Jump to content

Talk:Atheism/Archive 44

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46→Archive 50

New lede

I just want to register my complaint with the new lede. I'm not going to bother rehashing the same old points, but needless to say I think the new wording is hopelessly complex, verbose, and over-inclusive. I'm not going to suggest a rewrite as I feel consensus moving against me on this matter, and I don't want to be stick-in-the-mud; however, I think this lede is a good example of something that could be explained in a relatively concise manner being distorted and perverted by somewhat pointless philosophical debates among editors who aren't qualified to offer opinions of this nature. Let's remember, Wikipedia should be written to inform the naive reader. I can't imagine a naive reader would be anything but confused when presented with this lede. Poor showing ladies. Poor show. NickCT (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I see three easy-to-read sentences that neatly encapsulate the three main definitions of atheism. In that respect, I am completely happy with the result. My only concern is that the lede is meant to be a summary of the body, and right now there is something of a disconnect with what is actually said in the article. That's partly inevitable because atheism is an extraordinarily nuanced and complex topic that is hard to summarize succinctly. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Rejection of belief in dieties. As a popular webcomic once said: "Maybe you just suck at wording things." Kevin Baastalk 15:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we may have to agree to disagree Scjessey. I don't understand how one could see this lede as clear and concise. It reads like the worst kind of technical jargon. NickCT (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to have to disagree with your agreement to disagree on the basis that agreement founded in disagreement is rarely agreeable and mostly disagreeable to the point of being agreeably disagreeable. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I see..... Well... It's my opinion that when two people look at something and one says "it's an apple" and the other "it's an orange", you're rarely going to arrive at a consensus opinion through didactic debate. You're saying the lede is clear, I'm saying it's anything but.
Anyway Scj, I've been fairly impressed by most of your other posts. I think however you might be well advised to study the kiss maxim. NickCT (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong. I'm totally on board with your opinion that the first paragraph must be as succinct and unambiguous as possible. It's just that I've been involved in the crafting of those definitions for years (off and on) and this is the first time I've seen it in such a form that seems to be all things to all people. Granted it has come at the expense of a little verbosity, but I think it is a price worth paying. Anyway, I'm sorry my agreeable/disagreeable joke fell like the proverbial lead balloon. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Just for shits and giggles, but primarily as a conversation starter, the lede from simple.wp reads as follows:

Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities (God or gods).[1][2] It is the opposite of theism, which is the belief that there is at least one deity. A person who rejects the belief in deities is called an atheist. Atheism is not the same as agnosticism. Agnostics say that there is no way to know whether gods exist or not, but they may (or may not) still believe in one or more gods.[3]

Is there something we can work from here? Throwaway85 (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, that is SO much better than our lede! Can we just use that? Kevin Baastalk 15:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not at all convinced that version is even accurate. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The question is not whether it's accurate, but whether it's verifiable. Kevin Baastalk 15:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The definition provided by Throwaway85 illustrates nicely the point I've been trying to drive away at. I think it is both accurate and verifiable, and I think it deliniates agnosticism and athiesm, wheareas the current lead confuses them. With that said, I'd like to say I would be moderately opposesd at using this wording verbatum in the lede. I think it would be equivelent to the Christanity lede reading "Christanity is the belief in the divinity of Christ. It is different than Juadism, which believes much the same stuff but doesn't acknowledge the divinity of Christ."
My point is that a lede should not define something by defining what it's not (if that makes sense). NickCT (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I suppose it's not too important to me either way, but just to note: comparing and contrasting can be a very effective way of defining something. Arguably more sensible than trying to say what it is without making any external references. (i.e. what is orange? the color between red and yellow.) Kevin Baastalk 16:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was about to post some snarky reply about how sarcasm hurts people's feelings, but I can't do that now, can I Nick? Anyways, to all of the fanatical devotees of the simple version, I offered it as a counterpoint, something of a foil to help cut down on verbosity while maintaining content. I'm truly ecstatic it was so well received ;) Throwaway85 (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The simple version (using "simple" in multiple meanings of the word!) is dreadful, and much inferior to what we recently worked out on the page. As noted already, it's more of a comparison than an introduction. Also, calling it the opposite of theism raises all kinds of problems (see the origins of the word). And need I point out that other wikis are not reliable sources? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
need I point out that's a straw man - nobody has even remotely implied that other wikis were. Kevin Baastalk 16:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I guess you needed to point it out to me, my bad! :-) Anyway, let's focus on discussing actual editing to the page (WP:NOTFORUM). --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I do see the issues with calling it the opposite of theism. I see how that part could "strain accuracy". I would argue that that part be the most open to revision. But the rest of it seems fine. And as I mentioned above, I don't really see a problem with definition by comparison, and it certainly has its practical/pedagogical merits. Particularly in this case, it clears up any confusion between atheism and agnosticism, which helps greatly to refine the definition. Kevin Baastalk 16:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm still a little skeptical about "definition by comparison". I don't think it's encyclopedic; however, given how much I dislike the current lede, I mostly support Baas's sentiments. NickCT (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Like I said it's definitely not a deal-stopper to me. Part of my concern (that i hadn't mentioned) is that without those last two sentences, it would seem a bit short. Kevin Baastalk 17:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh and here's a better way of explaining the advantage: i think it covers' JimWae's concerns about the broadness of the definition, without making it overly verbose and complex. Sometimes its easier and more effective to define by subtracting one thing than it is to define by adding a whole bunch of things. Kevin Baastalk 17:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
If, then, it is the case that we are actually considering this for the page, then I oppose it for the reasons I stated before. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is a support-oppose thing or an all-or-nothing thing for that matter. I think the question is what can we take from it to make our lede better? Kevin Baastalk 18:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to resubmit a slightly altered version of my previous submission

Atheism is the position, doctrine or belief that a deity or deities do not exist. Atheism may also refer to the lack of any position or belief regarding the existence of deities

It's pretty simple, and is inline with Webster/Oxfrod English/Princeton definitions.... I don't mind if other editors want to shoot this down, but please produce counter proposals that try to address the growing concern regarding the excessive complexity of the current lede. NickCT (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any "growing concern". I see repeated attempts by the same 1 or 2 people with a non-standard definition of agnosticism to dump one of the definitions in order to disallow by wiki-fiat the explicit overlap inherent in agnostic atheism, (yet, curiously, retaining the implicit overlap within the absence def). The lede has presented all 3 defs for nearly 3 years, and it is in that form that it achieved FA status. If we are going to start dumping defs the lede will never be stable, as every dump will attract its proponents to present their latest & greatest "true" definition of atheism. That said, I would not be opposed to adding the following to the current lede paragraph:
Atheism is distinguished from theism, which is the belief that at least one deity exists. Atheism and agnosticism are also often distinguished, though there are opposing views regarding whether it is possible to be an agnostic atheist.--JimWae (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any "growing concern" either. We are talking about three simple sentences, none of which are complex. All flavors of atheism supported by reliable sources should be present in that first paragraph of the lede, or none of them. We should certainly not exclude a branch of atheism simply because it overlaps with agnosticism. A significant number of people fall into this category. I would, however, suggest that atheism can actually be expressed as a single sentence by referring to the common element: Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. All versions of atheism have this common element, so it could (in theory) be used in place of the current first paragraph; however, I prefer to see the current version that elaborates upon this somewhat. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
@NickCT: the last sentence should go. whether atheism and not agnosticism is the "default position" or even if its conceptually accurate to categorize the "default position" is a point which there is not agreement on, as pointed out in the body of the article. For wikipedia to pick a side would be, well, we're not supposed to do that.
@Scjessey: Complexity is not an innate property of individual things, it's what you get sometimes when you put those things together. In this case, the three sentences together create complexity. Now you might think otherwise, but the fact that multiple people find it overly complex proves de facto that multiple people find it overly complex. Which is, of course, and as you yourself tacitly acknowledge, problematic.
Now if we are to present your "flavors" of aetheism, i.e. the different sentences you found in different sources describing atheism, well if you really consider all these definitions distinct (and they are not), then it is proper to attribute them in the text. e.g. "britannica online says atheism is ...., whereas compton's encyclopedia says atheism is ...." Secondly, the "more broadly" and "broadest" are original research and the whole thing is synthesis. Who says that this definition is "broader" than the other? What source? And how can you say that the definitions are related in such a way? Kevin Baastalk 15:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
For the very good reasons expressed by JimWae and Scjessey, I see no reason for the over-simplified change. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
tryptofish - what are said reasons, and how can reasons make one not see other reasons (or make other reasons disappear)? i'm not sure I'm understanding you. I see JimWae's argument that applies just as well to every word of every article on wikipedia, basically saying that we shouldn't edit any article ever. I see scjessey saying he prefers the current version, but i don't see him pointing out anything wrong with the current proposals. and many reasons have been given and repeated why the current version can be improved upon. It's hard for me to believe that you can't "see" them. "Overly complex." <- do you see that? What about the reasons I stated just above (e.g. WP:OR)? Kevin Baastalk
What I'm trying to say is to have three scholarly statements, supported by scholarly sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
All statements on wikipedia are "scholarly statements, supported by scholarly sources". That goes without saying. So what you're trying to say is that the lede should have three sentences? I'm fine with that. Kevin Baastalk 17:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Sarcasm and playing with words are not helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't playing with words, I was using their straightforward definitions. But forgive me if I offended. What I mean to say is that I still don't see what you are trying to say. If you mean they should all be from encyclopedias or all from things published by prestiguous universities or something like that, then I really see no reason why we should so arbitrarily limit ourselves only to end up with a lede that's not as good as it could be had we more sources to choose from. And I can't think of any argument to support that and see none being made. So my best guess fails me here. Hence I'm left with "three sentences". Kevin Baastalk 18:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
@Baas & Scj ", the three sentences together create complexity." Hear hear!! Scj - Respectfully, I think your " three simple sentences" position is indefensible.
@Baas Re "the last sentence should go" - Yeah, I think you're right. I thought this would be sorta a compromise between what exists now and what we were proposing. NickCT (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I am simply not seeing where the complexity is, but I am happy to accept that some of you are seeing it. Ultimately, complexity always arises when simple things are combined so I don't see that as a problem. Anyway, if it's such a big deal, why not go with my other suggestion?
Atheism is a lack of belief in deities.
This can be elaborated upon by pushing a variation of the three sentences into a separate paragraph immediately after. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. It just needs a few more sentences to make a paragraph. So we've got to come to some sort of agreement on what they should be. But I still think there are innate OR, SYNTH, NPOV, and presentation/attribution problems with the other three sentences to be pushed to another paragraph, as I elaborated on above. Kevin Baastalk 17:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
And come to think of it, your proposed definition might be too inclusive. It can be construed to include agnosticism and "flavors" of atheism of which there is not general agreement whether they constitute atheism. Note the first paragraph of the section "Definitions and distinctions":
Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism,[26] contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. A variety of categories have been proposed to try to distinguish the different forms of atheism.
Kevin Baastalk 18:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
(after ec) - I think synth concerns arise from the need for brevity. This need is effectively nullified if these three sentences are not going to be the opening paragraph. Bear in mind, however, that synthesis of a sort is common in the WP:LEDE of most Wikipedia articles because it is meant to be a summary of the body. Wikipedians must be careful to make sure the lede doesn't contain anything that isn't explicitly substantiated in the body, but a certain amount of "patchwork" is more or less expected for the sake of brevity. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand your concern about being too inclusive; however, I wrote it that way to explicitly avoid this problem. All atheists lack a belief in deities, but not all people without a belief in deities are atheists. Consider the difference between these two:
  • Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. (proposed)
  • Atheism is the lack of belief in deities.
As you can see, the latter example is more inclusive because it would contain all positions (including agnosticism). By saying "a lack" instead of "the lack", I hoped to make it clear that this was merely a particular subset of the latter. I am willing to concede that this distinction might be too subtle, but it may be possible to qualify it with additional text. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Ya but you're using the word "is" which is like saying "equal to", and equivalence is bijective. Kevin Baastalk 18:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Well I'm at a loss then. One version is "too complex" and the other is "too inclusive", yet I feel the other options proffered recently are too exclusive. I'm thinking of running a hot bath and opening my veins. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

breaky-break

I'm not sure we're ever going to get something that's perfect in regard exclusivity/inclusivity/complexity. But perhaps at this point, at least, we can take a step back and see what we got so far and the pros/cons of each. Feel free, ofcourse, to fix up your position below (or add one), and i'm sorry if i misrepresented it. Just if you do keep it very brief like a phrase, please. and if i missed any proposals feel free to add them, ofcourse.:

  1. Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities.[1] More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist.[2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] - current lede
    • nickCT - too complex
    • kevin baas - same
  2. Atheism is distinguished from theism, which is the belief that at least one deity exists. Atheism and agnosticism are also often distinguished, though there are opposing views regarding whether it is possible to be an agnostic atheist. --JimWae (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC) duplicate (my bad) Kevin Baastalk 20:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  3. Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities (God or gods).[1][2] It is the opposite of theism, which is the belief that there is at least one deity. A person who rejects the belief in deities is called an atheist. Atheism is not the same as agnosticism. Agnostics say that there is no way to know whether gods exist or not, but they may (or may not) still believe in one or more gods.[3] -wikipedia simple english version
    • scjessey - concerned about accuracy, most notably "opposite of theism"
    • kevin baas - same
    • nickCT - too much definition by comparison
    • typtofish - same
  4. Atheism is the position, doctrine or belief that a deity or deities do not exist. Atheism may also refer to the lack of any position or belief regarding the existence of deities -NickCT
    • jimwae- not sure i understand his position here
    • kevin baas - last sentence is controversial
    • scjessey - too exclusive
  5. append to the current lead: Atheism is distinguished from theism, which is the belief that at least one deity exists. Atheism and agnosticism are also often distinguished, though there are opposing views regarding whether it is possible to be an agnostic atheist. -jimwae
  6. Atheism is a lack of belief in dieties. -Scjessey
    • kevin baas - too inclusive
  7. Atheism is too awesome to be defined by mere mortals. Only a deity could perform such a feat. Oh wait...

Kevin Baastalk 19:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with option 4 (obviously), and the first 2 (maybe 3) sentences of option 3. Regarding option 1, I think it is too complex and to inclusive.NickCT (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd be good with 3 if the opposite thing were fixed up. I think just changing "the opposite of" to "distinct from" would do fine in that regard. Option 4 if the last sentence were maybe attributed or something like "Some writers consider ..." it could work. Kevin Baastalk 20:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Re option 4; I agree Baas. How about "The term atheism is sometimes used to refer to"? That way we acknowledge the common usage, without taking a position on whether it is accurate? NickCT (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
That would work for me. Kevin Baastalk 20:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Atheism is the position, doctrine or belief that a deity or deities do not exist. Atheism is also sometimes used to describe a lack of any position or belief regarding the existence of deities

Slight rewording. Is the second sentence tentative and neutral enough for you to support Baas? NickCT (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

yep. Kevin Baastalk 14:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Sjcessey what do you say? Its got the "lack of...belief..." wording in there. And I think the "Sometimes used to describe a" solves the is/a/the problem we discussed earlier. Kevin Baastalk 14:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not happy with it, personally. I especially dislike the second sentence with its use of "sometimes" and I'm not sure the demographics support the primacy of the first sentence. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to ask the editors proposing these changes a question about sourcing: where, exactly, would you place the inline citations, and what are the references to which they would lead? I think that answering that question would be helpful in evaluating the ideas here. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Trypto. You're right. Let me take a look at that when I get a second. I don't think we're introducing new ideas here, so, I'm guessing the same sources should provide adequate cover. NickCT (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
(after ec) I don't think that's a problem for any of the proposals. Nobody is saying anything radical here, it's all common knowledge and as such it's commonly written down, and therefore there will be plenty of sources. And in fact I'm sure the sources in the current lede would do just fine for any proposed here. We can worry about the details after we settle on a wording. Right now, as you can see, it's difficult enough. There's no need and nothing to be gained by unnecessarily burdening the process. But I think you're right in that looking at how other resources have addressed the issues we are facing can help provide inspiration. Kevin Baastalk 15:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
With respect to sourcing, I think it would nice to move away from references in the lede. As long as the lede is fully backed up by referenced material in the body, references in the lede can be omitted. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree w/ Baas and Scjessey. It would seem the statements in the lede are so fundemental and basic that sourcing is less of an issue. NickCT (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Ouchy-ouch! Seriously? Discussing having an unsourced lead? No way will that ever get consensus that will last more than a few days. I raised the question because I had a strong feeling that the editors are engaging in OR and had not really come to terms with sourcing the language. The response: first saying the existing sources could be made to work just fine, which is not true and suggests the sources weren't even read, and then saying let's just not bother with that pesky verifiability stuff, confirms my fears. Do some research, or expect to be shot down. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, as Scjessey alluded to, it's pretty standard -- see WP:LEAD#Citations. Kevin Baastalk 20:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
No, it isn't. See WP:LEADCITE. It depends on the subject matter. And this subject matter will require more than just the personal opinions and syntheses of a few editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
(after ec) I assure you nobody is injecting their personal opinions into the lede. In fact our penchant for nit-picking the lead until it hasn't even a hint of opinion is what's proving the greater obstacle. And if our number seems too few, well, you're welcome to join us. Now if you want to challenge any specific aspect of any given proposal, jump right in (that's what we've been doing this whole time.) And if you don't believe what someone has to say i'm sure they'll either back it up or stand down. But like I said that's not how one writes. One reads, comprehends, writes, refines. It's in that last step that all the facts are double-checked. If you reverse the order you introduce all sorts of procedural problems. And sorry, that's not going to happen. But if you have a little faith and patience you'll see how it all works out and I think you'll be satisfied with the results. And if not, hey, that's why it's the last step! Kevin Baastalk 20:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
And keep in mind we're not changing the meaning of anything (except perchance by mistake, in which case we correct each other), we are trying to settle on the best wording of information that's already fully cited in the article. And unless you want this article to be just a big mosaic of copyright violations, that's what we have to do, regardless. Kevin Baastalk 21:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, how about just a few modifications to the current lede:

Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities. More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist. A broader The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist, with or without an explicit rejection of theism.

