Jump to content

Talk:Atheism/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48→Archive 50

14

three common conceptions

Current lead:

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]

Objection to current lead: "commonly described as" is cumbersome and unnecessary; that "X is commonly described as Y" is implied by "X is Y" in Wikipedia. Also, this first sentence does not tell us what the article subject is.

Proposal 14:

The three conceptions of disbelief in deities to which atheism commonly refers are the position that there are no deities,[1] the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, [2] and the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

Explanation: This lead clearly tells the reader what the subject of the article is ("The three conceptions of disbelief in deities to which atheism commonly refers"), and states what the three conceptions are, all in one sentence, without showing or implying preference to any.

With that, I'm gone until next week. Looking forward to hearing what you all think of this. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Meh. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid my reaction is much the same as Scjessey's. Sorry. It's too roundabout. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Still here. Okay, how about this?

Proposal 14a:

The three common conceptions of atheism are the position that there are no deities,[1] the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, [2] and the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

Again, this clearly states what the subject of this article is: "The three common conceptions of atheism", and then states what they are. After all, the subject is not just one conception. Simple and very direct, not to mention correct and accurate. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"The three common conceptions of" reads as unappealing boilerplate to me. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Accuracy should trump appeal, don't you think? The subject of this article is the three common conceptions, and so that is what the lead should say, no? Do you have another way to say this? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the way the current lede does. I've endorsed an above opinion that the current lede is adequate as-is. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
No, the existing sentence is far better. This one goes against WP:UNDUE in its portrayal of the uncommon alternatives.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


Having read this conversation, and finding it nearly impossible to insert my simple preference into it anywhere, I would like to say that I support the simple, three part sentence lead (i.e. proposal 14 above, or a near variant). de Bivort 17:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I would say it even more simply: Atheism commonly refers to 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] de Bivort 17:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I feel your pain with respect to how this talk has been going. But we've already talked a lot about "refers to", and there are good reasons for not doing it that way, and I even think there is agreement against doing it that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion with respect to the use or rejection of the word "refers." So, something like: "In its most frequent conceptions, atheism is the position that ..." or "Atheism is alternatively the position that ..." or "Depending on context, atheism describes the position that ..." ETC. To me, the clarity of this formulation is the main reason it should be used. The exact wording at the beginning of the sentence changes the overall meaning very little. de Bivort 18:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

is either X1, X2, or Z

Let me first repeat that I'm OK with the present lead, and I do not feel a strong need to continue to discuss changes. But that said, I just have a remaining question about "is". Maybe we already discussed this and I just don't remember any more. Have we ever evaluated what may be the ultra-simplest "is" formulation:

Atheism is either 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]

--Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly support that. I might remove the word "either" since it implies exclusivity of the alternatives, but the "or" allows them to overlap, at least strictly speaking. de Bivort 18:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The objections were that it does not adequately distinguish between the definitions and make clear that we are talking about different definitions... with the most significant objection that it gives the third definition equal weight that is undue as it is not reflected in other encyclopedias or sources. I too have said that the current lede is OK, but if this suggestion is to gain any traction, it would need some kind of qualifier. Perhaps to:
Atheism is either the position that there are no deities,[1] the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2] or when it is less rigorously defined, simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]
Properly sourced of course and I think the "either" is needed in this case to clue the reader in. --Modocc (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Referring to the one that does not include "or when it is less rigorously defined": Looks to me like that suggestion was already twice discussed & objections raised in section 11.7345b: Talk:Atheism#Favoring_one_of_three_definitions_violates_NPOV. We have had far too many radical revisions posted & recycled & reposted, for weeks now. I think the task is to work on tightening up the existing version--JimWae (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, so it already has been discussed. It's getting virtually impossible to keep track. That's fine, consider it withdrawn. As for the task now, I think we have exhausted the possibilities, and it's time to work on other pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI, it's grammatically problematic too. You can't say "either A, B or C"... "either" implies one of exactly two choices. That's why I've been suggesting the "any one of" wording. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I like Tryptofish's version with either. But I feel that Atheism really should be first defined as the absence or rejection of theism. A problem is also that atheists and theists often use the word differently. Theists tend to see it as rejection of their god, whereas atheists often don't reject any particular god hence it's not a rejection in the same sense. I do not see how one can convey all this complexity in a first few sentences. In any case how is this:

Atheism is the absence or rejection of theism. Atheism can refer 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]

This both covers that the "a" in atheism can be a denial and a non-recognition and then goes into the respective definitions. In this version "either" can go, because it's clear from the first sentence. I dropped "simply" because it's unnecessary. 99.88.82.39 (talk)

Thank you. I like the way that flows, but I can see an objection to it. Atheism predates theism, and so it is a problem to start off defining it in relation to theism (also, there are editors who will object to putting absence before rejection, and to using the "refer to" formulation). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate that point but that's tricky to resolve because clearly the term does not predate theism. I think subtlety such as atheism predating theism as a concept belongs in the body of the article not the first two lines. And has there been a vote on the order of absence/rejection order? I personally prefer if absence comes first because that's the position a lot of atheist actually hold, while theists tend to want them to take the rejection position or interpret it that way. 141.213.171.140 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC).
Strictly speaking, Wikipedia does not vote, but you can just read the discussion above and in the most recent archives, linked at the top of this talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Favoring one of three definitions violates NPOV

The current lead states:

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]

After reviewing NPOV, which states:

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

I submit the wording above does not fairly or proportionately represent all significant views about the meaning of the subject of this article, because it disproportionately favors one of the definitions ("the position that there are no deities") over the other two. In order to fix this violation of NPOV, and, as a bonus, in order to improve the article by removing cumbersome wording per guidance provided at WP:NAD#Fixing_bad_articles.2Fstubs, I submit the wording must change to:

Atheism is 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]

Or, even better:

Atheism is 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]

Quoting WP:NPOV again:

This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

--Born2cycle (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Prefer the second to the first as the first entrenches the disproportionality rather than reduces it. Is "simply" not a hostage to fortune, though? I'm still not comfortable though, because what we're actually faced with in reliable sources is not a tripartite definition, but several different typologies. I mean that although all three elements are called atheism in the literature by somebody, only one group of writers would call *all* of them atheism, and that's those following the absence typology of George H Smith. Thus, although Born2cycle is right in wanting to eliminate the bias towards definition 1, what he's done is given the bias to definition 3, or rather typological tradition 3.
I mean that this suggestion says "Atheism is (1 or 2 or 3)", but to be fair to the literature we ought to be saying "Atheism is ((1) or (1 or 2) or (1 or 2 or 3)). Does that make my position clearer? --Dannyno (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

I agree - and I believe that the long standing consensus over the years has been that we shouldn't try to imply that some definitions are more common that others - especially when distinguishing between "no gods" and "rejection" definitions, which are both common in sources.

Digging through the history, there was a change at [1], apparently after "long talk discussions". This new version looks fine to me. It then got changed at [2], and I feel this version is far worse. This was then reverted [3], but then someone else reverted it back again [4], with apparently no indication of consensus.

It looks like the discussion took place at [5] - and it seems that all of the discussion took place in a single day! Hardly enough to overturn weeks and months of long discussion. There was also not a clear consensus that I can see anyway, with other editors disputing the new definition. The later discussions seem to debate variations on that, but I don't see where the large amounts of consensus there are for the change that introduced "commonly"?

