Talk:There are no atheists in foxholes

Atheism

I like wit dry, like good champagne, served deadpan in a chilled glass. User:Wetman "No atheists" did NOT mean MANY atheists found their knowledge that religion is false "challenged." It did not say "few" nor did it say they were "challenged." It said "no atheists," period. I'm removing that Christian apologist junk. Fairandbalanced 00:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, being an atheist does rule religion out. That is one of the reasons why the WW II atheists marked "Buddhism" as their religion. Luis Dantas 00:49, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually that is not true. Atheism is not equivalent to irreligious. Atheism means lack in or denial in a deity. However, there are religions who do not believe in a deity. Buddhism and Jainism for example do NOT believe in any deities but do believe in various spiritual matters. It is thus incorrect to say that being atheist rules religion out.

Well, that's debateable too, because Buddhism and Jainism are not religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hate to burst your bubble, but atheist don't "deny" a god. We just believe in one less than you do. Maybe a better choice of words would have worked better. ie: Atheists don't believe in god(s).198.36.23.114 (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, many atheists do say that there is no god. Not only do they not believe in a god, they state that they know there isn't one.168.216.10.217 (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The classical definition in philosophy is that atheism is the belief that there is no god, which is semantically equivalent to don't believe in the existence of any god, etc. It's a positive assertion about the belief in the non-existence of any deity. With this comes the burden of proof. Everything else would be agnosticism. The "we believe in one less than you do" is just witty meaningless non-sense. 187.65.198.179 (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That is refutable using the following argument ad absurdum: "...atheism is the belief that there is no six-tonne invisible spaghetti monster dwelling under the rock at the bottom of the garden. With this comes the burden of proof. Everything else would be agnosticism." There is no burden of proof required, for possibility that such an entity exists at the bottom of my garden is so ridiculous as to require none. The same applies to deities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.145.125.243 (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Title

Since the express is "there are no atheists in foxholes" would it not make more sense to title the article that way64.12.116.201 19:15, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Common usage

I HAVE A BOOK HERE CALLED The World War II Desk Reference, written by Haskew and Brinkley with the help of the Eisenhower Center for American Studies and they claim, without question, that it was U.S. Army Chaplain William T. Cummings, on Bataan in March 1942. I'd go with the book if I were making the decisions here...

In Oliver Stone's "Any Given Sunday", the reverend tells the football team "There are no athiests in foxholes" after a loss. I don't think it's stated or implied that anybody on the team is at all religious (this is the only religious scene in the movie, IIRC). I think it's simply meant in a metaphorical sense: you lost today, but you showed up and played hard, which means you believe in this team.

I've never used this expression, but if I heard it, I wouldn't be at all offended. I'd take it to mean "Yeah, life is tough, but you're working hard on something because you believe in it."

(Use this however you wish -- as a pop culture reference, or note that there's an additional metaphorical usage, or ignore me.)

I'm not "ignoring" you, but I find it hard to see how your example can be used when I don't understand the usage you are describing -- I've not seen the movie myself, but I don't see how it works with the meaning you are describing unless there was some context I don't know about. Aris Katsaris 03:15, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I've never heard of the second use of this term, More recently it has been used as an accusation that atheists are unpatriotic or disloyal or do not join or support the military. Maybe I'm out of touch, but can someone verify this term is being used this way? As I said, I've only heard it used in the first way. Bad ideas 02:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah seriously, it just sounds like someone misunderstood the saying. --Yath 15:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it spawned from somebody misunderstanding the saying. Foxholes are bunkers dug in warzones occupied by troops. "In foxholes" could be replaced with "in combat" to acheive the same meaning. Captaincool53 00:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read those television quotations and it appears to be used as a 'cheap shot' against atheists, as the translation implies reticence or cowardice in combat. There is no questioning it's validity, since it is an absurd phrase. It is also disrespectful to the thousands of atheists who have sacrificed their lives valiantly in war. Having thought about it's meaning further, I have come to the conclusion that in early 20th century, the phrase was a kind of joke, meaning, "One must have faith to occupy a foxhole for any length of time...." The use of the phrase is coupled with nervous, light laughter at the thought of a foxhole, amidst shelling/bombardment and trenches lined with machine gunners.....The idea behind the phrase is, the situation *ironically* would force you to believe in a God... But today, it seems to be taken literally and out of this context, which is a shame and very insulting. (this was also posted in the athiesm discussion).-A101

