Talk:Atheism/Archive 43

This is an archive of past discussions about Atheism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

"In some cases, more than one citation may be necessary to support a sentence or paragraph. This can be because there is no one source that supports all the text, or the claim is particularly controversial, because links can go dead (as described above), because the superior source is not available online. Excessive referencing should nevertheless be avoided, as this can impede readability, complicate editing, and slow down article load time. If an article contains too many citations, feel free to remove some of these, but take care that no essential information is lost." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citatations#Over-referencing). Chuck Hamilton (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This strikes me as about the last thing this page needs right now, but if you have something specific in mind, then please say so specifically. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I came across this while reverting possible vandalism at an associated page Apatheism. An obvious change due only to POV was made there; but while checking it out, I discovered that the reference cited on that page in the section called practical atheism was broken. That entire passage was added sopme time ago by someone claiming to have simply copied it from here. But this person appears to have a negative POV conflict with the article, so coming here I discovered that the section was rewritten instead of merely copied and that the note and reference here (Zbydicka) was broken as well. Since the citation no longer exists and appears to have been entirely written in Polish to begin with, there might be a possibility that the section on practical atheism on both pages has a negative POV conflict. As far as I know, the term "practical atheism" has a historically negative connotation and is used almost exclusively by theists as a pejorative term for atheism in general. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject can review both? Thanks. Age Happens (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the phrase "practical atheism" need not necessarily be pejorative, although of course there have been many people who use the word "atheism" in any of its forms as a pejorative. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the fact that theism can be used to mean any of a number of related beliefs, I thought it an improvement to unpack the meaning of the phrase "rejection of theism," for the sake of clarity. I support this because theism can be used in a way synonymous with monotheism (as opposed to polytheism), or personal monotheism (as opposed to deism or pantheism). It can also, of course, be used to mean "belief in at least one deity," which is how it's being used in the current lede. But given the potential ambiguity in the term, I believe it wise to clarify. This can be accomplished a couple of ways: "theism" can simply be replaced with the phrase "belief in any deities," or else a footnote can be appended to make clear what is meant by the term theism. The former option has the advantage of directness, but the latter would be fine. Thoughts? Nick Graves (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, we had an edit conflict, so I wrote what's below before knowing that you had written this. Thanks for your thoughtful explanation. I take your point about the monotheism ambiguities. The footnote suggestion seems to me to be a good one. Beyond that, I'm kind of at a loss. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nick Graves recently made some edits to the lead sentence. With trembling in my heart as to what may follow, I have temporarily reverted them, pending (God help us - joke intended!) discussion here. Here is my take on the issues that I think Nick raised:

• Replacing "theism" with "belief in any deities." I agree that "theism" is problematic. However, the construction suggested raises again the old problem that "rejecting belief in any deities" sounds, to the general reader, an awful lot like the same thing as the belief that "deities do not exist." It would be better to use words that convey the actual meaning, which is that systems of belief are being rejected in this particular case (as being immoral, illogical, and so on and so on). So far, editors have not been able to agree on an alternative to "theism" (and this is, after all, a-theism), and I think we need to evaluate any alternative thoughtfully before putting it on the page.
• Changing "that rejects" to "the rejection of" in the second part of the sentence. I agree with that change in grammatical structure, because it corrects the dubious syntax (which was my fault!) that used "that" consecutively in two different ways.
• Changing "philosophical position" to "belief." This opens up two issues. The first is the point that it need not be "philosophical," which raises again the one-versus-two sentence issue. The intention of the current version is that the first sentence of the lead is about the "strong" or whatever form, and that the non-philosophical forms are introduced in the second sentence. That said, I personally don't care if we delete the word "philosophical." The other issue is whether atheism should be called "belief." Most editors have been OK with that, although some have very vehemently objected. Personally, I don't think it's worth fighting a holy war over (joke, again, intended), and see nothing wrong with just saying "position" or "view."

Taking this together, perhaps a reasonable compromise would be: "Atheism is the position that deities do not exist, or the rejection of theism." That's with the caveat that there should probably be a better term than "theism." --Tryptofish (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

We must find a better expression than "theism". rejection of belief in all deities is AN improvement. It is too early to give a bunch of reasons for the rejection - but we could say:

• Atheism is the position that either denies,[1] or that rejects belief in,[2] the existence of all deities.
• Atheism is the position that either asserts that deities do not exist,[1] or that rejects all belief in their existence.[2]
• Atheism is the position that either denies the existence of all deities,[1] or that rejects all belief in their existence, regardless of whether or not the further claim is made that they do not exist.[2]

The difference between the two positions is emphasized by the use of more than one that, by the use of either...or, by italicizing belief, and by splitting the refs. Any further distinction can be done in the body of the text.--JimWae (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What concerns me here is that each of these three versions is getting wordy with little payoff, and that we are falling back into the "version-du-jour" syndrome. Please let me suggest that, since all three of us agree that the central issue is finding an acceptable alternative to "theism," you focus on that: finding a different word or words for "theism," without trying to reconstruct the whole sentence. Please note my comment above about making it easy for the general reader to understand that it is not the same as belief-in-nonexistence. And please consider carefully the suggestion from Nick above, that we clarify things in a footnote, at least as a step for the time being. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)And, let's take it slowly and thoughtfully. If this wasn't urgent yesterday, it isn't urgent today. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My preference is for the wordiest one of the 3. I doubt there is a single word we could find to replace "theism". So far, the most defensible position is getting the least attention in the article. I do not agree that the payoff is not worth the extra words. Right now, the opening sentence is NOT accessible to readers - most (including editors here) do not see 2 positions there --JimWae (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't take this personally, but I find that third version completely unreadable. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

??? !!! ??? --JimWae (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, really, and sincerely -- and truly not meant as anything personal. But I do very much like the edit to the footnote that Nick just made. (I corrected a minor typo.) For me, that would be enough for the time being, although we could, perhaps, delete "philosophical" and correct the "that" syntax as Nick suggested above. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The footnote does not work for me - when I see it I cannot see the syntax of the original sentence. An important definitional distinction should not be relegated to a footnote. If we cannot distinguish 2 meanings clearly in one sentence for readers, then we need MORE sentences for the def. --JimWae (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe we just disagree about that. Let's see what other discussion follows; as I said, if this wasn't urgent yesterday, it isn't urgent today. But please remember that we are not defining the word, but introducing the themes of the page (encyclopedia versus dictionary). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am resisting the temptation to respond to some of Tfish's and Jim's comments above, because, right now, I'm just concerning myself with that one term theism in the "rejection" definition. It seems nobody objects to a clarifying footnote, so I went ahead and put that in. I still do prefer just replacing "theism" with "belief in any deities", because it is more direct. It seems better to me to just say clearly what is meant right in the body, rather than putting the onus on the reader to check the footnote. It looks like Jim agrees with my preferred solution, while Tfish is concerned that "rejection of belief in any deities" could come across as the same as "belief that there are no deities" to the general reader. I just don't see that as a real problem. To me, at least, the two positions are clearly different, and find it hard to see how anyone could confuse the two. Is it possible that Joe Schmoe cannot conceptually distinguish rejecting a belief from asserting its contrary? Well, I guess, but then it is impossible for any encyclopedia to anticipate and prevent any and every potential lapse in logic and reading comprehension of its many users. The two definitions are different, and the suggested rephrasing conveys perfectly well that difference for those who read what is actually written, rather than tripping themselves up with the logical fallacy that rejection of a proposition is the same as asserting its contrary. The encyclopedia cannot be idiot-proof, but it can at least be unambiguous. Nick Graves (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You know what, I don't care that much. For the record (for whatever that's worth (smile)), I think the change you suggest will lose some of the meaning that I remember from earlier talk, and you may be exposing yourself to an edit fight. But not a fight from me. If I understand correctly, what we are considering is to drop the footnote you added, and change the first sentence to: "Atheism is the position that deities do not exist, or the rejection of belief in any deities." That's with the same references as now, with "belief in any deities" linked (ironically) to theism, and the other words linked as they are now. Right? If so, please feel free to go ahead and do it. And I hope it stands, without igniting a whole new round of opposing edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Or not! (smile) I just saw Jim's edit to the footnote. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I did that as a temproary measure. I think it is, however, the most complete so far explication of this definitition. See what a full sentence devoted to one def can do! I would like to see it combined with the next ref (remember complaints about too many refs?) AND have still changes made to the first sentence in the lede--JimWae (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You and I may have been editing simultaneously, so please check where things stand now. I'm very happy with what we have now, although I would also support what I said in response to Nick, but not putting all of what's now in the footnote into the lead sentence. And I have no objection to merging footnotes 2 and 3, because I agree with you about keeping the number of refs down, but just make sure first that it doesn't affect any cites lower down on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done the merge of 2 and 3. In my opinion, what we have now is fine and does not need more editing for the time being. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the deal with the "between six and 85% of the EU" or whatever? LOL! That's a pretty pointless number to try to show. Something is obviously wrong. 69.217.173.248 (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I found that confusing too. Hope my edit clarifies it for you. Nick Graves (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me now. Thanks.69.217.173.248 (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as the Eurobarometer statistics show, Sweden does not have the lowest rates of belief: that would be Estonia or the Czech Republic. Eurobarometer does not appear to have collected data since 2005, the full report is here. Based on observation of their sampling I wouldn't expect an update before 2015 or so. Lycurgus (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not surprising to see differences in figures between different surveys. Things such as sampling error/bias and survey wording can have significant effects on results. Note that the survey currently cited in the article gives the percentage of people who identify as atheist/agnostic/non-believer in God. It is quite conceivable that those who do not assert belief in God may nevertheless choose not to identify as atheist/agnostic/non-believer. Nick Graves (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know Eurobarometer asks for people actively believing in God, which is something else entirely from being an active Atheist/Agnostic (people who have not considered the issue in detail would score neutral/negative on both accounts, and are likely a huge group in some cultures). Indeed an issue of framing the question. Arnoutf (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Literate Chinese society has been essentially atheistic since Han times as is overwhelmingly (despite various persisting non-theistic superstitions) modern Chinese society. I could cite this ad nausem using both original Chinese sources from Confucian times forward and modern sources (with somewhat greater difficulty due to the CCP's sensitivity to charges that it is suppressing various religious groups and attempts by western religious apologists to conflate the latent superstitions of the uneducated with the sort of theism which is prevalent for example in the United States). Typical is the following passage from Kuo Hsiang in the commentary on the Chuang-Tzu:

"Some people say that the penumbra is produced by the shadow, the shadow by the bodily form and the bodily form by the Creator. I would rather like to ask where the Creator is or not. If He is not, how can He create things? But if He is, He is simply one of these things, and how can one thing produce another? ... Therefore there is no creator, and everything produces itself. Everything produces itself and is not produced by others. This is the normal way of the Universe.

Translation, Fung Yu Lan, A Short History of Chinese Philosophy, p 221

and this from Daoism which is one of the more mystically oriented Chinese schools albeit one contemporary with neo-confucianism and buddhism in china which had essentially similiar views. Note that the passage is similar to a statement by Sarte that "God if he exists, must be contingent" (in Being and Nothingness). Numerous other sources could be provided to substantiate the philosophical nature of religion in China, at least for the literate classes and the rejection of belief in demons, deities, and the like by these classes since early Imperial times. Similarly, I believe careful searching will show that the rate of positive response to questions like Eurobarometers ""I believe there is a God" are in fact (by virtue of comparable survey results) or by implication (as for example in Religion in China) as low as the lowest rates in European countries. Lycurgus (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Good points. In the words of financial analyst Oscar Rogers, I invite you to Fix it! Nick Graves (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Atheism . Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Biased adults. Jok2000 (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to see that stuff added here, and in fact wonder if you were kidding. No definition of a word needs to appeal philosophically with questions like "would you call yourself a ..." Jok2000 (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not helpful Chuck. The last time I checked, I'm an adult. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Only covers weak/strong distinction and not implicit/explicit; a lot of it lacks references; "True Atheism" seems to be a neologism; original research (e.g., claims of biased dictionary writers - Wikipedia should reference sources' opinions, not giving our own research or opinion). I'm not sure what your point was? Mdwh (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the user only read the awkward, choppy, bowdlerized lead of this article and compared that abomination to the other article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This is going nowhere fast. I suggest dropping it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As an atheist, I like freethoughtpedia, but the article is not at all right for wikipedia. But assume good faith everyone.86.133.163.20 (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree, but I think a comparison shows that the WP article suffers from a bias towards "positive atheism". The article(especially the intro) does not really reflect the reality that atheism is a reaction to theism - that it would be nonsensical without theism. That is, there is no a-unicornism (the rejection of unicornism) because there is no unicornism (the belief that unicorns exist); there are no unicornists, so there are no a-unicornists. Atheism is ultimately a response to theism, which ultimately rests on the premise that a, or at least one, supernatural power exists. So atheism is the rejection of the theistic premise ("God exists") on the grounds that it lacks basis. I don't see the article clearly pointing this out. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi B2c, long time no see! I think that's a good point. But in respect to editing the intro (I bet you can guess where I'm about to go!), please let me suggest staying clear of the opening paragraph. I'm thinking that adding a sentence making the point you raise could be logically added at the end of the third paragraph of the lead. Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that long... I think the first step would be to find a reliable source that essentially makes the same point. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any bias? - We list all three definitions, and the negative "rejection of theism" definition is presented identically to the way we present the positive definition. Freethoughtpedia OTOH only lists one definition (the implicit weak definition). Endless pages of discussion have suggested an overwhelming consensus that we should cover all referenced definitions rather than preferring one over the others. I would be fine with adding what you say about being a "response", preferably with a reference (although I would be wary of saying "on the grounds that it lacks basis" - there are many reasons for atheism, and we already cover these in the article). Mdwh (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, referenced or not, the three definitions are ambiguous and misleading. This is why Dawkins uses a continuous theism scale that ranges from 1.00 (Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, "I do not believe, I know.") to 7.00 (Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one."), where the broad definition of atheism ranges from 4.01 to 7.00. On that scale only 7.00 is "strong atheism"; 4.01 to 6.99 are all within the range of "weak atheism" where almost all atheists lie. Indeed Dawkins rates himself a 6 (Very low probability that God exists, but short of zero. De facto atheist. "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."). In sharp contrast, most theists are "no doubt" theists, and would rate themselves a 1.00. This clarifying concept is not reflected at all in this article, and I think that reveals a strong bias in favor of the theist twist on atheism. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that the article needs to necessarily use the Dawkins theism scale. It's just that it needs to convey the fact true strong atheism ("I know there is no god") is a very rare form of atheism (hardly notable, really, except as a concept), especially when compared to "strong theism" ("I know God exists."). That is, among theists, "strong theists" dominate. Among atheists, strong atheists are rare (especially among those who reflect upon their view after being introduced to Dawkins' scale and point).

Further, there is an important distinction between absolute theoretical strong atheism ("I know there is no god"), and relative strong atheism, the denial of a claim that a particular god exists. Also, the primary distinction between theists and atheists is not those who believe in god and those who don't. After all, most theists are monotheists. Atheists and monotheists share a disbelief in all gods alleged to exist, but one; a given monotheist shares the atheist's disbelief in all gods but one. The distinction is that atheists don't believe that one particular god exists either.

Again, in the absence of some kind of theism (any claim that any god exists), even strong and positive forms of atheism would be meaningless. This essential point is not conveyed in the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with strong atheists being "rare", although we are certainly more rare than the people who strongly deny perpetual motion machines of the first kind, for example. Also from personal experience, quite a few monotheists do believe in the existence of other previously described gods, but either consider them "demonic beings", "works of Satan", "false prophets" and such, or identify them with their own god, claiming that their chosen revelation is more true than the others'. But yes, without a claim for the existence of a (supernatural or not) concept there is no way to prove it wrong, and even no way to point out that the concept is meaningless. This is a major point, despite the childishness of freethoughtpedia's article, and it deserves a good paragraph in this article. --Cubbi (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)With all that talk, are there any suggestions for actual content for the page? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

We still have the problem of the different meanings of "or", and whether to understand the 2 phrases it connects as contrasting alternatives or as synonymous (something numerous editors/readers still seem to have had trouble discerning). Along with that we have the non-parallel structure of the "that". I'd prefer a longer treatment, such as:

Atheism can be the position either that asserts deities do not exist,[1] or that rejects the belief that any deities exist.[2]

But among the smallest changes would be turning:

Atheism is the position that deities do not exist,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2]

into

Atheism is the position either that deities do not exist,[1] or that rejects theism.[2]

"Either" emphasizes the disjunction - that the reader is not intended to see as synonymous:

Atheism is the position that deities do not exist.[1]

and

Atheism is the position that rejects theism.[2]

--JimWae (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the stability of the lead, after all the fuss that led to it, I am surprised by: "something numerous editors/readers still seem to have had trouble discerning." Do you have any evidence to back that up? (Also, "the position either" is clumsy. Would "either the position" be better?) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"either the position", to me, sounds too ambivalent - like the editors (or atheists) cannot make up their mind what the position is and will simply switch sides depending upon the opposing argument. Using it, for the sake of parallelism, suggests a need to repeat the word "position"--JimWae (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That said, Atheism can be either the rejection of theism[2], or the assertion that deities do not exist.[1] works somewhat better. --JimWae (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I take it you don't dispute what I said about there not really being a lot of confusion over what we have now. But that last option you presented might work. Personally, I'm agnostic (pun intended!) between that and the version on the page now. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I choose not to put the focus of my response on your questions about my parenthetical comment. I will say, however, that it is my impression that not all the changes to the first paragraph in the last 3 months were due only to vandalism &/or agnostic/theist POV warriors.

Having the "or" follow the simple clause (rather than the compound one) simplifies the reading. Though still not my first choice, it does also help emphasize the difference between the 2 meanings --JimWae (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In the lead it says that the percentage of atheists in the EU ranges between "6% (Italy) and 85% (Sweden)". I wanted to point out that Italy is does not have the lowest level of atheism in the Union. In Romania there are less than 1% atheists. Unfortunatelly I can't find a source right now (I'll keep looking though). Diego_pmc ^Talk 11:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I found one, but it's in Romanian; it says that at the last poll 8,500 people declared themselves atheist, which makes up for 0.03% of Romania's population. [1]Diego_pmc ^Talk 11:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wich size is the sample? or is a population census? --190.158.6.164 (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That page is a blog, and doesn't link to the census they mention (though they do call it specifically a "census", as opposed to a survey). From the page (translation courtesy of google)-

"The news that someone is an atheist is greeted with an exclamation of surprise: "ouch!", Like atheism is a venereal disease.

Some of those who refuse to talk about it will not recognize that I do not believe in God because of the idea that communist = atheist = evil incarnate.

In many design, morality can not be disengaged from religion, an atheist and certainly must be a bad and awful, though if you look on the statistics of west atei are more educated and give fewer problems authorities." -Google translation

This would seem to indicate that the author believed more people were atheists, but refused to answer because of the pervasive taboo. That's speculation, of course. But by all means, if you can find an official report on these figures from Romania, add it in. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 13:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence of the lead is a bit misleading. Couldn't it be argued that most atheists identify strongly with Darwin's "theory of evolution through natural selection". What do you guys think? King regards, Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Most do, but it has very little to do with their atheism. Powers ^T 13:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I think the last sentence "there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere (to)" is contradicted by the fact that most atheists do believe in the aforementioned theory. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)).

The majority of people who accept evolutionary theory are right-handed. Do you propose editing pages on right-handedness to include a statement saying that evolutionary theory is mostly a right-handed theory? No? The majority of Christians accept evolutionary theory, are you suggesting that pages on Christianity be edited to say that Christians accept evolutionary theory? No? My point is that (1) it is not relevant to being an atheist whether one accepts or rejects any scientific idea, and (2) discussions about evolution and creationism should be kept in relevant articles, away from articles where it is a tangential subject. ScientistKeith (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Powers' point, and I also think that this is a rather small distinction to make. It would clearly be WP:UNDUE to put Darwin explicitly in the lead. However, I suppose we could make the sentence in question a little less dogmatic. Maybe something along the lines of "there is generally no single ideology...". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Most atheists, yes, but not all. Powers ^T 23:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere" is clearly not contradicted by "most atheists" allegedly believing a scientific theory. Since i) Darwinism isn't an ideology or set of behaviours, ii) all isn't most.

Of course, there is one loose ideology they all share: Not being convinced of the existence of deities ;) Hohum (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Not being convinced of something is not an ideology. Nick Graves (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Taking all of this together, it sounds to me like there is nothing incorrect about the sentence as it is now. It would be OK to adjust it slightly to make clearer that we are not discounting some frequently-but-not-universally shared views, or it would be OK to leave it as is. I have no objection to a small adjustment. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure. A "belief" (I know atheists don't like this word, but its necessary) in Darwin's "theory of evolution through natural selection" is probably the one thing all atheists share. I don't think that mentioning Darwin is giving him undue weight in this article, nor are we giving minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views.

In its current state, the article (rightly) suggests that no set of behavior or ideology is shared by atheists universally. However, there is an identification with specific tradition related to the Darwinian theory, which I believe the majority (if not all) of atheists believe in and this deserves a mention in the article. Comments welcome, (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)).

Well, there were atheists before Darwin was even born, so acceptance of evolution does not in any way define atheism. And there are people today who profess religious belief and who also accept Darwin's discoveries, so acceptance of evolution also does not distinguish atheists from other people. But if there is a WP:RS relating atheism and Darwinism (I bet there is something by Richard Dawkins on it), there would be nothing wrong with mentioning it in the article, though not in the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I expect many atheists believe in many widely known scientific theories - what has that got to do with their atheism? Do you have sources to back up this alleged link? It might be true that atheists are more likely to believe scientific theories than theists, but I don't know how marked this may be. Hohum (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a bold assertion. Darwinian evolution is not accepted by "all" atheists; you would need one heck of an ironclad source saying otherwise in order to put it into this article. Powers ^T 12:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) Not all atheists believe in evolution, and not all evolution believers are atheists- many theists see evolution as a divine 'tool' of sorts. The misconception that evolution is an atheist theory is fairly common- but it IS a misconception. My own mother goes to church on sundays, and has no problem with the idea of humanity developing slowly from pre-human ancestors. Most of the religious issues I've seen stem from misundertandings of evolution theory, the phrase "Jesus wasn't no Ape!" being most indicative that the speaker doesn't understand Evolution's timeframe (or indicitave of another problem entirely). --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 13:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Biological evolution is not a "belief", let alone an "ideology" or a "set of behaviour". You might as well argue that most atheists "believe" in the theory of gravity, or osmosis, or plate tectonics, or superconductivity. --dab (𒁳) 16:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Then what word would you use for someone who DOES [believe/know/etc] that the theory of evolution is correct? You know, as opposed to the TWO HUNDRED MILLION people that don't (in the US alone... I hate my country sometimes). I really don't see an issue with using the term "believe" for evolution. However, I find the statement, as made in the article, entirely irrelevant and misleading, as it implies that there's some relationship between atheism and the theory of evolution. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 19:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You know what, I'm beginning to think the page needs no change in regard to this issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the responses people;

Regarding your argument dab, I think it is very, very weak. No one has denied gravity for at least 300 years(?), so I don't think we should associate it with Atheists. Nevertheless, I think you may be confused about the difference between biological evolution and more specifically Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection.

Regarding whether all atheists believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, it should be noted that most biologists in the field believe in Darwin's evolution theory; see: here) here or here which suggests that Darwin's theory of evolution is overwhelmingly an atheists theory.

I think I'm going to continue this discussion on the evolution page, but I do still believe there is a case for amending the lead.

(Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)).

Of course most biologists accept evolution - what does that have to do with it being an "atheists theory"? As for your point, you might as well say that most atheists believe 1 + 1 = 2, but it would be ludicrous to refer to it as an ideology. Similarly, accepting scientific theories such as evolution is not an ideology either, so even if all atheists did happen to accept evolution, I don't see that it would cause any problem with the sentence. Mdwh (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not one of your 3 suggestions (your "here, here and here" above) makes any connection between atheism & Darwinism. How are you doing anything besides wasting our time? --JimWae (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, how am I doing besides wasting your time? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)).

REGARDLESS of whether "most" atheists believe in evolution, it's not relevant to this article, because there's no causative connection. I can state with 99% certainty that *most* atheists enjoy chocolate ice cream, as well. Not all facts are relevant. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 21:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't throw causation around if I was an "antitheist...(who) finds belief in a God unbelievably irrational". The fact remains that most atheists believe in Darwin's theory, possibly because it gives meaning to an otherwise meaningless existence. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)).

"Otherwise meaningless existence"? NOW you're just trolling. Is natural selection really the contentious point of "darwinism"? I thought theists had issues with the iterative genetic mutation. Any moron can see that the slower gazelle is the one the cheetah is gonna catch, ergo, faster gazelles are more likely to reach sexual maturity without cheetah-related roadblocks like "death".

Causation is a term used often in statistics, and I'll "throw it around" however I please. Atheists who believe in evolution, do not believe in evolution because they are atheists. THAT is the missing link that makes the removed statement irrelevant.

And by the way, your... statement is original research until sourced. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 21:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• LOL. Your forcing me to troll. Rationally, natural selection is nonsense. Take a look at your eye. There is no possibility that it could have "evolved gradully", it would have needed to evolve in to its current form in a complete way, instantaneously linked to the brain etc for it to have a function to us. It could not have evolved gradually, as it would have been useless to us, or any species, as we would have been blind until the other parts evolved. How did we survive? if we were wandering blind for millions of years...