Thoughts? Objections if we revert to the version that had a longstanding consensus, and then we can see what support there is for the new version?

(It seems to me that one of the repeated problems of this page is that even when we arrive at a definition after vast amounts of discussion, that all goes for nothing when someone comes along later and changes it, and then we're left discussing the changed version later on.) Mdwh (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It sure felt like a long discussion to me! I'm the person who did the third of your diffs, the reversion with which I think you agree. That said, I'm satisfied with the lead as it is now (and not the least bit eager to make the discussion any longer). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I support reverting to the January stable version, [3]. I am not okay with the NPOV-violating current wording. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
You might also bring this up at the bottom of the talk page. It's the version from 20:48, January 31, 2010 edited by JimWae which we want to restore. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The current version is adequate. Disregarding all the debate that's taken place to get to the current lede is inconsiderate to say the least. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
There was almost no debate to get the current lead. Did you not follow what Mdwh explained? In particular, the "commonly" wording was inserted with very little discussion back in February or so. Re-read what Mdwh wrote. There was a lot of debate leading up to the [3] version cited above. Since then, there has been no consensus, and there is certainly no consensus for the NPOV violating current wording. There was a lot of discussion and tons of versions suggested to get it down to one sentence, but no consensus was reached. But instead of going back to the last consensus version, we went back to the problematic one from which stemmed all the recent debate. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The consensus for the change is there [6] --windyhead (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
One or maybe two days of voting??? Entirely missed by many, including yours truly. You're kidding, right? Ahd the NPOV violation was not even raised much less discussed. Revert to true consensus version, please. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Your WP:NPOV concern has been adressed repeatedly and you continue to bring it up. That is disruptive. Please stop.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

More recent consensus is [7]. See bottom of that section.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that a problem in this thread is that we are discussing two things: (1) whether there was a violation of consensus in arriving at the current version of the page, and (2) whether the current version of the lead is better or worse than the earlier version. Issue 2 is, as always, a potentially valid question to discuss, and, as at any other page, editors should always be free to raise the discussion. However, I strongly reject the premise of issue 1, in this particular instance. There was definitely discussion. Long discussion. Getting longer now. And no one was prevented from objecting. I think we, generally, have been quite willing to listen to what other editors are saying (even when it hasn't made sense). So what just happened here? An editor who has had a long history working on this page has been away from the discussion for some time, and just came back, and disagrees with some of the changes that occurred in the interim. No problem disagreeing. But completely incorrect to claim that there was a failure of process. Sorry you weren't involved in the previous discussion, please feel free to raise discussion now, but please don't dismiss previous discussion as having been invalid. Then another editor who partially disagreed with previous consensus makes use of the new comment to argue that the previous consensus never existed. Let's drop the false arguments about process. If you feel that a previous version is superior to the current version, please explain that on the merits of the content. That, we can reasonably discuss. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A is either X1, X2, or Z

B2C. I'd suggest the following similar wording, but I think the wording you provide in the second offering is fine.
I might suggest you BE BOLD here and simply change the wording. We've had several people agree & accept this wording now. NickCT (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


It is not clear what "or" mean here. It is not clear that the 3 "characterizations" are not intended to be synonymous with one another. This is not a case of "cafeteria atheism", nor indecision on the part of the editors about how to word each def. The toughest external (not also involved here) advocates of WP:NAD have no problem with "has been defined as". Thus, in accord with recent trend to "be bold" here after very little input, I have also been bold -- and also removed Easter eggss. Incidentally, WP:NPOV does not require that all versions receive equal treatment -- and it is neither endorsing nor favoring any def to say that it is "common". WP:NPOV endorses making note of which viewpoint is in the majority - though "common" does not even make the claim of majority. One def appears in nearly every source - however, I have removed "common" for now. Revert me too if you wish - but to which version?--JimWae (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

@JW - "is not clear that the 3 "characterizations" are not intended to be synonymous with one another" - Hmmmm... Don't see your point here. If I saw "Poultry is chicken, duck, or goose" is it not clear those three aren't synomous.
I still don't understand your obsession with WP:NAD. I think you are the only one pushing this line. "is" is simply more concise than "has been defined as". If WP:NAD prevents concision we should ignore WP:NAD.
What are Easter eggss?
@B2C - I continue to suggest you be bold and make the revision. As I see it, we have the wording that has the most consensus. NickCT (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:BRD advises further discussion - not further reverting --JimWae (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
the "," (especially with "or") suggests appositive - reader has to get very far into sentence to figure out its structure (and even then cannot be sure) - meaning is lost by not saying "and". A sentence is "too wordy" if you can drop words & retain all the meaning. It is not too wordy if dropping words loses meaning (aside from splitting into more than 1 sentence)
Sorry, WP:EASTEREGG --JimWae (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
B2C is pushing WP:NAD as a reason to not say "has been defined as" - None of its regular contributors agree with him.--JimWae (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm pushing a section of NAD that has nothing to do with the main "not a dictionary" aspect of that page, WP:NAD#Fixing_bad_articles.2Fstubs, so the regular contributors, when asked, were not asked the right question.
At any rate, the main issue here is violation of NPOV - to favor one definition over the other. Please stop reverting to a version that violates NPOV. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
It's also incorrect to say that none of its regular contributors agree. Here is a statement from User:WhatamIdoing from the NAD talk page:
--Born2cycle (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, that was Born2cycle who changed WP:NAD#Fixing_bad_articles.2Fstubs --windyhead (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
superindent: That strongly resembles trying to rig the system to me. Every other regular contributor had no problem with "is defined as" until B2C made his change (which did not parallel "refers to" - 'refers to" is about the term, "is defined as" is about the topic/concept). Then whatamIdoing merely quoted the text that B2C had altered, but still did not really disagree with "has been defined as". Thanks for catching that, Windy. I wonder what policy violation this would come under?--JimWae (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
@JW 1) I don't see what's wrong with "has been defind as" but I also don't see why it's necessary. I'd opt for simply "is either" for simplicity/concision.
2) Re WP:BRD - Forgive me for thinking we've discussed this wording already...
3) Re appositive - Hmmmm... Well I understand your point, I just can't see it. By saying "is either" you indicate to the reader that they are going to be getting a list of possibilities. It seems self evident that the ","s seperate each possibility.
4) The wording I'm proposing is a close match to wording you suggested in a previous revision. I suggest we agree on it for now, and address minor technicalities later. NickCT (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
"Either" was a compromise, that included a "can be", I think - and only included 2 alternatives (not three) -- after removal of "as an explicit position". "Either" is pretty indecisive and "weasel-like" (as is "or" when we are presenting a definition ["or"s in definitions are usually for polysemous words] or to link rephrasings [appositives]). "has been defined as" + "and" is clear and accurate and I would like to keep discussing that.--JimWae (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle, I checked your page version [8] . It is supported by Britannica which says A. is denial and later rejection, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy which says A. rejects, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy which says A. is lack of belief or belief that there is none, and Dictionary of Philosophy which says A. is belief that there is no God or have not held to a belief . So you can't say "absence" def is as much widely agreed as the other two. --windyhead (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

