Talk:Atheism/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Definition

The current definition is POV and makes absolutely no sense. Atheism is a lack of belief not a belief. I have tried to correct it many times but my edits keep being reverted and I even was told I was vandalising the page after I corrected it a third time.Zvyer 00:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Atheism has several definitions. The lack of belief definition is mentioned. What's the problem exactly? Mdwh 01:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

@Zvyer: :By saying or writing that atheism is the lack of belief in theism you do express a certain point of view. So, if the other definitions are illegitimate, yours is illegitimate as well. — Editorius 01:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an age-old semantics discussion. I maintain that it's only the abundance of religion that makes you assume that "not believing in a deity" is a form of stance on a subject. I think you are making special pleading in the case of religion that you wouldn't otherwise make in another context. Habalabam 09:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Not believing in gods is not necessarily a "position". it's the default position on everything. Not only applicable to "pending evidence" and "informed rejection", but also for those "pending someone actually introducing the subject to the concept of Gods". Atheism is merely about not making a special plea for religion, so I don't accept that this article should reflect such the mentality that every person is assumed to be in a position to evaluate the scientific nature of the universe. Atheism may be a stance, and it may not. Depends on the reason the atheist have no theism. Habalabam 09:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have issues with the current introductory sentence. For example, it explicitly says that "atheism is the belief in the nonexistence of gods" and relegates other definitions to lesser positions. The list of sources above showed that the "belief in nonexistence" definition actually does not dominate. Mostly, I take issue with the fact that atheism "is" [the most restrictive definition] but is "in its broadest definition" [the most inclusive definition]. I am changing to a subtly different wording:

Atheism, strictly defined as a philosophical stance, is either the belief in the nonexistence of gods or the rejection of theism; however, in its broadest definition it is the absence of belief in deities.

I think this gives less undue weight to the strictest definition while still including all the different definitions and their conditions. Switch (✉✍☺) 11:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I might support your suggestion with a few changes. Remove "strictly", and separate it again into two sentences, without the "however": "Atheism, defined as a philosophical stance, is either the belief in the nonexistence of gods or the rejection of theism. In its broadest definition, it is the absence of belief in deities." johnpseudo 13:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I like that. I would prefer a semicolon but I simply love semicolons so I may not be the best judge. I thought it was better to include all three definitions initially given in the first sentence but that may not be the case. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 13:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. Also, with the SWITCH to stance, we need not use the word belief like Britanica if we wish to this: ::

Atheism, defined as a philosophical stance, is either the denial of the existence of gods or the rejection of theism; but in its broadest definition, it is the absence of belief in deities, sometimes called nontheism.

existence->Existence to God link is better too. Removing strictly ok, although I liked it. _Modocc 13:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the word "belief" is important. We need either "belief in nonexistence" or "belief that no god exists". johnpseudo 14:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Denial" is the opposite "position that affirms" and this is cited. Belief may be important to that, but its secondary and unnecessary. Belief is not necessary to hold a position. _Modocc 14:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the word "denial" is that it has a different colloquial meaning (a defense mechanism that denies painful thoughts). This has obvious misleading connotations. johnpseudo 15:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That connotation might mislead :(, but so be it, there is a difference between a philosophical view and psychological condition. Lets let the reader decide. _Modocc 16:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Including the word "denial" when it could easily be misconstrued to imply that atheists are delusional would be bad. Let's not "let the reader decide". Let's not use the word.

On the other hand, there does seem to be disagreement among philosophical encyclopedias:

Routledge- "Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God."

Britannica- "Atheism is, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings."

Stanford- "Atheism means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."

Gale-MacMillan- Does anyone have access to this definition? johnpseudo 17:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Deny or "to deny" is stricter than denial. Thus, we can use that. _Modocc 17:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What? How could "deny" possibly be any stronger or weaker than "denial"? It's the same word. johnpseudo 17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The definitions for deny and denial differ, at least those I found so far. But, I could be wrong. If not the reason would be is that "denial" is a condition, but if one denies, it is simply an act of opposition, thus deny has a more strict definition. Again, perhaps there are better sources on usage than mine. _Modocc 18:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

All that said, I do support using affirms too. :-) _Modocc 18:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you switchy-switch :< I really like your definition. Much better than my half-ass, stupid way of just deleting something I thought was worded wrong. I have to practice at things like this :(Zvyer 21:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(a) "x denies that God exists" might indeed be negatively interpreted as "That God exists is a fact but x refuses to accept it". And for centuries it had actually been read in this way by the vast majority of people.

(b) What's the difference between "I'm an atheist" and "I'm a philosophical atheist"?!

Editorius 17:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I supposed what that would mean (in (B)), is that some people are athiest because of how they were brought up, and never thought about it, while the latter is someone who has thought long about it and came to that conclusion. But there would be a lot of shades of grey and confusion between the two. (Csture 05:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

So, reflective atheism (= "philosophical" atheism) versus non-reflective atheism. — Editorius 10:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Philosophical definition: stance or view?

The strict philosophical definitions cited are in many respects stances, and not views(in the broad sense),"position that affirms" or "denial". Other than the common belief definition, and the fact that belief does exist, are there current philosophical definitions that also express views/belief and not just stances? ISMs are belief, but the citations avoid it. Perhaps we should follow suit? Or is it necessary to wrap every stance with belief. It seems, to me, that the belief definition is actually not broad enough and too restrictive, since belief->denial, but denial not-> belief. _Modocc 15:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Since, a stance is a view, we can keep it and state:

Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is either the denial of the existence of gods or the rejection of theism; but in its broadest definition, it is the absence of belief in deities, sometimes called nontheism.

_Modocc 15:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support this definition, as the "in the broadest sense" is no longer an afterthought in the definition, but equally one of the 3 definitions we use. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Addressing the concern about the usage of "denial" above:

Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is either the position that denies gods exist, or more broadly, the rejection of theism; but in its broadest definition, it is the absence of belief in deities, sometimes called nontheism.

_Modocc 17:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've applied the first version of these, partly due to 81.228.195.119's concerns (below) about use of the word "belief", which this version sidesteps. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that "but in its broadest definition" becomes "or in its broadest definition", as that definition is just as supported as the others, as far as I can see. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"but" is better and "or" would be confusing, the third def being separate and not being defined "as philosophical" _Modocc 18:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If not all definitions of atheism are philosophical, perhaps we should remove confusion by removing the word "philosophical", or using some phrase like "often philosophical"? While the current version is very good, I'm just not entirely happy at the way that the 3rd definition is made to seem like some sort of afterthought, even if that's not the intention. --h2g2bob (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Including the word "philosophical" as a clarifier for the strong definition was a major step forward. I strongly object to removal of the word. What do you mean changing it to "often philosophical"? Give me an example with the change included. johnpseudo 19:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading through it again, you're probably right. My concern - that it could be read that the 3rd definition is less accepted - is only a minor one. I can't come up with any way to express it that doesn't raise more significant problems, so for me the current version is good enough. Plus from the philosophical point of view I guess it isn't as well accepted, so it is technically correct. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say I think the first paragraph reads really well now. Well done. Dast 16:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Again with the definition

That atheism is a belief is one of the most freqnetly used myths on atheism. See http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/p/DenialGod.htm for more information 81.228.195.119 16:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your source is one person's opinion column. We've been trying to use peer-reviewed encyclopedias of philosophy, such as Routledge, Stanford, Britannica, or Gale-MacMillan. johnpseudo 17:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am all in favor of using peer-review, but it is also important to notice the views expressed by active atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, Jonathan Miller and Austin Cline. That is about as peer-reviewed as it gets. However, I like the current definition, so this is resolved for me. 81.228.195.119 19:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins is not a philosopher, he is a biologist who also happens to be an atheist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.224.24.83 (talk) 07:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Don't be so dismissive: not only philosophers can talk on this subject. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The introductory statement is getting worse and worse. As the saying goes, too many cooks spoil the broth:

"Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism."

This formulation suggests that the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods and the rejection of theism are mutually exclusive. But this is certainly not the case, since everybody who affirms or accepts that no gods exist ipso facto rejects theism. — Editorius 00:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

They are two, independent positions. One person could hold both positions, but the philosophical definition of atheism is either one or the other. The current phrasing does not imply that the positions are mutually-exclusive. johnpseudo 02:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how they can be independent. Theism is (in the "broadest sense") the proposition that one or more gods exist. The separation between these two definitions would seem to rest solely on the definition of "reject." I agree with Editorius; everybody who affirms or accepts that no gods exist must reject theism. The intro seems to be saying "p = god(s) exist" and atheism is the view that "~p = true" or "p = false" which are equivalent. MFNickster 05:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Some people are claiming that if theism is $\therefore \exists _{\mathrm {god} }$, then atheism includes both it's refutation $\therefore \not \exists _{\mathrm {god} }$ and it's negation $\not \therefore \exists _{\mathrm {god} }$, where $\therefore$ should be understood as meaning something like "to think that". It is my claim that $(\therefore \exists _{\mathrm {god} })\Longrightarrow (\not \therefore \exists _{\mathrm {god} })$, so atheism in fact includes both those things at the same time, but it is not true that mere one-sided agnosticism $\not \therefore \exists _{\mathrm {god} }$ implies full atheism. For completeness, agnosticism would in my view be $(\not \therefore \exists _{\mathrm {god} })\land (\not \therefore \not \exists _{\mathrm {god} })$. --MarSch 11:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the claim be $(\therefore \not \exists _{\mathrm {god} })\Longrightarrow (\not \therefore \exists _{\mathrm {god} })$ ? 67.180.238.184 03:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ex(...) = the existential quantifier

B(...) = the doxastic operator

Bp = It is believed that p

Bxp = x believes that p

G = the predicate "is a god"

x is a theist <-> Bx(EyGy)

x is a weak atheist <-> ~Bx(EyGy)

x is a strong atheist <-> Bx(~EyGy)

Strong atheism implies weak atheism:

Bx(~EyGy) -> ~Bx(EyGy)

x is an agnostic <-> (~Bx(EyGy) & ~Bx(~EyGy))

Weak atheism is identical to agnosticism (I mean belief agnosticism!) because in order for a self-declared weak atheist not to become a strong one she must affirm both "I don't believe that gods exists" and "I don't believe that gods don't exist", the formal expression of which is "~Bi(EyGy) & ~Bi(~EyGy)" ("i" standing for "ego"). In case the weak atheist affirmed "~Bi(EyGy)" but denied "~Bi(~EyGy)", we would get ~Bi(EyGy) & ~~Bi(~EyGy), which is equivalent to ~Bi(EyGy) & Bi(~EyGy). And that's strong atheism! — Editorius 13:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to MFNickster: The definitions of philosophical positions are not boolean. There is obviously a wide difference of posturing between affirming the nonexistence of all gods and rejecting theism. To you, the implications of the definitions may be equivalent, but I'm sure you can see that the definitions themselves are not. johnpseudo 21:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, John, in this case the proposition has a boolean value. Things don't half-exist; "God exists" must be false if it is not true. Please enlighten me by giving a philosophical definition regarding the existence of anything which is not boolean. MFNickster 23:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the existence of God is not boolean. I'm saying the definition of atheism is not boolean. You cannot easily split the world into a group of people who affirm the existence of God and a group who affirm the non-existence of God. johnpseudo 00:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for clearing that up! MFNickster 00:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Editorius, I had been wondering the same thing and had come to the same conclusion as you. I expressed it as "I don't believe god exists" and "I don't not believe that god exists". With the probability of the existense of x being unknown, one has to declare both. If they declare only "I don't believe in god", then they are making a postive affirmation on the probability of the existence of x. If they say both they are not. And there is no such thing as sitting on the fence and saying, "I don't know ergo I don't believe". If you don't know, it is just that, you don't know - "I don't have a belief" (one way or another) is very different from "I don't believe" (in god).

Good work. Harley 04:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

criticism section

Big edit: all the argument above here is pretty useless except to those in the argument, so I've deleted it to help anyone interested in helping out. Anyone interested in the argument can see it in the history. Harley 05:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For everyones benefit here it is again (edited for brevity):

These defenses are simply a way of trying to debunk the criticisms without allowing the criticisms to stand on their own merit. If you want an argument section then there should be just that, arguments for and against. But the attributes of any concept are expressed in the body of the text already. So why the need to defend against the criticisms. The body proper should be convincing enough (in a neutral manner) that anyone reading it can make up their own mind anyway.