Man, how much can one simple phrase be twisted? All it means is that if you are in a situation where your only protection from the enemies' insessant machine gun fire and shelling is a shallow trench, you might very well start believing in some sort of god in a hurry, no matter what you thought of it before. Case in point, an millitantly atheist Soviet Union brought back the chaplancy for the duration of WWII. And while we're on the topic of the USSR - there atheism was the official state religion, there was no logic or rationality involved. You either believed that there was no god, or you were in a heap of trouble. They even outlawed genetic research in the 50's because the Communist Party believed that genetics was a Western attempt to prove god's existense scientefically. If you want an interesting experiment, find someone who was born in USSR or (or anywhere in the Warsaw Pact/Yugoslavia area) and try to question them on atheism (they'd have to be atheist, of course) You might find that most are not very capable of providing logical reasons for their belief in the absense of a deity. It just is, and that's all there's to it. Omegarad 07:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If I may, I think you're confusing events a bit. It was not about proving or disproving God's existance, but about genetics and evolution by natural selection. Darwin's idea was considered "bourgeois", a product of capitalist thinking where competition was considered some kind of high goal of nature. But the communists "knew" that nature was built on good communist cooperation, so they banned the "false" idea and favored an alternative propounded by a good communist thinking in a communal fashion. Lysenko's biology repressed Soviet agriculture for decades. For example, plants were placed very closely to each other so that they could "cooperate" and grow very healthy, only they didn't, because plants smother each other when they grow too close. But they didn't need facts, they had ideology!

See Lysenkoism for more information. --Suttkus 08:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Godless unpatriotic atheist from ex-Yugoslavia here. Omegarad, you had some questions, I believe?

Your comment shows a slanted view of things - First off, the Soviet Union's mid-war revival of the chaplancy was a pragmatic act of harnessing as much support from as many sides as possible - and I'm talking manpower support. The church also acted as a channel for patriotism. I don't think the whole thing had anything to do with being in a tough spot and turning to supernatural agents for support. Second: atheism was not the official state religion of the USSR. I don't know where you got that idea... The USSR was secular, and religions were (a lot of the times violently) surpressed. But never was atheism the state religion. Read more here: Religion in the Soviet Union. If you, however have a link to the part of the Soviet constitution where atheism is proclaimed "the state religion", I'd be more than happy to see it. Third: I find it lovely how you replicate that wonderful fallacy of simply throwing every damn communist country into one basket - countries in "the Warsaw Pact/Yugoslavia area" differ greatly (among other aspects, in their attitude towards religions during communist times), and simply stuffing them all together and saying they're all the same is a ridiculous sweeping statement on par with, say, the statement "all Americans are stupid". We both know that's not true, even if you hear it often on the Internet.

And lastly, regarding the Warsaw pact/Yugoslavia area atheists' absence of logic re their atheism. Personally, I was simply not raised into religion. That's all. I never went to church, and I never felt any need to do so. I may have been taunted about this in school (I was the only kid in class who didn't go to Sunday school), but I never felt the need to go to church on simple peer preasure alone. I simpy don't believe in a higher being. Is this being illogical? Can you give me a logical reason why you differ from me in that you believe in a higher being? Wouldn't your answer to that question be: "It just is, and that's all there's to it." ? TomorrowTime (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You said, "All it means is that if you are in a situation where your only protection from the enemies' insessant machine gun fire and shelling is a shallow trench, you might very well start believing in some sort of god in a hurry, no matter what you thought of it before." In response to this, in such a situation, you might start to realize that your faith in some sort of god doesn't really make any sense. So, should we conclude, from this, that there are no theists in foxholes?