At this point another sentence or two could be added. But I think those changes make it simpler without changing the meaning. Kevin Baastalk 18:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Baas - I like my first line better. Seems to say the same thing in clearer language. Can I propose
Atheism is the position, doctrine or belief that a deity or deities do not exist. A broader definition of atheism may include the absence of a belief or position regarding the existence of dieties, with or without explicit rejection of theism.
NickCT (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't responded. I'm curious what scjessey and/or others have to say here. I'm guessing he'd say something to the effect that it give the first definition unwarranted primacy. (In which case, I'd put my support behind that.) And I think it might be better at this point to start simpler w/fewer changes and see if we can get some kind of agreement there. Kevin Baastalk 21:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Another break

Less than a week ago we had 5 people agree to the change to the current lede, with 2 other people expressing concerns. One of the reasons for changing to the current lede was to discontinue saddling one of the definitions with the ambiguous term "theism". Though Nick initially said on Feb 1 that he would not suggest a rewrite, we now have seen several proposals. The first proposal asked us to dump the definition given by such respected sources as Encyclopedia Britannica, and The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (accompanied by some strange comments about Being and Time and other things) in favour of an original synthesis with no refs. Now we are instead being asked again to mash two defs up against each other into one original synthesis in which the rejection def is unrecognizable & is again saddled with the term "theism" -- all the while being asked to trust that "the refs will be found".

Earlier, we have heard from the proposer of the latest version that the simple-wiki definition, which included only the rejection def, was better than the current lede. Now he is proposing a statement that buries that definition in an oversimplification.

Both Kevin & Nick seem to be primarily concerned that the rejection definition sounds too close to agnosticism. I must point out again that if a person has a very unusual definition of agnosticism (and knowledge & belief) and argues that "saying one cannot have true knowledge equates to... rejection of belief", it is no wonder that one tends to conflate the rejection def with agnosticism. But that is not the normal meaning of these words.

I agree that the lede and the article could do more to distinguish atheism from agnosticism. That is a hot topic indeed. At the least we could say, that there are opposing views regarding whether one can be an agnostic atheist or not. WP:NPOV probably requires that we say it. I think working on how to say this will be more productive than removing 3 clear and well-sourced definitions from the lede.

The classifications of atheism into "explicit strong", "explicit weak", and "implicit weak atheism" are a solid part of the article and rest on the 3 separate definitions of atheism. There is no consensus that there is anything wrong with the first 3 sentences of the present lede. The latest proposal is an unsourced original oversimplification - its first contentious & unsourced definition is endorsed by the style of its second sentence, which also buries the 2 other defs in a mass of unpacked words. Since Jan 15 there have been nearly 500 edits to this page, nearly all dealing with the first paragraph. Probably over 85% of all edits ever made to the talk page deal with the first paragraph. If the article is going to use 3 defs for atheism (and there really is just no alternative to doing so), it should give each def its separate statement in the lede as clearly as possible, initially neither hampering nor endorsing any one. The latest proposals, while trying to settle on a single def of atheism, tend towards greater obscurity on all 3 defs, not greater clarity. --JimWae (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the long thought out response. I do have to say firstly that you seem to have miconstrued my opinion (and NickCT's a well) - or maybe simply mistyped? - we have not said that rejection can be confused with agnoticim. we have said that certain wordings that include non-rejection (weak atheism) can be contrued as also including agnosticism proper. You said "less than a week ago we had..." well now's our chance to improve those numbers. Now the problem with the current lead - which has been stated ad nasuem by the way - i that it is confusing. I've come to the conclusion that it's jsut the second sentence that is causing the confusion. it reads like an exact replica of the first with only a few minor grammatical differences (such as passive vs active voice) (that's what the reference to being and time was all about) yet the WP:OR / WP:SYNTH in the paragraph (another objection that has been clearly stated btw) is calling it a "broader" definition. Now a simpler solution especially given that we have an even "broader" def. is to remove that sentence and just have the narrowest and broadest. The whole spectrum inbetween is implied. And on another note I've already mentioned how I feel about turning this article into a compendium of quotes from other encyclopedias. but to say it more broadly (and less politely - forgive me) I strongly feel that it way over-reaching/over-extending to the point of perversion and dysfunction. As to the last sentiment you expressed I fail to see how simplification can obfuscate. And finally - like it or not - we are trying to work together on improving the article. if you would like to join us with some constructive comments you are more than welcome to. For instance If you don't like "thesim" suggest changing it to something else or simply say "i don't like the use of "theism" in the sentence there." (I specifically made that variation to see how people felt about that possibility - but was not expecting such an aggressive response.) Kevin Baastalk 15:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Re "Though Nick initially said on Feb 1 that he would not suggest a rewrite" - As I explained on Fed 1, I said that because I seemed to be alone in my concerns. I did not want to press my point because no one else seemed to agree me. Since then, that's changed, and hence my call the fix the lede is renewed.
Re "The latest proposal is an unsourced original oversimplification" - I'm amazed that you'd say this as 1) Wording is taken nearly verbatum from either the previous lede, or dictionaries, and 2) We're simply rehashing the same information offered in the current lede, while making the definition slightly less inclusive.
Re "removing 3 clear and well-sourced definitions " - Whether they are clear or not is POV.
Re "trying to work together on improving the article" - Hear hear. Seriously Wae. You seem solely concerned with preserving your wording. If you like, please offer proposals that address our concern regarding the second line of the current lede; otherwise don't stonewall. NickCT (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not think it stonewalling, to insist on WP:V. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The current version is not the only possible combination of words that doesn't violate WP:V. And as by now has been reiterated on numerous occasions by numerous editors, there is no WP:V issue here. Kevin Baastalk 15:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the suggested removal of the second definition, the first two definitions are not the same because rejection of belief does not have to be negation of that belief. For instance, in the literature, atheism can include pragmatic atheists, those that treat theism (and the arguments for and against it) as unimportant or irrelevant. They might also be agnostics that are rejecting theists, perhaps in perpetuity, unless some savior shows up at their doorsteps. On the other side, many theists claim to know their personal God through personal revelations that can make external debate of the matter mute. In any case, many dictionaries define atheism with the term "disbelief" which, because of its ambiguity, happens to be more inclusive than the more explicit denial definition, and yet even it's use is not nearly as broad as the highly notable absence of belief definition.--Modocc (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
"pragmatic atheists" are either "secular"s or parsimonious atheists by a different name (perchance they think it might be more convincing to theists). i could go on about all the different subtleties brought up by your response (for instance, an atheist would not be turned by a "savior" showing up at their door, and as you said "they might also be agnostics ..." (ahem), and "knowing their personal God through personal revelations" does not can make external debate of the matter mute, and nobody is entitled (as far as the weight of an argument in a rational debate is concerned) to such a solipsistic abomination of logic) - but that's kind of the point: that I could go on, that anyone could go on. and there would be much dispute and wrangling over all the different subtleties, because, as it says in the definition section, there is not agreement on them.
But back to the proposed wording - (and thanks for the feedback) - Whether or not the second sentence is a distinct idea from the first, or even if it makes any sense (esp. given the second part of it in relation to the first), is "moot" since it is included in the third, broader definition. And thus the first and the last definitions combined make the proposal no less inclusive and no more exclusive than the original. And certainly, less confusing. And I don't to see any reason why that middle definition in particular deserves mention in the lead paragraph on its own merits. That's kind of my reasoning for the revision. I know some people might not like it as much as the original, but I think we can get a larger consensus with this version. Kevin Baastalk 21:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
My point about the theist was that there is typically no debate with the believer that has privileged knowledge or experiences (which is not necessarily solipsistic either since actual nonspiritual experiences can also be very unique to an individual too). All three definitions are notable and none can be meaningfully combined. To follow you on this, if the narrower definition is actually included in the broadest definition somehow (which I doubt), then perhaps the narrowest definition is included in it too. So we eliminate it also for being "included" and only state the broadest. And I end up being sarcastic. ;( The second definition stands alone and it is less inclusive than the last which includes babies and less exclusive than the first which includes only strong atheism. --Modocc (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to contest that the second sentence's definition is wrong. Yes it could technically be true; yes, technically there could be overlap between agnosticism and atheism; yes, it may be reliably sourced. But frankly, the lede should be a short definition, that encapsulates as percisely possible the meaning of article's subject for a niave reader. Fundementally, atheism means you don't believe in God. The lede should state as much, and naunces (such as "not all atheists necessarily say God does not exist") should be left till later in the article. @ Modocc - I fear your understanding of this subject is too great, and your argument too esoterric to be useful in making the lede. NickCT (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What he said. Kevin Baastalk 19:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

breakdown - venn diagram - of theism / agnosticism / aetheism

since i can't actually draw a venn diagram here:

  • undefined
    • no knowledge of diety concept - it is improper to categorize this further because all categories are equally valid and invalid
    • does not worship a diety/dieties
  • agnostic
    • knowledge of diety concept
    • "on the fence" with regards diety concept
      • "i do not know / have not decided" (existential)
        • "it cannot be known / determined" (universal)
    • does not worship a diety/dieties
  • atheist
    • knowledge of diety concept
    • rejection of diety concept (existential IS universal)
      • "dieties do not exist" (universal)
        • parsimony
          • "it cannot be known / determined, therefore it does not exist" (universal - parsimonious)
          • "agnostic atheism"
        • falsifiability
        • empirical
        • etc.
        • any combination of the above
    • does not worship a diety/dieties
  • theist
    • knowledge of diety concept
      • belief in diety concept (existential IS universal)
        • "dieties do exist" (universal)
          • does not worship a diety/dieties
          • worships a diety/dieties
          • "agnostic theism" - a diety exists i just don't know about it.
      • theism by deference "i do not know / have not decided, therefore take the "safe" route" (existential)
        • worships a diety/dieties (with questionable sincerity)

neccessary axioms (constraints):

  • position of belief / lack thereof requires knowledge of the concept
  • worship requires belief in diety concept
  • agnosticism cannot accept or reject deity concept
  • theism must accept diety concept
  • atheism must not be theism or agnosticism (ergo must reject diety concept)
  • universal statements must subsume existential ones (basic first-order logic)

give me a "subtlety" and i'll categorize it. or show me why my system is wrong and i'll defend it.

Kevin Baastalk 16:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


Hey Kevin. I agree w/ 90% of this, but I fail to see the point. Are you supporting or critizing the lede?
The 10% I'd disagree with is your so called existential vs. universal agnostic. I think traditional "agnosticism" refers only to what you are calling universal agnostics. NickCT (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the lede should be made simpler. Specifically, we should do away with the Being and Time stuff. But my point here is that before we figure out how to represent the scope of atheism we should first come to some kind of formally rigorous understanding of what that is. And this is an attempt to do so. (and your 10% i have no qualm with - that might more properly go in an "undecided" category.) Kevin Baastalk 18:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it is not for us to decide what atheism is with respect to this article. We cannot go down the path of synthesis and original research just because reconciling the differences between definitions from reliable sources is difficult. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that we do that. I am simply suggesting we get our head on straight before writing. Lest we write something like "2+2=4. And 2+2=5". Striving to use grammar properly and write a logically consistent article is not synthesis or original research, it is due diligence. Now if we would write something in the article that could not be attributed to a source, or take a side in a conflict rather than presenting both sides, attributed (e.g. so-and-so says such-and-such, whereas him-and-her say this-and-that") that would be synth/or. Now it is in the nature of writing that we organize and present ideas related to a subject matter. whether we do so deliberately or haphazardly is the only real choice here. Kevin Baastalk 19:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
@Kevin - Agree with "away with the Being and Time stuff"
@Scj - Re "all things to all people". I think it is too many things too many people. Some of the things are a little dubious, and some of the people a little more so. NickCT (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The diagram above is confusing at best, contradictory at worse, and it is definitely incomplete. It excludes the broadest definition of atheism, which happens to include the "undefined" portion too. In addition, the outline includes agnostic atheism and agnostic theism, yet concludes that agnosticism actually does not entail either, while assuming that the agnostic's default position is nonbelief. All that said, I do think the agnostic position is best left addressed on the agnosticism page and there are already appropriate references to it in the body of this article.--Modocc (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I'm sure it is incomplete. (i would never expect any logical set description to be anywhere near complete. that would be - illogical.) you say it is "contradictory" at worst - could you give any specifics on this? The broadest definition of agnosticism, and i imagine as well, atheism, includes "undefined", so i can't very well put it in any without thereby making the diagram "contradictory". also notice, that the "agnostic theism" and "atheism" are in the "theism" and "atheism" categories, respectively, so whether "agnosticism" has any quality or not is irrelevant w/respect to them; they are not part of that category. (their names might be a little deceptive, but notice "reddish brown" is brown, not red. likewise "agnostic theism" is theism.) It does not characterize an agnostic's default position as nonbelief. it simply says that an agnostic does not worship a diety. worshiping a diety is uniquely a theistic. The reason that agnosticism and theism are included in the diagram is that in order to clearly and accurately define it, we must be congnizant and accurate about what distinguishes it from - and where it is distinct from - theism and agnosticism. And this, ofcourse, requires that we include a detailed portrait of those categories in our diagram. Ofcourse we shouldn't expect to define them nearly as well as their respective pages, but hopefully well enough to better understand where atheism ends and another begins. Kevin Baastalk 21:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

someone once asked me what the point of this section was - in different words - I think Modocc's comment helps to illustrate it: we all have slightly different ideas on what atheism is and how to define and categorize it. This was kind of meant as a conversation starter to help bring those ideas into focus and refine them while getting us working on more-or-less the same page (even if the words on that page are different to each of us). It's a complex topics and it's helpful to be able to talk bout it's particulars without talking past each other. Kevin Baastalk 21:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Conversation on this matter seems to have petered out. Can repropose the text below in the hopes that the previous opponents out there are no longer listening?
Atheism is the position, doctrine or belief that a deity or deities do not exist. Atheism is also sometimes used to describe a lack of any position or belief regarding the existence of deities
Any objections? NickCT (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Strong objections for all the reasons already covered --JimWae (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Me too, I'm afraid. Jim's arguments and proposals have seemed consistently appropriate to me. I prefer the more inclusive and nuanced descriptors we have discussed. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok well.... The current lede is poorly written, and overly inclusive. Apparently the couple editors concerned with this article don't support rectifying the issue. The more I navigate wikipedia, the more the lack of English majors involved in editing disturbs me. NickCT (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with JimWae and Scjessey. And my academic credentials are probably better than those of editors who are incivil. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I lack any meaningful academic credentials to bring to bear on this problem, but I remain convinced that my general awesomeness more than makes up for this lack. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
@Trypt - I guarentee I've met people with academic credentials that far outstrip yours who can't write for buttkiss.
@Scj - You are generally awesome. Your sense of concision excluded..... NickCT (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who is quite lacking in awesomeness, I at least know how to spell "guarantee". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
-sob- Touche.... NickCT (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Attribution error

Re: tag added by NickCT

You are entitled to your opinion, Nick, but your reasons for objecting to the rejection def have been remarkably confused and unsupported. Despite your claims otherwise, you have yet to supply a definition of agnosticism that even includes the word "belief" - no less "rejection of belief". The tag you added to the first paragraph is very non-specific - both with regard to the reason and the target. Is your problem with the last sentence? The other sentences are in as full compliance as possible with WP:MOS and MOS:BEGIN (as previously discussed) for a term about which there is no agreed definition. If your problem is simply with the last sentence (which was never my first choice), there is a simple solution with minimal change. (I must note, however, that your proposed way to include "lack" of belief, using describe would easily merit the tag you have applied.) --JimWae (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

--JimWae (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jim - As you're aware my debate is more with the 2nd sentence than the last (though ultimately I think the whole thing could use rewording). I moved the tag to clarify.
Regarding - (supply a definition of agnosticism that even includes the word "belief") - The free dictionary def of agnostism "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God". Frankly, if you don't understnad how "it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist" my be construed to incorporate the definition of agnosticism I think you are simply closing your eyes to the obvious.
Regarding - (relevant sections of MOS:BEGIN) - Thanks for pointing this out. Frankly I think this lede contrevenes ALL THREE of those guidelines!
As to where to go from here, I really don't think we're going to find consensus. I suggest the lede stay as it is with the def tag until we get some opinions from fresh eyes. If a couple of editors who haven't weighed in on this discussion yet tell me to do so, I will remove the tag. If on the other hand they say my point has merit, let's consider removing the second sentence. Agreed?
Re (remarkably confused and unsupported). Yo momma is remarkable confused on unsupported.NickCT (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Your tag makes no sense at all there. The definition is right there. More later--JimWae (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The tag is meant to imply that this wording has to be revised for MoS guidelines. Is there a tag out there that read (clarity) rather than (when defined as)? NickCT (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the "complicated jargon" label. It seems clear to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey Scj. You're well aware of how I feel about your ability to judge concision. But regardless, can we not agree that if several editors have commented on it being wordy the tag is admissable? NickCT (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Not really, no. And respectfully, if you are saying I have an inability to judge concision, I could retort by saying you have an ability to read plain language. I would prefer that we don't go down that road. I see no difficulty with the wording, and I think tagging it as you have is just a teeny bit inflammatory. You are trying to advocate your less inclusive description by attacking the language of the more inclusive description. Play fair, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe his point was that there clearly isn't consensus that the current wording is clear and concise. A fact which you are aware of. In fact, there is substantive concern. And in the midst of such concern it is helpful and appropriate to draw an audience to help resolve it. And that is exactly what tags are for. Hence, the use of a tag in this instance is perfectly appropriate and suited to the occasion. Kevin Baastalk 17:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Scj, let me clarify by saying that I think your inability to judge concision arises from the great amount of thought you've put towards this matter and your great learnedness in general (the same might said for Trypt and Jim). In this sense, please take my earlier comment as a complement (all be it backhanded), and not an insult.
I think the word I'm searching for is "esoterric". The average reader who has not put allot of thought into this matter, and who is not generally learned will find the tagged material confusing. This is my sincere belief. Yes perhaps the tagging was "a teeny bit inflammatory", but if you think my earlier statement has any merit, the tag is justified. Additionally, as the matter was an issue of much debate, I think the tag is further justified to indicate some contention surrounding the sentence.
On the otherhand, I recognize and respect the will of majority. If you remove the tag, I will not edit war. NickCT (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
What I'm about to say is no big deal, but I'd just like to clarify where I'm coming from. I'm motivated not so much from any kind of immersion in scholarly literature (unless you consider neuroscience), but from immersion in this talk page and its many, many archives. I myself started out in this talk proposing one sentence for the lead, on exactly the basis of wanting to use lucid, reader-friendly language. But what followed was a lot of talk from other editors that persuaded me that the "3 part" approach that has had consensus was in fact more intellectually rigorous. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Trypto, thanks for clarification. I think that it helpfully points to the crux of the arguement. Let me say this in response. I feel a concise decent lede is preferable to a verbose "intellectually rigorous" one. I think my POV would be supported by Wikipedia:MoS. NickCT (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

onward!

Ok, I'm not satisfied with the amount of feedback I've gotten on this proposal:

Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities. More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist. A broader The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist, with or without an explicit rejection of theism belief in deities.