Of course you might argue that to make the criticism section neutral, that for every argument against, their may be an answer for. But as I said earlier, then it is not a criticism section but a debate or argument (in the colloquial sense).

So I think neutral would be to delete the disputed content. It is not needed. In general it doesn't expand one's knowledge of atheism past what has already been expressed in the main body. The point of these comments are only to diminish the criticisms.

The sentence on "Atheistic philosophers" could go under whichever relevant history section they fall under. Or perhaps a new section titled "Atheistic philosophers".

Now for "that weak atheism is not a positive claim, and thus re...." It is a rehash of what has already been said in "Stong vs Weak". Therefore not needed here.

And for Deathbed_conversion it is defended in its category proper. No need to double up here.

And Atheists_in_foxholes. Well, ditto. It is defended in its category proper.

Are you afraid that the argument for (ie the body proper) doesn't stand on it's own 2 feet? People do have the ability to make these value judgements on their own. I think the body proper is quite good right now.

I plan on making changes to this extent soon. Does anyone have any specific problems with this? Why? Is there a better way to do it? Why? etc, etc. Harley 07:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Harley, The extensive Criticism_of_atheism article which is referred to is balanced with direct atheist responses also. The criticism and responses in that article are specific POVs presented in a balanced way. The section here is likewise, and is at it should be. You may not realize it, but several of your assertions about the atheist responses being repeated elsewhere in the article are too vague. It would help if you point out where, how, and to what degree each response given is actually repeated. _Modocc 13:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Harley has some good points which mirror the Wikipedia:Criticism essay, even if they are expressed a little too tersely. I can't spot the duplication he suggests offhand, but some parts can certainly be merged (not simply removed) into other sections. Harley's solution of removing the rebuttals is a poor one: criticism sections must still follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and this clearly biases the section. --h2g2bob (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV biases the section? I suppose one could call neutrality a bias, maybe, with a lot of stretching, but...

Anyway, on to Harleyman: while silence might be tacit approval when speaking to someone (assuming they are not deaf, mute or have laryngitis) but it does not imply approval, acceptance, acquiescence, concurrance, ratification, support or any other synonym for these terms, Not everyone watches these pages 24-7, and sometimes, it takes a few days before some of us can scratch up enough time in our hectic lives to actually get to Wikipedia. Consider your theory to be shot in the ass.

So, who is the "they" refered to by "their" in the phrase their article? Do tell, because absent any specificity your claim is vacuus, bereft of value, pointless, meaningless, etc.

This is interesting. We have: "I have been reading wikipedia long enough..." and then, two breaths later "I am pretty sure most of us are guilty of that." Hmmm, 22 edits, 2 in December, 1 in February, 19 this month and you're guilty of claiming ownership (note the use of "us"). Per me, l'odore è como un calzino. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Didn't phrase that very well - I meant it that removing the rebuttals to the criticism makes the paragraph biased, and criticism sections still need to be from NPOV. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Jim62sch I was in fact talking to you. Their refers to KillerChihuahua and you. I'm sure your life is very hectic. Your assumption is that mine is not. Let's see. Married, 3 kids, 4th on the way, studying a bachelor degree, studying a diploma, working in a part time job, plus the rest of things most people have in their lives. I'm sure you are just as busy as that... Parlo Italiano. E tu? Non sento nessun ordore. You use theory in the colloquial sense, which makes it incorrect for your usage. I love how you say "shot in the ass" so confidently. Like you know with absolute resolve that you are right.

Now, if you can't be bothered replying to the actual editorial problem here, then I suggest you go elsewhere and pick a fight with someone who cares about your self-edifying posts. If you can't keep to the topic at hand - go away. Harley 04:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC) edit typo Harley 05:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, no ownership issues with me Harley, and I don't see any with KC either. Also, if you were referring to me initially, you must be, like, psychic or something, because I wasn't even in the conversation and haven't made an edit to the article space for quite some time.

As to lives, I don't give a rat's ass how busy yours is just as you don't give a rat's ass how busy anyone else's is; besides, there's no competition here for who has the busiest life. (Could be a good TV "reality" show, though). 'My point, which you did not really address, was that silence ≠ tacit approval. Try to stay on topic.

Sono molto felice che conosci l'italiano. É una lingua molta bella, no?

Did I use theory colloquially? Only because your statement, hypothesis, "truism" or whatever you want to call it was a colloquially presented. And yes, it was shot in the ass. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The editorial problems you raise do not seem to be problems at all, merely your interpretation of what is being presented in the article. You see inequities where none exist.

It's quite humourous, in light of your own sum sapiens magnus posts that you have the chutzpah to accuse someone else of "self-edifying posts". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: rats ass. You brought it up in the first place with "it takes a few days before some of us can scratch up enough time in our hectic lives to actually get to Wikipedia", I was simply replying in kind. Sì, sono studente d'italiano. Sì, è bella. Mia madre lei una ragazza italiano. Re: "truism". I think it is "truthiness". Re: shot in the ass. Funny, I didn't feel anything. Re: sum sapiens magnus. Of course I'll do that (accuse someone else) - if they are doing it. I think it is your job to point it out to me if I am doing it back : ) Harley 02:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to say Jim, Kates tool is pretty boring. On top of that, I was being what is called humble, and attributing a failing I see in someone else to myself, so they wouldn't feel bad. I see by you pointing out I am relatively new at editing that you are suffering from little man syndrome "look how many edits I've done everyone - I'm sooo good". I don't suffer from the same frailty. Harley 04:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Humility from Harley. Could he be the next Deep Thoughts author?

No, Harley, the issue referred to was hinted at in the initial Italian comment. I'm sure you can ferret out the meaning if you try. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that mantle Deep Thoughts. But I think I'm less pleasant. Yes Jim, I can ferret out the meaning. I am half Italian. Check Modocc's edited history of this for more fun reading re sheep :) Harley 02:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Modocc, I hadn't seen the Criticism_of_atheism section. Most helpful. I will put up more detail for why I think an edit should occur shortly.

Hi h2g2bob, I think that a criticism section should be just that. Valid criticisms. The balance (ie neutrality) of the criticism comes in the form of the body proper of the Atheism article. It already constitutes a defense of itself.

Since their is a whole Criticism_of_atheism article, why don't we delete the criticisms in the Atheism article, and instead refer to that? If that article is already balanced and since it is a much more extensive article, then there would be no need to balance this section or have such a poor replica of a much better article.

Thanks, Harley 05:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Merely because there is a child article is no reason to unbalance this one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi KC, I guess there we differ. I think that this article is unbalanced the way it is. Do you remember highschool or university debating? You don't get a continual right of reply, you each have to stake your case and let the judges make their own minds up. If we allow a right of reply in criticism sections then we are simply allowing one side to dominate an argument - this is unbalanced. We need to let the body of the article stand on its own 2 feet and let people decide for themselves if the criticisms are valid or not. I really think the criticism section is not neutral.Harley 11:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OK to Modocc and h2g2bob, here are my clarifications:

Firstly. I think the article is vastly unbalanced the way it is. There are dozens of claims within the body of the text that could have a theist reply added to make it balanced. But noone would allow this! So why allow an atheistic right of reply to the only criticism of the topic? This makes no sense at all.

I think that the body of the article sans crticism is the logical defense of the topic. The criticisms are a minor way of balancing views for the entire article.

Re doubling up: the sentence "Atheistic philosophers such as Joseph McCabe, Paul Kurtz, Antony Flew, and Michael Martin dispute this claim; also, atheist organizations of military personnel have been created in response." retells information from the categories Deathbed_conversion and Atheists_in_foxholes. I don't see the point of mashing a defense of these topics, that is already in their respective articles in detail, into the atheism article. If people are interested in those topics, they will follow the link.

Note: the information about these specific atheist philosophers doesn't seem to be in these articles yet. I would question to the original editor why not? The information is more pertinent for that topic. The military claim is asserted in the relevant article.

Re "that weak atheism is not a positive claim, and thus re...." It is a rehash of what has already been said in "Stong vs Weak". I got this meaning out of it when I read it. The big question is, if you didn't, then why would you want this information in the criticism section and not the definition section? Also, I believe that weak atheism IS a postive claim the way most people express it. For a good read on that look at the topic above this (Again with the definition).

Cheers, Harley 12:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Except that this isn't a debate, high school, college or otherwise; it is an encyclopedia article. And it isn't "Atheism vs. Theism" it is "Atheism" so yes, there will be a lot more about Atheism than about Theism. That's not unbalanced; that's recognizing what article you're editing. Perhaps you also feel that the Theism article needs a lot more about Atheism to make it balanced?

As regards Definitions and Comparisons, I personally find that the information is similar, but due to the difference in approach of presentation, different enough to warrant inclusion.

Finally, if people express weak atheism as a positive claim, they either are unclear on their own beliefs, or they suffer from difficulty expressing themselves, or they don't understand the difference themselves. Merely because some people don't understand the difference is no argument for this article to become inaccurate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed -- oh, wait, I can't merely agree I must, according to Harley, explain why I agree. Feh, no time. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, that's OK, it was an analogy (re debate), it was just meant to illustrate a point (you missed it, but not big deal). Re: "atheism vs theism". Why do some people always fail to read and comprehend. I wrote "There are dozens of claims within the body of the text that could have a theist reply added to make it balanced. But noone would allow this! This is me saying "we won't allow arguments for theism to creep into atheism"". And then you go on to say it back to me as if I don't know this. Seriously, why can't you just agree with what I've said rather than stating it back to me in different words and then pretending you are telling me something original.

Re def and comp: OK fine, I disagree. I think they are too similar and just rehash information for the sake of argument.

Re weak vs strong, I think you slightly misunderstand. You are right in what you said, but the problem is that including that in the article (ie how most people express themselves) and showing how it should be expressed, gives clarity - not innaccuracy.

Re Jim, yes, you should explain why you agree or you are just another sheep.

Jim, no time? Well, considering how many edits you do I'm not suprised you have no time. You are addicted to wikipedia. 560 days since you 1st started editing, 13744 posts in total. Equals 736 posts per month or 24.5 posts per day. You are a very busy person. I don't know how you find the time. I admire your perseverance (that is a serious compliment).

Good day to you both, Harley 23:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you can recognise addition, eh? Very good. Maybe I should welcome an intervention.

BTW, while your math is correct, it is misrepresentative, and I think you know that. Not that it matters, of course.

Believe it or not, agreeing with someone does not imply a state of sheephood any more than silence implies tacit approval. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Harley. In general, this article’s subsections do give summary information(information which is repeated) from their respective child articles. Such repetition is not grounds for removal. See POV fork on why this also applies to summaries of criticism articles. You also asked: “Since their is a whole Criticism_of_atheism article, why don't we delete the criticisms in the Atheism article, and instead refer to that?” Because Wikipedia:Criticism guideline clearly state that featured articles should contain, but not feature, criticism. As has been repeatedly said, if the criticisms in the section can be successfully worked into the article without causing disruption then editors are OK with that. But skewing summaries, or simply removing criticism without justification are against policy. _Modocc 15:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Criticism guideline supports the changes I think should be made.

Quotes:

"In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged. The main argument for this is that they are often a troll magnet:".

Supports deleting the section and working all content into the main article You suggested people would be OK with this. Not everyone will.

"No article should feature criticism about its topic, as those criticisms are always more appropriate at another location. For example, criticisms of Christianity do not belong in the article on Christianity, but in the articles of Christian-critical groups and concepts."

Supports linking to the Criticism_of_atheism topic. The criticisms are directly against atheism. But, as per the forking policy this should be avoided.

Also "Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact — the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate. Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other."

Also suggests my idea of working it all into the body of the text is a good idea.

Re: "But skewing summaries, or simply removing criticism without justification are against policy". Policy can be damned in this case. Wikipedia is egalitarian by nature.

Your opinions on what defines justification are no more important than mine. Your edits are no more important than mine. Even someone defacing an article is no less important than any other edit (in a wierd and warped way that I don't really support). I guess that is what is good and bad about wikipedia.

So, I will try and work the info back into the main article. I'll do it slowly so as not to upset anyone. The smaller the changes, the less people will care. Harley 02:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And a big one for KC. That is a lot of stuff you vandalised (oh the humor of such silly hypocrisy). Of course, if you read the paragraph just above this line, you'll see my view actual defacing of an article (not imaginary like the one you suggested I did). This is NOT a static environment. It is dynamic. Get used to it. Harley 02:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the criticism tag that indicates the nonsense about crit sections being a troll magnet may very soon be removed.