Besides, if Darwin's theory was all it was cracked up to be, then surely we wouldn't be here after 200 years still debating its idiotic conclusions. I mean, if you wanna be classified as an ape or claim descent (yes, I know, millions of years ago) to an ape then go ahead, but don't think every body will stoop to your level and classify ones self as a monkey.

I'm still not sure that atheists do not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution because they are atheists. It's just that you have anxieties about including the word "belief" in the lead.

Btw, I did provide sources which identify the link between evolutionary studies and atheistic thinking (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)).

Wikipedia talk pages are for improving the articles - in this case, Atheism - and are not a place for general discussion. So please refrain from starting up a Creationism debate. If you are interested in discussing or debating evolution itself, you may want to visit talk.origins. You may also be interested in checking out List_of_common_misconceptions#Evolution. Mdwh (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources you linked DO NOT identify a link between the two. Correlation does not imply causation. And it doesn't matter what you believe. The adder of the information is responsible for proving it; it's not up to the rest of us to DISprove it. If you look above, I have NO problem with the term "believe". I simply feel that the inclusion of the statement about most atheists believing in evolution is irrelevant and misleading, suggesting a link where there is none. Atheists aren't required to believe anything, contrary to what you've stated.

In passing, I'd really suggest heading over to the 2nd link provided, as well as Evolution of the eye, where they deal specifically with your oft-quoted (but completely wrong) example. In any case, as Mdwh pointed out, the discussion doesn't belong here. And so, here it ends. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 23:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC

Those pages you guys recommended are full of conjecture; no evidence = just a theory. But nevertheless, advices headed and topic closed. Cheers for the brain training guys. Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)).

The word "theory" does not mean what you think it means. You have a lot to learn. Auntie E (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, your gut feeling is more important than what theories scientists come up with... man with one red shoe 05:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any sources at the moment to back this up, but I suspect there is a documentable connection to be made between Darwin's theory and atheism, which is is this. AFAIK, prior to Darwin there was really no explanation for species besides instantaneous creation by God. That is, belief in God was closely tied to explaining the natural world (it still is apparently, to this day, for very many). For those for whom their belief in God was largely dependent on this connection, Darwin ripped the rug out from underneath. In that sense Darwin paved the way for theists of this ilk to become atheists. This is why so many theists to this day resist accepting the theory of evolution (see above).

Similarly, secular morality paves the way to atheism for those theists who, until being exposed to secular morality, believe in god largely because they believe morality is not possible without faith in god, and a world like that is inconceivable to them. I hear about the notion that there can be no morality without God about as often as I run into the "so how did the eye evolve" question.

I think these are important points to be made about atheism, because they explain why many atheists are now atheists and no longer theists, perhaps important enough to even mention in the lead. But not without sources... --Born2cycle (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a really common misconception, but there were, in fact, scientific theories about the origin of life before Darwin, Spontaneous generation being prominent. I recall another, which was basically Darwin's idea with classical (but incorrect) thinking applied; as in, a with creature's use of a body part (the example given was the fiddler crab's larger claw), that part would over time because more useful, by virtue of it being used. According to our current understanding of evolution, this way of thinking is almost perfectly confuses cause and effect.

You probably refer to Lamarckism. Arnoutf (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Most people in Darwin's time took issue with his theory because it violated the biblical idea of divinely-established specialization; IE, the idea that god had pre-established the order of things, and individual species could venture only a (nonspecific) small genetic 'distance' from their original form.

Certainly, Darwin's theory may have helped several inquisitive people replace supernatural ideas with naturalistic equivalents, but on the whole I remain unconvinced that it had the snowball effect you describe. Darwin himself was a very religious man even to his deathbed; there's more to atheism than not needing God to explain the world. Besides, it's original research :P --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 01:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I understand we need to back this up with sources, but to someone unfamiliar with atheism I think it would be very helpful to explain how former theists come to atheism via many different routes, often dependent on why they were theists in the first place. I wonder if anyone has done any studies like this. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Now THAT would be an interesting piece to add. A 5-second google search didn't reveal any relevant studies or surveys, but if you can find something, I'd personally love to see it broken down and added. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 13:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There are far too many "routes" to take to encompass them all in a succinct or significant way. Even if there were a way to effectively determine such reasons, the information would likely be too cumbersome to show meaningful causation. DKqwerty (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Accounting for causation is trivial in the case of a wide survey, where the participants explain the cause themselves. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 15:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Then you would have to detail each individual cause which is, as I said, cumbersome. DKqwerty (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I was referring t any survey already conducted and published. After all, anything else would be original research.

I was simply using the royal "you", as in "one who conducts such a survey". My point is that such data couldn't be summed up in a few sentences and would require an elaborate and detailed synthesis to gain any meaningful insight from the resultant data and would far exceed the boundaries of this article. Anything that could be summed up in a few sentences would likely be oversimplified, biased, and/or incomplete. DKqwerty (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

From my understanding, and purely anecdotal of course, a more common impetus to atheism is death of a close family member or spouse, much more so than any scientific theory. Again, it would need to be verified. But honestly I feel no need to indulge the darwinism-leads-to-atheism meme so popular in creationist camps. Auntie E (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's what you say... an anecdote. man with one red shoe 15:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite. Though there is something to that. Lack of evidence for a world watched over by a benevolent deity has only one logical conclusion. Google away, gentlemen (and ladies)! [[WP:V]] --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 15:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am confused by the apparently general opinion that belief in a god is the default condition and that all/most atheists started as believers. My anecdotal experience is that many atheists rejected that option without ever taking it up. Hohum (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You speak of what David Eller calls natural atheism. That's probably the norm is some countries, like Sweden, but I think it's pretty rare in countries like the U.S. where belief in God is much more prevalent. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course this would be more common in Sweden than in the US, but according to Demographics of atheism a belief in some God, life force or other supernatural power seems still be the majority view even in Sweden, and thus the "default condition" overall in the western world. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

But if you follow Dawkins, children are not theists, untill they are tought to be so. So it may well be that we have four types of people. Those raised with a belief in a god and maintaining that belief; those raised with a belief in a god and becoming an ateist in later life; those raised an atheist and maintaining that; those raised an atheist and chaging to belief in a god in later life. Arnoutf (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)By default condition, I meant before any indoctrination/revelation/peer pressure/etc. As a counterpoint however, children aren't likely to think objectively / rationally / scientifically without indoctrination/teaching/etc either. Hohum (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the the Varieties of Religious Experience it is still too vague a definition (especially since you include revelation in that combination). Do you mean before any parental influence whatsoever (which is hard to imagine not being applied directly from the point of birth) or when the human being regains some semblance of consciousness during the early teens or what exactly are you implying? --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

While interesting, I've fallen into the trap of using the talk page as a forum, this probably isn't going to help the article. Hohum (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I consider myself a source on this matter..I am an athiest. Have known it for 10 years now. I reject the notion of a weak or strong athiest. I have never researched the Athiest topic until recently, and i am suprised to find out that there are 2 different classifications for athiests. weak and strong. I am sourcing myself, you are either an athiest or your not. You have a belief in a god or not. Now you may feel your undecided, and that may comfort you, but the choices are simple, you are either online or offline, inside the box or outside the box. On top of the table or underneath it. You either are or aren't. You may think that you are in the middle or undecided, but in reality, you are one or the other. But you just haven't figured it out yet, maybe you will or maybe you won't. I have always been an athiest since birth, it just took me 35 years to figure it out..I REJECT the idea that someone out there can define who i am by strong or weak. If you have the slightest sence that there might be some kind of a god out there, even a remote possiblity in your mind, YOU ARE NOT ATHIEST. but i am..

Proposed change:

"Atheism tends towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Common rationales include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, the argument from nonbelief, and the counter-argument from design. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_design#Contradictory_premises_lead_to_an_infinite_regress)

or, preferably:

"Atheism tends towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Common rationales include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, the argument from nonbelief, and the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit)

It's one of the more powerful arguments.

Thank you, 12.4.213.147 (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the best argument against the complexity argument is that complexity is not an intrinsic property of a system, but a function of the relationship between two systems. Thus, for example, two randomly chosen probability distributions would, on average, have a moderate Kullback–Leibler divergence, and thus either way, one system would look "complex" to the other. In other words, a relatively high complexity is the NORM.

In and of themselves, in fact, each component of the world is really simple. lightning takes the path of least resistance, opposites attract, etc. It's when you put them all together in a big space that you get nonlinear interactions, reaction-diffusion systems, turbulence, and all the things we associate with "complexity". But this is not a consequence of the particular rules ("laws of physics") chosen, or even how they're put together / arranged. This would happen w/almost ANY set of rules. Complexity is by far the most likely outcome of a randomly selected set of rules and arrangements. In fact, if the universe didn't exhibit complexity, that would be an extraordinary event, and that would require an extraordinary explanation, such as an "intelligent designer".

In sum, the complexity argument is based on two false assumptions: 1. complexity is intrinsic. 2. complexity is unlikely. Kevin Baas^talk 14:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Since this is an article talk page and not a forum, it's not clear to me where this discussion is going, in terms of possible edits to the page. Please, let's focus on that, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose my point is that Dawkin's argument isn't necessarily the best argument, and therefore we must be wary lest we give it undue weight. Kevin Baas^talk 15:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight isn't about being 'best' or we'd have no articles on Scientology. It's about coverage in sources, whether those sources say it's 'best' or not, and whether we agree with them or not. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I maintain that the newproposed version misrepresents the breadth and depth of counter-arguments to the design argument, giving undue weight to a single source. For this reason I am changing it back. Kevin Baas^talk 16:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There really should be more on this subject in the topic of Atheism. A lot of the facts of the matter point out how generally, as a whole, Atheists are much less judgemental, and are by far more open minded than individuals of religious sects. Religion is manipulative, and teaches (if not encourage) people to look down on individuals that do not believe a certain set of divine laws, which in turn causes religion to be very contradictory to itself. It's widely regarded fact that most serial killers from Adolf Hitler to Jeffery Dahmer to David Berkowitz and Joseph Stalin have been very religious, and yet look where it has gotten us in history. Brutal, multiple slayings and mass genocide? I doubt that any Atheist would ever think of performing such malicious acts, simply because of their ability to tell what's truly right from what's very truly wrong.Ajimes2126 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Ajimes2126

Please be careful to distinguish between your opinion and verifiable fact. One belongs here, the other does not. Ilkali (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also a "widely regarded fact" that Hitler and Stalin killed so many people because they were atheists. If you have some reliable sources discussing the matter then by all means suggest some additions to the article based on them; but we can't add controversial statements just because we think they're true, whether they are or not. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This is also an article about atheism, not the dichotomy between religion and atheism. Such information (if properly sourced) would most likely belong in another article which compares and contrasts theism and atheism.

And for the record, I'm an atheist and I'm a very judgmental person, especially regarding theists. Yes, I would never start a war over it, but it just goes to show you that your personal experience or opinion has little barring on what occurs outside those experiences. Unless it can be verified and sourced, it does not belong on Wikipedia. DKqwerty (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The current lead claims "Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the assertion that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]". Why start off with three, somewhat complicated definitions? Why not simply use the broad term, stemming directly from the etymology, the lack of a belief in deities? That's the definition preferred by the oxford, cambridge, webster dictionaries, Encyclopædia Britannica, and The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which all go off the basis of (using the concise oed) " — ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’". Looking at how most prominent modern atheists describe themselves, whether Hitchens or Dawkins, the term always seems to signify the lack of a belief in god. I'd like to propose that we simply start the head off with "Atheism can broadly be defined as the absence of belief in the existence of deities.", including citations to the 5 sources I have listed above. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see very extensive earlier talk about this subject, starting in talk archive 40, and continuing through several subsequent archives. This issue really has been discussed very extensively in the past, and you will find it very hard to get agreement for the change you propose. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I was involved in those talks and I agree with KittyKAY4. What atheism used to mean, and what it might mean to some anti-atheists today is not relevant to what should be prominently stated in the opening sentence, which is what people who call themselves atheists today usually mean. The current convoluted multi-definition does not accurately reflect that.

Regardless of what you believe others believe, Trypto, what is your personal opinion about this? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please provide quotes from those encyclopedias which you said prefer broad definition. Britannica at least prefers "denial" definition. And, using "how most prominent modern atheists describe themselves" is not correct because their POV may be biased. --windyhead (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Well, since you ask, I guess I would put it as follows, which may be an answer less intelligent than practical. On the one hand, I suggested early in that archived talk, that we pare it down to "Atheism is the lack of belief in any god, or the belief that there is no god." If we keep all the existing references (in a bunch, at the end of the sentence, for readers who want to go deeper), it would still work for me, personally. But, having said that, I'm not going to endorse making that change, or KittyKAY's, or anything like that now. That's because I've learned through past experience that it's just a matter of time until this talk moves from us liking the idea, to other editors, many of them very thoughtful and committed, expressing intense outrage at such a change, and then, another torturous discussion of about a hundred other versions-du-jour, many of which will be much worse that what we have now, only to end up with no agreement for a short version, ending finally in another longish written-by-committee version that will be little different, and no better, than what we have now. I know as well as anyone what the shortcomings are of what is now on the page, but I also really don't think it's all that bad. So, bottom line, I'm game to hear what others suggest (but best if they read the archives first), but my vote for now is to let sleeping atheists lie. (And finding an edit conflict as I try to save my edit, that just proves my point!) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course my good sir! I'll elaborate..

• The OED, the world's formost linguistic reference has but one definition: "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism)." with citations from the 1500s to today.
• Britannica, in it's section on a "comprehensive definition", goes on to say "an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons..." and continues with "... atheist rejection is not the assertion that it is false that there is a God but instead the rejection of belief in God", which seems to support the notion of "without a belief in god" or "absence of belief" as was originally phrased.
• Stanford Philosophy Encyclopedia says "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism", holding true to the etymology.
• Cambridge says "someone who believes that God or gods do not exist".
• Webster says "a disbelief in the existence of deity".
• American Heritage says "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods".
• We can even go back to 1828 or 1913 Webster which include the definition of "The disbelief of the existence of a God".
• The 1911 Britannica is a bit mixed on the subject but says there are three possible definitions, dogmatic, skeptical, and critical. Dogmatic being the assertion that there is no god, skeptical being the absence of belief as defined above, and critical being a purely ontological one. It then concedes that "But dogmatic atheism is rare compared with the sceptical type", which perhaps requires a qualification, but still leans towards the proposed, broad, simple definition.
• WordNet says "a lack of belief in the existence of God".
• Russell clearly uses, when "speaking popularly", atheism to mean "without a belief".
• Lastly, I think the etymology is the best place to start and the oldest version of this page actually does a really good job laying out the use of the term.

The existing article text has additional citations for source [3]. Either way, it seems "disbelief in god" or "absent a belief in god" is the widest definition, and dare I say, only well-established one in popular usage through the ages, aside from the POV positions of many; finding home in all the above sources: from the 1828 Webster to the modern OED.--kittyKAY4 (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As a quick little addition, in case someone tries to hijack the SPE quote of "negation of theism", I suggest you read the article further. It explores the term and says one should use atheism to describe an inability to accept theistic beliefs, a lack of belief. Here is the key part, "estimate the various plausibilities [of] the probability of theism ... and if it comes out near zero he should call himself an atheist". --kittyKAY4 (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tryptofish here; the current lead sentence is awkward but it is at least stable. Powers ^T 13:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I got a message at my talk from Kitty about my revert of the change to the first sentence, and I'm going to answer at my talk, so please feel free to look there. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In what way does Cambridge's "someone who believes that God or gods do not exist" equate to "absence of belief"? That's very clearly the 2nd definition we give, not 3rd. Furthermore, Britannica gives the "rejection" definition, which we list 1st. Also it's unclear that disbelief is a simple absence, I would argue implies a conscious decision to explicitly not believe - i.e., a rejection. (We probably wouldn't say that babies disbelieved?) And yes, please see endless discussion on this - there is overwhelming concensus to list the three main definitions, and we shouldn't pick one over the others. Mdwh (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thats my point. --windyhead (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I will not push this point any further, but on a point of contention. Anyone here know what "reject" means? It means to "not take". To "reject a belief" you are "not taking a belief" which means nothing but the "absence of a belief". "Reject" does not mean "oppose". Disbelief is an ambiguous term, that can mean to reject or oppose, that's why people prefer it. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

First, thank you for the good discussion we had at my talk page, and for the good spirit with which you have taken the reactions from me and other editors here. I have always understood "reject" to mean to consider something, and then to say "no" to it (though not necessarily to imply ongoing opposition). "Absence" can occur without having actively rejected something; thus a person who has never been exposed to the idea of religion can, in principle, be absent that idea, without having ever made a decision to reject it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish that 'reject' and 'not take' mean different things. I don't take the belief that it will rain tomorrow but I don't reject it either - I have no real opinion on it. There are plenty of people who feel the same about the existence of gods, which is why we need to distinguish the definitions. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to Tryptofish's response (which I agree with) - an example would be that "absense of belief" includes babies, but we wouldn't say that a baby has rejected belief. See Atheism#Implicit_vs._explicit. Mdwh (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The current lede definitions are fairly complete and clear. The version has been painstakingly hammered out, and any changes ought to be stepwise, rather than dramatic. I do notice one deficiency: the "belief that no deities exist" definition is not actually covered. To assert the nonexistence of deities is actually different from believing they do not exist. One can have a belief without asserting it (eg. a closeted strong atheist in a theocratic country), and assert it without actually having it (eg. perhaps closeted theists in a communist country). Nick Graves (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been watching the whole "absence of a belief" v "a belief that there is no god" issue for some time. As a person who studies logic and critical thinking particularly, I am saddened by the misunderstanding about this issue. Do you see this statement:

"To assert the nonexistence of deities is actually different from believing they do not exist."

This statement gets an "F" in any logic class (not a small "f" either, a big one). It's author would seem to ignore the basic rule P is logically equivalent of not-not-P. People who stand by the idea that its all about not having a belief so therefore we can't talk about the belief that atheism is, have basically shot themselves in the "language" foot. Please be advised: Only the single statement gets an "F." It's author Nick Graves is otherwise a wonderful, decent editor on Wikipedia -GB

Please observe that in logic we talk about theorems and axioms, etcetera. We don't talk about "non-theorems" unless we actually mean nonsense. We talk about theorems and their negations, which are also theorems. I'm sorry but all the machinations to avoid calling it a belief is very ridiculous. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't resist the urge to be snarky, and point out that a spelling class would penalize confusion between "its" and "it's." Sorry, please don't take that as anything more than a throw-away comment. Anyway, I think the "absence" definition is about people who never "asserted the nonexistence," but I do take your point that the discussion here (including about "belief") has often gotten comically, well, theological. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct! I do know my "its" from my "it's" but I was lazy about it. I appreciate the correction so I will be more mindful. In the case of people who never asserted nonexistence, it's still a belief, it's a dispositional belief. Although don't think the case of a baby counts as belief, nor dispositional belief. You actually have to have some form of disposition, which all "real" (reasoning, believing, non-baby) atheists do.

Interestingly, there are also "religious" atheists who believe what they believe out of faith. There are also "bad faith" religious atheists who really do believe in god, but are angry at him. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Actually, dispositional belief is a new concept for me, interesting. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what you are saying - first you bring up the issue of '"absence of a belief" v "a belief that there is no god"', but you then switch that for "assert the nonexistence of deities" versus "believing they do not exist", which is just two different ways of saying "a belief that there is no god". No one is claiming that there is a difference between "assertion of nonexistence" and "belief that gods do not exist" (AFAICS). And yes, I would say that belief in not-X is logically different to someone who doesn't belong in the set of those who believe X. As for dispositional beliefs, whilst it is possible to have one of these without consciously considering it, it's not clear to me that this applies to all of those in the "rejection of belief" category. And you agree that it doesn't apply to all those in the "absence of belief" category (babies). Anyhow, I think trying to distinguish between kinds of belief is getting rather complex for a lead, not to mention it's original research unless you have some references of people talking about this? Mdwh (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Greg, your response to me was uncivil. Please review WP:CIV. Mdwh, I am claiming there is a difference between assertion of the nonexistence of deities and belief that deities do not exist. I'm not sure how I could exlain the difference much clearer than I have, but I will try. To assert is to say or claim, either in speech or writing. But to believe is to have a certain internal state, which may or may not be expressed externally (that is, asserted). One can believe X is true, yet assert that X is untrue. The internal state (belief) does not necessarily match the external expression (assertion). That is why I believe the second clause of the current lede definition is inadequate. It does not directly cover atheism as a belief in the nonexistence of deities (that is, strong atheism), even though one might presume that most of those who assert nonexistence do believe what they assert. Nick Graves (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

These are excellent questions to bring up! The problem I have is people who insist that atheism is just not itself a belief. Please make no mistake, that every instance of atheism is a theory (a very good theory), and usually a belief. In order to remain with the view that atheism is most fundamentally described as a "non-belief," we find ourselves in the unfortunate place of admitting that babies and even rocks are atheists. That doesn't make sense from the ordinary language perspective, nor the formal logical language perspective. It is not merely an over-inclusive designation, it is strictly incorrect from an ontological perspective.

I must address this quote: "And yes, I would say that belief in not-X is logically different to someone who doesn't belong in the set of those who believe X." First of all, yes a person is different than a belief, so this statement is strictly and technically true because of that switch. However, if you are intending to say that it's not true that a person believing "not-X" is not a member of the set of people believing "X." Well that is just not true AT ALL! There are actually rules for how to deal with these situations (See doxastic logic). It is the same thing as saying "I admit that I believe X, but as for believing not-not-X, well I never said anything like that." This is obviously a silly statement. You cannot escape the logical consequences of your beliefs if you are a reasoner (non-baby, non-rock, etcetera). If you are assigning a "T" to a statement, you are necessarily assigning a "F" to its negation. There is no escaping that, unless you just abandon reason altogether.

Please take a look at an idea I have about organizing articles just like this. (See User:Gregbard/Concepts and theories). The proposal intends to make it easier to create NPOV articles about -isms. In the case of atheism, it is always a theory, often a belief, although sometimes it is a dispositional belief. If we identify it this way, we are A) adhering to language accepted by logicians and critical thinkers, and B) no rocks or babies. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"we find ourselves in the unfortunate place of admitting that babies and even rocks are atheists" - note there are three definitions that we list in the lead. The rejection of theism/belief counts as not being a belief, but doesn't include babies and rocks (explicit weak atheism - see later in the article).

"if you are intending to say that it's not true that a person believing "not-X" is not a member of the set of people believing "X."" That's not what I'm saying. Each definition is a subset of the broader set. People who believe "not X" clearly do not belong to the set of people believing X. However, the converse is not true. When I say "logically different" I mean they are not the same. Showing that one is a subset of another (which I agree with) does not make them the same. The point is that people who don't belong to the set of people who believe X, do not necessarily believe "not X".

"If you are assigning a "T" to a statement, you are necessarily assigning a "F" to its negation." The issue here is people who don't' assign anything to a statement. Can we conclude that if they don't assign "T", they must be assigning "T" to its negation?

"no rocks or babies" I don't think anyone claims rocks are atheists. But we have reliable sources for the "absense of belief" definition, and we have philosophers such as Baron d'Holbach who suggested that children are born atheists, and George H. Smith who talked about children who have the capacity to grasp the issue, but wasn't aware of them, as well as people who had not been exposed to the idea of God.

Anyhow, what recommendation to the article are you suggestion? Whether we personally think that definitions make sense or not aren't relevant here - we should be reporting what defintions are used, as supported by reliable sources, and there are reliable sources for (at least) three separate definitions. Do you have a reliable source for atheism being a theory? (I'd be reluctant to refer to theism as a theory anyway - but atheism makes less sense to me, since what is it explaining?) Mdwh (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoever it was who posted the list of dictionary definitions, could I draw attention to the first one:

The OED, the world's formost linguistic reference has but one definition: "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism)." with citations from the 1500s to today.

I think it's important to note that this is not "but one definition" at all, but but at least three: disbelief, denial, and "practical atheism". Disbelief and denial are themselves defined ambiguously, but it is clear that between them they cover what we call weak/negative and strong/positive atheism. --Dannyno (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the current text at the beginning of the article:

"Today, about 2.3% of the world's population describes itself as atheist, while a further 11.9% is described as nontheist."

This statistic is not consistent with the map of percentage of the world that is atheist, toward the bottom of the article, where we see China is somewhere from 90%-100% atheist, and China contains around 20% of the world's entire population.

Is China not counted because it is not a state where people are allowed to freely express their views? If this is the case, I think there needs to be a rather large margin of error around the 2.3% statistic.