I think just nick and jim chimed n. and jim appears to have since retracted his objection that for some reason there must be three sentences/definitions in the lead. ("If your problem is simply with the last sentence (which was never my first choice), there is a simple solution with minimal change.") Kevin Baastalk 14:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

once again, Kevin is jumping to a false conclusion. What part of "minimal change" suggests deletion of a sentence?--JimWae (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
"once again"?! oh please, drop the theatrics! dropping the disputed sentence is THE simplest solution, and the change is minimal because it doesn't alter any of the meaning, definition, etc. That is THE occams razor solution. And it's rather direct in that sentence. If that's not what you meant to say, then you should have picked a phrasing that's not so popularly known to mean exactly that. And also then it is clearly non-obvious what said "simple solution with minimal change", ergo you shouldn't have been so implicit about it in the first place. Kevin Baastalk 20:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
And furthermore, I haven't concluded anything. I deliberately said "...appears to have..." for no other reason than to not state conclusively. Kevin Baastalk
Baas, your proposal has my unreserved support. NickCT (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, the "Rejection of belief" is a notable and referenced definition which is not addressed at all by your rewrite. The rejection definition is commonly used as an expansion of the first definition. The first definition of the current lede is sometimes given emphasis within the second definition. For instance, disbelief and denial are used separately in definitions, but are occasionally together as in "Disbelief, or denial, in the existence of a supreme being or beings". Disbelief, as I alluded to earlier, can have different connotations, meaning either to believe something is false, to doubt something is true, or to reject belief (for any number of reasons without necessarily believing the expert's jargon to be false). As JimWae pointed out sometime ago, disbelief rarely, if ever, means the absence of belief of an innocent. Thus, both the first and second definitions are notable and are usually separate from the absence definition. I also don't see that there is a particular need to bloat the less common broadest definition with these particulars, when it should be clear that all atheists have an absence of belief in deities. --Modocc (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
RE: "Again, the "Rejection of belief" is a notable and referenced definition which is not addressed at all by your rewrite." "Rejection of belief" is explicitly addressed in the second sentence, where it says " A broader definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist, with or without an explicit rejection of belief in deities."
RE: bla bla bla. : great.
RE: "As JimWae pointed out sometime ago, disbelief rarely, if ever, means the absence of belief of an innocent." firstly, i don't know what an "innocent" is in his context and frankly, i don't want to. it's obvious that something like that doesn't belong in the lead so it's not relevant. secondly, disbelief logically implies absence of belief, quire regardless of what anybody has to say on the subject. and thirdly, i can't recall where jimwae has ever said anything like that, and frankly i don't really care. as before, it's not relevant: both the current lead and the proposed lead cover that whole spectrum as it applies to atheism.
RE: "Thus, both the first and second definitions are notable" -- WHOAA there! there is no axiom in logic that takes you from what came before the "Thus," to what came after. That was totally out of-the-blue.
RE: "I also don't see that there is a particular need to bloat the less common broadest definition" - BLOAT? we just removed a whole sentence, and you're crying "bloat"? You don't see the need? Please refer to your point #1: regarding addressing "rejecting of belief" and your point #2 regarding the difference between absence and rejection. That is the need. Notice with the removal of sentence two, those aspects are missing, unless the clause at the end of sentence two -- which is no less "bloat"ing of the second sentence as it would be on the third, shorter sentence -- is retained, presumably by moving it to the end of sentence three. Which, i repeat, is less of a "bloat" on the sentence than it was on the second sentence. Kevin Baastalk 18:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Your second sentence is the broadest definition, not just "broader" and it does nothing to inform the reader that there is an explicit rejection definition. --Modocc (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
If it is the broadest then it is therefore also broader than the first. If you prefer the wording "broadest" then I am fine with that. (though that's more of an absolute statement and thus has a higher burden of proof, which means it's treading further into OR/SYNTH territory, which is why i went with the weaker "broader")
taking a position is an explicit act. taking a "position that there are no deities." is an explicit rejection of the "position that there are deities". Thus, the first sentence "informs the reader that there is an explicit rejection definition". The second sentence also "informs the reader that there is an explicit rejection definition", by saying that it is a broader definition than the first in part because it does not require "an explicit rejection of belief in deities". And this further reinforces the meaning of the first sentence - the narrowest definition - as an explicit rejection. that's how you read plain english. Kevin Baastalk 18:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Kudos to Baas for continued scholarly debate. NickCT (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I was not referring to the first definition, thus your very first sentence does not address my concern about dropping the second definition along with its references. That alone should be very obvious. Your second sentence alludes to the second broader definition while reinforcing the first, ignoring the actual context of aforementioned references and going off the deep end too. --Modocc (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
You were referring to any definition that constitues an "explicit rejection" of sorts. I understand that you are concerned with dropping the second definition along with it's references. But you see the only solution to that is NOT dropping it, and we've already established that the paragraph is too confusing and needs to be more clear and concise. This neccessarily involves subtraction.
Now there are many, many definitions of atheism, not just three. and there isn't agreement in the literature which ones are really "applicable" or "valid" definitions. We can't include them all in the intro, and it's fairly obvious that we shouldn't. Fortunately we have a main body and, in this particular case, a definition section to go over all the nuances and different definitions.
Having said that, and given the many different definitions and the much high criteria of notability for the lead and the high priority put on simplicity given the purpose of the lead. It has yet to be demonstrated that any one definition is so much more notable than any others as to override the high priority on simplicity, and to be given an inordinate amount of weight as compared to any other (by being in the lead). Or as I have put it more succinctly before, "deserves mention in the lede on its own merits" -- that is, quite irrespective of anything that is discussed or not discussed in the lead.
Having said that there's no reason why we can't express common concepts / aspects of all the different definitions in respect of the summary style policy, and perhaps a few of their differences. Kevin Baastalk 19:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Nick, please look up "jargon" in some dictionary. While you are there look up "belief", "knowledge", and "agnosticism". Come back with a definitions that conflate knowledge with belief, or a def of agnosticism as rejection of belief & I might start to take your objections seriously. The only support I see for your objection is your own confusion. In this case I suggest that a proper response to "cognitive dissonance" is to re-evaluate your conceptual framework, not to say that there is no such thing as explicit weak atheism & that the way atheism is defined in some of the best reference works is "wrong". English is not a technical language & there can be an overlap between atheism & agnosticism (though one is not a subset of the other). --JimWae (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
He need not go through the trouble, he has used the terms correctly. If you have any doubt of this, I suggest you look them up to verify. But we should probably refrain from getting in the habit of bossing each other around. I believe simply supplying the definition from an online dictionary would be both more informative and more civil. As to "Come back with a definitions that conflate knowledge with belief, or a def of agnosticism as rejection of belief & I might start to take your objections seriously." : you need not look far for this, and if that all it takes, I'm sure he'd be willing to take you up on that. But, of course, I can't speak for him. As regard the "proper response" to cognitive dissonance, there is no "proper" response - as with most things, the best course of action depends on the particular circumstances. Kevin Baastalk 19:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
You two have been going on for over a month now about the rejection def being the same as the def of agnosticism, yet neither of you has produced any such def to support your claim. Yes, the 2nd def includes some agnostics (who are also atheists) who are not included by the 1st def. So what? English is not a technical language--JimWae (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
after edit conflict:That the 2nd def does NOT include ALL agnostics is enough indication that it is NOT the same as a def of agnosticism. ---JimWae (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how a) this is relevant, or b), the second part logically follows from the first. Kevin Baastalk 20:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

-

(revised after ec) We are claiming that the lede paragraph is difficult to read. Or more precisely that some people find it too difficult to read. Our proof is that we find it difficult to read. That constitutes "some people". Q.E.D. This has already been acknolwedged, discussed, and accepted on more than one occasion as is obvious from the record. And if later on you come up with a similiarly specious argument it will provoke the same response. So please let's remain focused on improving the readability of the intro paragraph. Kevin Baastalk 20:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
You both have given several reasons why you oppose the rejection def, but mostly your comments here indicate it confuses you because you are misusing words like "knowledge" & "belief" & "agnosticism". --JimWae (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Jim - Your holier-than-thou tone is not constructive. I suggest you look for places we can agree, rather them simply rabbiting on about how "confused" we are. I think you might be a little 'confused' about the amount of respect that your view point deserves. Frankly Wae, if your arguement depends on the average reader appreciating the subtle differences between the phrases "I know God exists" and "I believe God exists", I think you are way way off-base. Please remember, not all wiki-readers (or editors for the matter) have advanced degrees in Philosophy. NickCT (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You guys are the ones who introduced your confusion as grounds for altering the article. Just because people sometimes use "I know X" to mean "I believe X so strongly that it must be true" does not mean the words have the same meaning in that or any another context. It does not follow from such a stretched usage of language that "rejection of claims that we can know that X exists" & "rejection of belief that X exists" are equatable.--JimWae (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Why yes, because of the "we can know" part: the former includes agnosticism, the latter does not. What's your point? And how does it relate to our concern (i.e. how is it not a non-sequitor?) Kevin Baastalk 14:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't even recall stating any opposition to "the rejection def", nonetheless giving any reasons for doing so. Clearly there is a failure in communication here. And I completely agree with NickCT that you should watch your tone/attitude. Kevin Baastalk 20:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
after 4 ecs: All I see are efforts to remove or marginalize the well-sourced rejection def. Where are your efforts to reword the 2nd def in its own sentence?--JimWae (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Then you need to look harder and drop the bad faith assumption. The only dropping of the 2nd def is from the latest proposal. All other proposals were attempts at rewording the existing content. Furthermore bear in mind that being well-sourced is not the only criteria something has to meet to be in the intro. There are TONS of things I could put in the intro that would be well-sourced. Kevin Baastalk 20:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
JimWae, look. I'm not saying your reasoning is necessarily wrong, so I'm not going to argue the point. What I'm saying is that your reasoning is esoterric, and as it stands the average wikipedia reader might easily interpret that second sentence to include people who aren't really atheists in the classic sense. I don't know how to continue this debate, as we don't even seem to be inching towards consensus. It seems like it's either Jim's Wae or the highway....(waiting for laughs)....(no?).... ahhh well... I amuse myself. NickCT (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Even if the editors agreed among themselves who the "real atheists" are, and which is the "real definition" (which they have never), it's not up to wikipedia editors to decide which definition of atheism is "the real one" or who are "really atheists" (which would violate WP:NPOV). It is up to us to report what definitions exist among reliable sources (WP:RS), without synthesizing our own new one (WP:SYNTH). There are 3 distinct definitions found among reliable sources. To hide that fact by trying to synthesize two of the defs is not serving the reading public. If one (or more) of the defs requires some thought to be understood, well then we are providing what people turn to encyclopedias for - to have presented to them a comprehensive collection of what reliable, educated people are thinking on the topic at hand -- instead of simply confirming whatever preconceptions people might have.--JimWae (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Furthermore, encyclopedias are often somewhat verbose. A concise definition is nice to have it is available, but in this case it simply doesn't do the subject justice. If someone wants a concise definition, they can consult a dictionary. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The point is, yet again, that in an encyclopedia that kind of esoteric info goes in the body, not the first few sentences. You don't try to compress an entire article into 3 sentences. That's why you have the entire article. No encyclopedia is written like you are suggesting. If you can find one, show me. If not, then you clearly don't have a valid point. "If one (or more) of the defs requires some thought to be understood, well then we are providing what people turn to encyclopedias for" -yes, in the body of the article. That's how these things are written. That's how every wikipedia article - every encyclopedia article - is written. Kevin Baastalk 13:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
And as I have already said, Jim, there are much more than 3 distinct definitions of aetheism, as the "definitions" section in the body of the article clearly shows. Kevin Baastalk 13:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The worst thing you can do have an article on atheism with a first paragraph that effectively ignores an entire branch of atheism for the sake of concision. If we are having difficulty concisely expressing the three definitions, then we'll just have to use a few more words to do it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Nobody is proposing an intro that does that. And there are much worse thing to do. But hyperbolic straw man argument noted. Kevin Baastalk 14:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, the three definitions? Did you hear anything I just said? Why are we limiting ourselves to just these particular three? If the only reasonable solution to you is to add more words until it's clear, then how about we start it out like this?:
Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism, contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. A variety of categories have been proposed to try to distinguish the different forms of atheism.
Kevin Baastalk 14:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
@Sjc - re "effectively ignores an entire branch of atheism for " - Christanity has many branches. Should they all be included in Christanity's lede? No, of course not. The lede for Christanity defines what makes all the branchs similar. The same ought to be true here. NickCT (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Narrow / Broad vs Commonly / Recently

First let me apologize for not having had the time to engage in the very vigorous debate that has been going on here recently. I am encouraged by the healthy discourse. I do want to raise a minor point, and hopefully it won't detract or distract from the ongoing talks.

The lede currently reads as follows:

What is the role of narrow/broad here? Does that not follow directly from reading the ventured definitions? Is it not just empty adjectives that relate no additional information? I believe it would be more relevant to denote which definitions actually hold currency, in terms of prevalence in dictionaries and as stated by scholars in the field. Sources that speak to prevalence have been brought up previously in in recent archives.

As an example I would venture that, to use the current wording without intending to voice direct support for the wording:

I thank you for your thoughts on this. Unomi (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

To reject belief in the existence of something is to assert that said thing does not exist. Likewise, to assert that something does not exist is to reject belief in its existence. Kevin Baastalk 16:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
While I tend to agree with this interpretation it is clear that some editors try to see it differently. What I am trying to clear up is the role of the words broad and narrow and if we couldn't find more appropriate and informative adjectives. Unomi (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not clear to me that early/recent or widely-accepted/not is really a distinction between these. The narrow/broad wording is not empty adjectives, but rather refers to the relative set sizes of the groups: narrow definitions restrict the term more strictly, whereas broad ones are more inclusive. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
That early/widely-accepted vs recent/subculture-specific is a distinction follows from the sources I referred to above, this includes atheist, noncognitivist and theist scholars, as well as prevalence in dictionary and encyclopedia sources. The use of broad vs narrow seems to be borrowed from http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/08/04/what-is-atheism-narrow-vs-broad-definitions-of-atheism.htm which strikes me as a singularly poor source. Broad vs Narrow conveys no additional information that could not be deduced from simply reading the proffered definitions, to be frank they could be construed as being employed as weasel words. Unomi (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Do not support new wording - Unomi, appreciate the thought here, and agree with the need to revise, but my initial impression is that you're taking a contorted and ambiguously worded lede and trying to fix it by making it more contorted and ambiguously worded. A brief summary of the arguments above is me and Baas arguing that we need to strip down and simplify lede by eliminating ambiguous wording/sentences. From that POV, I'm not sure your suggestion offers much. As always, I'm willing to be shown otherwise. NickCT (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I concur with your assessment, my suggestion was not meant to replace or displace the talks that are ongoing, merely to offer a 'fix' which could be applied in the interim. If we can muster consensus for broad vs narrow being a poor delineation while we work towards an even less imperfect lede then so much the better. Unomi (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I understand. Again I appreciate what you're trying to do. But I don't see that changing narrowly to commonly, broadly to recently, and adding "least supported" really adds clarity. You asked earlier whether broadly is "not just empty adjectives that relate no additional information?". Can the same not be said for commonly or recently? You're trying to use duct tape to patch together a train wreck here. No matter how skilled you are, it probably won't work. NickCT (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

←Another possible direction:

This asserts the primacy of the common definition, but makes no specific judgment on the weight of the others. I switched the order to make it more readable. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I find this to be an improvement over the existing text, thanks :) Unomi (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I like that, too. I think it may be an improvement over what we have now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I still think "rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist." is too close to the definition of agnostisism for comfort. However, I like Scj wording over the current wording (for both reasons offered by Scj). I would support immediate change. NickCT (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Along those lines, I'd be willing to simply omit "with or without an assertion that no deities exist", although I realize that some other editors may disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I know I'm rehashing a stale arguement here but Princeton says "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence" therefore "agnosticism holds that absolute belief in God is wrong" thus "agnosticism rejects absolute belief in God" or "agnosticism rejects belief in God, with or without an assertion that no deities exist".
Anyway, I don't want to dredge up this dispute, b/c I'm afraid JimWae will swoop in an spit venom in my face again (that stuff stings). I'm happy with Trypto's and Scj's suggestions b/c I think they are better than the current. If it were up to me though, this whole "rejection of belief" thing would be gone. Best NickCT (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I've seen spitting in both directions, but, anyway, I'm glad that we have this promising idea, thanks to Scj. Let's wait just a bit and see what other editors may have to say about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Five bucks says if Wae catches wind of this potential change consensus will evaporate. NickCT (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I was bold and adopted the earliest language we seemed to have consensus for, revert at leisure. We should look at the refs though, or can we agree on more first? ;) Unomi (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I think this wording is an improvement. I'd be fine with removing the "with or without" part, as that would remove a contradiction. Without it there would be only a redundancy: the third definition being the same as the first. But those errors are present in the original, too. Nice to see some progress finally. :) Thanks. Kevin Baastalk 20:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it now, it seems awkward. Suggest the following for readability?


Any takers? NickCT (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it, I'm afraid. The use of "regarding" seems to create an ambiguity, and it makes it less clear what we are talking about. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I would like to give some love to noncognitivism and nontheism as well. Would it be unkind to do something like this?

