Talk:Spectrum of theistic probability

897:

to take deism more seriously since he wrote "the god delusion"} and Pantheism as "sexed up atheism". Yet, Modern Deists, and Classical Pantheists would argue these points vehemently and rightly. It's pure biased polemics from Dawkins. REAL Pantheism is a form of theism, scientific pantheism is not even "pantheism" at all. As to Dawkins exlusion of Deism from his scale; Deism is NOT simply "watered down theism", though the original deism was and some deists today may have this kid of deism{more accurately defined today as "liberal theism"}, Deism has become a unique category of belief all it's own, seperate from Theism, Agnosticism{allthough one can logically be an "Agnostic-Deist"}, and Atheism. Hence, Dawkins scale is nothing more than a personal polemic, not something to put forth as a valid objective argument and something to include as a wiki article; Unless Mr.Dawkins first ammends his original scale here to make it more accurate,objective, and full. As a thinker myself, I have invented what I call "the scale of rationalism". It is similar to Dawkins scale, except it is purely about rationalisms view on god, with Strong Atheism at one end, Strong Deism at the other, Agnosticism in the center, and degrees between, and it excludes theism alltogether. This scale I invented is arguably just as valid as Dawkins scale, the only reason why Dawkins one is taken seriously or given a wikipedia article is because of his prominence as a biologist and a vocal Atheist. His job as a biologist certianly is not valid grounds for his scale beeing given such prominence and special treatment, what does biology have to do with the god question? All that's left is the fact that he is a vocal atheist, and he's beeen given a soapbox to air his polemics. Ok, so what? There are vocal agnostics and deists and others whom are more or less known or unknown, but this does not mean their arguments are worthy or unworthy of such respect anymore than Dawkins. The scale is propose din 'the god delusion", which is often passed off as a "science" book, whish it is not, it is a atheist polemic that includes some scientific information{so what, theists use the same for their creationist books; Respected Physicist, astrobiologist, cosmologist Paul Davies, with a deistic persuasion has written many more books than Dawkins on this subject matter with deistic polemics- which contain way more scientific info and much more sophiticated philosophical and scientific arguments, yet does he or his arguments get the same special treatment?}. Something is askew here.--

1328:. I also undid the addition of a category which did not appear supported by the body of the article. (There are other concerns, such as the misspelling of "criticized", which was likely a typo.) Without reliable sources for me to review, I can't verify your assertions: (1) That "Spectrum of theistic probability" even seeks to "define atheism", when our article doesn't appear to convey that. (2) That valid criticism of categorizing non-belief has been advanced. (3) That multiple "philosophers such as" have advanced such a criticism. (4) That Craig, or philosophers "such as" him, is (implicitly) credited with defining atheism. Or are you simply trying to convey that Craig thinks an absence of belief in deities isn't atheism unless it is also coupled with an affirmative but unsupportable ( 1092:"Is this notable enough for an article on its own?" IMO, No, but as a part of a more comprehensive article... Maybe! As it is it is too one-dimensional, a relevant extension is provided by Fredric Brown's very short story "Answer". Another dimension is provided by teleology v dysteleology, biologists have no problem restructuring their statements in dysteleological form; it is much harder for physicists, QED does seem to involve teleology (as does Thermodynamics). Without getting into a spitting contest, with my training I have to regard QED as a more successful theory than Evolution. But then predicting that there are no rabbit fossils from the Cretaceous is a more falsifiable prediction than that there is no Celestial Teapot 921:

between Davies and Dawkins quite out of place; a better example would by far be Stephen Jay Gould. Davies just doesn't play in the same league; (amazingly) good a physicist as he may be, he just lacks the skill to coherently move among disciplines while admitting his own limits. But more importantly: Dawkins argues, and with great clarity, that scientists are an obvious choice to turn to when thinking about religion. Maybe more than theologists, who are biased by nature (and nurture). The idea is not his': Kant, Popper, Russell and an impressive series of names seem to converge through time into that same thought.

354: 336: 1074:. Defining such a complicated belief and quickly following with criticism and reasons as to why it doesn't make sense only serves to invalidate or add bias to an article. If this article isn't notable enough, and I'm not saying it's not, attaching it to an article when it could confuse the topic should not be an option. After all, and I apologize for being too direct, we don't end an article on Christianity with reasons as to why it doesn't make sense. If the reason's are notable and cited enough it should be able to float on water by itself, hence why we have 1226:

God existence, so the most unpopulated number after 7 should be 4. That's the point Dawkins is trying to make -that agnosticism is actually a form of intellectual non-commitment, a way of avoiding social stigmas, or a misunderstanding of the scaled measurements of atheism or of the term itself. Therefore, I think this section must be revised by providing more quotations from Richard Dawkins - or the page, when read by public unfamiliar with Dawkins' work, will draw the wrong conclusions on what the author meant.

