Talk:Atheism/Archive 40

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

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

→

3 forms of atheism in intro

I am curious about the order in which different forms of atheism are introduced. It begins with the 'strongest' definition (most aggressive, more assumptive) and ends with the 'weaker' and more common, more reasonable, humble and unassuming atheism. I think the order they're presented in should be inverted. More atheists simply lack a believe in god than who reject theism than whom disavow the possibility of a god. Presenting it out of order of precidence as it is now gives a false impression of atheism and atheists. If no one objects then I'll change this next time around (anyone else feel free to take initiative). Tyciol (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia's policy is to never move sections or paragraphs based on perceived importance. However, what you strive for may be accomplished by adding a mention of how much there are strong/weak/etc. atheists out there, according to a reliable source, of course. Also, thanks for cleaning up this talk page. --Draco 2k (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I will likely disagree with your change. Make a suggestion here and get feedback before changing the introduction. johnpseudo 17:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am also likely to disagree, I think the current order of strong to weak is most informative for the reader, regardless of actual numbers of people. Arnoutf (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion John and Arn, however, that's exactly what this section is, this is the suggestion right here. Why do you think strong to weak is most informative to readers? It should be the other way around, because all 'strong' also have the 'weak' beliefs with additional restrictions. Tyciol (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion but not your reasoning. To me, it seems most intuitive to start with the features that are common to all atheists, and then progressively add the restrictions that define subsets. How many there are of each kind isn't hugely important. Ilkali (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning here, this is a more important reasoning which I've come to realize in discussing the subject on DebateFaith on StickAm. However, numerical representation (albeit, unprovable) is also a valuable consideration. Certainly, using your logic of inclusivity, since all strong are weak with additional restrictions, using the weak definition first does represent them, just not all of them, but still the most. We need to repsent what atheist is at its broadest widest base before adding these additional interpretations. Since you agree with the change, and since John and Arn have not actually provided any reasons for objection, I'll go ahead and do it. Tyciol (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Note there's a difference between "which group has more people in it", and "which definition is more common". For the former, it's obviously true that the broadest definition has most people in it, because it's the most broadest definition (each definition is a subset of the one that follows - so the nontheism definition includes all explicit atheists and strong atheists). It's not clear to me it makes sense to say that it has more atheists in it, because that depends itself on what definition of atheism is being used. I don't really mind myself which order we have, but there may be objections if we lead with the nontheism (i.e., inclusive of implicit atheism) as the first definition? Mdwh (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said above I would prefer the strong definition first as the order of arguments would be: "in its strongest form - in a medium form - in its weakest form" which in my opinion would be an easier story to tell than "in a weak form - in a medium form - in its strongest form". But opinions may differ. It is about the best story we want to tell, not the number of people. Arnoutf (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Mdwh made a good point in that obviously the broadest will always cover the most people. I think that's an important consideration but certainly not what leads us to make a final decision. But at what source can we tally what the more common definition at? Furthermore, does 'common' matter? Words are commonly misinterpreted but that doesn't mean we define a word by the mistakes of the majority, but rather, on the historical sources of a word and proper uses. Really, you would start with the 'first' use and then explain how it has changed over time, is I think the best policy. I'm hesitating at making the change now Arn because I don't want to cross you, but I don't understand why you think it is an easier story to tell by starting with strong. I think by starting at weak, it helps to better state what the stronger forms add on to it in terms of restrictive belief. Also, can we use something else besides weak/strong? Who originated this classification? Is it popular enough to be counted? Are there any alternatives which are more accurate? This isn't really a case of 'weak' or 'strong' but rather of nonbelief versus an unrealistic presumption of omniscient knowledge of god's nonexistance. I really do not think the latter is a simple or common definition, and I feel introducing it first misrepresents atheism. Tyciol (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Socrates?

This is misleading. Someone out there has removed my addition of the fact that Socrates was a determined theist and believed in Gods, just not in the Gods of Athens. I suggest we remove this example, because Socrates is not an atheist; why should we care if he was wrongly charged?Gabr-el 00:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to add it in if you could supply a reliable source or two. Not denying that there aren't any, but it'd be nice to have them. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure to work with you - "My service to the god has brought me into great poverty". Page 126 of Archetypes of Wisdom, ISBN 0-495-00707-2

In Plato's Apology, Socrates says that he cannot have a disbelief in the Gods because he believes in spirits. Gabr-el 01:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In Phaedrus, Socrates prays to various gods and says a divine sign compelled him to stay. Str1977 ^(talk)

I agree, Socrates as presented in Dialogs was not atheist we need to change that. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know of an online version of Apology that we could link to? There is evidence also that Socrates was monotheist or to a certain extent a deist. Should we also include this? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If Socrates is to remain on this page, then that would be best to clarify the situation. Heres an online version: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html Gabr-el 23:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the diff for my addition. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that is all that needs to be said. Good job Gabr-el 00:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is too much, Socrate should not be even mentioned since he was not an atheist. -- 70.108.99.181 (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

But Socrates is often cited as an example of an atheist, and indeed impiety was the reason for his death. So his connexion with atheism in notable enough for inclusion, albeit with caveats. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User:70, I see what you mean. I felt that Socrates being mentioned was misleading, but the addition has rectified this, at least to some extent and as Erik the Red pointed out, there is some historical value to it. The charge of impiety was the charge of "not believing in the gods" - a charge of atheism, even though he was not atheist. Gabr-el 05:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Heresy

"When Christianity became the state religion of Rome under Theodosius I in 381, heresy became a punishable offense.[80]" True - but what's the relevance to atheism? Heresy is holding wrong beliefs within the Christian religion. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I buy your argument, not believing the official dogma was heresy, for example not believing that Christ = Son of God was a heresy, of which any atheist would become guilty no matter what... -- man with one red shoe (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference. Heretics are those who corrupt the religion, atheists however are not part of the religion in the first place. Gabr-el 22:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Heresy is a contradiction with religious orthodox. Atheism is possibly the worst heresy imaginable, barring inverse-religions (Satanism, etc.). If Socrates disagreed with something about Christianity at that time, it makes sense to mention that he was accused of heresy and why it's notable. --Draco 2k (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Socrates was not executed for heresy by the Roman Empire, seeing that he died almost 800 years before Theodisius, in around 399 BC. He was executed for atheism by the city of Athens. Whether he was atheist or not is another matter, see the discussion above. He was not atheist in the way we think of the word now, but atheist to the Athenians, as they thought that believing in any other gods besides theirs was in effect atheism, as believing in other gods is mot believing in the real gods ie theirs.

Tourskin is correct. Not believing that Christ was the son of god but was still divine would be a heresy, but not believing that Christ was the son of god because you didn't believe in that god was an entirely different crime. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a (secular) crime at all unless you were part of Christianity. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There was no Christianity in 399 BC (BC means Before Christ) when Socrates died. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That too. :) Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A heretic is only a heretic if he is a member of the religion in question. Without regard to a certain religion, the term is meaningless. To say atheism is the worst heresy without saying in relation to what religion is pointless. One could just as well say atheism is orthodoxy.

Sure, if some Christian suddenly got up and declared atheistic opinions that would have fallen under heresy under the decree of Theodosius. Only, are there any records of such atheists at the time? The edict is anyway an overstatement as the first heretic was not killed by Theodosius (but by the usurper Maximus).

My basic problem is that the edict gets misrepresented into saying something it didn't, like that it consituted persecution of atheists or other non-Christians. Aside from closing all pagan temples and endorsin the Christian faith as taught in Rome and Alexandria, the edict doesn't do that. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In many parts of the Empire, even in the heavily Christianized East, non-Christian religions continued on. Gabr-el 17:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To contextualise, declaring yourself Christian would probably be a heresy in the cult of Jupiter at least as bad as declaring yourself atheist. So it has little to do with atheism per se Arnoutf (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Atheism2

Can anyone explain what's going on at {{atheism2}}? Every few days recently, a different IP has been changing the background color and order of the links. Different IPs from different British ISPs. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-08-28 13:32Z

You provide an explanation immediately after the question. Pretty succinctly, too! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering what the motivation is, and why they would be from different ISPs - using Tor, maybe? but why, if they're not even going to create a user account? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-08-28 18:41Z

Homographs

Theist and Atheist frequently confuse these homographs, ignoring the diffrant Etymologies, definitions, and pronunciations. I think we should replace this page with a disabiguation page.

Atheism pronounced /aytheeiz’m/ [ey-thee-iz-uhm] and comes from attaching the prefix 'a-' to the word 'theism'."What is Atheism?-About.com" Atheism is the lack of a belief in the existence of a god or gods. Atheism is also known as weak atheism(see Weak and strong atheism).

'Atheism' comes from attaching the prefix 'a-' and the suffix '-ism' to greek word 'theos' and is pronounced /aythi-iz’m/ [eythee-iz-uhm]."Compact Oxford English Dictionary" Atheism is also known as is also called strong atheism to destingish is from Atheism (atheism)(see Weak and strong atheism). BigCuteKitty (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

BigCuteKitty, the page "Atheism" is a long established and important page - it will be difficult to make wholesale changes as you are suggesting. However, I think the point you are making is something that can be written into the prose of this article and would be better suited to the Wiktionary Article. This is why I have placed "merge" and "move to wiktionary" tags on both of your recently created articles: Atheism (atheism) and Atheism (Theism).

Could people please have a look at these two articles and assess whether they should be expanded, merged together, redirected here, and/or transwikied to Wiktionary. Thanks Witty Lama 04:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As it stands Atheism doesn't even mention that Atheism is two diffrance words as is clearly evident by the diffrant means, etymologies and pronounciation. Atheism (Atheism) is pronouced like 'theism' with the sylible 'a' stuck on the front. Having an real page at Atheism is just going to cause more confusion and debating on which 'atheism' is the TRUE atheism. Look up the edit history on my original Atheism_(atheism) page. OH you can't becouse someone deleted it because someone replaced it with a just redirect to Atheism. And with out any aknowlegment at the word Atheist spell A-T-H-E-I-S-M is a diffrance word than what the Theist spell A-T-H-I-S-M Atheism (Atheism) seems like an "implausible typo, link, or misnomer" —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigCuteKitty (talk • contribs) 06:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I really think that since you are talking about pronunciation differences that this discussions should really happen at Wiktionary here. As for "Athism" - I've never heard of it, and a google search brings up zero hits for the word. Frankly, I don't really understand what you are trying to argue but this might be more due to my lack of understanding, I don't know. Nevertheless, I find it unlikely that, if this were indeed an important issue, an article as "high profile" as Atheism could get to Featured Article status without this topic coming up before.

Could other editors please weigh in on this one? I'd like some second opinions Witty Lama 08:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's really true that the word has two different etymologies, then that should be mentioned. However, the word is used today as a single word. Every dictionary I have seen that gives the two definitions still list them under the same word. Many issues in this article are related to both definitions of atheism, so what are we going to do to material that is common to both? Moreover, not all concepts of atheism fit into either weak or strong (e.g., some people such as Dawkins IIRC prefer to view it in terms of how probable one believes God's existence is).

I've never heard of two pronunciations of atheism, either. I dispute your claim that there are these two separate definitons, as you have relied on two entirely separate sources: all this shows is that the two sources disagree as to the definitions and etymologies. Can you show me a single source that lists both definitions, but still claims different etymologies? In fact, the about.com link you give *does* give the strong atheism definition - however, it makes no claim about this definition having a different etymologies that I can see? Furthermore, I can't see where the about.com gives a pronunciation? Mdwh (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This is bogus - there is no pronunciation that pronounces the first two syllables as one syllable. I believe we are being trolled --JimWae (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Work of weasels?

In the practical atheism section should the following sentence remain- "Historically, practical atheism was considered by some people to be associated with moral failure". There is a reference, but why not say in the initial sentence who it was that considered atheism to be associated with moral failure? Wouldn't this indeed give a much broader explanation of the historical social and political contexts that the author is referring to? Otherwise could someone please explain what exactly "moral failure" means in this context, considering that it was written to suggest that it was the absence of morality rather than a failure of morality. Ninahexan (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Historically, practical atheism was considered by some people to be associated with moral failure, willful ignorance and impiety. Those considered practical atheists were said to behave as though God, ethics and social responsibility did not exist; they abandoned duty and embraced hedonism."

Yes, it is. What the hell is it doing in a featured article.

The reference cites an Issue of New York Times, though I'm not sure if it's just for a personal quote - but even then, "some" and "were said to" are weasel words. And "moral failure" isn't even a valid term. --Draco 2k (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Most likely it was added by a drive-by editor with no discussion. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-09-03 14:21Z

Quite probably. I propose this be deleted as per WP:OR. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've switched that paragraph back to the version that it was at the time of FA promotion. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-09-03 14:42Z

Good. Guess the OR bit was overlooked during FA review then. --Draco 2k (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was overlooked. I did much of the work on that FAC and most everyone involved was meticulous with dissecting content. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-09-03 15:03Z

What was it then? It's still OR and weasely-wording, and it's still in a featured article. --Draco 2k (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean FA review, or do you mean its original promotion? I can't find a review for this article, and Brian's comment about reverting the paragraph seems to imply that the OR wasn't there at the time of promotion. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So, should it be removed then? --Draco 2k (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What part do you contend is original research? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-09-03 19:47Z

"Historically, practical atheism was considered by some people to be associated with moral failure, willful ignorance and impiety. Those considered practical atheists were said to behave as though God, ethics and social responsibility did not exist; they abandoned duty and embraced hedonism." Additionally, "some people" and "were said to" are really weasel phrases. --Draco 2k (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That isn't what it says now. Now it says what the original FA said at the time of promotion. Do you have a problem with this version? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-09-03 20:51Z

The current (or FA whichever) wording removes one of the weasel phrases, which is good, but it doesn't fix anything else. There's still the second weasel phrase, and, more importantly, still no references for any of these claims, unless I'm missing something. --Draco 2k (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Now there is a statement of fact that says "Historically, practical atheism has been associated with depravity, willful ignorance and impiety". The reference is from 1961, from a catholic priest philosopher. I have been trying to research the actual use of the term "practical atheism" and can't seem to find much. Is this actually a valid phrase to use? Should it really form a sub-section of this article if its use has not found consensus? If one were to meet the phrase in a conversation you might think it meant that for all practical purposes someone is an atheist, whereas I think the intent is to suggest that atheism is preferred because it is practical to adopt the absence of divine rules to feel better about one's behaviour. Anyway, if I had more experience in wikipedia I would try to eliminate the sub-section and perhaps mention practical atheism in a more neutral way that explicitly refers to who uses the phrase. Ninahexan (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got something on that, but it's not exactly an RS. I've added [citation needed] templates to cover the unsourced statements in the section. I would not object to anyone deleting these sentences as per WP:OR, or take the action later on myself. If you have anything to say on the matter, please sound off here. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should cite some 12th century Islamic philosophers from the Levant about what they think of the Catholic Church. Or witnesses to any of the Crusades, witch-brunings, Inquisitions, etc. Why is a section using a Catholic philosopher as a reference even allowed on an article about atheism? Does that mean that I can go onto the page of the Catholic Church and cite quotes from Diderot, Voltaire, and Zola? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We can cite any reliable sources as long as they're properly attributed. These few sentences simply don't have this attribution, or a source, which is what matters. --Draco 2k (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments by a Catholic philosopher about what his opinion of "practical atheism" is have no place in the section of the article "Atheism" dealing with "practical atheism". For it to be included, there should be a new section entirely created dealing with the opinions of religionists about various degrees of atheism. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it does violate second-party rule (or what's it called), but I don't think it's hugely important. Actually, we do have a Criticism of Atheism article - but no section on practical atheism there. --Draco 2k (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be the place for it then, just like Diderot quotes would belong in an article called Criticism of Christianity if such a thing exists, or even Criticism of Religion. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agnosticism can be seen as a form of weak atheism