Druszaj (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I think. It looks like it was sourced to Encyclopedia Britanica (perhaps eurocentric??). It would be good for someone to check more sources, for this, and for the point about Japan, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The reference given, [2], lists China as being 8-14%. I have no idea why China is coloured so darkly - what does the other Japanese source [3] say? Mdwh (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The map on the page counts Buddhists (and practitioners of other non-theistic faiths) as non-theists, thereby rendering China almost entirely without gods. --King ♣ Talk 18:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that. That makes sense to me, and appears to me to answer the question (but if I'm missing something, someone please correct me!). That being the case, it seems to me the map is badly flawed for our purposes, and needs to be replaced, while the text statistics (although possibly dubious) can probably stay for the time being, until better sources come along. The map was added fairly recently, so I am going to revert to an earlier map. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

In the beginning of this article it reads that 65% of people in Japan describe them self as atheists. But in the article religion in Japan it reads that only up to 16% are possibly atheist. I don't know where the CIA World Factbook have their numbers from, or where P. Zuckerman have his numbers from. Pyramide (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree - the statistics on this page seem sketchy at best. I'd say it's safe to assume that P. Zuckerman's surveys are largely biased and based on a sample size smaller than my thumb. I find it hard to believe that Sweden has an 85% population of atheists. CIA World Fact book does not support this argument, stating "Lutheran 87%, other (includes Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist) 13%". This doesn't leave any room for atheist, agnostics and non-believers ... so who can you trust really? --99.236.27.71 (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the best we can do for the moment is to cite more than one source, to acknowledge that any single source may be inaccurate. Some of the refs at religion in Japan are dead links, but I've added one active one to this page, to hopefully serve as a counterweight to Zuckerman. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be removed. I teach in Japan and often discuss religion with students of all ages. Many will say Japanese are not religious but then turn around and say they visit temples/shrines, pray and believe in gods/spirits. The Zuckerman data is fundamentally flawed, misrepresentative and agree probably guilty of cultural bias. I'm an atheist but that doesn't mean I can just ignore false claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.47.26.69 (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

60.47.26.69|60.47.26.69, I do not doubt your observations in your classroom, but they do not qualify as a reliable source (and would not be representative of all of Japan, even if they were published in a reliable source). Zuckerman's surveys, since they were published in a peer-reviewed academic source, do qualify as a reliable source, and so cannot be dismissed based on anyone's personal observations. I'm not sure where you're getting the cultural bias idea. Are you accusing Zuckerman of falsifying data because he is biased against the Japanese? I see no evidence of this.

Pyramide, take a closer look at what the source and the WP article say. They say that up to 65% of the Japanese describe themselves as atheists or agnostics or non-believers. There is no claim that all 65% call themselves atheists. I do not see any data in the US State Department report that directly contradict Zuckerman's findings. While religious identifications are nearly twice the population of Japan (due in part to individuals claiming more than one religious identity), this can be consistent with many of these same people identifying themselves as nonbelievers, etc. (Also, those figures are based on self-reports of religious organizations, which are notorious for over-reporting their number.) One may believe in spirits or ancestor worship and still not believe in a supreme being. Many Buddhists and Shintoists may thus also be counted as atheists, agnostics or non-believers. One may be religious and a nontheist (as an atheist Unitarian Universalist, I count myself among such people). Furthermore, participation in cultural or ritual practices may or may not indicate sincere acceptance of the religious beliefs with which they are associated. Does my participation in many of the traditions of Halloween, Thanksgiving or Christmas make me a theist or Christian? Of course not, as these are deeply-ingrained cultural practices that invite participation even of those who do not believe that spirits exist, or that there is a God to thank, or that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. I suspect a similar thing is going on with Japanese citizens who observe Shinto and/or Buddhist rituals and holidays, yet who nonetheless indentify themselves as atheists, agnostics or non-believers. Nick Graves (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

To all: since we cannot cite OR, we have to work with the cites we've got. I think the current treatment on the page is the best we can do for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I would like to explain my thinking about the wording of the footnote with the State Dept. data. I originally wrote the footnote, describing the data there as possibly contradicting the numbers from Zuckerman, per the talk just above. Nick then correctly pointed out that the apparent discrepancy is explained by respondents identifying themselves with multiple categories, and I agree with that. We then have had differing opinions about how to explain that point; see diff and diff. I would like to explain my reasoning about those latter edits. This is a footnote to text in the lead that says "Up to 65% of Japanese describe themselves as atheists, agnostics, or non-believers." The version that I have been rejecting says in the footnote that "many Shintoists also consider themselves Buddhist." I think that a reader making a natural reading of the page would not find it obvious what Shintoists also considering themselves Buddhists would have to do with that, unless it is explained. In contrast, the wording I suggest (which can, perhaps, be improved upon) relates the information in the footnote to the subject of the main text (non-believers), and explains the relevance (numbers adding up to more than 100%). I sincerely think that makes the point clearer. Otherwise, we are asking the reader to make an inductive leap to understand what that footnote is there for. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I did my best to spell out the challenge of these two data sets. I'm not convinced this does not get into the realm of original research. See what you think. Nick Graves (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I agree with the changes you made to the footnote, although I also am concerned that this is crossing the line into OR. (If we do decide it's OR, I'm afraid the solution may be to go back to what I originally tried, which is to cite the State Dept. data as data "different than" (or something like that) Zuckerman's, but not to make any attempt to reconcile the two sets of data as not contradicting one another. The fact is, the way you have reconciled the data, in this talk and on the page, is your OR, even if it is obviously correct.) The one thing I disagree with is the way you changed the main text (as opposed to the footnote) to say that "at least" that percent (greater than or equal to), where it previously said "up to" (less than or equal to). That is clearly unsourced OR, and I'm going to change it back. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. The "at least 64%" figure is directly from Zuckerman, who gives a range of 64-65% of Japanese identifying as atheist, agnostic or non-believing. It is no more original research than the statement that "up to 65%" so identify. Coming to conclusions based on simple arithmetic (which is what I did) is not original research, as it does not require specialist knowledge. My concern about original research was due to the complexities of survey error and statistical interpretation, which indefinitely reduce the certainty with which we can draw conclusions (even those derived from simple arithmetic) through comparison of the two data sets. Given these challenges, the conclusions I drew cannot be stated with certainty, at least not to any degree that we are equipped to determine. I'll take a look at how you changed things and see if it reads better. Nick Graves (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the footnote. See what you think. Nick Graves (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I think this is much better. I further tweaked the footnote, but in a pretty minor way. About that 64/65 thing, it's fine since it's based on the source. I was just assuming that the previously standing wording had reflected the source, but no problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The Zuckerman figure is for a broad category of atheist/agnostic/non-believer in God, and this isn't the same thing as 'atheist' is it is classically understood in the west. There are many people who don't believe in God, but who (for example in east asia) believe in other supernatural things. They would qualify as non-believers in God because they don't believe in God, but I don't think that people would put them into the same category as atheists. The same is true of Europe. Look up the eurobarometer polls (go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_europe) for religious belief in Europe, because they differentiated between people who didn't believe in God but still thought there could be some sort of supernatural higher existence and those who neither believed in God nor some other supernatural thing... and the figures are vastly different from Zuckerman's broad category of 'atheist/agnostic/non-believer in God'. Use the Eurobarometer poll instead of Zuckerman's figures for Europe, and find more restricted statistics for Japan, or else just don't mention it. God Bless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.99.178 (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Most recently, there has been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism as the "absence of belief in deities", rather than as a belief in its own right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though its mainstream usage has been limited"

Is the above really true? Whilst there may still be some people who, for their own reasons, want to promote the notion that atheism is a 'belief', surely most people nowadays understand it to be a 'lack of belief'.

Two other areas I feel need covering under 'Etymology' are; some reference to the fact that the word 'atheism' is virtually unique, there being no comparable word, for example, to describe someone who doesn't believe in fairies, etc.

And, some explanation on why the initial letter in atheism is not capitalised in normal use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obscurasky (talk • contribs) 07:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"some explanation on why the initial letter in atheism is not capitalised in normal use". Is this really necessary? Ilkali (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty common to see the word 'atheism/atheist' wrongly capitalised. Many people don't understand why 'Christian' (for example) has a capital C, yet 'atheism' doesn't have its initial letter capitialised. An explanation of this could also help promote a more accurate understanding of the word's definition; where readers don't understand that 'atheism' isn't a proper noun.Obscurasky (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting to claim both that "most people ... understand it to be a 'lack of belief'" and that "Many people don't understand why ... 'atheism' doesn't have its initial letter capitalised." Anyone who understands the former shouldn't even ask the latter question. Powers ^T 14:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If I've learned anything in my time here, it's that nothing good ever comes from assuming people can put two and two together. As an IT guy, MOST of the people I come into contact with can't.

"I tripped and launched 20 oz. of hot coffee directly into the main server rack. By the way, our network is down, I don't know why." --King ♣ Talk 15:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As a psychologist I would say that people would link the hot coffee to the server being down, even after an unobserved massive shortcircuit occurred just before the coffee incident. Adding causality where it does NOT occur is a bigger problem in mankind then ignoring causalities that don't exist .... Anyway this is besides the point ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The human habit of seeing causation where there is none is the reason there's a WORD for atheism. --King ♣ Talk 21:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have seven problems with this sentence. First of all, "recent" surely does not extend back a quarter of a century to 1984, when one of the cited references was written. Secondly, it contradicts wikipedia's article on weak and strong atheism, where Smith (1979) is cited, as an even earlier proponent of this definition.. Thirdly, it is empirically false, because atheists were defining atheism as "absence of belief" in the nineteenth century. Fourthly, the sentence doesn't belong in the etymology section. Fifthly, the citations do not support the POV assertion: where is the citation of the claim that this is a) a redefinition, b) recent, or c) not much used in the mainstream? Sixthly, if the claim is not substantiated by direct citation, then it is Original Research, specifically synthesis. Seventhly, "certain philosophical circles" is weasel words. I think it should be deleted or properly sourced --Dannyno (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

Furthermore, the cited Flew book, which I now have in front of me, is the US edition of The Presumption of Atheism, first published in 1976. In fact the essay with that title, to which the citation presumably refers, was first published in 1972. Recent? The Austin Cline piece is similarly misrepresented, as it is his thesis that the weak/negative definition is a traditional one, not an new one. Nor does the Michael Martin reference actually claim that the weak/negative defintion is new, though it does suggest the stronger/positive atheism is the one more commonly understood. Conclusion: all three references are being misrepresented and mis-cited. --Dannyno (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and get rid of it. Here is the text, in case anyone wants to discuss:

Most recently, there has been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism as the "absence of belief in deities", rather than as a belief in its own right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though its mainstream usage has been limited.^[1][2][3]

--Dannyno (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the other two points I raised? Obscurasky (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation - not encyclopedic. "Unique"? Probably not encyclopedic or significant whatsoever. It might interest you, but unless it's an issue in the literature it shouldn't go in. --Dannyno (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

For a while, the TOC has been missing from this page. Absent another way to get it back, I've added {{tocleft}}. If the TOC was somehow only missing on my screen, please, revert. --King Öomie 16:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you were correct, and thanks for doing that. It was annoying me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors of this list have been discussing renaming it to List of nontheists. The reasoning behind this proposal is best expressed by Silence here. So far, consensus has been in favor of the proposal, but we do want to make sure we get ample input from the community before moving forward. Please take a look at Silence's explanation, the current proposed version of the list (which I encourage you to boldly edit, if you see ways in which it can be improved), and offer your thoughts on the proposal here. Thank you. Nick Graves (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a couple of reservations about the last edit; which was the addition of Atheism does not necessarily constitute the view that God's existence may be disproved.

I assume the author is trying to marry up the last two paragraphs, which do come across as slightly contradictory, but the term not necessarily seems to imply that it is the norm for atheism to include the view that God's existence may be disproved - and this is untrue.

Also, the use of the word God's seems to restrict this claim to just one god.

I would suggest a re-ordering of the information in the last two paragraphs, so that it's clear that the statement atheism tends towards skepticism only applies in Western culture. Obscurasky (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I also have some reservations about the edit. I agree that "not necessarily" is a problem. I also think that linking "disproved" to Russell's teapot, although logical enough, ends up reading as an Easter egg link. Actually, I do not really see the sentence as adding much to what is already there, and we could probably just delete it. On the other hand, I do not understand what Obscurasky means about re-ordering (in the last paragraph of the comment). I would like to see a suggested version of what the text would be, here in this talk, before deciding whether it would improve the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Another editor removed the confusing link, and I decided to delete the whole sentence. It effectively said only what atheism, sometimes, is not, rather than what atheism is. It's too trivial and potentially argumentative for the lead. Maybe a discussion lower on the page, but not here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue, for me, was that the last two paragraphs give the appearance of contradicting each other; the 'general' statement that atheism tends towards skeptism comes before the statement that some Buddhists are religious and spiritual (and so not tending towards skeptism). Having read all the text again, I would also suggest moving the opening sentence back a little, so that it reads chronologically, and moving the information on atheist numbers back too, so that it doesn't sit in the middle of text which would be better grouped together. My suggested replacement is below;

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), and was derogatively applied to anyone thought to believe in false gods, no gods, or doctrines that stood in conflict with established religions. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and a subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term has narrowed in scope and today atheism is generally seen as either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In its broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]

Religious and spiritual belief systems, such as some forms of Buddhism, that do not advocate a belief in gods,[7] have been described as atheistic.[8] In Western culture, atheism tends towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence, and atheists are frequently assumed to be irreligious or unspiritual. Common rationales include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Some atheists adopt secular philosophies such as humanism,[9] rationalism, and naturalism,[10] although there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[11]

The first individuals to self-identify as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century. Today, about 2.3% of the world's population describes itself as atheist, while a further 11.9% is described as nontheist.[4] Between 64% and 65% of Japanese describe themselves as atheists, agnostics, or non-believers,[5][6] and up to 48% in Russia.[5] The percentage of such persons in European Union member states ranges between 6% (Italy) and 85% (Sweden).[5]

Obscurasky (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that.

• As for the possible contradiction between describing atheists in general as tending towards skepticism, and describing spiritual traditions such as Buddhism as atheistic, I've inserted the word "also" in the last paragraph of the lead section. In my opinion, that's enough to solve the problem: it says that atheists in general have a tendency towards skepticism, which (at least in modern times) is certainly true (not saying that all atheists are skeptics), and then it adds that an alternative meaning also includes Buddhists etc.
• As for rearranging the lead section so that it is all in chronological order, I'm not sure what I think. In some ways, it reads rather nicely that way. On the other hand, it violates WP:LEAD#First sentence, in that the first sentence no longer explains what the page is about.

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that there are many types of atheism and agnosticism, but as regards to the basic position of atheism (Merriam-Webster: 1.a disbelief in the existence of a deity. 2.The doctrine that there is no deity), I wonder if we should not find in a detailed article as this one, the counter-argument of the theists. They say that the belief that there is no deity is just that, a belief, since the atheist cannot prove that there is no gods. Just as one cannot prove that a pink elephant does not exist somewhere in the universe, for example. Therefore, atheism is (and this is my point) an ACT OF FAITH, the same way that theism is an act of faith.

I bring this up because we hear more and more people using the term atheism when they mean agnosticism. One should make clear that the term 'atheism' is, to put it how Russell would, the belief that the proposition 'there are/is no deities/deity' is true. Whereas the agnosticism would believe that there is no way to validate such a proposition. I only brought this up because the length of the article may allow such a precision, and to help people label their beliefs more adequately. Tempus90 (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My reaction to your question is that (1) such a counter-argument might belong better at theism, if it is not there already, and (2) the correct way to write about it (per WP:NOR) would be to base it on a referenced statement from a reliable source, rather than to simply state the argument. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

To Tempus90: There are agnostics who still believe in at least one deity without hope of verification, and there are agnostics who do not believe in deities without necessarily taking the further step of making the claim that deities do not exist. Agnosticism expresses doubt about knowledge claims, atheism/ theism is about whether a certain belief is given any credence. Atheists need not assert/claim/believe "there are no gods", they may just not include deities in their ontology. Including/excluding proposed entities within one's ontology involves coming to some kind of conclusion, but need not be an act of faith. It would be strange to call not including flying pigs within one's ontology an act of faith. --JimWae (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"The terms weak and strong are relatively recent; however, the equivalent terms negative and positive atheism have been used in the philosophical literature[34] and (in a slightly different sense) in Catholic apologetics.[37]"

"[R]elatively recent" should be replaced with a date or approximate date. In the second sentence "however" refers to the time in the preceding sentence, i.e., that while weak vs. strong is of recent origin, negative and positive are not, but it fails to follow up. To make that sentence work in it current construction it would have to say something like "however, the equivalent terms negative and positive atheism have been used in the philosophical literature[34] since __date__ and (in a slightly different sense) in Catholic apologetics since __date__.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and I see the point in providing some specific dates, although it does not strike me as being a severe problem the way it is now. It's not clear to me what dates to use, however. (See also Weak and strong atheism#History.) Perhaps you could look further into the cited references and find those dates yourself? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not have access to the Flew source cited for the passage and the book has only a limited preview on Google Books. I was able to find a source for strong atheism (but not for weak), which explicitly dates the term to the early 1990s ([4]) and then I looked a bit closer and, get this, it's citing Wikipedia as its source (out goes that circularity). I found both positive and negative atheism in use as of 1813, and have incorporated that.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. I think it's an improvement. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I was rather surprised to see a symbol on the top right of the page 'representing' atheism. First of all, I think by no means this is a generally known or accepted symbol for atheism. (Wikipedia should be a location where knowledge and information is stored; in this specific case it seems like a platform to get a symbol more widely accepted.) Second, putting a symbol seems to imply some sort of organized group structure, which there is not for atheists. I would suggest removing the symbol from the page. 70.116.147.216 (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are referring to the symbol in the infobox about atheism-related articles, which appears on multiple pages, and is not intended as an image specifically illustrating this page. I don't see what the problem is. It's a pretty innocuous (essentially decorative) logo that does not, to my knowledge, convey a particular meaning or point of view. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct, I was referring to the logo in the infobox. What I mean is: in the series about christianity the logo is obviously a cross. By having a logo here at the atheism series, it is suggestive that there is a commonly used/accepted logo for atheism. I do understand that it is a visual way of linking the different atheism-related articles together, but I think one should be careful with putting a decorative symbol on a page that intends to provide accurate information on a subject.70.116.147.216 (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, one would have to say that 70.116.147.216 is correct; there is no one symbol which can be used for the entire 'atheism' suite of articles which would not constitute original synthesis of information and/or a POVed selection. The only real argument that can be given in favor of the atom image is aesthetic: 'It looks pretty, and it only violates policy very slightly, so it's not a big deal'. I am somewhat sympathetic to this, but even if we were justified in advocating the POV that atheism in all its permutations is always particularly 'scientific' (which is quite doubtful), we still really shouldn't be using a science symbol like a Rutherford atom (which more often symbolizes nuclear physics, etc.) to illustrate a bunch of social-science articles like Atheism. It's too confusing on a general encyclopedia which covers both religion articles and actual physics articles. If we have to use a symbol, an 'A' image would probably be more neutral. This issue should also be mentioned on Template talk:Atheism2. -Silence (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If, for example, the papyrus "atheos" picture (now the first picture in the text) would be used, this would already be much more neutral.70.116.147.216 (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point, and thank you for pointing it out. I've left a note at the template talk (where it turns out there has been discussion of the issue before). I would support substituting the "atheos" image. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That or that 'A' symbol. That one I've at least seen before. --King Öomie 15:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not include a section on 'atheism symbols'? Obscurasky (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good topic for a separate article, with a brief mention here. Powers ^T 15:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"The terms weak and strong are relatively recent; however, the equivalent terms negative and positive atheism have been used in the philosophical literature[34] and (in a slightly different sense) in Catholic apologetics.[37]"

"[R]elatively recent" should be replaced with a date or approximate date. In the second sentence "however" refers to the time in the preceding sentence, i.e., that while weak vs. strong is of recent origin, negative and positive are not, but it fails to follow up. To make that sentence work in it current construction it would have to say something like "however, the equivalent terms negative and positive atheism have been used in the philosophical literature[34] since __date__ and (in a slightly different sense) in Catholic apologetics since __date__.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and I see the point in providing some specific dates, although it does not strike me as being a severe problem the way it is now. It's not clear to me what dates to use, however. (See also Weak and strong atheism#History.) Perhaps you could look further into the cited references and find those dates yourself? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not have access to the Flew source cited for the passage and the book has only a limited preview on Google Books. I was able to find a source for strong atheism (but not for weak), which explicitly dates the term to the early 1990s ([5]) and then I looked a bit closer and, get this, it's citing Wikipedia as its source (out goes that circularity). I found both positive and negative atheism in use as of 1813, and have incorporated that.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. I think it's an improvement. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This sentence implies that theism was present in the first place. Since newborn babies have no concept of God, all humans start life as athiests. Athiesm is the natural state of humanity. Theism is something one must opt into. Thus, an athiest is not someone who rejects theism but someone who has never accepted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.199.19.10 (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "was present"? Yes, under those 2 meanings, theism has to have been at least momentarily considered, and so is at least somewhat explicit - but it does not mean that an atheist need formerly have been a theist. The most general definition, in the next sentence, does cover the claim that babies are atheists (It also, however, allows mathematics to be atheism, and does not exclude worms nor even rocks from being atheists). This claim is not widely accepted as part of the meaning of atheism, so wikipedia mentions it without taking a position on its validity.--JimWae (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the original poster tried to say this but didn't do so well.

The "in a general sense" definition should be the only definition. "Atheism defines the absence of belief in a god or gods." I'm not looking for a more positive definition of atheist or atheism, but a more accurate and intellectually honest definition of what atheism is and what so-called "atheists" believe (or, rather, do not believe). I'm looking for a definition that forgoes the religious bias that atheism is a belief system in and of itself. The fact is that atheism is a term which defines a negative, an absence, a lack. The term shouldn't even exist, as it's silly to define the absence of something by its opposite. This too should be touched on in the article. --Ninjasaves (talk.stalk) 18:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with JimWae. Ninjasaves, this issue is a good case of "read the talk archives," in this case: Archives 40 and 41. The issues you and the first editor raise have already been discussed–a lot! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think upon reflection, you might be quite content with the "rejection of belief" definition. A rejection of belief entails neither "having a belief system" nor "having a belief"--JimWae (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems this article, good as it is, could benefit from a section on modern atheism, in particular the drive by the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins to expand its influence and acceptance. I don't want to put undue weight on recent events, but it does seem noteworthy. Thoughts? Throwaway85 (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could jack some material from New atheism. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I may do, but I'd like a section befitting the article it's included in. It may be time for me to do some *gasp* research. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that has the potential to be a good improvement to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

We have Atheism#Late_modern_period - extending it to include more material, such as that from History_of_atheism#21st_century, seems reasonable to me. Mdwh (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Could we lose this bit from the lede:

Between 64% and 65% of Japanese describe themselves as atheists, agnostics, or non-believers,[5][6] and up to 48% in Russia.[5] The percentage of such persons in European Union member states ranges between 6% (Italy) and 85% (Sweden).[5]

Firstly, the purpose of the lead section is to be a summary of the article, not for original content, referenced or otherwise. At the very least, this information should be moved in the "Demographics" section. Secondly, I don't even know what "atheists, agnostics, or non-believers," is supposed to mean exactly. What is a non-believer in the context of Japanese Shinto religion? The source [6] also states that the Swedish figure is 46-85%. What exactly did the survey ask which generated the 85% figure? Singinglemon (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The source [7] states "nonbeliever in God", which seems clear to me. I don't know why the source gives two figures for many countries, though. Mdwh (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This question about the range of numbers has come up before. Please see Talk:Atheism/Archive 43#Number of atheists in Japan. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree the numbers are not comparable. That is probably due to the way it was asked. If you ask people: "Are you sure God exists" you will probably have a larger proportion of atheists; while if you ask "Are you sure God DOES NOT exist" you will have a lower proportion people being atheist. Without being sure that the exact same question has been asked (there are advanced statistical methods to compensate for language differences) these comparisons are meaningless. Arnoutf (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

So they're comparing stong-athiesm with weak? --King Öomie 14:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, what is the topic of this article? Do we look at the title and then decide what the content should be, or do we look at the content and then decide on the title? Here are some potential candidates for a full description (as opposed to just a title) for the topic of this article:

• All forms of "atheism", including weak, strong and nontheism.
• The word "atheism" and all that it means.
• Strong atheism (the active rejection of theism).
• Weak atheism
• ???

What do you think? Deciding this might help settle what the first sentence, and perhaps even the title, of this article should be. I doubt I'm the first one to suggest that maybe what should be at Atheism is a dab page... --Born2cycle (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The opening paragraph currently is:

Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

How about reversing those two sentences to achieve this:

In the broadest sense, Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. It can also be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist.

This addresses, perhaps, the intent of a recent edit to this page that was subsequently reverted. In any case, this change avoids the problem of unnecessarily defining atheism narrowly in the first sentence which exists in the current revision. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You made the change with not only no consensus, but less than 5 hours after your post above & with not one response. You know the first paragraph is one that has engendered much discussion. Please revert yourself. You are leading with the definition with the weakest refs, a definiiton that would make mathematics atheism. --JimWae (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. Please think about this more carefully. Ilkali (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Complete agreement, on the principle if not on the wording. It makes sense to start with the least specific version and build up from it. Ilkali (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Does mathematics not have an absence of belief in the existence of deities? Doesn't Darwinism and physics also?--JimWae (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Mathematics" is an abstraction, not an individual, and as such the category of "belief" doesn't apply to it. You might as well claim that a non-smoking law does "have an absence of belief in the existence of deities".

also, please respect WP:FORUM. --dab (𒁳) 08:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Marxism, on the other hand, rejects religious belief - and, even though an "abstraction" does qualify as containing atheism within it. What makes some -ISMs atheistic & others not? "Absence" will not do as the distinction. Active rejection is what makes the difference. Catholicism (another abstraction) is not atheism for it surely has no absence of belief in deities. There is nothing in the definiton that says the term applies only to individuals. If we were defining atheist that would be another matter --JimWae (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The opening paragraph should not address intents of recent edits. Also it should not avoid the "problem of unnecessarily defining atheism narrowly" which may be not a problem at all. The opening paragraph should provide widely supported definition first, and not so popular definitions second. Also it would be good to mention then that "broadest sense" definition has not-so-wide support. windyhead (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Like Ilkali, I'm not crazy about the wording, but the change that was reverted merely put the more general meaning first.