KC did not vandalise anything, she reverted a mess. That's her job. Oh, and any changes you are proposing should be discussed here. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: troll magnet tag. I don't think it is nonsense at all. They are troll magnets through and through. Regardless, removing that part does not diminish what I wrote even one little bit.

Re: KC. She did not revert a mess. She reverted to a mess. I had cleaned up the mess already. Some funny sense of indignation in regards to her perception of what wikipedia has to be like got in the way of her common sense. Go check for yourself rather than siding with her without looking first.

Her job isn't anything notable. Any changes being made should probably be discussed here if they actually mattered. On the other hand, if they don't matter I don't see the point in bothering anyone with such trivial changes. Harley 13:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism in and of itself is a troll-magnet irrespective of its placement in a separate section or throughout the article.

I did check, you created a mess, she reverted it, deal with that fact.

What precisely is your job? To disrupt the article with what are by and large inane arguments? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If by clean you mean how it is now, then yes, she cleaned it up. If by mess you mean, edited such that all the redundant information is gone and only the pertinent info left, then yes, I made it a real mess.

I have the same job everyone has here. To edit whatever they want. Harley 03:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph sentence structure problem

Currently, we have this:

Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism; but in its broadest definition, it is the absence of belief in deities, sometimes called "nontheism".

I think that the desire to be technically correct has led to a sentence which is going to be difficult for the layman (the typical Wikipedia reader) to follow. Splitting the sentence will make it easier to understand, so I propose this slightly-tweaked alternative:

Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. A broader definition describes it is the absence of belief in deities, sometimes called "nontheism".

-- Scjessey 20:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Need to change "is" to "as" to be grammatically correct. Its the broadest definition and not just"broader", thus information is lost. Also I prefer equal treatment of these definitions, to the greatest extent possible, and with respect to clarity, I don't see a need to break up the sentence when it is unnecessary and when done, can actually cause confusion rather than preventing any. _Modocc 23:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Support per Modocc, with exception that I would support two sentences. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Go for it (but change "it is" to "atheism as" or something) --h2g2bob (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've tweaked it just to split it into two sentences, but maintained the equal treatment status. -- Scjessey 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarified the second sentence. The introduction is easier to read now. _Modocc 07:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "but" which began the second sentence as unecessary and, I'm sorry to say, not the best writing style. The second sentence in no way contradicts the first. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The first definition of "but" as a conjunctive is "unless" and not contradiction. "Unless" meaning "if it be not that" and this is certainly the case here. The "but" adds the appropriate meaning. Your right, its not absolutely necessary, any more than commas or anything else that matters little. Of course, "if it be not that" is unimportant and unnecessary then who cares? Certainly the reader. _Modocc 00:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct about the meaning, but KC was correct in removing the word. No conjuction is necessary in this case. Now, if we were to combine the two sentences then we would need something, likely a "while" to begin the main clause. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Symbol?

I'm thinking about scheduling this article for the main page, but the article doesn't really have any good images. Is there an accepted symbol for atheism? (Much like the cross is for Christianity, the star of David is for Judaism, the Buddha is for Buddhism, etc) Raul654 16:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You might find an answer in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Atheism is specifically iconoclastic, so using any symbol to represent it would be in poor taste. Is there any sort of formal image requirement for featuring an article on the main page, or would a text excerpt/summary suffice? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, unfortunately there is no one widely-recognized symbol for atheism. The best we have are the "American atheists" symbol or the Darwin fish, but we haven't included either of those. The AA symbol is only really representative of the entire "new atheist" cultural movement, not atheism in general. The Darwin fish is only indirectly related to atheism. johnpseudo 16:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Atheism isn't a religion per se and so has less need for symbols to help sell itself. If we have to use a symbol I would use Vitruvian Man as to be atheist is to be human. Religions have not only stolen elements of human nature (Love and Beauty) but have invented fictions to rule humanity. Ttiotsw 19:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the absence of a symbol is in itself symbolic. -- Scjessey 19:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed elsewhere. Note that the US Army uses a Rutherford atom as its official symbol on atheist tombstones. rone 23:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The atheist symbol on that link is the same atomic whirl discussed by Johnpseudo above. I wouldn't mind using it (and I'm not American), but I recall some opposition to it. --Merzul 00:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been brought up and discussed many times in the past. That image was rejected (several times over the course of several years) for inclusion at the top of Atheism on the basis that it exhibits bias to attempt to use that image (or any other) to represent all atheists, when it's specifically an image from the atheism. It was removed from some Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism templates for the same reason. I assume that the exact same reasoning should hold even more strongly for using that image on the main page. Plus it's surely not free-use, being a specific organization's logo, and I doubt we want to toe the copyright line by trying to imitate it on the main page with a free replica. Also, according to American Atheists, the "A" actually stands for "America", not "Atheism": that would be unacceptably regionally biased, considering that most atheists are not American. Other logos would have similar problems, in addition to having less popular use. In my view, the best image choice would be the one that was picked for the main-page request: the "atheos" quote. It's one of the only images that manages to be neutral while also being general, but not so general as to be devoid of information or relevance. It's not perfect, but it seems like the best option.

However, image issues aside, I would strongly advise against featuring this article on the main page, as it's one of Wikipedia's worst featured articles at the moment. Many portions of the article are too long or too short, are opaque or poorly-worded, and are unreferenced or weasely. For the purposes of reader usage and value, I wouldn't even consider it an A-class article, much less an FA-class one; and we should reserve the cream of the crop for use on the main page. -Silence 00:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Religions have not only stolen elements of human nature (Love and Beauty)". You can no more steal these than you could steal hatred and ugliness.

"but have invented fictions to rule humanity". This may be true for some aspects of religion. But I like to think outside the box and look at a fully atheist world. People wanting to aquire power in an atheist world will be just as inventive (more so - since scrutiny would be higher), and just as ruthless.

I like the flying spaghetti monster. It catches the eye and would attract the reader to the article. Harley 06:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ttiotsw should have probably stated "co-opted", and religions, being man-made, have co-opted their fair share of hatred and ugliness (not to mention ignorance) as well.

If the world were atheist (i.e., had man never invented the gods) the level of scrutiny ould be no different. And yes, those seeking power, especially absolute power, are always ruthless.

FSM is a joke and really not appropriate. No symbol would be appropriate. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have no problem whatsoever with using the atomic whirl somewhere in the article (such as under "Rationale" or "20th century"), but it should not be used to try to symbolize all atheism, but rather to discuss the significance of the symbol itself: that it shows that many people identify atheism with science. I see nothing wrong with that. But, again, putting it at the top of the article or on the main page would be more problematic. As it would essentially be saying "this is the symbol for atheism", it would involve both POV bias and original research.

So, with symbols aside, the only real options seem to be more concretely relevant images: either a diagram of various types of atheism, a portrait of a noteworthy atheist, or a less abstract representation of the atheism, like simply the word "atheism". The first idea doesn't really work, because there are so many competing systems for categorizing types of atheism (and for defining atheism itself) that picking just one would be biased; plus such a diagram would probably be impossible to read in shrunk form on the main page. The second idea is tempting, but again raises POV problems in who we would choose; once again, the only fairly uncontroversial atheist figure we could choose would be d'Holbach, but the disadvantage of this is that it would be using the same image for both the main page and the top of the article, which is a poor way to draw readers into the page. The third idea currently seems to be the best to me: just avoid all the controversies and use an image of the word "atheism" for the main page. Or, in this case, the Greek "atheoi", from the Atheism#Etymology section. It entirely avoids the problems of diagrams, symbols, and historical figures. -Silence 15:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am totally opposed to the use of any image acting as a symbol for atheism. Although there are atheist movements around the world that use various symbols, no symbol exists for atheism itself - and with good reason. An umbrella symbol would imply that atheism is some form of religion, which it most definitely is not. -- Scjessey 15:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of your comment, except for the "an umbrella symbol would imply that atheism is some form of religion" part: I don't agree that symbols imply religiosity. Marxism has a symbol, yet it isn't a religion. However, I do agree that a symbol would imply that atheism is ideological, when it is obviously not (anymore than irreligion or areincarnationism is ideological). Hence I recommend either the "atheoi" image, or possibly d'Holbach. (Maybe the old, gold-colored image that got replaced at some point by the current d'Holbach image would fit better on the main page, being smaller?) -Silence 21:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"If the world were atheist (i.e., had man never invented the gods)", I mean change from this point (majority religious) to an atheist society. In which case scrutiny would go up. I agree no difference if from the beginning.

"An umbrella symbol would imply that atheism is some form of religion, which it most definitely is not", I don't think it implies it. It is common knowledge that it isn't a religion so I don't see people suddenly changing their minds on this after seeing a picture related to atheism (as per Silence says). I think it is just a pretty picture. Harley 07:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

At this rate, it'll take us 4 months to decide what image to use for the main page. I say either use no image, use the atom symbol, or use the "atheoi" image, since it's the most ancient example of the word. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-17 13:44Z

A collection or collage of several images is not one symbol, thus stitching them together would be ideal, if the displayed image is adequately large enough. Leonardo's work, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, a generic atom symbol(not the AA's), and even a Spaghetti monster could be incorporated. It will take some effort and time to put together, but it would be worth the trouble. I'm currently working on an image(although my skill-set in this is limited) to upload here. Hint: it would be nice to have a selection of such images to choose from though, but only if we can first agree that doing this is a good idea. _Modocc 16:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think any kind of image or images to represent atheism is a bad idea. Atheism doesn't need a "brand" image, and it certainly doesn't need something one of us "invents" that may or not be representative of some atheists. -- Scjessey 16:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The resulting image is not to represent, but to illustrate, similar to a magazine cover. The image is not to be constructed symbol-like. Think of separate boxes or multiple pages place on the same screen or magazine cover. Nor is the collection put there to be adopted by anyone. No one symbol is representative, nevertheless each do contribute in a very limited way to the topic of atheism. _Modocc 16:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Such an image would not be completely free, and so couldn't be on the main page. It would be too small to be of any use, anyways. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-17 16:43Z

I'm not sure why it cannot be completely free,(but perhaps my anonymity here) and what would it take to publish and source the image such that it is? Also, what is the image size limit? There are also ways of trimming and arranging images such that they collectively take less space. _Modocc 16:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

On the page, under "Upload file", "my own work", one puts it to the public domain. But, I'm not sure that procedure is adequate or would it be? Obviously, any individual images I might make use(although I might prefer to construct facsimiles anyway) would likewise need to be in the public domain. Other than those consideration, and perhaps publishing under my real name, copyright should not be an issue. _Modocc 17:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The IPU image is copyrighted. Any image you make with it is also copyrighted by them. I also don't see the point of such an image; it would look like clutter more than anything else when it's only 100px wide. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-17 18:07Z

The image for "history of Tamil Nadu" is 130px wide in the main page archive. On the request page I recently increased the "atheoi" image to 140px without adverse scrunching of the text. With 130x-140px wide we can put together a snazzy block of four images, each 65-70px wide. One "image" could even be left blank. And skip the IPU, for I was unaware that all the IPU images are derivatives as I am not familiar with its recent history. Even a plain ordinary unicorn might pose a problem in this context. _Modocc 18:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the constraints on pixel space(no more than ~140px wide), I am leaning towards stitching together only four images, the "atheoi" image, a "blank" black or white image(or whatever color is used as background for the other images), a generic atom image closeup image of d'Holbach's eyes and face, and a closeup of the Spaghetti monster image. This simple collection would illustrate the diversity of images and at the same time, not single any of them out as the image(or the absence of one). _Modocc 20:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Silence is likely right about derivative work copyright issues concerning using the atom. A tight close up of d'Holbach face is better anyway and would be far more compelling. _Modocc 21:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

One reason why you cannot use the Flying Spaghetti Monster as part of a symbol is that the "deity" was conceived as a way explain why teaching intelligent design is ridiculous. To a lesser extent, it is used to mock religion (and particularly Christianity). Although some people (myself included) think that is awesome, it is still inappropriate with respect to this article. The same applies to Pink Unicorns and Darwin Fish. -- Scjessey 23:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. :-) I was wondering at what point this point would be brought up. ;) Of course, we don't use the image in this article. But kind of figure it would be nice to have an impact though, like the Times cover. But, the images I can use are getting very slim indeed. But I'll make do. Thanks. _Modocc 00:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the image of Baron d'Holbach

I am removing the image of “The 18th-century French author Baron d'Holbach”. I have a background in Physics. And, I think the image of Richard Feynman should be at the top. Feynman won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965 for renormalizing the quantum field theory of electromagnetic interaction know as the Quantum electrodynamics. And, Feynman was an atheist.