Hi, the "Strong vs. weak" section contains While agnosticism can be seen as a form of weak atheism,[38] while source provided says different: “Those who fail to believe in God because they think that the truth-value of ‘God exists’ is uncertain may be called agnostic negative atheists, or agnostics for short.” . --windyhead (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is that different in meaning (the wording is different, but copying full lines is plagiarism anyway)? Arnoutf (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, regarding your plagiarism argument, please see [1] - Avoid copyright paranoia - Quotation, even without attribution, is specifically allowed in international copyright law, and single sentences are generally not protectable --windyhead (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, if we are going to use the term "agnostic negative atheists", we need to define it. Alternatively, how about simply saying "a form of atheism"? I think it's reasonable that the reference considered "agnostic negative atheism" to be a form (i.e., a subset) of atheism, and avoids using the term "weak atheism". Mdwh (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agnosticism as a philophical school of thought is a statement about knowledge rather than belief; atheism is a statement about belief (or rather lack thereof). In the same regard "gnostic" atheists "know" AND believe there is no Invisible Friend, while "agnostic" atheists believe there is no Invisible Friend but do not claim definitive knowledge about "Its" nonexistence. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well indeed, another problem is that agnosticsm means many different things, some of which are not the same concept as weak atheism. Possibly we should word it the other way round - rather than saying agnosticism is weak atheism, say weak atheism is a form of agnosticism? That's closer to what the source actually says, and avoids the problem of other definitions of agnosticism. Mdwh (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no 'can be seen'. As a 'weak atheis' agnosticism IS atheism. Agnosticism is a lack of belief in something, neutrality, which is what atheism is. Tyciol (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's go back to my earlier remark that the source in my view does support the phrase. A phrase need not be verbatim identical to have the exact same meaning (and unquoted plagiarism while perhaps no copyright violation may still be considerd unethical). The issue is, whether this phrase is sufficiently similar to the definition of weak atheism a few lines above. Summarised the source state that Agnostics (Those who fail to believe in God because they think that the truth-value of ‘God exists’ is uncertain) are equal to agnostic negative atheists.

ie Agnostics = agnostic negative atheists.

The article introduces weak atheistms as: "Philosophers such as Antony Flew[35] and Michael Martin[24] have contrasted strong (positive) atheism with weak (negative) atheism. Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism."

ie Weak atheism = Negative atheisms

If we substitute weak for negative in the source at agnosticism the source now states: agnostic weak atheists; where agnostic in this phrase obviously implies it one kind of form of weak atheism (ie the specific agnostic form)
The line in the article reads "a form of weak atheism" - the source stands for "the specific form agnostic weak atheist". It seems to me the source clearly supports the claim. Arnoutf (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arnoutf, what you're doing here is clearly described under WP:SYNTH. And "unquoted plagiarism" can be put in quotes --windyhead (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote does (verbatim) support that agnostisicm is a form (ie the agnostic form) of negative atheism. The substitution weak atheism=negative atheism may be on the border op WP:SYNTH. Whether interpretation of the claim "agnosticism is a form of negative atheism" as "agnosticism is a form of weak atheism" is synthesis I am not sure, as I am not 100% sure these terms are full synonyms. If they are, the claim is supported if they are not, I agree it is a bit a of a synthesis issue. Arnoutf (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Using shorting method proposed here will let us to go further to conclusions such as : "agnosticism is a form of weak atheism" => "agnosticism is a form of ~~weak~~ atheism" which is no near to what the source say because source doesn't say "or atheists for short", it does say "or agnostics for short". So this method of transforming the definition is not applicable here. Let's be strict with definitions and stick to what the source says. --windyhead (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The source says "agnosticism" is the short form of "agnostic negative atheism" (verbatim). Agnosticism is one of many possible forms of philosophical stances (trivial). Hence "agnostic negative atheism" is the specific "agnostic form of negative atheism" (still straightforward). This would lead to the line "agnosticism is the agnostic form of negative atheism" (still what the source says). However to state that "agnosticism" is a "agnostic form of something" is exact word repetition (tautological), and the second instance of agnostic can be removed without changing the meaning in any way. (removing negative, or with weak is not at all straightforward as that word is not exactly repeated in the word agnosticism) Arnoutf (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I just showed before how this method will let us to conclude something different to what source say. This sentence is wrong: "However to state that "agnosticism" is a "agnostic form of something" is exact word repetition (tautological), and the second instance of agnostic can be removed without changing the meaning in any way." Again: when we are talking about definitions, let's be strict and stick to what the source says. --windyhead (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It does not seem the source was out to give a comprehensive definition of agnosticism (the wording "may be" is a dead give away in my opinion) - hence verbatim sticking to the source is in any case likely to be omitting its context and therefore not sticking to the idea of the source. We would need to copy in a much larger section of the source to prevent that out of context problem. The source can still be used for support (as it is now).

Seeing this, I think we fundamentally agree about this, and I would welcome 3rd party input in this discussion; therefore I will not respond for a while, to see how others respond. Arnoutf (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that there are multiple conceptions for "atheism" (weak, strong, etc). The whole debate comes from the fact that agnostics don't recognize the weak definition. Your claim that saying "X is a form of weak atheism" implies (by removing the descriptor "weak") that "X is a form of atheism" is false. By removing the descriptor, you remove the concept that was identified by it, and create ambiguity - which conception of "atheism" is being referenced? You cannot drop the "weak" without creating total ambiguity, so the phrase can't be shortened any further. Thus your whole argument against using it in the first place is bogus. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-09-17 15:18Z

Hi, I agree with you, and your words can be used to argument why "agnostic negative atheism" shouldn't be shorted to "a form of weak atheism". It's unclear however why you changed article sentence from something what can be found in a source to something what source doesn't say. --windyhead (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

For readability. The whole section talks about "weak" vs "strong". Whether or not the source uses the same label does not affect the concept represented by those labels. How readable would Burma be if the article kept switching back and forth between "Burma" and "Myanmar" simply to stick to the wording of the sources? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-09-17 15:51Z

Hi, there is no rule in wikipedia allowing article to say something of questionable accuracy with the goal of "readability". --windyhead (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Then question the accuracy. What's your problem with the wording? (Note: saying "it's not the same wording as the source" is not a valid argument) — BRIAN0918 • 2008-09-17 16:26Z

Hi, this whole thread is about the problem with the wording and how it's invalid. And "it's not the same wording as the source" is also absolutely correct here since we are talking about a definition. --windyhead (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The existence of text on a page is not by itself evidence of rationale. I have already invalidated your claim in the argument with Arnoutf. Is there another claim? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-09-17 19:01Z

Since you changed the source and the wording let's move forward. Please provide a quote from the source confirming "agnosticism entails weak atheism" --windyhead (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"But agnosticism is compatible with negative atheism in that agnosticism entails negative atheism." We have already established earlier in the article that strong/weak are labels representing the same concepts as positive/negative, so the rewording for readability is justified. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-09-17 19:32Z

Atheist philosophers

People who don't like the article to tell that philosophers from "Strong vs. weak" section are atheists: do you have arguments, based on wikipedia rules, to support your position? --windyhead (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Antony Flew a deist? And Jacques Maritain who talked about positive and negative atheism (which is also referred to by "philosophers") was a Catholic. Mdwh (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, let's not touch Jacques Maritain here. Antony Flew was an atheist at the time he wrote the work referenced in section (1976) . --windyhead (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "let's not touch Jacques Maritain here"? It would mean that your proposed change [2] is incorrect, as not just atheists have made these distinctions. Yes, Antony Flew was an atheist when he wrote that, but we can't now refer to him as an "atheist". We'd have to rewrite the sentence to say something like "who was an atheist at the time", which would probably make it rather clumsy. And is there reason to believe that he no longer believes in such a distinction now that he's not an atheist? It's not clear why his atheism is important? I agree with Old Moonraker - they're notable on account of them being philosophers, not that they're atheists. Mdwh (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, that change [3] doesn't touch Jacques Maritain. If you insist we can put a remark regarding Antony Flew into a reference. "is there reason to believe that he no longer believes in such a distinction now that he's not an atheist" - proposed change has no claims about this. --windyhead (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jacques Maritain is an example of a non-atheist philosopher who made a distinction between positive and negative atheism, so it is misleading to restrict the statement just to atheists. And I agree with the comments below, it's not clear why we need to identify them as atheists? Are there non-atheists are somehow dispute these distinctions? Mdwh (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, that statement doesn't talk about Jacques Maritain, and I've added non-atheist opinion disputing atheist definition. --windyhead (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what that statement talks about - the point is that it's not only atheist philosophers who make this distinction, so I don't know why you persist in adding the "atheist" qualifier? Your addition only made it more misleading, suggesting that it was only atheists who made the distinction. As for the opinion, we already cite Britannica, so I'm not sure we need to list everyone who uses a particular definition? Also I feel the claim is dubious, since Britannica goes onto say "a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God", thus supporting the weak definition as well as the strong definition. Mdwh (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, "it's not only atheist philosophers who make this distinction" - but now there are only atheists in that sentence, so correctly attributing their wording as said by atheists is absolutely correct. --windyhead (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The lead statement for that section should introduce the definitions, without implying that only atheists support it. And anyway, if the first people mentioned happened to have beards, we wouldn't say "Bearded philosophers such as ..." Mdwh (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, since it was asked for non-atheists disputing atheist philosophers, I'm not sure what arguments people will bring now for a revert removing added opinion [4] ? --windyhead (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is it relevant whether the philosophers were atheist or not. And anyway it appears that at least some of them are not (indeed Maritan, who is mentioned in the section). So I agree with Mdwh and would not make any explicit statements. Arnoutf (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that they no longer identify themselves as atheists in some cases seems to point to removing the qualifier altogether and just linking to their articles so people can read about their views. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-09-17 20:24Z

As the person talks about atheism, or theism, and is an atheist, or theist, the person is not independent anymore, but is an interested party. This should be mentioned in the article to which party the source belongs to. --windyhead (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

most of which treat atheism as absence

Hi, it was said in revert [5] that this sentence - A variety of categories have been proposed to try to distinguish the different forms of atheism, most of which treat atheism as "absence of belief in deities" in order to explore the varieties of this nontheism - is explained in talk. Cannot find it however. Please advice. --windyhead (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I got lost. Two of the three category methods use the "absence of" definition as a base definition on top of which to draw distinctions: the implicit/explicit and strong/weak. 2/3 = most. johnpseudo 18:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you count them? implicit and weak is about absence, explicit and strong is about rejection. --windyhead (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, implicit = weak = "absence". But under both the implicit/explicit categorization system and the strong/weak categorization system, "absence" is still a TYPE of atheism. Whereas if you start with the assumption that "absence of belief" is NOT atheism, then the terms "implicit atheism" and "weak atheism" don't make sense. johnpseudo 00:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What math you use? Under both the implicit/explicit categorization system and the strong/weak categorization system, "rejection" is also a type of atheism. --windyhead (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see Windyhead's point that it is rather confusing. I don't think the Johnpseudo's argument of "2/3" definitions is correct, but it's his second statement "But under both the implicit/explicit categorization system and the strong/weak categorization system, "absence" is still a TYPE of atheism." which contains the answer.

I think what it's saying is not that most definitions are the "absence of belief", rather, it means that most systems of categorisation include "absence of belief" as a type of atheism. So if I say "Atheism can either be implicit atheism or explicit atheism", then yes, only implicit corresponds to "absence of belief", but the point is that my definition of atheism includes "absence of belief". If it didn't, I could only say "Atheism is only an explicit rejection of belief".

We should be careful though - the strong/weak categorisation doesn't necessarily mean that someone includes implicit atheists such as babies in their definition of weak atheism (i.e., they may only be considering explicit atheism as count as atheism). Also, there only appear to be two categorisation systems here - so I'm not sure how "most" makes much sense, when it must be either "half" or "all"? Mdwh (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, one of the definitions of atheism is the absence

Hi, please point out where that "one of the definitions of atheism is the absence of belief" is "noted above" --windyhead (talk) 08:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

2nd sentence - do you really not see it? It's paraphrased. Are you asking because you want it to more directly refer back, or are you still disagreeing that such is one way it has been defined? --JimWae (talk) 09:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It is also[3] defined more broadly as synonymous - you mean that one? there is an ongoing discussion where people suggest that It is also[3] defined more broadly is explained later in the article. Seems to be a cyclic reference. Please explain. --windyhead (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So you want the article to contain a more complete development of the 3 ways atheism is defined, yes? Presently, it does explain the 3rd definition in the implicit/explicit section (since "absence of belief" is "implicit atheism"). Btw, "weak atheism" (a label that seems very derogatory to me) includes both the 2nd & 3rd. Only assertion of the non-existence of deities is "strong". But I ask again, are you wanting to have the exposition be more like a thesis (& less like an encyclopedia), or are you still arguing that there are not three major definitions? --JimWae (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is about that the article need not to say that "one of the definitions" is "noted above" and the note from above to be said as "explained later in the article". --windyhead (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Where does the article say "as explained later in the article"? --JimWae (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not the article but the people responding to clarification requests: [6] [7] [8] --windyhead (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was explained later, I said that the answer to your question "which references give this definition" is given in the references section. Which it is. Mdwh (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I made the article a little clearer on this. So, have I answered your questions? --JimWae (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Now the question is: What does this "It is also defined more broadly" means? The discussion is here: Talk:Atheism#It is also defined --windyhead (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Rejection of theism

I think the "2nd definition" (rejection of theism) might need more development in the article, and in the lede. I think "rejection of theism" might be too easy for readers to misconstrue & that the lede should say "rejection of belief in deities". The article could then make it clearer that this position is the explicit determination or judgement (I think "rejection" is too easily misconstrued as "refusal") that there is not enough basis to justify believing in any deity --JimWae (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the defintion that would also include many agnostics, and it is misunderstandings of how some agnostics (and, I think, just about ALL agnostics who are not agnostic theists) "fit in" to this group that is leading to repetitive discussions here --JimWae (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that this "rejection of belief in deities" definition will include agnostics as belonging to group defined by this definition? Please clarify. --windyhead (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is where the 2 groups overlap, yes - but this does not contain ALL agnostics - specifically NOT agnostics who believe in a deity anyway --JimWae (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Implicit atheists" and "agnostics" do not overlap (or if they do, then we have a novel definition of agnosticism). "Strong atheists" and agnostics do not overlap either - in fact agnostics usually try to distinguish themselves from atheists by restricting the def of atheism to this one meaning --JimWae (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Some agnostics use the term to mean they don't care or haven't decided their belief, which could be viewed as implicit atheism (I'm not sure we could say they've made a conscious rejection yet?) (I know that this is not a correct usage of the term agnostic, but we are talking about how people who identify as agnostic view the terms). Similarly for people who use it to mean that they think God might exist but have doubts. (Not that this matters for your point - I agree that agnostics have a tendency to define atheism as only meaning strong atheism.) Mdwh (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