1175:"; and secondly, my opinion is that what should be done is NOT to change the title (which wouldn't provide any added value to Knowledge), but to expand the page so that it does deal with the subject it's supposed to explain, by including, for instance: 1) a good analysis of the validity of such a scale, 2) its implications both on a sociological, cognitive and antropological view, 3) a serious subsection regarding population surveys, and 4) the mutual incompatibility between Dawkins' probabilistic approach and 1234:- although I must state, least should I be accused of having my own agenda by trying to introduce an inherent counterargument in the article, that I personally don't believe in it, neither as a layman on spiritual subjects nor as a trained physicist. A new section depicting NOMA as opposed to Richard Dawkins' views would greatly clarify the magnitude and importance of the page, and would also provide new grounds for further entries that are currently blocked by the lack of different approaches to the subject. 916:

most important biologists alive: he is considered one of the most influential minds in the world, and that grants him authority enough to write, publish, and be considered an important contributor to a field he has devoted so much time to ponder. Same as Chomsky's analysis on political situations are actually studied in universities throughout the world (in Barcelona, most certainly, and I can prove it if you require it) -even though his field of expertise is linguistics-, Dawkins writes with the clarity and

1580:

so with very narrow definitions of theism and atheism (i.e.; philosophical inquiry insists that atheism must assertively reject the existence of gods absolutely, which is of course an absurdist position as one can never prove that something does not exist). May I ask you to more clearly explain your primary reasoning for adding the Philosophy of religion category to this article? I ask only because the source of the subject of this article (Dawkins) doesn't consider it a philosophical enquiry. Regards,

438: 420: 240: 250: 222: 191: 870:

agnosticism (although a "pure" agnostic could be defined as an agnostic who is not an atheist or a theist), but that agnosticism and theism can coexist ("I don't know, but I believe in God") just as agnosticism and atheism can coexist ("I do not know, but I believe that there are no gods"). Conversely one can claim full knowledge and be either an atheist or a theist.

2119: 1747:"Incorrect. Atheism is the absence of belief in deities. It predates the invention of the concept of deities. It isn't a belief, it isn't philosophy, nor is it "a" philosophy. However, a minority form of atheism (affirmative denial of existence) has been made a topic of philosophical study, as you noted." 1765:

Well as you said " In order for philosophy to contemplate and argue belief in gods, it needs a concrete starting point, such as affirmative denial. If you try to get a philosopher to discuss belief in gods from the original position of atheism, i.e., absence of beliefs before the indoctrination into

1691:

That would make sense. In order for philosophy to contemplate and argue belief in gods, it needs a concrete starting point, such as affirmative denial. If you try to get a philosopher to discuss belief in gods from the original position of atheism, i.e., absence of beliefs before the indoctrination

1558:

this article is not about religion (which may or may not include belief in deities) in general, nor about any specific religion, so the Philosophy of religion category appears out of place to me. While it is true that theism and atheism can sometimes be discussed in the context of religion, they are

869:

I would like to suggest an expansion on the discussion on atheism and agnosticism. There is another perspective whereby agnosticism and atheism are quite distinct concepts. The first dealing with knowledge and the later with belief. Therefore agnosticism is not some middle ground between atheism and

2007:

1700:

Not exactly, as philosophers do not get to "define atheism". They do (and have), however, get to chose which existing definition they will engage with through their discipline. Based on its historical usage, "atheism" has many variations in meaning, from the pejorative "doesn't believe in the same

1119:

I'd like to suggest a diagram be added showing this concept visually. Something to go at the top that should give the reader a very quick summary of the concept. It would basically just be an image of a linear scale going from theism to atheism, with agnosticism in the middle. Something like green =

896:

I agree with the author of "problems with this". This scale is just a personal invention of Richard Dawkins. It is also not a very sophiticated scale he invented. Dawkins, for example, deliberately excluded Deism. Of course Dawkins sees Deism as "watered down theism"[allthough he's seemingly willign

1678:

Incorrect. Atheism is the absence of belief in deities. It predates the invention of the concept of deities. It isn't a belief, it isn't philosophy, nor is it "a" philosophy. However, a minority form of atheism (affirmative denial of existence) has been made a topic of philosophical study, as you

1607:

You do realise atheism is philosophy right? It can't be separated from it. That's like me saying "science has a very narrow definition of matter" in contrast to matter outside of science. It makes no sense. Also that's not true, traditionally, yes atheism was defined by philosophers as the denial

1579:

section as you've suggested, and I see in particular the assertion that Philosophy of religion deals with the existence of gods, so I can't fault you for adding the category, but that section of our article is unsourced. Also, while philosophy may concern itself with the existence of gods, it does

1704:

This is fun, but we're straying from the original issue of whether to categorize this article as "Philosophy of religion". This spectrum deals with existence of gods, and the "philosophy of religion" can also deal with the existence of gods, but does philosophy of religion deal with this spectrum

1225:

Anyone who's read "The God Delusion" by Dawkins is aware that he puts a lot of stress in how one should use the scale to gauge one's beliefs; and provides a sound line of thought regarding how most self-labelled agnostics wouldn't actually define themselves as believing in a 50%-50% probability of

1874:

Nowhere in that quote did I say that philosophers define atheism. I said that philosophy addresses the subject of existence using only one very narrow (i.e.; "denial of existence") definition; philosophers certainly did not invent that definition. Philosophers do not get to define atheism. Are we

915:

In my opinion, if you believe Dawkins' preeeminence as a biologist has nothing to do with his authority on the God question, I think you missed at least some of the main points of the book -please take no offense, it's not my intention whatsoever. Dawkins is widely regarded not only as one of the