User:Devraj5000

That isn't appropriate- Feymann is one of thousands of atheist scientists. d'Holbach is much more significant- he is one of the first philosophers of atheism. johnpseudo 15:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly inappropriate. Feynman is noteworthy as a quantum physicist, not as an atheist. The body of his article doesn't even mention his atheism. D'Holbach, in contrast, is historically noteworthy in large part for his atheism, and is one of the only noteworthy atheists who we can use at the top of the article without demonstrating bias or favoritism, since he's the first prominent thinker to self-identify as an atheist. -Silence 15:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, Feynman was a great physicist. d'Holbach was one of the first philosophers of atheism, but Feynman made more important contributions. We atheists should be more interested in science, not in philosophy. Richard Feynman was voted as the 7th greatest physicist of all time in an end of the millennium poll[1]. Thus, his image should be at the top. And, Feynman was an atheist. Please read about Feynman.User:Devraj5000

Feynman did not make more important contributions to atheism. This article is about atheism, not about quantum physics. Would you put Einstein at the top of the Judaism, or Newton at the top of the Christianity article, for being important Jews and Christians who made major contributions to physics? Of course not! It is even more absurd to put Feynman at the top of this article, when next to no one in the entire world associates him at all with atheism. Feynman was a noteworthy physicist, not a noteworthy atheist! Arguing that he should go at the top of atheism because he's a good physicist who happened to be an atheist is as ridiculous as arguing that he should go at the top of United States of America because he's a good physicist who happened to be an American. -Silence 21:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly second Johnpseudo and Silence on this. Dast 22:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Silence, your argument is absurd and ridiculous. How can you say that Feynman was not a noteworthy atheist? Do you know anything about Feynman? And you asked me “Would you put Einstein at the top of the Judaism?” NO. Because Einstein did not believe in a personal God! How can you say that Feynman just happened to be an atheist? People become atheist after they understand that Science provide better explanation about nature than religion!! How can you say that “next to no one in the entire world associates him at all with atheism”?? Feynman said that he was an atheist! PLEASE READ ABOUT FEYNMAN!!

Being an atheist is a philosophical stance. It is not enough simply to declare yourself an atheist. If you wish to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, you are obliged to give some evidence for your position. After all, there are plenty of intelligent thinkers who don't agree with you.

I have a Master of Science in Physics and I am capable of using my knowledge in Physics to defend atheism. As an atheist, I am also capable of defending atheism by using my knowledge in Physical Chemistry, Evolution, Geology and Psychology. I know that Baron d'Holbach was an atheist. But was he an intellectually fulfilled atheist? I do not think so. He was born in 1723 and he died in 1789. I think he knew very little or nothing about Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Psychology and other subjects which are very important to defend atheism. May be he was a great philosopher. But you need knowledge in Science. Compared to Baron d'Holbach, Feynman was capable of defending atheism better.

I have a solution. I think the image of Friedrich Nietzsche should be at the top. I have a background in Physics and I have little knowledge in Philosophy. However, I have read about Nietzsche and he did make important contributions to atheism. And, I think Friedrich Nietzsche was capable of defending atheism better than Baron d'Holbach. I hope you guys agree with me.

User:Devraj5000

I'm a Jew, and I don't believe in a personal God. :) But obviously me and Einstein aren't conventional Jews. So what's a conventional Jew? How do you choose what denomination of Judaism to pick someone from? In the same way, how do you know that Feynman is a conventional atheist? What brand of atheism are you picking to highlight at the article's top? The same problems arise no matter what we're dealing with: if you pick one person to try to represent an entire category of beliefs, you inevitably neglect most believers. That's why we need to be very careful with our reasoning for picking someone to go at the top of an article: we can't pick someone for being admirable or remarkable or special in his beliefs. We can only pick someone of special (and neutral and uncontroversial) historical importance for the thing in question. That is clearly the case for d'Holbach, but what is Feynman's significance to the history of atheism? What concepts in philosophy of religion did he explicate? What aspects of nonbelief did he popularize? Feynman at the top of atheism is an even worse choice than Newton at the top of Christianity; Newton may very well be the most eminent and brilliant Christian who ever lived, but that doesn't matter one whit, since his primary contributions were to science, not religion. Likewise for Feynman's contributions to science, rather than atheism.

"People become atheist after they understand that Science provide better explanation about nature than religion!!" - You are violating Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Most people in the world would disagree with your claim that science is the only reason people become atheists. Provide us with a source showing that this was Feynman's reason for being an atheist; otherwise you are simply speculating. And even if you had a quote from Feynman's own mouth demonstrating that this was true, so what? If Einstein said "I am an atheist because science is better at explaining the world than religion", that wouldn't be a reason to put him at the top of Atheism, because the mere fact of his atheism doesn't make him famous as an atheist! He's famous, like Feynman, as a physicist. I can say that "“next to no one in the entire world associates him at all with atheism”??" because it's true! Say the word "atheism" to 500,000 random people in the world and ask them what the first name that comes to mind is; I bet you that not one would say, "Feynman". Nobody associates atheism with Feynman; you'll never see a book about atheism with Feynman on the cover, or an introduction to a philosophy of religion book which focuses on Feynman as a prominent atheists. It simply doesn't exist. Just because someone is famous and an atheist doesn't mean that he is famous for being an atheist. And if he's not famous for being an atheist, his picture doesn't belong in Atheism! It's that simple.

"If you wish to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, you are obliged to give some evidence for your position." - Which Feynman never once did in his entire life, as far as you've shown. Cite one publication Feynman ever wrote in which he explicitly attempted to show that God does not exist. You are simply blindly guessing at his motivations and justifications for his views. Even if you're right, it doesn't matter, because it's original research.

"I know that Baron d'Holbach was an atheist. But was he an intellectually fulfilled atheist? I do not think so. He was born in 1723 and he died in 1789. I think he knew very little or nothing about Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Psychology and other subjects which are very important to defend atheism." - For a "defender of atheism", you don't know very much about atheism, do you? You don't need to know a scrap about physics, chemistry, biology, geology, psychology, or any other scientific subject in order to "defend atheism". By that logic, you need to be a masterful scientist in order to "defend disbelief in Santa Claus" or "defend not being a Scientologist" or "defend not believing in reincarnation"; it doesn't take any expertise to justify atheism, because atheism, at least as most atheists (including d'Holbach and almost assuredly Feynman) understand it, is the default intellectual position. It is simply the stance anyone should take in lieu of compelling arguments or evidence. To argue for atheism is as superfluous as arguing against Santa Claus: when not a scrap of evidence or compelling reasoning has yet been provided to justify the extraordinary belief to begin with, there is no point in going into ridiculous detail in fields like geology or biology or chemistry except to waste your own time on trivialities. To claim that someone could not be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist" before the modern era is nonsensical propaganda: it creates an arbitrary threshold of knowledge before which one could not be an intellectually fulfilled atheist (yet could one nevertheless be an intellectually fulfilled theist, despite being equally ignorant on the subjects in question? absurd), without any consideration for the fact that in the future science may very well advance to such a state that we look just as ignorant then as d'Holbach and his contemporaries do now; if that is so, then we will be equally "intellectually unfilfilled", in retrospect. Yet do you feel that way? You are essentially defending the incredibly weak god of the gaps argument, claiming that because d'Holbach didn't know enough, he couldn't have justifiably denied God; someone could just as easily turn the argument around on you, saying that you don't know enough yet to conclude that there is no God. You are no more of an intellectually fulfilled atheist than d'Holbach, if it is not sufficient to have access to advanced contemporary scientific knowledge, but you also must know of scientific discoveries that haven't even been made yet! Was d'Holbach also not an intellectually satisfied non-Christian? Not an intellectually satisfied disbeliever in Santa Claus? Is an advanced expertise in biochemistry needed before we can be "intellectually fulfilled" in our denial of the existence of unicorns? Come on, now. I'm not even defending d'Holbach (he doesn't need it, as one doesn't need to have an expertise in chemistry or physics to be at the top of a philosophy article like atheism), just pointing out the hypocrisy in your arrogant contempt.

"Compared to Baron d'Holbach, Feynman was capable of defending atheism better." - 100% irrelevant, since he didn't defend atheism better. This is not a fanclub where we argue about hypotheticals like "would Dante have been able to Socrates in a fight" or "would Feynman have defended atheism better than d'Holbach"? Besides, we pick people to go in the article based on their historical importance to atheism, not based on who 'was capable of defending atheism better"; have you ever even read Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy? Articles are written about their subjects, not defending their subjects.

"I have a solution. I think the image of Friedrich Nietzsche should be at the top." - No. Some scholars of Nietzsche don't even think he was an atheist. And although he's a much, much better choice than Feynman, that's not saying much, since Stalin would be a better choice than Feynman too. Nietzsche was more noteworthy for his anti-Christianity than for his atheism per se; he never argued against the existence of deities, just against Christian values. However, I wouldn't be averse to using an image of Nietzsche somewhere in the article, though I think a better choice would be another 19th-century German thinker, Marx (since he was a more influential atheist, and his impact helped lead to many of the negative associations atheism has for most our readers), who used to be in the article before a POV whitewashing removed him. I wouldn't put either Nietzsche or Marx at the top of the article, though, since it would be needlessly controversial and would come across as trying to characterize all atheists as anti-religious zealots; d'Holbach avoids POV problems by having a non-subjective claim to fame in the history of atheism. We don't need to argue about whether Nietzsche or Marx or Russell, for example, is a "more famous atheist" (or a "better atheist", in your puerile comparisons); we need compare only chronologies. -Silence 04:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Jew, and I don't believe in a personal God.

• I am a non-religious Hindu and an atheist.

But obviously me and Einstein aren't conventional Jews.

• You should have written: Einstein and me. I am not a conventional Hindu.

So what's a conventional Jew? How do you choose what denomination of Judaism to pick someone from? In the same way, how do you know that Feynman is a conventional atheist?

What brand of atheism are you picking to highlight at the article's top? The same problems arise no matter what we're dealing with: if you pick one person to try to represent an entire category of beliefs, you inevitably neglect most believers. That's why we need to be very careful with our reasoning for picking someone to go at the top of an article: we can't pick someone for being admirable or remarkable or special in his beliefs.

• OK, I agree.

We can only pick someone of special (and neutral and uncontroversial) historical importance for the thing in question. That is clearly the case for d'Holbach, but what is Feynman's significance to the history of atheism? What concepts in philosophy of religion did he explicate? What aspects of nonbelief did he popularize?

• Feynman was a physicist. For most of human history God was the best explanation for the existence and nature of the physical universe. However, scientists have developed explanations that are much more logical, more consistent, and better supported by evidence. Feynman was one of the scientists who helped developed explanations that are much more logical, more consistent, and better supported by evidence.

Feynman at the top of atheism is an even worse choice than Newton at the top of Christianity; Newton may very well be the most eminent and brilliant Christian who ever lived, but that doesn't matter one whit, since his primary contributions were to science, not religion. Likewise for Feynman's contributions to science, rather than atheism.

• Atheism is not a religion. Most atheists use their knowledge in Science to refute the idea of God.

"People become atheist after they understand that Science provide better explanation about nature than religion!!" - You are violating Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Most people in the world would disagree with your claim that science is the only reason people become atheists.

• I have never suggested, “Science is the only reason people become atheists.” Science is the most important reason why people become atheist.

Provide us with a source showing that this was Feynman's reason for being an atheist; otherwise you are simply speculating. And even if you had a quote from Feynman's own mouth demonstrating that this was true, so what? If Einstein said "I am an atheist because science is better at explaining the world than religion", that wouldn't be a reason to put him at the top of Atheism, because the mere fact of his atheism doesn't make him famous as an atheist! He's famous, like Feynman, as a physicist. I can say that "“next to no one in the entire world associates him at all with atheism”??" because it's true! Say the word "atheism" to 500,000 random people in the world and ask them what the first name that comes to mind is; I bet you that not one would say, "Feynman".

• Only if out of those 500,000 random people none are physicist!

Nobody associates atheism with Feynman; you'll never see a book about atheism with Feynman on the cover, or an introduction to a philosophy of religion book which focuses on Feynman as a prominent atheists. It simply doesn't exist. Just because someone is famous and an atheist doesn't mean that he is famous for being an atheist. And if he's not famous for being an atheist, his picture doesn't belong in Atheism! It's that simple.