While I still object to the label "weak", here is a table that might help

ES	explicit + "strong"	Def 1	assertion of non-existence of gods	no overlap with agnostics
EW	explicit + "weak"	Def 2 (also def 3)	persons are aware that they do not believe in deities, may even judge belief is unjustified and give reasons for not believing, but do not assert that no gods exist	overlap with many agnostics, but not agnostic theists
IW	implicit + "weak"	Def 3	absence of belief in any deity, without person being aware that they do not believe	?
IS	implicit + "strong"	undefined

--JimWae (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that table. Perhaps part of the uncertainty about agnosticism vs implicit atheism is that it's not clear how much "thought" is required to be an explicit atheist - e.g., does simply being aware of the concept of God make on an explicit rather than implicit atheist, or does it require something more, like a conscious rejection - a claim that the person rejects belief in God. Mdwh (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't thinbk implicit is an fruitful approach. This would for example make very young children (baptised or not!) atheists; as would it make people with braindamage (making them unable to reason) make atheists (even if they were priests before the damage occurred). I justr don't think that is the kind of topic covered by atheism. Arnoutf (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

But it does make sense (at least one is understood) to say that a tribesman who has never been exposed to the idea of a deity can be called an atheist. It also makes sense to say about philosophies/world-views (Darwinism, Utilitarianism, Marxism, some forms of Buddhism, Unitarianism) that do not include deities as part of their ontology, that they are atheistic. Anyway, it is now part of the mainstream literature on the subject & needs to be included in the article --JimWae (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Notably, many people who do equate Darwinism with atheism would object to applying the term to babies & "unexposed" adults. It is "unexposed" mature adults & philosophies/theories/world-views that are the better argument for instances of implicit atheism. The wikipedia article is weaker because it focuses on immature babies, whose ontologies are unknown & just developing. --JimWae (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Good writers are not content to write in a manner that they CAN be understood. Good writers are concerned to write in a way that they CANNOT be misunderstood (or, at least, not easily). There have been numerous extensive debates here because readers have read the first sentence and not understood that they have already read 2 distinct definitions. Readers see "rejection of theism" and still think it is some kind of alternate version of "rejection of the existence of gods". I have twice now substituted "rejection of belief in deities" for "rejection of theism" in an attempt to make it as clear as possible that there are 2 definitions in the first sentence. I have been reverted with the comment that all one need do is click on the theism link to see the meaning. Well, there are 2 problems at least with this: 1>some do not click on the link & do not "get it" 2> the theism article has only recently been fixed (by me) to include a broad definition of theism - previously it had a narrow definition as the only definition. This being wikipedia, there is no guarantee that the article will continue to keep the broad definition at the beginning - or anywhere at all, for that matter. --JimWae (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Disputing this definition"

There is no need to say that people dispute this definition - after all it's implied that anyone who equates atheism with only one of the first two, does not support the third one (if everyone agreed with the third definition, there'd be no need to list the first two!)

We could just as easily claim that "some philosophers dispute restricting atheism only to the first/second definition", based on the fact that some people support the third definition.

Furthermore, the source [9] doesn't just dispute the third definition, it disputes the second definition too. So are we going to list every possible combination of "people who disagree with XYZ definitions"? Clearly this is going to get unmanageable, it's simpler just to state that there are different definitions in use. To only highlight the third definition as in dispute is misleading and POV. Mdwh (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it's not clear why sentences you used as arguments ("it's implied that ...") are correct. What is clear however is that with your reverts you are at the point of violating WP:3RR rule so please stop the revert war and go to talks before the revert. What is also clear is that you removed sourced sentence confirmed by high reliability sources such as Britannica. Can you please explain how much this removal conforms to wikipedia rules? --windyhead (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the purpose behind getting to see "what you want" in the article for a few hours? Nobody should be reverting anybody - everything should be discussed here. You're just flooding the database with excessive copies of the same article for no reason but your own person wish. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-09-26 13:23Z

Hi, you provided no arguments for the ongoing discussion. --windyhead (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I made two reverts in a 24 hour period - I fail to see how this is "at the point of violating 3RR"! I am well aware of what the 3RR rule is - violation occurs at four reverts in a 24 hour period. Also, I have been taking issues to talk - as for example this section which was created by me. You have been making at least as many reverts as anyone else here. Mdwh (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any violations by Mdwh either, if there is any breach of guidelines, it is Windyhead coming close to violating rules like WP:POINT, WP:DICK, WP:CIVIL, WP:TROLL, etc.. Arnoutf (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And I'm not removing sourced information, it's just redundant: we already give sources for the "atheism only means a denial". By your reasoning, should we add "but some people dispute this" to the denial definition, as that's backed by sources too? And as I say, the interpretation of that Britannica quote is incorrect, as it doesn't just dispute the third definition, it also disputes the second. It is reasonable to remove "sourced" material, when the source does not back what is being written in the article. Mdwh (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

- that's not just an interpretation of EB - that source wrongly presents a sentence as being from EB. That last sentence that Sarfati ADDED would be in contradiction with the rest of the EB article --JimWae (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have already brought this up, above, but it seems to need repeating (as so many things have lately).

Jonathan Sarfati, whom Windyhead identified as a "theist philosopher" (without even naming him), is/was a chemist and has no credentials as a philosopher that I can see.
In that "source", Sarfati seems to have misquoted the Neilsen article in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Sarfati includes in his quote from the EB "definition": "for the atheist, the nonexistence of God is a certainty". That sentence is NOT in the current EB article, and almost certainly never was there in any edition.
- The EB article was written by Kai Neilsen, and the rest of the article goes to great lengths to explain why defining atheism as "denial of the existence of deities" is wrongheaded. Even the first part of the misquote would extend the meaning of atheism beyond that contained in the last sentence.
That webpage appears to nothing more than a blog entry - in terms of its carelessness with accuracy, its POV pushing, its structure (response to a message from someone else), and its inconsistency.
Not only is it completely inappropriate to use that site as a source for the EB article, it does not appear to qualify as a reliable source for anything --JimWae (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats correct, I misunderstood Sarfati credibility as a philosopher. But please quote where Britannica explains "why defining atheism as "denial of the existence of deities" is wrongheaded" --windyhead (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you not read my earlier post? Read the real article, all of it, and you will see it is a presentation of the 2nd definition--JimWae (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean these? the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not ... , ... to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons ... ??? --windyhead (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Consciously leaving out the opening qualifier "In general" is incorrect interpretation of the source in a way it implicitly supports your point of view. Furhtermore the second part of your quote "... to be an atheist" does not accur in the online Britannica article at all, so again misrepresentation of the source (unless you refer to another source). Arnoutf (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, that quote is from [10] , and I still fail to see where Britannica explains "why defining atheism as "denial of the existence of deities" is wrongheaded" --windyhead (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop arguing with my paraphrase, I was not arguing to put "wrongheaded" as part of a quote. The exact quote is: Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons..." There are other places also where the EB article says def 1 is inadequate --JimWae (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

OK: So I still fail to see where Britannica explains "why defining atheism as "denial of the existence of deities"" is wrong or whatever --windyhead (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I will answer one more time: The exact quote is: Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons... Read the article again to find the others - search for adequate --JimWae (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

2nd sentence wordiness

The second sentence:

It is also defined more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, including the simple absence of belief in deities.

has gotten much too wordy for the lede paragraph. I suggest changing it to:

It is also defined more broadly as the absence of belief in deities.

I don't think we need to cram the fact that "absence of belief" is synonymous with any form of nontheism into the second sentence. We can go over how atheism compares with non-theism later in the intro or later in the article. johnpseudo 16:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This whole article is WAY too wordy, technical, and jargonistic for an encyclopedia article and seriously needs to be revised, unless the whole point is to turn people off from reading it. Much of what is in the article has more to do with the petty sniping on this page, and anticipating objections or undercutting previous statements instead of providing information. That kind of crap should be kept here, where those of us who want to avoid that kind of silly childishness don't have to put up with it. Take, for example, the ridiculous number of footnotes for an article this size; one hundred twenty-seven of them, in one case three for a single sentence, even four footnotes for one sentence in the introductory paragraph. In fact, footnotes don't really belong in an encyclopedia; I have never seen them in any encyclopedia I've ever read, certainly not in Britannica. The only reason purpose for footnotes, especially the number attached to this article, is to stick one's tongue out and go "NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH!", figuratively speaking. On the whole, because of the problems I just listed, this article sucks. And I say that as an atheist in every sense of the term. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There are 127 references (we've labelled it Notes, and used References for the general refs for the entire article, but most of those 127 footnotes are providing a source). How is having lots of references a bad thing? Can you give specific examples, either of which sentences have too many footnotes, or what are the other problems (you haven't really actually listed the problems apart from the footnotes issue, you've only said that the article has problems)? And footnotes belong in Wikipedia - if you think they shouldn't, it's probably better to take it up on Wikipedia:Footnotes. Mdwh (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

References are great, there are never too many in an article, the problem is though when there are 4 references for a single sentence, which is kind of ridiculous, maybe we should leave only the most relevant/reliable ones (at most 2). -- man with one red shoe (talk) 03:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe - I don't mind myself. I guess the problem is that people will then claim that there aren't enough references - that "atheism isn't a lack of belief" is a claim that crops up again and again, or the insistence that it isn't as common a definition, so I guess that's why we ended up with 4 references just to be sure. Is there a general Wikipedia policy on what to do with several references? Mdwh (talk) 04:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against references, just footnotes. I've never seen footnoes in any encyclopedia I've ever read, and I've read a lot of encyclopedias. The only purpose to having them in an encyclopedia that I can see is what I said above, otherwise placing a bibliographical reference at the end should be sufficient. The one exception would be if a unique idea, exact wording, etc. is borrowed, and in that case, yes, a footnote should be given. But not just to say "Look, it says right here this agrees with me." Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

But many of those are references, and it is an establish standard practice on Wikipedia to quote references with footnotes (I imagine the reasoning is that it has the advantage of being clear which claims are supported by references, which isn't possible if you just have a list of references at the bottom - non-wiki encyclopedias don't have this problem, as they can keep track of that internally). But this isn't an issue with this article - it's how Wikipedia works as a whole. You should take it up at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Quickly looking at your editing history, I see that you've edited on articles that don't use this referencing style - but there are very many articles that do, and it is standard Wikipedia practice as I say, and unless the reference applies to most of the article, it's the preferred method - see Wikipedia:Citing sources, or Template:Nofootnotes. Mdwh (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If Wikipedia uses footnotes, especially as many as this article, then it is not an encyclopedia. The practice of using footnotes is proper for academia, indeed is required legally as well as by most ethical codes of the academic world. However, in an encyclopedia article meant for the general public, they are an intrusion and a distraction. Wikipedia needs to decide what it wants to be and quit trying to be a hybrid. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, for the reasons I have given (not to mention that I commonly see footnotes in books that are not academic, and they do not distract me). And this is off-topic for this article - please take it to Wikipedia:Citing sources or Wikipedia:Footnotes. Mdwh (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Point out one encyclopedia with footnotes. Since this discussion is about wordiness and since having one hundred twenty-seven footnotes IN ADDITION to their being listed as references certainly adds to the wordiness of this article, my point is germaine. As I noted below, a discussion limited to the mere semantics of whether atheism is "rejection of theism" or "absence of belief in deities" because one is wordier than the other is worse than trivial. That's the kind of argument religionists might have over narrow points of theology that have zero to do with actual relevance and everything to do with ego. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has references. That's not going to change by any discussion held on this article's talk page.

As for the discussion below, this page is not a forum for discussing atheism (so comparing us to theists isn't relevant - we're here as editor's, not atheists), this page is for improving the article, which includes how best to express the information. The point about footnotes is that they reduce the wordiness, by moving the reference to the bottom out of the way. Mdwh (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant because the tone and construction of the article reflect discussions on this page. As for wordiness, the whole article is too long and there are too many references. One hundred twenty-seven for an article even this length is overkill and demonstrates more of an inclination to one-up or to CYA to keep from being one-upped than it does an inclination to inform, especially with the redunancy of placing at least one footnote on every sentence. The discussions on this page are directly relevant to that.

For comparison, I recently finished two lengthy chapters in an immunohematology textbook covering ABO, H, and Rh blood groups systems which had a "mere" 39 references for sixty pages.

Encyclopedia readers looking for a beginning of an understanding of atheism do not need to wade through the equivalent of a doctoral thesis in length, complexity, and use of jargon, nor do they need to be burdened with not only an excess of references but a double dose of that excess. Unless, of course, the idea is to turn people off atheism. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

So no opinions either way on how the 2nd sentence is phrased? johnpseudo 17:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I liked the older sentence, it made sense to me. The proposed one might be too simplistic.Synchronism (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I preferred rejection of theism to rejection of belief in deities. Much cleaner and easier to read. Ilkali (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Especially when followed by a sentence that refers to "absence of belief in deities". The juxtaposition of rejection of belief in deities and absence of belief in deities is confusing. Much better to stick to simple "theism" in sentence 1. There is no doubt about what it means - and if there is, the place to elaborate is at theism, not here. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This entire issue is as relevant to atheism, what an informational article for the general population should be, as is the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. It's worse than pointless. Just make the change and be done with it. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Parallel structure error in third paragraph

The third paragraph reads: "The term atheism originated ... and has been increasingly used as a self-description by atheists."

"Atheism" should be changed to "atheist", since atheists use the word "atheist" as a self-description, not the word "atheism". Can't make the edit myself. Edrowland (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

bias from church blackban

Just wondering if you could look at [11] Cheers 60.229.34.127 (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

The difficulty with the whole article is that it has been put together by someone who holds religious views, as if God were a 'given' and atheists had to prove otherwise. The atheist point of view is '..er,what?', on the grounds that promoting an amusing imaginative idea e.g. Harry Potter, as reality, may be worth a lot of money (and power) but bears no relation to actual life and death.