Is the objection really that mere "absence of belief" implies that mathematics (or a piece of wood) is atheistic? First - mathematics (and wood and Marxism) is atheistic, so what's the problem? Second, the implied context ("where beliefs can be held") is obvious (mathematics and wood are absent of all beliefs, so the implied context does not include them).

Every human being is born an atheist. A lack of belief in any god is the essence of atheism, but it can also become an active rejection of someone else's assertion that some god exists.

As far as ordering the definitions according to how widely supported they are, I know of no precedence for that. As long as WP:NOR is followed, editors can choose how to word articles so that they make sense, and are certainly not bound to order content based on popularity. How about going to this one sentence?

Atheism is essentially the absence of belief in the existence of deities, and can also be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist.

--Born2cycle (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Absence of belief is a necessary condition for atheism, but whether it is a sufficient condition is doubtful. The statement "Babies are atheists" is being repeated here as if it were some kind of incontrovertible truth. Babies do not have to be immediately categorized as 1> socialists or capitalists 2> theists or atheists 3> everything vs. its contrary.... (I would agree babies must be either theists or nontheists, which are clearly directly contradictory positions, and not simply contrary positions.) "Absence" is an insufficient condition to distinguish whether -ISMs are theist or atheistic. Marxism is clearly atheistic; Catholicism clearly is not. Mathematics & Darwinism cannot be categorized as easily as either of those - because they are silent about theism. Many scholars & reliable sources (including those already used in the article) remark that the absence definition is an "extended" definition, a "loose" definition, a less rigorous, less scholarly definition. Starting any article with a definition that is widely regarded as insufficient for distinction detracts from the quality of the article. --JimWae (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Atheism has multiple meanings, and in its broadest sense, though perhaps not the most commonly used, it is a synonym for nontheism. But I see your point. How about this:

In its broadest sense atheism is essentially the absence of belief in the existence of deities, or nontheism. More commonly it is either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist.

--Born2cycle (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how absence is insufficient when the etymology of the prefix a- in this context literally means "absence or lack". It's too bad these "scholars" you refer to felt it was necessary to narrow the definition of the word instead of simply creating another term. And just because babies do not have to be categorized doesn't mean they cannot be. Your example 1> is useless because it requires belief on behalf of a being who presumably cannot comprehend such a thing, but referring to a lack of belief should be a valid label. You also keep referring to it as a contrary instead of contradictory, but being contrary sounds more suited to antitheism. --Kamasutra (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears that my edit was at least partially the motivation for this topic. While I do prefer the second sentence as the primary definition, that was not my issue. The first sentence has an either/or proposition, which means that the two positions supplied need mutual exclusivity, preferably with collective exhaustion. Since the first is the definition of explicit atheism, I decided to replace the second with one for implicit atheism. That not only satisfied the need for mutual exclusivity, but also made the two collectively exhaustive. There's no reason to also define strong atheism as it is encompassed by explicit atheism. Perhaps my wording was not the best, but it really should be changed to something more accurate. It would also be preferable if the introductory sentence didn't refer to what atheism "can be", but rather what it is. --Kamasutra (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So any supporters/opponents for this kind of change? The revert comment made it seem like consensus was needed for such a change. The order is relatively unimportant to me, but correctness and completeness are crucial. --Kamasutra (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Since I was the person who made that revert, I guess I should comment here. I've tried to step back without commenting, to let other editors react, and see what they say. It looks to me like there's a certain amount of the usual (for this page) no, I don't want to do that, but here's my own pet theory of what the page should say, but no clear support for rewriting the lead. And, having lived through the last round of rewriting the lead, I myself have low enthusiasm. Please take a look at what I wrote about reading the archives, just a little lower in this talk. In my opinion, most of what you suggest has already been discussed before. That's not to say that I think you are wrong! Just that I have no doubt that other editors will come along who will think so, and loudly. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

When I first came to this page in 2004, in what is now archive 10 out of 43 archived pages, people were going in circles about this very point of "weak vs. strong atheism". I failed to see the interest in this discussion back then, and even more strongly so now, after years of circular debate and the creation of a dedicated Weak and strong atheism article. "Atheism" means the rejection of theism. Yes, the term can also be extended to "absence of theism", the article is already fully aware of that, arguably making every block of wood an atheist. How very novel. The motivation behind calling "absence of theism" "atheism" is taken from the monotheistic worldview that God is immanent everywhere, and that belief in God is natural, so that no, blocks of wood are theists, and the unnatural state of absence of theism in people is already a defect or imbalance that deserves a positive epithet of an ism. Yes, you can see it this way. But it is really beyond me how this can still be a topic of serious debate literally years after it was first sorted out in byzantine detail.

My suggestion is that in the future, all attempts to revive the "weak and strong" discussion on this page are immediately transferred to Talk:Weak and strong atheism --dab (𒁳) 08:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I get on an airplane for a few hours, and this whole talk page goes beserk (just joking!). I know that some of the editors who have commented here have long been involved in work on this page and are familiar with past discussions, but for those who might not have been, I would ask that you please take the time to read the talk archives (go back, at least, to around Archive 40), and see whether the issues you raise have already been discussed, and then make sure that you are really bringing something new to the table, and not just needlessly reigniting old debates. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

reading the archives is a good approach, but reading one or two posts just above yours is also useful. I find it a little ironical that you should ask people to make sure that they are really bringing something new to the table less than 12 hours after I have asked people to make sure that they are really bringing something new to the table. --dab (𒁳) 10:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)--dab (𒁳) 10:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't pointing at anyone in particular, and it's always good to reinforce a good message. Cheers! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone who has proper authority, please change the page appropriately. Atheism does not mean "un godly". It means "god-less" or "without god". This is an important distinction:

"Atheism", from the Greek:

• atheismos : noun, from
• a- : lacking, without, or not having something; akin to the English suffix "-less"
• theos : a god, deity, mighty magic entity
• -ismos : a state, quality, or condition; an "-ism"

Therefore, "atheism" is "the state, quality, or condition of being without a god or deity". "Atheos" would literally mean "godless", and "atheismos" ("atheism") would literally mean "godlessness".

Notice that the prefix "a-" does not mean "not" or "against". It's a common mistake to think so. That would require the use of the Greek prefix "anti-", such as in the term antikhristos ("antichrist").—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabu2 (talk • contribs) 26 September 2009

atheos means "godless", and needs to be explained in an ancient Greek (polytheistic) context. Otoh, atheisme is a 16th century French coinage and needs to be explained in a 16th century, not an ancient Greek context. The article is already aware of all this, including the literal translation "godlessness" as in "Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577". --dab (𒁳) 10:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe the post was referring to something that was fixed by JimWae shortly after posting. Although if I'm incorrect in this assumption, then please explain whatever specific problem(s) you have with the article, Mabu2. --Kamasutra (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I also think that JimWae's edit solved it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer some authoritative source on this that was not just repeating some other source, and/or not just parsing the semantic units of the word & keeping the semantic order as it would be in English. From sources I am seeing, there is strong support for "godless" being a better translation from ancient Greek than "without gods". It was used not just in the theological sense, but also in the moral sense for terrible behaviour by humans (who might be ignoring the wrath of the gods). I think "ungodly" is suspect & not helpful, as it could also be applied to the (poor) behaviour of the gods, and in ancient times, people were not expected to behave in a "godly" fashion. English "Ungodly" is used for more than the "ungodly" hour when even the gods are not awake yet.--JimWae (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What I don't see in this article is atheism described as a rejection of assertions that are based on the assumption that some particular theistic interventionist deity exists - a "supernatural" entity which, at least from time to time, intervenes in the natural world - which is essentially what books like Dawkins' God Delusion and Hitchens' God is not Great are about. I mean, if one defines "God" as something as broadly and ambiguously as a nontheistic (or atheistic) "collective consciousness of the universe", one might believe in some version of that and still be an atheist.

Any suggestions on how this point might be made in this article (or if it already is, where)?--Born2cycle (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone looked in that who is Zofia J Zdybicka? Please look at here. She is a nun, and yes, she is a professor and she is a specialist in ontology and the philosophy of religion. That's, she is NOT an Atheist.

- Is that a problem?

Actualy, the problem is her "definition". This is a huge problem. Because she says that:

"Deism, pantheism, panentheism, agnosticism and scepticism IS ATHEISM."

In fact, she says that:

Any philosophy or whatever, which has NOT a "religion" IS ATHEISM.

This is the problem!

Lets look at the etymology of atheism:

In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "without god".

In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587.[14] The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God"

Can anyone see such thing like: "religion"?.. NO.

Deism, pantheism, panentheism, agnosticism and scepticism is NOT atheism. For instance, pantheism should be "Material(ist) Teizm", not "Metaphysical Atheism"!

It is not possible such thing like "Metaphysical Atheism" without "," (comma). 92.45.238.139 (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm bringing up an old topic, but I'm curious about two apparently- different 'isms' in the main article. I noticed this section I'm quoting here: "Today, about 2.3% of the world's population describes itself as atheist, while a further 11.9% is described as nontheist." I thought nontheism and atheism were the same thing, since they both reject any belief in a personal god or gods. What's the difference between the two?--KellyLeighC (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Atheism, Deism, pantheism, panentheism, agnosticism and scepticism are NONTHEISM.

There is god and religion = Theism

There is god but not religion = Deism (Nontheism)

There is not god and there is/isn't religion = Atheism (Nontheism) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.238.139 (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with the anonymous poster above that deism is likely to be included in nontheism but not atheism, although I'm not sure what they mean about there being no religion. Obviously atheists and deists believe that religion exists, and many deists practice religious rituals overseen by church hierarchies and so on so it can't even be said that deists don't practice religion without defining it rather oddly. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I can explain for you what they are imply when they say "There is no religion." Yes, there are lots of religion exist on this world and they does not say that "There is no religion exist on this world." They says that "Religion(s) is not divine.", "God has not sent us any religion." So, the problem is NOT about "there is a religion or not", the problem is source of religion. The source of religion is God, or not. Anyone who does not believe religion can practice religional ritual. But, we are talking about "philosophy", not about some people.92.45.238.139 (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

please use this image, as it more correctly shows the % of the atheists.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.69.135 (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This link does no appear to work? Obscurasky (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it. Powers ^T 14:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

My recollection is that we decided previously not to use that image, because there were methodological concerns about how the very high numbers for China and a few other countries had been obtained. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Between 64% and 65% of Japanese describe themselves as atheists, agnostics, or non-believers"

These numbers on Japan are absurd: the study is from a source whose methodology is biased in favour of presenting greater numbers of atheists. Claiming "non-religion" from a Japanese perspective has nothing to do with the Western concept of "atheism." I suggest removing this from the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.51.191 (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Atheism/Archive 43#Number of atheists in Japan. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I think I read somewhere that many people are atheist because they dislike some religious groups's attitudes towards homosexuality, and thus many homosexuals are atheists. Can this be confirmed? Whatever is true, it should be mentioned somewhere. Best wishes, Wrestlingdud09 (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You "think you read"? I think I read somewhere that God exists. And also I think I read somewhere that invisible unicorn exists. And flying spaggeti monster. This is the first time I have read something like you've written. It sounds absurd. And it has absolutely zero references. So... No, nothing like that should be mentioned anywhere. MaxMaxB (talk) 03:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You deserve a medal --DraconianDebate (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've heard of exactly this, people referred to as "Gaytheists". But again, no references. --King Öomie 15:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Not encyclopaedic, and not relevant, but come on Maxmaxb - have you honestly never observed this phenomenon? In my experience, there's absolutely no doubt that a higher proportion of homosexuals are atheist, than compared to heterosexuals. It's possible that this has something to do with homosexuals feeling alienated from mainstream Christianity, or maybe the obvious homophobic flaws in religious scripture highlights the absurdity of their beliefs. Who knows, maybe it's an indication that homosexuals are smarter than the rest of society  :) Obscurasky (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess you have to live in a religious society to notice that, because I sure haven't. In fact quite the opposite. Here the homosexuals are fighting for the right to carry out church weddings, something I can only interpret as religious sentiments. Anyway, this is clearly not a subject that has enough notability (or even credibility) to be included in the article. So as per WP:FORUM perhaps we should wrap this up? --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please, wrap this up. A pattern with this talk page is that forum-esque talk tends to lead eventually to trolling. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Max, just wondering: It's a bit ironic to say I have few contributions, because you haven't even created a talk page? Isn't it a bit obvious you're using another account to avoid scrunity, and is likely just another of these atheist users? Go to a sysop if you wish, but I myself just dont edit here much, only sometimes as an Ip on french wikipedia. However, I'm not sure if this merits the deserving of a medal. Or, just end this discussion. I mean, okay, if your society strongly supports gays and atheists, I will not comment, but, like, come on, 'homosexuals are smarter than the rest of society' is obviously biased. Thanks, Wrestlingdud09 (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Not biased, just (apparently) a failed attempt at humour. Seriously though, I have accepted that the topic is not encyclopaedic, so it would seem the (reputed) phenomenon is out of (Wiki)bounds. Obscurasky (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion about the word "absence". People don't realize one thing - atheism ALWAYS is an absence of belief in God/gods/deity/whatever. Absolutely always. It is that by definition. If you don't understand this, use common sense logic. On top of that, atheism can be (but doesn't have to be) two things: 1) a rejection of theism - I have the problem with word "rejection", because it implies "refusing, resisting, disapproving", which many times might not be the case. I'm not refusing to accept a theism, I'm just not accepting theism - there is no "refusal". Word refusal implies that that is something you have to do, or it is normal to do, and one is not normal if does not do that. 2) belief that God/gods/deity does not exist - this would be "strong atheism". This is not contrasted with the "absence of belief in god", but is compatible or complementary to it.

If you still don't understand what I'm talking about, watch this video: [[8]]

Now, back to the nature. What does it really mean what you say that someone is an atheist? You didn't say anything usable with that. It translates to "he/she is not a theist". And who does that describe? Can you tell a single (affirmative) characteristic common for every or most so called atheists? You can't. Because it would be stupid to say something like this. It is similar like you would ask somebody what characteristics are common for non-Christian. Or non-Muslim. These questions are stupid. So why would you ask what characteristics are common for non-Christian-non-Muslim-non-Hindus-non-Deist-non...?

The word "atheist" denotes what you are not, what you do not to, and not what you are, or what you do. The same is with word "atheism". It is not a doctrine, it is not a belief system, it is not a philosophy, but a lack of all that! An absence! You can't spread atheism like religion because there is nothing to spread! People don't become atheists - they stop being Christians, Muslims, Hindus - they stop being theists.

Therefor, if there is any definition of atheism that applies to all not-theists (so called atheists) it is an absence of belief in God/gods/deities. MaxMaxB (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the basic problem is that many self-described atheists are in fact ignorant of the history and meaning of atheism. They argue, or ape, from protologism or perhaps even neologism in the psychological sense. Note that this is not to be construed as an attack on 'nontheism' simply acknowledging that atheism has a rich history and a fairly well defined meaning until 'neo-atheism' came about. Unomi (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is precisely why philosophers and scholars introduce new terms which are better aligned with philosophies that come about, such as nontheism, deism, agnosticism etc. Because that is the rational thing to do. Unomi (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The cited survey excludes too many EU countries – there may be more religious counties in europe than italy. As evidenced by the Eurobarometer poll than can be found in Religion_in_the_European_Union#Religiosity, there are some purportedly more religious countries such as Poland and Romania that are not in the adherents.com survey, so the claim is debatable.--Underlying lk (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly the problems are: (1) there appear to be other countries besides Italy, some not even counted in the survey, where the % non-religious may be as low or even lower, and (2) the % values tend to be ranges, not a single number, and are difficult to measure even as ranges. Based on that understanding, I've tried to modify the sentence to acknowledge those uncertainties. Please see whether my edits were adequate, or not. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was the idea, the current version seems fine. I apologise for not being more clear.--Underlying lk (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Good! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without gods", - yet the source states : In Greek they said atheos and atheotēs; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, atheos was used as an expression of severe censure and moral condemnation; this use is an old one, and the oldest that can be traced. Not till later do we find it employed to denote a certain philosophical creed. I propose changing "without gods" to "ungodly". [9] Also states with some authority: ATHEISM (from Gr. a-, privative, and O€6, God), literally a system of belief which denies the existence of God. if we want to take 'literal readings'.

I also believe the first sentence is weighted somewhat oddly: Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]

Consider that most dictionaries in onelook, support what is stated in cited sources such as http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm namely: Most of the North American public define an "Atheist" is a person who believes that no deity exists: neither a God, nor a Goddess, nor a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. This definition is reflected in American dictionaries -- not just because most publishers are Christian, but because it is the purpose of dictionaries to follow the public's word usage.

Consider as an example: Until the expression "AGNOSTICISM" came into general use in the nineteenth century, the term "ATHEISM" was popularly used to describe those who thought the EXISTENCE of GOD an unprovable thesis. from [10]

I propose rewording the sentence as : Atheism is the belief that, or the philosophical position according to which, deities do not exist. Atheism has also sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist.

Thus you would call all atheists believers , funny. I think a belief is a position that cannot be argued with facts ,while religious people do exactly that , and atheists reject it, you would have wikipedia state that all atheists "believe" that deities do no exist .86.123.168.47 (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This reflects dictionary sources such as: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

Unomi (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• There are various meanings for atheism given in various sources. This article includes all meanings from all reliable sources without taking a position on which is correct (which would violate NPOV) nor on which is most common (for which there is really no empirical evidence)--JimWae (talk) 08:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree, good job finding encyclopedic sources which say "absence" definition is less used. --windyhead (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• The weight in the current text does not seem to reflect prevalence in sources, please see WP:WEIGHT and note that articles should reflect such prevalence. If there are those amongst us that do not agree that current wording is unsupported by prevalence in sources, please do list the sources that support it. Unomi (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think dictionaries can go into as much depth as encyclopedias can. That's why we rely more-heavily on Encyclopedia Britannica, the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy than we do on the myriad of dictionary sources you can reference that don't bring much research or authority to the table. I agree that the "position that deities do not exist" definition is the most prevalent and should go before the "rejection of theism" definition, but none of the three definitions should be removed, and the general format and weighting of the definitions should remain. johnpseudo 13:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now put myself in a situation of engaging in very similar discussions at a number of venues. At Talk:List_of_nontheists#Redefinition_of_atheism.3F I have presented an excerpt by Flew where he maintains that the 'broad interpretation' is a novel one introduced by him. Unomi (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

1> If you take a look at the sources for the lede of this article, you will see the "absence of belief" usage has been included in reference works since at least 1942 - before Flew had much influence. If you look also at the archives, you will see that I have long proposed the "absence definition" is quite inadequate as a definition. Though decisive as far as I can see, my reasons appear to be original research & so cannot yet be included in the article. Moreover, since that def is part of the literature, this article does need to include it. I think the best one can expect is a mention that there is some disagreement on the appropriateness of that def -- but the sources you give are too non-authoritative to be used for that. 2> Also, are you aware yet that the lede gives THREE definitions of atheism, not just two?--JimWae (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not arguing that the absence usage should not be noted, but so far all the sources that give indication of prevalence point to that this usage is uncommon outside of atheistic circles, this should probably be made more clear.

Regarding the inadequacy of the absence definition, here is a comment from Theodore Drange

“

Sometimes the use of the term "atheism" to mean "lack of theistic belief" is supported by an appeal to etymology. For example, Martin, in the book mentioned above, says the following: In Greek a' means without' or not' and theos' means god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.[4] This argument is rather unsatisfactory for at least two reasons. First, it is not completely clear that the correct translation of the Greek prefix "a" is "without." It might also mean "no," in which case "a-the-ism" could be translated as "no-god-ism," or "the view that there is no god." Note that there is no "ism" in Greek. Second, even if the etymology of the word "atheism" did indicate that it once meant "without belief in God," that is still not a good guide to current usage. It is quite common for words to acquire new meanings over time. It seems far more important what people mean by a word today than what it once meant long ago. Another argument sometimes put forward is that we should ascertain what the word "atheist" means by taking a poll among atheists. But that is an unclear suggestion. How are we to decide who is an atheist (and thus to be polled) prior to ascertaining what the word "atheist" means? Let us assume that the poll is to be taken among all those native speakers of English who are not theists. It is still not clear what the result of such a poll would be. I have never seen any statistical result presented on the matter. My conclusion here is that no good case has ever been made for using the word "atheist" in the sense of "one who is without belief in God."

”

From what I have seen the 'absence of belief' tends to be used in the context of 'innocents' be they children or otherwise. Unomi (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• English is not a technical language - not every word has a unique meaning. Even setting aside the "absence" def, your desire to clearly separate atheists from agnostics still flounders on the "rejection of belief" def. Every source you provided that uses the term "disbelief" can be seen as support for the rejection def - because "disbelief" is a vague term that does not distinguish "belief in not X" from "rejecting belief in X" JimWae (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly true, I accept that varying interpretations of the word exist, however, there are a number of good, relatively recent sources that support that the 'broad interpretation' is the minority position, even among theologians. Here are a few:

Drange 1998 In this essay, I shall use the term "atheist" in its (more common) narrow sense. Martin draws a distinction between "negative atheists," who are without any belief in God, and "positive atheists," who deny God's existence.[5]) Applying that distinction, it could be said that I (and most people) use the term "atheist" in the sense of "positive atheist."

Gordon Stein 1980 The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses "atheist" to mean a person who denies the existence of a God.

Dan Baker 1992 Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god--both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter.

Michael Martin 1990 If you look up "atheism" in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Unomi (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on the sources listed above, I will soon modify the text to make it more clear that atheism is commonly understood to be 'the belief that there is no god', I also find it appropriate to mention that the proposition that 'denial/disbelief of existence' should not be interpreted as 'affirmation/belief of nonexistence' as one belonging to, and popularized by, people identifying as atheists. I also propose to change 'without god' to 'godless' this is per our source, Drachmann, for that section. Unomi (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am also inclined to include more of the 'appeal to etymology' discourse, including Drange's response to it. This seems to be the underpinning of the 'without god' and hence 'without theistic belief' conception. I wrote Michael Martin an email as to whether he was aware of any further development in that discussion, he was kind enough to let me know that he was unaware of any (this is obviously not an RS, merely an invitation for other editors to seek any such developments on their own). Unomi (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope that editors following this page will help create formulations which can achieve consensus. Unomi (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Unomi: Thank you for carefully researching the changes that you propose. But I need to ask you, also, to read the archives of this talk page, starting with Archive 40 and going up to the present. You really need to incorporate all of that previous extensive discussion of similar points into any suggestions here. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish, You are right, I should have started with looking through the archives.

I have now managed to have read from Archive 40 to the present, I can't claim to have internalized all of it, so I apologize beforehand if I misrepresent or overlook any past arguments as we go forwards. Rather than try to characterize the approach of anyone, I will state some general thoughts on how I believe the word atheism and our treatment of it should be handled. Please believe that I consider myself a devout agnostic, and no, the irony is not lost on me. The following text will no doubt be fairly meandering and likely self-contradictory, such is my lot, I will also state much of it as bald assertion, this does not mean I am fully confident of what I write, but saves me from multitudinous 'I believe' etc. I invite everyone to depart from custom and interject inline comments, if you do so, please simply paste my sig from this post at the end of a sentence, insert a line-break and indent (or perhaps in this case outdent) your comment(s).

Atheism is not a recent addition to the English language, it has a rich history both from its greek ancestry and within 'modern' theological discourse. It was created from a theistic point of view, employed to describe those that 'acted against god(s)', be it by actively denouncing god(s) or acting in a way which was against 'the will of god(s)'.

The word 'atheism' as it exists in English is not a transliterated Greek word, it was created 'de novo' in terms of 'direct' etymological baggage, indeed 'atheism' is grammatically incorrect as it relates to Greek. The closest Greek relation of the abstract noun 'atheism' is ἀθεότης understood to mean 'godlessness' likely as in impious.

Until fairly recently Atheism has been employed from a theistic point of view, apart from the position of innocents it was likely never meant to represent an acceptable, tenable or defensible position, there would have been no room for such a conception of the word. This is fairly important when we meet definitions such as 'a lack of', 'rejection of', 'disbelief in'; as much as we may now consider such positions as 'neutral','benign','default' or 'rational' I find it unlikely that such wordings were ever afforded this leeway.

I think this is what Flew was alluding to, I think that this is why Martin, and since, Drange distanced themselves from Flews suppositions in this matter. Clearly all 3 are experts in the field, they would have known and built on past usage which reflects such 'broad interpretation', yes, Martin, later, gave examples of speciously similar usage, but I think that this has more to do with his coming around to the perceived utility of that line of argument and on review those usages will be found to fall within the context of innocents, certainly I see d'Holbach's and Smith's tantalizingly recent usage as such.

lack of belief was reserved for those never acquainted with the conception of (your favourite deity here) or mentally incapable of conceiving of such a deity either for immaturity or lack of intelligence. It wasn't meant to encompass noncognitivism or 'probably false'.