Unomi (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Meh. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Is this because of 'regarding' or are you cold to the whole thing? I don't really have the gift of crisp prose, you are more than welcome to have at it, I am interested in links to noncognitivism and nontheism though. The double entendre aside, I am not quite sure how to describe noncognitivisms relationship to atheism, Drange describes it as being discrete, yet seems touched by the last definition. Unomi (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't like it at all. While I'm sure these other aspects you seek to introduce are valid, it is entirely too much for an already hard-to-frame introduction in the lede. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Back to work it is :)
What is your opinion on with or without an assertion that deities do not exist? Unomi (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

@Unomi - Agree with Scj here. @Scj - Re "regarding" being ambiguous. I'm not quite sure how "a belief regarding the exstence of deities" could be considered ambiguous. But regardless, "the absence of belief that any deities exist" seems dicey and difficult to read. How about

—Preceding unsigned comment added by NickCT (talk • contribs) 21:15, 1 March 2010

As you can see, I temporarily reverted back to the recent wording. Changing rapidly in order to do it before a particular editor shows up is a pretty bad reason. Anyway, I think the most recent iterations are going around in circles. I still prefer the version Scj first suggested, minus that last clause. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok fine. I don't think there is any difference between what Scj and I are offering. Mine is just slightly more readable (according to me that is). NickCT (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. They are almost identical, and yours reads better. I'm very much in favor of keeping the last clause at this time, but I'm open to revision in the future if a better way of saying the same thing comes along. I recommend throwing it up as a formal proposal and seeing how much support it attracts. In fact, I shall do just that... -- Scjessey (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to first paragraph of the lede

Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. Other definitions include the absence of any belief in the existence of deities, or the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that deities do not exist.
I wish I thought of that! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Could we delete that "any"? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

How about both of them? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Good news: we had an edit conflict, which saved us from hearing me make a stupid joke about any any. Bad news: that makes it worse, because now it really is repetition. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not stupid (I made the same joke). And I still like the repetition. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to the first paragraph of the lede: THE SANS "ANY" REDUX

Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. Other definitions include the absence of belief in the existence of deities, or the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, with or without an assertion that deities do not exist.
  • Support (We don't need any any) -- Scjessey (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Put the first "any" back. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    It's redundant. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    No, it's repetitive. I'm starting to think I like the present version of the page better. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, per Kevin Baas. Unomi (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    But do you have any position as to whether Kevin exists? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support no reason why. I'm just a "yes" man. NickCT (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose --JimWae (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    1. the use on narrowest, broader & broadest ARE functional - they identify the breadth of the extensional definition. If broadest, etc, is not clear enough (though I think it really is), we could actually say "most inclusive" and "more inclusive".
    2. When readers see "other definitions include" they are justified in expecting more than one to follow - yet the conjunction used is "or" rather than "and". Using "and" with these complex sentences is still not an entirely clear signal to the reader that another different def is starting. Further evidence of this is that nobody had yet picked up on the problem with using "or".
    3. The reading level of the proposed edit is grade 18.7 - five grades higher than that of what has been the consensus second sentence for over a month. How can people who have claimed the current lede is too wordy (it is not) and too "esoterric" (it is not) think this is an improvement?
    4. By keeping the lede as THREE sentences (instead of TWO) we give each def its due, make it clearer when a new one is being started, make it easier to read and convey more information about the inclusivity. I am not unalterably opposed to changing the order of the three sentences, but doing so does not show the trend as far as inclusivity goes.
    5. each defintion leads into the body of the article which contains explicit "strong", explicit "weak", and implicit weak atheism. As a major topic of the article, they should be presented as clearly and distinctly as possible (without ands or ors) in the lede.
  • Can we please at least drop this nonsense about what some software routine thinks is a grade reading level? We are writing for people, not bytes. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
We're trying to cram too much information into the paragraph, Jim. We need to define atheism without defining the scope as well - that can be left to the body of the article. We can still do this in three sentences, and that will also have the effect of bringing down the grade level:
Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, with or without an assertion that deities do not exist. A broader definition is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.
I tested it, and it scored the following:
  • Coleman Liau index : 9.32
  • Flesh Kincaid Grade level : 9.58
  • ARI (Automated Readability Index) : 8.16
  • SMOG : 11.94
How's that? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Support. I agree that we shouldn't rely on automated tools to dictate what is easily digestible and what is not. My view of broad / narrow has been argued for in the sections above. I am willing to accept 'A broader definition'... even though I still believe that this follows directly from actually reading the definition. I believe that we have a broad local consensus for this wording and as such I am going to alter the article accordingly. Unomi (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
It's a pretty small sample size, three sentences. To get a reliable estimate off of that you'd need a really really sophisticated algorithm. At that level of sophistication I'd want to use it for the lingual synthesis algorithm of my cyborg. That being said, I support using such figures, but only when doing so supports my argument. Kevin Baastalk 13:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This round of talks has convinced me that there is a God, and that she is a right bitch. Unomi (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This round of talks has convinced me that I want to meet God as soon as possible. Forward momentum always seems to be stymied when Wae enters the room...... alas.. NickCT (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Another proposed change to the first paragraph of the lede

Atheism is impossibly difficult to define, and may be beyond the ability of any mortal.

My edit

Please do not add silly caveats to featured articles that compromise their aesthetics. This article can do without someone feeling that the first paragraph is vague (which it's not) and adding a lengthy parable that absolutely ruins the visual appeal of the article. If you feel like something is incoherent, discuss it here and solve it here (ie. in the talk page). There's no need to add that kind of stuff at the first or second sentence.UberCryxic (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. That tag was pointy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

logic and semantics

1.) a "rejection of belief in the existence of deities" vs. "assertion that deities do not exist."


Part 1: rewording for consistency

  • premise 1: assertion = belief. one cannot know, they can only assert. they are only willing to assert what they believe. they only believe what they are willing to assert (without threat or bribery). ergo assertion implies belief, and belief implies assertion, ergo assertion = belief.
    • logic 1: it follows that a "belief in the existence of deities" is an "assertion of the existence of deities" and vice-versa.
  • premise 2: "assertion of the existence of x" = "assertion that x exists". follows directly from grammar.
    • logic 2: "assertion of the existence of deities" = "assertion that deities exists"
    • logic 1+2: (summary): thus the statement "rejection of belief in the existence of deities" is equal to the statement "rejection of assertions that deities exist".
  • premise 3: "rejection of x" means "all assertions that imply x to be true are ipso facto false assertions". definition of rejection.
    • logic 4: "rejection of assertions that deities exist" is an "assertion that all assertions that show "deities exist" are false assertions."
  • premise 4: "all assertions that imply x to be true are ipso facto false assertions" implies that "there does not exist provably true statements that imply x"

part 1 conclusion (logic): "rejection of belief in the existence of deities" is "assertion that all assertions that show "deities exist" are false assertions" which implies that "there does not exist provably true statements that imply that deities exist".

Part 2: preliminary definitions of theism and agnosticism

  • premise 5,6,7.1, and 7.2.:
    D = deity U = universe( all that exists)
    • 5. theism_hypothesis: there exists D such that D is in U. (deities exist)
      • logic 5: theism_hypothesis implies that there does not exist provably true statements that imply that (there does not exist D such that D is in U).
    • 6. theism_hypohtesis implies (yet to be defined) atheism_hypothesis false.
    • 7.1 weak_agnosticism_hypothesis: i am not aware of any provably true statements that imply theism_hypothesis or atheism_hypothesis, or if i am aware of any i do not know how to conclude either from them.
    • 7.2 strong_agnosticism_hypothesis: there does not exist provably true statements that imply theism_hypothesis or atheism_hypothesis
      • logic 6: strong_agnositicism implies weak_agnosticism - i haven't proved this, 'cause i'm lazy.

Part 3: analysis w/respect to definitions

  • logic 7,8,9: from these simple definitions, it follows that an "assertion that all assertions that show "deities exist" are false assertions":
    • 7 asserts that the theism_hypothesis is false
    • 8 implies that "there does not exist provably true statements that imply theism_hypothesis", but does not necessarily imply the same about the (yet to be defined) atheism_hypothesis.
    • 9 does not reject ...

... a lot of skipping ...

conclusion: "rejection of belief in the existence of deities" includes agnosticism.


not nearly as ambitious as i had originally hoped, but there it is. Please, if anyone disagrees with any of the premises or logic, let me know. that's the why i posted this. also, if you find them all acceptable, let me know. Kevin Baastalk 18:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I pretty much stopped reading after "premise 1: assertion = belief. one cannot know, they can only assert", otherwise I'd take the time to find other errors. Again we have a misuse of the English language by identifying words as having the same meaning just because people sometimes use one word in a context that the other word could substitute for it. I assert that I am not "spitting venom", that I am not a snake, that Pluto is not a planet, that I had beef for dinner last night, that "2"&"2"="22", and that 0.99999... is exactly equal to 1. At least we finally have agreement from Kevin at least that knowledge does not "=" belief (seems to me he maintained otherwise not too long ago).--JimWae (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say that knowledge <> belief. in a way they are both information. i suppose from that perspective the difference would lie in their acceptable tolerances for kl-divergence and such. belief's would generally be higher, but how much so depends on the person. some people are willing to give a wide latitude to their beliefs while others are much more scientific. i imagine it's a trait with substantial evolutionary significance, affected by other factors, of course, such as rationally, temperament, risk tolerance, etc. but i digress. i suppose now i said that and you can quote me on it. how much semantic significance that has for any given context, however, is another story altogether. For instance, i would not hesitate to equate the two in most applications of formal logic, such as the one above, for in those instances neither strength of conviction nor empirical fidelity have any relevance. Kevin Baastalk 21:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
But do you believe those things? Kevin Baastalk 20:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
You distinguished knowledge from belief. You said "assertion = belief. one cannot know, they can only assert" as in "I do not know X, but I believe X and I assert X" --JimWae (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Now you are confusing things. I did not say that one cannot (or does not) say that they know. If nobody every said that they knew then the word wouldn't be of much use. People still say that they know in spite of not being able to. Furthermore, I was speaking with respect to a particular context. But, of course, you would not know that, having read barely a sentence. You heard what you wanted to and disregarded the rest. Kevin Baastalk 02:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Kevin, your response here seems to be a non sequitur, followed by a personal comment against me ("You heard what you wanted to and disregarded the rest"). I never suggested that you said "one cannot say that they know". My point was that in your post ("premise 1: assertion = belief. one cannot know, they can only assert") you distinguished knowing from believing. That means there is at least one context (actually many, I'd say) in which the words do not mean the same thing. It has been an issue throughout this debate for at least one editor whether "rejection of knowledge of X" and "rejection of belief in X" can be distinguished. Do we not now agree they can be? --JimWae (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
It was not a non-sequitur - i was responding logically to the direct literal meaning of what you wrote. If you only meant to say that there are situations where the words belief and knowledge have significant differences in meaning, then that would not be cause to reject the first premise. You would have to furthermore demonstrate that that particular situation was one such situation. So by fact that you offered that as reason to rejected the first premise I concluded that you meant to say more than merely that. But that is not even what you said. Look back at what you said and how i responded. by equating my statement that "one cannot know" with the hypothetical statement "i do not know", you conflated knowing (or not knowing) with saying that you know (or do not know). that was my point, and it is perfectly logically connected to what you literally wrote which means it's not a non-sequitor.
As regards "You heard what you wanted to and disregarded the rest.", that's exactly what you did. you disregarded the rest, no? did you not want to say your little thing and did you not jump on the first opportunity to do so, i.e. did you not hear what you wanted to? I reserve the right to matter-of-factly state the history of people's actions. if you don't like the sound of it, well, you should have thought of that before you did it. deal w/it. i didn't like being completely ignored with the wave of a hand. you don't want me to tell you that? that's too bad. Kevin Baastalk 15:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Kevin, you can lead a horse to water mate but you can't make it drink. A noble attempt to spell it out bit by bit, but I don't think you should expect open minds here. NickCT (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Baas, your conclusion here is that the lede's second definition includes agnosticism. Agnosticism does overlap with this broader form of atheism... as it is defined that way. Yet, earlier you wrote "I'd be fine with removing the "with or without" part, as that would remove a contradiction." What contradiction? --Modocc (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Ya, i was going to try to show that with the logic, but it seems the wording isn't as specific as it seems. as i said, it's hard to read. all that logic up there should demonstrate the complexity, if nothing else. so apparently it just seems like a contradiction. On another point, it is controversial whether agnosticism overlaps with atheism. i.e. there may be such a definition but it is not agreed upon by authors whether it is a valid or correct one (given that it includes strong agnosticism proper and provided that there is such a thing as strong agnosticism as distinct from atheism and those who define it that way accept that -- i.e. if "strong agnosticism" exists and is not merely a sub-cat of "atheism" -- then atheism does not include strong agnosticism, by definition.) And general controversial positions are not taken in the lead because they cannot be adequately addressed, in regards to WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. with the exception of possibly "notable controversies", but this controversy is not sufficiently notable nor is it adequately dealt with in its current form. Kevin Baastalk 18:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with this, I have not heard strong arguments that agnosticism and atheism have as much overlap as is claimed here. My understanding is that the definition that is often confused with covering agnosticism actually covers the position of the theologian notion of 'innocents'. Consider that if agnosticism was covered by a definition of atheism, why would Thomas Henry Huxley feel the need to coin a new word? Why the rather scathing critique of atheism from his side? I think that if we read the passages from Theodore Drange and Antony Flew we will come to see that such conflation is very recent and rather misguided. Unomi (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Baas, I'd also like to point out another conclusion, that since the first definition does not include agnosticism, the definitions are not equivalent, as implied in your earlier statement, "To reject belief in the existence of something is to assert that said thing does not exist. Likewise, to assert that something does not exist is to reject belief in its existence.". The state of not being convinced something is true does not require one believe something false. For example, I don't believe a huge meteoroid exists that is going to hit us next year, but I don't deny it actually exists. The terms atheism and agnosticism have been used differently in different contexts, but I'm not sure that amounts to any sort of controversy though (besides the drama on this page of course). --Modocc (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh sure, yeah, from the logic above (assuming the premises of interpretation are accepted) will bear them out as logically distinct. but not bijectively so, i.e. a includes b completely, but b does not include a completely, i.e. b is a subset of a. i believe when i said "leaves redundancy" or whatever i was refering to redundancy between a and the next sentence altogether (in addition to b). and furthermore with the implication that the only part of "a" NOT redundant with the next sentence is strong agnosticism. which, as they will surely protest, is an entirely different set of beliefs altogether. unless you seek to marginalize an entire belief system. e.g. "jewish people don't exist". (at that point, if you're talking to me, you'll have to "talk to the hand" 'cause the face ain't listening.) Kevin Baastalk 20:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
There are other more relevant reasons for rejection of belief without asserting deities are nonexistent than the hand waving of strong agnosticism so the definition is broader than you would have it. Marginalizing strong agnostics? I doubt it. Strong agnostics just don't admit any proof. Marginalize agnostics in general? I doubt it. They are more likely to suspend belief rather than outright reject or eschew it. Of course you did write "To reject belief in the existence of something is to assert that said thing does not exist. Likewise, to assert that something does not exist is to reject belief in its existence." Emphasis is mine, and I am sure that the truth value of A implies B and B implies A here is false in this case. --Modocc (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
In general, yes there are other reasons for rejection of belief without asserting deities are nonexistent, but sources point to that being theological noncognitivism, not atheism. Please to stop arguing from belief. Unomi (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
For theological noncognitivism is but one reason, and that is in this article, see [[1]]. It is not the best reason either, as there are still yet other reasons, besides what authority say atheists must have any reasons, rejection ois rejection. Period. --Modocc (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The problem here is that there have been offered few good sources which support 'rejection of belief' as a definition of atheism. Note that our article states clearly : explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods for the section you offer. Unomi (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
by "is" i meant implies, of course. if one accepted the possibility of a thing's existence, then they accept the possibility that belief in said thing's existence is accurate, which precludes a wholesale rejection of belief in said thing's existence. call this statement "if a then not b". (if a then not b) implies (if b then not a). applying this to our proposition yields: if one rejects belief of something's existence then they must not accept any possibility of its existence. and by definition it's obvious that if they do not accept any possibility of its existence, then for them it cannot exist. this proves A implies B. draw a truth table, try it out. the converse, proving B implies A, follows the same way and is readily obvious, anyways. But while this is fun for me as I'm sure it is for you, I realize it's a digression. (my bad.) Kevin Baastalk 21:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so keen on your analysis, "if a then not b" doesn't imply "if b then not a" (feel free to plug any number of examples into A and B to see why). I don't want to get dragged into logic games since they almost always end up rife with Negative proof on subjects related to belief in anything supernatural. I agree with what you're trying to say in general but the approach only seems to muddy the waters further. I'm just waiting for some idiot to come in here and try and use the concept of Denialism to prove you wrong. Why can't we all just agree to use the most common definition(s) found in reliable sources and leave it at that? Nefariousski (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
(after edit conflict)Baas,lets parse what you wrote: "To reject belief in the existence of something is to assert that said thing does not exist. Likewise, to assert that something does not exist is to reject belief in its existence." "To reject belief in the existence of something" is the atheism B of the 2nd definition. "to assert that said thing does not exist" is the atheism A of the first definition. Suppose B implies A, A implies B then A==B, but you proved A<>B therefore the supposition is false. --Modocc (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like you're following my logic. Let's just drop it, it's not important. Kevin Baastalk 15:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
We should probably try to avoid coming to our own conclusions as much as possible and simply rely on reputable sources. Consider Antony Flew from the 1984 print as presented here :
Flew does not present this as an accepted 'broad definition'; he presents this as a novel interpretation. A previous conversation regarding this is here Unomi (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Voting

I am not at all convinced that there are any problems with the lede paragraph that was the consensus in February, and none of the objections against it received much support at all. Why are we voting on proposals before people have had a chance to say what is good and what is not good about a proposal? - and why has a change being made with only 2 people expressing support for a proposal? I can live with the change to the first sentence - it is not entirely necessary to say which is the narrowest if the other 2 say they are broader. However, the scope may seem to "follow" from the definitions for those who have been following the discussions - but I do not see how readers will know "it follows". Besides, when 3 defs are given and only one mentions the scope, one can be justified in wondering about the relative scope of the other two. "broader" and "broadEST" should appear as a proposal for consideration.

I do not see any reasons given for "we need to define atheism without defining the scope as well". Further, while I am not unalterably opposed to stating one def is "common",(which may require its own source) I do not see any need to "asserts the primacy of the common definition". We all know that the only practical way to change the lede is to find problems with the existing one, and there is a temptation to find problems where none exist, so that one's own preferred definition gets used. Indeed it took little time at all for the person who objected to mention of the scope to follow his objection with a proposal for the lede that would have radically altered the article.