more or less commonly defined as

I think it's best is we don't debate how "widely agreed" upon different definitions are. This will likely only lead to further rancor. I don't see what the issue is with leaving it ambiguous, as in the suggested wording above. I don't think it violates WP:UNDUE. NickCT (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I may agree on that "we don't debate", but that means we must stay with the version before the change --windyhead (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
What's wrong with the following?
NickCT (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
This was already said before. The current lead does a better job saying that "absence" def is less agreed on. --windyhead (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I see no source for the assertion that the absence def is less agreed on. We have citations for all definitions, and, lacking reliable sources that say one is more widely agreed on than another, it a violation of WP:NOR for us to say or imply that. To remain in compliance with WP:NOR as well as WP:NPOV, we must give each definition equal weight. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
1>Perhaps there are not, perhaps a search will show there are. A source stating the "denial" def is "most common" would certainly support describing it as simply "common". Most "absence" tracts do begin with the denial def, and one of them might itself be a source for denial being "common". 2>That the absence def is "less rigorous" is already sourced. 3>Giving the reader a "map" to compare the scope and commonality of the various views would not violate WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV is not about equal weight.--JimWae (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The Edwards EoP article says: According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no God, that is, that the sentence “God exists” expresses a false proposition. That would seem to qualify as a source for common, yes? "Common" does not mean adequate, and I myself think it is overly restrictive - but there's one source (there would be many more)--JimWae (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
George Smith in The Case Against God says "The two most common usages are described by Paul Edwards as follows:"First there is the familiar sense in which a person is an atheist if he maintains that there is no God..."...Both of these meanings are important kinds of atheism, but neither does justice to atheism in its widest sense"--JimWae (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Saying a def is common (when sources say it is "most common") does not favor that definition. Lots of common notions are inadequate. It seems that your argument from a policy is again a misinterpretation. I do not advise changing the WP:NPOV policy page as you did to WP:NOTDIC with this edit just 5 hours after I had pointed out that no comments at WT:NOTDIC supported your position -- and just 1.5 hours after I had placed the POV tag on your bold edit that you had quickly reverted to despite ongoing discussion here about POV. That change to WP:NOTDIC was just 7 minutes after Cybercobra said you appeared to be alone in your interpretation of WP:NOTDIC. I have to admit that henceforth I will have trouble assuming good faith edits from you. --JimWae (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Saying a def is common in reliable sources is enough to qualify it as per WP:V and WP:NPOV, and whether or not it is a 'good' definition, as WP policy explicitly states. I'm not convinced it is common in reliable sources, but that would be enough and ceding that point is to give up on your argument.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
you & I agree. Not sure if B2C, who thought it was POV to say "common", will. Don't think he has much choice, though. Smith, who opposes the denial def & advocates the absence def as the "real" def, admits the denial def is most common. --JimWae (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if one of the definitions is more commonly used than the others, and that claim is well sourced, noting that is a matter of usage, by definition, and is a statement about multiple distinct meanings, which belongs not in an encyclopedia article, but in a dictionary article, per WP:NAD:


--Born2cycle (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


  • Just because something "is in a dictionary entry" is not a good argument against its being in an encyclopedia article. The major point of NOTDIC is that the lede not be about the term. Wikipedia is very emphatic that articles begin with definitions. When multiple definitions are presented, readers need a map. The comparative commonness is not about the term, but about the most common definition of atheism (not of "atheism") given in sources. It is not a dictionary that we would be using to source commonality - it is other encyclopediae & published articles. Those sources are not discussing a "word", but rather the concept.--JimWae (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Can I point out that the thrust of George H Smith's typological writings are, explicitly, that although atheism is commonly thought to be commonly defined as "denial" or some such (I'd note that "denial" doesn't necessarily carry with it the implications that a lot of people give it), in fact atheists themselves have commonly adopted an absence definition. He quotes people from d'Holbach onwards, via the English secularists up to Antony Flew. See: [Atheism, Ayn Rand and other heresies http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smithdef.htm]. On the other hand he notes that Antony Flew is "one of the few modern philosophers" to adopt the absence definition. Leaving aside the disputed question of whether that correctly interprets Flew, it is nevertheless clear that Smith is trying to normalise the absencist typology, and references in his other work to what others say are the most common definitions should be seen in that light.
I also think that the WP:NAD argument is a red herring. The article as a whole is quite clearly concerned with the concepts of atheisms, and thus does not fall foul of WP:NAD. That the conceptualisation of atheism is a big problem is something that it is entirely appropriate to make explicit at the outset, and we don't contravene WP:NAD by doing so. I would also note that wikipedia can contain encyclopedic articles about words. The example given in policy is Thou. Perfectly good article; not a dictionary-type entry. There is no reason at all why the lead cannot say something like "Atheism is defined in different ways. Three meanings in common usage are: 1) Atheism is the position that no deities exist; 2) Atheism is the rejection of belief in deities; 3: Atheism is the absence of belief in deities." I'm not necessarily proposing that, but I just wanted to illustrate that the nature of the subject is that we cannot reach agreement on a clear definition in the lead and that maybe we have to lead on the fact that defintions vary. --Dannyno (talk) 09:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
(reindent ← )

Danny, of course encyclopedias can contain dictionary-type words. That is not the issue here. The issue is... well, I explained that in my last comment, but it was moved to a separate section below (Jim, if you want to start a new section, fine, but please don't drag the comments of others out of the context in which they were posted - that's highly disruptive).

Thank you for pointing out the importance of considering Smith's statements about commonality in light of his other work. I like your suggestion, and agree there is no problem with it, but would actually propose a variation on it, which I will below in a new section. --Born2cycle (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

atheism is rejection of belief in a god or gods.

Kevin Baastalk 17:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That's one of three definitions of atheism. It's certainly not the definition. What's your point? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
how about WP:DICT? or WP:Summary style? or WP:LEDE? pick one. Kevin Baastalk 14:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the sources stated for Explicit and Strong. You'll see that it is very little sourced. Explicit is basically just Smith (if you take out the theistic passive argument, ie Atheist is in denial), Strong is just supported by Martin (who has made a compendium on atheism), Rowe (Which has made an encyclopedia on atheism). And Flew which I'm not yet familiar with, but whom am increasingly interested in looking up at this point. Those are the sources we have on the rejection of theism also is atheism. It's very telling though when you look at Smith. He makes a strong case that opposing Theism is the same as strengthening Atheism. Which goes to heart of his definition. BUT. All these authors agree that primarily Atheism is the absence of belief and then they go on to include a more vigorous opposition as an added definition. So to claim that the entire definition should be the rejection of theism. Is wrong based on the sources we have. -- Muthsera (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Strong Atheism vs Anti Theism

I suggest we stop using Strong Atheism vs Weak atheism. As Antitheism is indistinguishable from Strong Atheism. I suggest we use "Antitheism" on arguments which are opposed to theism. Antitheism -- Muthsera (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not the case at all. "strong atheism" means you are convinced there is no God. You may still like religion, go to church, baptize your children, but you do it because you enjoy religion as a social function without any sort of belief attached. You may even think that theism is essential to the proper working of human society, you just don't think that it has any truth value beyond that. Antitheism, otoh, is emotional. As an antitheist, you are maybe not even convinced there is no God, but you hate the guts of anyone asserting that there is. You think that theism is bad or harmful and needs to be abolished. Atheists who are also antitheists tend to be just as ideologized and irrational as theists who are also bishops. --dab (𒁳) 11:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I disagree. There is no obligation to have an emotional feeling about theism in anti theism. It is mere objection to theism. Your hyper bowling the two to make a distinction. Making Strong seem passive and Antitheism seems assertive. While they are not bipolar. -- Muthsera (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

hyper bowling? is that the elative of super bowling?