2068:

doesn't include or exclude implicit atheists, and you also won't find PAPs (permanent agnosticism in principle) on the scale either, nor would they be expected to appear on the scale. The scale treats belief in existence of gods as a "scientific hypothesis" rather than a philosophical question

920:

most scientists can't claim (the requirement to dettach oneself during analysis though not being able to completely brush the theory under scrutiny and its expected outcomes out of one's mind, a human flaw shared by researchers and laymen alike). Being a physicist myself, I find the comparison

2101:"The scale treats belief in existence of gods as a "scientific hypothesis" rather than a philosophical question (Dawkins explains this in the same cited chapter). So I don't understand the point you are trying to make" What on earth? I am baffled by this nonsense. Can you quote the section? 929:" as a science book. I've got a science book in front of me, one used during my grad courses, and it's called "An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory", by Michael E. Peskin and Daniel V. Schroeder, with sections such as "10.2 Renormalized Perturbation Theory: One-loop structure of 1920:

I never said that (nor would I), so I asked you to "provide a diff to where I said philosophers define atheism". I've asked twice, and twice you have failed to provide substantiation for your assertion. We can consider that resolved and move on to the next small

1860:"while philosophy may concern itself with the existence of gods, it does so with very narrow definitions of theism and atheism (i.e.; philosophical inquiry insists that atheism must assertively reject the existence of gods absolutely)" From your original reply. 1976:

We can drop it if you wish. I'm not sure what "last part" of what you said you are referring to, but I do know that you never answered my most important question. I'll repeat it here if you decide you wish to reengage in discussion of the matter:

962:

even used by Dawkins? There is hope for this article because this idea is hopefully not a Dawkins neologism, but we need to find a suitable name for this, and supplement this article with more sources, if this should be kept at all...

1705:(the subject of this article)? Can you direct me to whatever source you feel best addresses the "Spectrum of theistic probability" subject from the "Philosophy of religion" perspective? That may help us to put this to rest. Regards, 1009:

to full-article status, so why should you listen to me? I guess if someone wants hang some personal opinions on it, it'll be stoutly defended and remain in place! But if it does stay, I presume the article title should be lowercased:

996:

I am also far from convinced that this needs a separate article. Does it have any life outside Dawkins' book? And what are the chances of anyone actually looking for an article under this obscure title? I would favour a summary under

153: 1048:

though, so I'm doubtful anyone has published anything about it. I think such a compass would be an excellent way of conceptualizing attitudes toward religion (although there are still other aspects left out, such as Dan Dennett's

1599:

In the lead of the article it defines as "the philosophy of religion as the philosophical examination of the central themes and concepts involved in religious traditions". The existence of a god is obviously included in this.

1166:

I agree with the fact that this page doesn't talk about the theistic probability, but I disagree with your conclusions. In the first place, because the name of the page is itself a reference to the person who coined the term,

1500:

Edit Warring will result in you being sanctioned or blocked. I have already warned you on your talk page. I am stepping away from the article for a few days to let additional editors respond. Ping me if you like...

1023:

I also argued vehemently against the 747 gambit :) I think the situation is a bit different, I can't imagine how this current article can be expanded. The 747 Gambit was at least directly addressed by many reviewers.

1302:. The cryptic edit summary indicates that I "removed unsourced & non-applicable" additions to the article. I'll try to express my multiple concerns in fuller form here. You added two sentences which said this: 1428:

Well there isn't a source that states multiple philosophers disagree with the definition of atheism Dawkins uses but there are multiple well respected philosophers I can link to that contradict Dawkins definition.

2098:"and you also won't find PAPs (permanent agnosticism in principle) on the scale either, nor would they be expected to appear on the scale." First of all that is not true. Second of all even if it was true so what? 1845:

No, I did not. To the contrary, I said that philosophers do not get to define atheism. Please strike your comment or provide a diff to where I said philosophers define atheism. Then we can move on. Regards,

582: 981:, either as "Criticism of agnosticism"; or simply "Spectrum of probabilities", simply adding something that Dawkins argues that Huxley "seems to have been ignoring the shading of probability." I'm often very 1183:. This page is necessary, but right now it almost falls into the category of a stub. For many reasons, this shouldn't be the case at all, not for a subject so important in so many levels to so many people. 1756:

Never said they did, but yes they do. As I said it is a part of their field. They originally came up with the concept of atheism back then when it meant the denial of the existence of a god or gods.

1250:

Just adding that I'd agree both with clarifying the article further with Dawkins' quotes, but also mentioning NOMA. Maybe if I read the book again soon I'll get an opportunity to write an edit. --

2123:

It's from the last paragraph on page 49 through page 51 of the presently cited source. And you'll see Dawkins explicitly explain why PAPs can't appear on the scale on page 51. Hope that helps,

1982:

Can you direct me to whatever source you feel best addresses the "Spectrum of theistic probability" subject from the "Philosophy of religion" perspective? That may help us to put this to rest.

1875:

simply misunderstanding each other? So I will repeat my request: Please strike your comment or provide a diff to where I said philosophers define atheism. Then we can move on. Regards,

1540:

Hi, Apollo! I hope the holidays are finding you in good spirits. Thank you for initiating this discussion; Here are my thoughts on the categories and descriptions we've been juggling:

147: 44: 1666:

More precisely, the arguments for the existence of gods may be included in that, which is why I have not immediately reverted your re-insertion of the category. Do you know of any

2030:

De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and Ilive my life on the assumption that he is not there."