From the theistic perspective, if you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient god, if you were a god fearing person, someone who did not act in accordance to your gods proposed will, if you did not kneel down and pray for forgiveness, if you (heaven forbid) stated you 'lacked belief'(wavering faith aside) in Him, this would be proof positive that you did not believe he existed, how else could you damn yourself to eternal hell?

This is the heritage of 'atheism', this is the context from which atheism exists in the English language.

This is also why Drange's response to the appeal to etymology goes unanswered.

This is also why concise dictionaries such as concise OED and Cambridge state as clearly as they possibly can that atheism is 'the belief that God does not exist'

From this I think that we have to accept that alternative interpretations are minority, even fringe, positions. We have to accept that the likes of Dawkins are completely out of their depth. There is still a very good article here which includes contemporary efforts to redefine atheism, but that absolutely must be the context such chronocentrism is given.

'But I am a true atheist and I don't believe that', by all means, pick another word that defines you better, nontheist seems pretty hip and noncognitivist is positively unassailable, while still having that feel-good 'bite'.

'But times change and atheism has now evolved to be lack of belief', right, lets redefine dinosaur to encompass chickens while we are at it.

I realize that I am coming off very self-indulgent, but I propose a reboot, adopt the FA version enhanced with whatever additional material, if any, that has been added since, and start negotiations anew. I must admit that I have not read the FA version, but I have some faith that it did not, to the extent that this version seems to, take part in the dispute. If I am dead wrong, please, enlighten me. Sorry for the loose language and with the utmost respect, Unomi (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"From this I think that we have to accept that alternative interpretations are minority"

But we have plenty of sources for the other definitions (including the ones you give). I don't have huge objections if we cover issues such as claims of how common a definition is, along with criticisms of the various definitions, but this is out of the scope of the lead. I believe we should also attribute these claims, rather than present them as fact, since I'm not sure that something like "most common definition" can be easily measured.

The FA version had these three definitions too - in fact it was very similar to what we have now: [23]. Mdwh (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, I think that attribution is critical, and that stating just about anything as 'fact' is problematic. I also agree that we cannot have absolute knowledge of how many sources use one definition of another, due to the problem of not knowing how many sources there exist. We do however know of some sources, and we know of the claims of some experts such as Martin, Drange, Flew, Stein etc. and they state their understanding of common usage. I agree with your view on how we could include this in the article. I think though that the wording we choose for the lede deserves to reflect these sources.

Thank you for the link to the FA version, I must admit that I think that reverting to the first paragraph from the FA version would be preferred to retaining the one we have now. I have not been able to do enough research on but The analytical Greek lexicon from 1850 states the word as translating to 'godless', I think that if we do retain a translation from greek in the lede we need to ensure it is the one that reflects the intended meaning of it at the time it was in use. Regarding the first sentence in the current lede I have some issues;

specifically I am at odds with stating that Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] without qualifying that in the sense of the source. That is, our source for 'rejection of theism' explicitly states that this is in contrast to agnosticism which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not. We seem to be listing the same definition twice, that is, rejection of belief is understood by our source to mean 'the belief that there is no god'. We do and should, go into careful inspection of claims in the body of our article, but likely not give them so much room in the lede. Unomi (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I clarify what it is about the first sentence of the FA version, that you prefer over the current? Both versions use Britannica as the source for "rejection". Mdwh (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite honestly it is the primacy given to rejection of theism, this usage has no prevalence in neither historic nor recent literature, be they dictionaries or otherwise. Quite frankly, I hold that rejection of theism is so vague, so open to interpretation that it has no meaning, one is left necessarily noncognitivistic regarding 'rejection talk'. I certainly agree that noncognitivism is likely the one of the best bets on popularizing atheism, simply because it takes no effort, and is likely aided by the fact that many people seem noncognitivist regarding a great number of things. From our own article on Kai Nielsen he is a leading advocate of contemporary atheism. and is, unsurprisingly after reading his crucial form of atheist rejection article, known for his defense of utilitarianism. Personally I am of the minimal moral integrity camp, but so it goes. Regardless of my opinion on the matter, fact remains that the body of evidence that we have available points to 'rejection' being a very recent, minority definition. Consider that in the EB article 'belief that it is false that God exists' is hammered home time and again and the 'rejection' is introduced carefully and with much explanation. If we are to adopt Nielsen's language, we should also adopt his care in presenting it. Unomi (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• you have either misread, read too much into, or not read the entire Britannica article. It is one of the primary sources stating that "rejection of belief" is the best definition of atheism AND THAT "belief there is no deity" is an inadequate definition of atheism. It begins with common notions, then explains why the common notions are inadequate--JimWae (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I must admit that I did have some problems reading the EB article. In truth, it seems as though the EB article spends more time in stating all the things that atheism is not. It lists the example of Paul Tillich's rejection of theism, while retaining a belief in God and the fideistic position of believing in God but holding that God should not be provable. Really, the article is quite clear:

“

Finally, and most important, not all denials of God are denials of his existence. Believers sometimes deny God while not being at all in a state of doubt that God exists. They either willfully reject what they take to be his authority by not acting in accordance with what they take to be his will, or else they simply live their lives as if God did not exist. In this important way they deny him. Such deniers are not atheists (unless we wish, misleadingly, to call them “practical atheists”). They are not even agnostics. They do not question that God exists; they deny him in other ways. An atheist denies the existence of God. As it is frequently said, atheists believe that it is false that God exists, or that God’s existence is a speculative hypothesis of an extremely low order of probability.

”

• The article goes on about it being an insufficient definition precisely because there are some cases of 'nonatheism' which gets captured by the standard definition of atheism, not the other way around. And yes, the case of the noncognitivist who maintains that there is nothing intelligible to deny in the first place. Which in the article is considered the more crucial form of atheist rejection, that may well be, but we happen to have an article on theological noncognitivism already. Theodore Drange an expert in the field of noncognitivism holds it as separate from atheism. George H. Smith, renowned atheist, holds that noncognitivism leads to the conclusion that "nothing named 'God' exists", proving strong atheism. Either way.. Also, as I read it, the line regading 'low order of probability' is the position of the fallibilist atheist, contrasted to the dogmatic atheist, that is, low order probability atheists do deny the existence of God, but have given it some thought. If you find my outline of the article lacking, please point out passages that could make that clear to me. Unomi (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are the appropriate footnotes for "rejection of belief". These are sufficient to counter your claim that there is no support for this def. It was just a day or 2 ago you were using the EB article (below) against this def. --JimWae (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Nielsen, Kai (2009). "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism. Retrieved 2009-08-23. "Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.... Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived)..."
• Edwards, Paul (1967). "Atheism". The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1. Collier-MacMillan. p. 175. "On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion."

Wikipedia style insists on presenting the definitions very early on. We cannot, like Neilsen, wait until the end of the article to get to the definition. His article is written more like a philosophical paper than an encyclopedia article. Following his style here would lead to even less clarity - and we have not just one definition to present, but three. I do think a section "On definition" could be helpful. --JimWae (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia style relies on WP:ASTONISH, we certainly can, and likely should, as Nielsen does, very carefully explain why some philosophers believe that 'rejection of belief' is a better definition. Per WP:UNDUE we cannot take a single source, or two, that are in direct contradiction to just about all other known sources and indeed itself is very careful in its presentation of the authors point of view, and just state that without explanation or qualification without going against WP:UNDUE.

Here are some entries on atheism from encyclopedias that I have access to:

• Canadian encyclopedia: An atheist believes there is no God

• Stanford : ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God

• Encarta:Atheism, the denial of or lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods.

• Columbia E. 2008 :atheism , denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism , which holds that the existence cannot be proved.

The encyclopedias above were not intentionally preselected, they are the ones from List of online encyclopedias that are not 'wiki style', and that I have been able to access. Note also that they all cover the noncognitivist position in their text.

Please see MOS:INTRO and note for example: In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction. Mathematical equations and formulas should not be used except in mathematics articles. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked.. I propose that we briefly describe the noncognitivist approach and link to Theological noncognitivism. I have the utmost respect for Kai Nielsen and EB and I trust that there are good reasons why the opening sentence of their article on atheism did not state: 'Atheism is the rejection of theism' or variants that would include rejection, but carefully lead the average reader to understand why rejection might be apt. I think it would be inappropriate to simply state it as fact when at least 2 leading nontheist philosophers, Drange and Smith maintain that it is not correct or not necessary. Unomi (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Look again. The lede does not present any of the 3 defs as fact. Nothing you have said here supports a change to the lede; though changes further down are worth considering. The lede is a summary of what is to come. Why aren't you listing the sources you previously listed that did include "rejection"? --JimWae (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It does state it as fact, if it were not to be intended to be stated as fact then it should be inline attributed, cites simply state where we get our facts from. Do you not see a problem with listing 'rejection' as the first 'definition' when it is the least supported? From what I can tell we have 3 sources that support it, and numerous sources which do not mention it, and even experts in the field who argue against it? I told you which sources I used for this latest post, they are the ones from List of online encyclopedias, I didn't mention EB because I think we are now well acquainted with the fact that it does contain the argument that 'rejection' is more appropriate, I did not see a need to mention it again. Fact remains that the current line is deeply problematic, the long history in the archives regarding the wording clearly points to that.

Over the years the editors of this article have identified 3 distinct defs that are contained in reliable sources. In accordance with WP:NPOV, nobody gets to remove things they do not agree with, whether they have made 5,000 or zero edits to the article, regardless of whether all sources agree or not.--JimWae (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not removed anything, I am trying to understand why the 'rejection' wording is there in the first place. Per WP:NPOV if the sources do not agree we have an obligation to state that, and the manner in which they do not agree. We are not living up to WP:NPOV by placing a relatively weakly supported perspective as the first term.

Here is a proposal; We eschew terse and technical language and go for a more readily understood description:

"Atheism is the belief that god or gods are man-made constructs, or the position that these concepts are not meaningful." Unomi (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• How many sources agree with that? You have been arguing for over a week now, have changed your position several times, & other editors are not supporting your ideas. --JimWae (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In as much as silence is not consent, I don't see any editors supporting your position, in fact as far as I can see We have windyhead agreeing that the sources point to 'absence' being less used(than is represented in the current text), johnpseudo agreeing that 'rejection' should not be given its current primacy. I am not a theologian, until very recently I had no interest or insight into atheistic philosophy, I think it is natural and healthy that one reconsiders and rephrases their position as more information is available. Unomi (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Drange 1998 argues against the "absence" definition - he does not mention the rejection def. It would be better if we all tried to avoid jumping to invalid conclusions --JimWae (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't here talking about Drange's attack on the 'appeal to etymology'. I was talking about his position that noncognitivism is distinct and separate from atheism. Unomi (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt which might make it clearer:

“

Of course, the person in question is not taking a noncommittal stance relative to the proposition that God1 exists, for he does not even concede that there is any such proposition. So the "agnostic" label doesn't fit either. A. J. Ayer, a philosopher who held this type of position, rejected both labels "atheist" and "agnostic."[7] And that is the terminology that I prefer. I call such a person a "noncognitivist with regard to God-talk" (or just "noncognitivist" for short) and place him into a fourth category.

”

Just to be clear, as far as I can see the 'rejection of belief' definition is justified by Nielsen on account of noncognitivism. He repeatedly writes to the effect of: "An atheist denies the existence of God. As it is frequently said, atheists believe that it is false that God exists, or that God’s existence is a speculative hypothesis of an extremely low order of probability.", and the only case that I have seen which he uses to base 'reject' on has been noncognitivism, if you see otherwise please let me know of such a passage. Unomi (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think we still have a problem with your not being aware there are 3 distinct defs in the lede. Drange himself makes no distinction between babies (& adults & maybe ants) who have never heard of any deities, and people who have given the idea extended consideration & determined they just do not believe that any such entity exists. The implicit/explicit distinction is solidly part of the literature.
• One of the reasons Neilsen gives as a reason for rejection of belief is that the more non-anthropomorphic the proposed deity is, the more incoherent and unintelligible the entity becomes. This is where non-cognitivism fits into the rejection def.--JimWae (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see disagreement with your description of non-cognitivism and 'the position that these concepts are not meaningful'. Unomi (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the state of the innocent is not captured in my attempt at a less terse and technical first sentence, nor is that atheism has been used as a term of disparagement.

How about this attempt?

"Atheism is the belief that god or gods are man-made constructs, or the position that these concepts are not meaningful. It has been argued that as atheism constitutes a lack of belief in gods, atheism applies to the innocent; those lacking the mental capacity to relate to theism or unaware of the existence of it. Until recent times atheism has been used disparagingly to criticize anyone not sharing the accusers religious beliefs." Unomi (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Your proposed rewrite drops the "rejection of belief" definition. Why? If you actually mean to argue that the third "absence of belief" definition is less common, then that is one thing, but you have not proposed any evidence that "belief that god doesn't exist" is the more common that the "rejecion of belief" definition.

But I'm confused by your sources. [24] says "active disbelief", which does not imply believing that god does not exist. It also includes anyone who actively doesn't belief ([25] says "Refusal or reluctance to believe").

Similarly, [26] and [27] give both of our first two definitions (disbelief, and doctrine that there is no god - consider, if disbelief really meant believing god doesn't exist, why would they list the definitions twice?)

[28] clearly gives "rejection of belief in God or gods". [29] is the same source with a different URL.

[30] actually gives the definitions as "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"! Similarly [31], [32] and [33].

So even by your own selected sources, I do not see any evidence that we need to change anything. On the contrary, I think you've proved the point that all three definitions are supported by sources. Mdwh (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I agree that my first attempt at an alternative wording was flawed. I believe though that the flaw had mostly to do with not including 'lack of belief' in the strict sense of the position of the 'innocent', to borrow from theistic terminology.

but you have not proposed any evidence that "belief that god doesn't exist" is the more common that the "rejecion of belief" definition.

[34] clearly gives "rejection of belief in God or gods". [35] is the same source with a different URL.

As far as I know reject is used in philosophy in the same sense that it is employed in formal logic. If we accept that existance/nonexistance is a binary proposition then I believe it follows that the law of the excluded middle takes care of the rest. I could be wrong here, I would appreciate thoughts on the matter. Unomi (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have given the statements by 5 philosophers that 'belief that god doesn't exist' is the common usage. See Drange, Martin, Flew, Baker and Stein above. Unomi (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, [36] and [37] give both of our first two definitions (disbelief, and doctrine that there is no god - consider, if disbelief really meant believing god doesn't exist, why would they list the definitions twice?)

It is not giving the same definition twice, it is stating that it also covers the doctrine that there is no God or gods, see [38] for a similar case. Unomi (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[39] actually gives the definitions as "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"! Similarly [40], [41] and [42].

This is the state of the innocent, as is consistent with the explanation given by [43]:

A person who is without a belief in any deity. This definition would mainly include those who are simply unaware of the existence of any deity. It would also include a person who is either too young or who lacks the mental ability to conceive of a deity. In contrast to this, most Muslims believe that all babies are Muslim at birth, and only later in life may accept the teachings of another religion].

This is also consonant with what our article currently states regarding implicit / explicit:

Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[29] Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."[30] Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief.

From what I have seen of historic text this use, pertaining to innocents, is the one intended by 'lack of belief' Unomi (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• The rejection is not "rejection of existence of a deity", it is "rejection of belief (in the existence of a deity)". If that is still not clear, it is more evidence hat we need to change "rejection of theism" to "rejection of belief in the existence of any deity"
• Several of the philosophers who state that one definition is the "most common" meaning go on to state that the most common one is inadequate as a defintion. Our task is not to reinforce commonly accepted inadequacies --JimWae (talk) 06:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Rejection of belief (in the existence of a deity) is what exactly in your view? Is there a way you could reword that so it might be easier for me to understand? In addition, would you agree that philosophy generally employs the same use of 'reject' as formal logic?Unomi (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Also, could you list the sources that you understand to employ 'rejection of belief', [44] which you mentioned earlier for that definition actually list the definition from 3 different sources 'side by side' the 2 first state fairly emphatically:

1. denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia® Copyright © 2007

2. Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1994-2008

and yes 3. rejection of belief in God or gods Collins Discovery Encyclopedia, 1st edition © HarperCollins Publishers 2005

Perhaps you would like to make your case as to how columbia and britannica are in error. Unomi (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

But we could equally say, explain how Collins Discovery is in error? The answer is that neither are in error, it is simply that there is more than one definition. And actually, can we be sure that "denial" only covers "belief that God doesn't exist"? [45] lists "A refusal to grant the truth of a statement or allegation; a contradiction.", "A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief." - these would be consistent with a rejection of belief: someone refuses to believe in god, but that doesn't mean they believe that god doesn't exist. Mdwh (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the proposition that none of them are in error is preferential, I would say though that from there to say that CEE and BCE have dealt with one definition in exclusion to another, and CDE makes an inverse error of omission is less preferential to considering that all 3 cover the exact same definition but with a different choice of words which may be interpreted other than intended. As for denial of belief(as used in relation to atheism) being something other than 'belief that God doesn't exist' is contradicted by the manner in which both BCE and CEE contrast atheism with agnosticism: distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved. and Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial.. Unomi (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

For CEE, it's distinguished from agnosticism, because it doesn't mean the idea "that the existence cannot be proved". I don't see how we can then conclude it must have one specific other meaning such as "belief that God doesn't exist". For BCE, "positive denial" is still vague, but even if it does mean the positive belief definition, that's only once source that agrees with you, and two of your own sources that don't (with one of those explicitly listing the same rejection of belief definition that we give). If you want to remove all but the "god doesn't exist" definition, I feel it is up to you to make your case why all other sources - including the ones you've listed - are in error. Mdwh (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Mdwh, regarding CEE, it states emphatically that atheism is denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, it already states its specific meaning and states that agnosticism holds that such relative existance to be unknown. For BCE I don't see how you hold it to be vague, unless you hold that this is meant to be in the psychological sense, a position you should likely offer a source for. I still don't see why you find it more logical that the 3 sources are in disagreement rather than agreement with each other. If you have sources which state that the sources are in fact in disagreement I would suggest that you offer them, as this is by far the more extraordinary claim. I don't hold that they are in error, I hold that they are in agreement with each other and that your specious WP:OR is in error. Unomi (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree that several of the philosophers have expressed that they understand atheism as something different from the common usage, and I certainly think that we should point that out in our article. That you see the majority position as an inadequacy is certainly one that I personally have empathy for. This does not detract from the fact that we now agree on what the majority position is. Please also see that not 'all' philosophers disagree with the majority position, Drange seems to see the majority position as one that he himself relates to, concerning the definition of atheism. We can also note that a number of the people disagreeing with what they deem as the majority position seem to do so on the weight of the 'appeal to etymology' to which Drangers rejoinder seemingly goes unanswered, I agree that this also deserves a mention. Unomi (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• The major sources are in the first sentence of the article. (Others you have provided yourself - especially those that say "disbelief"). There is a major difference btween "rejection of the existence of X" and "rejection of belief in the existence of X". Please do us all the courtesy of reading the lede carefully--JimWae (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance here, but in the current context, what do you understand the difference to be? Are you referring to rejection of theism, while retaining a belief in God as in the example of Paul Tillich? Are you referring to the fideist position of believing in God but holding that God should not be provable? Unomi (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Saying that one is an agnostic says nothing about what one believes or does not believe (though most believers do not first identify themselves as agnostics). If an acknowledged agnostic determines he/she believes, he is an agnostic theist. If he determines he does not believe, he is an agnostic atheist. Those who claim NOT to be an agnostic about deities, to have some knowledge about whether any deity exists or not, either 1> have a different standard for using the word "knowledge" - usually some "private" way of accessing "the truth", or 2> think they have an indubitable proof.--JimWae (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Thus it follows that atheism & agnosticism are not mutually exclusive terms--JimWae (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that to be incorrect, using 'agnostic' without qualifier means that one affirms belief in the proposition that we do not, or cannot know the ultimate reality, should such a thing exist. We now see usage which intentionally limits the scope of what such an admission of ignorance pertains. This is why we see agnostic atheist, what we may also reasonably call a fallibilistic atheist, agnostic theist ala Tillich or Kierkegaard etc. Personally I find such 'weak agnosticism' internally inconsistent and a perversion of agnosticism, but what do I know. I am also not quite sure what your post addresses exactly. I would hope that we could start addressing the question of the definition of atheism and leave the definition of agnosticism for another talk page. Unomi (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• You raised the agnosticism topic & said that atheism should be defined distinctly from it. I will rephrase slightly Saying that one is an agnostic says nothing about whether one believes deities exist or not. Saying one is an atheist makes it clear that one does not believe. If someone says they are agnostic, however, the question "Do you believe any deities exist?" is still unanswered. Thus atheism & agnosticism are not mutually exclusive terms. The lede is fine as it is (except "rejection of theism" needs to be expanded to "rejection of belief in the existence of deities" to reduce these repeated discussions)--JimWae (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that, then you I put it that you must also accept that one can 'reject belief in the existence of deities' yet still actually believe in deities. Unomi (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Your response is a non sequitur. Agnosticism is about knowledge; atheism/theism is about belief--JimWae (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've been following the discussion here while deliberately refraining from getting involved myself, in order to see what other editors would say, but at this point, I'm going to step in to say that I largely agree with JimWae that the changes under discussion probably are not needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As do I. Not that this is a vote or anything, but I think there are at least a few of us here who are following along, but think JimWae is doing a find job arguing on behalf of the status quo. johnpseudo 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, what issue do you take with:

"Atheism is the belief that god or gods are man-made constructs, or the position that these concepts are not meaningful. It has been argued that as atheism constitutes a lack of belief in gods, atheism applies to the innocent; those lacking the mental capacity to relate to theism or unaware of the existence of it. Until recent times atheism has been used disparagingly to criticize anyone not sharing the accusers religious beliefs." Unomi (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that a less terse and jargon laden description of atheism might be proper and is supported by WP:ASTONISH and MOS:INTRO. Unomi (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean this to sound dismissive, although it will probably come out that way, but my answer to "what issue?" would be: per JimWae. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Per JimWae you have not addressed the proposal. Unomi (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The introduction isn't terse. It's concise. The words are chosen carefully so as to communicate as much information as possible in the first sentence. Your proposal is wordy, and its first sentence is incomplete and confusing on its own. It would push all commonly-understood definitions of the word out of the first sentence and replace them with your personal favorite. All the extraneous information in your proposal, related to innocence, mental capacity, heresey, etc. are not central enough to the definition to warrant inclusion in the first paragraph. johnpseudo 19:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I hold that it is not concise. rejection of theism conveys no information, it fails utterly to lend itself to adequate interpretation by itself. It is not well supported by sources, I have seen exactly 3 and EB is very careful to explain in detail why 'rejection' might be a better term, as I understand, because of noncognitivism. Proponents of noncognitivism such as Ayer and Drange claim it as being separate and distinct from atheism. I accept that there are probably better ways to word it though. How about these:

"Atheism is the belief that or philosophical position according to which, no deities exist. Atheism is distinct from Theological noncognitivism which holds that 'deities exist' is not a meaningful proposition, and agnosticism which claims no knowledge regarding nonexistance of deities.

"Atheism is an umbrella term for critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in deities."