POV

I don't really feel like fighting about this by inserting pov tags or anything (had enough of that at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Big Bang) but this article is pretty seriously POV. Note: I *am* an atheist and I *do* think the statement is offensive; it's still pov though. Mikker ^(...) 00:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Which bits are POV? Mdwh 00:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok... here we go again :). This is just one random person's take on it, I don't want to claim what I'm saying is the gospel. I'd argue the article balance is skewed because, while it contains this: "Atheists or psychologists are likely to see it as a fallacious and pseudo-psychological pronouncement that lacks substantial backing and is predominantly intended to discredit atheists and atheism. Religious persons may note that the statement equates faith with fear, implying that someone can acquire true faith purely through fear of death" (which, I note, is unreferenced thereby failing WP:V) it doesn't contain anything on why religious ppl might think the statement is true. What the first 2/3rds of the article does, in effect, is say: here's what it means; here's why it's wrong. So, it seems to me anyway, that the article is unbalanced & pov. It seems to have been written entirely from an atheist perspective, and it asserts the truth of claims which ought to in the mouths of third parties. Mikker ^(...) 00:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not really POV, that's an issue of citation. I'll put a tag up, I'm busy right now otherwise I'd go find a reference. And really, as for being written from an atheist's perspective: not really. It doesn't mention the deep-rooted psychological issues some religious believers have that everyone knows their beliefs are true deep down inside but reject them, but can we find a source which actually cites this? It is kind of hard as people don't really defend the statement as far as I've seen, though I'm sure we could dig up a quote by Pat Robertson or someone to illustrate the beliefs of the people who make the silly claim in the first place. Titanium Dragon 02:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You said, "It seems to have been written entirely from an atheist perspective..." Well, in this case, that just happens to be the correct perspective.

Why is Ernie Pyle not given credit for the phrase, etc?

Hi, journalist Ernie Pyle is often credited with coining this phrase, so is there some source for the claim that it was actually William Clear? I have no idea myself which one said it, but if there is some dispute, then we need a good reference, or possibly we should make it clear that the matter is not settled. At very least, Ernie Pyle deserves a mention. Anyone have anything concrete? Leeborkman 01:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Misinterpretation

The person who wrote this article has misunderstood the true meaning of the phrase. The meaning of it is not that atheists are cowardly, that deep down they are in denial or that there were no atheists in the armed forces, but rather it is a comment on the unsafe nature of foxholes. The message of the phrase is that foxholes are such a dangerous place to be, that noone would be in one unless they believed a higher power was protecting them from a very likely death.

Do you have a source for that interpretation? JoshuaZ 01:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Foxholes are immensely safe... compared to standing outside a foxhole in the middle of combat. This interpretation would suggest that the atheists are standing outside while the religious people are digging foxholes. The atheists I know are smarter than this. I actually find this interpretation backwards, wouldn't the religious person be more likely to stand around assured God would protect him while the atheist dug for his life? Mind you, despite being religious, I'd dig like crazy. I'm just saying... --Suttkus 17:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well for starters Suttkus, whether or not standing on open ground is dangerous, it still is nigh-on suicidal to sit in a fox-hole, waiting to be shelled. It would be rather brash to say that the statement doesnt mean fox-holes are dangerous because standing in front of the enemy is more dangerous. As for a source on the above interpretation, JoshuaZ, the only source anyone could have on the correct interpretation for the statement would be to ask the man who made the statement, which I doubt anyone here has done. The best "sources" we've seen from most of the people here have been articles on atheist websites (like they're not at all biased). So asking for a source is pretty pointless. 220.253.84.126 13:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If foxholes are so dangerous, why do the world's armed forces encourage you to know how (and when) to dig them? Foxholes are a defensive structure. That's their purpose. If they were more dangerous than the surroundings, nobody would be digging the things.

Besides, aren't they primarily used against machine guns rather than shells? --Suttkus 05:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, I'm pretty certain that the phrase just means that people become irrational when put under stressful situations. That's all. I think that very few people who have used the phrase sincerely think that there cannot be, or never has been, an atheist in a foxhole.--69.242.35.210 19:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought it meant foxholes were dangerous as opposed to, say, sitting at home not taking part in the war. The term could have been "there are no atheists on the battle field" but since all the people on that battle field happened to be in foxholes it used that instead. Stuart68.161.54.229 (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a statement. Its like saying "There are no white rabbits in Africa" and then having all you guys argue about whether there are indeed some brown rabbits in Africa, whether its better to be a white or brown rabbit, whether africa is a good or bad place for rabbits, whether brown or white rabbits are braver, or even "I am a white rabbit and dont like this statement for some reason". Leave it as a statement, give the context the statement has been used in and maybe state how some atheist groups have used this statement to emphasise that there are atheist soldiers. DOnt make it PoV by arguing the myriad of interpretations