 "Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings" I don't like that sentence at all. Is there a type of atheism that isn't sceptical of all supernatural beings? Why "self-described"? There is nothing like that in the Christian article and if anything I have seen more fights there about whether someone is really a Christian or not. I have not made any changes as I guess there is history to such awkward wording. What do others think?  Sophia 13:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to place "Citation needed" over this bit, but, I guess, forgot about it. It's pretty poor wording and it comes out of nowhere - though, it is an introduction... Could use some better wording, yes. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of atheists who believe in ghosts, spirits, etc. I think "self-described" is used in some places because a lot of atheists are unwilling to use the term for themselves, but I'm not sure how that would be relevant in the text you quote. Ilkali (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the wording is changed to "Some atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings" That's really all it's saying, so why be awkward about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.118.129 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I was reading through this article and there's a lot of weasel words, and expressions aimed to undermine. For example "In practical, or pragmatic, atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods", which sounds to my ear ear as if the existance of gods is implicit and the atheist is deluded in his belief (Ironic choice of words to imply that not believing is itself a belief). --85.62.18.8 (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The message there is that apatheists live as they would live with the belief that gods don't exist, but they don't explicitly hold that belief. I'm not trying to imply that gods do exist, and in general I feel that we spend too much time on this article looking for hints of nefarious bias when we should be trying to just make it clearer and more informative. johnpseudo 16:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It is also defined

Hi, can somebody point on where this "It is also defined more broadly" is explained throughout the article? --windyhead (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Atheism#Strong_vs._weak — BRIAN0918 • 2008-09-12 13:42Z

Hi, so can you please point out where in this section is explained about (1) who defines atheism "more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism", and (2) what "It is also defined more broadly" means - is there some condition when it can be defined this way? or what? Thanks. --windyhead (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There are four sources given for this. Is there a problem with the sources? I'm not sure what you mean by (2) - it's simply that the word has several definitions, so we say "It is also defined ...". Mdwh (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes sources are provided, but where it is explained about who defines atheism "more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism"? --windyhead (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that we give references explains who defines it this way - i.e., it's those references that define it that way. If you mean, who in general uses that definition, I'm not sure how we could possible answer that, as lots of different people will use different definitions. What do you think it should say? Mdwh (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it is still unclear which references give this definition, and what context they use providing this definition. There is lot of info in the section but no clear "those references also say that Atheism is ..., and the context for use such definition is ..." can be spotted. There are also sources for this given in the lead but ~~you~~ Brian said to look at Atheism#Strong_vs._weak for explanation. So if somebody would clarify this would be great. --windyhead (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The references that give this distinction are those listed at the end of that sentence: 4, 5, 6, 7. I'm not sure that there is any context here - the word simply has more than one definition. The "context" would be when referring to people who lack a belief in god. Also I'd disagree with Brian0918 - the distinction for the broadest "nontheism" definition is covered in the Implicit vs. explicit section. Does that make more sense? Mdwh (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

And who those sources are? What kind of group they make? Can this "It is also defined more broadly" be attributed correctly? --windyhead (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please accept that referencing is not the same as quoting; to make the more broadly statement you only need to provide a sourced narrow definition (which is there) and a reference broader definition (which is there as well). Listing the first as narrow, automatically and undeniably logically (which is not synthesis) validates the claim that the existence of broader definition warrants the phrase "it is also defined more broadly" Arnoutf (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand you. Where is explained about who those sources are (who give broader definition)? What group they make? --windyhead (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

See Mdwh - sources 4,5,6,7 Arnoutf (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "who" - as we have said, you can see who the makes the statement by clicking on the reference numbers, which takes you to the references at the bottom of the page. I'm not sure we can say anything about any "group" they make, and trying to decide this would risk being original research. Mdwh (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

By "Who" I mean clarification about who those sources are. Where it is explained in article? If it is not explained, let's either clarify this or add back the clarification request [12] . --windyhead (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Who they are (their names) & their writings have been identified. They do not all belong to any single "religious" group. Btw, Jonathan Sarfati, whom you identified as a "Christian philosopher", is/was a physical scientist and has no credentials as a philosopher that I can see. He also either did not read the entire definition in EB, had a different edition, or conveniently omitted considering the rest of the article. Even what he quotes from EB includes rejection of belief as a form of atheism - and rejection of belief without assertion of non-existence is also a form of WEAK atheism --JimWae (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Sarfati includes "for the atheist, the nonexistence of God is a certainty" as part of the EB definition - that is NOT in the current EB article at least, and likely never was. --JimWae (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

These are who they are: 4: Eller, David 5: Angeles, Peter A. 6: Runes, Dagobert D. 7: Simon Blackburn.

This is already stated in the article - I'm not sure if you are misunderstanding how references are displayed, or you have some different point? Mdwh (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this discussion was about "It is also defined more broadly" phrase, the clarification request asking to clarify who giving this definition, the clarification request removal [13] with "this is explained throughout the article" comment. As it was found, the only explanation given within the article is that 4 persons giving that definition are named. It was also found that "when" question doesn't make sense. Please confirm. --windyhead (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, as it was found in later discussions [14], no more explanation for "It is also defined" has given in the article. Moreover, now article sections refer to this lead sentence itself. The reader can be confused with this sentence as it is now. It is unclear what is the reason 2nd definition exist, what groups of people give it, and when it should be used (or shouldn't be). I'm adding back the clarification request, please don't remove it until these points are addressed. --windyhead (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Your request for "by whom?" is misplaced - the names are given in the references at the end of that sentence --JimWae (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it is of my understanding that there is not only 4 persons who give this definition, and to say "It is also defined by Eller, Angeles, Runes, Blackburn" would be incorrect. Please confirm. --windyhead (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you want 100 names & 100 refs? The 3rd (absence) definition is also further discussed - not in the lede, which is an introduction, but in the implicit/explicit section, which explains WHO gets included as an atheist by this definition. And in that section, 2 more authors are identified who use that definition --JimWae (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the request is there to point out that article should clarify what group of people gives this "broad" definition. --windyhead (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no identifiable group that "gives" this def. The refs & the section establishes that this definition has currency & is discussed by philosophers of religion, not all of whom are atheists --JimWae (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, if you can't identify that group than maybe other people can. Who is non-atheist person giving this def btw ? --windyhead (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I answered that months ago - there are 2 non-atheists mentioned here in ref 6: Ferm & Runes. which also states "it is widely current in the history of thought". It is just not the case that only atheists discuss this definition --JimWae (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

While it is unclear these persons are atheists or not, it is possible there are theists who give this broader definition. In that case, let's find reliable sources who attribute this broader definition to a correct group. If there is no sources available let's find suitable wording not causing a confusion and acceptable by everyone. If there is a dispute with some people disputing one or another definition, their arguments should be presented and correctly attributed. --windyhead (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no reliable source requirement that definitions of any term be attributed "to a group", no less "to a correct group". Unless you can find evidence that Runes & Ferm were atheists (you won't - you will find indications that Ferm was Lutheran Protestant and Runes was Jewish, tho), it is just plain false to state that that definition could be attributed to ANY group. Also, it would violate WP:NPOV for the article to answer the question you pose "Which definition to use?" You must know that many words have more than one restricted meaning, and it is not the business of a NPOV encyclopedia to identify which is correct. I believe the article already states that some people object to certain ways that atheism has been used & defined. You ought to remove or rephrase your request for clarification - right now it appears to be a request that the article be edited to violate wikipedia policies. --JimWae (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We're not claiming that any particular group uses this definition (as it's unlikely that there exists such a group), so no clarification or further references are required. And why do you pick on this definition? E.g., supposing I asked "who" uses the definition "affirmation of the nonexistence of gods"? I mean, we've only got one reference there, and it doesn't tell us which "group" uses this definition? Mdwh (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the reference to "The Oxford American Dictionary defines "atheist" as "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods. New York: Avon Press, 1980". While this source is used as a basis for the sentence: "affirmation of the nonexistence of gods". There's a difference between absence of faith (not believing) and affirmation of nonexisstence. Affirmation of nonexistence would be a more positive/strong/active stance, a more explicit position as you described. I find the reference a bit mis-interpreted, it should be used for the other definitions. --Syvertsen (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the 2008-May-31 edit that made that erroneous change http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&diff=next&oldid=216187280 --JimWae (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

wat is the atheism symbol

Is it the A with rays going around it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.121.143.39 (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no symbol for atheism as it's not a club or gathering or such. It's a state of mind or a position held. Though I'm sure if you want a symbol for yourself you can use the A with rays around it or anything you like (a cross maybe?) Spleep (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Atheism is defined by lack of belief; there is no symbol for it because there is no central authority. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Titanium Dragon, although I would not mind the invisible pink unicorn ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no "atheist symbol", but atheist organisations may have symbols. --Dannyno (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

.

The Symbol that you are thinking of is the symbol forAmerican Atheists Tkissinger (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Who prefers what definition

Found references about who prefer what: [15] - The average theologian ... uses 'atheist' to mean a person who denies the existence of a God... However, most atheists would stongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. , [16] - There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different. The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." --windyhead (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Non-atheists also accept & use the multiple definitions.<sourced in article> Nor can one source's opinion establish any truth regarding preferences of large groups. Even source does not say what you are looking for. "Christians in particlar" is not "Christians in general". Moreover, even atheists dispute the definition among themselves. --JimWae (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

- If it doesn't matter, then why isn't the broad definition (absence of belief in any deity) first as it seems to be more correct and all inclusive of all types of "Atheism" and not any particular form. The top definition now (affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism) does not include weak atheism, practical atheism, or the top definition in the Rationale section. Otherwise, neither of these would be atheism at all and the Rationale section would have to be changed as well. --Jayon (talk) Friday, 2008-11-21 20:27 UTC

The "top" definition is two definitions & the 2nd includes weak atheism. The consensus was that as an "ism", we needed to present the explicit positionS first. Besides, all who say they are atheists have an explicit position, & so they are covered by the 2nd definition.
Again we have further evidence that readers do not get what "rejection of theism" means (but neither does JJC Smart<“‘[a]theism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.” (J.J.C. Smart in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ JJC Smart>) and that, to be clear, we need to emphasize the 2nd def is the rejection of belief in deities. Btw, there was not a single day in September 2008 that the theism article properly defined theism. This article should not be dependnt on that article --JimWae (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Rethinking the value of the new "Other uses of positive atheism term" and "Discrimination" sections

I don't think these sections add anything of value to the article. The most-recently added "Other uses of positive atheism term" section seems to be a lot of rhetorical fluff around an issue that isn't especially notable or even related to atheism. The "Discrimination" section seems to repeat a lot of what has already been stated earlier in the article as an excuse to link to the child article and to plug a few Secular group articles. I propose deleting both sections in their entirety. johnpseudo 18:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the "Discrimination" section. The only source was to a poorly written web page. And though I'm assuming good faith, it read like astroturfing by a fan of Richard Dawkins. If we're going to include a section on discrimination (and I think we should), we ought to include better content. --SgtSchumann (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Bob Avakian's Book

Can someone tell me why the to-do list instructs us to include Bob Avakian's Away with All Gods under Further Reading? Members of the Revolutionary Communist Party promote Bob Avakian indiscriminately, but that doesn't mean we have to be indiscriminate in our inclusion of his material. The book is already listed in the article about Avakian, as is appropriate. However, Avakian doesn't have any qualifications relevant to discussing theism or atheism, and unless we want to open the further reading section to everyone who has ever written a book that relates to atheism, we're better off not including it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtSchumann (talk • contribs) 19:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Some Atheists are Believers

The Universe is too perfect to be created by imperfect Gods as explained by the Bible and Qur'an. Some atheists DO believe that "something might be out there" BUT what we DON'T believe is that Biblical/Koranic God(s) created the Universe. Do you get the point? Bosniak (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If you believe in a god, you are not an atheist. Period. Yes, not all atheists are irreligious, because not all religions have gods and it is possible to belong to no organized religion, not believe in any gods, and still be religious. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be confused about definitions. It is possible you are thinking of Deism or some sort of Pantheism.67.189.32.76 (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What I'm about to say isn't what the original point was, but it does help take it out of polemic. Surveys of religious positions often find inconsistencies. So for example, Stephen Bullivant's 'Research Note: Sociology and the Study of Atheism', Journal of Contemporary Religion, 23 (3) October, 2008, pp.363-368. It includes results from a survey of 728 Oxford Uni students, and the remarkable, but apparently not unusual in similar surveys, result that "3.1% of self-defined atheists answered "yes" when asked if they believe in God and as many as 4.9% claim to believe in "a Higher Power of some kind". (p. 365). --Dannyno (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

By definition, atheists don't believe in gods. I think it's simply a case of mislabelling for the people that you mention 79.75.31.16 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Some people may refuse to worship a God that they nevertheless believe in - perhaps that would explain the results in Oxford. In a strict sense, they are not atheists, as has already been said, but their rejection of worshiping a God mistake others and themselves into thinking they are atheists. Gabr-el 05:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as there are many who will identify with a theistic religion despite a lack of theistic beliefs, so it is possible that there are some who identify with atheism despite retaining an element of theism. Surveys in the UK that go beyond simple yes/no questions reveal more complex patterns of belief: There are large numbers of people who "sometimes believe" or "doubt" who don't neatly fit into an atheist/theist or atheist/agnostic/theist classification. Giving the eternal wrangling on this page over the definition of atheism it should not be surprising if survey respondents have differing opinions over it too. Duncan Keith (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The belief that "something might be out there" would seem to put the people described above squarely in the agnostic camp. That little "might" is the essential difference between atheism and agnosticism. As for the rest, it isn't clear whether we're talking about simple opposition to Christianity and Islam, or a broader antitheism. EastTN (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Believing that something might be out there is entirely consistent with (weak) atheism, so I disagree with some of the above editors. However, I think you are conflating two statements: saying that "something might be out there" is different to believing that "something" is out there. Mdwh (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not so sure. Strong atheism characterizes active and certain disbelief. The term "weak atheism" seems best reserved for the kind of de facto atheism that finds talk of the supernatural meaningless or of no interest. The comment that kicked this all off described someone who's sure that God as the angry old man in a robe in the sky doesn't exist, but does think some other form of supreme being or force or higher power or ultimate reality or something "might be out there" - and doesn't seem to suggest that the question is either meaningless or uninteresting. Frankly, the whole point seemed to be opposition to just Christianity and Islam - if that's correct, and we're talking about someone who rejects the Bible and the Quran but is perfectly willing believe that Daoism or Buddhism or Shinto or Wicca may be valid and meaningful descriptions of reality, then I think we have to say it's agnosticism rather than atheism. EastTN (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If there was a survey in which some small percentage of self-defined human beings claimed to have tails and four paws, would you recommend that the Human article be inclusive of this definition? —Memotype::T 17:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hubble Deep Field photo

Why is a Hubble Deep Field photo on this page? Considering that whether you're an atheist, a somewhat religious person, or a hard-core young-earth creationist, the Hubble Telescope's pictures are still just photos of a part of the sky, no matter what you believe. There is no valid reason this photograph is more relevant to the Atheism page than any other page, therefore I am being bold and removing it. 65.191.180.91 (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As you can infer from the multiple edits I made to the template, I tried a number of different images but none of them seemed to work. I wasn't particularly fond of the deep field either. I suppose no image is probably best. Couchie (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What kind of atheist is Dawkins

I'm reading all of these definitions of different kinds of atheism and I can't quite figure out what category someone like Dawkins would fall under. Or how about a person who is an atheist on the grounds that they believe that they should believe in things that have been demonstrated through scientific evidence. Given the lack of scientific evidence for gods, despite efforts to demonstrate that gods exist scientifically, such a person would believe that gods do not exist (although they would modify their position should such evidence become compelling). What "kind" of atheist would that person be? Sbwoodside (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is wondering, I'm aware that talk pages are for discussing the article itself and not its topic. I'm responding to this, because it seems this has come up a lot lately, and I think that discussing it may help us determine whether we need to edit the relevant section for clarification.