I have hesitated to put this forward because I think some people would object to it less if it came from someone other than myself, but here it is--JimWae (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.[1] More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist.[2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]


I'm not sure what anyone is voting (or !voting) on, but I'd !vote to leave things the way they are now. There have been a few relatively minor tweaks to the wording. I don't think that they change anything substantive beyond diminishing a previous implication of hierarchy-by-broad/narrowness. And I think they improve the readability a bit. The discussion at this talk page has long since become unproductive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I object to this suggestion because it comes from Jim. Seriously Jim. I think you belong to class of editors who have a rather tenuous grasp of english, and a rather psychotic desire to inflict and maintain their poor wording on Wikipedia. Not helpful Jim. Not helpful.
"none of the objections against it received much support at all" - This is a gross mischaracterization. Imagining consensus again?
Baas and I tried to warn you that the wording you'd come up with was awkward and would only lead to future revision! Perhaps try to listen to us next time, instead of just trying to denegrate our position? NickCT (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Not helpful, Nick. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry trypt, but I find Wae distinctly uncooperative. NickCT (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Nick, please strike out your personal attack upon me - along with the one where I "spit venom" and where all progress ends when I enter the room --JimWae (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that none of the contributing editors is probably a lexicologist or a lexicographer and as such the definitions in the lede should reflect the most common definitions found in reliable dictionaries or encyclopedias. The constant bickering over what in my estimation is complete minutia has to stop. Follow the definitions used by the majority of reliable sources and if someone feels that there is significant controversy over multiple inclusionary / exclusionary definitions then add a section in the article that further discusses the issue. Nefariousski (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree strongly with Nefar here. In the beginning I offered several similar definitions from several major dictionaries. They could have easily been worked into a single sentence. NickCT (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Nick, please strike out your personal attack upon me - along with the one where I "spit venom" and where all progress ends when I enter the room -- among others --JimWae (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    Strike this " reasons for objecting to the rejection def have been remarkably confused and unsupported", and I'll strike whatever you want. Seriously Wae, obviously you don't actually "spit venom", but can you try, just try to see something you can agree with in other peoples' wordings? All your arguments on this talk page have been about why your wording is right, and everyone else's are wrong. NickCT (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
In my observation, I do not always agree with JimWae, but he has generally argued based on what the sources say, as he understands them. He has not ridiculed other users, and should not be the target of personal attacks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Very well.... Let it be known that while JimWae is (in this editor's opinion) remarkably uncooperative he does not infact spit venom. Niether is his desire to WP:OWN the lede in this article accurately described as "pyshotic". NickCT (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Further to my last post, let me say that my comments were primarily made to suggest ways in which behaviors might change for more constructive editing. If they only served to inflame, than for that I am truly sorry. NickCT (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Might I recommend we get back to good ol WP:BRD with the point that editor analysis / logical proofs / blah blah blah don't outweigh reliable dictionary definitions. Nefariousski (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
A point of contention here: by definition, if logic shows a "reliable dictionary def" to contradict itself or another "reliable dictionary def", then it is not the logic's weight that is in conflict with the definition(s), but the weight of the definitions themselves that are in conflict with each other (or itself). Kevin Baastalk 02:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Nefar - You'll get no argument from me. I've really been arguing your point re "Follow the definitions ..... add a section in the article that further discusses the issue" all along. NickCT (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
except for when you synthesized original ones without sources, rejected calls for sources, & tried to remove well-sourced ones--JimWae (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
btw, nothing in "reasons for objecting to the rejection def have been remarkably confused and unsupported" is a personal attack - even if your own confusion had not already been introduced into the mix as an argument. I repeat my request that Nick strike the personal attacks--JimWae (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I see now he has already done so. Thank you, Nick--JimWae (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Everything in "reasons for objecting to the rejection def have been remarkably confused and unsupported" is directed at the person and offensive. (also, it's an oxymoron by way of grammatical impropriety: the fact that reasons where given demonstrates that the position has been supported.) your inability to recognize this as offensive and directed at the person suggests to me that you need to re-evaluate your language and your attitude towards others and with respect to yourself. Kevin Baastalk 15:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Baas, I think Wae may be immune to criticism. My approach is going to be to nod, smile & dismiss from here on out. NickCT (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Jim, the reason you do not see any reasons given for "we need to define atheism without defining the scope as well", is that nobody has ever put forth that argument. You know what else you don't see any reasons given for? You don't see any reasons given for using giraffes instead of horses to pull carriages. Nor do you see any reasons given for wearing shoes on your hands instead of your feet. I assume you're not doing this intentionally, but by saying things like that you're making what's called a straw-man argument, and it's not the first time you've done it. Please be more careful as logical fallacies, whether deliberate or accidental, in addition to irritating others, tend to impede/obstruct progress, and i assume in good faith that neither one of these is your goal. Kevin Baastalk 15:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Kevin: Please see this edit which came about mostly as a response to this other edit. A search of the talk page could have helped you considerably before you responded so needlessly & sarcastically. Also see that whereas the previous lede expressed the relative scope for all 3 defs, the present one (which I was addressing) contains the scope of only 1 of the 3. That fact did not even require a search & makes your response even less appropriate. So which of us is presenting a straw-man?--JimWae (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Then I stand corrected on that account, and sorry if you found me providing examples to be "sarcastic", but I maintain that you have made multiple straw man arguments, and you should be more careful in interpreting what others say. Kevin Baastalk 15:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Also "reasons for objecting to the rejection def have been remarkably confused and unsupported" is not directed at any one person, nor is it directed at any persons. It is directed at the reasons given - at the content that has appeared of the talk page - unlike many comments which have been directed directly at me and about me as if I was not here (as in "Five bucks says if Wae catches wind of this potential change consensus will evaporate"). I believe I have consistently addressed myself to the contents of the talk page (and the article and the sources) and if you can find an example where I did otherwise I will be glad to consider an apology. Until then (and even afterwards), I expect that negative comments about my personality will cease. I do not object to the comments where others have repeatedly said things like "as JimWae has pointed out".--JimWae (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
"reasons for objecting to the rejection def have been remarkably confused and unsupported" is a sentence fragment. saying it's not directed at any one person is like saying "tree" isn't directed at any person. Certainly "tree" is not direct at anyone. "You are entitled to your opinion, Nick, but your reasons for objection...", however is directed at Nick. (Nice try at obfuscation, though.) "No, " you say, "it is directed at his reasons." A rather thin veil of indirection. Would I be offending you if I said that you're the type of person that would say things like "if you can find ... I will be glad to consider an apology." and "Until then (and even afterwards), I expect that..."? I tried to respond to that without ridicule or sarcasm but let me tell you it was hard. I'm sure others here are thinking the same thing I am when they hear that kind of language. If they can state it more delicately than I'd be capable I'd be much obliged. Kevin Baastalk 15:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

An outside opinion

Hi all, I hope you don't mind me wading in.
I've been watching this talk page for some time and it seems to focus more and more on which editor said what, and on the minutiae of word meanings in a small part of the article, both in a rather negative way. I could live with the latter, but the former is quite unhelpful, and together they pose a bigger obstacle to improving the article.
Would it help to have some kind of second/third opinion, or arbitration? I'd offer myself (I don't have a horse in the current race, and I don't care which editor phrased their previous objections in what way; my main interest is in improving the article) but if you don't like that idea, I'm sure Wikipedia offers some more structured or more formal alternatives. Alternatively, could we just agree to drop the previous debate and start with a clean slate? Something has to change, but whatever the change is, it won't work well unless most folk here agree to it.
Obviously an article like this is bound to attract some controversy and some strong feelings, and people editing wikipedia are only human, so my comments are not intended as a personal criticism of any individual. However, I hope that all here would like to improve the article even if we can't agree on every single word. The current debate seems to consume a lot of time/effort without effecting a proportionate improvement to the article.
Is there anything else I can do to help?
bobrayner (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that, Bob. I've been at this page for almost two years, and that has long been the case. Certainly, if you'd like to give a third opinion (ok, more than the third) at any time, that would be excellent. I've occasionally thought of taking the recent talk to WP:WQA, but I tend to think doing so would raise the drama rather than reduce it. It's also very helpful to point out to an editor that WP:NPA applies to something just said. (And, regrettably, I've seen a lot of worse behavior than this, not that that's an excuse). --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I just want to echo Tryptofishs words of thanks, more opinions and voices are always welcome, the hardest part in all of this is when people stay out of the conversation for too long, we need more people involved. Unomi (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving Right Along

Hopefully we have with us more eyes and voices going forwards, and hopefully we can let bygones be bygones. It seems to me that I am in the company of intelligent editors and that we should be able to discuss the evidence rationally. Unomi (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Belief in souls

I put in a line about atheists not believing in souls and someone asked for a reference.

I looked on Web and there are lots of blogs but nothing that would be called a "scholarly reference" leaps out. However, this is about atheists and beliefs and I found some atheist websites that pretty much stated they don't believe in souls and pretty much say that it's because they can't give a material process explanation. So I added:

This was rejected as a "good faith but POV and not scholarly edit".

Note that:

  • I am not an atheist, but I gave it my best NPOV shot to summarize the atheist reservation about souls.
  • If you can find better references please supplant mine with those but it is not really constructive to simply delete available references without coming up with better ones

FYI, my interest in the topic is motivated by the purely practical problem posed by IVF of deciding how many fertilized embryos should be encouraged to grow to adulthood and how many should be either frozen or discarded. Which leads to some interesting questions. Like, if embryos have souls, what happens to them when they are frozen and then reanimated, and whathappens if they are frozen and then discarded. Erxnmedia (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this to talk. I largely agree with you about the edit. I think that the criticism about POV is not supported by the actual wording. I think the sourcing will need more work, but that can come with time. However, I do not think the material belonged in the lead, and so I have moved it to a section below. I'm not certain that I selected the correct section to move it into, so maybe it should instead go somewhere else. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it should be removed from the article as it is utterly irrelevant. There is a long list of supernatural things most atheists will not believe in, such as pixies, ghosts, the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, but they are equally irrelevant. Atheism is a position with respect to deities, and that is all. Belief in "souls" has nothing specifically to do with atheism, and such a belief (or non belief) is independent of atheism. I will be removing it momentarily. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, will revert. If it goes back and forth we can start a formal vote. Erxnmedia (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Please consider self-reverting and don't edit war. There is no correlation between "soul" and "atheism", and the burden falls upon the person adding material to seek consensus for inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I've removed it again. Source is not reliable. Even if it were relevant, it would violate WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I see valid points on both sides of this argument. I agree with Scjessey that there are multiple things associated with supernatural belief systems that tend to be rejected by atheists, without being what defines atheism. At the same time, I think that there may be potentially interesting and encyclopedic material to be added about how these auxiliary ideas relate to atheistic thinking. Could there be a compromise solution, based on having a new section of the page about such auxiliary disbeliefs? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Unlikely. Introducing these tangentially-related concepts would massively increase the scope of the article. I'm also concerned that this addition might, in part, be driven by an anti-atheist agenda after seeing this. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, I see. I've changed my mind. I agree with Scjessey. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Since we have Atheists tend to lean towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence in the lede and that the contents of the lede should be dictated by the contents of the article body, we do in fact need a section sourcing and dealing with this aspect. The only thing that we seem to have in the article at the moment to support the claim of atheists tending to lean towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims is a line regarding Protestant thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes. Unomi (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The reason I noted it as POV apparently wasn't clear. Using scientistic instead of scientific is potentially pov, and "phenomena which are not observable" is a highly presumptive phrasing, implying that such phenomena even exist. And with the implication that they exist, comes additional pov slant, i.e. that athiests unreasonably apply empirical criteria to "things" beyond the scope of empirical inquiry. de Bivort 07:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
regarding "There is a long list of supernatural things most atheists will not believe in, such as pixies, ghosts, the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, but they are equally irrelevant. ". the souls hypthesis is a more basic hypothesis than these things. belief in pixies and ghosts, like deities, necessarily presume belief in souls in one form or another, whereas belief in santa claus or the tooth fairy do not. and while atheism does not neccessarily reject the soul hypothesis, rejecting the soul hypothesis neccessarily leads to atheism. in this way belief in souls is logically related to atheism. (and, inversely, not logically "independent" from). and as rejecting the soul hypothesis leads to rejection of belief in the existence of pixies and ghosts, as well as deities, but not neccessarily santa claus or the tooth fairy, they are not "equally irrelevant". Kevin Baastalk 17:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Atheists and belief in souls as an aspect of atheism: Keep or Delete?

Let's have a vote, please contribute your vote.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The decision was to delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per my discussion above. Erxnmedia (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, sort of. First: WP:POLL. Second, I really have mixed feelings about this. For the reasons stated by Scjessey, I really cannot support any longer having the proposed passage in its present form. At the same time, per my initial reaction, and more specifically per what Unomi said, I do feel that there should be some expansion of the page to address atheists' rejection of supernatural beliefs. So, what I suggest would be to create a proposed section about that, either in this talk or in a user-space sandbox, and for editors to evaluate it before adding it to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - This makes no sense at all. This article is about atheism, not atheists. Atheism relates to deities, not souls. The belief (or non-belief) in "souls" is completely independent of atheism, just as the belief (or non-belief) in aliens is. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • you are narrowly defining the scope of what the belief system of atheism represents, and that scope-gerrymandering in itself represents a very strong POV. Atheism is, by virtue of the narrowly scoped definition that you prefer, a kind of religious belief system, and for that reason, to fully describe it, it is necessary to compare its beliefs with key aspects of other religious belief systems. Belief or not in the soul is a key aspect. Erxnmedia (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I couldn't disagree more. Belief in a "soul" has nothing to do with atheism. Nothing. And atheism is not so much a belief system as an absence of one. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep or Delete what? This thread is completely unclear on this point. Atheists are split between not believing or believing in souls and I do recall a published survey that once showed that the split was 50/50, but it would be nice if I could source that (if I can find it) and add it with consensus, perhaps in the Atheism, religion and morality section as an example of religious belief. Its likely that atheists don't believe in souls quite as much as the general public, thus the stereotyping of a soulless atheist that is associated with naturalism, but it is certainly misleading to speak of a presumptive usage of the term atheism as embracing anything other than its intended meaning. That is why I removed the poorly sourced original research edit. --Modocc (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per my edit summary, Scjessey's point of tangentiality. de Bivort 07:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Scjessey. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment, I have no objection to deleting this incarnation of claims regarding skepticism, but I do want to point out that we actually need something in the article which supports the claim we currently have in the lede. I also want to point out that moving so quickly to 'voting' is, in my opinion, counterproductive and I hope we can avoid it going forwards. Unomi (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Are you arguing for the removal of : Atheists tend to lean towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence.? Unomi (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes and no. I'm saying that it probably isn't "lede-worthy". I only bring it up here because it seems like it is being used as a rationale for this soul-related stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment, I agree that it probably isn't lede-worthy but it might be worthy enough to be addressed (or at least mentioned) somewhere in the body of the article. Kevin Baastalk 17:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I suggest a WP:SNOW close of this !vote as opposing the addition of the proposed material in its present form. It remains to be determined whether a different form, with scholarly sourcing, would be useful in the future, but the burden will be on those proposing it to justify its addition. In the meantime, we really do not need to over-react by deleting material already on the page just because of dubious speculation that it might have caused the present discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - Most atheists probably don't believe in the Easter Bunny, or superman, or Santa Claus. If I find a reference that says as much, should I add it?!? No!!!! Of course not. Not believing in the Easter Bunny/Santa/Superman/Souls does not make an atheist an atheist and hence is not notable. Atheists by definition reject dieties, not souls (though most atheists may reject the concept of souls as a consequence of rejecting dieties). This was a bad & confused edit. NickCT (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Sourcing seems to fall short of WP:RS. Lets move on. Unomi (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scientism and souls

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The decision was to follow policy and base discussion on sources. Unomi (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is an (apparently non-scholarly) atheist talking about souls:

Here is a much more scholarly atheist presenting a view on the same question:

If I may paraphrase the first quote, it says that "the soul is an as yet incompletely documented chemical process in the brain", while the second quote says "the word soul represents the first attempt by early Greek scientists to give a logical explanation for the unpredictable behavior of living matter -- the word is simply obsolete inasmuch as the science of self-organizing nonlinear dynamic complex systems has provided us with better explanations."

In both quotes, there appears to be (correct me if I'm wrong), an underlying faith in science. This particular belief system, i.e. "faith in science" has been labelled Scientism. The fact that I used the label scientism rather than say Positivism is what annoyed some people more than anything else in my quote. Right or wrong? And is it really unfair to state that positivism or scientism is the foundation for atheism? Erxnmedia (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I follow you all the way to your last line "And is it really unfair to state that positivism or scientism is the foundation for atheism?". If you continue that argument into the absurd you could turn it around and say that since positivism the foundation for atheism, then every person having faith in science should be an atheist. As we expect our university professors to have faith in science (they are after all teaching it), we should therefore fire all university professors who are not atheist, as non atheist professors cannot have faith in their own work. I guess you agree this is too much. In my view the relation atheism/soul is very limited. Atheism is about believing in gods. Believing in souls is something else. Arnoutf (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, this is not a forum.. I welcome that you and Kevin Baas are having a collegial discussion about it, and perhaps more will join you on your talk page, but this is the wrong venue. Don't take this the wrong way please, its just that we are supposed to be arguing from WP:RS not personal observation. I don't think it should be difficult to find sources which we can then discuss, perhaps conservapedia has some actual sources which meet WP:RS which could serve as inspiration. Unomi (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I am defending both the sources and my interpretation of the sources, which is relevant to this page because my entry was deleted as being both a misrepresentation and based on poor quality sources. Erxnmedia (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
It was also deleted because it was an unrelated concept, just as Christianity (and thus, references to it) are unrelated. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Well we all had our different reasons as we stated in the above sections. My primary reason was due weight / notability for the lead (but not necessarily the body). In any case if fell pretty short of consensus. Kevin Baastalk 18:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
And FWIW i looked at scientism (which i hadn't heard of before) and positism and positivism doesn't imply scientism, and i would say positivism would be the more approriate word in this context. However I agree with Artnoutf that, though thou many atheists may be positivists, that doesn't imply that it is their "foundation" for atheism and not all atheists are positivists (and I believe it was mentioned in above discussion that belief / non-belief in souls among atheists is actually something like 50/50). Kevin Baastalk 18:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any personal opinions on whether it should be included, but it would make everything so much easier if we had some sources we could use as a basis for discussion, unless I am missing something the only source atm is gotatheism.com? Unomi (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI this hole in Wikipedia has been debated since 2004, a fact which in and of itself argues in favor of having some discussion of the matter -- you can push it away and push it away, but there is still a common presumption about the matter and people will ask the question. Erxnmedia (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Look, the situation is simple. If you can find reliable sources relating disbelief in gods to disbelief in souls, it can be included, provided it is given due weight. Gotatheism is not a reliable source. It is self published. Find a better, secondary source, bring it to the talk page and then people can have a discussion about how prominently and where it should be included. de Bivort 19:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No doubt there are many people who do not believe in souls who are also atheists, but to make a sweeping statement to the effect that this is necessarily so can not be justified. You may well make the argument that an atheist does not believe in a Christian soul, but you could also suggest that a Christian does not believe in the sort of soul an atheist would conceive of. If I think that the essence of our character influences the people we interact with and continues to do so after we die, should I be argued with by someone telling me that my definition of "soul" is wrong? Ninahexan (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