Ok, emotion does not have to play a part, but the point remains that atheism is a conviction ("there is no god") while antitheism is a political position ("theism should be abolished"). The terms are not synonymous.

I am the first to admit that the strong/weak division is a red herring, but bringing in antitheism isn't going to solve this. "weak atheism" is a rhetorical point used by atheists, implying that atheism is the default position. You may agree or disagree with this, it's a position not a fact. --dab (𒁳) 11:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry about that. I blame my spell checker. But I have to disagree with you that Atheism is a convition. It is not. This is a burden of proof argument all over. Your simply stating that Atheist take up an active position against theism. And that Atheism is to be understood as opposition to theism. Which is a false statement. Which is understated by the fact that unawareness is a state of disbelief.

And "Antitheism" have the potential to solve our argument. There are numerous sources of later popular atheist who use this definition. It solves our debate quite clearly as it's a much more coherent definition in terms of level of belief vs disbelief. If you only do that one step to use "antitheism" as a point of rejection/opposition instead of "strong Atheism".

And I have to strongly disagree that it's a political position. Just because some have used it as a political position doesn't mean it is defined as one. Take the example of pacifism, just because Gandhi used it as a political weapon doesn't mean it's a political position.

With that said. I think you all here have this understanding that Atheism can be a rejection of the theist claim. The confusion here I believe comes when you use the word rejection. Because if we mean them to be the rejection of the theist claim of proof towards a deity. That is a position of being unconvinced. So why not just say that? Instead of saying that it's a rejection of "Theism" which is an entirely different concept.

Lastly, everything we're discussing here are a position, not fact. So please do not make me out as someone who is in breech of reality. It's only a debate about reaching a logical cohesive argument on how to form this definition. -- Muthsera (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A general suggestion: no point in having a discussion forum, no point in discussing changes to the page without sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I have supplied the sources for this before. If you are not bothered to look it up, here the sources again:
"You seem to have guessed, from some remarks I have already made in passing, that I am not a religious believer. In order to be absolutely honest, I should not leave you with the impression that I am part of the generalized agnosticism of our culture. I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful. Reviewing the false claims of religion I do not wish, as some sentimental agnostics affect to wish, that they were true. I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually the case." Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a young contrarian, 2001, USA.
The argument for a default position on disbelief:
"The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy: it is not even a view of the world; is is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist"." Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, 2006, USA, page 51
picking up at an argument for the probability of existence of an unexplored object "Nevertheless, it is a common error, which we shall meet again, to leap from the premise that the question of God's existence is in principle unanswerable to the conclusion that his existence and his non-existence are equiprobable .Another way to express that error is in terms of the burden of proof, and in this form it is pleasingly demonstrated by Bertrand Russell's parable of the celestial teapot. "goes on to quote a passage from Russel's book" We would not waste time saying so because nobody, so far as I know, worships teapots;* but, if pressed, we would not hesitate to declare our strong belief that there is positively no orbiting teapot. Yet strictly we should all be teapot agnostics: we cannot prove, for sure, that there is no celestial teapot. In practice, we move away from teapot agnosticism towards a-teapotisin." Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2006, USA, Page 51-52
-- Muthsera (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Single sources dictate neither the structure nor the vocabulary of this article. The ideal of NPOV is a balanced (per predominance) presentation of all reliably sourced views. Many sources (regrettably) use the misleading strong-weak nomenclature. Very few people want their position to be saddled with the term "weak" - and that remains a problem to be fixed in future decades, but it cannot be overlooked now. The weak-strong nomenclature will not be removed from the article unless the terms lose currency or are mostly replaced by a less-derogatory one. At most, I think, we might look at developing (over years to come) different labels (such as explicit denial atheism, agnostic explicit atheism and implicit atheism [symbolized E1A, E2A, and IA?]). There are 3 main groups (well 2, for those of us not counting implicit) - and hopefully the common linguistic labels will change someday --JimWae (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, it is not a single source, it's three. And it seems to me that you have already taken an endorsement of a POV. As we clearly have other sources who differs. You simply chosen which sources to emphasize, or rather, you've taken the position to keep the ones you have. Which is fair enough. But it is an endorsement of that view non the less. Either way, I think your right on labels. I just think those different labels will come as a result of a positive action, instead of a reaction to a positive action. It's so much easier to be coherent if your defined by what you do, and not what you don't do or by what others do. -- Muthsera (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Antitheism is an opposition to theism, which does not just mean simply the opposite of theism, but has a connotation of hostility or antagonism towards theism. This article is about atheism, which has no such meaning, therefore antitheism has a separate article. --Modocc (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
It relates to this article in how we define "Atheism". As explained above "Antitheism" have no obligation to be hostile or antagonistic. It can be. But does not have to be. It simply gives a state of opposition for unsaid reason. So I see your objection in the same category as the first comment from Dbackman. -- Muthsera (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems even theists can be antitheists - such as devil worshippers and those opposed to rule by a powerful & unjust deity. Weak Rejectionist agnostic atheists can also be antitheists, as I believe has already been mentioned. Of the 3 main "classes" of atheists, the only one that cannot be antitheists are the supposed "implicit atheists"--JimWae (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Theist can also be atheist in regards to different religions. That in itself doesn't change the definition of Atheism. We're only debating which term makes more logical sense, and which is to be used over the other. -- Muthsera (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
antitheism, like atheism and agnosticsm, has no one meaning. It's used by some sources as a synonym for atheism in general or strong atheism in particular, and by others to indicate a moral or political opposition to theism or religion. Others use it with respect to a technical philosophical argument concerned with the notional existence of an evil deity. Wikipedia has taken it to mean "opposition", but of course "opposition" has a broad range. Let's keep our eye on the literature, rather than the POV quote-mining of some editors. --Dannyno (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
1. I'm glad you group it like that. See how natural it comes? That said, You can have a "opposition to theism" mean differently in different circumstances, but you cannot have "Antitheism" mean other than "an opposition to theism".
2. I would like you to show me how these quoted sentences of mine was taken out of context. Which is the definition of quote mining. If you cannot supply that, I suggest you give me an apology. It simply isn't enough for you to claim that I've used WP:NOR for you to also accuse me of quote mining, I needed to have taken them out of context. I also object to the notion that I've breeched WP:NOR. They are mutually inclusive.
And 3. I keep explaining to you that this is really a schism on the definition of atheism. But you don't seem to want to listen. What annoys me most is that you all here seem to utterly ignore the debate of the schism and continue roaring on with the definition without even understanding the position your on when doing so. Your going to have countless people like myself who come here and do this debate with you until you all address this properly. You'll continue to have this problem long after I've stopped bothering. The schism isn't going to go away. -- Muthsera (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you agree or not that the article needs to discuss 1>the 2 distinct groups of explicit atheists found in the literature, and 2>the "implicit atheism" found in the literature?--JimWae (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes. But I understand that to describe the different positions of the schism. -- Muthsera (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
What are the 3 groups in "the schism"?--JimWae (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I only understand schism as a devision of ideas. Here I base them as one wanting to include opposition, the other not include opposition to theism. As you probably gathered below, Smith understood the position of explicit was part of atheism, while he recognized that others had another definition in terms, "antitheism". I cannot more clearly show you the dispute. Although Smith was firmly in the understanding that the burden of proof lies on the positive claim. He seem not to concerned with the fact that you could be defined as an atheist even though you where opposed to theism. Hitchens on the other hand uses the word "antitheism" in his opposition. So we're at an impasse. -- Muthsera (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
@Muthsera. I cannot make sense of your last comment. Smith says in Atheism: the case against God that what he called "explicit atheism", i.e. rejection of theism, "is sometimes characterised as anti-theism" (p.17). He is quite clear that he does not consider the rejection of theism to be anything other than a negative claim, and not a position making any positive assertions. Christopher Hitchens, in the text you cite, uses "antitheism" to mean something more than a philosophical rejection of theism, He uses it to indicate that he is morally/politically opposed to religion and theistic belief systems. I do not see why this is relevant. --Dannyno (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
@Muthsera. You say: "you cannot have "Antitheism" mean other than "an opposition to theism"." Yes you can. Wikipedia's own article on antitheism cites some uses of the word that are not reducable to "opposition to theism." You complain that I accused you of quote-mining. I stand by that. Take your quotation from Sam Harris, which you characterise as "The argument for a default position on disbelief." Even as quoted, I think that is eccentric. The thrust of what Harris is saying there is not that atheism is a "default position", but that theism should not be dignified by having a word for its rejection, any more than anyone identifies as an "non-astrologer". As he says on the same page "Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs." That is a clear rejection of theism. However, the killer evidence that you are quote mining are the words immediately preceeding the quote you've cited. Here is what Harris says:

"Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture, and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of six billion human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl's parents believe—as you believe—that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?

No.

The entirety of atheism is contained in this response." (Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, p.17)

That is not an "argument for a default position". It's a clear statement of rejection and opposition to theism. Whatever it is that you want the article to say, and that's really hard to determine at the moment, these quotes fail to advance any case. --Dannyno (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad we finally manage to discuss the details of each claim instead of just throwing claims around. That said. Smith shows us that "Anti-theism" is equal to "Explicit Atheism" not an elevated position. And it is in that context I understand Hitchens. He uses "Anti-Theism" in the place where other people use "Explicit Atheism". You see that from his use of "Atheism" in that quote. When it comes to Sam Harris quote you gave me. You stop that to short. Whats does he go on to say? If you go back to the book and read the next sentences you'll see that he's actually pointing towards what comes after. Not what was said before. And in that he gives explicit understanding that nobody has ever needed to be defined for what he does not do. That falls perfectly in line with the understanding that to be opposed to "Theism" is "Anti-Theism" not simply "Explicit Atheism". It's here where the zeitgeist comes in, because previously it didn't use to be like that. Then "Atheism" was indeed an opposition to "Theism". Thats what we read out of the literature. That it has been a slow shift of not accepting that position anymore. Because in essence that means you as an "Atheist" are to be defined by what a "Theist" does. Neither Russell or Smith says this fully. It's only when we get to Hitchens and Dawkins we start to see this argument more clearly defined. That is what they mean when they illustrate the point of burden of proof arguments. This is furthered underscored by the fact that I've never known any of the four horsemen (Dennett, Harris, Dawkinds, Hitchens) to use the term "Implicit or Explicit Atheism" anywhere. I challenge anyone to give evidence for the fact that they do. While they do use the terms "Anti-Theism" and "Atheism" often. Am I'm making sense here? Or does all this just seem like semantics? -- Muthsera (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't think it does make sense. Hitchens does NOT use "anti-theism" where Smith would say "explicit atheism". He obviously uses it to indicate political hostility to religion, and to distinguish himself from people who are atheists but not hostile to religion: "I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful." See that? "Not only" is key. Not only does he reject the truth of religion, but he also thinks it is harmful. It's the latter which he says characterises his position as "anti-theist". Nothing Harris says has anything to do with the label "anti-theism"; in his opinion atheists shouldn't label themselves atheists. Presumably he would say they shouldn't label themselves anti-theists either. That's clearly not the position of either Hitchens or Dawkins. The most you could use the Harris source for is a small footnote to indicate that some atheists prefer to emphasise rationalism rather than rejection or opposition to theism. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with how atheism should be defined, only how they should label themselves, which is quite a different point. You are probably right that the four horsemen do not use Smith's typology, but I don't see anyone claiming that they do, so I don't understand why you mention it. Hitchens has used "antitheism" in a particular sense - nor your sense, but he has used it. I don't think Dawkins uses the word. I don't think Dennett uses the word. I don't think Harris does either. If you have the references, let's see them, but even if you do they won't support any point you think you're making, because your point is irrelevant to the definition of atheism. You're confusing the definition of atheism (which is indeed dependent on what constitutes theism) with debates about what labels should be adopted by atheists. --Dannyno (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I got to disappoint you here Dannyno. I've given you evidence for why "Anti-Theism" is to be viewed in the same light as "Explicit Atheism". From one of the original sources of "Explicit Atheism" even. That is pretty compelling evidence by itself. You have given me no sources or evidence to view it differently. None at all. What you do however, is that you keep moving the goalpost to me to provide further evidence to disprove your position. I don't think that is fair. So I maintain that when Hitchens uses the word "Anti-Theism" it must be viewed in the light of Smith's words. Either that or we need to see some new evidence to disprove that. It is true that Hitchens have a more assertive opposition to "Theism". But that does not change any of these definition.
The Sam Harris quote can only be interpreted in light of atheism being the passive position. He doesn't go on to say something about "Explicit Atheism", he only maintains that position of "Atheism". That is further underscored with the fact that he maintain that the term "Atheism" shouldn't exist. Why wouldn't it exist if the word "Atheism" indeed also included "Explicit Atheist"? Why would Harris use that kind of wording if he agreed with Smith? Thats why I say it's mutually supportive. It is only by using the understanding of "Atheism" being the passive position that these quotations make sense. I can further underscore that with other sources. Like his lecture at the AAI07:

So let me make my somewhat "sadistious" (I don't know which words he really intend to use here) proposal explicit. We should not call ourself "Atheists". We should not call ourself "Secularists". We should not call ourself "Secular Humanists" or "Free-Thinkers" or "Rationalists" or "Anti-Theists" or "Brights". We should not call ourself anything. We should go under the radar, for the rest of our lives. While there we should descent, honest people. Who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them. It just so by happens that religion has more than it's fair share of bad ideas. So I think as a necessity, we'll continue to criticize religion. And religion must be recognized, is the only form of thinking, in which bad ideas are held in perpetual immunity from criticism. And doing so is considered sacred. This is the act of faith. So out of necessity I think we will spend a lot of time talking about religion. But we should not name ourself in opposition to religion.

Sam Harris AAI07 from 11:55 into the clip.