Unomi (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Neilsen gives 3 reasons for rejection of theism. 1> For an anthropomorphic deity, there is no evidence 2> for a non-anthropomorphic deity (for whom "evidence" is not supposed to be expected) that such a deity seems meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent 3> for the pantheistic liberal Christian deity of those such as Tillich, that belief in such a deity merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., “God” is just another name for love, or “God” is simply a symbolic term for moral ideals. [Didn't I say some of this just yesterday?]
• The featured article version contained the same 3 defs that the current lede has. You want to substitute it with your version that removes at least one of those definitions (or two - if your latest of 3 proposed versions is what you really want), makes a decisive, authoritatively-worded (and very clumsily worded) claim that just one of those defs is THE def. Then you want to introduce another authoritative claim about atheism being distinct from agnosticism based (presumably - you have not mentioned what sources you want to use yet) only on a very short web article by Drange in 1998. This despite your having received no support for such changes from other editors, and ALSO in opposition to WP:NPOV which requires that if there are significant, reliably-sourced differences of viewpoint about a topic (& the topic here is how to define atheism) that they be presented. Is that how you think an NPOV encyclopedia works? You have seen the sources - there is NO general agreement on how to define atheism. If you were arguing that non-cognitivism deserves more coverage further down in the article, I think I might be able to support that. If you were only arguing that the etymology section needs work & that it might presently be skewed to fit a certain POV, I could definitely support that.(I think "godless" works well as a translation - but what godless meant back then needs more research - "ungodly" is a very Christian concept - the Greeks had gods who they recognized were themselves very imperfect) I do not see how anything productive can come from your present attempts to change the first paragraph. --JimWae (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Above I have shown that only 3 of about 20 dictionaries and encyclopedias use 'rejection'. The best supported general definition is by far 'belief that there are no deities', as you should well know. That there is no general agreement on how to define atheism is not an excuse to give primacy to the weakest supported of them all and is certainly not supported by WP:NPOV. I am also failing to see that this is a productive use of my time. I take this to be a successful redefinition of dinosaur to include chicken. Enjoy, Unomi (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not true that there is "no general agreement" on how to define atheism. It just depends on the constituency you are talking about. This article is to a degree faced with the same problem as inferiority complex, which is misunderstood by the public, but employed in a specific sense within the field of psychology/psychiatry. With atheism, consensus has built around "rejectionism", perhaps following Edwards, and "absenceism", perhaps following Smith. Outside the field, "denialism" may or may not be most common but there's not much evidence I'm aware of to suggest which. Flew's version of negative atheism is not exactly the same thing as Smith's absenceism because it's primarily methodological. Drange and others make claims about "common usage" which they do not attempt to support by citation. All of which is just my opinion, which is why the opening paragraph sticks to wikipedian consensus instead of reflecting exactly my particular preferences. The definition of atheism is clearly contested, and that article does indeed reflect that. I see no need to overturn a settled consensus at this point. --Dannyno (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Outside the field this is captured by sources which reflect common usage, namely dictionaries. A small meaningful example is given by concise dictionaries from Cambridge, Oxford and concise EB, they list as one, the belief that there is no god. and atheism is a positive denial. Lets be clear here, I am not arguing for 'my favorite version', I am arguing for a version which reflects sources and is understandable by the average reader. Of course we should describe the varying viewpoints and arguments in favour of various attempts at a more 'apt' definition, but we should not take part in it, merely describe it, likely with common usage as a starting point for that description. Unomi (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Atheism is the belief that god or gods are man-made constructs, or the position that these concepts are not meaningful. It has been argued that as atheism constitutes a lack of belief in gods, atheism applies to the innocent; those lacking the mental capacity to relate to theism or unaware of the existence of it. Until recent times atheism has been used disparagingly to criticize anyone not sharing the accusers religious beliefs." Unomi (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is supposed to be superior to the current lead? It's not. There are more positions than the two alternatives you present. First of all, while atheists may hold that god is a human-created construct, they may also have other theories about the origin of theistic belief; the point here is that any atheist position on the origins of theism is more likely to follow than to precede a rejection of theistic belief. In other words, your definition there doesn't push far enough back. Nor is it necessarily clear that holding that "god" is a human construct necessarily requires disbelief or rejection or denial or whatever of "god". It's possible to imagine someone (Karen Armstrong? Terry Eagleton? Negative theologians?) taking the view that any human concept of God is a construction, but nevertheless refusing to reject the concept of God. You've not got down to the essentials here. Secondly, to say "or the position etc" looks like the two parts of the first sentence are alternatives: but they're not. Thirdly, "atheism applies to the innocent" is massively unhelpfully ambiguous. This is no improvement on what is there now; in fact it is dramatically worse. Less informative, less logical, less accurate, and less helpful. --Dannyno (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that my formulation was far from ideal, personally I viewed it more as a straw man proposal whereby we might investigate how more verbose and less technical descriptions of atheism might be worded. In my view 'rejection of belief' obscures more than it reveals, the utility of it is not in its descriptive power but rather, I believe, in its purposeful vapidity. As for "they may also have other theories about the origin of theistic belief" - I have yet to come across such a position, perhaps you could enlighten me. I can sense the appearance of an existing consensus which supports the current wording, but I can also see from the archives that the 'consensus' is under constant challenge likely due to the astonishing nature of the wording. This is something which needs to be addressed. As for counter-examples what of Kierkegaard, Tillich etc who rejected theism in the sense of purporting to describe god yet are likely not commonly understood to be atheists? There will always be counter examples, especially as we adopt weak and vague formulations. I don't see that describing the inclusion of innocents is ambiguous at all, innocent is a technical term, linked to a more comprehensive description per MOS:INTRO. There is no need for our initial description of atheism to be a oneliner, none. Unomi (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article that "atheism" originated in Enlightenment-era France (as "athisme"), despite the fact that both Diagoras of Melos and Theodorus of Cyrene were characterized "atheoi" (άθεοι, or in English terms, atheists) by their contemporaries. Isn't that a contradiction? Or is it being suggested that, while the term "atheos" existed as an adjective in ancient Greek, there wasn't an equivalent noun for the stance itself? If the second, what do you make of αθεΐα? Is it less of a noun just because it's missing the -ism suffix? Just wondering... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.189.106 (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be made clear that the word itself has its origins in greek, but that the concept and popularity of athiesm became widespread with the French Enlightenment. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 11:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I also think that this article should show or describe what atheists do , that is in regard to being atheists not other social roles (father,husband ,employee etc )...along with what they think.

Also ,there should be some words about the persecution of atheists in certain countries , most notably the denial of rights to become members of legislature in some US states(by those states Constitutions). Thirdly , i saw some quotes or notes being taken from several UK sources ,is that NPOV considering UK is still a theocracy , technically.(head of state is also head of state church) 86.123.168.47 (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Earlier I had attempted to add the concept "new atheism" to a sub-heading at the end of the article where the concept was mentioned and it was deleted. Now it would seem all mention of "new atheism" has been excised from the article. I feel this is a mistake. I freely admit that the concept of "new atheism" is not very substantive and there's nothing really new about it, but that's not the point. I've been reading countless articles where the concept is mentioned. I've been hearing countless speakers mention it. That alone, it would seem to me, gives the concept enough notability to be included here. Yet, if they come here to read the "atheism" article, there's no mention of "new atheism," at all. This makes no sense to me. I punched "new atheism" into google and got thirty full pages of individual articles with "new atheism" in the title. Yet you guys don't think it's even worth mentioning. I don't understand it. Anybody else agree with me? 24.177.175.217 (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering there are publications that use the term (I cannot vouch for consistency) there may be grounds for a separate article. If an article can be justified then a reference from this main article would be sensible. Rather than websites, consider published reliable sources such as: Feser, Edward (2008), The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism, St. Augustine's Press, ISBN 9781587314513. Ash (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the suggestion by Ash is probably a good idea. Make an article on New Atheism. If that is notable enough you can then make a brief reference from this article to that one. But as you (the anon editor) agrees the concept is not very substantive, so to add it with a significant portion of text into this article would be probably be overdoing it. Arnoutf (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I feel that is problematic about the leading phrase. "Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist." They both in fact imply explicit strong atheism. Neither of them means a mere implicit absence of belief, but a positive disbelief.

Also, I think that the second sentence should look more like this: "In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities, with or without conscious rejection of theism. I believe we can all agree with that.--JokerXtreme (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Do not confuse theism with a position that deities exist. Your analysis is an oversimplification. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think his point was that we should not confuse atheism with a position that deities do not exist. To which it is logically irrelevant whether or not the converse is true, or thought to be so, since the prefix a- does not necessarily mean negation. Kevin Baas^talk 15:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

From the article: "Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity.[1][2] In a more specific sense, theism refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of a God and his relationship to the universe." I frankly cannot imagine what "theism" would be if not some weird tendency of a certain species of animal to anthropomorphize themselves to explain things on account of a lack of scientific understanding and/or an inability to deal with uncertainty. What could it possibly be otherwise? If they could deal just fine with uncertainty and they could scientifically understand things, then they wouldn't need an additional explanatory thing to believe in. And if this explanatory thing were, some inanimate object such as a rock, then it would be science. Very BAD science, yes, but science nonetheless. If it were some other animal then it would still be anthropomorphic. If it's the "force" or soem other "spiritualism", then, well, that's spiritiualism which is a position often taken precisely to be distinct from theism, and a position held by some "atheists". My point being here is I really see no logical way to divorce "theism" from a diety and have it still be "theism". And our article on theism states rather specifically, with sources, that it is, precisely, belief in a deity. Kevin Baas^talk 15:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) - Yes, I fell into a bit of a logic trap there. My intention was to note the oversimplification. There are many nuanced positions with respect to atheism, and I think it is clear that a "rejection of theism" is not identical to "the position that deities do not exist." I'm confused by JokerXtreme's use of the phrase "both... imply explicit strong atheism." To be honest, I prefer the old opening paragraph that we had here a couple of years ago (after excruciatingly tedious consensus-building debate that raged for countless weeks). It was wordier, but it covered all the bases:

"Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism. Although atheism is often equated with irreligion, some religious philosophies, such as secular theology, or some varieties of Theravada Buddhism, lack belief in a personal god."

The current version seems to simplistic, but I guess consensus changed over time. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the "Atheism is the absence of belief in deities" part. (Though it reads to me rather patronizing of theists, kinda like "Lucidity is the absence of belief in the boogeyman.", it is a matter-of-fact so i guess theists will just have to take that one on the chin, so to speak.) It's clear and simple, not too broad and not too narrow. I would certainly support putting that in the lead. And i'd support that whole thing replacing what's there, actually. Kevin Baas^talk 17:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I would agree with you; however, I have had little involvement in this article for a couple of years and I am not aware of what discussions and debates have lead to the current wording. I think a specific proposal would have to be made that sought consensus for such a change. Here is an old revision of the article that used that paragraph, in case you think it will be useful. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a little confused by this debate. JokerXtreme's original complaint is that lead doesn't allow for aethism to be the "absence of belief", and that the lead implies "positive disbelief". Perhaps, Joker, this is because Aethism IS positive disbelief and not simply absence of belief. An individual who says "God may exist. I simply don't believe in him at the moment" (i.e. abscence of belief) is not an aetheist. He is better defined as an agnostic.

Scjessey - I'm a little confused by your "don't confuse theism with a position that deities exist". Theism is absolutely the belief that a deity/dieties exist (read theism). Scjessey, I'm familair with some of your previous edits/comments and have been impressed by them, so I'm sure there is some nuance here I'm not picking up on?

In conclusion, I like the current language, though frankly I don't see the difference between "rejecting thiesm" and "affirming the nonexistence of dieties". Seems redundant.

The old language Sjessey is suggesting seems wordy, and has some things I'd object to. Are Budhist really athiests? NickCT (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd clarified above (see "logic trap" comment) with respect to the confusion. I didn't really express myself properly. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For editors unfamiliar with the discussion leading to the current wording, it is in talk archive 40, number 9, through talk archive 43, number 3. An awful lot to read, and an awful lot to go through another time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I share NickCT's feelings regarding redundancy in the current version. And ya, the old version is wordy. I said i'd accept it, but i would prefer something simpler. Kevin Baas^talk 21:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And I think we need a clear understanding of the difference between "weak atheism" and "agnosticism", if there really is any, before we can go forward in that regard. Perhaps there's discussion about that in the archives? Kevin Baas^talk 21:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of discussion, but I don't think I could summarize it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well then at least what are our feelings on the matter here? I've always felt that "weak atheists" where sort of like agnostics in denial, or atheists afraid of commitment. Though i don't know how helpful that would be in determining how we treat it. As regards the redundancy thing, I would say remove "rejecting theism" because that's circular and as such doesn't really convey very much. Kevin Baas^talk 21:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) - Weak atheists include those people who haven't thought (or thought very little) about the existence of deities and those people who have chosen not to believe in deities, but do not specifically state deities do not exist. Agnostics believe the existence of deities is unknown (and/or unknowable). It takes a long, hard look to see the distinction, but it is there. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think other editors who have worked on this page will be able to answer that better than I can, when they get here. But I think that in this strict sense of the words, "weak atheism" is something quite distinct from "agnosticism". A lot of electronic ink got spilled on what weak atheism is and is not, and I'm afraid there is no shortcut to reading the archives. After another ec: Yes I think Scjessey is correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My brain is hurting now. I am pretty sure it hurts because I was thinking too hard. I'm also certain that the brain pain is a chemical response to thinking too hard, and not the result of a deity punishing me for thinking too hard. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel your pain! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" says an Atheist is someone who says that God(s) does not exist, or that God(s) are extremely unlikely to exist. "Weak atheist" sounds like a nelogism to me. I don't like it. I also don't like Scjessey's "Weak atheists include those people who haven't thought (or thought very little) about the existence of deities". You're an atheist if you say God doesn't exist.... period. It has nothing to do with how much you've thought about it. What you're suggesting Scjessey is like someone saying "a weak christian is someone who hasn't thought about the divinity of Christ". no no no no no no.... shinanigans.. NickCT (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't me suggesting it. You'll have to blame my source. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not just weak and strong atheism. There's also the implicit. Humans are born implicit atheists, until they learn about theism or they think of it on their own and either become explicit atheists or theists (or deists for that matter) or agnosticis acknowledging that there is no way to find out if deities do exist or not or prove their existence or nonexistence. Yeah, I guess the hard part is defining explicit weak atheists.--JokerXtreme (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the opening paragraph needs to encompass all possible meanings of atheism. These include:

• Implicit atheism - absence of theistic belief without rejection (examples include newborns, cultures that have no knowledge of theism).
• Explicit atheism - absence of theistic belief due to rejection of it.
• Weak atheism - includes implicit atheists, and expanded to include people who do not believe deities exist, but do not explicitly state the existence of deities is false.
• Strong atheism - belief that the existence of any deities is false.

Part of the problem here is that there is some overlap, and also none of these terms are particularly common. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"Atheism, in the broadest sense, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities, with or without conscious rejection of theism." Very minimalistic, I admit, yet very concise. Perhaps we can elaborate on that.--JokerXtreme (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Problem with that is that different people define atheism in different ways. The convoluted version I refer to above attempted to address that problem by being wordy. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure editors who felt passionately about the formulation will show up in this talk soon, but until then, I really suggest reading the archives. I tried very hard last time to get one sentence, and was shot down repeatedly. Some people felt very strongly about whether the "broadest sense" should come first or last, and there are a lot of issues surrounding rejecting theism. Something that is obvious to me, looking at this suggestion by JokerXtreme, is that there will certainly be arguments that it doesn't make clear how "without conscious rejection of theism" differs from "absence of belief", and also that "strong" atheism is not really "absence of belief" "with conscious rejection of theism", but, rather, that it is an affirmative rejection of belief itself, and not simply rejection of theism. Who has a headache yet? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• My position and evidence is captured by the sections above. Unomi (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

---

• The editors who worked on getting this article to FA status identified 3 distinct definitions in the literature. In accordance with NPOV policy, they agreed to not give preference to any one definition. The fact that at least two editors in the present discussion do not think the first paragraph presents 3 definitions is a problem that needs addressing.
• As explained in the first footnote: "Theism is used here in its most general sense, that is belief in one or more deities. This would then define atheism as the rejection of belief that any deities exist, regardless of whether the further conclusion is drawn that deities do not exist." The "rejection definition" thus includes what are colloquially called "explicit weak atheists" - they do not believe, not because they have never thought (much) about deities, but because they simply find all talk about deities unbelievable. They do not, however, wish to try to defend the negative claims 1>"no deity exists" nor 2>"nothing that would ever qualify as a deity exists". (For, how does one prove a negative like "there are no ghosts"?) (Nor are they just "suspending belief" for consideration later - they have determined that such belief is unsupported, likely even foolish.)
• The only argument I recall for keeping the word theism so early in the article was to preserve the link to it, but now it appears (from discussion above) that some people think there is a real difference between "rejection of theism" (in the general sense of theism) and "rejection of belief that any deities exist". If theism is there only to preserve the link, I think we must now determine that the link must come elsewhere, for the appearance of the term (instead of something more clearly stated) is leading to confusion about what and how many definitions are being given. If, however, theism is there to preserve a difference in meaning, then 1> the sources we use for that "rejection" definition do not use the term "theism" to make their distinction, but rather use "belief in God" (and later unpack "God") (and thus do not support such a claim for keeping theism in the first paragraph), and 2> I would be interested in seeing any source that demonstrates there is a real difference between "rejection of theism" and "rejection of belief that any deities exist" -- other than the obvious one that uses the specific meaning of theism. Anyone who rejects theism in the general sense must also reject it in the specific sense, and our sources do not restrict themselves to the rejection of a "personal, active yet transcendent, supreme deity".
• --JimWae (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

---

"An explicit atheist may eschew belief in gods (weak atheism), or further conclude that gods do not exist (strong atheism)." I still find the definition of the explicit weak atheist somewhat troublesome. How can someone negate the belief in the existence of deities, without that being translated to belief in their nonexistence? Are there any sources on this type of distinction? Maybe explicit implies strong atheism.--JokerXtreme (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As presented in the first paragraph of this article, three distinct definitions of atheism can be identified within the literature. The narrowest definition, given in many sources, is "the position that no deities exist"; a definition that coincides with the group of atheists identified as explicit, strong atheists elsewhere in this article, and one that would include the least number of people. Some theists claim that to be an atheist under this definition requires that one have "a belief". Kai Neilsen, in the EB article, gives reasons why this is an inadequate definition of atheism.

The definition that would include the most people is "absence of belief in the existence of deities", which would include anyone who does not explicitly believe that at least one deity exists, such as infants and anyone who may have had so little exposure to the notion of deities that they have not formed an opinion about their existence -- but it also includes all agnostics who do not believe in the existence of some deity anyway. While "absence of belief" is a necessary condition under all three definitions of atheism, only under this definition is "absence" proposed as sufficient grounds for inclusion, and several sources do note that this definition is less rigorous than others. This is the only definition that would include what is identified as "implicit atheism" elsewhere in this article. Because this definition contains only a necessary condition for atheism and no other condition is mentioned before it would be sufficient that something be counted as "atheism", according to this definition, "mathematics" (and many other "cognitive" systems) could qualify as atheistic (and a species of atheism) because mathematics has an "absence of belief in the existence of a deity" (as likely does the social system of ants, btw). This definition escapes the claim by many theists that atheism also requires a belief. Besides the philosophical problem of (perhaps) including too much, theists object to having their children classified as atheists, as do those who identify themselves as agnostics.

A third definition appearing in the literature is "the rejection of belief that any deities exist". (See the first footnote in the article for sources & text from sources.) Atheists in this group are identified as "explicit weak" atheists elsewhere in the article - they have heard about deities and explicitly reject belief in them, even if they acknowledge that the existence of at least one deity is not a complete impossibility. Atheists in this group may maintain that there do not seem to be good enough grounds for believing in deities, or that the entire notion of a deity is incomprehensible to them, or that all talk about deities stretches all notions of credibility, and that belief in such beings would amount to foolishness. Atheists in this group are not suspending belief for later consideration (as some agnostics do), they maintain they do not believe now, and do not see any reason for considering the matter further later. Nor do they claim simply that they do not know whether any deity exists (as some agnostics do). One may not know whether something is true or not, yet believe it anyway. Strictly speaking, saying one is agnostic, leaves the question "Do you believe?" unanswered. "Rejection" atheists do not claim certainty that deities do not exist, and explicitly claim they do not believe either. This definition also escapes the claim made by many theists that atheism requires a belief. Everyone who identifies themselves as an atheist is an explicit atheist, and whether they "assert the non-existence of deities" or not, they all reject/eschew belief in the existence of deities.

The ontology implicit in all three definitions is identical: a world that does not include deities among existent entities. They differ in their epistemic conditions. "Explicit strong atheists" are willing to claim some degree of knowledge and/or certainty that there are no deities. "Implicit atheists" fall into 2 main epistemic groups: those who are (mostly) unaware of the concept of deities, and those who explicitly claim they do not know (agnostics who are not theists anyway). "Explicit weak atheists" also do not count deities among existent entities, but are not inclined to claim knowledge and/or certainty that deities do not exist, and while they may be prepared to argue against the existence of deities, they do not claim to know that their existence is a complete impossibility, nor their non-existence a known certainty. Theists and explicit atheists have made an ontological decision about what to include as entities in the universe. Agnostics (those, at least, who are not also either theists or atheists) have not made a decision, putting deities in the category of "undecided" --JimWae (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Neilsen's reasons seem to me inadequate to support the claim that having the certainty that deities do not exist (strong atheism) does not require a leap of faith, but is based on solid logic. The agnostic position seems more scientific to me. Yet this kind of debate here is meaningless since verifiability and not truth policy is applied, so Nielsen's opinion is one among others.

I wanted to comment on some other stuff too but I can't remember right now...--JokerXtreme (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Now the brain pain is almost overwhelming. I might have to lie down. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Brain pain indeed. The overlaps between atheism and agnosticism do not help either.--JokerXtreme (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Strictly speaking, saying one is agnostic, leaves the question "Do you believe?" unanswered. I sincerely object to that assertion. Note what Huxley says here: I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter... This is the problem with trying to refashion Atheism into 'lack of belief', it is poorly supported in sources (apart from in the sense of innocent) and it obscures more than it reveals. In the sections above we see avowed non-theists, and experts in the matter, distance themselves from this kind of specious repositioning. Both atheism and agnosticism hold the characteristic of 'lack of belief in gods' but Atheism goes the extra mile and affirms belief of nonexistence of gods. Unomi (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This position seems reasonable to me. So, are we getting somewhere?--JokerXtreme (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I read all the discussion above , from what i see Unomi argues that atheism is a belief system ,based on sources ofc, however ,categorizing for example chemistry as a belief system implies that whatever results we obtain from experiments are biased , since the basis of chemistry would be belief not reason. Thus it should be discussed is atheism a belief system ? , are atheists a class of dogmatic people that regardless of experiments and proof to contrary , or lack of proof , still believe that deities do not exist? or is atheism a philosophical theory that states that deities do not exist for following Reasons :(insert reasons here)86.123.168.47 (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, you've raised a cogent point. So-called "positive atheism" must be more clearly distinguished from "passive" atheism, or a simple lack of belief. Huxley's comments strike me as distinctly agnostic, along the same lines as Eintein. I think it would be a disservice to all involved to equate their beliefs to, say, Dawkins', Hitchens', or for that matter, my own. In addition to the overlap with agnosticism, we have a similar overlap with nontheism. Edwards in the first note appears to be dealing with a very specific definition of atheism that does not appear to reflect common usage, or even modern atheistic philosophy. The claim that "God is meaningless" is not widely made, and certainly not by the usual suspects above. Furthermore, the arguments against theism have progressed quite a bit in the past 43 years, and I'm not sure a source from 1967 is very suitable. 86.123, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. Perhaps you'd care to rephrase?

As a complete aside, I find it odd that we have no section on modern atheist thinkers, given the recent slough of books that have been published. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Throwaway , what i'm saying is that while religions in general are based on belief , atheism as a philosophical system is based on reason.This is very hard to grasp for religious people that tend to view atheism as a sort of "religion" that believes in something else.This happens to affect for example evolutionism , in some US states its forbidden in schools or being teached as an alternate theory to the "normal " creationism. So , what i'm asking is if atheism is a belief , or gut feeling or any kind of illogical theory then it should be included in the religion's page as another religion if not it should be included on the science or philosophy page.86.123.168.47 (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Atheism is not a religion. I think that should be clear to anyone. It is however based on assumptions and axioms that cannot be proved. Agnosticism is solidly based on scientific methods, atheism on the other hand is more of Occam's razor logic. It's more empirical and practical than scientific. I believe that can be hardly challenged.--JokerXtreme (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I still find it odd that agnostics make that claim. Atheism is entirely scientific. We disbelieve in any modern theistic incarnation for the same reason we disbelieve in Zeus, Thor, Ra, or, famously, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There's nothing unscientific about this. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, it is entirely reasonable to hold a positive belief that the phenomenon does not exist. Also, I'm perplexed by how you can claim atheism is empirical but not scientific. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologise, you are correct. If "Empirical" refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment and the hypothesis "deities do not exist" is not testable using observation or experiment, therefore atheism is not based on empirical analysis. It may be reasonable to believe in the nonexistence of deities, but it is not scientific to do so. Or in any case it is not necessarily truthful. Including old archives that we should take into consideration:

Talk:Atheism/Archive_27#A_survey_of_definitions_for_atheism

Talk:Atheism/Archive_29#List_of_definitions

--JokerXtreme (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll accept the contention that atheism cannot be evaluated empirically, and submit that it is a merely rational position. I've gone ahead and removed the POV tag you put up, by the way, as I see no discourse here suggesting there is a POV issue with the article, merely some debate about various definitions. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the way I see it, the definition is mostly an atheist POV. The reason I put that there was to draw more people in this discussion, so we can finally agree on a commonly acceptable definition. Please, either put a more appropriate template or restore the POV. Perhaps this one? Template:Intro-rewrite --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Putting on a POV tag to "draw more people" to a discussion is a violation of WP:POINT. Please don't. The tags are not there to draw attention, they are there to tell the reader that there may be serious issues with the article. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree on that. How many of article sources are written by theists? An overwhelming majority are atheistic sources. POV tag is valid. --windyhead (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

POV is guided not only by WP:NPOV, but WP:DUE as well. If the article were to represent atheistic views and those of the religious in equal measure, every other sentence would be "However, Atheists are devil-worshiping scum with no morals, forever damned to walk blindly the smoldering wastelands of hell." --King Öomie 14:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The article outlines several categories of atheism in a neutral and dispassionate tone. What would you prefer to see, windy? Should theism cite Dawkins and Hitchens? As KO pointed out, NPOV is not about letting each side take their shots. Wikipedia is not Fox News or CNN. We're simply outlining the subject, nothing more. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the article as it stands does not really reflect usage which holds prevalence in sources. I agree that the article has POV issues. As I have stated in the sections above, I find it problematic that the least supported use is listed as the first one, and that there is no attempt at fleshing out how these new uses came about. Also note that the problem of prevalence holds true even within atheistic circles, as we see with Flew, Drange, Martin etc above. We are presenting readers with a gross oversimplification perhaps guided by utilitarianism, but not one supported by wikipedia principles. The hyperbole of King Öomie does not help. Unomi (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer the term 'exaggeration'. Please refer to the Conservapedia article on Atheism for an in-depth look of what this subject looks like for the (reactionary, child-like) opposition. Try to ignore the outright lies as you read it. --King Öomie 19:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good ol' Conservapedia. You know when Metapedia is more accurate (albeit brief) than you that you have serious, serious problems. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, better yet, read the archives of this talk! (wink!) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually think King Öomie made a useful point. But more importantly to me, I think that arguing about POV is really missing the point. This is not an issue of editors pushing POVs, but an issue of deciding which sources to use for the wording of a very difficult-to-negotiate lead paragraph. Historically, most editors have tried hard to be scholarly about it. It concerns me that a significant amount of the talk directly above has been forum-like discussion of what individual editors personally believe, and I would caution that we need to steer clear of that. This is not a matter of finding wording with which some of us agree, but of finding wording that reflects the various usages in reliable sources, without going too far down the road of sentence-by-committee. For all this talk, I'm still waiting to see a suggested revision that is better than what the page says now. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright then, to the dissenters: With what claims do you take issue? What is included that you would like to see excluded, and vice versa? Throwaway85 (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The new intro could be something along the lines:

"Atheism can either be the non-endorsement of theism, or the conviction that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities, with or without a conscious rejection of theism."