2018:

De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

1143:", instead? It seens that what it (subjectvely) measures is the belief of different persons, and it does not even try to acess the actual probablity of God existing or not. 1889:

I never said you said that philosophers are the authority on the definition of atheism, I said you claimed philosophers use a certain definition of atheism. You were wrong.

1814:

atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and Ilive my life on the assumption that he is not there."

2175: 396: 806:

needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.

1734:

If that is true explain why theists are included in the spectrum? Should the political spectrum page be in the conservatism, socialism and libertarianism category?

958:

Is this notable enough for an article on its own? As a Dawkins invention, this is not enough for a Knowledge entry, and especially under this title. Is the phrase

1791:. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there." 2160: 402: 312: 2185: 1206:

I have added redirect articles so that a search on "Dawkins scale", "Dawkins scale of belief" and "Dawkins scale of atheism" all redirect to this article. --

594: 478: 1120:

theism, cyan = agnosticism and blue = atheism, for example. There would of course be intermediate colours, highlighting the continuous nature of the issue.

1496:

Restoring the stable version of an article does not require consensus. Consensus is required for the material you added that changed the stable version.

751: 79: 1324:, so I removed it for now. Also, you placed it in a dedicated section of its own with a "Criticism" header, which I removed for reasons best explained 2052: 318: 276: 1283:

Hi there, you reverted one of my edits to the above page and said your rationale for doing so was "rmv uns & n/a". What exactly does that mean?

726: 525: 484: 1929:

Theists are included in the spectrum because it's a spectrum of positions regarding belief in the existence of gods. That isn't self-explanatory?

531: 372: 973:

I expanded this a bit, I looked at where this occurs in Dawkins's book and it is in the section on "The Poverty of Agnosticism". I'm thinking of

2170: 2165: 744: 658: 168: 1689:

That's like me saying "condensed matter physics has a very narrow definition of fermionic matter" in contrast to matter in science in general.

1570:, I think a reasonable argument could be made to remove their links from this article, as they are not closely related to the article subject. 1943:

Let's just drop it obviously we are not getting anywhere and it is not really relevant. The last part of my response to you is what matters.

135: 85: 1332:) "denial of the existence of a god" (i.e.; Zeus?) -- an assertion which would probably be more appropriate in the Craig article than here. 2037:

Clearly there is claims being made. The spectrum of theistic belief doesn't include implicit atheists. Only theists and explicit atheists.

1822:

Clearly there is claims being made. The spectrum of theistic belief doesn't include implicit atheists. Only theists and explicit atheists.

1093: 284: 1908:

That is correct, you never did. That is the first time either of us has used the word "authority" on this Talk page. What is your point?

1762:

How is any of this relevant to what I said? You said philosophers define it as the denial of the existence of a god, I was correcting you.

1741:

arguments which come from the premise of atheism (the absence of belief) rather than the narrower sub-premise of denying that gods exist?"

1701:

supernatural entities that I believe in" to "doesn't hold any beliefs in deities at all" to "has 'belief' in the nonexistence of deities".

1670:

arguments which come from the premise of atheism (the absence of belief) rather than the narrower sub-premise of denying that gods exist?

1053:", which should probably have its own article as well). If anyone feels like stealing the idea and writing about it though, be my guest! 1150: 686: 672: 587: 520: 2155: 2027:

Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

1731:"We're not discussing a "spectrum of positions regarding god", it's a spectrum of positions regarding belief in the existence of gods" 1543:

this article is about various levels of belief (or absence of belief) in deities, and is therefore certainly strongly related to both

515: 454: 361: 341: 2180: 1916:

No, you did not, until just now. Here is what you actually said to me (you do realize it's still on this page just above, right?):

1687:

It makes no sense because that analogy is inapplicable. A proper analogy, if you wish to equate "atheism" with "matter", would be:

1692:

into a belief system, the discipline of philosophy considers that an invalid position, or one not worth addressing philosophically.

129: 2065: 1650:, an important distinction. So with that clarified for you, do you now see how that directly relates to atheism (the absence of 1011: 280: 24: 2008:

a belief system, the discipline of philosophy considers that an invalid position, or one not worth addressing philosophically."

1766:

a belief system, the discipline of philosophy considers that an invalid position, or one not worth addressing philosophically."

99: 30: 2021:

Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

1794:

Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

559: 288: 264: 227: 125: 104: 20: 353: 335: 925:

By the way: nobody (at least not anybody worth caring about, i.e. creationists), and certainly not Dawkins, tries to pass "

2106: 2048: 2011:

From the article. "#Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

1948: 1894: 1865: 1827: 1683:...me saying "science has a very narrow definition of matter" in contrast to matter outside of science. It makes no sense. 1629: 1613: 1530: 1486: 1478: 1288: 690: 665: 639: 542: 503: 445: 425: 74: 1662:...central themes and concepts involved in religious traditions". The existence of a god is obviously included in this... 1367:"That "Spectrum of theistic probability" even seeks to "define atheism", when our article doesn't appear to convey that." 701: 202: 175: 694: 564: 65: 1391:

I was implying that Craig simply disagrees with that definition of atheism, not that he and others get to define it.