Now, I don't know about you. But nowhere in there do I see "Explicit Atheist" used, but he uses "Anti Theist". And as above, if he uses "Anti Theism" it must be understood as in place of "Explicit Atheism" until further evidence is provided from these authors which would disprove that notion. And he seems verdant at describing "Atheism" as a passive position. It is the only understanding which makes any of his statements contain sense. It seems very clear that Sam Harris consider "Atheism" as purely the absence of belief. -- Muthsera (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

1. You're going beyond your selected sources into original research and synthesis. Smith says that explicit atheism is sometimes characterised as "anti-theism". That's all he says. No more, no less. The key word is "sometimes", since that means it sometimes isn't. So you obviously cannot use Smith as evidence for the notion that any time someone uses the word "anti-theism", they mean it synonymously with explicit atheism. 2. You have given no reason here why we should take Hitchens to be using "anti-theist" to mean "explicit atheism". In fact, in the quote provided, Hitchens plainly does no such thing whatsoever, and it does great violence to the text to assert that he does. This is perfectly clear from his actual words. 3. It is not correct that Harris can only be interpreted in the way you suggest. Harris can also be interpreted in a way that doesn't misrepresent the point he's making, which is that rationalists shouldn't call themselves atheists as though theism were the most important thing. It's perfectly clear from the plain words in all the quotes you've given by him that it would be neither here nor there to him what kind of atheist you are, it's the label he thinks should be dropped. There's nothing there to support an eccentric interpretation about "passivity" of definition at all, and certainly no source or support for the notion that Harris would define atheism *only* as absence of belief. What you're suggesting is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. There are no reliable sources supporting your particular point of view, and that is what wikipedia requires. --Dannyno (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
"This deliberate rejection of theism presupposes familiarity with theistic beliefs and is sometimes characterized as anti-theism." George Smith. He merely say that sometimes people use "Anti-Theism" in place of "Explicit Atheism". Thats is all I was saying to. Your taking it to far by using scales in which one sometimes overlap the use of "Anti-Theism" under "Explicit Atheist", in which Smith clearly doesn't intend in this instance. As far as I can tell you have no support for saying that with other sources. Merely claiming that they use "Atheism" in that setting isn't enough. You need to show that they at least sometimes use the word "Explicit Atheist" in some occasions. I have no evidence for that. That is further underscored by the fact that as far as I have read. Hitchens have never used the word "Explicit Atheist" to describe other atheists. But he often uses the word "Anti-Theist" frequently. Thats why I use it. It would then make perfect sense therefor, that he uses this differentiation between "Explicit Atheist" and "Anti-Theist". This is compelling evidence of that understanding. You've given none to overturn that. Now, I understand I've given you a negative to disprove. But I find no sources which would indicate otherwise. You merely profess that this was how it was to be understood. And that everyone agreed with that. I don't. It does not make logical sense with the arguments Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins and Dennett put forward. That your derived into two groups of atheists. They don't use that at all. They claim fairly clearly that your defined by what you do. It would then make perfect sense to use "Anti-Theist" instead of "Explicit Atheist". Because it would confuse the boarders between a mare disbelief and active rejection. This what they say continuously. I'm surprised that you can even have an opposed view on this. Because it clearly isn't the case that their arguing that there are two kinds of atheists. -- Muthsera (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm finding your comments confusing. I no longer know why you are quoting George H Smith, and I don't know what your talk of overlapping scales refers to. Nor do I understand your comment about "explicit atheism": I don't have to show anything, so far as I can see, all I'm interested in is making sure that Smith's typology is properly reflected in the article. I dispute the idea that Hitchens uses "antitheist" frequently, but regardless of how often he uses it, what's it got to do with this article? It is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS to assert that "he uses this differentiation between explicit atheist and antitheist" without citing any works by Hitchens in which he does so. Nor do I understand what you are on about with regard to "two kinds of atheists". A Wikipedia requires the use of reliable sources; please make sure your contributions are adequately supported by citations. --Dannyno (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why this should be confusing or that I should have to explain this yet again. The word "sometimes" in Smith's sentence is only to show that "sometimes" people use "Anti-Theism" in place of "Explicit Atheism". That would follow logically because either you agree with Smith and claim that some forms of atheism is explicit and you use that line of path. Or you disagree with Smith and you follow anti. But it might be as you claim, that explicit and anti is just different scales of the same proposition. Either way. There is a prediction there we can test. If it is meant as a replacement, then we shouldn't see them used alongside each other. If it's meant as a scale difference, we should see them used alongside each other. Now, we can look at the author(s). How do Smith himself use "Anti-Theism"? He doesn't really, he goes on to use "Explicit Atheism". And no further mention of "Anti-Theism". What about Hitchens? Do we see him use "Explicit Atheism". No, we don't see him do that. He uses "Anti-Theist" quite frequently, but no mention of "Explicit Atheism". What about Harris? No, he sometimes describe "Anti-Theism", but no mention of "Explicit Atheism". But that prediction is continuous. I've only shown three results. We can probably have many more. But all three so far use it in the context of replacement. It isn't seen as a scale. But feel free to provide sources which use it in the scale proposition. Until then. May we agree that when we see the usage of "Anti-Theism", it is to be viewed and understood as a replacement of "Explicit Atheism"? -- Muthsera (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The confusion arises because of inadequate support by reliable sources. Your "either/or" typology does not exhaust the "logical" possibilities, and this idea that either you somehow follow Smith and "explicit atheism" or else you disagree and follow "antitheism" is something you've made up. It is not found in the literature. I have made no claim here that "explicit and anti is just different scales of the same proposition." I have merely observed that Smith takes anti-theism to be a possible synonym for what he calls "explicit atheism". I do not know what you mean by "scales". The article makes clear that atheism is defined differently in the literature by different reliable sources. That Harris and Hitchens refer to anti-theism (not necessarily with the same meaning, either), but not to explicit atheism, does not demonstrate that they have Smith's typology in mind and are using it as a synonym for "explicit atheism". But even if it did (which it doesn't), since this is just your opinion we could not include it in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is still not a discussion forum. Your attempt to draw conclusions from disparate usage of the word "antitheism" is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Unless the typology you are promoting can be found in reliable sources, Wikipedia cannot include it. Since the typology you are promoting cannot be found in reliable sources, I suggest it would be more productive to shift your energies to discussing contributions which would not violate policy. We are here to improve the article, not to invent new typologies. Thank you. --Dannyno (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I maintain it's your inability to grasp the issue or an unfamiliarity with the propositions at heart. Let me explain.

I have merely observed that Smith takes anti-theism to be a possible synonym for what he calls "explicit atheism".