"If you wish to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, you are obliged to give some evidence for your position." - Which Feynman never once did in his entire life, as far as you've shown.

• Read some quote of Feynman from Positiveatheism.org.[2]

Cite one publication Feynman ever wrote in which he explicitly attempted to show that God does not exist.

• Look above.

You are simply blindly guessing at his motivations and justifications for his views. Even if you're right, it doesn't matter, because it's original research.

• I am not simply blindly guessing at his motivations and justifications for his views. I have a background in Physics and I know what kind of person Feynman was.

"I know that Baron d'Holbach was an atheist. But was he an intellectually fulfilled atheist? I do not think so. He was born in 1723 and he died in 1789. I think he knew very little or nothing about Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Psychology and other subjects which are very important to defend atheism." - For a "defender of atheism", you don't know very much about atheism, do you? You don't need to know a scrap about physics, chemistry, biology, geology, psychology, or any other scientific subject in order to "defend atheism".

• You don’t know anything about atheism! Let me ask you a question.

“How did the Universe come into existence?” Can you answer this question without understanding the Laws of Physics? NO! So, how can you say, “You don't need to know a scrap about physics, chemistry, biology, geology, psychology, or any other scientific subject in order to "defend atheism"”?

By that logic, you need to be a masterful scientist in order to "defend disbelief in Santa Claus" or "defend not being a Scientologist" or "defend not believing in reincarnation"; it doesn't take any expertise to justify atheism, because atheism, at least as most atheists (including d'Holbach and almost assuredly Feynman) understand it, is the default intellectual position. It is simply the stance anyone should take in lieu of compelling arguments or evidence. To argue for atheism is as superfluous as arguing against Santa Claus: when not a scrap of evidence or compelling reasoning has yet been provided to justify the extraordinary belief to begin with, there is no point in going into ridiculous detail in fields like geology or biology or chemistry except to waste your own time on trivialities.

• If you do not believe in Santa Claus or Scientologist, Fine. No problem. However, if you do not believe in God, You should be able to explain why. If you cannot use the Knowledge of Science to refute the idea of personal God, you are not an "intellectually fulfilled atheist"!

To claim that someone could not be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist" before the modern era is nonsensical propaganda: it creates an arbitrary threshold of knowledge before which one could not be an intellectually fulfilled atheist (yet could one nevertheless be an intellectually fulfilled theist, despite being equally ignorant on the subjects in question? absurd), without any consideration for the fact that in the future science may very well advance to such a state that we look just as ignorant then as d'Holbach and his contemporaries do now; if that is so, then we will be equally "intellectually unfilfilled", in retrospect. Yet do you feel that way? You are essentially defending the incredibly weak god of the gaps argument, claiming that because d'Holbach didn't know enough, he couldn't have justifiably denied God; someone could just as easily turn the argument around on you, saying that you don't know enough yet to conclude that there is no God. You are no more of an intellectually fulfilled atheist than d'Holbach, if it is not sufficient to have access to advanced contemporary scientific knowledge, but you also must know of scientific discoveries that haven't even been made yet! Was d'Holbach also not an intellectually satisfied non-Christian? Not an intellectually satisfied disbeliever in Santa Claus? Is an advanced expertise in biochemistry needed before we can be "intellectually fulfilled" in our denial of the existence of unicorns? Come on, now. I'm not even defending d'Holbach (he doesn't need it, as one doesn't need to have an expertise in chemistry or physics to be at the top of a philosophy article like atheism), just pointing out the hypocrisy in your arrogant contempt.

• I have never suggested that someone could not be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist" before the modern era! You are just taking it too far!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Look, an atheist must know about Science. I know about Physics. I can understand the big bang theory. In future we will be able to answer questions like “Why the big bang took place?”, “What happened before the Big Bang?” etc. An atheist in 18th century or 19th century should be able to use his knowledge in classical mechanics and other laws to refute the idea of a personal God! And, I do not think that d'Holbach was capable to do that. If you think that d'Holbach was capable to defend atheism by using the laws of classical mechanics and other laws known in 18th century to refute the idea of a personal God, then please show me the proof.
• I think I have made a small mistake. I read about Baron d'Holbach, and it seem to me that d'Holbach was scientifically literate and he knew the scientific knowledge of his time. I think the problem is Baron d'Holbach is not as popular as Marx or Nietzsche. I think his image should be in the article but not at the top.

"Compared to Baron d'Holbach, Feynman was capable of defending atheism better." - 100% irrelevant, since he didn't defend atheism better.

• How can you say that? Feynman was a great physicist. He could use the laws of physics to refute the idea of personal God.

This is not a fanclub where we argue about hypotheticals like "would Dante have been able to Socrates in a fight" or "would Feynman have defended atheism better than d'Holbach"? Besides, we pick people to go in the article based on their historical importance to atheism, not based on who 'was capable of defending atheism better"; have you ever even read Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy? Articles are written about their subjects, not defending their subjects.

• Yes, You are right. This is not a fanclub where we argue about hypotheticals like "would Dante have been able to Socrates in a fight" or "would Feynman have defended atheism better than d'Holbach"? Why are you obsessed with d'Holbach? It seems to me that you are a BIG fan of d'Holbach!!

"I have a solution. I think the image of Friedrich Nietzsche should be at the top." - No. Some scholars of Nietzsche don't even think he was an atheist.

• Oh really!! Only a moron can say that Friedrich Nietzsche was not an atheist. Who are those scholars who say that Friedrich Nietzsche was not an atheist? I think someone should kick their ass.

And although he's a much, much better choice than Feynman, that's not saying much, since Stalin would be a better choice than Feynman too.

• Stalin was a bad guy.

Nietzsche was more noteworthy for his anti-Christianity than for his atheism per se; he never argued against the existence of deities, just against Christian values.

• Please read about Nietzsche’s views.[3]
• Nietzsche is forever associated with the phrase, "God is dead".

However, I wouldn't be averse to using an image of Nietzsche somewhere in the article, though I think a better choice would be another 19th-century German thinker, Marx (since he was a more influential atheist, and his impact helped lead to many of the negative associations atheism has for most our readers), who used to be in the article before a POV whitewashing removed him. I wouldn't put either Nietzsche or Marx at the top of the article, though, since it would be needlessly controversial and would come across as trying to characterize all atheists as anti-religious zealots; d'Holbach avoids POV problems by having a non-subjective claim to fame in the history of atheism. We don't need to argue about whether Nietzsche or Marx or Russell, for example, is a "more famous atheist" (or a "better atheist", in your puerile comparisons); we need compare only chronologies.

• Well, If Nietzsche or Marx should not be at the top of the article, since it would be needlessly controversial, then the image of d'Holbach also should not be at the top!!

User:Devraj5000

It is totally inappropriate to put the image of Baron d'Holbach at the top. There are other great atheists who have made major contributions for atheism. Atheists like Ludwig Feuerbach, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre and Sigmund Freud have done more for atheism than Baron d'Holbach. If you can prove that Baron d'Holbach did made more contributions to atheism than Ludwig Feuerbach, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre and Sigmund Freud, show me the proof.

User:Devraj5000

I have reverted your removal of the image of Baron d'Holbach. Please seek a consensus before making such drastic changes, particularly when you are working with a featured article. Also, please refrain from telling other people what to do. -- Scjessey 14:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well Sir, I respect your point of view. I am changing the image. I think the image of Friedrich Nietzsche would be more appropriate.

User:Devraj5000

Any further reversions you make will be in breach of WP:3RR, and you will quite likely find yourself temporarily blocked. Choose your next action wisely. -- Scjessey 14:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop threatening me! Sir, you are older than me. Thus, I do not want to argue with you. I thought that Silence (I was fighting with him) had changed the image.User:Devraj5000

The picture should stay. It is very appropriate, and Devraj5000 seems to be the only one who dislikes it. Does he understand the meaning of "consensus"? Snalwibma 14:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree the picture should stay. Teapotgeorge 14:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Baron d'Holbach was famous specifically for being an atheist, and publicly advocating atheism, at a time when it was still scandalous and dangerous to do so. His picture belongs in the article. Devraj5000, you are in violation of Wikipedia's "Three-Revert Rule". --Robert Stevens 14:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand the meaning of consensus. And, I think the image Friedrich Nietzsche should be at the top. If you guys disagree, please give me some reasonable reason why the image of Friedrich Nietzsche should not be at the top. Baron d'Holbach was famous specifically for being an atheist, and publicly advocating atheism, at a time when it was still scandalous and dangerous to do so. However, don't you think that atheists like Ludwig Feuerbach, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre and Sigmund Freud have done more for atheism than Baron d'Holbach? I am not changing any image. Please give me an appropriate reply.

User:Devraj5000

...No, I don't. Those men were atheists at a time when atheism was acceptable, largely due to the "coming-out" of d'Holbach and others like him. And most of those you mention haven't done much for atheism despite being atheists: I'll grant you Russell, but certainly not Marx, and do many people even know or care that Freud was an atheist? --Robert Stevens 15:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Another reason in favour of d'Holbach is precisely that he is probably certainly less well known than Nietzsche, Marx or Russell. Instead of "oh look there's another picture of XXX" we can elicit a response of "Oh, who's that?" from the casual visitor - and gently do our bit to broaden that casual visitor's horizons a little. Snalwibma 15:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Snalwibma, I think you have made good point.User:Devraj5000

The image of d'Holbach should be in the article but not at the top.User:Devraj5000

d'Holbach is a key figure in atheist history, absolutely pivotal. He anticipated many of the points that future atheist writers would make. But think: what is the purpose of a picture of an atheist at all? Is it to say: "look, here's a famous Nobel prize winning atheist!", or is it to provide some illustration of the article? The former is a misuse of Wikipedia for polemical purposes and is arguably POV. The latter is appropriate. Illustrating an article about atheism with one of the first people in modern history to defend atheism is absolutely right. Russell's atheism (or was it agnosticism? he wasn't even sure) is not theoretically significant. Feuerbach, Marx and Freud offered accounts of the origins of religion but did little to specifically defend atheism. Sartre is a footnote. Nietzsche did not offer us a systematic defence of atheism. Stick with d'Holbach, despite Devraj5000's disruptive prejudices. --Dannyno 09:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is very strong support for d'Holbach, precisely because we don't want to measure who has done more for atheism. How are we going to reach a consensus on who is our favourite atheist? Personally, I would pick Marx because his relevance and genius is only starting to get the recognition that it deserves. On the other hand, d'Holbach is one of the earliest self-described atheists, back in 1772 -- that's an objective argument! This is why so many of us are happy with the situation. Really, the consensus for d'Holbach is so strong that I doubt there is any chance of changing the picture. --Merzul 10:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Symbol / Baron from a main page perspective

Featured articles appearing on the main page have a picture of some kind associated with them. It is important that the first image represents the article appropriately. There is no specific atheist symbol that is appropriate, but perhaps Baron d'Holbach isn't quite appropriate either. Are we saying that whether or not you are an atheist is dependent on self identifying as such? I definitely think the "Great First Image Controversy" should give consideration to main page implications. (I'm partly playing devil's advocate here). -- Scjessey 12:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The first image in the article doesn't need to be the one used on the main page; there are numerous examples of this in the past... Also, an image of d'Holbach doesn't convey anything by itself; he's discussed in the article, and the article discusses self-described atheists. It's not advocating anything. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-17 16:51Z

Composite images for main page

Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. But in its broadest definition, atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods, sometimes called "nontheism". Although atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, some religions, such as Buddhism, have been characterized as atheistic.

Above is an illustration for the main page. Its a composite image that I made from the public domain images displayed in the article. I can make changes/improvements to it such as swapping or cropping new images or adding borders. But this works for me for now. The cropped images are still original size, except for the d'Holbach image which I enlarged before stitching them together. _Modocc 06:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Modocc. I like your illustration for the main page! Your illustration is better than the image of d'Holbach. And, it makes more sense. User:Devraj5000

• Maybe remove the "Strong atheism" bit, since it's the least interesting part of the image, and extend Epicurus's head vertically. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-18 12:52Z

• • Hmm... I hate to say this, but I think it looks really ugly- too crowded together with poor-resolution faces. And nobody's going to know what it means. johnpseudo 13:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The resolutions can be improved by cropping again and featuring Epicurus's face foremost and showing only d'Holbach's eyes, since the Epicurus's image has a higher resolution. Of course, they are not American Idol doll faces. The "Strong atheism" image or something similar is needed to help convey the article topic in absence of the article's text.//On second thought, perhaps removing the "Strong atheism" image will be acceptable. Thus, I'll work on that option too and upload the different images here, so we can compare them. _Modocc 14:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest just using the Greek image (Image:Ephesians 2,12 - Greek atheos.jpg). It's a cool image, and not cluttered. Plus there's no argument over one atheist being more important than another, and shows a historical perspective. --h2g2bob (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The image is the one currently proposed at featured article requests. Actually, I'm fine with that image, but its not exactly an attractive image either, as its Greek symbols are hard to discern. _Modocc 15:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the Greek image, myself. The composite seems cluttered to me, and I cannot help thinking it looks like Epicurus has had a label stuck across his mouth to shut him up. The swirly blue/purple on the "Strong atheism" is distracting to me, as well. Sorry! KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. But in its broadest definition, atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods, sometimes called "nontheism". Although atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, some religions, such as Buddhism, have been characterized as atheistic.

