misread as some as "... is to not believe that god exists".)
Anyone care to discuss? -- Dlugar 05:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, this edit completely changes the meaning of this paragraph, again implying that a weak atheist is the exact equivalent of an agnostic.
Furthermore, it removes one of the few references that I was able to find for this article. The reference is one of the only non-personal-web-page articlesthat I was able to find addressing the difference between strong and weak atheism. The article stated that explicit atheism and strong atheism are identical, and likewise implicit atheism and weak atheism.
I felt that I was cheating a bit by saying that this was not the only position to take (without having references to the contrary). This recent edit goes to the complete other extreme, denying that the position exists at all without providing any references to the contrary, and deleting the reference to the position. I will definitely revert this edit without seeing some sort of reference, or at least discussion. -- Dlugar 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
For weak atheism:
For weak atheism:
If somebody could develop a method of testing for such a deity, and repeated trials confirmed the possibility, and if from what I know, the method was valid and without confounds allowing for other explanations, then I would be inclined to change my mind.
I do not, however, believe that any scientifically valid method can test for such a deity,. And, as the studies purported to demonstrate the existance of certain manifestations of a deity, when I can find the details (which is rarely, I suspect for good reason), these tests generally appear to be unreliable or invalid.
Basically, I might believe it if were tested accurately and precisely, and would try to be open-minded in looking at such an experiment. I just don't think it's even remotely probable, based on my knowledge of the scientific method.
So am I a strong or a weak atheist? -- 71.192.116.43 22:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
From the "misconceptions" section:
But a paragraph later the article points out this exact state of belief, believing the lack of God to be vastly likelier than the existence of one, as a subset of strong atheism that isn't a faith-based position. Now, seeing as the whole point of this weak/strong dichotomy is that you can't be both, I changed this to say "An individual can believe one to be likelier than the other, but still not to what they see as a sufficient degree to warrant belief in either". -- AceMyth 04:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Within the article "Implicit and Explicit Atheism" I find a discrepancy between the top-right diagram (including its caption) that describes strong and weak atheism and the section titled "Critical Atheism." The issue is that while strong atheists are defined as "[those] who explicitly deny the existence of deities", its subset, critical atheists includes, under George H. Smith's "type C", "the view which 'refuses to discuss the existence or nonexistence of a god' because 'the concept of a god is unintelligible.'" This definition of type C falls outside the domain of explicit denial of the existence of deities. Instead, type C seems to regard this as a question containing no useful meaning and, therefore, a non-question. Mstalcup ( talk) 22:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that with regard to Agnosticism instead of using Strong/Weak to define the opposite extremes of the persuasion they use Strong/Mild. I like this much better and was wondering how others feel about this distinction. "Weak" seems to indicate a weakness of the individual, whereas "Mild" seems to be more of a commentary on the strength of their opinion on the matter. Also, "mild" in many instances can actually be a compliment, whereas "weak" is almost never a flattering adjective. Which would you rather be ... a mild athlete or weak athlete ... a mild intellectual or a weak intellectual ... a mild atheist or a weak atheist? Which is more accurate?
I think another thing that really bothers me about the "weak" nomenclature is that by definition "weak" is generally considered subjective and inferior to "strong". I think "strong" is a good adjective for those who are 100% confident in the non-existence of God, but that position does not make them superior to those who only believe it is unlikely that God exists. Davea0511 ( talk) 15:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not happy with the way the atheists concept of "proof" is portrayed. No scientifically trained person would claim that it is possible to "prove" anything by means of inductive logic based on empirical observations. We are merely able to justify some degree of likelihood. Thus, the case for high likelihood of the existance of other people's minds can be made by pointing out their anatomical/physiological resemblance to oneself and to behavior that one recognize as indicators of consciousness based on ones own conscious experience. The same logic should be applied to the question of the existance of a theistic god-concept. We cannot demand proofs, but rather arguments for different degrees of likelihood. -- 217.68.116.150 ( talk) 08:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Kolbjørn S. Brønnick
Right now 'weak and strong'. This is not in alphabetical order, and furthermore, uses a newer definition. I think using 'negative and positive' would be better. Coincidentally, that is alphabetical order, while retaining the same topical order since weak=negative and strong=positive. I like this better because it is historical and more aptly describes this, with 'negative' being no assertion and 'positive' being an assertion. It refers to the sign of whether the atheism incorporates an assertion of knowledge, or is simply agnostic regarding it as weak/negative atheism is. I realize in either case though they can be seen as insulting, as 'negative' can be vieweed as pessimism or something just as positive can be compliment. So really, maybe a third pair of terms could be found that are more acceptable with less inferences?