To summarize:
  • The question gets asked
  • There are some atheist websites that answer it
  • These are considered lowbrow/not research quality by people who deleted my entry
  • There seems to be convergence in atheist discussions of the issue in that they are phrased in positivist language
  • And yet one of the more articulate Wikipedian respondents says that atheist belief in souls is 50/50, i.e. claims that belief in atheism is not correlated with belief in souls
  • There is no Church of Atheism and nothing on the web that I can point to that qualifies as "scholarly research" on atheist dogma -- there is some kind of center for study of atheism but it doesn't come with a line of research reports
  • Amazon has a bunch of Atheism books ranging from Christopher Hitchens at the most serious side to more popular works, none of which I would particular call scholarly in the sense that when you go to a religion class and get treated to an article on the hermaneutics of the exegesis of the phramistan in ancient Eritrea, that obviously looks quite scholarly
  • There seems to be a determined effort among people with atheist POV over many years not to have any kind of discussion of this particular question, which is interesting in and of itself when it could be done away with in a few lines.
Erxnmedia (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
It is really not that hard.. books.google.com and scholar.google.com are your friends. Find some sources, distill a wording that you think appropriate and bring them here so we can discuss them. In the time it took you to write the above you could probably have brought something that would be useful in going forward. Unomi (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"There seems to be a determined effort among people with atheist POV over many years not to have any kind of discussion of this particular question"- This would possibly be just one more example of why trying to pigeonhole atheists is like herding cats. The resistance comes from making assertions about a group of people that is not true for all in that group. As you state, you are not an atheist, and so perhaps your own perspective of what an atheist believes is filtered through the prism of your own beliefs, and as such if you want to ascribe attributes to atheists you need to back them up with concrete references. The word "soul" has many different meanings, not to mention poetic overtones, and many atheists will have their own concepts and uses of it. If it is "common usage to presume that atheists do not believe in the existence of a soul" then perhaps this reflects a difference of opinion about the definition of the word "soul". Ultimately it boils down to a matter of semantics, and given a recent post of yours I wonder whether your assertion that atheists have no claim on the use of the word "soul" is just a means and basis to suggest that an atheist can not have a valid judgement about the rights of embryos and the unborn. Correct me if I am wrong. Ninahexan (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not an atheist, or a Christian. I am an ex-Unitarian, born of WASP culture and the many varieties of Protestantism.
I am a believer in souls, however you may define them.
I am exploring these questions because I am the proud father of 9 embryos, 2 implanted, 2 discarded, 5 frozen. Forgive me please for wondering in a less-than-abstract way about what happens to the souls of my discarded embryos and to wonder in a less-than-abstract way about the fate of those that are frozen. I am materially involved in the fate of these creatures. It's never easy making life, and more bewildering when modern technology allows us to play with processes which are hitherto hidden. Naturally we make many embryos, of which one or more may survive, and the rest perish. We just normally don't see this process as clearly as we do now when it becomes a mechanically assisted and modified process observable with ultrasound and microscopes. (In nature the culling of embryos happens in the womb and unobserved.)
As a Wikipedian, when I take an interest in something, and learn something new, I try to add my little incremental bit of knowledge into Wikipedia. And, as often as not, there will be controversy.
So in this case I made the observation, which I know to be true, that IVF and abortion are disturbing in the sense described above, and that this can lead to some issues in medical ethics for those that find these practices disturbing, for the reasons that they find them disturbing. I mistakenly excluded atheists as a class from the set of people that might find these things disturbing, because my reason for finding them disturbing I mistakenly assumed not to have any basis in atheist thought.
I really don't have any kind of ideology or agenda. There's no there there except for what I've written above.
Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey Erx. It certainly sounds like you have interesting issues to explore, and I wish you the best of luck with them. I would, however, warn against exploring those issues on Wikipedia as it may lead to oringinal research. Best NickCT (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey Nick, WP:OR is frequently use by people with WP:POV to quash edits on subjects or issues they don't want to see in Wikipedia. I see this happen all the time on Wikipedia, with vehemence, on the most obscure topics. Sometimes it's necessary to be WP:BOLD to break through the inertia.
By the way, I detest reasoning in strings of WP:ACRONYMS because it gets more than a little silly after a while. Erxnmedia (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The problem here is that when you use poor quality sources to justify your agenda-driven editing ("I try to add my little incremental bit of knowledge into Wikipedia"), that is functionally equivalent to adding original research. You appear to be trying very hard to make sure certain Wikipedia articles reflect, or at least document, your views with respect to atheism, souls, embryos, etc. You continue to push this agenda despite it being overwhelmingly rejected by all other editors you have discussed these matters with. You are conflating issues that are, at best, tangentially related. Please stop. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't get it. Would you prefer that someone who has no knowledge of AVCHD-capable video editors to add information on such editors? Is there a range of allowable motivations for editing articles, and motivations to be disallowed? Do you advocate looking beyond the text of an entry and into the motivations and soul of the editor when deciding whether or not to accept an edit? Please explain. Erxnmedia (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
As mentioned above (repeatedly) the assumption that Atheism and belief in Souls is strongly related is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinarily high quality evidence. This has not been provided, hence the information should not be added. Adding it anyway in spite of the problem with the evidence, is not warranted by objective reasons. Hence it can only be because of subjective reasons; i.e. original ideas at best, and point of view pushing at worst. Arnoutf (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
With respect to this article, two assertions have been put forward by others:
  1. There is no correlation between belief in atheism and non-belief in souls
  2. High-quality research on atheism is available online in scholar.google.com
So, with respect to this article, which I have not touched since the scholar.google.com recommendation was made, the task for me is to relate the discussion in literature accessible via scholar.google.com on the correlation between belief in atheism and belief in souls. That's it. So I'll do it, when I get a chance.
With respect to Mr. Scjessey's telling me to stop...he has been chasing my edits through several other articles. I would argue that he is chasing my edits, based on his comments above, in equal parts due to his construction of my intentions, and to the texts of the individual edits. And I would suggest that he restrict his attention to the text of my edits and put out of mind his construction of my intention. By spending his time looking into my soul and not at what I type and editing accordingly, he is displaying an agenda and a point of view. Erxnmedia (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To all: please discuss content, including sourcing, and not the supposed motivations of any editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please don't take offense, and if you do, channel that into finding great sources! Unomi (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

11d (any one of several forms)

What the article currently states:


Latest proposal:


--Born2cycle (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Support Now this is constructive! --Cybercobra (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Dwelling on it for a moment, how about making it one sentence?:
      "Atheism is any one of several forms of nonbelief in the existence of deities, including the position that there are no deities,[1] the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2] or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]" --Cybercobra (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you will find no sources for "is any one of several forms of ..." And once again, current lead does a better job saying that "absence" def is less agreed on. --windyhead (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
We don't need to find a source for every little detail. This article is about several closely related topics all referred to by the same name. We have sources for each. A reasonable way to say that is "X is any one of several forms of ...". The sources are for each of the individual related topics. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes the sources are for each but you can't link them with "is any one of several forms of ..." --windyhead (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Why can't we? I don't understand. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
It was already said before, see Break (11b) . A. is not "any one of several forms of ..." . It is either one form or another form, or one and another form, depending on what author you will refer to. --windyhead (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


I do not see how version 11d addresses any of the multiple concerns that have already been directed toward the other 6 versions (of the 11th suggestion) that have been presented in the last 3 days.--JimWae (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it did. I'll have to review. It's hard to keep track. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, your concern in 11c is addressed. You dropped the discussion in 11b so not sure what else there is to say about that. Can you just restate what your concern is, please? And please don't just ignore what has been written to your stated concerns above. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what "nonbelief" means, as opposed to actual words like "disbelief" or "unbelief", but other than that this suggestion isn't dramatically offensive. It reads a little better than what is currently there, and it nearly covers my worries about synthesising the typological literature. Nearly. I wouldn't rip anyone's head off for putting this version in, but I'm not desperately enthusiastic either. Perhaps I should be bolder in advocating for "Atheism is godlessness." --Dannyno (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I'd support Cybercobra's one-sentence version, in particular. It's simple, clear, and covers everything. Honestly, I think all the complaints about the word "nonbelief" have been wrong. There is a plain meaning of the word, and it applies. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I guess everyone kind of knows what "nonbelief" signifies. Fine. It's just it's a neologism. It's not in the Oxford English Dictionary (online edition), for example. "Non-believer" exists. "Unbelief" and "disbelief" exist. I don't care a great deal, but I always prefer to avoid neologisms. --Dannyno (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem shared by all versions of "suggestion 11"

How about this for analogy:

A rectangle is any of several shapes that have quadrilateralnessitude. Rectangles can have all sides and angles the same, have 4 angles of 90 degrees, or simply be a quadrilateral.

All version 11s are of a form that would endorse the "simply be a quadrilateral" as being a rectangle. It does not matter if the first sentence is any of the previous variations in "suggestion 11"

  • Rectangles encompass various forms of quadrilateralnessitude.
  • Rectangles include various forms of quadrilateralnessitude.
  • Rectangles incorporates various forms of quadrilateralnessitude.

(or even worse, as in suggestion 10)

  • Rectangles are shapes that have quadrilateralnessitude.

I acknowledge that "quadrilateralnessitude" can be shortened, but I include it because "nonbelief" is also not in any known dictionary.

Obviously such a paragraph is wrong, but it is not just because only one def is a good definition -- the structure of the 2nd sentence is such that it endorses all 3 defs, and that structure would endorse all definitions in any sentence --even if some of the defs are "substandard". Those who oppose calling babies atheists (including, explicitly, both Nagel and Dawkins) find it just as incorrect to make a statement that it can be that "babies are atheists" as one that includes all quadrilaterals as rectangles.

The fix is to own up to the fact that atheism has been defined (as...) in 3 separate ways. Despite previous claims to the contrary, there is nothing in WP:NAD that advises against this approach, nor does WP:LEDE--JimWae (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's pretty amusing, in the context of this talk, to look at the leads of rectangle and quadrilateral. They both totally violate NAD! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
has been defined as is just as much in violation of WP:NAD as is refers to, for the same reason. It's worse, actually. I agree "can be" is an endorsement. It's an endorsement of definition(s) that have been endorsed in reliable sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Please point me to anything in WP:NAD that would support your assertion. I've read it several times. "A rectangle is defined as a quadrilateral with 4 right angles" is not about the word, but about the concept. "Rectangle means..." IS about the word.--JimWae (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I have requested outside comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Atheism_-_in_violation_of_WP:NAD.3F --JimWae (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's use the analogy to consider the present version:

Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] A broader meaning is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]
A rectangle is commonly described as squarish. It can also mean a shape with exactly 4 right angles and exactly 4 sides [with or without all sides equal in length]. A broader meaning is simply the absence of roundness. [or squarishness, if that is preferred]

This makes it even more apparent that 1>with regard to atheism, "described" is much more vague than the sources are 2>By using the word "meaning" we are talking about the term "atheism", not the concept. Rectangles do not "mean" anything, but the term "rectangle" does, 3>Revisions to the earlier version that closely resembled

Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.[1] It has been defined more broadly as the rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without an assertion that "a deity exists" is false).[2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief in the existence of any deities.[3]

based on personal stylistic preferences (that are not found in the WP style-guide) that it "sounds like a dictionary" have led to actual violation of the style guidelines in WP:NAD, whereas 4> the earlier version (very much like the one just above) in no way violated WP:NAD, and is, in terms of substance, more complete than the present version. Stylistic concerns (that were either personal, or were misinterpretations of WP:NAD) have downgraded the substance of the text.--JimWae (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think your analogy fails completely because there is but one definition of a rectangle. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. You need something with distinctive meanings that are closely related to compare. Try Libertarianism. or Socialism. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There is one agreed-upon definition of rectangle. The point is that when definitions are wrong (or disagreed with), the use of "can be" still endorses them. Many people think the absence def is not a good definition, and to endorse it is to take a POV.--JimWae (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Our "linguistic sense" does not object to "can be" when we agree with a definition, but when we disagree, the endorsement is more apparent. NPOV way is to say Atheism has been defined as...(3 distinct ways). --JimWae (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

We have to think a definition is wrong to see how "can be" endorses it. Prominent writers on the topic think the absence def is too inclusive, just as quadrilateral is too inclusive to define rectangle. Finding another topic with distinct definitions would not show this, if one still accepted all the defs--JimWae (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if we cannot exactly agree (like that never happens!) about "can be", I think it is easy to see that we can expect others in the future to object that "can be" expresses an endorsement. NPOV way is to say Atheism has been defined as...(3 distinct ways). We need to think about writing things that are unassailable as far as NPOV goes, if we want this article to remain stable. --JimWae (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Can be is short for Can be in reliable sources, but of course the in reliable sources is implied, as it is in most such assertions in Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
We need to think about writing things that are unassailable as far as NPOV goes--JimWae (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice how "Rectangles can have all sides and angles the same" slips through our notice. Some people do actually disagree that squares are rectangles. Notice also how "can be" makes what is proposed as a(n) (overly narrow) definition something much more slippery & vague. Notice how information is lost & the reader is quietly misled.--JimWae (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I think the reason this section is failing to change any minds is that Jim is starting from the position that there are things wrong with the wording, with respect to atheism, but few other editors agree that these things are wrong; Jim then makes an analogy with different wording (geometry), and the things he sees as wrong remain obvious to him, but they are no more obvious to the rest of us than they were to begin with. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Radical suggestion

I'm totally prepared to be shot down here, but what about something like this?

Just throwing it out there as something that may or may not add to the discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Scj - I like the wording. I also think this is a concise and technically correct definition. I worry that it may be too academic for a laymen though. Explicit and implicit aren't simple vocabularly (especially in the terms of implicit/explicit belief). NickCT (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
We could always wikilink implicit and explicit. Alternatively, we could do this:
-- Scjessey (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC) (wife says "tacit" isn't a layman's term either LOL)
I approve, I also generally think that we shouldn't blur the line between en and simple too much, either form is fine by me. Unomi (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree that this is technically correct at all. It basically makes no sense. What, please, is an "implicit" "belief in the non-existence" of deities? Where does this terminology come from? If from George H. Smith, his whole point is that "implicit" atheism is precisely not a form of belief. No, this version is not acceptable. --Dannyno (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
And the second go, "implied or clearly-expressed" doesn't get to the heart of the issues about conceptualisation and typology in the literature, and will also be resisted on the ground that many prominent atheists have simply not thought of themselves as believing in the non-existence of gods. Try and put that in and you'll reap a whirlwind. --Dannyno (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
You are quite correct. My goal was to try to simplify the first sentence of the introduction by making it as broad as possible (to include implicit/explicit and strong/weak atheism), but in this respect I have clearly missed key information. I would say, however, that it is important that the introduction refers to the concept of atheism, and not the beliefs/non-beliefs of atheists. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
If you use the phrase 'refers to' then you're really talking about the term, because it's normally understood that it's the term that refers. The article is about atheism not the term atheism, so you need to use 'Atheism is' <something> instead. That's also what WP:NAD says, and IRC WP:LEAD also- Wolfkeeper 19:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm game for something like this. As discussed above, "refers to" is a bad idea. I think "is" can be safely substituted for it in this case. I also think it may be possible to delete "one or more". My preference would be to use this as a first sentence, followed by a sentence with the proverbial three definitions. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It doesn't seem quite correct, if I disbelieve in Buddha, that doesn't make me an Atheist, it just means I'm not a Buddhist. To be an atheist you have to disbelieve (or at least fail to believe) in all Gods.- Wolfkeeper 17:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
A totally unhelpful tangent - Do Buddhists worship Buddha as a deity? NickCT (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know, Buddha cannot be defined as a deity by the criteria of "supernatural" or "immortal" on deity. As well, it is my understanding that Buddhists do not worship him as such a being. John Shandy` • talk 18:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I think this issue goes away if we delete "one or more", thereby making it about disbelief in deities as a whole. However, overall, I tend to prefer the Cybercobra version in the section just above this one. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, but that's not my point. If I don't believe in 'Thor' I'm still not an atheist if I believe in the Christian God, or vice versa. It's not enough to disbelieve in one supernatural being.- Wolfkeeper 19:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it would be accurate to say you were an atheist with respect to Thor. Christians were persecuted for being atheist in Roman times; they didn't believe in the Greco-Roman pantheon. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
How about a first sentence that just says, "Atheism is unbelief or disbelief in the existence of gods." Then you can expand on the three main typological traditions. Mind you, this approach only works because of the inbuilt ambiguity of words like "unbelief or disbelief". But they would at least give you a manageable first sentence which we can then gloss. --Dannyno (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Support. This works in a creative way. Because of its ambiguity, it raises questions... questions that the rest of the intro, and the article, should answer. Very good. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Is this radical-B? I, too, like the use of "unbelief or disbelief". But "gods" at the end of the sentence brings up another perennial gripe (singular or plural, aagh), so I'd change it to "deities". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you're right about gods vs deities. --Dannyno (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

So, I believe we're starting to build consensus on Radical-b:

Atheism is unbelief or disbelief in the existence of deities. Atheism can be the position that there are no deities,[1] the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2] or the absence of belief that any deities exist.

--Born2cycle (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Re "can be" please see Talk:Atheism#Problem_shared_by_all_versions_of_.22suggestion_11.22. --JimWae (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I guess a lot of people would find that extraordinarily pedantic. However, I too am an extraordinary pedant, and history has demonstrated how much care we have to take to reach any kind of consensus here. So I would happy to take that into account. How about this:
Atheism is unbelief or disbelief in the existence of deities. Atheism has been conceptualised in different ways: [1]the position that there are no deities, [2] the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[3] or the absence of belief that any deities exist.
--Dannyno (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

11e (any one of...)

What does everything think of this version, especially in comparision to 11d?

Atheism is any one of:
  • the position that there are no deities,[1]
  • the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2] or
  • the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

--Born2cycle (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a fan of the use of bullet points in this situation --Cybercobra (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
"Ik" re: bullet points. Also, I think it best to find a clearish first sentence and put the tripartite classification strategies in subsequent sentences for clarity. --Dannyno (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please reconsider. Remember, the intro is supposed to clearly specify in a summary fashion what the article is about.

This is an unusual situation in that it is not about one topic, but about a number of closely related but distinctive topics. I suggest that laying it out, in bullets, makes what this article about exactly clear better than trying to jumble it all together in one standard sentence, as if there is only one distinct topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the bullet points either. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That can be addressed. 11e(1).

Atheism is any one of the position that there are no deities,[1] the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2] or the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

Or, 11e(2).

Atheism is any one of: (1) the position that there are no deities,[1] (2) the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2] or (3) the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

--Born2cycle (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

11f

I'm not seeing the difference between the three definitions that are being aired here. Good dictionaries such as the OED commonly have multiple entries when there are significantly different meanings for a word but the OED does not do this in this case as it has:

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).

In other words, atheism is disbelief in god(s), as expressed in thought, words and deeds. Atheists don't believe in God; they say that they don't believe in God and they act like they don't believe in God.

Colonel Warden (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you wouldn't expect the OED to reflect the philosophical literature in detail. However, yes, the OED doesn't have multiple sub-entries, but it is clear that different conceptualisations are involved. Disbelief OR denial OR disregard./.godlessness. That's at least three meanings. "Disbelief" if you look it up in OED, says "The action or an act of disbelieving; mental rejection of a statement or assertion; positive unbelief." "Denial" is defined with several sub-entries as (I've left out 1b which is self-denial):

1. a. The act of saying ‘no’ to a request or to a person who makes a request; refusal of anything asked for or desired.

2. The asserting (of anything) to be untrue or untenable; contradiction of a statement or allegation as untrue or invalid; also, the denying of the existence or reality of a thing.