Heres a new composite. It turns out that the Epicurus bust is too cold to feature too prominently, thus to address the resolution problem with d'Holbach I zoomed out to a portrait. Epicurus is not "muffed" now and still looks good for actually being a bust(never liked busts as an art form much) and for not being the best looking guy. Also although the images might be somewhat indecipherable, there are other feature article images that I'm not familiar with either until I read in depth, thus I don't think it is necessary for the reader to automatically recognize the atheos or other images. Thus, I agree that the "Strong atheism" image was unnecessary clutter. Thanks for the feedback. I think also that this new composite has a bit more character than any single image. _Modocc 20:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Epicurus image could probably be zoomed out to show his hair(his image would be smaller of course). So I'll go ahead and do that next _Modocc 20:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. But in its broadest definition, atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods, sometimes called "nontheism". Although atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, some religions, such as Buddhism, have been characterized as atheistic.

This composite is certainly not as crowded as the others and Epicurus now has a full beard and his hair now. _Modocc 21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• The composite image is a truly ridiculous idea. This is not done for the main page, and there is absolutely no reason to do it here. Just use "atheoi" for the sake of neutrality and move on to more important matters. Many scholars dispute whether Epicurus even was an atheist. -Silence 21:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The "atheoi" image has support(mine for one). In fact, its the only suitable image that is available at present. The Epicurus rock can go from the proposed illustration and the colors of the diagram image can be changed so they don't clash with the others. _Modocc 23:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Second the opposition to any sort of composite. It's a noble effort, but looks too crowded/confusing. The "atheoi" image is an interesting alternative, but its use does not demonstrate (or even illustrate, for that matter) the concept of atheism. Rather than using any tangentially related picture, why not just let the text stand on its own? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not meant to illustrate the "concept" of atheism. The scope of the atheism topic is broader involving people,ideas,symbols,wars and the like. Hope that clears up some of the confusion. Illustrations can be very subjective, as what one thinks is crowded, another sparse. But, I am working on this. Moreover, I serious doubt that no image will be used, because the only other article in all of wikipedia that might claim that title would be the God page(which tore down its introductory image) and I certainly don't want this article to share in that fate. _Modocc 00:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no confusion, I don't think that any one of the images featured adequately illustrates the philosophy of atheism. Illustrations are indeed subjective and my comment was based partly on aesthetic preference. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to illustrate the "concept" of atheism would require (1) original research, which is forbidden by Wikipedia policy; and (2) a POV both on what atheism is and on what best symbolizes it, which is likewise forbidden by Wikipedia policy. "Atheoi" is one of the only ways to completely circumvent such problems. If you think the images other than "atheoi" have been controversial so far, just imagine the firestorm they'll start when they appear on the main page! Using as simple and literal an image as possible circumvents all that hassle. -Silence 00:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You are falsely asserting that the main page image is meant to illustrate atheism. It does not, nor can it. But, the image can be illustrative of this articleand use the images that come from it. _Modocc 01:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The atheoi image does come from the article. Why are you acting like you're arguing against me when you're repeating the point I just made? Both of us were obviously responding to Anetode's false claim that the image should demonstrate "the concept of atheism". -Silence 01:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. As the indentation indicated, I now understand what you meant and why; thus retract. Sorry about that. _Modocc 02:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"False claim"? As in "demonstrably false"? Come on, we are all commenting based on editorial opinion. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not meant as a slight to the creator of the image, but I think all examples above are beyond ugly. Please just choose one of the existing images and be done with it. -- Scjessey 01:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) The image is already selected is the proposed "Atheoi". And, if its completely clear that there is no alternative, then it will have to be used and there is nothing in this thread that should delay a decision on scheduling it. d'Holbach has a friendly face, but the quality of the painting and the image taken are poor, the "atheoi" image is tattered, and the one diagram in the article looks like something from biology or a candy-wrapper. Together, these aren't going to look significantly better. Still, if possible, it would be completely appropriate for a reader that finds d'Holbach's portrait to be interesting to delve into why he is a part of this article. _Modocc 01:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how you derived from my comment any desire to illustrate atheism. I agree that any image that attempts to illustrate the concept of atheism is bound to be arbitrary and biased. The "atheoi" image is obviously the least controversial choice, but it is fundamentally inadequate. Yes, I hold the opinion that an image must have more than mere relevance to the subject if it is to accompany the article blurb on the main page. A more interesting question is why there is an apparent requirement to include illustrations for philosophical topics. A neat little thumbnail is next to useless in informing readers of the nature of a philosophical stance. Even the inclusion an image as benign as the "atheoi" rendering comes off as a petty compromise based more on obtuse requirements than any desire to better present the topic of atheism. The English word itself is more aesthetically pleasing than any related image, its beauty lies in simplicity of the prefix "-an". So I reiterate my objection to the forced use of any image to illustrate the article. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is never going to get to the main page at this rate... too much babbling about the fundamental nature of main page images and what images convey to viewers.... ugh... — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-19 17:01Z

Given that the more interesting images are too controversial or have copyright issues, I'm done, for the old parchment would be better than a boring illustration. Cheers. _Modocc 19:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted content from talk page

Harlequinn deleted content and rewrote some of his posts on this talk page in edit. I undid the edit; please double check your posts since that time to ensure the "undo" didn't remove any subsequent posts. Harlequinn, please note that such deletions of article talk pages is considered vandalism. Do not do this again. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did delete some content. But deleted content is only ever a history comparison away. And I explained my delete.

Also, I did NOT rewrite some of my posts. Please show me what I rewrote. I deleted all of my own old posts along with other people's because they were no longer important.

On to of that, you deleted some new material by me. Meaning you are just as much a "vandal" by your own definition. It is YOUR responsibility to not delete new material if you revert back to old material.

On top of that, It is quite clear that Modocc deleted some of my posts but I don't see you calling him a vandal and reverting his edits. You have double standards.

Now, I will put back in the posts you deleted just now. Don't make the mistake of deleting it again lest you be a hypocrite. Harley 02:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The "undo" function does not discriminate between added or removed material. Your edit was so complex that was the only way to restore the deleted content. Reverting your vandalism does not make me a vandal; I suggest you cease that line of attack. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooooh, you suggest! Sounds like a threat to me. I think you don't care whether it was complex or simple. ANY edit is easily compared using the compare function in the history. So you are a vandal - by your own standards. I'm not attacking anyone. I'm pointing out what you did is a hypocritical action (blaming it on the computer is LAME).

Admit your hypocrisy for not reverting either the earlier edit I did (which included removing redundant information) or for reverting Modoccs removal of my edit, or for your removal of my new information by using the undo feature (which is just plain old double standards on both counts).

And for the last time - there is no such thing as deleting on wikipedia - only putting to the side - you can always see an exact history in the history tab.

You should get over the fact that people edit things - including removing information (putting aside!) from the main page of anything. Knowledge is not static. Neither are conversations. I don't think my or anyone else's views are important enough to shed a tear over if they are moved to the side. The meanings we seek are always dynamic - in flux. If I change something and keep the overall meaning, nothing is lost. If I change something because the meaning has changed, nothing is lost.

Do not try and push your dogmatic paradigm about the way wikipedia must work on me, you have already failed. Harley 13:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you're going down the wrong road. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm not. If KC has communication issues then I suggest she rectify them. I haven't really had that problem - just the opposite. People get annoyed at my concise utterings. They make too much sense. Have too much logic. Are too well thought out. Regardless, KC is being hypocritical and just can't admit the mistake made.

If she truly believed that she was informing me for the first time of a mistake she perceived I had made, why would she jump up and down writing vandal, vandal and issuing ultimatums about what I can and can't do on wikipedia? Please someone say.

A rational person of the same belief would have reverted the edits. Incorporated my changes back in. Made sure they were consistent (ie reverted similar edits from everyone, not just by me), Politely pointed out that it may be considered vandalism by some (not all), and that they were doing me a favour and would love to talk about it.

How about you compare the two ways of doing it, and consider her definitive hypocrisy (she did not revert Modocc's deletion of my edit) and you tell me if KC isn't on a witchhunt? Harley 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The page is getting a little long - perhaps it will soon be time to archive some of it... --h2g2bob (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Harley, this isn't an issue of a "dogmatic paradigm" but simply the standard practice because it is most efficient and makes things easiest for all concerned. I suggest that you also be careful of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. JoshuaZ 19:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

While it would seem so at face value to you, I suggest you read what I actually wrote. If it were simply a matter of standard practice then why would it have happened the way I outlined?

You talk of civility. Funny, so did I. I pointed out that KC was not civil in the way she did this. Why aren't you pointing out being civil to her?

You talk of NPA, I don't see you pointing that out to Modocc, who edited out some of my comments (as I described above) and accused me of NPA. The NPA doc specifically says to not accuse anyone of making personal attacks. BTW - go back and read my alleged personal attack - it is not an attack at all. It only contains factual information publicly available off of wikipedia with no derogatory or negative comments (in fact, it has positive connotations). Why aren't you pointing out NPA to Modocc?

Sorry, but this is more hypocrisy, this time from you. Why? Obviously other people also did the things you suggest I be wary of, but you didn't point it out to them.

Lastly, yes, it is a problem with dogmatic paradigms. Read all of what is written. Look carefully, wikipedia is based on conventions not on rules. They are two different things. If someone doesn't like the way I do something, say so politely, and keep your dogma.

I suggest that suggestions like yours are silly. Be careful of CIVIL and NPA.... they gonna getcha. Harley 11:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please take your bickering elsewhere; this discussion is of no value and has nothing to do with article content. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-20 11:53Z

Brian, the problem is that some people apply one set of values to some people and another set to others. This creates problems in relation to edits that pertain to the article. So the bickering may in fact be relevant. Did you research it to see if it was or wasn't?

BTW what value did your post add? And how is your post related to the article content? Rhetorical really. The answers are "none", and "it's not". Do you see the problem with you saying we can't have posts of no value and not related to the content (judged by whom? you?) and yet you can? Harley 13:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Harlequinn, Brian has an excellent point. Your posts are wandering farther and farther from any concerns you may have regarding the article, and becoming more and more merely attacks and accusations and rhetoric regarding other editors. I suggest you read the article talk page guidelines. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Brian, to whom was your post addressed? If it is to Harlequinn, allow me to remind you that he is a new editor, and from his posts is confused about the difference between policy, guideline, and essay, as well as interpretations thereof. If it is to the more experienced editors attempting to address his concerns and confusions, perhaps a more polite term than "bickering" could have been employed - such as a gentle suggestion to place such helpful information on Harlequinn's talk page rather than continuing here - which, I might add, while not the specific function of article talk pages, where the rules are being cited regarding the article and the article talk page, is often in practice where such discussions are indeed held, with no appreciable harm to the encyclopedia. If you are speaking of Harelquinn's unfortunate use of attacks and ad hominems in both his posts here and his edit summaries, then I suggest you take your own advice and attempt discussion with Harlequinn on his own talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

KC, you suggest to Brian that you use more polite terms. I already pointed out that you did not do this yourself - so why would you try and point it out to others.

Re: being a new editor. No, I am not confused. I am quite clearly all together the only person here (in this conversation) whom is not confused. You cite more rules to me. Yet the rules clearly show that they are in fact policies and guidelines. If you had bothered reading the page you quote, you would clearly see that there are no definitive rules there. Rules govern conduct. Yet none of these do. So why call them rules? They are conventions, principles, policies and guidelines. Unenforceable ones at that. The use of the word rule on the page was erroneous (it is in contradiction to what the page expresses).