Krym66 (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Misinterpretation? No, just lots of different interpretations

This is a great phrase, because it can mean so many different things. Some atheists consider the phrase an insult to atheists, presumably because they think it means something like: "Any person who claims not to believe in God is kidding themselves because they will always change their minds when put under enough pressure", or a nastier version "any man facing death who claims to be an atheist is lying". But this phrase can be taken in many other ways. I personally (as an atheist) take the phrase to mean "humans, being human, may clutch at any feeble hope when the situation is desperate", which does not offend me at all, as it's a general comment on human desperation, not really about atheisim or atheists at all. A much wilder interpretation I have seen around here is "Atheists are cowardly scum (so don't expect to find any of them on the front-lines)", which would be incredibly offensive (if anyone ever actually intended the phrase this way). This is why I have repeatedly asked that interpretations should be backed by reputable sources, ie for any interpretation we need to show that there are intelligent, respected people who actually interpret the phrase that way. It is pointless (and incorrect) to dogmatically state any particular interpretation as the correct meaning, although this is what has happened again and again here and on the related articles. Thanks. Leeborkman 02:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and believe the interpretation in the article should either be removed or others should be added. I'm an atheist, and similar to you I've always considered, if anything, theists would find the saying offensive. To me, the phrase implies that religion is just a way to deal with fear of death, not that it has any truth behind it. If you beleive you're going to die, what do you have to lose by starting to "believe" in there being a god that'll grant you an eternity of happiness for believing in him? Its not like atheists believe that people that die incorrectly believing there's a god will be punished.Funkadillo 13:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OK,one interpretation is that atheists are cowards and another is that they all convert in time of danger. Both are essentially equivalent and both are absurd. There is substantial evidence of atheists in foxholes and I have not seen any evidence of spontaneous conversions to Goddism. When I am in danger, I think of survival and perhaps my wife if there is time. Musing about philosophy and religion is a good way to die sooner, and atheists are generally rather practical and prefer to stay alive so long as they are mentally alert. Fairandbalanced 01:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Now there is a whole NPOV paragraph .... Krym66 (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources?

Many people have claimed that people's interpretations should be backed by reliable references, or otherwise the interpretation is invalid. However, the only truly reliable source would be the lieutenant-colonel who made the statement, and unless someone is actually going to find him and ask, I think it would be foolish to consider one interpretation to be better than the other on grounds of evidence, especially seeing as many people's "references" are just atheist websites, which could hardly be regarded as unbiased given the feelings of atheists on the statement. The fact of the matter is that the meaning of the statement is open to interpretation by the reader, and while many atheists are happy to look for a chance shout black and blue about discrimination etc., I believe that people should leave thier own opinions and hangups about religion out of the article. 220.253.84.126 13:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

heres one 'the fool says there is no god'... ! Portillo 11:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And that's from a foolish source.

Unfocused

What is this article suppose to be about? The phrase "...atheists in foxholes", or something else, in which case it should have a different title? The article is unfocused from an encyclopedic standpoint. A good way to start would be to follow normal Wikipedia proceedure and start the article with its title: Atheists in foxholes is/means/etc. 70.20.238.20 01:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You didn't get it. As the fellow below shows, this article is to showcase the exacerbated capacity some people has to get offended, and whine about a silly catch-phrase as if it was meant to be a real claim.

Let me tell you all something about war. You always hear Christians talking about atheists dumping their beliefs and suddenly believing in god or some junk like that. It's a myth. During and after many wars, soldiers adopted a cynical attitude towards god, religion, reality and that kind of stuff. A lot of them adopted a more agnostic outlook on life. In the words of my veteran grandfather, "God? Where was that f*ucker?" Or "God? Has anyone around here seen him recently?"

You didn't answer his question. This isn't a debate forum, it's an encyclopedia. We need to refocus this article on the phrase "atheists in foxholes" and its uses, not a refutation, that can go on your blog. Thank you above user, I think you're dead on, I'll see what I can do. --Smilingman 21:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Is "barbituary" a word?