3. Refusal to acknowledge a person or thing as having a certain character or certain claims; a disowning, disavowal.

etc.

"Unbelief", meanwhile, as included in the "disbelief" entry says: "Absence or lack of belief; disbelief, incredulity."

"Incredulity" is defined as: "1. A disbelieving frame of mind; unreadiness or unwillingness to believe (statements, etc.); disbelief." and there is also "2. Want of religious faith; unbelief. Obs."

So there you go, you've got our three atheo-typologies right there.

--Dannyno (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


To emphasise, the OED is only a dictionary. Our job of course is to reflect the *literature*. And the literature has problematised the conceptualisation of godlessness in ways that go beyond what the OED is able to reflect in detail (though it clearly does so anyway). --Dannyno (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Colonel, i've been trying to tell them that for months now. They just don't get it. This is one of those weird things where -- I don't know how to describe it without making personal attacks. It's weird. But yeah, I totally agree with you. Most people do. As in like everyone in the world. Except by some strange coincidence a few people who happen to be working on this article and whose brains are like hyper-dissociative or something. (i hope that wasn't too offensive). I've tried reason, it's like talking to a brick wall. I don't know what to do it seems hopeless. Kevin Baastalk 13:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Ultimately, it is not about our personalities at all, but about what reliable sources have to say.--JimWae (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Please feel free to visit my talk page and say exactly what you mean without fear of WP:NPA issues (just reference this comment) because I want to understand your position clearly. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Me too. Just spell it out on your page or something, and let us know when we can look at it. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  1. Please stay away from my talk page, all of you. :-)
  2. Although I'm not horribly bothered by the present version on the page now, my first choice among all the sundry proposals is the single-sentence version, part way down section 11d, by Cybercobra. In case anyone missed it amid all the other talk, do please give it a serious look. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I liked it too but Windyhead objected to "one of several forms" and Jim felt the reference to nonbelief did not address previous concerns (though he never elaborated on that). I believe 11e (2) addresses those concerns, plus the objection to 11e (bullets). --Born2cycle (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

11g (lack of a belief in the supernatural)

First I got to say I'm happy to see this discussion starting to form some sort of census. And I agree with the notion 

               "Atheism is unbelief or disbelief in the existence of deities."

But I believe it can be said better. 

              "Atheism is the lack of a belief in the supernatural"

It is in essence a "default" position towards beliefs. If you don't have a belief, one cannot claim your actively perusing it now can we? So rejecting other beliefs is a different step on that ladder. But the basic definition must be that you don't hold a belief in the first place. You can then expand and grow the definition more in debt with subsections.

--Muthsera (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2010 (GMT+1)

Can I suggest you read back over some of the discussion? Whether atheism is a "default" position or not is disputed in the literature, and that's why we cannot use "lack" as the lead definition. Secondly, atheism is only about deities/gods; atheists may or may not have other supernatural beliefs. So your "better" definition is unfortunately misleading and inaccurate in equal measure. --Dannyno (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I have re-read the discussion. And I maintain my original position. I see no justification to leave out "lack". But I see no objections to use the word "absence" if wanted. As far as I can tell there has not been given a convincing reason to implement a opposition to theism as definition for atheism. So I suggest we disregard that point in the definition. And scrap the breaking up of the definition entirely.
I would like to point out a problem with the notion that one is only to use established "literature" towards the definition here. One reason is that this discussion could very well be considered a well founded base for citation on it's own, as it's well sourced and well conducted. The second is that earlier literature have defined "Atheism" in regards to a theist understanding. Which isn't only wrong, it's highly inaccurate. An understanding and implication of what an atheist is have change over time. As noted above. Hume and Kant had an entirely different understanding of what "Atheism" meant than say Sam Harris have today. That leaves us with a problem. Using a wide variety of literature towards this definition have the potential to be highly inaccurate. Hence this debate.
I also strongly object to the use of "reject" in regards to the definition. That would entail that "atheism" is defined as an opposition to theism. Which is false and inaccurate. And opposition to theism would be "anti theism". If one is not changed by the validity of a theist claim one has not really rejected it, one is simply only not convinced. There is a distinction there.
Which brings me to the absence of belief. That one is unaware of the belief in Bunjil does not mean one have rejected it. Or are defined by it. You simply have no awareness of it. That understanding reinforced the claim that "atheism" is a passive definition.
That brings me to Non-belief. Which is a very bad word. You don't say non-olympian or non-athlete. You are defined by what you do, not what you don't do. One could very well claim that atheism is a non secular to begin with. But thats another discussion.

In the same regard we have changed the wording from "God/Gods" to "Deity" I would like to change "Deity" to "Supernatural". An example is that atheism don't hold a belief in astrology. That is a non-deity supernatural phenomenon. So can we agree to change the wording on that as it's not strictly limited to deities? I would give you other examples as well, but I believe my point has been made. --Muthsera (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit- I see that I haven't really addressed your position on supernatural Dannyno. I simply just made an assertion. And in fear of seeming arrogant I'll try to clarify. A belief in the supernatural makes no sense as a concept for atheism. Then you might as well say that Hindus are atheist because they sometimes have no belief in a deity but rather a spirit or a life-force. I disagree with that notion. You are then a spiritualist or similar. Because having an understanding of an over natural viewpoint makes no sense in regards to having no "faith". How can you then have a non-belief of something which you have no evidence for? Do you see the contradiction?

--Muthsera (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


I think it's in the article, but I wouldn't oppose using the lead to note theological understandings of atheism too. It is not wikipedia's job to say that the theology of atheism is definitionally inaccurate. It is to reflect what reliable sources say aobut atheism. It so happens that reliable sources differ, and specifically differ on whether "unawareness" of theism is to count as conceptually atheistic. And no, wikipedia talk pages do not count as "literature". And I know atheists who believe in astrology. Most atheists would probably reject astrology, but to define atheism beyond the god issue as anti-supernaturalism is again something that is not a consensus position in the literature. Whether you personally happen to agree or disagree with it is neither here nor there, because you are not a reliable source (unless you are!) --Dannyno (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm under the clear understanding that you have to use one of those understandings, one cannot have both definitions. Not because I believe it's right. But because they contradict each other. So one is forced to pick. That said. When it comes to atheism and astrology. That can be perfectly explained that these people have an understanding that it's a "natural" phenomenon. Not that it's a supernatural phenomenon. I think that position is wrong, because you have faith in something which you have no evidence for. Which would be contradictory to disbelief. Either way though, one can justify it for oneself that position. I just find it logically inconsistent. -- Muthsera (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
As individuals we may or may not pick what we prefer. Wikipedia, however, does not need to do so, and nor should it. Where there is disagreement in the literature, Wikipedia's job is to report it. --Dannyno (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

12 (A is U or absence, including E1, E2, or absence)

OK, time to start a new number! Trying to take into account the talk above, and being a glutton for punishment, I offer version 12. What I've tried to do is to take into account what people did and did not like about 11d and radical-b, and combine them:

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: "Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in..." --Cybercobra (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Bravo! --Born2cycle (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
1> As I have commented many times before: "lack" implies a deficiency 2>This construction has wikipedia take a position that the absence definition is a good "definition" of atheism. Doing so would violate WP:NPOV. Accordingly, per WP:BRD, I will be reverting your edit to the earlier one that I also dislike.--JimWae (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
By implication, you're saying the absence definition is a bad "definition" of atheism, which is equally POV. At any rate, these threads have gotten so convoluted that I'll admit I've lost track of exactly what beefs people had with the original lede. There seems to be quite a lot of bikeshedding going on. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, right, the "dictionary-ness". The point of this new draft is to try and summarize the three definitions in a pithy way, succinctly, and in a single sentence; and then present the 3 more detailed definitions directly thereafter. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
It is not just my opinion that the absence def is deficient as a def. Nagel explicitly opposes it, and Dawkins implicitly - even the source we use says it is less rigorous (there are other reasons why that source was used - so don't change the source). Numerous other sources also oppose the absence def. I am not advocating that we say it is substandard, but the construction you reverted to endorses it. WP:BRD advises against the revert you made before further discussion has taken place - and when the issue is the WP:NPOV policy, lots of discussion is needed. The fix is to say "Atheism has been defined as..." (a1 & a2 & a3). --JimWae (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
That's not gonna fly. The "that sounds like a dictionary" contingent won't have it. (Not that I'm part of said contingent). --Cybercobra (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
According to all responses to the RFC I started at the talk page for WP:NAD, there is no problem in saying "A has been defined as..."(a1 and a2 and a3). So the concern about "sounds like a dictionary" is just a local style sentiment (or just a misinterpretation of WP:NAD) - not a style guideline issue. Policy issues - especially NPOV policy - override local style sentiments (and even style guideline issues).--JimWae (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
It is also POV to say "Atheism is the position that there are no deities" as there are 3 defs and no agreement that any one of them is what atheism "really is". --JimWae (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree, feel free to revert to consensus lead --windyhead (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd rather you used one of your reverts for that. I've already reverted today, 1.7 times)--JimWae (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I missed it, but I see no objection above to this version (thanks to CyberCobra for wordsmithing this one):

Atheism is disbelief or absence of belief in the existence of deities, including the position that there are no deities,[1] the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2] or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

However, it was reverted twice, once without explanation, and a second time with the "no consensus" non-objection. In fact, this is a wording that has addressed all stated concerns on this talk page, which is quite the feat. So, I've restored it. Please, if you have an objection to any wording, make it specific on the talk page. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And I understand that there are objections to the "absence of belief" definition, however, it is a definition used in reliable sources, and is clearly qualified with or, making clear it is not the only definition used in reliable sources. Disbelief is listed first, making clear that is no way is the absence being endorsed as the definition (a much more valid objection made earlier to saying simply "Atheism is nonbelief in ..."). --Born2cycle (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I think "disbelief or absence of belief" is good, and arguably better than "unbelief or disbelief", although I don't think there's a big difference. I think "lack of" is a problem. And I think edit warring instead of discussing here is a bigger problem. Shall I, once again, request full protection? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
By the way, deity is now blue-linked three times in the one sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
T, I agree with your comments about content.
Wikipedia is not improved by tolerance for reverts made without explanation, include reverts made with pseudo objections like "insufficient discussion" or "no consensus". Especially considering all the work going into this, people should at least have the decency to clearly explain their actual objection (if any) to a given version before reverting it, if they revert it at all. Anything but reverting such a revert amounts to tolerance of such behavior, and is not good for Wikipedia.
Please fix the links! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Overlinkage fixed. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, but: Gripes about the links: it used to be useful, and consensus, to have links to God and gods somewhere in the lead. And the theism thing, although well-intentioned, has the effect of seeming to say that theism is an example of existence of God. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
And while I'm at it (griping), I think the claim that the lead is POV is nonsense. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it is nonsense, what I don't see is an explanation from Jim (who marked it as violation NPOV) or anyone else about why he or anyone else believes it to be a violation of NPOV. Without such explanation, the tag needs to be removed. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
When I suggested "disbelief or unbelief", I thought the form of words had the advantage of being ambiguous, so that the next sentence could set out our three main typological traditions and we didn't need to get bogged down in POV issues with the very first sentence. It is not clear to me that "absence of belief" is not tolerably contained in the dictionary definitions of either "disbelief" or "unbelief". The proposal mentions "absence" in the next sentence, so to mention it in the very first sentence seems to give it more weight as compared with anything else. I would be interested in reading why people think "absence" ought to appear up front. --Dannyno (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You make some good points there. Putting "absence" up front makes it a repetition of what comes so soon after in "definition 3". What you refer to as ambiguity can also be regarded as generality and inclusiveness. And, on a separate point, I want to observe that there has been insufficient discussion of the changes to the blue links in the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Is this article in violation of WP:NAD?

I've raised this question before, including at the ends of the previous two sections, but want to address it clearly in this one section for an RFC.

The archives speak for themselves, but debate about the introduction to Atheism has been going on for years, and I'm becoming more and more convinced that the fundamental problem is that this article is in violation of WP:NAD. That is, it fails the tests provided there.

For example, WP:NAD says each article is supposed to be about a (singular) concept, but there are several distinct (though related) concepts to which the word atheism refers, and this article is about all of them.

The current intro sentence states not what the topic is (nor how the topic is defined), but something about the topic: "Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities." It is followed by a sentence that defines each of the several topics this article is about: "It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] A broader meaning is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]" (actually the current intro is a description followed by two of the three definitions, with the first definition implied in the description provided in the first sentence).

According to WP:NAD, an article's title also should be able to "easily take many different equivalent forms". Yet there is no title other than "Atheism" that would be acceptable here given the current content, because, again, the article is not about one topic that is named atheism, but is about all topics named atheism. That's not encyclopedic. That's dictionaric.

When I've brought this up before the consensus seems to always have been that the meanings are too closely related to have separate articles for each meaning. That's understandable, but debate about the intro continues with no end in sight. I thought some outside opinions might help.

What about naming this article something like Forms of atheism (and having atheism redirect here)?

--Born2cycle (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The definitions used of the three types of atheism seem to be subsets of each other, so they're very highly related. I don't think that having an article covering only different subsets constitutes a dictionary-like pattern, and the article intro doesn't claim to be about the term atheism.- Wolfkeeper 04:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Even dictionary definitions don't explicitly claim to be about the term; it's implied just as it is in this article. Sometimes it's not immediately obvious, but that's what the the criteria from WP:NAD is supposed to help us determine, and when I applied it here (see above), this article flunked. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
They may not claim to be about the term, but they are about the term. One formal test is that the article should be translatable into a completely foreign language (Chinese or Russian or something), and if you can do that successfully without still referring back to English in some way (particularly the title), then it's encyclopedic and the article is about ideas, not English words, and therefore not a dictionary.
I would say though that the long etymology section is somewhat problematic from that regard, ideally an article probably shouldn't have it at all, and reference Wiktionary (but I don't suggest you remove it, having some etymology seems to be considered acceptable here, provided it doesn't get ridiculous, but for example Britannica never has this). Alternatively, moving the etymology section down will give a more encyclopedic feel, I mean why is it that a fairly substantial etymology starts the article off as if it's the most important thing??? In an encyclopedia we're interested in the thing, not words.- Wolfkeeper 13:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Wolfkeeper. Theres nothing jumping out at me that would violate WP:NAD. As far as the suggestion that the title be changed to "Forms of atheism", I think this wouldn't be an improvement. It strikes me as similar to having say an article title like "Forms of conservatism" in place of "Conservatism".Chhe (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Born, Wolfkeeper is extremely strict about WP:NAD. If even they say it's compliant, then trust me, it's compliant by any sane measure. Though different people may define Atheism slightly differently, the definitions share much in common and there would need to be an overview article anyway (sects of Christianity differ widely, yet said page is not a disambiguation page but rather an article). Further, trying to split based on the supposed incoherency of the topic would be original research at best as there are not well-defined names for each of the varying descriptions. IMO, this RFC is a waste of time. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

So far everyone has completely ignored the main points I raised in the RFC. I'm not suggesting this article should be broken up, but certainly there have been no suggestions on how to resolve the never-ending discussions about the intro.

Let me try these specific questions, numbered.

1) WP:NAD states: "Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic". Please provide a good definition and description of [the] ONE topic that this article should begin with.

2) WP:NAD states: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.;". Since this article is clearly not about a person, a people, a place, an event or a thing, please succinctly identify the concept this article is about, in some way other than the name "atheism".

3) WP:NAD states: "an encyclopedia article's name can usually easily take many different equivalent forms". Please specify a few different equivalent forms that the name of this article can easily take given the current content.

--Born2cycle (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

  • (after ecx2) from WP:NAD: "Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics< ref>Note: they must not be largely or completely related only by the titular term</ref>)" [emphasis mine].. When quoting WP:NAD in the future, please do not omit this part of the sentence. I think we can agree the 3 "versions" of what atheism is are "highly related".
  • Recent attempts to make the article "sound less like a dictionary" have had the opposite effect, so there is some merit to the claim that the *present state* of the intro resembles a dictionary entry. I am speaking of the substitution of "means" for "has been defined as" (& its related constructions). If we say "A means a3", a quick test (of the "dictionariness" of how "A means" is being used) is to see whether "the word A means a3" or "the concept A means a3" is the more apt substitute (unless A is a book or painting or such similar). I cannot presently think of any time it would not be at least strange to say "the concept A means a3" -- or that any "concept" has "a meaning(s)". When we "define a word", strictly speaking we are not defining "the word" (what could that even mean? If we were giving the boundaries of the word itself we could perhaps talk about how many letters & how many syllables it has, and how long it has been in existence [sound like things in a dictionary?]). When we give a definition FOR a word, we are giving 1>the meaning of the concept for which the word is a symbol, or 2>the usage of the word. The fix for this recent, unintended, opposite effect is to go back to an even earlier version, where the article owned up to the fact that atheism has been DEFINED in a few different and distinct (not synonymous) ways, each of which results in a different scope (extensional def).--JimWae (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Please provide a good definition and description of [the] ONE topic that this article should begin with. That's what was being collaboratively worked on before you started this RFC
Since this article is clearly not about a person, a people, a place, an event or a thing, please succinctly identify the concept this article is about, in some way other than the name "atheism". See first three sentences of the article; there's no rule that a topic has to be definable in one sentence; many things are too complex for that.
Please specify a few different equivalent forms that the name of this article can easily take given the current content "Disbelief in God", "Lack of belief in God", "Nonbelief in God", "Belief in the nonexistence of God"
As for the perpetuity of discussions: Such is Wikipedia; the problem is in no way unique to this article. New editors regularly come along, have a bugbear to nitpick regarding some article, discussion ensures, the article changes slightly; lather-rinse-repeat. So long as we remain a wiki, that cycle will go on. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

JimWae, I did not omit anything when i quoted from WP:NAD. Note that that part I quoted started with the word "Wikipedia", while you found something lower in the article that was similarly worded, but started with "Encyclopedia", and had that extra parenthetic remark. For the record, I agree the three topics are highly related; I just don't see any guidance for how to construct the intro in such an article, and, when I saw that parenthetic remark, asked for some there. I don't really think the problem was that the intro sounds or sounded like a dictionary. The problem is that the title implies one topic like a typical article, but the subject of this article is several closely related topics.