371:-related subjects on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 1231: 1230:

I also believe this article should at least reference the school of thought named by Stephen Jay Gould as NOMA, or

1006: 1075: 902: 536: 1696:

yes atheism was defined by philosophers as ... but most modern philosophers (Flew, Dennett etc) define it as ...

985:

in making moves and mergers like this. So if there are no objections within a few days, I'm going to do this. --

2102: 2044: 1944: 1890: 1861: 1823: 1808:. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical." 1625: 1609: 1526: 1482: 1474: 1430: 1392: 1299: 1284: 547: 1097: 141: 1154: 2069:(Dawkins explains this in the same cited chapter). So I don't understand the point you are trying to make. 1608:

of the existence of God but most modern philosophers (Flew, Dennett etc) define it as an absence of belief.

553: 109: 1596:

I don't see how a spectrum of positions regarding god should be include in the theism and atheism category.

1576: 1522: 1306:

The spectrum of theistic probability has been criticsed over how it defines atheism. Philosophers such as

1255: 898: 789: 2128: 2074: 2024:

Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

1992: 1934: 1880: 1851: 1710: 1585: 1450: 1407: 1342: 959: 208: 1070:– I don't want to seem petty or anything. But merging would help this article, but would only damage 2040: 1646:

We're not discussing a "spectrum of positions regarding god", it's a spectrum of positions regarding

1435: 1146: 1125: 1103: 1083: 1058: 882: 1355:"I also undid the addition of a category which did not appear supported by the body of the article." 190: 1502: 1497: 1240: 1211: 1191: 941: 711:

by checking whether ] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

652: 161: 55: 453:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1567: 1506: 1325: 1307: 825: 570: 70: 1759:"however, get to chose which existing definition they will engage with through their discipline" 1750:"What I meant is that it is a part of the field of philosophy like physics is a part of science. 2132: 2110: 2078: 1996: 1952: 1938: 1898: 1884: 1869: 1855: 1831: 1714: 1633: 1617: 1589: 1534: 1510: 1490: 1454: 1439: 1411: 1402:

I would appreciate the opportunity to review the reliable source you are referencing. Regards,

1346: 1292: 1259: 1244: 1215: 1195: 1158: 1129: 1107: 1087: 1062: 1028: 1018: 989: 967: 945: 906: 886: 2033:

Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

1918:

You said philosophers define it as the denial of the existence of a god, I was correcting you.

1840:

You said philosophers define it as the denial of the existence of a god, I was correcting you.

1817:

Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

1601: 1370:

It doesn't seek to define it but it is based on a definition of atheism that is controversial.

1251: 1176: 1037: 51: 873: 2124: 2070: 1988: 1930: 1876: 1847: 1798: 1706: 1581: 1446: 1403: 1338: 1172: 1050: 926: 837: 708: 700:

Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see

655:

to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members.

1525:(see page)? And how is it related to atheism? This is a spectrum of belief and Nonbelief? 1168: 1121: 1079: 1054: 878: 255: 1904:

I never said you said that philosophers are the authority on the definition of atheism...

1236: 1207: 1187: 1015: 982: 937: 722: 643: 437: 419: 2149: 1044:' or something roughly like that was included as a second dimension. This is largely 813: 803: 732:

Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating

1321: 1045: 809: 737: 367: 1924: 1911: 1903: 1839: 1695: 1682: 1673: 1661: 1641: 1604:, a philosopher of relogion says atheism is a part of the philosophy of religion. 1397: 1305: 1770: 1563: 1317: 1071: 1025: 998: 986: 978: 964: 766: 249: 245: 1774: 1041: 733: 239: 221: 1445:

I would be interested in seeing them. Present them here, please? Regards,

1674:

You do realise atheism is philosophy right? It can't be separated from it.

502:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the

275:-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us 1784: 271: 1638:

I've been somewhat busy with the holidays. Thank you for your patience.

1805: 1544: 1379:"That multiple "philosophers such as" have advanced such a criticism. " 1002: 831: 450: 2115:

I could quote the section if I wanted to spend a half-hour doing it.

1788: 1548: 1912:

I said you claimed philosophers use a certain definition of atheism.

496:

For more information and how you can help, click the link opposite:

1275:(Discussion moved here from a user's Talk page for continuation...) 1552: 892:

Agreeance with the "problems witn this sections author; and Deism"

1925:

If that is true explain why theists are included in the spectrum?

1036:

I'd like to see it expanded into something somewhat analogous to

1180: 840:

defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.

184: 15: 1753:"Not exactly, as philosophers do not get to "define atheism". 1310:

have defined atheism as the denial of the existence of a god.

2095:"doesn't include or exclude implicit atheists" em what? How? 1139:

Should not this be called "Spectrum of theistic probability

1398:

Fair enoungh, the reference never said anything about that.

1382:

Fair enoungh, the reference never said anything about that.

1337:

Looking forward to your thoughts on the matter. Regards,

685:

Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see

1836:

I guess we'll step through this one small part at a time.

874:

about.com's Austin Cline discusses agnosticism vs atheism

1642:

I don't see how a spectrum of positions regarding god...

1358:

In what way? Dawkins is discussing philosophical views.

627: 622: 617: 612: 160: 877:

If anyone has primary sources it would help greatly.

933:

theory". I think the difference is self-explanatory.

449:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 365:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1005:. Mind you, I tried to argue against promoting the 736:, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see 721:Find sources for all positions of an article (see 483:This article has not yet received a rating on the 401:This article has not yet received a rating on the 317:This article has not yet received a rating on the 1769:From the article. "#Strong theist. 100 per cent 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 707:Ensure atheism-related articles are members of 269:, a project to improve Knowledge's articles on 1473:You need a consensus before deleting anything 174: 8: 1801:and non-existence are exactly equiprobable." 1797:Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. " 872:For a good discussion of this check ==: --> 595:Articles recently added to Category:Atheism 2038: 1433: 492: 414: 330: 216: 1624:So is that a silent fair enough or what? 2176:Unknown-importance Spirituality articles 416: 332: 218: 188: 1981: 1917: 1171:, and the source of the description, " 7: 2161:Unknown-importance Religion articles 2116: 1221:Spectrum scale unexplained, and NOMA 526:Links to atheism-related information 443:This article is within the scope of 359:This article is within the scope of 261:This article is within the scope of 2186:Unknown-importance Atheism articles 207:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 381:Knowledge:WikiProject Spirituality 14: 977:merging this into the article on 384:Template:WikiProject Spirituality 2117: 2066:Spectrum of theistic probability 1481:) 20:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC) 1012:Spectrum of theistic probability 960:"Spectrum of Theist Probability" 745:list of atheism-related articles 436: 418: 352: 334: 248: 238: 220: 189: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 25:Spectrum of theistic probability 1656:belief in the existence of gods 1652:belief in the existence of gods 1648:belief in the existence of gods 1521:How is this not related to the 1330:see position #7 on the Spectrum 1316:That content did not have the 1108:18:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC) 297:Knowledge:WikiProject Religion 1: 2171:C-Class Spirituality articles 2166:WikiProject Religion articles 1744:That question makes no sense. 1559:often separate and unrelated. 1511:23:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC) 1491:20:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC) 1455:06:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC) 1440:20:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC) 1412:20:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC) 1347:17:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC) 1293:13:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC) 1088:22:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC) 532:List of free online resources 463:Knowledge:WikiProject Atheism 457:and see a list of open tasks. 375:and see a list of open tasks. 300:Template:WikiProject Religion 42:Put new text under old text. 2133:20:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC) 2111:20:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC) 2079:20:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC) 1997:04:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC) 1953:13:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC) 1939:05:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC) 1899:21:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC) 1885:21:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC) 1777:: "I do not believe, I know. 1266:Criticism and categorization 1159:03:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC) 778:Articles on notable atheists 466:Template:WikiProject Atheism 1870:21:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 1856:21:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 1832:18:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 1715:15:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 1634:15:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 1618:12:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 1590:03:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 1535:21:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC) 887:06:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC) 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 2202: 1232:Non-overlapping magisteria 1130:06:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 1063:06:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 1029:17:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1019:16:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1007:Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit 990:16:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 968:15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 907:20:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC) 816:: discuss whether you are 485:project's importance scale 403:project's importance scale 319:project's importance scale 2156:C-Class Religion articles 1260:14:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC) 1076:Criticism_of_Christianity 865:on agnosticism and theism 752:write for an encyclopedia 491: 482: 431: 400: 347: 316: 233: 215: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 2181:C-Class Atheism articles 1773:of God. In the words of 1216:17:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC) 946:20:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC) 640:Join WikiProject atheism 516:Project's main talk page 362:WikiProject Spirituality 287:standards, or visit the 1245:22:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC) 1196:02:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC) 747:and add to accordingly. 