Those are your words. That sentence makes all the difference in the world. Because, if you use "Anti-Theism" in place of "Explicit Atheism". You utterly change the meaning of "Atheism". Because you then leave out the portions where "Atheism" is a rejection of "Theism". And your left with the mere lack of belief. I don't know how you can fail to understand that aspect. THIS is the debate. This is the implication of Smith's words. It portrays a schism. And it's right here. "This deliberate rejection of theism presupposes familiarity with theistic beliefs and is sometimes characterized as anti-theism." Thats the debate..... Right there. In black and white. How do you fail to grasp that issue is beyond me. And to claim we need to explore all "logical" avenues is a non sequitur. Because we're discussing the basis of the definitions we find in the sources/literature. Not ALL possible logical avenues. You yourself pointed that out to me on numerous occasions. I suggest you follow it yourself. At the very least this is something to debate. And it's not inventing anything. It's being true to what the literature actually portrays and says. Not just leaving out the bits which you yourself like. -- Muthsera (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again, what you're suggesting is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. There are no reliable sources interpreting the literature in the way you are advocating. Unless and until there are, we can do no other than point you at relevant wikipedia policies. I haven't claimed that we need to explore "all the logical avenues"; I've simply observed that you were wrong about what the "logical" alternatives supposedly were. As for your comments on Smith, I remain completely baffled. For Smith, of course, atheism is divisible into explicit and implicit atheism. That some people have called the rejection of theism "antitheism" doesn't affect the meaning of the terms in his typology at all - both implicit and explicit atheisms are still atheism for Smith. He doesn't discuss "antitheism" any further; the term isn't even in the index to the book. So we don't know who or what he has in mind. Not Robert Flint, that's for sure, because Flint's 1879 "Anti-Theisitc Theories" makes anti-theism an umbrella term encompassing pantheists, and thus atheism a narrower term. So where is your interpretation drawn from? Not from Smith, not from anyone cited by Smith, and not from any other reliable source. Nor does Smith refer to any "schism", as you put it, and he does not draw anything remotely like the conclusions you draw. Nor does anyone cited by Smith, and nor does any other reliable source. Nor have you cited any reliable source which is clearly using the word "antitheism" instead of "explicit atheism", i.e. specifically taking issue with Smith, rather than just using the word as a synonym for atheism or to signify opposition to atheism as distinct from rejection of theism. For Smith, of course, "the lack of theistic belief is the core of atheism" (p.18, Atheism: the case against God.), whether you are talking about implicit or explicit atheism. It is necessary, therefore, to drag you back the wikipedia's requirements as to reliable sources. Contributions which are not WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS are welcome; should any occur to you, we'd be more than happy to discuss them. Until then, your POV assertions are best aired on some of the many discussion forums. --Dannyno (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


What you've done now is switch out the word I used "scales" for the your word "narrow" in my test argument. That shows you didn't really understand what I was talking about before and no wonder you where confused. You have simply reverted back again to the argument you made before my proposition of testing this claim. None of the authors I've looked at. Smith, Harris, Hitchens or Dawkins use "Explicit" and "Anti" in that way, ie a scale differential between a broad and narrow understanding. It's not how they understand it. What they do however is quite constantly refer to one over the other. That is very strong evidence for that notion the terms are one of replacement. And if you follow the logical arguments each authors make. That follow quite naturally. Even though you insist on doing these literal word-games. This was a quite objective test of our dilemma. You haven't taken that into account at all. That Smith doesn't use the same notion of "Anti Theism" as Flint means nothing. (At least until you provide a quotation on what Flint says on the matter). But I have a feeling that you mix two notions with that claim. As you can be a "Pantheist" and an "Anti Theist" at the same time. Because you simply need to hold an opposition to a religion. It can be against any religion, or religion in general or even just organized religion. But we can simply revert to the Oxford Dictionary to look for a definition towards "Anti Theist" to give further support for a clear definition. However, if we look at the entire quote from Smith. It's seems clear that he means that "Explicit Atheist" is the same definition as "Anti-Theist", at least for his atheistic objection to theism.

"An explicit atheist is one who rejects belief in a god. This deliberate rejection of theism presupposes familiarity with theistic beliefs and is sometimes characterized as anti-theism. There are many motivations for explicit atheism, some rational and some not. Explicit atheism may be motivated by psychological factors. A man may disbelieve in god because he hates his religious parents, or because his wife deserted him for the neighborhood minister. Or, on a more sophisticated level, one may feel that life is futile and helpless, and that there is no emotional room for god in a tragic universe. Motivations such as these may be of psychological interest, but they are philosophically irrelevant. They are not rational grounds for atheism, and we shall not consider them here. The most significant variety of atheism is explicit atheism of a philosophical nature. This atheism contends that the belief in god is irrational and should therefore be rejected. Since this version of explicit atheism rests on a criticism of theistic beliefs, it is best described as critical atheism. Critical atheism presents itself in various forms. It is often expressed by the statement, “I do not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being.” This profession of non-belief often derives from the failure of theism to provide sufficient evidence in its favor. Faced with a lack of evidence, this explicit atheist sees no reason whatsoever for believing in a supernatural being. Critical atheism also assumes stronger forms, such as, “God does not exist” or, “The existence of a god is impossible.” These assertions are usually made after a particular concept of god, such as the God of Christianity, is judged to be absurd or contradictory. Just as we are entitled to say that a “square-circle” does not and cannot possibly exist, so we are entitled to say that the concept of god, if it entails a contradiction, does not and cannot possibly exist. Finally, there is the critical atheist who refuses to discuss the existence or non-existence of a god because he believes that the concept of “god” is unintelligible. We cannot, for example, reasonably discuss the existence of an “unie” until we know what an “unie” is. If no intelligible description is forthcoming, the conversation must stop. Likewise, if no intelligible description of “god” is forthcoming, the conversation must stop. This critical atheist thus says, “The word ‘god’ makes no sense to me, so I have no idea what it means to state that ‘god’ does or does not exist.” These varieties of critical atheism are identical in one important respect: they are essentially negative in character. The atheist qua atheist, whether implicit or explicit, does not assert the existence of anything; he makes no positive statement. If the absence of belief is the result of unfamiliarity, this non-belief is implicit. If the absence of belief is the result of critical deliberation, this non-belief is explicit. In either case, the lack of theistic belief is the core of atheism. The various atheistic positions differ only with respect to their different causes of non-belief. This book is written from the perspective of critical atheism. Its basic thesis is that the belief in god is entirely unsupported—and, further, that there are many reasons for not believing in a god. If theism is destroyed intellectually, the grounds for believing in a god collapse, and one is rationally obliged not to believe in a god—or, in other words, one is obliged to be atheistic. This book is not a critique of theism plus a defense of atheism: the critique of theism is the defense of atheism. Atheism is not the absence of belief in god plus certain positive beliefs: atheism is the absence of belief in god. If we can show theism to be unsupported, false or nonsensical, then we have simultaneously established the validity of atheism. This is why the case for atheism is The Case Against God."

George Smith, Atheist - The Case Against God, p14-15


Now. Having read that. Ask yourself this. How does Smith label his atheistic opposition to theism? Does he even consider any other forms of valid opposition to theism? That leads to another question. If Hitchens really intended to simply voice his opposition to religion. Why wouldn't he call himself a "critical atheist" in this regard if he followed Smith's understanding of "Explicit and Implicit Atheist"? It makes no coherent sense for him to use "Anti Theist" in that regard if he could very well label himself under "Critical Atheist" for his opposition. He is after all an "Atheist". And I got to refresh everyones memory here and point out this was indeed your argument on how to view Hitchens position. It's clear to me that Hitchens doesn't intent that definition at all as he uses "Anti Theist" for his theistic opposition as an atheist.
Then we can compare the last few sentences from my large quotation of Smith, to the one from Sam Harris lecture.

So let me make my somewhat sadistious proposal explicit. We should not call ourself "Atheists". We should not call ourself "Secularists". We should not call ourself "Secular Humanists" or "Free-Thinkers" or "Rationalists" or "Anti-Theists" or "Brights". We should not call ourself anything. We should go under the radar, for the rest of our lives. While there we should descent, honest people. Who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them. It just so by happens that religion has more than it's fair share of bad ideas. So I think as a necessity, we'll continue to criticize religion. And religion must be recognized, is the only form of thinking, in which bad ideas are held in perpetual immunity from criticism. And doing so is considered sacred. This is the act of faith. So out of necessity I think we will spend a lot of time talking about religion. But we should not name ourself in opposition to religion.