CyberCobra, I like your suggestions for equivalent forms for the name of this article, but I suspect others would disagree, arguing that each unfairly favors some form of atheism over another. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I would put it differently. The article is about one concept, but the concept is constructed, analysed and understood in very different ways. --Dannyno (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
When something is understood a different way, it is a different concept. At any rate, the natural atheism of any toddler is a different concept from the atheism of an adult cultural Jew, and both are different from an ex-Christian pro-science atheist evangelist. The implicit atheism of a Buddhist living in the remote mountains of remote China is different too. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
None of my suggestions were serious, I gave them merely to disprove your claim of WP:NAD-violation. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment from a very involved editor. I tend to agree with other editors who have replied that the problem is not really one of NAD. I think Dannyno's sentence immediately above mine puts it quite well. Instead, I think the problem, such as it is, is that, chronically, editors just have good-faith disagreements about how best to word the opening paragraph. Often, the conflict is between the desire to make the lead read smoothly, and the desire to have it be rigorously sourced. And I would not like to change the name of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The real problem here is that non-belief as difficulties finding clear labels. What may help the article is actually discuss the diversity in how the labels have been used and viewed and this would clarify why one definition simply doesn' do. So I'd second what Dannyno and Tryptofish said. I know people who would completely deny the label atheism because they deny that the construct of a deity is a sensible one hence it does not make sense to define oneself in its opposition. George Carlin would be an example of this position. But clearly outside observers would find it sensible to place such a stance with atheism. This isn't just a position problem, it's hard to define a stance based on a negative. For example the introduction of un-american also goes through the motions of shifting meaning of the concept. I think people understand that concepts can have multiple, diverse even conflicting definitions, and that entries are about the concepts to encompass the complexity of it all. To respond to the original request, I would say this. All concepts of any interest come in diverse forms. We could follow your very same argument and understand that theism has multiple versions, some refer to one god, some to multiple gods, etc. "Forms of X" is really not strengthening an encyclopedia. Theism and atheism are rather established "concepts" and people will come here expecting articles that basically have those labels. If they are missing something has seriously gone wrong. If atheism is redirected to forms of atheism that implies something that I don't think an encyclopedia should imply, in that that the complexity and ambiguity in the system warrants such highlighting in the title. This is clear cut. Atheism is a good, clear and simply the right title and it clearly is a topic that requires coverage. 99.88.82.39 (talk)

alternatives to POV

The current lede begins:

Atheism is disbelief or absence of belief in the existence of deities,[neutrality is disputed] including the position that there are no deities,[1] the rejection of belief in the existence of deities (i.e. theism),[2] or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]
  1. Sentence construction: A is G or H, including J, K, or H. Despite two unclear "or"s, it is pretty clear this would have wikipedia endorse "A is H", despite many sources (including both theist and atheist sources) who find it "substandard" to identify atheism with sheer unbelief.
  2. Nor does this construction really go very far towards the purported aim (not necessarily mine, but that of others) of beginning the article with a short sentence that summarizes all the meanings.
  3. All replies to the RFC at WT:NOTDIC have supported there not being WP:NAD concerns in saying "A has been defined as..." (a1 & a2 & a3)

In light of this, there appear to be neither policy nor styleguide concerns with a intro such as:

Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.[1] It has been defined more broadly as the rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without an assertion that "a deity exists" is false).[2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief in the existence of any deities.[3]

Notice how the defs are not merely listed and the scope of each is also introduced. People may not "like" the style, but it conforms to MOS:BEGIN's guideline to begin with unambiguous definition, is accurate, hides neither the definitions nor the "controversy", & preserves NPOV. A shorter & more list-type alternative might be:

Atheism has been variously defined as the position that there are no deities,[1] as the rejection of belief that any deities exist, and as the absence of belief in the existence of any deities.[3]

If an intro to the intro is still deemed necessary, then something like this could work:

Atheism has been variously defined to include different ways of not believing in the existence of deities. Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.[1] It has been defined more broadly as the rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without an assertion that "a deity exists" is false).[2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief in the existence of any deities.[3]

Objections that a lede such as this "sounds like a dictionary" have actually led us from a version that had no issue with WP:NAD to the version of the last month or so that very clearly did run foul of WP:NAD (using "meaning" and "means") - and that disguised one definition as a mere descriptions ("describes"). Style issues do not override policy issues - particularly style issues that are entirely local sentiment and not backed by any styleguide --JimWae (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, all of those complaints appear to be matters of style, rather than of POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
A is G or H, including J, K, or H. Whatever the "or"s may mean, this does not give the appearance of NPOV with respect to "A is H", especially (but not limited to) the repetition of H.--JimWae (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Minus the parenthetical, I would have no problem with either of your first 2 suggested rephrasings. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Jim, in this case J and K are forms of G, so J, K is repetition of G, in concept though not literally, as well. IMHO it's very nit picky to make an issue of that, especially under the guise that others may object in the future (an argument you made previously).
The ors seem quite clear to me:
  1. A is G or A is H (both are supported in reliable sources).
  2. (G or H) includes (J, K, or H).
I see no substantive objection to the wording cited above being contrary to NPOV. The tag needs to go, promptly.
I continue to maintain that "is defined", "is commonly defined" and "is variously defined" are all problematic for being about the word rather than the concept. I explained this at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary today. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You appear to be alone in having that opinion. Wolfkeeper is the most partisan WP:NAD enforcer I know and even they don't agree with you. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, technically it's more of a WP:REFERS issue than a WP:NAD problem, but it is covered there:
By identical logic and reasoning, "is defined as", or "is commonly defined as" should be replaced with the very simple "is". --Born2cycle (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
the above edit was made 7 minutes after the above editor altered WP:NOTDIC--JimWae (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

poll about lead violating WP:NPOV

Okay, since the tag remains, let's settle this with a poll to see if there is a consensus that agrees we have an NPOV issue with the current wording.

Does the following statement violate WP:NPOV because it implies a Wikipedia endorsement of the view that atheism is absence of belief?

Atheism is disbelief or absence of belief in the existence of deities, including the position that there are no deities,[1] the rejection of belief in the existence of deities (i.e. theism),[2] or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

Please leave your opinion in the form of Yes or No, followed by your sig.

NOTE: This is not a question of whether you disapprove of the statement for any other reason; only whether you believe it violates WP:NPOV.

My "yes" vote, for one, should not be taken as presuming that anyone was intentionally pushing a POV agenda, just that the effect of the wording was POV. --Dannyno (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I am truly astonished by this. I honestly thought Jim was the only one who thought there was a POV issue with that wording, but just wanted to make sure. I simply cannot comprehend how anyone, least of all so many of you, think the wording above violates WP:NPOV. It's a fair summarization of what reliable sources say on the subject. This is indisputable. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
It is disputable, because here we are disputing it. Whether it is a fair summarization of the sources is precisely the point at issue. --Dannyno (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What about the present lede is POV

1>the absence def is given preferential treatment by being given twice in one sentence.

2>Numerous sources tag the absence def as less rigorous or downright wrong, yet it is being presented not only as being just as adequate as any other, but is given preferential treatment by being presented twice in one sentence.

2a>MOS:BEGIN says of the lede "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies". The controversy regarding the absence definition was previously done very gently by remarking that it was the "broadest". By removing any indication that the presented definitions have comparative aspects, nothing remains in the lede that acknowledges any controversy of definition (not even the confusion of "or"s does that). The reader is left with apparently now four separate definitions and no map to navigate the sentence other than preferential repetition of one of them.

>>The preferential redundancy, besides being an undue weight concern, is also one of several serious stylistic concerns about this remarkably strained sentence construction -- but I will leave that for now.--JimWae (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As a negative

Perhaps the article should start with that simple negative? I've always been uncomfortable with any introduction which states that atheism is some kind of position, doctrine or belief. In point of fact, atheism can be none of these things. It's not an ideology or philosophy because there is no atheist doctrine or guiding principles. Atheism is really just a convenient moniker for theists to use. To many atheists (including myself) the position that there are no deities is no more significant than the position that there are no pixies, fairies or ghosts. I would describe myself as an atheist only to set myself apart from people who are theists. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't an absence of theism. It's an absence of faith or any belief. One can limit that to a said god, say Thor. Ie, you have a no belief towards Thor. A better word there is supernatural. You cannot say that atheism have "faith" in something you cannot prove. That leaves out any over natural phenomenon you have no evidence for but have requires "faith" in. I've stated this before but there seem to be an effort to ignore that.
That said. I like how short and concise it is. And I have no problem at all with using a simple passive understanding. -- Muthsera (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


No, we cannot start the article with that "simple" negative. It's not as simple as that: the meaning of atheism is a very complex thing, which we must try to reflect. Scjessey is correct that some atheists feel that their atheism is not a belief or a doctrine. Wikipedia should acknowledge that. However, wikipedia is not here to reflect our particular personal preferences, and there is no clear consensus in the literature on how atheism should be conceptualised. Specifically, plenty of reliable sources, including atheists, would not count "mere absence" as a form of atheism at all. That's why although your particular preference can be acknowledged, it cannot be treated as though it were, excuse me, gospel. --Dannyno (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Scj - I admire your creativity and thinking out-of-the-box, and I think your proposal is certainly consice and accurate. However, I wonder if in searching for a concise opening sentence, you may have gone a little too far here? It doesn't appear as though your proposal would offer much to the niave reader. NickCT (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
To Muthsera: atheism is 'not the absence of "faith or any belief". Reliable sources out there say that it is possible to be religious and an atheist. You may not like that, but wikipedia doesn't care. Wikipedia only cares about verifiability. You can repeat your particular POV about the supernatural as much as you like, but it's just your opinion. That's why it gets ignored. --Dannyno (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I feared that was the case. So fair enough. Sam Harris "A letter to a Christian Nation", takes up some of the problem. But Sam Harris have described the issue better in later lectures. As well as in Christopher Hitchens "God is not Great". The issue for me to is that they seem to have a zeitgeist on the concept. And have moved a little after their books. That comes especially well forward in "The Four Horsemen" Video. I doubt you'll take internet clips of lectures as sources for this concept as it's so widely discussed. So I try to do this objectively with a logical debate. As I stated below. The concept is very narrow if you don't allow a opposition to theism. I have a clear understanding that that must be understood historically, that a theist understanding that Atheism had the "burden of proof" to disprove theism. And thus was defined as an opposition to "clear" evidence of existence. So the concept we're having now is actually a debate on where the burden of proof lies. That atheism have to counter evidence or that theism has not supplied sufficient evidence to overturn a negative. Have I portrayed this objectively enough to give you an understanding where this issue lies or am I continuing to preach "gospel"?-- Muthsera (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I think you are not familiar enough with what reliable sources say about the conceptualisation of atheism, which is what we're interested in. --Dannyno (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
No I'm familiar with it, I just don't think it's relevant in light of historical context. Mostly because it has been to often been misrepresented. And the fact that zeitgeist changes the historical position on it. I said to you earlier that you can understand Atheism in a view of Plat, but one can equally valid use the current view of Harris and Hitchens. It's a question of logic and definition. A debate which seem to have been ignored or neglected by the understanding that one must reflect the literature sources. So your left with a continued definition where the burden of proof lies on disbelief. -- Muthsera (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You're not providing any helpful citations to Harris or Hitchens. If they have something useful to say, show us. As a matter of logic, on which you say you are keen, it is false to say that defining atheism as a "rejection" of theism implies a bias on where the burden of proof lies; one might reject theism because theists have failed to prove their case. There is plenty of literature to that effect, as I presume you know. --Dannyno (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You fail to understand the implications of your own words. If one is not convinced by a theist claim. You cannot claim they are in rejection when the burden of proof lies on the theist. It is only by shifting the burden of proof to the atheistic, that one rejects it. Do you understand this argument? -- Muthsera (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not interested in your argument; I'm interested in reliable sources. This is not a discussion board. For the record, though, I think you're quite obviously simply wrong on the logic of what rejection requires. There are plenty of atheist discussion boards, if you would like to take your ideas somewhere else. --Dannyno (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thats more than fair. It is something I should have done before coming here. My apologies. I'll get back to you. -- Muthsera (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Under this text I've included some sources which supports the view that atheism is a passive claim. That a rejection to theism is defined in another definition. I have also included a source which put agnosticism in the (slightly) same cohesive understanding. To use other words. That atheism is defined as a default (unconvinced/unknowing about a claim) position to an unproven supernatural positive claim, that rejection/opposition is considered "anti" to said definition, that agnosticism is undecided position or a position that the supernatural is unknowable.


Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, 2006, USA, page 51


Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2006, USA, page 14


Christopher Hitchens [2]


Michael Martin, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, 2007, England, page 2

I want to make clear here that I have quote mined this passage, because it goes on to put agnosticism in context with negative atheism, which I would consider atheism. Martins stance to use positive Atheism as a historical presidence, I would consider "Anti Theism". I used Christopher Hitchens to support me there.
With that said. I want to point out an inherent contradiction with using both a negative understanding of atheism that is a passive position alongside the positive claim that it's a reaction to theism, in one and the same definitions. It would lead to a contradiction in terms. In light of the "burden of proof" argument which is the basis for a passive vs reactionary understanding of atheism. You cannot say that theism has the burden of proof and then in the same definition claim atheism have the burden of proof. One of them has to be excluded. -- Muthsera (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The way Wikipedia works is that we don't give undue weight to any one source. For every quotation you have mined here to support your preference, we could mine others supporting other preferences. Wikipedia doesn't decide between them, its job is to reflect all the legitimate points of view in an unbiased way. That is why you won't get your way. In any case, your first Harris quote doesn't support your argument; Dawkins implicitly recognises other senses, and "philosophical naturalism" is not a passive claim anyway but a sophisticated world view; Hitchens doesn't support you either because what he means by atheism, as distinct from antitheism, is that it holds religion to be untrue, which is not a passive position. Your point of view is therefore not supported by any of your mined quotes, and I therefore gently suggest it is incoherent.--Dannyno (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you have thought this fully though. What Hitchens said was that he wasn't so much an atheist as he was an anti theist. What Sam Harris said was that you don't have to hold any belief or be anything to be an atheist. The reason I included the Dawkins quote was to show that Atheism also should reject non natural phenomenons. Have I been unreasonable in my quotation? Or is it simply that you disagree with my position at any cost. Let me ask you this. What would it take to change the notion that Atheism is also an opposition to theism? What evidence or source would suffice to overturn that?. I would appreciate it however if you at least gave me the decent cutesy of viewing me as a honest addition to this debate. It is not about opposing me so I "Don't have my way" or stopping me so that I don't change wikipedia's honest position with mined quotations. I'm here to show you the source of this problem. That you and other editors with you. Know and understand what is the core debate of this definition. It all boil down to a question if Atheism is to be defined as something opposed to theism. Which those who hold that position are disagreeing with. Like Sam Harris. Who said quite clearly that why does he as a non believer having to define himself as a non-theist. Which is actually what he said if you bothered to actually understand the quotation. Now, I explained to you this problem before. It essentially boils down to who has the burden of proof. And you continue to maintain that thats an irrelevant discussion because wikipedia is here to represent sourced literacy. Unable to take into account that there is a zeitgeist on this issue. That people who define themselves as atheist or have a position of atheism have no further interest in being defined by what someone else do. Have I portrayed the argument objectively for you? Have I illustrated this argument properly for you? If so, do you understand that wikipedia then cannot have it both ways? It either has to chose to use a definition which is historical and greatly supported by literacy, namely that atheism is a rejection of another belief (even if you just add it as part). Or it has to discard that and use only latter sources to support an argument of passivity. If you include both, you have an inherent contradiction in the definition. You only square that by saying people have different understanding of this issue. Well, people have a lot of understanding what atheism is by their own bias. Are you then going to include all? The definition cannot be what all believe them to be but instead it has to be based on the notion that they are objectively correct. -- Muthsera (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Basically you're wrong about everything, including the meaning of the quotations you supplied, but more importantly you're wrong about what Wikipedia should be doing. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a discussion board. There are lots of other places to have the discussion you seem to want to have, but this is not it. Since I'm currently the only editor engaging with you, and this seems to be a big mistake, I'm going to stop doing so. --Dannyno (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Now who is simply asserting? I'm not here to have a discussion with you about the validity of either theism or atheism. I'm here to discuss the validity of the definition that wikipedia made on Atheism, and I would like to point out that I'm not the only one. I've supplied you with quotation both here and in other places here for that position. I've explained to you in debt the argument of where the problem lies. I continue to claim that I've been objective in this discussion, I've only been assertive. But you have simply rejected without argument, asserted that this is heavily foundation in previous sources. I find that dishonest in light of the fact that wikipedia's definition of atheism have changed many times here at wikipedia. And that view of dishonesty is further enforced with you rejecting to have supply justification for your stance. Not to mention that your now not even willing to interact with me, and have simply opt to ignore me. But that is your prerogative. I'm sorry you feel that way. Fact is, this is an ongoing discussion. It is not established dogma even if you claim it to be. It is an evolving process and my only crime has been to justify my position. Yet, I'm the one who is wrong by decree.... I find that strange. Be that as it may though, I'm still willing to have a proper debate over the definition with you at any time. -- Muthsera (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I merely asserted you were wrong. That's because I don't want to have the debate, which was the actual point I made in what I posted. I also dislike not having the last word, but that isn't your problem. You haven't supplied any quotations at all that verify whatever the point is that you think you're making. None whatsoever. I explained why. And again, here you are saying you want to "debate" the definition. Why? It's not our job to debate the definition as though whatever conclusions we came to would thereby become wikipedia's definition. Our job is to debate how best to reflect what reliable sources say, without being POV. That is why we cannot go in the direction you want us to go. --Dannyno (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
How else am I to change the definition if one is not able to lay out a case for it? In other words, a debate? I've supplied you with quotation and sources. I've structured an argument why this was the case. And you have simply just cut it down by assertion and decree. I got to say I dislike that. I claimed that wikipedia and the participants of this discussion, have not really understood the implication of what some of these prominent authors have argued in their books. I argued how the Teapot argument really is an argument of passive atheism. I've laid out sources of authors who assert that. And still you decree it away. Is then not just a failure on your part to take account of my argument? I've not argued my POV at all. I've argued that of others. You've just been unwilling to accept that it was a valid argument and not worth your time to argue against. Now, you may maintain that wikipedia is a neutral site. And that it doesn't take position and do not endorse. In this regard it has to. It either has to chose an older definition of opposition or it has to chose a position of passivity. You cannot have it both ways. So if you decide to rely on older an more historical sources like Kant, Hume, Plato or Encyclopedia definitions, then fine. But that is an endorsement to. I also fail to understand how one is able to square as in your argument that it has different understandings to different people. You may describe how the concept has changed over time. But you cannot have to different concepts in one. -- Muthsera (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


Read this: WP:NOR, and especially WP:SYN. --Dannyno (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought I've done that. Where they not proper sources? -- Muthsera (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I finally see the objection your having. That since I don't use one original source, I've taken bits and pieces to construct one complete argument. I did that to show the mutually supported scope of the argument for passive atheism. Not to derive a complete new argument. What ties all these quotes together is their use of Russell's teapot. Which derive the burden of proof argument. Which I've continuously tried to explain to you. It is however my obligation to supply the linking quotation. I didn't do that until later further down. For that I apologist. -- Muthsera (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism/Archive_44&oldid=1136536017"