560:About original research 1577:Philosophy of religion 1523:Philosophy of religion 1042:apathy toward religion 918:objective subjectivity 830:Clarify references in 537:Writing about religion 197:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 1842:--Apollo The Logician 691:"The perfect article" 588:the "Atheism" article 387:Spirituality articles 100:Neutral point of view 1737:"Do you know of any 265:WikiProject Religion 105:No original research 2103:Apollo The Logician 2045:Apollo The Logician 1945:Apollo The Logician 1891:Apollo The Logician 1862:Apollo The Logician 1824:Apollo The Logician 1626:Apollo The Logician 1610:Apollo The Logician 1527:Apollo The Logician 1483:Apollo The Logician 1475:Apollo The Logician 1431:Apollo The Logician 1393:Apollo The Logician 1300:Apollo The Logician 1285:Apollo The Logician 1001:, and also perhaps 797:Immediate attention 761:Articles to improve 671:Help out with this 543:Article development 446:WikiProject Atheism 1654:) and theism (the 1575:I've reviewed the 1568:political spectrum 1308:William Lane Craig 1040:, where 'level of 954:Problems with this 727:atheism references 659:Help with articles 277:assess and improve 203:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 2056: 2043:comment added by 1602:Robin Le Poidevin 1442: 1277: 1177:Stephen Jay Gould 1149:comment added by 1038:political compass 862: 861: 858: 857: 854: 853: 850: 849: 846: 845: 716:Maintenance, etc. 695:Featured articles 664:See this month's 565:Assume good faith 554:Verifying sources 413: 412: 409: 408: 329: 328: 325: 324: 303:Religion articles 291:for more details. 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 2193: 2122: 2121: 2120: 1926: 1913: 1905: 1841: 1804:Leaning towards 1697: 1684: 1675: 1663: 1643: 1399: 1322:reliable sources 1311: 1273: 1173:The God Delusion 1161: 1111: 1051:belief in belief 927:The God Delusion 838:Secular movement 834:using footnotes. 738:deletion process 666:adopt-an-article 603: 602: 493: 471: 470: 469:Atheism articles 467: 464: 461: 440: 433: 432: 422: 415: 389: 388: 385: 382: 379: 356: 349: 348: 338: 331: 305: 304: 301: 298: 295: 289:wikiproject page 258: 253: 252: 242: 235: 234: 224: 217: 200: 194: 193: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 2201: 2200: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2146: 2145: 2118: 1799:God's existence 1519: 1471: 1268: 1223: 1204: 1202:Redirects added 1169:Richard Dawkins 1144: 1137: 1117: 1101: 956: 932: 899:Iconoclastithon 894: 867: 790:an atheism stub 632: 600: 599: 577:Recent activity 468: 465: 462: 459: 458: 386: 383: 380: 377: 376: 302: 299: 296: 293: 292: 256:Religion portal 254: 247: 201:on Knowledge's 198: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 2199: 2197: 2189: 2188: 2183: 2178: 2173: 2168: 2163: 2158: 2148: 2147: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2099: 2096: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2035: 2034: 2031: 2028: 2025: 2022: 2019: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2009: 2005: 1987:Kind regards, 1985: 1984: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1927: 1922: 1914: 1909: 1906: 1843: 1837: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1815: 1809: 1802: 1795: 1792: 1767: 1763: 1760: 1757: 1754: 1751: 1748: 1745: 1742: 1735: 1732: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1702: 1698: 1693: 1685: 1680: 1676: 1671: 1664: 1659: 1644: 1639: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1605: 1597: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1560: 1556: 1551:(and arguably 1518: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1470: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1438:comment added 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1400: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1380: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1368: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1356: 1350: 1349: 1334: 1333: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1267: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1235: 1227: 1222: 1219: 1203: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1185: 1184: 1162: 1136: 1133: 1116: 1113: 1106:comment added 1094:86.183.215.184 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 993: 992: 955: 952: 951: 950: 949: 948: 935: 934: 930: 923: 922: 909: 893: 890: 876: 871: 866: 863: 860: 859: 856: 855: 852: 851: 848: 847: 844: 843: 842: 841: 835: 828: 807: 793: 792: 782: 780: 779: 770: 769: 757: 756: 755: 748: 741: 730: 723:Citing sources 713: 712: 705: 698: 677: 676: 669: 662: 656: 634: 633: 631: 630: 625: 620: 615: 609: 607: 601: 598: 597: 592: 591: 590: 574: 573: 562: 548:Citing sources 545: 534: 523: 521:Article layout 518: 509: 508: 498: 497: 489: 488: 481: 475: 474: 472: 455:the discussion 441: 429: 428: 423: 411: 410: 407: 406: 399: 393: 392: 390: 373:the discussion 357: 345: 344: 339: 327: 326: 323: 322: 315: 309: 308: 306: 260: 259: 243: 231: 230: 225: 213: 212: 206: 195: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2198: 2187: 2184: 2182: 2179: 2177: 2174: 2172: 2169: 2167: 2164: 2162: 2159: 2157: 2154: 2153: 2151: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2097: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2067: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2032: 2029: 2026: 2023: 2020: 2017: 2016: 2010: 2006: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1983: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1910: 1907: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1844: 1838: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1816: 1813: 1810: 1807: 1803: 1800: 1796: 1793: 1790: 1787: 1786: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1761: 1758: 1755: 1752: 1749: 1746: 1743: 1740: 1739:philosophical 1736: 1733: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1703: 1699: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1681: 1677: 1672: 1669: 1668:philosophical 1665: 1660: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1640: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1606: 