I generally ignore Dawkins, so I don't know what he believes -- only that he doesn't believe that gods exist. So though he's an explicit atheist, I don't know whether he is a strong atheist. I'd say anyone who is like the hypothetical person you describe is an explicit atheist (because they have given thought to the question of whether gods exist) and a positive atheist (because they don't believe that gods exist). Note that if a person is a strong atheist, they must also be an explicit atheist. --SgtSchumann (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that a "positive" or strong atheist would be one who believes God doesn't exist - someone who doesn't believe gods exist could still be a negative/weak atheist. AFACT about Dawkins, I think he doesn't use the strong/weak terminology, but views it in terms of probability, and believes that it is highly ~~improbably~~ probable that god does not exist (as the article says, "Consequently, some popular atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions by the probability assigned to the statement "God exists""). Mdwh (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you misrepresented Dawking (Mdwh) as far as I know he "believes that it is highly improbably that god does exist"(instead of does not exist). I guess it is a typo just to prevent confusion Arnoutf (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops yes, I did not mean to suggest Dawkins is a theist. I've fixed it. Mdwh (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

See Spectrum of theistic probability. Singinglemon (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd be hard pressed to find an atheist who'd say they would not change their position should such evidence become compelling. I would consider him an explicit strong atheist by these criteria. In his book, he uses the term agnostic rather than weak atheist. He has a seven level scale to represent levels of belief in the probability of god. He says that all levels except the top (100%) and bottom (0%) are agnostic. He puts himself at the sixth level as a "de facto atheist", and that he is "agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomasecu (talk • contribs) 07:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. My questions stemmed from what I see as a lack of clarity in the article with respect to "scientific atheists" like Dawkins. I wasn't aware of the 7 level test that he proposed, but it seems that he and others are maintaining a line between an absolute belief in the non-existence of God, and the belief in the strongly likely non-existence of God. I would expect this would be important as it would divide the difference between a scientific approach (level 6) and a gut-oriented approach. I'm afraid I haven't got references to back me up, but it seems to me like a fairly major difference. Are there not "religions" that specifically reject the existence of Gods but accept supernatural phenomena? Where would they fall on this chart (does the chart need to be 2-dimensional?) I don't know if all of these questions have been addressed in the literature, but I think the article should be structured (or re-structured) so that I could read it and figure out what is the terminology to use for a given person or position. Right now I'm not getting that. Sbwoodside (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a brief section of this article about those religions. I think the problem you may be having is that the definitions between strong/weak/explicit/implicit/atheist/agnostic/etc. are currently quite varied. When one person would consider you a weak atheist, another would call you an agnostic. Within agnosticism there are even a number of groupings. I think for the most part one's place should be self-defined, and I doubt many Buddhists et al would identify as atheists. Jomasecu (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

SEVEN references for the first sentence

Bloody ridiculous. This article needs some serious rehabilitation. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence has gotten at least 70% of the total attention paid to this article by editors. Seven is way too many references for one sentence, but if that's what it takes to keep the article stable it's worth it. johnpseudo 13:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lead fixation. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article body, and does not need to present any references itself. --dab (𒁳) 17:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that it is not being written in accordance with wikipedia rules, but in accordance with what the majority of people here want to see in it. In this particular example it is not the lead which summarizes the article body, it is article body which refers to lead (see Atheism#Implicit vs. explicit - "As noted in the introduction above, ..."). And you really need to have a strong will to argue alot to get a small chance to get things moving. --windyhead (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:LEADCITE for more complete style guidelines re citations in lede --JimWae (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Buddhist=Atheist?

Would (true, traditional) Buddists really be considered atheists, based on the primary doctrine that they "belive in nothing"? 76.110.198.70 (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, what do you mean by saying they "believe in nothing"? So far as I know most Buddhists believe in plenty of things, such for example as karma, suffering, rebirth and so on.

And secondly, if they do believe in nothing then they surely disbelieve in god(s) and are therefore atheists? Olaf Davis | Talk 22:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

There are deities of a sort in Buddhism; see Asura (Buddhism). In the sense that Buddhists lack deities to worship, they could technically be considered atheist, but the religion is still highly spiritual.

The "belief in nothing" misconception probably arises from layman's misunderstandings about a type of Buddhism known as Zen, which includes exercises to mentally disengage from reality. =Axlq 00:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Buddhism is apatheist: it does not reject the existence of gods; rather, it holds that veneration of anything, including gods, is an attachment. The Pali Canon has a number of stories about how various Vedic gods anxiously awaited the Buddha's enlightenment, because they, too, were caught up in samsara. This apatheism is most notable in Theravada Buddhism, but also present to some degree in the Mahayana school, where many previous gods were transformed into bodhisattvas. A number of schools derived from Mahayana (such as Vajrayana) do retain an organized concept of deities and spirits, but even there, the gods are respected as one would respect a king or are appeased as one would appease an angry warlord, but not worshipped in the way that gods are worshipped in Hinduism, Christianity and other religions. TechBear (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Theravada and some sects of Zen are apatheist. Other sects of Buddhism are virtually theistic in their adoption of celestial Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and even gods, because believers appeal to them for help and teach that those noncorporeal beings have control over the "real world", regardless of their semantics that pretend otherwise. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:TALK please -- there is a reason this talkpage has 40 archives... --dab (𒁳) 17:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Ignorance?

Just a quick observation. I don't have the source to refer to myself, but under the section Atheism#Practical_atheism one of the 'forms' of atheism is described as "Ignorance—lacking any idea of gods.' I'm not sure that 'ignorance' is the best term to use. Most atheists do not believe in god because there is no actual evidence to show he/she/it exists. To be ignorant of something is not to understand something which is known to be true; there is a popular antitheistic argument that basically states 'ignorance is not proof', i.e. that just because mankind doesn't understand something it doesn't automatically point to a supernatural entity. Atheism opens the door to understanding the world, and reducing our ignorance. The same section of the article also states 'individuals live as if there are no gods', which seems to imply that there are Gods. A more neutral statement might be that indiviuals do not believe in any divine entity.

In any case, I believe that this information has been taken from a bias source. Atheism can't really be grouped into set 'forms' as it is by its nature individualistic, with as many forms as there are atheists. It is my opinion that the section should be removed or edited. Monkeymox (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

'Most atheists do not believe...' Yes, but the 'ignorance' form does not claim to represent most atheists. To be ignorant of something means simply to be unaware of it, there is no stipulation about the thing being true - it is entirely possible that someone raised in, say, a remote tribe with no religion might never have conceived of God and thus would be an atheist by virtue of ignorance of the concept of God. Plus, just because atheism is individualistic does not mean that the resulting positions cannot be grouped. (In other words, I strongly object to removing or editing the section as you suggested!) Hadrian89 (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hadrian89 that the listing should not be deleted, but I also agree with Monkeymox that some readers may construe the word "ignorance" as pejorative, even if it is not meant that way. I've modified the wording to incorporate the idea, above, of unfamiliarity, as a way of at least partially addressing that concern. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Good edit - I changed 'any' to 'the' as well as it seemed to read better. Hadrian89 (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes that reads much better now. Good edit, good compromise Monkeymox (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, "the" is better, and I'm glad that helped. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel that it still shows a negative insinuation. The word "Ignorance" generally means such in a way that could be potentially offensive. ZachattackGO (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

True, I've made a further edit in an attempt to address that. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the ignorance is very different from all other categories. All other versions, in one way or another, encompass conscious rejection of God; basically something close to heresy; while someone ignorant could be considered more as a non religious heathen. The words do not match the case exactly, but I hope this illustrates, what is in my view a fundamental difference. Arnoutf (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The new, shorter, version does work better, but I just want to check: is it consistent with the reference cited? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Positive Atheism and Negative Atheism

The distinction between positive and negative atheism is much older than most seem to think. As a GoogleBooks search has revealed (see for yourself!), it already occurred around the middle of the 19th century. Here's an example from 1859:

"One man stands up with his positive Atheism, saying absolutely 'there is no God;' or another, more modestly and consistently with the general course of reasoning, says, 'The existence of god must be proved before I can assert it. I will not say positively that there is no God, but I say that proof of the Being of a God has never been given, hence I do not believe in his existence.' This is negative Atheism, the other is positive." (p. 52)

(http://books.google.de/books?id=fgMbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA52&dq=%22negative+atheism%22+date:1800-1900&lr=&num=50&as_brr=3&as_pt=ALLTYPES)

And in the entry on atheism in "The Protestant Theological and Ecclesiastical Encyclopedia" from 1860 one finds:

"Another division is, into negative and positive atheism. The former is critical, a scientific doubt; the latter a subjective conviction, an objective declaration, which may be subdivided into immediate conviction and dogmatic assertion, or an indirect result of ratiocination and speculative philosophy."

(http://books.google.de/books?id=HaMAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA276&dq=%2Bpositive+%2Batheism+%2Bnegative+date:1800-1900&lr=&num=50&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES)

—Editorius (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Atheism is Religion

According to US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Atheism is a religion. This statement should be included in the article. Here is a reference (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.5.160 (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting report; some inclusion maybe relevant. There are two issues that must be taken into account however.

The court ruling was given in the legal context of freedom of religion. Specifically it was stated that atheism should have the same rights as religions. The court has not provided a philosophical treaty of the nature of atheism as a religion (and indeed a court is not equipped for this deliberation).
This is the court of Wisconsin, which may not translate to the whole of the US, let alone worldwide. So we need to be very careful not to over interpret this. Arnoutf (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The judgment was relying on earlier decisions of the Supreme Court ("The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions.") so it seems not to be in any way a breakthrough or milestone case. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok in that case not very relevant; and equivalent to is not the same as equals. Arnoutf (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Who says the Supreme court decides what is and what is not a religion? Thats up to academics to decide what Atheism is. What the highest judicial body of only one country says about Atheism is hardly weighty matter in an article about Atheism in general. Gabr-el 07:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree; aside from the fact that the US courts have no right to rule on what atheism is, atheism is obviously not a religion by definition. It is the absence of religion or faith. It shares no trait with any religious or spiritual systems. To include the mention such a flawed and irrelevant ruling in the article would be pointless. Monkeymox (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this talk should be only about improving the page. It is not a forum for personal opinions about court rulings or anything else. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"God" or "gods" in lead

After this edit was reverted it reads "affirmation of the nonexistence of gods...". The point, rather constrained in the edit summary, is that it isn't an accurate rendition of the citation we are using for this: "...the view that there are no gods... a stricter sense...a belief that there is no God." We are required to represent the source accurately. The other point is the ambiguity in phrasing (albeit one that would be difficult to take the wrong way, but we do need to state the obvious): "affirmation of the nonexistence of gods" allows for the belief in a god (or, for that matter, God). I'm sorry I didn't manage to convey this in the edit summary. Long previous discussions on this opening sentence, and how the (perhaps weak) consensus wording was arrived at, in the talk archives. Most recent (to which the reverting editor contributed) seems to be here. I propose returning to the established wording. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"it isn't an accurate rendition of the citation we are using for this". I agree that it isn't word-for-word identical. I don't see how it isn't accurate.

"The other point is the ambiguity in phrasing [...]: "affirmation of the nonexistence of gods" allows for the belief in a god". I'll restate my point: Does "I don't believe in unicorns" allow for me to believe in precisely one unicorn? Ilkali (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I had been trying to keep this general, but using Christianity as an example: A Christian doesn't believe in gods, but isn't an atheist. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to answer my question? Ilkali (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

At least we can agree on the capitalization [17]. Are you going to explain why the consensus is being abandoned? --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You're not going to answer my question? Ilkali (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"God or gods" is unnecessary pretentious in my view, however if I were to respond to the question though, I could see the other side of the argument too: we use plural when the object is assumed to be more than one: we known about unicorns, not about one Unicorn, so we'd say "I don't believe in unicorns" however if the object is assumed to unique if many people would hold the idea that there's only one Unicorn then we'd certainly say "I don't believe in Unicorn" however if people have different ideas about how many unicorns are, and even more, some would make a special point and central part of their religions that there's only one Unicorn, then saying "I don't believe in Unicorn or unicorns" would make a special point that it rejects both ideas, while "I don't believe in unicorns" would still be correct since the word unicorns would include the idea of one unicorn too. Just my 2 cents man with one red shoe 20:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The unicorn is indeed assumed to be unique: to the true believer, there is only one unicorn—a crucial distinction from those believers in unicorns.[18] Back to the serious stuff, what about the departure from consensus wording? --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me. I was happy with any deity. Ilkali (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that "a god or gods" has the reverse problem, and I think that it is even less clear: by this definition, if a Christian states that some other non-Christian God doesn't exist, then they would be counted as an atheist! Clearly, disbelief in a single god doesn't make one an atheist. At the least, it should be "God or gods" (it should also be capitalised, to take into the point made by Dbachmann below - the problem is that "god" (small case) is the singular of "gods", and we need to be clearer if we are specificially referring to "the monotheistic idea of God"). I think there is also ambiguity here in the use of the word "or" - to be an atheist by this first definition, you must believe both that no God exists, and no gods exist, so perhaps this would be clearer as "both God and gods". Alternatively, how about if we say "any gods"? Mdwh (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think that "God" is simply the singular of "gods", you are obviuosly unacquainted with all theological debate, including atheism, of the past two millennia. This isn't the place to discuss such fundamental fallacies, but reading both our God and our gods article might be a good start. --dab (𒁳) 20:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

How about "any god"? man with one red shoe 21:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"If you think that "God" is simply the singular of "gods" [...]". I think you need to brush up on your comprehension skills. The words in question here are god and gods, and the former is most definitely the singular of the latter. Ilkali (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the "any god" suggestion is a very good one. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"Any god" doesn't work in the current sentence grammar. "affirmation of the nonexistence of any god" would mean that you are atheist if there is any god you don't believe in. It would have to be "all gods". johnpseudo 23:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"affirmation of the nonexistence" doesn't sound great either, maybe the sentence should be reworked. man with one red shoe 01:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

johnpseudo wrote: "affirmation of the nonexistence of any god" would mean that you are atheist if there is any god you don't believe in."

No, "She affirms the nonexistence of any god" doesn't imply "There exist some gods [i.e. at least one] whose nonexistence she affirms". Generally, there's a subtle difference between "any" and "some".

There is nothing grammatically wrong with "affirmation of the nonexistence of any god".

By the way, the phrase "a god or gods" is redundant because "affirms the nonexistence of gods" already means "affirms that the number of existing gods is zero".

Since the phrase "the affirmation of the nonexistence of" is stilted enough, we shouldn't make it even worse and simply use "the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods" (which certainly includes God, who is a god). — Editorius (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that "affirms the nonexistence of any god" implies "affirms existence of at least one god". I'm saying that it doesn't preclude affirming the existence of all gods except for one. johnpseudo 17:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In everyday language some seem to read "believes in the existence of gods" as "believes in the existence of at least two gods", even though its logical meaning is "believes in the existence of at least one god". And the logical meaning of "believes in the nonexistence of gods" is "The number of gods in whose existence s/he believes is zero". I think that this corresponds to its everyday meaning, for who reads "believes in the nonexistence of gods" as "The number of gods in whose existence s/he believes is (exactly) one"?! — Editorius (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the everyday meaning of "affirms nonexistence of gods" is "affirms number of gods = 0", but it can semi-reasonably be misinterpreted to mean "affirms number of gods < all". I generally think we're nit-picking and that anyone can understand what it means. But if you want to avoid any possibility of misinterpretation, add 'all'. johnpseudo 17:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If we seek a truly unequivocal formulation, we could write:

"Atheism is the view that the number of existing gods is zero."