Re: policy, guideline, and essay. No, I am not confused. You didn't bother asking me if I was. You assumed.

Re: ad hominems. You are pretty funny. I am the only person here employing logic. Just using a common latin phrases doesn't make it true, I actually had to have done it.

Re: attacks. Outline how I have attacked anyone.

Re: wandering further from the topic. How can replying to you be wandering further from the topic? And if I am doing it, by your logic, are you not also doing it by putting something here?

BTW, you could have simply apologised for your rash initial edit (accusations of vandalism, impolite language, bad logic, hypocrisy, etc) and this conversation probably would have been a lot shorter. But you didn't, and I am very happy to go one on one with anyone for anything in this regard. Keep it up, lets see how far you can go.

And remember, keep in touch with your own standards. Harley 02:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect this editor is about to get a potentially surprising lesson in how "unenforceable" our policies are. If this behaviour hasn't been reported at WP:ANI yet, it probably will quite soon. Doc Tropics 02:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And I suspect that banning one user name is about as effective as telling the sun it is not allowed to rise. Go ahead and report my behaviour. But make sure you report everyone else who contributed to this discussion or who broke any reportable rule (just to remind you, that would be KillerChihuahua and Modocc). Just singling one person would be .... double standards.

Tropics, please, go ahead and report me for the:

persistent vandalism or spamming, improper deletion, my improper username, or the three-revert rule violation. Make sure you get it in the right category. Oh, and you'll have to research thoroughly and make sure I actually did it. Oh, and report yourself for contributing to this discussion.

And after they have banned my username (either permanently or not), ask yourself if that would stop me being able to edit wikipedia. Now I'm sure you can see how it is in fact unenforceable. Harley 02:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW: I do not use nor have ever been a sock puppeteer. I morally and ethically disagree with it. This does not however diminish the truth of the situation that you can easily circumvent any bans using them. Harley 02:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Another MainPage idea

The problem with atheism is, well, there's just not enough pageantry! If we want a "symbol" of a atheism we should be looking back in time to when atheism was something of an organized mass movement and classical iconography was not yet out of vogue. In, other words, perhaps we should be looking back to the French Revolution, and its most explicitly atheist movement, the Cult of Reason. Perhaps we could go with some image of the "goddess Reason" installed at Notre Dame (like here).--Pharos 21:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it's an historical movement is a considerable advantage, since it sidesteps the question of whether today's atheism should come under a single banner. On the down side, it's not an image that declares 'atheism!' very clearly - perhaps that could be changed. Ultimately, I'm for the old Greek papyrus scrap - it points in no controversial direction; shows the historical side of the article; and, most importantly, is intriguing and unexpected, so likely to exploit a visitors inquisitiveness. Dast 11:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I was monitoring the debate for a while on this page (but not recently), and I know that there was a lot of discussion on the how to define atheism in the lead, so I imagine the current opening sentence has been adopted after much fiddling. Nevertheless, it reads as nonsense and the first sentence of a featured article, well, shouldn't. "Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism." That's not English. Philosophical positions don't affirm or reject things; people holding philosophical positions affirm or reject things. Shortening the sentence may more clearly illustrate the problem: "Atheism <snip> is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism" (the snipped part functioned as a parenthetical and doesn't change the structure). You need something in there to define an actor, a holder of the position.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion that the current formulation is stylistically lousy. — Editorius 14:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

How about the following formulation:

"Atheism" refers to a family of mental attitudes whose common ground is the lack of belief in the existence of God or other deities.

Below we could expound the differences between those attitudes. — Editorius 17:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "mental attitudes" is an eccentric construction. Trying the keep the current form but turn it into a grammatical sentence, how about:

"Atheism is a philosophical view whose adherents either affirm the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism."

"Atheism is a philosophical view characterized by either affirmance of the nonexistence of gods or a rejection of theism."

Or maybe the baby needs to be thrown out with the bathwater. The first sentence of a featured article cannot read as this does. Frankly, I can't see how this was promoted with that glaring problem at the start.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, seriously...out of the suggestions offered, the <snipped> version that Fuhg presented has the advantage of both brevity and clarity:

Atheism is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism.

That seems to be about as simple as you can get and still have meaningful content. Does anyone consider that phrasing to be inaccurate or otherwise undesireable? Doc Tropics 19:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That is too simple, since there are other definitions. _Modocc 20:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "mental attitude" is not "eccentric". There are 821.000 Google hits for it!

There are many religiously indifferent people who don't believe in theism without explicitly rejecting it. Many argue that the religiously indifferent are atheists too (even though "nontheists" might be the better term); but to be religiously indifferent is doubtless not to hold a philosophical view. — Editorius 19:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Fuhg, I understand your change. My initial edit was too simplistic. Doc Tropics 19:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Doc: as I stated above, the snipped portion "more clearly illustrate the problem" (it doesn't solve it:-) I expect to be reverted soon and I don't mind, I don't like my sentence either, but I do think there is a problem that needs to be fixed. Editorius: I don't mean that mental attitude is an uncommon construction (which I can understand you taking from my less than clear post), what I mean to say is that in the context of the sentence, mental attitudes (plural), used as a stand in for adherents of a philosophy, and in the construction "family of mental attitudes" seems an eccentric use. I have to run, no more posts from me for quite some time.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Rowe, William L.. (1998). "Atheism". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Edward Craig. “Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God.

This is the citation. Others define atheism similarly. The fact that atheism is a position is very well established. _Modocc 20:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No one is disputing that atheism is a position (it is in fact a position that I hold). What is disputed is that a position can properly, grammatically speaking, affirm or reject something. People holding a position can affirm or reject [...] based on a position; the position itself is not sentient. The fact that the citation contains a grammatical error doesn't mean we should repeat that solecism. If I ever want to tell a German that I am a resident of Berlin I will not mimic Kennedy.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not a grammatical mistake. Ideas and statements can also affirm/reject. Likewise, positions affirm or reject and it is those positions held that matter most and not ones’ acts. Explicit attribution of “who” maintains the position is just as unnecessary as being explicit about “who” is absent belief. Furthermore, although people often affirm their position, their positions do not require affirmations. Adherents of positions need not affirm. Nevertheless, their beliefs are positions that affirm, since the positions "maintain something is true"( "to maintain as true" is a connotation of affirm), whether or not anything is asserted. Consequently, the mistake of stipulating affirmation(and not simply their “position that affirms” ) has resulted in objections that one need not affirm(affirm a belief) and this, in turn, has led to changing the definitions to implicit disbelief or belief which are also controversial, for disbelief is vague and similar to belief. Disbeliefs/beliefs are definitely too thick as they are more than just positions that affirm(since such positions can be tentative). With the focus put firmly and squarely on the positions/ideas/statements that affirm/reject, the definition “Atheism is the position that affirms...” does not require the position's assertion, nor wraps it with disbelief/belief. The definition is also cited from a very reputable source. _Modocc 13:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fuhgett tried a variation which was reverted here, perhaps we could discuss that? I personally find it better than the current version, and while not excluding the possibility we can manage something better, would prefer that version pending a better one being agreed upon. What are the objections to his edit? Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Fuhgett's definition is not sourced.
• "Adherents" is completely inappropriate. People/scientists that do not accept theism are not adherents. Adherents are followers of something, they do not walk away. Even a position that affirms can be tentative, and not "adhered" too with the fervor/fervour that is normally associated with the term.
• Adherents(if any) and, more broadly, people whose "position affirms", need not affirm.
• It said what atheism is without qualification.

_Modocc 16:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet another effort

How about this?

The term atheism covers a range of world views that include the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, the conscious rejection of theism, and the absence of belief in deities (sometimes called nontheism).

I've used an Oxford comma for clarity -- Scjessey 21:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A baby does not have a worldview, and your version makes it seem as though atheists have specific worldviews in addition to their view on the existence of God. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-20 23:40Z

Concur with Brian on the vagueness of it. Although it avoids saying precisely what atheism is that is also a detriment and I've other concerns too. Important information has been lost, such as the fact that "absence" is the broadest definition and that we prefer citing philosophical definitions(as oppose to the more controversial ones). There is also a preference(stated by others editors) to define atheism concepts explicitly, rather than referring to the term. In addition, when thumbing through the history, I found objections to using the word affirmation, for it is defined as an act or an assertion that affirms. But we avoid that problem since "a position that affirms" can be maintained by an individual without an explicit statement. In this regard, a "position" that affirms, denies, or rejects is best(even more so than the denial and rejection definitions). Thus, I object to removing "position" too. _Modocc 00:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are all fair points. I'm just trying to throw ideas in the pot to see if people can cherry-pick anything useful. Remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the idea is not to create a concise definition for atheism. -- Scjessey 02:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we simply write the following:

"The basis of atheism is the unbelief in the existence of God or other gods."

Why shouldn't this be perfectly agreeable to all (especially to all atheists, one of whom I am) as a concise introductory statement?

The range of unbelief, i.e. what is and what is not erected on that basis, can then be expounded in the passages below. — Editorius 11:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it, but I imagine there will be a long and tedious discussion about whether or not to use unbelief or nonbelief. I think you could even say:

"Atheism is unbelief in the existence of deities. This may be disbelief in deities, a complete rejection of theism, or just an absence of belief in deities (sometimes called nontheism)."

-- Scjessey 12:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The word "unbelief" is foreign to most readers and doesn't convey "absence of belief" as clearly as just saying "absence of belief". You also run into the problem of those who are also unbelievers but call themselves agnostics. It's better to just list the 3 most common definitions, rather than resort to empty phrases such as "the basis of". Someone who has never seen the word "atheism" before will not know what is meant by an unbelief being "the basis" of it. We need to give context by stating that it is a philosophical view, and/or a broad category of absence of belief. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-21 13:11Z

It's really enough to drive one mad!

The meaning of "unbelief" is straightforward and practically indistinguishable from that of "nonbelief", there being no cryptic semantic aspects:

"Lack of belief or faith, especially in religious matters."

(American Heritage: http://www.bartleby.com/61/77/U0027700.html)

@Brian0918. You wrote: "The word "unbelief" is foreign to most readers and doesn't convey "absence of belief" as clearly as just saying "absence of belief"."

How do you know?! Have you conducted any statistical surveys?!

This seems to be a mere unsubstantiated assertion of yours!

Number of Google hits for "unbelief": 1.340.000

A pretty large number for a word that is foreign to most, isn't it?!

Comparison: "nonbelief" = #80.000, "absence of belief" = #26.600, "lack of belief" = #208.000

Surprise, surprise: according to Google statistics, the winner is "unbelief"!

Moreover, the meaning of "unbelief" is actually clear enough. I suspect you somehow enjoy letting it appear more unclear than it is. — Editorius 14:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And I don't think that "the basis of ..." is an empty phrase.

"The basis of atheism is ..." simply means "The foundation upon which atheism rests is ...".

This implies that something else may be erected on that basis, for example, the explicit denial of the existence of gods. So this phrase is definitely not empty, not meaningless. — Editorius 15:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, when I see your permanent quibbling about "unbelief" vs. "nonbelief" vs. "lack/absence of belief", the word "pedantry" occurs to me:

"Pedantry: A niggling and inappropriate concern with detail, often at the expense of what is really important in an issue."

(Warburton, Nigel. Thinking from A to Z. London: Routledge, 1996. p. 91)

Editorius 15:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure it's pedantry: given we're discussing a single line, if we're not looking at the detail what are we looking at? Unbelief is so rarely used it makes little sense - partly, I think, because it's a noun for something that's not there - as if I have some beliefs and some unbeliefs. Unbelieving, yes, but I otherwise lack/absence of belief. Dast 15:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to resort to potentially vague or unfamiliar words when only adding a couple words makes it 100% clear what is meant. "Unbelief" versus "absence of belief". Whereas "unbelief" has multiple definitions ([4], [5]; note that "rejection of belief" is one possible definition), in addition to the numerous definitions of "belief", the "absence of belief" has only as many definitions as "belief" has. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-21 15:48Z

@Dast: What do you mean "Unbelief is so rarely used"?! It is in fact used at least 1.340.000 times, i.e. much more often than "absence of belief", "lack of belief", or "nonbelief"! — Editorius 18:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Editorius: Google is not a measure of good English. But also you haven't interpreted the results correctly. The problem is that unbelief sounds awkward, to my and others ears, so I think a phrase should replace it. The point is it is much more common to use a phrase than the word unbelief; phrases such as "lack of belief", "absence of belief", "having no belief" "not believing", "refusing to believe" (clearly I could go on). I think we should trust in our ears (our collective, mediated, ear) and what we have read rather than Google statistics. Dast 19:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Brain; then let's write the following:

"The characteristic of the atheistic mindset is the missing belief in the existence of God or gods."