I can find no definition of the word “barbituary” in the sentence “The phrase could also hint at a Marxist idea that theism is a barbituary for pain and struggle…”. Is this a real word, or was “barbiturate” the intended word? — Chris Page 15:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"offensive"

I am not sure why "use of the phrase" should be considered offensive by atheists. If anything, it could be considered offensive by soldiers, and by theists, since it really says that belief in God is born of fear, which is precisely how atheists explain the obviously widespread phenomenon of theism. Soldiers might consider the phrase offensive because it suggests everyone is scared witless in combat. That there are, of course, rare cases of "atheists of foxholes", doesn't disprove the point of the phrase, it just shows that heroic stoicism will in some cases beat primate fear. dab (𒁳) 12:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, on an individual level, it could be seen as patronizing and suggesting that atheists are unserious or unreflected or inauthentic about their personal credo. That being said, I completely agree with your removal, of course. If there are atheists affronted by this phrase, the outcry should be referenced and notable. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course it is offensive. It is implying that the atheist is a liar, and is in fact religious. If you don't believe in gods and ghostly spirits and stuff then why would you ever consider praying to a god when you are in mortal danger? That is simply just not happening. I cringe every time i see that in survival/war movies, when the atheist (which is aways portraited as different from the other soldiers which are reigious) starts praying. It is so obvious that the producer or writer are christians and wanted to show this to everyone... Why oh why would an atheist ever consider praying?? Its just as stupid as in thrilers when they are supposed to be nervous and the non-smoker says "Give me a cigarrette" and starts smoking it, and the other guy (smoker) says "I thought you didnt smoke?"... "No, i dont". And we are supposed to think "OMG!! This is a really tense moment, even the non-smoker starts smoking.". Arrghghgh! WHY would a non-smoker consider having a nicotine product to help "calming the nerves"??? He simply would not!!! He wouldnt even know if/what kind of effect that would have on him, having no previous experience from smoking. It's like "ha ha we smokers know that you want to smoke, too!!!". The "no atheists in foxholes" is the same thing. If you have never ever prayed, and you don't believe in a "god", then WHY would you start praying??? That would be bad for your concentration, and in that situation you need to focus on surviving. Praying would be plain stupid. By showing that scene in a movie they are saying that "the atheist" is stupid. Yes, it IS offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.108.52.23 (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone could make a similar argument about being offended by Martin Luthers "I have a dream". They could argue that Dr Luther was patronizing them by claiming that it could only be in a dream that an equal society could occur. Just because this might be someones view doesnt mean the article on "I have a dream" should focus on why they disagree with his statement. This statement was made and is generally accepted to have been made by a religious person - the article should therefor focus on what that person intended. The opposing view can be presented but it should not be the focus of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krym66 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This might be comparable if Dr King's speech consisted of "White people are disingenuous pricks". At the time, the vision he laid out in the speech WAS a dream. He never claimed it couldn't happen. The statement we're discussing here unambiguously declares that atheists are god-fearing hypocrites/cowards (depending on which meaning you subscribe to). --King Öomie 13:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As it can be seen the problem that makes atheist cry like babies to their mom is that they compare being called theist to being called prick, so the problem is just prejudice, intolerance, lack of self-control and hatred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.65.198.179 (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

picture

Let's put a picture that represents an opposing sentiment towards the article subject. What's next, a Red Sox logo for the Yankees page? Great job Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.186.128 (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I will try and adopt this article and get a more appropriate image

Krym66 (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Plays on the Phrase

There are no Democrats at the World Trade Center. --mitrebox (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to revisit this issue but...

I don't think this article makes it clear what the definitions/interpretations are of this phrase beyond the only one listed (which I notice has no citations to validate it) and spent more time talking about a group that has taken it to be their catch phrase/mission statement (and a section which I deleted as they have their own seperate article and don't need more space here as it added nothing to what the phrase means).