—Editorius (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is unnecessarily geekish. man with one red shoe 20:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think some of the problem comes from the present form of the lead having gotten syntactically complex through its history of edits, so perhaps it might help to shorten it. As one suggestion, I think that all of the intended meanings are contained in this paraphrase of the last reference in citation number 4: "Atheism is the lack of belief in any god, or the belief that there is no god." Perhaps it would work to shorten the opening paragraph to just that, while retaining all the references currently cited. I realize that one can still question the singular/plural usage, but I think that the meaning is evident to any reasonable reader. Just another suggestion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish: best so far. Can we run with this one? --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree, that's the best formulation, simple and clear. man with one red shoe 22:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"ATHEISM. Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none."

(Blackburn, Simon. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.)

—Editorius (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we use this or is there a copyright problem? Otherwise the proposed wording "Atheism is the lack of belief in any god, or the belief that there is no god." is very similar and expresses the same thing equally clear. I vote for either of these options, much better than the mess is now in the introduction. man with one red shoe 07:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Change it to "Rejection of belief", not "lack of belief". Lack of belief is already covered by the second sentence, and we need to ensure that all three major definitions are kept - not just two. Mdwh (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's review for a moment the evolution of the first two sentences before we rush to make a radical change:

Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism.
Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism. (4/2008)
Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism. (11/2007)
Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. In its broadest definition, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, sometimes called nontheism. (6/2007)
As a philosophical view, atheism is the belief in the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. In its broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of gods, sometimes called nontheism.(5/2007)
As a philosophical view, atheism is the belief in the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of gods. (4/2007 - Featured Article promotion)

I agree that the definition has gotten overly complex, but there are good reasons for most of what's there and for the structure of the sentences in general. I suggest we revert the change from "a philosophical view" to "an explicit position", the change from "either affirms" to "can be either the affirmation", and the change from "rejects" to "the rejection of". That would reduce the complexity a little bit and reduce the size by 24 characters. johnpseudo 15:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: "Atheism, as a philosophical position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. It is also defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism." This would lose the "Atheism is" construction that is generally good in a first sentence, but the added simplicity is worth it in my opinion. johnpseudo 15:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I still prefer the simple and clear: "Atheism is the lack of belief in any god, or the belief that there is no god." then we can go into further details of what "lack of belief" or "belief that there's no god" entail. Also, I think that is better to keep it a "belief" rather than "philosophical position" which sounds unnecessarily pretentious in my opinion. man with one red shoe 16:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. Actually, I'm very sympathetic to being sensitive to the history of how the lead was developed before I arrived here. At the same time, a lot of the complexity does not make sense to me, and reads like something that was "written by committee" (which, of course, everything here is, but that doesn't mean that it needs to sound that way!). So, with respect to that suggestion, these three questions. (1) Why the need to say "as a philosophical position"? What does it add? (2) Is rejecting theism really different than affirming the nonexistence, except in the most hair-splitting of ways? (The use of "affirmation" contributes to the complexity that started this talk thread.) (3) Likewise, how does nontheism differ meaningfully from absence of belief? I think it would help the general reader to pare down as much of this as possible. I do understand the requirement that the lead capture the complexity of the article, but I think the current iteration takes that too far. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

One more argument for keeping it simple, that's the sourced wording, almost from word by word from dictionary, we are not here to split hair and make original research, we need to use the most common definition which I bet is "Atheism is the lack of belief in any god, or the belief that there is no god" rather than strange and uber-perfect "affirmation of nonexistence..." man with one red shoe 17:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

With respect to your appreciation of the history of this argument, if you had been involved in those endless, hundreds of pages of discussion, I don't think you would be asking these questions. I cannot adequately represent the consensus positions formed by everyone over the course of the article's development, but I'll try to give you my recollection of the basic points:

"As a philosophical position" was added to distinguish between the explicit position (sentence 1) and the implicit position (sentence 2). Our consensus was that the explicit definition was the most-widely understood definition of atheism, and so it was important to put it first, before the implicit definition. But the implicit "lack of belief" definition is also important.
Yes, the two definitions are different in a very practical way. "Theism is wrong" is a very different position "No gods exist". The main reason they're both included is because they both appear in the major encyclopedic references we used as primary sources.
Nontheism doesn't differ from absence of belief- it is just presented as a synonym to help clarify the "absence of belief" definition.

In general, the current iteration jumps through a lot of requiremental hoops with relative simplicity. Your definition would fail in a few ways I can think of that were big controversies in the past: 1) It puts the "lack of belief" definition first. 2) It fails to provide distinguishing characteristics between the implicit and explicit definitions. 3) It gives the impression that there is only one, multifaceted definition, instead of specifying that there is disagreement on the definition. johnpseudo 18:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this, because it doesn't include the explicit "rejection of belief" definition. It's important, because this definition includes explicit disbelief, but isn't so broad as to include any implicit lack of belief. As for it being the most common definition - well, actually there are two definitions here. And judging by sources, I would say that "disbelief" is more common than "lack of belief". Mdwh (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid we need to keep a more complex formulation just in order to avoid endless edit warring. Here's my suggestion, which is very similar to the current formulation:

"Atheism can be the doctrine or belief that God or gods do not exist, the rejection of theism, or simply the lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

Or slightly simpler:

"Atheism can be the doctrine or belief that there are no gods, the rejection of theism, or simply the lack of belief in the existence of gods."

These complex formulations should really be to everybody's liking.

—Editorius (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"doctrine"? I guess it's a name for a world view but not necessary a doctrine. "Doctrine (Latin: doctrina) is a code of beliefs or "a body of teachings" or "instructions", taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. The Greek analogy is the etymology of catechism." -- I don't think it fits well for all cases man with one red shoe 21:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If the goal is to prevent endless edit-warring, then the current formulation already does that job remarkably well. Your proposal has the same #3 problem has the last, in that it doesn't make clear that there are multiple definitions delineated based on clear rationale. Which brings up another point I believe Brian0918 made at one point: the lede should be a good indicator of and summary of the rest of the article. Since we spend a hefty portion of the article going over the various definitions of the word, it would be a mistake to leave the reader in doubt about whether there is one "agreed upon" definition or multiple definitions. That's another big reason for the "as an explicit position"/"Defined more broadly" construction. Without making it clear that there is no consensus, we'll be inviting tons of edit-warring over what the "true" definition is. johnpseudo 21:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

@man with one red shoe: See: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/doctrine

A doctrine can well consist in "a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated", and not in a whole "body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject". So a doctrine is "a principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group".—Editorius (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, atheism is not always taught, nor is a unitary body of principles, nor there's one unitary group that promotes or teaches it. man with one red shoe 22:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation in response to the questions I asked, and I sincerely do want to be respectful towards earlier edits. That said, I still think it's worth discussing ways to make it read more lucidly and less committee-like, and I want to see if I can identify ways to be responsive to the concerns that have come up in the past. I do understand the point about the lead needing to be a good indicator of the rest of the article, but I am not convinced that this goal is accomplished by having a convoluted definition, when, after all, readers can go ahead and read the rest of the page. And I don't think that "doctrine" is workable. It would be fine with me to put the explicit form before the implicit one, and that should not be difficult. It's also fine with me to make more clear that there is not a single agreed-upon definition, and I think that can be conveyed without actually listing every variant. But I don't think "as a philosophical position" is necessary to accomplish that, and I think that we are not that far apart about the need or not for specifying both nontheism and absence of belief if they are synonyms. As a step towards compromise, can we work with something based on this: "Atheism is defined variously as the belief that there is no god, or as the lack of belief in any god." There's no copyright issue that I can see, and I think it would be fine to add some more words to the first part of the sentence to bring out the "theism is wrong" concept if we feel that is needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we considered the "Atheism is defined" construction at one point and decided it was better to have a more-direct "Atheism is..." construction. It's important for the first sentence to come right out and say what it is, instead of saying how it is defined. johnpseudo 02:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

@man with one red shoe: That's why I wrote "the doctrine or belief that God or gods do not exist". (See WordNet by Princeton University: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism )—Editorius (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It can be a doctrine (like in USSR) but that's marginal, putting that before "belief" it gives it an undue weight. man with one red shoe 14:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, continuing to try to be responsive to the points that have been brought up, let me suggest this iteration: "Atheism encompasses the explicit belief that there is no god, and the rejection of theism, as well as the lack of belief in any god." (For me, "doctrine" won't work, because of the way it connotes a set of beliefs that are passed along in the manner of indoctrination. Personally, I'm not convinced that "the rejection of theism" really needs to be in there, but it's not a big deal to me.) And I would still keep all of the present references/notes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, telling me what atheism "encompasses" doesn't tell me what atheism "is" (i.e. it doesn't define atheism). johnpseudo 13:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, then how about changing "encompasses" to "can be"? That's the verb form currently used on the page. "Atheism can be the explicit belief that there is no god, and the rejection of theism, as well as the lack of belief in any god." --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with that "and", also we should tell what things are, not what they "can be", so I clearly prefer the "Atheism is" formulation using an "or" to express that there are more views. If I flip your sentence a bit and use "is" I get this: "Atheism is the lack of belief in any god, the rejection of theism, or the explicit belief that there is no god" that's almost like the dictionary formulation that I like, I'm not sure I like including "the rejection of theism" but it seem like people around consider it very important. So, how about this? man with one red shoe 19:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel the same way you do about wanting to keep it direct, and not being enthusiastic about the "rejection of theism" part. My reasoning behind not suggesting "is" came from the desire of other editors to convey the "lack of consensus" over a single definition, but "is" is fine with me. But I do agree with the other editor who felt that there was a need to differentiate between the "explicit" and "implicit" forms, and to put the "explicit" one first. So, how about yet another iteration: "Atheism is the explicit belief that there is no god, the rejection of theism, or the lack of belief in any god." --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In your search for a less "committee-written" feel, I think both of these last two suggestions are losing clarity, detail, and nuance. Most of these suggestions seem to be to entail undoing one or more of the changes that have been purposely and painstakingly made in the past. I'd feel better about it if you had some rationale for doing so besides simplification. As you can see from the progression above, (1) the "is" was purposely changed to "can be", (2) the explicit definitions were purposely split from the implicit definition, and (3) the explicit definition was purposely put first.

If the "as an explicit position/as a philosophical view" is included, the verb that follows doesn't matter to me, because I think we have already said what atheism "is": a position/view.

Atheism, as an explicit position, entails..."

Atheism, as an explicit position, can be..."

Atheism, as a philosophical view, encompasses..."

But I'd like good reasons for undoing the other two changes. Giving the three definitions in list format gives the confusing impression that "lack of belief" is an explicit belief (if the explicit belief is put first), or prevents the necessary inclusion of "rejection of theism" as an explicit position (if the lack of belief is put first).

Atheism is the explicit 1) belief that god doesn't exist, the 2) rejection of theism, or the 3) lack of belief in God.: Inaccurate

Atheism is the lack of belief in any God, the explicit belief that god doesn't exist, or the explicit rejection of theism.: Clunky johnpseudo 20:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually like the "clunky" version, in my opinion is less clunkier than the current committee designed mess. man with one red shoe 20:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

One amendment, I would probably use "any god" not "any God" man with one red shoe 20:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have no problem with "Atheism is the explicit belief that there is no god, the rejection of theism, or the implicit lack of belief in any god." (For that matter, I would have no problem with "Atheism is the explicit belief that there is no god, or the lack of belief in any god".) John, I think you misunderstand the progression of suggestions above; they really are just the attempts by me and another editor to find ways to satisfy you, and nothing more. You seem to feel that there is something frivolous or trivial about wanting to make it read non-committee-like, and something very important about the "painstaking" edits of the past. But consensus is expected to evolve over time, and I'm not hearing much consensus now for having so many layers of nuance, whereas a couple of editors, not just me, are advocating a simple, short form. I agree with you that the suggested changes are -- intentionally! -- seeking to decrease detail and nuance, but I would argue that this actually increases clarity. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarity is an important objective. Can we get one more vote for "Atheism is the explicit belief that there is no god, the rejection of theism, or the implicit lack of belief in any god."? Or at least a clear argument why is not good and a better proposal? Just trying to build some consensus here, the constant referral to past consensus is not helpful because it's clear people are not happy with the current situation (we wouldn't discuss the matter if it were already solved) man with one red shoe 21:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! Thank you! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In general, I don't personally highly value all the nuance and detail that the current version has. Like I said earlier about the gods vs. all gods question, the page has a tendency to bend over backwards trying to satisfy everyone. But the reason for that is that this is a high-traffic page, and the first sentence has been subject to ceaseless change in the past. Maybe that is no longer such a problem anymore. Go ahead with your suggestion- it sounds alright to me. I wouldn't be opposed to creating some kind of second sentence that catches the spill-over from the nuance we are chopping off here, though. johnpseudo 22:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That's very helpful and constructive. Thank you for that! I propose to let a day or two pass, to see if there are any further objections or suggestions in this talk, and then going ahead with the change. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You think like I do, I was just about to propose a wait time to see if there are some strong opinions against this. man with one red shoe 22:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It needs to say that the rejection definition is also explicit. I.e.: "Atheism is the explicit belief that there is no god, the explicit rejection of theism, or the implicit lack of belief in any god." Mdwh (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see below. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What about the following:

"Atheism is variously interpreted as the belief that there are no gods, the rejection of theism, or simply the lack/absence of belief in the existence of gods."

or

"'Atheism' (The term 'atheism') is variously interpreted as 'the belief that there are no gods', 'the rejection of theism', or simply 'the lack/absence of belief in the existence of gods'."