Editorius 18:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What does "mindset" mean here? Why is the belief "missing"? If I don't believe in unicorns, am I to be described as "missing a belief" (as if to say that the belief should normally be there)? We should also avoid using the adjective form when defining the subject of the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-21 18:51Z

So what exactly is wrong with the lede sentence as is? Is the entire problem that "Philosophical positions don't affirm or reject things"? Isn't this clear enough as is? johnpseudo 19:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for double posting, but this is relevant here too (Fuhg's orginal problem being positions don't affirm or deny, people do):

"Why is it nonsensical? --Merzul 07:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Merzul has a point, I don't think it's the most elegant construction but it's going to far to say it's 'nonsense English'. Fuhg's argument could equally show that, e.g., jokes never make fun of people, songs can't express love, and wikipedia articles can't lie - only agents make fun, express love, or lie. Dast 09:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)"

@Dast: You wrote: "Google is not a measure of good English."

True, but "rare" means "quantitatively rare", i.e. "infrequently occurring". As the number of Google hits shows, "unbelief" doesn't occur that infrequently. — Editorius 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Editorius: "whence" is a relatively rarely used word, I think you'll admit, yet it gets 7 times more hits than "unbelief". Google might give you numbers, but you have to interpret those numbers to learn something. Dast 22:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fuck "unbelief"!

Here's another one:

"Atheism stands for the nonbelief in the existence of God or gods or for the belief in the nonexistence of God or gods."

This formulation is absolutely logically transparent. — Editorius 00:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Brian would probably insist on replacing "Peter is unhappy" with "Happiness is absent from Peter". ;-) — Editorius 01:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the need for the rewording? What is wrong with the current version? I think your version is even worse, because the meaning of "stands for" is not apparent, and nonbelief is not a philosophical view. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-22 02:52Z

Re: unbelief. Common enough that it was in the title of a NYT bestseller. The_Chronicles_of_Thomas_Covenant_the_Unbeliever. Or maybe the author should change it to The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Rejection of Beliefer.  : )

Of course, it is also in the 2nd Chronicles (which to be accurate was the NYT bestseller, not the first), and now the 3rd Chronicles by Stephen Donaldson. Good read really. Harley 04:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Above I said unbeliever is ok, but unblief is not - but also this brings up another problem with unbelief/unbeliever. It is associated with not believing in God. "A problem?!" you say - yes, because we want something neutral. Unbeliever means 'Someone who does not believe in God' which is why 'rejection of beliefer' (catchy as it is :)) is not synonymous in this case - I think it is agreed that we want something synonymous to 'absence of belief'. If we said 'atheists are unbelievers', it's a bit like saying 'bachelors are unmarried men'. It's also a word usually uttered derogatorily by 'believers'. To be honest, though, I don't think I can fight against it any more - it seems to be one of those cases where the use of a word sounds really awkward to some and somehow doesn't to others. Dast 08:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

@Brian:

(a) You wrote: "The meaning of 'stands for' is not apparent."

Come on! I suppose there's hardly any word in the English vocabulary whose meaning you consider "apparent". You seem to take a pedantically close look at every single word but not to take an equally close look at the stylistic quality of the formulation as a whole.

(b) "Nonbelief is not a philosophical view." True, it's a state of mind.

Philosophically, atheism is the doctrine that it is false or at least unlikely that there are any divine beings.

Psychologically, atheism is the state of mind that consists in the nonbelief in the existence of divine beings or in the direct belief in the nonexistence of divine beings.

Editorius 14:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

@Brian: You wrote: "What is wrong with the current version?"

Well, what is wrong with it is that it is too clumsy.

I think the following formulation is better, being less clumsy and less unelegant:

"Philosophically, atheism is the doctrine that it is false or probably false that gods exist (atheology); and psychologically, atheism is that state of mind which consists in the absence of the belief that there is at least one god or in the belief that there is or probably is none."

Editorius 15:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's so much less clumsy... johnpseudo 16:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's still complex but precise. — Editorius 16:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I now think it's important to explicitly distinguish between the philosophical and the psychological sense of "atheism". The suitable name for philosophical atheism is "atheology", i.e. the doctrine that it is false or improbable that gods exists. It is the exact opposite of theology.

For example, babies are psy-atheists, but they are certainly not phi-atheists, atheologists, i.e. intellectually mature persons representing a worldview. — Editorius 16:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait a moment - this discussion started as a point about phrasing, not about the content of the sentence. How atheism is defined is such a controversial issue and the present state of the definition has been reached through compromise between so many people, that re-examining it (again) should surely be a separate thread. Here, let's focus on keeping the content but making it clearer. Dast 18:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Dast - and this type of detail, IMO, is better suited for later in the article rather than in the intro. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dast, re: "unbelief/unbeliever. It is associated with not believing in God." At least in The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant it is not applied to any unbelief in gods, but to Thomas' unbelief in the situation he finds himself in. For a long time he can only reconcile the situation he is in with a dream state. In this sense, it is a synonym for disbelief.

Maybe, "lack of belief". This suggests the dual nature of weak atheism (do not believe, do not not believe).

Regardless, the introductory line omits the current distinction between weak and strong atheists. IMHO, weak = agnostic. The reason being that there is no such thing as "I just don't believe". The only people that can assert that are people who have never though about it (in which case the weak "I don't not believe either" also applies). The minute you try to process god or no god you have to either affirm (theist), deny (atheist), or not be able to come to a conclusion (agnostic). If you manage to avoid concluding to any of these (weak atheism) then I'm sure you can also not think about pink elephants (oops, you just thought about it). Harley 11:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Fair point. I agree with you about weak atheism, but it is in the literature so I suppose it must stay. Don't you think weak atheism's stated in the first paragraph? I think it's captured in the 'In its broadest definition ...' sentence. Dast 13:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You can affirm or reject - and rejecting would cover weak atheism. Strong atheism goes one step further and affirms that god does not exist. Agnosticism is about lack of knowledge, and is a separate issue to belief/nonbelief (agnostics can be also atheists or theists). Mdwh 02:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, missed that bit. Yes you are right it is expressed in that. Harley 01:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mdwh, I disagree. I don't think weak atheism should exist (it should be defined under agnostic). I believe they (weak atheists) are confused agnostics. Agnosticism is summed up in the article you quoted quite well with both "the existence of God, god(s), or deities—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable." and "either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge." They know quite well the concept of god and neither believe nor don't believe. They think that proof of the existence of god (the knowledge which is refered to), is either unattainable, or simply not known by them at that point in time. This is a complete expression of what weak atheists profess to believe. Atheism is just that a-theism, or, no god/s. It is a positive affirmation of gods not existing.

I don't profess that the meaning of agnostic isn't changing. It is and always will be. The problem I have is that the term agnosticism already covered weak atheism - so why conflate the two?

I think that because of this conflation, the meaning of the word agnostic is under great strain, with people trying to redefine it left right and centre. No doubt it will be redefined. But for now, weak atheists are strong, weak, or apathetic agnostics.

The issue of belief is not a separate issue to agnosticism. Agnostic theists and atheists should be deleted from the terminology or redefined. "Believe" is a weak affirmation. It is not the same as "know". So saying that you don't know whether god exists or not, and then giving a weak affirmation that you believe he does or doesn't exist just takes you back to the original argument that you don't know (since believe is not as stong as the affirmation of "I know").

Pascal's wager is a good refute to agnostic a/theists. It shows that the knowledge of god is still uncertain for the gambler, but you can act as if he does without still believing in him (so you retain your lack of knowledge of the existence of god, but can act otherwise without the soft belief).

Of course, this is a little to the side. I think that the term weak atheist will probably be here to stay. What has to happen is that it has to be properly separated from strong atheism, and also has to properly incorporate the negative side of the term in that a weak atheist also does not, not believe in god/s. Harley 12:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Pascal's gambit. Not the best example. He expects a soft belief as well. Like if god exists and you had a false belief he couldn't see through it? Oh well. Harley 06:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Where Does Atheism Begin?

The whole shebang revolves around this question.

Here are the possible answers:

(a) unconscious nonbelief in the existence of God or gods

(b) conscious nonbelief in the existence of God or gods (religious indifference, mostly unreflected irreligiosity)

(c) conscious rejection of the belief in the existence of God or gods (+ conscious rejection of the belief in the nonexistence of God or gods -- agnosticism or scepticism)

(d) (conscious) belief in the probable nonexistence of God or gods (i.e. partial belief in the nonexistence of God or gods)

(e) (conscious) belief in the certain nonexistence of God or gods (i.e. total / full belief in the nonexistence of God or gods)

(f) (conscious) belief in the impossible existence of God or gods (i.e. absolute belief in the nonexistence of God or gods)

Editorius 14:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is just a case of déjà vu, but I could swear this has been discussed before. Not less than eleventy-billion times, in fact.</sarcasm> -- Scjessey 18:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This does indeed make eleventy-billion and one...I checked the archives and counted. </good natured humor at inevitable repitition on talkpages> Doc Tropics 18:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not doubt that each of the six possible answers has already been chosen by somebody.

What do you think is the moral of the story?

The unfortunate consequence is that the current formulation of the introductory statement is trashy. Eleventy-billion efforts for one trashy statement ... — Editorius 18:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Since my first response was a bit (ok, totally) flippant, I've conscientiously reviewed the intro while considering your comments. I honestly don't see any major flaws in the intro; it seems concise, but accurate and informative...entirely in keeping with policy and guidelines. Specific suggestions for changes, or even a complete rewrite, would be happily (ie, with evil glee) reviewed by other editors, but the current version is the result of lots of work and consensus-building over a rather long period of time. Doc Tropics 19:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I was one of the eleventy-billion - I was looking for sources definitions I thought false, but the sources were duly given. The fact is that - surprise surprise - there are a lot of different ideas about what atheism is. Consequently, the initial paragraph is attempting to be fair to all of them. In this regard it does quite well, although inevitably this makes it read less than elegantly. Dast 19:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there seem to be several "atheisms", that is, a family of certain mental attitudes all labelled "atheism" (even though I think that some of those had better be labelled "nontheism").

The minimal common ground of those atheisms is that they all lack the belief in theism. — Editorius 19:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sums it up very well. The topic really is a bit more complex than most people (including me) would initially expect. The intro will necessarily be a bit cumbersome because of this, but the lead sentence should at least be clearly written and accurate. The original, as Fuhg pointed out, was inherently inaccurate. Doc Tropics 20:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the cited sources, the lede is accurate. _Modocc 21:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying that it is accurate with respect to sources doesn't really address Fuhg's original point (here), which is that the sentence is simply nonsense English. The rest is accurate, it just needs rewording to be "technically" correct (ie, to accurately reflect who is asserting the position). I know that my attempt was too simplistic and lost meaning, but I really do think that Fuhg's correction (which has just been reverted) was an improvement. Now we're back to having a nonsense sentence :( Doc Tropics 21:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it nonsensical? --Merzul 07:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Merzul has a point, I don't think it's the most elegant construction but it's going to far to say it's 'nonsense English'. Fuhg's argument could equally show that, e.g., jokes never make fun of people, songs can't express love, and wikipedia articles can't lie - only agents make fun, express love, or lie. Dast 09:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the Joke itself makes fun; the song itself expresses love, and atheism (as a philosophy) itself rejects or affirms... the trouble begins when you introduce "position", which implies an actor holding that philosophy but don't follow up with with something acknowledging that actor. To make your second example analogous, you would have to say something like: "the love song's voice expressed love," which omits a person to have a voice. I don't know what the solution is but man does the curent construction sound stilted to my ear.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think one of the reason it's structured the way it is right now, instead of "atheism, philosophically defined, affirms the..." is because we are trying to create an "atheism is" statement, instead of just listing a characteristic of atheism. johnpseudo 22:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Fuhg. I see what your getting at: you would see having 'belief' where 'position' is as awkward in the same way. But I'm not sure, I think I'd agree for 'belief' but not for 'position'. For instance, I don't think the use of 'position' is analogous to the use of 'voice' in your example. An agent can take a position but atheism can also be a position. 'Position' seem to me to be functionally the same as 'theory' or 'view'. But surely there is an easy replacement for position (I say 'surely', although I haven't one myself). Dast 23:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)