I don't necessarily disagree with the interpretation given but having grown up in a household where WW2 movies were a staple (Guadalcanal Diary, Bridge On The River Kwai, etc.), I was under the impression that men who fear judgement (i.e. going to hell for their sins) are going to do their best to keep from being killed (like bunkering down in a foxhole). A person who doesn't believe in the afterlife, having a soul, and/or a god would be less inclined to fear death and it's consequences (in this context) and thus, not in the foxhole with the religious grunts as they have nothing/less to lose by their own "belief system". That was my impression of what the phrase meant anyway. It's hyperbole (probably offensive to some) and maybe that's addressed in a legitimate, sourceable article but I honestly don't know where to go to get a reference. This is the way it was explained to me and what I have heard from others (and yes, anecdotal evidence, yadda yadda yadda). 144.92.85.41 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're somehow implying that atheists wouldn't mind dying... --King ♣ Talk 18:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Implied false dichotomy

I find the false dichotomy between Christianity and atheism implied in the final sentences of the first paragraph to be inappropriate. I have tagged it as original research. With any luck, sources will help to clear up how to address this problem. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

People will interpret this phrase whichever way they want. It is a statement not an argument. Most of the discussion going on here is about what might be inferred by the statement not the statement itself. The article itself should remain focused on the history and perhaps examples of the use of the phrase not the individual inferences we place on it. Leave the subjective decision of why there are 'no' atheists in foxholes to the reader.

The original quote is clearly made in the context of supporting religion and some sections of the article appear to have a strong atheistic PoV. These sections appear to be out of context and would be better presented in a separate article and merely referenced here. If they must be placed here it should be clearly presented as an opposing view.
Krym66 (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Your signature doesn't need to be on its own line (and it certainly doesn't need three). In fact, it's kind of distracting to do so. --King ♣ Talk 18:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, as the lengthy debate above proves, it is by no means "clear" that the quote is made in the context of supporting religion. All sorts of interpretations can be - and have been - made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Usage

I have just removed the sentence "The statement is mostly quoted in sermons, religious services for serving personnel, or in general military memorial services.ref" from the Usage section. The reference (an op-ed in the CS Monitor by a Rabbi and chaplain) does not address the usage of the phrase, but simply uses it, stating ' "There are no atheists in foxholes," goes the saying, but foxholes can breed atheists, when those who see war's nightmares lose all faith in dreams ...'. (This reference is well used in a subsequent paragraph of this section.) I removed the sentence (instead of {{fact}}-tagging it) because it does not read true. As the phrase has a strong potential to insult (it can been interpreted as belittling the convictions of both believers and non-believers), it is unlikely to be invoked in a sermon (and certainly not in any military memorial service) unless used, as in the CS Monitor's piece, as an opening to discuss the tenuousness of faith in the face of combat.

Aphorism

This page cites "there are no atheists in foxholes" as being an aphorism in the following sentence, but it seems that snowclone is more appropriate here:

While primarily used to comment on the specific experiences faced by combat soldiers, the aphorism is often adapted to other perilous situations such as "there are no atheists on a sinking ship" or "there are no libertarians in a financial crisis"

Wakablogger2 (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Cut cummings reference

I cut this because the link disproves it.

In the book Ghost Soldiers, author Hampton Sides credits the origin of the phrase to "Father Michael Cummings,a Catholic missionary who volunteered to serve the US Army in the Philippines following the Japanese attack. He later died aboard one of the Hellships on the way to Japan." In the form "There are no atheists in the trenches", the idea dates back at least as far as World War I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.101.164 (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

References

Notable counterexamples

I think the notable examples are a bit off the topic. The sentence doesn't arque that no atheist has ever been to war, but rather argues that even atheists rely on some sort of higher power in those extreme situations. Currently it is just a list of atheists that have been to war. I'm removing it unless someone has some sources about persons who firmly held their beliefs throughout the war. (Cruiserweight (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC))

The article states: Ernest Hemingway served in the First World War and the Spanish Civil War and was an open atheist." and then proceedes to provide no source, let alone any reliable source, to back up its claim.

Thus, I removed it and being unsupported by evidence.