—Editorius (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, those are both too clunky. I don't think the "/" is helpful, and I think "variously interpreted as" goes against the most recent talk about "is." --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to keep "lack/absence" but either "lack" or "absence".—Editorius (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I see people are again overlooking that there are THREE definitions being presented in the first paragraph, and again the second EXPLICIT position, viz rejection of belief (a position stronger than absence of belief) is getting lost. I believe this is partially due to its not being made explicit enough - neither in the lede nor in the body of the article - what "rejection of theism" entails. Even JJC Smart cannot remember that rejection of theism (that is rejection of belief in any deities) is not rejection of "god or gods", but a decision that there are not good grounds for belief and many good reasons not to believe. The cumbersome "god or gods" would put too many ORs in the first sentence, making the demarcation of alternatives even more indistinguishable. A careful insertion of "any" in front of "deities" would take care of the monotheist who declares he does not believe in "gods". No monothiest would declare he does not believe in ANY deities. Btw, "lack" implies a deficiency & could be interpreted as POV. Putting "has been interprested as" in a definition is weak semantics, and would only be a feasible alternative if the existing text had significant problems. The one major problem I see in the lede, is the use of "rejection of theism" - which depends on the health of the theism article - something that has been very bad for months at a time. Instead of "rejection of theism", what is needed is the explicit "rejection of belief in deities". I see nothing here that demonstrates any need for a major overhaul of the 1st paragraph--JimWae (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the current sentence, I especially hate the "affirmation of the nonexistence" on multiple levels, one of them is that it leads to the strange reading "Atheism is the affirmation...", also the combination of positive/negative is strange in this instance, a more natural form would be "negation of existence" but I guess that was rejected on different ideological grounds. Since there are couple of people who say "the current form is OK" and there are couple of people who say it's a mess (and that's why we see this lengthy discussion) I'd like to see a showing of hands... so at least we won't get back and forth about "consensus" -- there's no such thing about the current form from what I can see. man with one red shoe 16:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This makes me glad that we are waiting a few days to allow for more input. (I would, however, caution that any showing of hands needs to be accompanied by persuasive argument. It would indeed be great if lots of editors would give input before we make any change, rather than after, but there's more to it than just counting votes; see: WP:NOT#DEM.) I think the point about "lack" potentially conveying an unintended POV is a very good one, and it would be fine with me to change "lack" to "absence" in the third part of the proposed sentence: "Atheism is the explicit belief that there is no god, the rejection of theism, or the implicit absence of belief in any god." However, I find the discussion about rejection of theism to be problematic. I think the solution to problems with the theism page is to edit that page, not to worry about links to it from here, and whatever we do with the lead does not preclude edits farther down on this page, if you feel the article is weak on the rejection of theism theme. I guess I could reluctantly agree to changing the middle part of the suggested sentence to "the explicit rejection of theism," although it gets annoyingly repetitive that way. But, really now, can anyone explain how, outside of hair-splitting, "the explicit belief that there is no god" (currently proposed) is different than the "rejection of belief in deities" (proposed to take the place of "rejection of theism")? To me, "rejection of theism" (already of questionable necessity) does a better job of communicating "a decision that there are not good grounds for belief and many good reasons not to believe" as a point of view distinct from "the explicit belief that there is no god." (Would "rejection of belief" be better than "rejection of theism"?) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Remark:

Here's what Paul Edwards means:

"Atheism may be defined as the view that 'God exists' is a false statement. But there is also a broader sense in which an atheist is someone who rejects belief in God, not necessarily because such belief is judged to be false. It may be rejected because it is incoherent or meaningless, because it is too vague to be of any explanatory value, or because, as LaPlace put it in his famous exchange with Napoleon, there is no need for this 'hypothesis'. Atheism in this broader sense remains distinct from agnosticism, which advocates suspense of judgement. It is surely possible to justify atheism in this broader sense without having to "examine every object in boundless space and eternal time."

(In "God and the Philosophers", Prometheus 2008)

Notice that Edwards' definition only covers positive atheism and theological noncognitivism but not agnosticism.

This corresponds to what Antony Flew writes:

"Atheism. The rejection of belief in God, whether on the grounds that it is meaningful but false to say that God exists, or, as the logical positivists held, that it is meaningless and hence neither true nor false."

(Flew, Antony. A Dictionary of Philosophy. Rev. 2nd ed. New York: Gramercy, 1999.)

—Editorius (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I find that very interesting and very helpful! So, let me suggest yet another (!) iteration: "Atheism is the explicit belief that there is no god, the belief that theism is meaningless or unnecessary, or the implicit absence of belief in any god." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

1. The adjectives "explicit" and "implicit" are unnecessary.

2. "To reject something is not to accept its negation. One can reject something without accepting its negation."

(Priest, Graham. In Contradiction: A Study of the Transconsistent. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. p. 98)

A positive atheist rejects the belief in gods and accepts its negation, while a noncognitivist and an agnostic reject the belief in gods but don't accept its negation.

So the rejection-definition is broader and—pace Edwards & Flew—may cover agnosticism as well.—Editorius (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to delete "explicit" and "implicit", but I have the impression that other editors feel strongly about keeping them. ("Atheism is the belief that there is no god, the belief that theism is meaningless or unnecessary, or the absence of belief in any god.") --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether those editors really know what the distinction between implicit and explicit beliefs means: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/#2.2

Anyway, it's superfluous here.

And I have no idea what the difference between an implicit and an explicit absence of belief is. Is "implicit absence of belief in gods" supposed to mean that the person from whose mind the belief in gods is absent isn't even aware of this being the case?—Editorius (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I agree. I'd rather leave "explicit" and "implicit" out. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

To recapitulate, the proposed sentence has become "Atheism is the belief that there is no god, the belief that theism is meaningless or unnecessary, or the absence of belief in any god." How about this? man with one red shoe 18:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That is an oversimplification that does not make it clear that there are 3 formulations that lead to 3 major classifications of atheists. It is not clear if the alternatives are meant to be synonymous expositions in appositive form, or 3 distinct forms. That is why "either" is in present sentence. The most important definition, the one that includes everyone who would call himself an atheist, is lost in the shuffle - and I especially dislike calling it a "belief". I agree that "affirmation of the nonexistence of" needs to go - and also: the wikilink in it is more appropriate for the 2nd definition.
- Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the assertion that there are no deities,[1] or [the assertion] that belief in any deity is unwarranted.[2] Atheism is also[3] defined more broadly to ~~also~~ include an implicit form of nontheism, viz. the absence of belief due to not having any concept of a deity.[4]
more later --JimWae (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Ditto what JimWae said, as I'll explain too.

"the belief that theism is meaningless or unnecessary" is not a proper definition because its just one or two of the rationale for rejecting theism. Edwards is only giving examples in order to refute the strong definition and by itself this "definition" is perhaps more narrow in scope than even the strong definition. Indeed, the rejection of theism includes atheists that believe there is no god because they also reject belief. I've advocating listing the three definitions in one sentence before, but without gaining any traction. I agree that the implicit/explicit distinction has been very poor given that the absence definition includes explicit belief. A bigger problem with a first sentence as it is now, is that "the rejection of theism" does not have to be an explicit rejection. I'd add "either" to clue the reader in early and keep "nonexistence" for clarity and insert "a god or gods". The first definition for "theism" in my old unabridged Webster's is "Belief in a god or gods". I'd suggest that the first sentence reads:

Atheism is either the belief in the nonexistence of a god or gods, the rejection of theism, or the absence of theism."

followed by any nuances or content that is lede material... it wouldn't hurt to inspect deletions from earlier lede content. --Modocc (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the new comments, although I feel that some of this is going around in circles. I think adding "either" to indicate that these are not three synonyms is a good idea, and it's fine with me. To bring back the "god or gods" clunker, however, seems to me to ignore all the talk above in this thread, and "belief in the nonexistence" is very clunky. About "belief," I can see the point about the word "belief" conjuring up thoughts of belief as in religious faith, but it also seems to me that belief really means anything that a person believes, and it is applicable here. (Is there a better synonym? "Assertion" was suggested, and maybe that would work, but I'm not convinced. I don't think "view" or "philosophy" would really improve things.) I think "the absence of theism" for the third definition is also clunky and repetitive of the second definition. As for the second definition, there is a decision to be made between (at least) "the belief that theism is meaningless or unnecessary," "the rejection of theism," or something along the lines of "the assertion that belief in any deity is unwarranted" or maybe "the (assertion? belief?) that theism is unwarranted." The first of those two can be faulted for only specifying two reasons, whereas the others can be faulted for not specifying any, and therefore for being vague and confusing. I think that "an implicit form of nontheism, viz. the absence of belief due to not having any concept of a deity" is both wordy and subject to the same criticism of only naming one reason (not having any concept), which could perhaps also carry a pejorative POV. There seems to be a lot of sentiment against any formulation using "is defined." I don't really see a clear argument for retaining the words "explicit" and "implicit." --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all fussed by what the final form the first definition takes, but "is no god" phrase suffers somewhat as the "are no gods" which is cited. Both phrases are correct when the proper context is added, but we lack any here. Does "no god" mean "no single god"? Or perhaps there is no god, but did a god ever exist? Also, the repetition of the term "theism" makes it clearer as to how these definitions differ. The next sentence or two can elaborate as to either why they differ or the consequences. --Modocc (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Another suggestion:

"Atheism is interpreted either as the negation of the existence of God or gods, as the rejection of belief in God or gods, or as the absence of such belief."

—Editorius (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

God or gods is stupid. God is a god. Ilkali (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not clear how the second definition of the three differs from the first (at least not clear to a reader who hasn't been reading all this talk). Objections have been raised to "is interpreted as" (as in "defined as" in contrast to "is"), and to "God or gods" (although I wouldn't say stupid). But I agree with "either." --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ilkali wrote: "'God or gods' is stupid. God is a god."

1. No, it isn't stupid! The phrase "God or gods" is used, e.g., in the American Heritage Dictionary: http://www.bartleby.com/61/52/A0495200.html

2. There's a difference between disbelieving in the particular god of Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheism and disbelieving in any god.

3. Yes, God is a god, and, of course, whoever disbelieves in any god(s) also disbelieves in God; but it is not the case that whoever disbelieves in God also disbelieves in any god(s).

—Editorius (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"it is not the case that whoever disbelieves in God also disbelieves in any god(s)". So you want our set of definitions to be inclusive of polytheists? Ilkali (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: What might be problematic about "is interpreted as" when we all know well that linguistic meaning and usage are conventional? Words mean what we take them to mean.—Editorius (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

@Ilkali: For the sake of simplicity the general formulation is preferable: "disbelief in any god". But, as Michael Martin points out in the Cambridge Companion to Atheism, another kind of distinction between a broad and a narrow sense of "atheism" may become relevant. Consider the case of Buddhism: Is it atheistic or not? The correct answer is either yes or no, depending on whether you mean "narrowly atheistic" (= disbelief in God, the monotheistic god) or "broadly atheistic" (= disbelief in any god). (Buddhist cosmology does contain gods.)—Editorius (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So many edits going on here that it's hard to keep up! Editorius: About "is interpreted as," the point I'm making is that several editors commented above, for good reasons I think, that it's best to just say "Atheism is" and not say it is interpreted as, or it encompasses, or so forth. (But let's note that we are going in circles about it: when I suggested "encompasses" to convey that there are multiple definitions, there were complaints that we should just say "is" and then, changing to "is" there are complaints that the distinctness of the three (+) definitions is lost.) To several: please let's not continue to go in circles about "god or gods." We already have wordings that make it unnecessary (read above). To Modocc: You wrote: "Does "no god" mean "no single god"?" Again, if there is no god, then there is no single god and no multiple gods; any claim otherwise is twisting the words. You wrote: "Or perhaps there is no god, but did a god ever exist?" That seems to me to be hair-splitting. You also wrote: "Also, the repetition of the term "theism" makes it clearer as to how these definitions differ. The next sentence or two can elaborate as to either why they differ or the consequences." I think the repetition of the word makes the two definitions repetitious, and it's not clear (to a reader who has not been reading all this talk) how "rejection" differs from "absence." My hope, and that of several other editors who are arguing for simplification, is to not need another "sentence or two." That's what the rest of the article is for! I want to repeat a point that I made earlier, that it would be a good thing to lose some detail and nuance in favor of making the lead clearer to a general reader. It's possible to over-think this. At this point, I feel that this iteration addresses those comments that hold up to examination: "Atheism is either the belief that there is no god, the belief that theism is meaningless or unnecessary, or the absence of belief in any god." --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think any definition of atheism that permits belief in gods is fringe at best. If we really want to include that meaning, though, then of God or gods is still a bad wording; with this kind of construction, the inclusive reading of the or is the natural one, not the exclusive one. Ilkali (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflicts)I'm not keen on "interpreted", and at the moment I am not sure why or how to explain it... If we must clue the reader in further "Atheism, as it is variously defined, is either the..." works. Adding this and clarifying the theism term, consider this:

Atheism, as it is variously defined, is either the belief in the nonexistence of a god or gods, the rejection of theism (any belief in their existence), or, in its broadest sense, the absence of theism.

The clarity of the form of the first definition helps with the elaboration here. --Modocc (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think "as it is variously defined" is an acceptable compromise. I am not sure if we need parentheses in the introduction as Tryptofish said that's what the body of the text is for, to explain and define things in details. I also think that "the absence of belief in any god" is preferable to "absence of theism". Besides, think about it a bit, if you need to define a term then maybe is not such a good idea to use it in another definition, that would be my rule of thumb. For the record, I totally agree with Tryptofish, his variant has my support. If he agrees with "as it is variously defined" we can port this back to the last definition he proposes (I'm fine either way). man with one red shoe 00:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How about simplifying the variously defined to: "Atheism is variously defined as either the belief that there is no god, the belief that theism is meaningless or unnecessary, or as the absence of belief in any god." That's OK with me, although I'm not wild about variously defined. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Better. I'm not wild about "variously defined" either, but I think we need to compromise to archive something, hope the other people will do the same. man with one red shoe 00:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, the second proposed "definition" is not correct. If reliable sources establishes that it is an atheism definition (and not just a subset of atheism), then it could be added. --Modocc (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

@Tryptofish:

"[T]he point I'm making is that several editors commented above, for good reasons I think, that it's best to just say 'Atheism is' and not say it is interpreted as, or it encompasses, or so forth."

I wouldn't insist on "is interpreted as".

"You wrote: 'Or perhaps there is no god, but did a god ever exist?' That seems to me to be hair-splitting."

To me too. (And as far as gods as eternal beings are concerned, a god that doesn't exist now has never existed and will never exist.)

"[I]t's not clear (to a reader who has not been reading all this talk) how 'rejection' differs from 'absence'."

I'm not sure about that. These two terms don't seem too close to each other in semantic space, do they?

"My hope, and that of several other editors who are arguing for simplification, is to not need another "sentence or two." That's what the rest of the article is for!"

I agree.

"I want to repeat a point that I made earlier, that it would be a good thing to lose some detail and nuance in favor of making the lead clearer to a general reader."

I agree.

"At this point, I feel that this iteration addresses those comments that hold up to examination: 'Atheism is either the belief that there is no god, the belief that theism is meaningless or unnecessary, or the absence of belief in any god.'"

Alternatively:

"Atheism is either the belief that there is no god, the rejection of belief in any god, or simply the absence of belief in any god."

or

"Atheism is variously defined as either the belief that there is no god, the rejection of belief in any god, or simply the absence of belief in any god."

—Editorius (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break

Given the predominance of "God", the statement "there is no god" can be mistakenly read as no god of monotheism and not any of the polytheistic gods. Many theistic Buddhists would agree that there is no god (in the monotheistic sense with its limited usage). In a dictionary, the second definition for god is the monotheistic god. What is meant here is of course the primary definition for "god", but its not completely unambiguously defined at the beginning where no context is given. Moreover, the plural "there are no gods" is currently cited as the primary "view" by the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Its far better to use such a reliable source because its verifiable, than to rely too much on the veracity of "Circular Critiques".

However, all that said, I'll yield to the very slight ambiguity anyway, owing to the slight extra simplicity it yields. What I prefer not ignoring or taking lightly is the existential problem, the historical existence/nonexistence debate is covered by over half the article content. As a notable concept its belongs in the lede definition.