Which is basically what I was saying all along. I sense however that most of the atheists will have trouble with the word conviction, however the majority of the sources as listed here are in support of that phrasing:

Talk:Atheism/Archive_27#A_survey_of_definitions_for_atheism

Talk:Atheism/Archive_29#List_of_definitions

--JokerXtreme (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for proposing something specific to which we can react. As you noted, there are all kinds of issues around conviction/position/belief etc. Personally, I lean towards "position", but I don't feel as strongly as some other editors do. Please also understand that what editors say does not necessarily have to do with their personal beliefs ("atheists will have trouble with"), but rather with what they/we feel is correct editorially, and it's best to steer clear of commenting on motivations. That said, I think "non-endorsement" is a non-starter, and I do not see what we gain by the "with or without" part at the end, which seems to repeat the beginning. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I also thank you for making the proposal. Why do you prefer the phrase "non-endorsement of theism" to "rejection of theism"? In addition to being a bit clumsy, it is less specfic. Agnosticism is also the non-endorsement of theism, the difference being that atheists reject it whereas agnostics are, well, agnostic. As far as "conviction" goes, I just don't see what's gained by it replacing "position", aside from the possible introduction of a non-neutral POV. "Conviction" lends inherent support to the position that atheism is a belief system, whereas "position" makes no claims one way or the other. If the majority of sources defined atheism as "the rational and justified rejection of theism", that language wouldn't be appropriate to include either. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I won't insist on the "non-endorsement". I just feel that rejection of theism does not include the implicit area of atheism, but implies explicit atheism and in fact strong. I later realized that was included in the second sentence. So, in that case what is the difference between the rejection of theism and the position the deities do not exist? Isn't that just a rephrasing?

Now, about the neutrality of the position word. If we also apply that logic to theism, it can be defined as the position that one or more deities exist. I believe it sounds a bit ridiculous and it is also misleading. I don't have the time to complete my thought right now, tell me what you think.--JokerXtreme (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with either wording for theism, unless there are theistic belief systems or philosophies that do not classify their position that God exists as belief. There's a subtle difference between theism, where most if not all adherents classify it as a belief system, and atheism, where most if not all classify it as a lack thereof. As far as your first point goes, I see your concern. The first sentence poses atheism in a strong/weak sense, but leaves out implicit atheism. I feel the second sentence addresses that concern, but the first could be problematic. What if we were to simply remove the "either" from the first, thereby removing the impression that it is solely a binary choice? Throwaway85 (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Note to JokerXtreme - the non-endorsement and the conviction both feel wrong. The etymology of the word conviction [46] suggests that the word has evolved to mean a belief. Consistent with say, Skepticism we're describing a position on a claim. As for endorsement, then that is to sign or mark a document or (metaphorically) a claim or argument but it would appear to not be right to say "non-endorsing theism" given that theism is not primarily defined as a claim or argument but a belief. [47] suggests Fowler says use like this is a solecism. I don't have a copy of Fowler's to confirm this but I'll hedge my bets that [48] hasn't miscopied this. To me our current WP:LEDE suffices as it adequately describes the possible states for the hobby of not collecting postage stamps. Me ?, I probably have a few postage stamps around but my position is that I don't collect beer mats. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What about the lede's apparent exclusion of implicit atheism? I agree on your other points, but I think Joker may have a case there. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement... "broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities." suffices for implicit (using the definition that this means implied, rather than expressly stated) atheism. Like not thinking about the White Bear (Tolstoy and/or Dostoevsky) - to start actually thinking about this you end up being in a position, though it may be indifference to the existence of god because not believing in something is rather hard to do and instead your positive belief is something that implicitly excludes or suggests that gods are improbable. Belief about gods is not an intrinsic belief to humans but taught. Our WP:LEDE describes reasonably the situation of those that are not taught as well as those in which the pidgeonhole that would normally be occupied by god-centric theism is occupied by another positive claim that implies no-God e.g. methodical naturalism, scepticism, secular humanism etc. This last way of describing atheism in a positive sense that implies that there is no god is what quite a few modern critics of atheists complain about. Ttiotsw (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Implicit atheism, as defined in the article, is the state shared by infants and others who have never been exposed to any kind of religious thought. I'm unsure what weight it should be given. It doesn't seem to be as central to the subject as the other forms, and so I'm okay with not mentioning it in the opening sentence. I am, however, uncomfortable with the fact that the opening sentence, in its current form, seems to actively exclude, not simply fail to mention, implicit atheism. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

But I think our current statement that,... "broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities." includes all of those that have not been exposed to teaching/culture etc on deities. So we're at an impasse. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. My only concern is that the "either/or" clause of the first sentence outright excludes implicit atheism. It is, admitedly, a very minor objection, and I shant shed too many tears if nothing changes. Speaking of which, I changed it. I simply switched the order of the first two sentences. It isn't much, and I'm open to a revert if anyone disapproves, but I feel this at least puts it in the reader's head that atheism is a simply lack of belief before constraining it to the two most recognized forms. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It is too confusing to say X IS something, then say it "can be" 2 other things -- which 2 other things may or may not be understood as "something else". Some might even think the other 2 are 2 subsets which entirely encompass X - which would mean only those other 2 are needed to define X. --JimWae (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To carry your analogy, the intent is to say that the set A consists entirely of the set B, and the sets C and D are subsets of A. I agree the either/or wording is problematic. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

JimWae, your analysis is more confusing than enlightening.

"Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1] It can be either the rejection of theism,[2] or the position that deities do not exist."

Well, this phrasing definitely excludes the implicit area. How about this?

"Atheism is a term most commonly used to describe the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities." --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer a hard and fast definition for the introduction, although I recognize the difficulty in achieving that. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds better then what we have now . Emphasizes that rejection is the most common one . --windyhead (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Throwaway85 (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

fwiw, it's a bit dictionaryish; perhaps: "Atheism most commonly describes the..." ? --Cybercobra (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Even better. WE might as well avoid the passive tense if we are able. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Broadly, I also agree with the direction this discussion is now taking, although I do so noting that we are coming close to returning to the existing language. This most recent suggested change differs from the existing language in that it changes "can be either" to "most commonly describes". First of all, I very much agree that it is best not to say "Atheism is a term...", since we shouldn't be discussing the word, dictionary-style, but rather we should discuss the topic of the article, encyclopedia-style. Continuing that line of thinking, I'm not sure about "describes". Atheism the word describes these things, but atheism the phenomenon/world view/aspect of human culture does not exist simply to describe things. Is it describing the rejection of theism, the position that deities do not exist, or both, and if both, does it describe them both mostly commonly, or one more commonly than the other? Also, "most commonly" is a little redundant, and it may be difficult, strictly speaking, to really source "most". Would "typically" or just "commonly" be better? At the end of all that, I'm not convinced that it's really an improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The points you make sound reasonable. It might not be an improvement after all. Although, the current definition: "Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist." seems to imply that the position that deities do not exist excludes the rejection of theism. So some change must be really made. And, yeah, if we can avoid the long definition and be able to replace it with a shorter and clearer one, it would be nice. Any suggestions anyone?--JokerXtreme (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

How about deleting the word "either"? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Now where have I heard that before? Throwaway85 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Aha! Lemme guess! Nothing original under the sun, huh? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not on the Internet, anyway. As an aside, I'm pretty sure the Internet is antithetical to the concept of "sun". Throwaway85 (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting the "either" word, would be too simple. No fun in that :O But, yeah, if anything else fails it's a must.--JokerXtreme (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Removing "either" makes the meaning of "or" ambiguous - making it easily interpretable as the "or" of synonymy rather than the "or" of alternatives. Previous to this version, the lede said:

"As an explicit position, atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]."

This was changed because some people thought "explicit position" was redundant. I think it is more emphatic than redundant, for under the absence def a person need not have a position (or an active brain) at all. But saying simply "As a position" is too awkward.

The sequence of the present lede paragraph makes it clear that the first 2 defs are not meant to be exhaustive, and that while the first sentence presents alternatives & does not include the 3rd, the 3rd is not to be excluded as a definition. Nevertheless, the talk page is filled with discussions of definition in the lede, yet only 31 words appear in the lede to the article. I think the best way to handle this is to say something along the lines of the following:

"Three distinct definitions of atheism are found in the literature. The narrowest gives atheism as the position that deities do not exist. A broader definition gives atheism as the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, regardless of whether the assertion is made that deities do not exist. The broadest definition in the literature gives atheism as the absence of theism."

This would finally make it abundantly clear that there are 3 definitions being covered. It takes no position on which is best, stating merely what we are allowed to say anyway: what definitions can be found in reliable sources. I am not aware of any wiki guidelines that would prevent our doing this.--JimWae (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the previous, "explicit" version. I don't want to be too verbose, nor do I want to treat atheism as a term to be defined, rather than a phenomenon to be explained. The old version seems closest to the intent of the sources, as well. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I see atheism as the absence of a phenomenon to be explained. It's theism that is much harder to explain.

And I guess that's why this is so difficult. From a purely rational perspective, we are trying to define the non-existence of something. It only the existence of theism that pushes people to try to define atheism. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me or is the style of all those definitions too academic? Can't we just use something simple for the leading sentence and elaborate later on?--JokerXtreme (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's definitely not just you. But, that too has been tried before. See here in the archives, and scroll down to my second comment, and then see what came of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what happened. I think the word belief is to blame for the past arguments. Personally speaking, I support a simple definition. How about:

"Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of any deity, or the position that there is none."

Not as simple as the one you suggested back then, but still a simplification over our current one. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I know I sound like a pain, but I predict that "lack" will be an issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• 1> There are 3 definitions in the literature. 2>Beginning with the least rigorous & most controversial is not a good idea. 3> "lack" implies deficiency. 4>Editors have spent millions & millions of bytes arguing this - a sign that 31 words is not enough to say things clearly - nor is 19.--JimWae (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are what I see as the relevant sections of MOS:BEGIN

• The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader, without being overly specific.
• The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?
• If its subject is amenable to definition, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the subject is a specialised term, provide the context as early as possible.

Re 3rd point: It has not been possible to arrive at a single sentence that gives a concise definition, since there are competing definitions that do not easily fit into one unambiiguous sentence. Still (acc to 1st point) the first paragraph needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader. The only way to do this & observe WP:NPOV is to present all 3 defs in the lede.

For some time now, the 1st paragraph has seemed so brief as to be nearly barren. I would even like to see something added to the first paragraph (proposed above) like "It is generally agreed that one cannot be both an atheist and a theist<!-Tillich being a problem for this-->, though there is support that it is possible to be both an atheist and religious. It is disputed whether one can be both an agnostic and an atheist." This would provide a fuller context for the topic & also introduce topics dealt with in the main body. --JimWae (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of fleshing out the lede more, but I'm not sure those points, with the possible exception of atheism and religion, are notable or important enough for the lede. We have enough problems with trying to find a specific definition that balances all of the current views without adding additional ones. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we are indeed approaching this the wrong way and should try to be more descriptive, while at the same time avoiding academic phraseology. I am however the only one that suggests new definitions :( Anyway, I'll try a new one once again. Here we go:

"Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any deity, which usually takes the form of rejection of theism or goes one step further to declare that "no deities exist"."--JokerXtreme (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

1>How could "usually" ever be supported? 2>I also think it is no longer acceptable to stick theism in the rejection def - it is not the terminology our sources use - in fact Neilsen remarks that Tillich (& others) "reject theism" & still believe in God. The rejection definition has been getting short shrift by not getting a sentence of its own -- and many editors have completely overlooked it as a result. It is the definition that repeatedly gets omitted when editors come here with their "latest & greatest revision". We should not be relying on using the footnotes to disambiguate a definition - apparently not many people have been looking at the footnote before posting here. Consider the problems if we stuck theism onto the other definitions, such as "the position that theism is false", or the "absence of theism"--JimWae (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank about your constructive criticism, but please go ahead and make an actual suggestion:)

--JokerXtreme (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing "either" seems to be a good bandaid solution, but we should still brainstorm about figuring out some language that solves these problems. Thanks for going ahead and doing that, though. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's a reasonable step for the time being. I don't think I've seen anything proposed that would actually be better, so far. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

How about the replacement of theism being the next step?--JokerXtreme (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Here are some statistics on the article, using MS Word assessment of reading levels:

part	words	chars	paragraphs	sentences	sentences/ paragraph	words/ sentence	chars/ word	Passive sentences	Flesch Reading Ease	Flesch- Kincaid Grade Level
article (without end notes)	5595	31093	90	237	3.7	22.8	5.3	21%	27.5	14.7
section 6-Atheism, religion, and morality	483	2679	5	14	2.8	34.5	5.4	42%	15.1	19.1
section 5-Demographics	522	2775	3	22	7.3	23.7	5.1	13%	31.2	14.2
section 4-History	1910	10873	31	82	3.4	22.6	5.5	18%	21.7	15.7
section 3-rationale	1043	5887	18	47	3.3	21.0	5.4	19%	25.6	14.4
section 2-defs & distinctions	893	4812	8	36	4.5	24.8	5.2	25%	34.2	14.3
section 1-etymology	334	1779	4	17	4.2	19.6	5.0	17%	40.1	11.8
present lede	270	1464	4	14	3.5	19.2	5.2	21%	35.6	13.0
present lede - 4th paragraph	37	211	1	2	2.0	18.5	5.5	100%	30.2	13.6
present lede - 3rd paragraph	73	428	1	4	4.0	18.2	5.7	0%	21.4	14.8
present lede - 2nd paragraph	130	692	1	6	6.0	21.6	5.1	16%	36.4	13.5
present lede - 1st paragraph	30	133	1	2	2.0	15.0	4.3	0%	70.3	7.1
proposed para 1	67	342	1	4	4.0	16.7	5.0	50%	44.6	11.1

• The (117 words in 4 sentences) first paragraph of the theism article has a grade level of 14.6 and an ease of 41.9.
• Agnosticism's 73 word 3 sentence opening paragraph is grade 14.5 and ease of 33.7.
• Deism's has a grade level of 16.1 and ease level of 34.3.
• Soap's comes in at grade 14.8, ease level of 40.2.
• United States's at grade 14.3, ease level of 33.0
• Flesch–Kincaid readability test's at grade 12.1, ease level of 47.6. Both scales are based on the average number of words per sentence and the average number of syllables (something Word may not be accurate at) per word
• The first paragraph of the EB atheism article has 12.8 reading level, its lede grade 15, and its entire article grade 13.9

I will repeat my suggestion (from above -- slightly modified). I think the best way to handle the definition is to say something along the lines of the following:

"Three distinct definitions of atheism are found in the literature. The narrowest gives atheism as the position that deities do not exist. A broader definition gives atheism as the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, regardless of whether any assertion is made that deities do not exist. The broadest definition in the literature gives atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist."

This is very straightforward, giving each definition its own space rather than mashing them up with others in a single sentence. I know it is longer, but repeatedly shortening the lede definition has only led to one problem after another. There are 3 competing definitions, each one with proponents saying it is the single best definition. We need to give each definition its full due and neither endorse nor cripple any one of them when presenting them. Trying to be brief has not worked - it has only led to further complications for clarity, & endless debate on the talk page. We are writing an encyclopedia article, not a Readers Digest article. If it takes 67 words instead of 35 or 31 or 30 words to adequately represent the competing definitions, then so be it.

Wordiness means using too many words when fewer words will suffice - it means adding words that raise the reading level but not the information contained. Attempts at reducing the number of words have reduced the information and the clarity of the lede, as well as its reading level. --JimWae (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Wordiness means using several words or extravagant words in the place of a few, well-chosen, concise, and less ambiguous words. Wordiness is not measured by word-count but by finding unnecessary words.

If a grade 7 student thinks he understands the present 1st paragraph, he probably does not.

Currently, the definition that requires the most number of words (about 21) to be adequately presented on its own, has been allotted only three words - making it the shortest definition of all 3 given. This definition is the only one saddled with the ambiguous term theism -- forcing readers to go to the footnotes for disambiguation. No wonder people keep overlooking it and repeatedly present alternatives that just omit it.

The proposal above gives not just the intensional definition, it also begins to map out the extensional definition by noting which definition would include the least and the most people as atheists. Omitting the extensional aspects would, of course, shorten the lede, but keeping them is what distinguishes an encyclopedia from a dictionary (which also rarely admits there are competing defs [or discusses sources]). --JimWae (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

---

• Support with reservations: I admit that, while this definition is quite extensive and rather unusually styled for wikipedia standards, maybe we don't have any other choice. My minor objection would be on the phrase "gives atheism as". Is there a more elegant way to phrase that?--JokerXtreme (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree - "Found in the literature" is an awful way to word it. First, this is an encyclopedia, not a literary review. We are not giving a synopsis of the literary treatment of atheism, we are writing an encyclopedic article on the subject. Second, "the" literature implies there is a body of definitive works on the matter, which is far from the case. I believe we should open with something simple, like "Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. It can be the active rejection of theism, the position that gods do not exist, or simply the absence of theistic beliefs." Thoughts? Throwaway85 (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I agree with Throwaway's suggestion - with the first sentence replaced with "Atheism broadly means not believing ing the existence of a god or gods. More precisely...." I agree with your comment about the literature. But as someone else has already pointed out, it cannot be a lack of anything. Lack would imply a deficiency when compared with a non-atheist. HiLo48 (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm very much impressed with JimWae's approach, which I regurgitate for convenience here:

I am not fond of the first sentence (as others have expressed), but I see that giving each position its proper due is essential and sensible. I think this should form the basis of the opening paragraph as we move forward. I'd like to cogitate on this for a little while, but this is definitely heading in the right direction. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And here is my take on it. I agree with the approach of starting with the narrowest first. I dislike having a first sentence that really does not say anything: just that there are three definitions in the literature, without telling the reader what any of those definitions is. I similarly agree with the criticism that we should not write about "the literature" or write what sounds like a survey of the literature. The page is about "atheism", not "the literature on atheism" or "atheism studies". Maybe a three sentence version would work better than what we have now, but I, too, need to cogitate on that, and would like to see a possible version. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The page is about atheism, and so is my proposal. How to define it has to be dealt with in terms of the competing sources. I do not see any way to eliminate preparing the reader to expect a multitude of definitions -- without endorsing one of the defs (as most counterproposals have). --JimWae (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we need not be so specific? Also, it is worth considering that we aren't trying to define the term atheism (like a dictionary), but rather we are trying to summarize current knowledge of the subject. The lede is meant to summarize the body of the article, so that should be our approach. I am going to think on this over dinner. :) -- Scjessey (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As a further thought, one form of atheism that seems to have been forgotten is the older kind where belief in a certain deity or deities is rejected in favor of another deity or deities. I am not sure if this "flavor" of the species is still in usage anywhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

JimWae, I agree with you that we should prepare the reader for multiple definitions, but I'm simply saying we need to have a way of saying it that makes the first sentence more substantive than just saying that there are multiple definitions. Scjessey, I'm surprised to hear about that other "flavor". I would have thought that, if belief in the other deity/ties remains, then it's not atheism. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the Romans (who believed in many deities) referred to Christians as "atheists", and I think there are other examples that are similar. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. That actually goes to the first sentence of the second paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

While that may be a valid historical interpretation, or one that is given credence in certain circles, it does not seem to me to be a widely-held view of what atheism is. Modern atheism, it seems, is defined by the absence of belief in any deity. Certainly there is the famous:

I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen F. Roberts

But I think he was more trying to make a point then give a definition of an atheist. It certainly belongs in the article, but I don't think it's suitable for the lede. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think we are all in agreement about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

We could try something like this:

(F Reading Ease: 37.6; F-K grade level:13.5)--JimWae (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need the nebulous "in the literature" at all. Alternate:

Apart from using "scholars", which seems to be supported by the body of the article, I have varied the language somewhat to avoid repetition of "gives". -- Scjessey (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have similar reservations about "scholars" that I do about "literature'. Just as this is not a literary review, so too is it not an academic paper. This simply isn't about academia or literature. Let's avoid those phrases all together. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A literary review would review particular works. As an encyclopedia, we are obliged to draw info from literary & scholastic sources to form what we say. We are not writing a Readers Digest article & a certain degree of scholarliness, and writing that could stand up in academia, is appropriate. It would not be sufficient to say "Among three distinct definitions of atheism... --JimWae (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Different styles of writing are appropriate for different fora. One would not write a philosophy paper in the same style that one would write a paper on literature. A paper for a scientific journal would be different still, and an encyclopedic article is intended to be none of the three. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to consider first what is needed to present the topic in the best way possible, even if we do not love the resulting slightly/somewhat more academic style. A "that's pretty-close & pretty much covers it" populist style will not work for this article. If it turns out that this paragraph needs to make note of sources (besides footnoting them), then that is what is needed. Look at the Jesus article - the words "sources" and "scholars" appear multiple times in the lede & the article. Other wiki articles have to do the same thing. To repeat: It would not be sufficient to say "Among three distinct definitions of atheism, the narrowest..." because that would not indicate that a (virtually) exhaustive search of sources has been done first, and that the 3 are meant to be exhaustive. By making it explicit that a search of the literature has been done, we make it clear that what follows is not just the opinion of whoever ends up making the last edit. --JimWae (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is my attempt at simplifying it:

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think "describe" is too nebulous and note that the shorthand "belief in deities" is saddled only onto the rejection def & not the absence def in the above proposal. ("I don't believe in Zimmerman" does not mean "I don't believe Zimmerman exists".) I still prefer my earlier version, but I will put this here for consideration:

F-K Grade Level=12.8

--JimWae (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I took "describe" from your wording, actually. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that was [[Scjessey--JimWae (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Woops, sorry! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, here's another try:

--Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer Jim's most recent version. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The two versions are within pretty close working distance of each other, so we've got plenty to work with here. My thinking is to (1) use the name of the page as the first word, putting the focus there, instead of on the process of defining, and (2) to generally keep it less wordy, but there's plenty of flexibility about the latter. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I think trypto's version is maybe what we need:)--JokerXtreme (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey, what in particular about Jim's version do you prefer? Are there any specific changes you'd like to see made? Jim, same q. to you. Also, I removed the nonsense beneath this discussion, hope no one minds. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of having anything in parentheses, and I like that each species of atheism is given its own sentence. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you 100% on the parentheses issue, it's a major pet peeve of mine. As far as each getting its own sentence, my overriding concern here is simply readability and flow. I've modified it slightly, does that work for everyone? Throwaway85 (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

---

While I still prefer mentioning that sources have been consulted to find every distinct def, here's another try:

This has a F-K Reading level Grade of 11.5; the previous proposal grade 14.4. The previous proposal's using just 2 sentences is what brings the need for parentheses - and by making a longer sentence raises the reading level 3 years. There is no need to use just 2 sentences (in fact, the 4 sentence version is even easier to read).--JimWae (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see someone changed the previous proposal so there were no parentheses. I think there's a problem with "independent of any assertion as to their existence". Atheism (under any def) could NOT be independent of an assertion that they DID exist. -- "regardless of any assertion about whether they exist" has the same problem. --JimWae (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That was me who changed it. The "independent of any assertion.." covers the definition of atheism whereby they simply reject theistic beliefs, without similarly rejecting the existence of gods. Therefore such an atheist could be "Anti" religion, but neutral on the question of God's existence. And can we please drop the Flesch-Kincaid stuff? I don't think it's adding anything to the discussion. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Both also have problems with the plural pronouns ("they" and "their") which could be construed as being applied only to polytheism - which has made me change my last proposal to 52 words now.--JimWae (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think F-K is decisive, but it is informative, and a way to measure claims about "readability"--JimWae (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Reading" the article is the best way to judge readability on WP. "Their" can be either plural, or singular and gender neutral, which is the case here. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a distinction in meaning between "the position that no deities exist" and "the position that deities do not exist"? I think the former is preferable in being slightly more concise and (in my view) a bit clearer. Gabbe (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no meaningful distinction and I'm tempted to agree with your analysis. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, why use plural, which might imply reaction to polytheism, when you can use the first phrase?--JokerXtreme (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I guess the first one has to go too -- though it did include the Romans calling the Xns atheists. To avoid having the same phrase repeated, we could go with "there are no deities"

--JimWae (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me too. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not "whether any assertion is made about the existence of deities"? Still, that's just a minor objection, I agree in general terms.--JokerXtreme (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Without "regardless", you would have to say "whether or not". Perhaps it would be easier to say it like this:

It's just a matter of playing around about until something sounds right to everyone. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I meant "regardless of whether any assertion is made about the existence of deities" instead of the one proposed by Jim. The one you're suggesting might work just the same. --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, mine is wrong, because an assertion about the existence is made. So make that nonexistence.--JokerXtreme (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the reasoning behind the most recent iterations is unclear to me, and the wording sounds a little clunky. Questions: In the first sentence, why "the position that there are no deities" over "the position that no deities exist"? In the second sentence, why not delete "the existence of", so that it would simply be "the rejection of belief in any deities", especially since existence is discussed right after the comma? Also, in the second sentence, as a possible alternative in between the two directly above, after the comma, how about "regardless of any assertion about the existence of deities"? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) - The more I read it, the more my brain hurts. I've never understood how it is possible to reject a belief in the existence of deities without making it clear you reject their existence. "I don't believe in gods, but I'm not asserting whether or not they exist." Sounds bloody odd to me. I vote we just pretend these fucked-up folks don't exist and we cut it out of the definition completely! </sarcasm> -- Scjessey (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I really think the rewrite offered above is overly verbose and a good example of language being perverted in an attempt to include too many opinions. The following -

is a text book definition for agnosticism. I stick to Richard Dawkin's definition to be atheist you must believe that gods do not exist, or at least think thier existence is extremely unlikely. I acknowledge that sometimes aethism is used among the populace to describe "agnostic-like" beliefs. I suggest the following the rewrite.