As the article title is "There are no atheists in foxholes" and the people listed are all atheists who were indeed in foxholes, the section should be "Notable counterexamples." Changing it in the article and in this talk section. --TrivialJim (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Edited for flow and readability, which caused me to read all cites. Replaced indirect cites like http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Ted_Williams and http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/04/26/using-the-military-to-promote-religion-christian-supremacism.htm with direct cites that were on point. Removed the explanation of Ted Williams potential reasons for not declaring himself publicly to be an atheist; it's not relevant to the counterexample. --TrivialJim (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Does this section really have a place here? I know the whole "Theism vs. atheism" has been rather active lately and that atheists are rather "touchy" to the whole "You can be a good person without religion" thing (which this section is an extension) but the entire section is basically saying "this isn't true" and I don't see why it should be present here especially since the proverb is meant to say more about human nature then atheists. Unless we will adding this section to every proverb page on Wikipedia I see no objective reason to keep it.--93.142.179.182 (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought the whole point of the phrase was a sarcastic jab at the fact that when one is IN a fox hole, or some extreme situation, you would fall back on a god. I don't think people who survived wars are a counter example at all. Keytud (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This whole counterexamples section is a little ridiculous. In a regular encyclopedia, you look up a phrase to find out its meaning, not the opposite of what it means. It's confusing, unnecessary, and comes off as very defensive, instead of objective like an article should be. Lizzysama (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It is notable how the wikipedia editors feel compelled to give "counterexamples" to a common proverb just because it is at odds with their atheistic worldview. Lest someone, even for a second, permit such pro-God thought in their mind. Counterexamples work in mathematics, but this is not mathematics. Giving "counterexample" does not prove anything because a proverb is not a rigorous statement and can not be formally proven or disproved. It is just an observation of what commonly (but not necessarily always) happens in life. By trying to use a "counterexample" you want to present your argument as being kind of scientific, but it is just pathetic. Using scientifically-sounding words does not automatically make your argument more credible. Looks like you guys (the said editors) are trying hard to convince yourselves the proverb is false because you don't like it. 213.240.234.31 (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The proverb is commonly cited as a truism, i.e. "a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder or as a rhetorical or literary device." Counterexamples demonstrate that this is not the case. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The only thing the counterexamples demonstrate is that the proverb's statement is not universally true. But there is no proverb whose claim is universally true. They are just informal folklore-ish statements about patterns in life, that happen often enough to be noted. Giving counter-examples to proverbs is silly. Of course there are counterexamples, no one is claiming otherwise. The point of the proverb is that what it says happens often enough to be notable. Now the proverb's wording is inaccurate in this sense ("there are no.."), but this is common with the proverbs - again they are not rigorous math statements. 213.240.234.31 (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No mention of Bhagat Singh

Should Bhagat Singh Be in this list? Circumstatnce surrounding his death and his avowed beliefs would make a intresting example or counter example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.203.155.113 (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Notability Guidelines

I am removing the tag about notability guidelines. While the article could use a little cleanup the citations are acceptable. WP:N#N#General_notability_guideline Frederick Green (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Scientific Data

Brian Wansink and Craig S. Wansink of Cornell University surveyed published literature and concluded with the following observations: "Using two large-scale surveys of World War II veterans, this research investigates the impact of combat on religiosity. [One study] shows that as combat became more frightening, the percentage of soldiers who reported praying rose from 42 to 72 %. [Another study] shows that 50 years later, many soldiers still exhibited religious behavior, but it varied by their war experience. Soldiers who faced heavy combat (vs. no combat) attended church 21 % more often if they claimed their war experience was negative, but those who claimed their experience was positive attended 26 % less often. The more a combat veteran disliked the war, the more religious they were 50 years later." <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237199731_Are_There_Atheists_in_Foxholes_Combat_Intensity_and_Religious_Behavior> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.144.75 (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Joe Simpson story removed

Not once is the word "foxhole" even used in the Joe Simpson story that was added, let alone any informtion to inform the reader further about the phrase. It's random and even comical that it was added.

The point of the article is not to unfold random people's epiphanies for or against their faith in a God. It's about the aphorism. Stay in the lane. Kats2501 (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Usage reference from 1937

"Our men know there are no atheists in foxholes. They know they have only two final friends—their gun and their GOD. Proceedings. United States: Agricultural Department, Des Moines Chamber of Commerce, 1937, p 69 (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Proceedings/daM1AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22there+are+no+atheists+in+foxholes%22&dq=%22there+are+no+atheists+in+foxholes%22&printsec=frontcover, retrieved 01/23/2024) 144.198.114.10 (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)