Actually, for the primary definition, the terms "position" and "view" are more notable than "belief". The definition with "position" was reliably sourced to a recent encyclopedia on philosophy (the cite was removed). Of the three encyclopedias looked at here (somewhere in the archives), none used "belief" in their primary definition, although their wording varied. Moreover, all the recent encyclopedias are more authoritative as to what atheism is than most of the dictionaries which simply list the most common usage(s).

All things considered, lets try this iteration:

Atheism is either the view that no god exists, the rejection of theism, or the absence of belief in any deity. As the rejection of theism, atheism includes the critique that "god exists" propositions are either meaningless, incoherent, or unwarranted. As nontheism, the absence of belief in any deity, atheism also includes the ideologies of any people or children not yet taught theistic concepts.

This is my last post for the night. It simplifies the definitions and reintroduces the two most notable concepts that distinguish the definitions. Its also more accurate, because neither belief or rejection need to be explicit at all; for one's rationale can be obscure, ambiguous, imprecise and even nonsensical. It does not matter how sound each thought process turns out to be, if the outcome is atheism in the end. Anyway, I'm now spent and will need to take a fairly long wikibreak before continuing. --Modocc (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally hear you on the wikibreak thing! And I do think we are making progress. Considering your point about mono/polytheism and the possible misinterpretation of "god," I'm not sure that there is any difference in meaning between "no god exists" and "there is no god," and I think that the second is a more lucid wording. I otherwise see a lot of good in your latest iteration, although I think it can be shortened without losing any significant meaning. I suggest: "Atheism is either the view that there is no god, the rejection of theism as either meaningless, incoherent, or unwarranted, or the absence of belief in, or familiarity with, any deity." I want to repeat yet again my belief that it is possible to over-think these things. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: Maybe the second "either" in my iteration should be deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S.: I'm not sure, in the last part, whether "familiarity with" should instead be "awareness of." --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Modocc wrote: "The statement 'there is no god' can be mistakenly read as no god of monotheism and not any of the polytheistic gods."

At first view, there seems to be no semantic difference between "There is no god" and "There are no gods". Both seem to have exactly the same meaning: "The number of gods is zero."

But one often finds the spelling "There is no God", which I read as "There is no such thing/person as God". I once doubted whether, strictly speaking, this spelling is grammatically correct ("God" is a proper noun and "god" a common noun); but then I found it in the Quirk-grammar, the bible of English grammar, and so it must be acceptable.

In my view, "There is no god" implies "There are no gods at all", whereas "There is no God" doesn't imply "There are no gods at all". Anyway, the "there is no" phrase somehow seems more fitting in sentences with noncount nouns, e.g.: "There is no milk in the fridge."

With the noun "god" being a count noun, I tend to prefer "There are no gods" to "There is no god", even though I think that "There is no god" isn't really likely to be misconstrued by native speakers. (I might be wrong because English is not my mother tongue.)—Editorius (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A few proposals here use "either" for three choices - surely, either can only be used for two choices? I also disagree with trying to qualify "rejection of theism" in any way - such as "meaningless, incoherent, or unwarranted", or earlier, we had it replaced with "the belief that theism is meaningless or unnecessary". Someone could reject theism for many reasons (e.g., a lack of evidence) and that would be sufficient for atheism (at least, under this definition). I do not agree that atheism requires a belief that theism is meaningless. Are there sources for this claim? Mdwh (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Mdwh wrote: "A few proposals here use 'either' for three choices - surely, 'either' can only be used for two choices."

Not correct:

"As a conjunction, 'either' often introduces a series of more than two: The houses were finished with either cedar siding or stucco or brick. The pizza is topped with either anchovies, green peppers, or mushrooms."

(Usage Note: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/either)

Mdwh wrote: "I do not agree that atheism requires a belief that theism is meaningless."

An atheist certainly needn't be a noncognitivist with regard to religious discourse:

"Atheism. The rejection of belief in God, whether on the grounds that it is meaningful but false to say that God exists, or, as the logical positivists held, that it is meaningless and hence neither true nor false."

(Flew, Antony. A Dictionary of Philosophy. Rev. 2nd ed. New York: Gramercy, 1999.)

—Editorius (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've learned something new about "either" - it looks like the either article needs fixing :) Mdwh (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we've gone over the god/gods/God thing enough now, and it should be clear that "the view that there is no god" covers it. I think we should move on. And I think "either" (at the beginning of the proposed sentence) is grammatically and logically correct (although I'm amazed that there is a WP page on it!!). No one is suggesting that the belief that theism is meaningless is a "requirement;" it is simply named as one of a large number of alternative possibilities. As for the reasons for rejecting theism (second of the three parts), that is a more complex issue. It seems to me that "lack of evidence" is already covered by "unwarranted," although I guess we could add "lacking evidence" to the list if we really have to. Can anyone suggest a way (I'm not succeeding at coming up with one) for lucidly saying something like "the rejection of theism for reasons such as being meaningless, incoherent, or unwarranted?" Maybe that could be made to work. As for the alternative of just saying "rejection of theism" without giving any possible reasons, the problem that I see with that is that it actually lacks clarity for a general reader (one who has not read all of this talk). My first thought would be that it is rejection of theism on the grounds that god does not exist, which blurs the difference between definitions 1 and 2. Explaining the reasons (even if we cannot explore every conceivable one in the lead sentence!) makes it much clearer what the second definition means. And as I and some others have said before, clarity is very important, and more important than boundless detail and nuance. With a whole article following the lead, it's possible to over-think this. Let me, at this point, suggest: "Atheism is either the view that there is no god, the rejection of theism as meaningless, incoherent, or unwarranted, or the absence of belief in, or awareness of, any deity." --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(If somebody wants to learn a lot about the linguistic and logical aspects of "or", see: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disjunction.)

Except for the religiously indifferent, both the positive atheists, the agnostics, and the noncognitivists reject belief in God or gods. That's why the rejection-definition is broader than the denial-/negation-definition. And the only relevant difference between the rejection-definition and the absence-definition is that a rejection is something that is always done consciously, explicitly, which presupposes that the rejecter knows what he rejects.—Editorius (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish wrote:"Let me, at this point, suggest: 'Atheism is either the view that there is no god, the rejection of theism as meaningless, incoherent, or unwarranted, or the absence of belief in, or awareness of, any deity.'"

There are two basic questions:

1. What is it that makes somebody an atheist?

2. What is the reason for somebody's being an atheist?

I think the answers shouldn't be put together; that is, I think it shouldn't be included in the characterization of atheism as such that some atheists reject theism because they consider it "meaningless, incoherent, or unwarranted".—Editorius (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The above has far too many ORs for one sentence. There is no necessity to put it all in one sentence. There are at least 4 separate issues here. Three of them involve the best short opening description for each of the three types - this involves not just definition, but also a lead-in to the context of the main body. The other one is how many sentences are needed. There is no necessity to have only one. We do not need to concern ourselves with saving paper or ink here. The lead-in does need to be concise, but it does not need to be sparse. It needs as many words as are needed to CLEARLY introduce the topic itself & the article that follows --JimWae (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If a topic is introduces as "X is either A, or B (with p or q), or C" a reader can get the impression that EITHER they can choose the one they like, or that the writer cannot make up his mind what X is. This is why "can be either" was chosen. A more exact terminology might be "The term X is commonly used in several different but related ways,..."--JimWae (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of "god-exists propositions" is too informal for the intro. There is also the problem that few philosophers consider existence to be a predicate, and thus do not consider "X exists" to be a proposition. Come to think of it "propositions" is getting a bit fancy a bit early --JimWae (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, the only thing that really needs to be mentioned in the introductory statement is the fact that there are three different main characterizations of atheism, none of which is the only "true" or "correct" one:

Atheism (1) (in the narrow sense) as the negation of the existence of God or gods & (2) (in a broader sense) as the rejection of belief in God or gods, and (3) (in the broadest sense) as the absence/lack of belief in God or gods.

—Editorius (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We commonly say "there is no Santa Claus" and "there is no Superman" and "there are no unicorns". For this reason & others I think "there are no gods" is a better formulation that "there is no god". It also would keep people from coming along & capitalizing the G or adding "or gods" --JimWae (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

JimWae wrote: "There is also the problem that few philosophers consider existence to be a predicate, and thus do not consider "X exists" to be a proposition."

I beg you, if anything is absolutely irrelevant here, then it's the sophisticated question as to whether "to exist" is a genuine first-order predicate from the strictly logical point of view, especially as it's an undeniable linguistic fact that it is actually used so in ordinary language.

And even the number of logicians who regard "exists" as a perfectly acceptable first-order predicate is not so low as you may think. Here's a comment by a well-known logician:

"[T]he standard prima facie objections to treating 'existence' as a predicate have been effectively disposed of. Whether deeper interpretational objections are forthcoming or not, none have been put forward so far. [...] Thus there can be no objection to an attempt to find a formal counterpart to the phrase 'a exists'."

(Hintikka, Jaakko. "Existential Presuppositions and their Elimination." In Models for Modalities: Selected Essays, 23-44. Dordrech: Reidel, 1969. p. 29)

Let's by all means avoid all unnecessary over-complication!

Rest assured, the average person does understand "God exists" or "God does not exist" properly.

—Editorius (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That was a "btw", related to "god-exists propositions". My main point was that usage of "god-exists propositions" is clumsy jargonese.
Rejection of theism needs to be unpacked pretty early. You can pick any day of the theism article from September 2008 & see that there have been issues with that article. Comprehension of the atheism article should not depend on the theism article (and nobody who works on this article should be obliged to ensure that every article it links to is "good enough". Each wiki-article needs to be able to stand independently, The problem extends beyond the article, however. Here are 2 quotes to illustrate
- “‘[a]theism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.” (J.J.C. Smart in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ JJC Smart
- [19] After all, Einstein clearly did not believe in theism, the theory of a transcendent, personal God promoted by the Abrahamic faiths - Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Somewhere in the lede (I'd prefer on first appearance) it needs to be made clear that what is being "rejected" is belief in any deity - not all possibility of the existence of something unknown, and not just the specific God of Abraham. I am not entirely happy with the word rejection either. What is being done is a judgement that there is insufficient justification for believing in any deities. We need to unpack the 2nd definition somewhat. The source we quote does.--JimWae (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Usage of "implicit" & "explicit" both introduces the article to come and provides a descriptive way to group the 3 defs. "Narrower" and "broader" do part of that job, conveying extension but not intension --JimWae (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the way "theism" is used in (Western) philosophical and theological circles, theism is not simply the belief in any old deity but in the special god called "God", which is the unique personal creator god of Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheism:

"[T]heism is the belief that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing perfectly good immaterial person who has created the world, has created human beings ‘in his own image,’ and to whom we owe worship, obedience and allegiance."

(Plantinga, Alvin. "Religion and Science." In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)

This means that the rejection of theism is not per se the rejection of belief in any kind of god. (For example, pantheists who deify nature do reject theism. Einstein may have been such a pantheist.)—Editorius (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

THUS, simply saying atheism can be "the rejection of theism" is inadequate --JimWae (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite: We commonly say "there is no Santa Claus" and "there is no Superman" and "there are no unicorns". We do not say "there is no unicorn". Typicaly we use is when we are talking about a proper name. For this reason & others I think "there are no deities" is a better formulation that "there is no god" -- "gods" would keep people from coming along & capitalizing the G or adding "or gods"; "deities" circumvents the problem further. --JimWae (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

JimWae wrote: "Typically we use is when we are talking about a proper name."

The "there is" phrase is also very frequently used in combination with noncount common nouns such as in "There is no milk in the fridge" or "There is no water in the fishtank".

In English there is a visible distinction between the proper noun (the name) "God" and the common noun (the concept) "god". In German, for instance, there is no such orthographic difference between the proper noun "Gott" and the common noun "Gott".

I'd keep "god/-s".—Editorius (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

—Editorius (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? Deities are typically treated as countable (even if infinite). Atheism is not just about one God. Germans capitailze all nouns - but this is English Wikipedia --JimWae (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Jim Wae wrote: "'Narrower' and 'broader' do part of that job, conveying extension but not intension."

In my opinion, the phrases "in a narrow sense", "in a broader sense", "in the broadest sense" are really helpful, exactly because they indicate extensional differences. There is no such thing as the sense of "atheism" but three different main senses differing in scope:

The set of atheists in the narrow sense (negation/denial) is a subset of the set of atheists in the broader sense (rejection), which in turn is a subset of the set of atheists in the broadest sense (absence/lack).

—Editorius (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A complete discussion will cover both intension & extension. I think most readers will be asking themselkves how the definitions differ, not just which includes which. "Implicit" & "explicit" also form a conceptual grouping that can be used to form TWO sentences, so that no definition gets buried in the middle.--JimWae (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Jim Wae wrote:"Why? Deities are typically treated as countable (even if infinite). Atheism is not just about one God. Germans capitailze all nouns - but this is English Wikipedia."

As far as I know, "god" is a count noun as well.

One further problem is that "atheism" may be used in such a way that there appears a difference between relative atheism and absolute atheism, which circumstance is taken into account by Michael Martin:

"Negative atheism in the broad sense is then the absence of belief in any god or gods, not just the absence of belief in a personal theistic God, and negative atheism in the narrow sense is the absence of belief in a theistic God.

Positive atheism in the broad sense is, in turn, disbelief in all gods, with positive atheism in the narrow sense being the disbelief in a theistic God."

(Martin, Michael, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. p. 2)

So, to make things even more complicated, we have to deal with two kinds of narrow and broad senses of "atheism".

This kind of distinction becomes particularly relevant, for example, when we consider the eternal issue whether or not Buddhism is atheistic. With Martin's distinction at hand, I think it's fair to say that Buddhism is relatively atheistic with regard to the god of personalistic monotheism but not absolutely atheistic with regard to any kind of gods (since Buddhist metaphysics is not free from deities).—Editorius (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We discarded "disbelief" here years ago as too vague. Those quotes do not present 3 distinct defs, & appear to focus on extension alone --JimWae (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

By avoiding theistic explanations, physics, Darwinism (and math, and just about every discipline except theological ones) also qualify as being implicitly atheistic. They never deny deities exst, nor do they find grounds for believing in deities lacking. Deities are simply absent from them. However, calling them atheistic has been a provocative tactic used both by theists and atheists. The implicit definition, while needed for completeness, has always been a revert-war magnet. It is not just the "broadest" definition, it is also a controversial one. Atheists spend far too much time "defending" it, when the 2nd def is the one that needs more exposition. Atheists have defended the "absence" def because it is a way to avoid claims that atheism is a "belief". The "rejection of belief" def provides the same defense --JimWae (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

@Jim Wae: I fully agree that "disbelief" is much too vague, as the logician Graham Priest points out:

"Generally speaking, the notion [of disbelief] is susceptible to at least three interpretations.

To disbelieve p might mean:

1. to believe ~p

2. not to believe p

3. to refuse to believe p"

(Priest, Graham. In Contradiction: A Study of the Transconsistent. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. p. 274)

Editorius (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)