This proposal contains the same general idea, but is less wordy, and more clearly states that main definition for Atheism is "no God". NickCT (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we have to go for all THREE definitions that are found in the literature - for all the reasons stated above.--JimWae (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with JimWae that we should (in some manner) spell out the three definitions, and I dislike "position, doctrine or belief". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

@Trypto: In brief, to avoid using the same exact phrase twice in two consecutive sentences. I do not see any diff in meaning, do you?--JimWae (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I missed that before. Although, if we follow what I raised about the second sentence, that might change. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

@Trypto: Why not just "the rejection of belief in any deities" - because "I don't believe in Zimmerman" does not mean "I don't believe Zimmerman exists"--JimWae (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That argument, I don't buy. Since, here, we are talking about definition "2", the plain meaning of "I don't believe in (whatever)" is what applies. "I don't believe (whatever) exists" is what definition "1" is about, and is what definition "2" is independent (or whatever) of. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

@Trypto: Why not "regardless of any assertion about the existence of deities"? Because an assertion that deities DID exist would be an "assertion about the existence of deities"... "assertion about the non-existence of deities" might work, but why?--JimWae (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, not buying it. Seems to be arguing about how many non-existent angels can dance on the head of a non-existent pin. Assertions about the existence of deities end up also being assertions about their non-existence. Overly slavish attention to unnatural meanings of the sentence, at the expense of being readable for the general reader. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please consider my response again, then tell me why "any assertion about the existence of deities" is better than my last proposal. F-K says the change would actually raise the readability grade--JimWae (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's actually not a huge issue with me. But "regardless of whether any assertion is made that no deities exist" strikes me as convoluted and wordy. Scjessey's "with or without an assertion of nonexistence" struck me as somewhat better in that regard, and I thought "regardless of any assertion about the existence of deities" was maybe better still as well as being a compromise between those two. I could live with changing "existence" to "nonexistence", although it still strikes me as pedantic. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Why not "with or without an assertion of nonexistence". Not completely a problem, but 1>though most people would "get it", whose nonexistence?, and 2> "assertion of nonexistence" just seems convoluted, and was removed from the narrowest def a while back for that reason, I think.--JimWae (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I just came across your interesting conversation (by serendipity rather than divine intervention) and thought I'd butt in. The evasive "satisfactory" definition seems to be snagged on an inaccurate use of terms; that's surely a problem of language rather than logic. Belief is belief - it doesn't require a burden of evidence, whether positive (in support) or negative (in denial). Likewise, we may think of ideas as ideas, not objects but in some cultures and belief systems, deity is intrinsic to its cult-object - be that a stone, tree, volcano, horse or whatever. In such a case, deity has form - its "existence" as deity is demonstrable and incontrovertible to one who believes it to be a deity. To many ancient, non-Christian Romans, Christians were simultaneously superstitious (irrational, obsessive and awestruck) and atheistic (they did not acknowledge the gods of Rome, who resided in cities, temples and statues - an "inner and personal" deity who was somehow "other" than oneself would have seemed preposterous).

"Belief in" always has an object of attachment. You cannot rationalise ideas out of existence, you can only contend with them. So perhaps the subject here is really a stubbornly Judaeo-Christian mindset in modern disguise - belief vs non-belief, real vs unreal; for which reason, terms like existence and non-existence keep popping up in a framework of logic. It ain't logic, it's a form of theology and Dawkins, admirable though he be, is no more a theologist than I am.

"Why not just "the rejection of belief in any deities" - because "I don't believe in Zimmerman" does not mean "I don't believe Zimmerman exists"" JimWae has it right here, I think. Anyway, I'll stop wittering and bugger off now. Regards Haploidavey (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

@Jimwae- Re I think we have to go for all THREE definitions that are found in the literature - for all the reasons stated above. I think that by far the predominate definition for athiesm is the position, doctrine or belief that a deity or deities do not exist. I thought the rewrite I offered made it clear that this was the case, while pointing out that other definitions existed. I think taking the time to spell out each definition in detail (as in Scjessey 13:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)) gives the minor definitions undue weight, and simply confuses the lead. As I said ealier, we are going to sacrifice readability and clarity in an attempt to be overly-inclusiveness. We're over-thinking this one.NickCT (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, perhaps it is worth reiterating that we shouldn't be defining the term atheism so much as summarizing the body of the article. Strict definitions are for the Wiktionary, where the different flavors of atheism can be defined in order of importance. In fact, perhaps we should be thinking in terms of something ambiguous like "Atheism encompasses positions and philosophies generally opposed or indifferent to the existence of deities," and let the body of the article get into the nitty gritty. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

@Scjessey - I think that the first couple lines of most wikipedia articles (or any encyclopedic article) are usually de facto definitions (as currently is true for this article). I think you're right about having to go ambiguous to reach consensus. I'd accept "Atheism encompasses positions, philosophies and doctrines generally opposed to the existence of a deity or deities". I still think "indifference to the existence..." better defines agnosticism. NickCT (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a pattern that these discussions circle back on themselves. As we consider shorter and simpler leads (which I like, by the way), please scroll back up to the top of #On definition: part 3 and note the discussion between me and JokerXtreme about now-archived talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) - I think atheism and agnosticism have a fair amount of overlap. Before we think about specific language (I just threw that idea into my last comment without giving it much thought) it might be a good idea to see if the other participants in this discussion are in favor of this ambiguous approach. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

@Scj - Agreed on both accounts. Agnosticism and atheism do overlap somewhat, but I think from a simple look through dictionaries that athiesm is a rejection of the idea of god, while agnosticism is a rejection of the belief in the idea of god.

What do other editors think about this language? "Atheism encompasses positions, philosophies and doctrines generally opposed to the existence of a deity or deities".

@Trypt - Agreed. This is circular. Frankly at this point I think we just have to generate several options and sea which one can gain enough support to be called "consensus". NickCT (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I beleive "the position that no deities exist" uses the "passive voice", whereas ""the position that there are no deities" uses the "active voice". The active voice is generally preferred. Unless you are trying to draw attention / place burden on the subject. In this case said subject would be "deities", the implication being that it is they who are responsible for "not existing" - and this doesn't seem to accurately portray the typical atheist position. The position is more accurately that it is our minds that are responsible for imagining them. (well, not all of our minds do this.) I.e. i believe the active voice should be used. Kevin Baas^talk 20:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

---

There are many problems with the Nick's proposal & I am busy with other thing for a little while, but will be back soon. In brief, the consensus for 2 or 3 years has been to present all 3 defs in the first paragraph & it is in that manner that the article achieved FA status. This discussion is the very reason I still prefer something along the lines of:

I also happen to think that one def is clearly the best, and that one is clearly "out to lunch", but personal opinions do not matter here. This is wikipedia & talk page history demonstrates that consensus will never allow endorsement of one single def -- nor even that one is indeed "most common".

I'd rather avoid a lengthy discussion of agnosticism, as it really does not matter to the lede if the definitions overlap. However, I will say that the rejection def is most definitely NOT a text-book definition of agnosticism. Text book defs of agnosticism focus on statements about knowledge, NOT about belief. What does distinguish agnosticism from rejection atheism, however, (and there are numerous sources to support this) is that agnostics (under a 2nd def of agnosticism) do not reject belief - they suspend it (unless of course they happen to be agnostic theists)..--JimWae (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Princeton definition for agnostic - a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist). Saying one "cannot have true knowledge" equates to saying "anyone who believes to have true knowledge of God is incorrect" which equates to a rejection of belief. Is this definition wrong in your mind Jim? NickCT (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

1: The definition is fine - but your interpretation has problems. "Believing something exists" does not EQUATE to "believing one knows something exists".

2: Also: That def does not mean that agnostics reject belief that deities exist. One can reject belief without denying that it might be true. I reject belief in UFOs, but I do not deny there might be UFOs. --JimWae (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

3: However, this discussion is best left to the agnosticism article - it does not matter to the lede if the defs overlap - but putting agnosticism (a topic upon which there is also no agreed SINGLE def, and perhaps even greater confusion) at the top of the article would be a disservice to the reader--JimWae (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

4:PS: note that the word "belief" appears nowhere in the Princeton def.--JimWae (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Suggestion, trying as best I can to digest all the above:

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Our 2 proposals are remarkably similar, the major (but not only) difference being the number of sentences. Can you tall me why using 2 sentences is better than three? I think I have already expressed above at least one reason why I think 3 is better than 2.--JimWae (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm glad you see them as so similar, because I'm trying to move in that direction. My reasoning for 2 sentences is taking into consideration what some of the other editors have said: that a shorter, simpler lead sounds less academic and less verbose. I'm trying to craft consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

has an even lower word count, has simpler sentence construction (without any simple sentences), and has a much easier readability score. The point about being "too academic" (horrors!) was, I think, applied to any overt mention that we had actually consulted the literature, but would also apply to readability levels ;) I think we are both trying to craft consensus, yes? --JimWae (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

How about a compromise? :P I composed this out of both of your suggestions to include what I think each suggestions has to offer. Trypto, by saying that "A broader definition is the rejection", it's like trying to find a definition of the "definition" word, not the definition of atheism.--JokerXtreme (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Throw in a comma after the [2] and you've got yourself a deal. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed--JokerXtreme (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ewww, yuck. Jim's version is much better than the commafest. Three sentences for three definitions. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

@JimWae - 1. "Believing something exists" does not EQUATE to "believing one knows something exists". This seems to me to be somekind of doublethink. How are "The X exists" and "I know the X exists" different statements? 2. I reject belief in UFOs, but I do not deny there might be UFOs This is exactly my point. That is classic agnosticism, and that is what your atheism lead is defining atheism as! 3. As to there being no clear definition to agnosticism, I think what is clear is how agnosticism differs from atheism. The proposed lead muddies that difference.

@everyone - More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist. This is still a textbook definition for agnosticism (see my post NickCT (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC) ), and I would strongly suggest it either be excluded or marginalized. NickCT (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced on the "textbook agnosticism" statement, because there are many different versions of agnosticism. As I read it, the second definition supports a statement like: "I don't know or I don't care about the existence of deities, but I choose not to believe in them anyway." In contrast, an agnostic is more likely to say something like: "I don't have any proof of the existence or nonexistence of deities, so the question of belief seems moot." -- Scjessey (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

@Scjessey - Interesting read. Always nice to hear your interpretations. I think I read it slightly different. I see "rejection of belief" as meaning someone thinks "believing in dieties is wrong", which is similar to the textbook agnosticism which claims that people "cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God ".

If I could offer three examples of potential beliefs 1. There is no God (I think we all agree this is atheism)2. I don't know/don't care whether there is a God so I don't believe(I don't know what you call this... weak atheism?) 3. People can't know if there is a God, but I acknowledge the possibility (this is definitely agnosticism). It seems to me "More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist." falls under the third definition, and hence I call again for its exclusion. NickCT (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. It would be so much easier to call for the exclusion of religion! I'm just not interpreting these in the same way as you. I do see three distinct flavors of atheism:

1. "I don't believe in the existence of deities." - Atheism with an actual conviction (explicit, strong).
2. "I don't believe in deities, whether or not they exist." - Again, an actual conviction, despite no assertion of existence/nonexistence (explicit, weak, agnostic atheism).
3. "Deities? Never 'eard of 'em." - No conviction, no knowledge or no opinion of existence/nonexistence (implicit, weak).

In contrast, agnostics have heard of deities (like "1" or "2"), but they have no belief conviction because they have no proof of existence/nonexistence. The exception (as noted in "2") is "agnostic atheism". -- Scjessey (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

1. "I don't believe in deities, whether or not they exist." I guess you could call this "agnostic atheism", but agnosticism more says "Believing in deities is wrong, because it is impossible to have insight in deities, whether or not they exist". Do you see how those are different?

Now, tell me, under which definition does "A broader definition is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that deities do not exist" fit? NickCT (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand your question. Under what definition does that definition fit? Eh? Huh? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather than repeat what I said yesterday, I will confine myself to these comments:

1. No "text-book definition" of agnosticism as "rejection of belief" has yet been offered, only someone's personal interpretation.
2. Even if one were found, it would not affect the lede, as the rejection def is a current, well-sourced def of atheism.
3. English is not a technical language in which every word has a distinct meaning.
4. There is nothing in the logic of the language that would make it "semantically odd" to be both an atheist and an agnostic, nor both a theist and an agnostic.
5. "wrong" is being used nebulously.
6. Most of this discussion belongs at Talk:Agnosticism.--JimWae (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I support the last version of the text that you came up with. I suggest you go ahead and boldly stick it in. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A big "No!" to being bold in this particular case. Why are there italics in that version? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, are we converging in a definition? Personally, I'm more inclined towards a 2 sentence definition. The flow is better.--JokerXtreme (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with JokerXtreme, both on the flow, and on the convergence towards agreement. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this desire to bundle two definitions together into one sentence. It makes much more sense to break them out into separate sentences, and it also makes it tidier when you add the references in. There is nothing I hate more than a mid-sentence reference (except maybe the Dallas Cowboys). -- Scjessey (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I think we are getting very close to an agreed-upon version. In the 3 sentence version, the 1st sentence is 12 words, the 2nd 24, and the 3rd 14. All 3 sentences are complex sentences, the 2nd being the most complex. By combining the 2 longest sentences (one of them also being the most complex) together, we

1> need to add a word to the paragraph,

2> form a double complex-compound sentence,

3> decrease the readability ease by 3 to 6 grade levels, and

4> require that footnotes break up sentences.

These are objective measures. "Flow" is an objective measure only in the sense that topics "flow" together with less pauses -- 2 sentences "flowing" to become 1. Whether this makes the flow "better" or not is not objective. Yes, I understand the 2 sentence proposed lede perfectly well, but will a college freshman or high school senior understand it the first time through? (As I recall, it was opinions about flow & readability that gave us the 2 sentences of the present lede & why "theism" has survived so long in it.) The only objective measure we have for this are the readability scores. The F-K reading level of the 2 separate sentences is grade 12.4 and 11.7, of the combined sentence grade 19.2. The lede is supposed to be the most accessible part of the article (though grade 7.1 for the current lede paragraph is an example of misleading readability ease). If the above 4 reasons for having 3 sentences are not decisive enough, here's another concern:

5> What will happen to the clarity of a 2 sentence lede as it gets modified in the next few months? Having 3 sentences safeguards the clarity of the lede more than having 2 sentences does.

If all these 5 reasons were presented BEFORE anyone saw the 2 paragraphs, which would appear to be ahead?--JimWae (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

---

So it appears that if we were to have to decide which version based on a vote, it would be 3 to 2 for one version over the other. However, I have tried my best above to persuade people that the 3 sentence version has numerous advantages, but have received no reply yet. I do not know how to interpret this. Are we going to have to vote, or are there more reasons to be discussed, or are people willing to accept the 3 sentence version & prepared to let me go ahead and make the edit? --JimWae (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I think that the stats that Word generates are not very reliable. I don't think that a machine, lacking any real intelligence, can produce results of any real significance, solely by running some simple algorithms. The one extra word is really negligible, I don't think it really is that big of a deal. I don't think that it adds to the complexity either. They are still two distinct definitions but they are just connected with a word that actually makes the whole lede "sound" better. I don't know how to put this in terms of linguistics, but I'm quite sure that there is some sort of academic definition for this "flow". Maybe something measurable as well. The footnotes breaking up the sentence, is something I don't like either, but it's quite common in wikipedia and published papers.

Other than that, I don't really mind all that much about which version will be used, as long as we finally reach to a consensus.--JokerXtreme (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that we have total agreement on the substance of what next to change the lede to, and the only sticking point is over style. Btw, I did a human calculation of the F-K grade levels & the outcome is even more telling against the double complex-compound sentence, bringing the grade level up to 20.8 - way beyond the Harvard Law Review. Word can count the # of sentences & # words fine, but it does not count syllables as we do. Apparently it counted a-the-is-m as just 2 syllables, and de-it-ies also as only 2. You can see more details at: User:JimWae/2or3sentences. If there is no objection raised within the next day, I plan to go ahead and make the edit. --JimWae (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, go ahead. Maybe put something there to warn people to discuss changes first. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The 3-sentence version is the only one that makes any sense to me. I would fully support that change. Either change is an improvement on what we have though. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've stayed out of this for a while, because I also think we agree on the substance, and it's coming down to style. Personally, I think all this stuff about calculating grade level is utter nonsense, and I continue to prefer the flow of two sentences. Our readers are human beings, not computers. But, it's not worth arguing about. I also support the change, with three sentences, albeit with a preference for two sentences. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made the change to the 1st paragraph. I want to express my appreciation to all who participated in the discussion for the very congenial & collegial manner in which the discussion was carried out. If anyone can think of a better way to format the footnotes for the absence def, please express it. Cheers - JimW --JimWae (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's just hope now that someone won't change it unilaterally :)--JokerXtreme (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This entire section will get archived as one chunk, so it will be easy to point to in any future disputes. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks good! (In fact, looking at it on the page, I no longer think there is any flow problem at all!) Thanks all. I added back the same blue links that were there before, so I hope that's OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

@Scjessey-Isn't there value in succinctness?

@ JimWae - Please see the following -

agnosticism - the view that absolute truth or ultimate certainty is unattainable en.wiktionary.org/wiki/agnosticism

a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Someone who claims that they do not know or are unable to know whether God exists www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml

The mental attitude denying the possibility of the real knowledge of truth and hence of the ultimate or fundamental nature of the universe www.theosociety.org/pasadena/etgloss/adi-ag.htm

agnosticism - [from Greek a not + gnostos known] The mental attitude denying the possibility of the real knowledge of truth and hence of the ultimate or fundamental nature of the universe. www.theosociety.org/pasadena/etgloss/adi-ag.htm

Now after this. Are you going to argue that agnostics don't reject belief in deities because they think the idea is unprovable?

More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist. Nobody has explained to me how this does not meet the definition of agnosticism. I'm still against it's inclusion. NickCT (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Still not a single mention of belief anywhere in these refs. Just because one part of the definition matches somewhat does not mean it all does -- and please see my 6 points above again, none of which you responded to--JimWae (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude... Quit hiding behind semantics.. To know or think god exists is to believe in god. NickCT (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, when we are discussing the meaning of words, we better pay attention to semantics. Maybe you meant I shouldn't hide behind logic, as in: "A implies B" does not mean "not A implies not B". However, using know and think and believe and believe you know all as (near?) synonyms appears to be the main source of your confusion.--JimWae (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

To paraphrase what I believe JimWae is saying, an agnostic would be equivocable to a "weak atheist" if everyone always abided by rational thought's principle of parsimony and scientific thought's falsifiability clause. Personally, I immediately equate the two. My logic goes: "If one cannot have knowledge (not to be confused with "belief" or what have you) about it, then, by definition, it does not exist." But I can recognize that not everyone thinks like this, and I would venture that no ("cannot-know") agnostic does. For any ("cannot-know") agnostic who did would ipso-facto be an aetheist. Kevin Baas^talk 16:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Point is that some people believe that the mental distinction between "(not) being able to know of a thing" and "a thing (not) existing" is not purely cognitive, but actually exists naturally as well. Whereas some people equate the two ("A thing that is unknowable is, for all practical purposes, simply not there."). And regardless ofhow we feel about either position, we should strive to accurately portray both.

@Baas - Thanks for a well put point. If I could try and paraphrase your point, you're saying that "weak atheism" might encapsulate agnosticism, but that we should differentiate the two? So, would you be against the More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist. language? NickCT (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the last part (the "with or without...") I think it is unneccesary and confusing (and debatable). Difficult nuances are better left to be fleshed out in the body. As it stands, without that part the sentence is still correct no matter which side of the fence you're on. I think the last part should be omitted. Kevin Baas^talk 16:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Btw, I do not think anyone disputes that the broadest def includes ALL agnostics - yet I see no objection from you about it. Aside from that, you still have not responded to a single point I made--JimWae (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wae - I think the problem I have is specificly with the "rejection of belief" langage, as that seems to me to be too close a definition of agnosticism. For the sake of simplicity/readability, and for the sake of not being over encompassing, cannot we not pare down your proposal?

As to the points you've made, when you start saying things like "believing in something is not the same as having belief in something" my brain starts to throb a little. Apologies. NickCT (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

One is the passive voice, the other is the active voice. And in french, "I'm hungry." is instead "I have hunger." (something like "J'ai faime.") Kevin Baas^talk 16:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ummm ok. But if you read above Wae is insisting that there is sort of logical disparity between "having hunger" and "being hungry". Active or passive, they essentially mean the same thing. NickCT (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Before this section gets archived, I want to make it clear that nowhere on this page (nor anywhere else) did I ever "start saying things like 'believing in something is not the same as having belief in something' ". A search of this page will show that "having belief in" appears only when signed by Nick or when someone else quotes him. At first, I thought this remark might be some kind of joke, but I see others took it seriously. Btw, the grammatical term Kevin seems to be looking for is intransitive verb, not passive voice.--JimWae (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

---

• (After edit conflict) Nevertheless, I will try to un-mire this discussion a bit: Many people are confused about the relationships between proof, knowledge & belief.

  1> Some people claim that unless something can be proven, it cannot be known. This is not how humans use these words. It is a perfectly acceptable usage of "know" to say "I know I drove on the highway today" without being able to prove it.

  2>Some people claim that unless we know something, we are not "rationally permitted" (whatever that may mean) to believe it. Again, it is perfectly acceptable to say "I believe I will be able to climb to the top of this mountain", without knowing that one will not die before it could happen. Furthermore, if we claim to know something, it would be an understatement to say we believe it. If we think we know something (like "2+2=4" or "my name is Jim"), there is no need to claim it as a belief.--JimWae (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps later I will try to deal with some of the confusion above regarding "I know X" and "I believe I know X"--JimWae (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• I just did a search for "believing in something" on this page. There are only 2 instances - yours & some other guy that is not me, so I am unable to relieve your headache regarding that. --JimWae (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• "having belief in" is only yours, btw ;) --JimWae (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jim. I think I get your point. But let me ask you this; if you meet someone who says to you "I believe in God", does the word "believe" have the same meaning as in the sentence "I believe I can climb this mountain". The former seems to be an "assertion" about the nature of the universe, the latter a "guess-timate" of one's ability. One does "believe" in God in the same way that one "believes" one can climb a mountain!

Anyway Jim, I do appreciate your point, and I think it has some value; however, if we have to have arguements this extensive about something's meaning, do you think the average reader is going to have much chance of interpretting the wording correctly? I'm really leaning towards much more simple, and perhaps slightly more vague wording. NickCT (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• All the more reason to have 3 sentences instead of 2, and to italicize belief. As for your other points, see the earliest points in the above 6 points, & mention of the 2 to 3 year consensus & FA status & MOS:BEGIN. --JimWae (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• If I say "I reject belief in X", one should not assume that I am rejecting it for everyone. I am clearly rejecting it for myself, but beyond that, one should not presume more. Perhaps someone has actually been on flying saucer - for that person it is not irrational to believe in UFOs. But when I consider it, all I see is charlatanry. I reject a lot of conspiracy theories (some as more ridiculous than others), but I cannot reject them for the (perhaps marginally not insane) person who might someday present strong evidence to have actually been the one to shoot JFK or set up explosives at the World Trade Center. --JimWae (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• No reliably-sourced definition has yet been found of "agnosticism" that includes "rejection of belief". The only articles I have found that came close to (but did not) include the word "belief" in the def used the phrase "suspension of belief". When one suspends belief, one leaves it for further consideration later. Rejection atheists see no point in considering it further - though they might still be willing to discuss it with others.--JimWae (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• My point about belief, knowledge & proof does not hang on whether or not there are different "categories of belief". I simply am pointing out that the words "knowledge" & "belief" have different meanings -- & that a definition of agnosticism in terms of lack of knowledge cannot be turned into a definition that equates "no knowledge" with "no belief" & tells us what we are "not allowed to" believe--JimWae (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)