1603: 1598: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1578: 1574: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1541: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1499: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1468: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1443: 1441: 1437: 1432: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1381: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1369: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1357: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1320:citations to 1319: 1315: 1309: 1304: 1303: 1301: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1276: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1233: 1228: 1220: 1218: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1151:201.82.162.48 1148: 1142: 1134: 1132: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1114: 1112: 1109: 1105: 1099: 1095: 1090: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1030: 1027: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1017: 1013: 1008: 1004: 1000: 995: 994: 991: 988: 984: 980: 976: 972: 971: 970: 969: 966: 961: 953: 947: 943: 939: 936: 928: 924: 919: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 908: 904: 900: 891: 889: 888: 884: 880: 875: 864: 839: 836: 833: 829: 827: 823: 819: 815: 814:False dilemma 811: 808: 805: 804:State atheism 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 791: 788: 787: 786: 785: 777: 776: 775: 774: 768: 765: 764: 763: 762: 758: 753: 749: 746: 742: 739: 735: 731: 728: 724: 720: 719: 718: 717: 710: 706: 703: 699: 696: 692: 688: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680:Be consistent 674: 670: 667: 663: 660: 657: 654: 650: 649: 648: 647: 645: 641: 636: 635: 629: 626: 624: 621: 619: 616: 614: 611: 610: 608: 605: 604: 596: 593: 589: 586: 585: 584: 583:Core articles 581: 580: 579: 578: 572: 569: 566: 563: 561: 558: 555: 552: 549: 546: 544: 541: 538: 535: 533: 530: 527: 524: 522: 519: 517: 514: 513: 512: 507: 505: 500: 499: 495: 494: 490: 486: 480: 477: 476: 473: 456: 452: 448: 447: 442: 439: 435: 434: 430: 427: 424: 421: 417: 404: 398: 395: 394: 391: 374: 370: 369: 364: 363: 358: 355: 351: 350: 346: 343: 340: 337: 333: 320: 314: 311: 310: 307: 290: 286: 282: 278: 274: 273: 268: 267: 266: 257: 251: 246: 244: 241: 237: 236: 232: 229: 226: 223: 219: 214: 210: 204: 196: 192: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2039:— Preceding 2036: 1986: 1975: 1811: 1783: 1778: 1738: 1688: 1667: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1520: 1498:WP:CONSENSUS 1472: 1329: 1282: 1274: 1252:Topperfalkon 1229: 1224: 1205: 1140: 1138: 1118: 1091: 1067: 1066: 1035: 974: 957: 917: 895: 868: 821: 817: 810:False choice 796: 795: 794: 783: 781: 772: 771: 760: 759: 715: 714: 687:layout style 679: 678: 638: 637: 576: 575: 567: 556: 550: 539: 528: 510: 504:project page 501: 444: 378:Spirituality 368:spirituality 366: 360: 342:Spirituality 279:articles to 270: 263: 262: 209:WikiProjects 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 2125:Xenophrenic 2071:Xenophrenic 1989:Xenophrenic 1931:Xenophrenic 1877:Xenophrenic 1848:Xenophrenic 1771:probability 1707:Xenophrenic 1582:Xenophrenic 1564:ignosticism 1447:Xenophrenic 1434:—Preceding 1404:Xenophrenic 1339:Xenophrenic 1145:—Preceding 1102:—Preceding 1072:agnosticism 1046:my own idea 999:Agnosticism 979:agnosticism 975:redirecting 824:this merge 767:Agnosticism 148:free images 31:not a forum 2150:Categories 2004:This below 1517:Categories 1122:Richard001 1080:Saphseraph 1055:Richard001 743:Watch the 734:neologisms 673:to-do list 511:Quick help 1775:C.G. Jung 1237:Jordissim 1208:WickerGuy 1188:Jordissim 1016:Snalwibma 938:Jordissim 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 2053:contribs 2041:unsigned 1812:De facto 1785:De facto 1503:Lipsquid 1469:Lipsquid 1318:required 1147:unsigned 702:info box 571:Be civil 294:Religion 272:Religion 228:Religion 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 1806:atheism 1562:as for 1545:atheism 1436:undated 1115:Diagram 1104:undated 1003:Atheism 832:Atheism 822:against 750:Always 709:Atheism 653:userbox 644:be bold 618:history 460:Atheism 451:atheism 426:Atheism 199:C-class 154:WP refs 142:scholar 1789:theist 1679:noted. 1549:theism 1141:belief 1068:Reject 1026:Merzul 987:Merzul 983:brutal 965:Merzul 879:Ibrmrn 784:Expand 773:Create 651:Add a 606:To do 205:scale. 126:Google 1921:part. 1555:too). 1553:deism 1135:Title 812:into 628:purge 623:watch 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 2129:talk 2107:talk 2075:talk 2064:The 2049:talk 1993:talk 1949:talk 1935:talk 1895:talk 1881:talk 1866:talk 1852:talk 1828:talk 1711:talk 1630:talk 1614:talk 1586:talk 1566:and 1547:and 1531:talk 1507:talk 1487:talk 1479:talk 1451:talk 1408:talk 1343:talk 1326:here 1289:talk 1256:talk 1241:talk 1212:talk 1192:talk 1181:NOMA 1155:talk 1126:talk 1098:talk 1084:talk 1059:talk 942:talk 903:talk 883:talk 826:here 725:and 693:and 642:and 613:edit 283:and 281:good 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 1298:Hi 1179:'s 1100:) 820:or 818:for 479:??? 397:??? 313:??? 285:1.0 176:TWL 2152:: 2131:) 2109:) 2077:) 2055:) 2051:• 1995:) 1951:) 1937:) 1897:) 1883:) 1868:) 1854:) 1830:) 1713:) 1658:)? 1632:) 1616:) 1588:) 1533:) 1509:) 1489:) 1453:) 1410:) 1345:) 1291:) 1258:) 1243:) 1214:) 1194:) 1157:) 1128:) 1086:) 1078:– 1061:) 1024:-- 1014:. 963:-- 944:) 905:) 885:) 740:). 729:). 697:). 689:, 506:. 156:) 54:; 2127:( 2105:( 2073:( 2047:( 1991:( 1947:( 1933:( 1893:( 1879:( 1864:( 1850:( 1826:( 1779:" 1709:( 1628:( 1612:( 1584:( 1529:( 1505:( 1485:( 1477:( 1449:( 1406:( 1341:( 1287:( 1254:( 1239:( 1210:( 1190:( 1153:( 1124:( 1110:. 1096:( 1082:( 1057:( 1049:" 940:( 931:Φ 901:( 881:( 754:. 704:) 675:. 668:. 661:. 646:. 568:· 557:· 551:· 540:· 529:· 487:. 405:. 321:. 211:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index