Also, mentioned earlier in the talk page was explicit/implicit. I also believe gnostic/agnostic also represents this. I have seen people treating this as a separate concept, but they seem synonymous to me. Tyciol ( talk) 03:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved per request. GTBacchus( talk) 22:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Weak and strong atheism →
Negative and positive atheism — I cannot find strong-weak in any scholarly literature,despite numerous searches - not even in Martin's 2007
Cambridge companion to atheism. He uses positive-negative, as do most writings that are not blogs or mirrors. I would prefer Hard and soft atheism as less judgmental, but that also has less currency. --
JimWae (
talk)
05:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The lede says:
Since agnosticism seems to have to be explicit, "agnostic atheism" cannot include implicit atheism. The term is certainly preferable to calling some atheists "weak" & others "strong", but the sentence cannot stand as is.-- JimWae ( talk) 17:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Also: While the term "gnostic theism" could fill out a new categorization of atheism (as implicit, agnostic, & gnostic), I hardly think we can say (as the 1st sentence presently does) that it is a popular term-- JimWae ( talk) 18:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Looking at some sources, it appears strong atheism has been defined many ways. I have tried below to organize them according to degrees of decreasing strength, where X is the statement "there is at least one deity"
Note that claims are public, while beliefs can be private. Acceptance can also be private, and one can accept something without having any commitment to it at all. Acceptance that "X is probably false" is the weakest form of strong atheism I have come up with - and is virtually indistinguishable from any weak explicit atheism I can think of except perhaps for total inabilty to discern any regularity in one's own thoughts. I think that if one rejects belief in X (for whatever reason), one must also "accept" an ontology devoid of deities. -- JimWae ( talk) 19:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
This article has seen literally years of consecutive editors trying to wrap their heads around basic set theory and terminology. People have even gone to the length of drawing Venn diagrams, for crying out loud. And the article still fails to get it right, as each new generation of editors seems to be determined to introduce some new source of confusion. So this has now been moved to a completely new title. The article seems to assume that the "positive / negative" distinction is equivalent to the "strong / weak" one. Probably because nobody bothers to read the sources they google.
The move means you will have to redraw the Venn diagram and you will also have to explain terminology properly. Please do it, or else move it back to the way things were, but don't leave it in this half-finished state. Thank you. -- dab (𒁳) 09:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I just had a quick squizz of this article and noticed that it seems to focus quite a lot on "God", which is the Christian deity. I don't see why this particular deity should be singled out for such attention. My understanding is that strong Atheists do not believe in any deities at all, and do not restrict their disbelief to the Christian monotheistic realm. I'm a strong Atheist myself, and I can assure you that I am certain that Ganesh, Thor and Tama-nui-te-ra don't exist just as much as God doesn't exist.
I'd be grateful if someone could do a bit of a rewrite to fix this worldview issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild ( talk • contribs) 10:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
An editor has re-introduced unsourced content here, referring to "negative and positive atheism" used by Smith. It was removed with a request for a source citation, and has been re-inserted without the requested source. Is there any reason why it should not be removed? Xenophrenic ( talk) 13:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
implicit and explicit atheism used by the philosopher George H. Smithbecause that isn't supported in the sources; Smith uses "negative and positive", according to the source presently in the article right now. Xenophrenic ( talk) 03:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Negative and positive 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) 11:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I suggested this article be rewritten, at least near the top, for clarity. I am somewhat educated about atheism, but I'm not even sure I understood what it was saying.... Misty MH ( talk) 04:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Amongst the three names, "positive atheism", "hard atheism", "strong atheism" (the same as the other three names), which one is used the most frequently? It really matters, as I'm currently trying to translate the article into Chinese, however, seems that in the Chinese context, people tend to use “强” (strong), rather than “硬” (hard) or “积极” (positive), while in the English context "positive" is preferred. These words have been appearing throughout the article, and I have to choose one most frequent expression instead of mixing all of them up in the translated text. -- Unite together ( talk) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
We should mention that most agnostic atheists (the majority) are harassing gnostic atheists saying that personhood and physical foundations shouldn't be studied. Gnostic atheists work on debunking personhood as a mereological simple, as a self-axiom and final system, as a cosmofoundational agent in its ideal form. And they debunk the erroneous monolithicity of logic. // Some people present themselves as gnostic atheists but if they don't specifically and rigorously debunk the self-causality and cosmofoundationality of personhood and the unitarity of logic, then they're not gnostic atheists. Most agnostic atheists don't admit what they are; they simply use the term atheist. If you lower the probability of God but you don't rigorously cancel him/her/it you are an agnostatheist. Agnostorationalists admit that knowledge is infinite and it's impossible to have it all. 2.84.217.128 ( talk) 01:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)