Sam Harris, lecture at AAI 07.

Where in there does he call atheistic opposition critical or explicit? Try to consider the fact that he is in the middle of an atheistic gathering and is referring to "us". It might very well be that "Anti Theist" could be a more broader term. But when an atheist uses it about himself. It must be regarded in light of Smith definition as well. Because one would come under both either way. And then one is forced to take a stance on a definition. Either use "Critical Atheist/Explicit Atheist" or use "Anti Theist". One cannot have it both ways. So the logical conclusion of that must be. When these authors use "Anti Theist" it must be viewed in place of "Explicit Atheism". Have I made a logical argument in light of the sources? -- Muthsera (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
All of the above falls foul of WP:SYNTHESIS. Since no reliable source shares your interpretation, your comments are merely POV, and Wikipedia isn't here to promote your POV. Atheism has been conceptualised in different ways; so there is no particular reason to expect Hitchens to follow Smith's typology over anyone else's. You are trying to construct your various quotations in the light of Smith, but there is no warrant for doing so in the literature. Hitchens simply uses "atheism" to label his rejection of theism, and "antitheism" to label his moral and political antipathy towards theism and religion. There is nothing in his writing that would back up the notion that there is any significance in his *not* using any other particular terms, like "critical atheism". We need citations for information we add to Wikipedia. You have none for your POV. You say of Harris's words that they "must" be considered in light of Smith, but you have no reliable sources saying so. It's just your particular POV. It's not "logical", it's just unsupported by reliable sources. --Dannyno (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
No, that is not POV. That is us using Smith's own definition and trying to see if Hitchens and Harris fits into that definition. As they themselves consider themselves as non believers. And they don't fit. That cannot be my POV as a matter of fact. Simply saying that it's me doing this without support when all I do is test the proposition, is a fallacy. My claim however was that these authors don't fit that from the result of the test. It would thus follow that these authors don't follow Smith's definition.

Hitchens simply uses "atheism" to label his rejection of theism, and "antitheism" to label his moral and political antipathy towards theism and religion. There is nothing in his writing that would back up the notion that there is any significance in his *not* using any other particular terms, like "critical atheism".

That is wrong. That is your POV. You have no support for that. You do that in light of Smith yourself. It doesn't follow that Hitchens as an atheist are critical and is actively reject theism consider himself as an "Anti Theist" if he follows the definition of Smith. Let me remind you that Smith clearly says that the active rejection of theism is the defense of atheism and is also considered an Atheist. Hitchens and Harris here clearly are not in line with that argument as they use Anti theism. They are in opposition. -- Muthsera (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not finding this helpful. It's quite clear that my characterisation of Hitchens is based on what he said and can be supported by citation of what he said. We agree that Smith's typology was not used by Harris or Hitchens. We disagree that any conclusions can be drawn from that without contravening WP:SYNTHESIS. There is no citation for the claim that Harris and Hitchens' use, in passing, of the word "antitheism" has any significance in relation to Smith. No citation whatsoever. --Dannyno (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to note a recent source on definition of atheism

I just wanted to note this recent attempt to conceptualise atheism. It seems to come close to Smith's typology in noting "anthropological atheism", but wouldn't appear to extend that as far as Smith would seem to extend "implicit atheism". Citation is: Eller, Jack David (2010).What is atheism? chapter 1, pp.1-18, in Zuckerman, Phil. Atheism and secularity: volume 1, issues, concepts and definitions. Praeger:

The most fundamental distinction within atheism... is between what we might call "anthropological atheism" or the lack of any god-concept in a culture or religion and "argumentative atheism" or the rejection of the god-concept proffered by the theistic religion in one's culture. Because all of us live in a society informed by theism, argumentative atheism is immediately relevant for us, in which we find other real or putative diversity. One of the frequent assertions is that two types of atheism, positive and negative or strong and weak, exist and even compete... (p.5)

He goes on to dispute the reality of the strong/weak distinction. Anyway, I thought this was interesting enough to note here, and perhaps look to incorporate as a reference re: different typologies. --Dannyno (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Vilification of atheists?

A atheist is not irreligious, antireligious, nonbeliever, unchristian and many more clear discrimination implemented in words.

A homosexual is not antiheterosexual or do you know a gay person which name himself "antiheterosexual"?

Windows 7 is not a Non-Unix-OS. Black ppl are not nonwhite or did you ever heard from a black person: "I am a nonwhite."?

What about that? (overstatement): any christian is a nonatheist, antiatheist, truthhater, sciencedenier, nonthinker, unlogician, irrationalist.

How do you feel yourself as christian if i am never name you christian but forever nonthinker or antiatheist?

Please clarify it that these terms are not made by atheists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.69.140 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 2010 April 30

An athiest is, by definition, a non theist, from the Greek atheos, a-'without' + theos- 'God.' That is, Atheism is an oppositional discourse conceived and defined as a philosophy opposed to Theism - the belief in God. The same principle can be applied to understanding the invention by a class of Presocratics, particularly Thales according to Aristotle, of "natural philosophy." Natural philosophy was conceived as an oppositional movement antithetical to the Homeric narrative. There is a certain logical irony in the understanding that without theists, atheists would have no identity. --Devala1 (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Proselytism?

I don't see anything on this page indicating how or if atheists spread their beliefs. Presumably there is a kind of structure for atheists, since atheists aren't necessarily anarchists. This needs to be covered.--Auric (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Atheism doesn't have an apope or amissionaries. Atheism just contains a lot of people who don't believe in god (or gods; or maybe they outright reject the concept of a god (or gods); cue tedious argument). Some atheists may try to explain to others that there is no god, but since atheists don't have a holy book promising eternal punishment / eternal reward &c there isn't quite such a strong driving force to do so; and there's no central atheist organisation that would encourage outreach.
bobrayner (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
@Auric There seems to be some confusion. Try not thinking of atheism as within the category of religion. Instead, think of it as, say, "people who don't play golf". Non-golfers don't on a whole go around proselytizing for why golf is a bad sport. Some non-golfers may feel that way, but on the whole there is no necessary correlation. There is also no "non golfers guild" or congregation of anti-golfites. There's just a group of people who play the sport, and then there's everybody else. By talking of "atheist's beliefs", you're assuming there is an organized group which shares common interests or goals, when in reality it's a lack of common interests and goals which defines the label. Jess talk cs 18:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
To unearth an old aphorism, but one I think that well states the point, "saying atheism is a religion is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby" (another old one: "if atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color").--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up.--Auric (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Why no supernatural?

As far as I can see atheism contends all Gods must be supernatural and that is it. It seems quite obvious atheism likes to pick on ancient or contemporary primitive people. Atheism never explains the birth of natural laws and why there is a mathematical order to the universe. Or why the universe is here at all. It just is? The idea that there are natural laws that create natural laws is left unexplored. In other words what if God cannot be a an outdated supernatural being but is possibly something the mind of humans can never imagine. Am I coming across? User:kazuba

Please see Wikipedia:NOTFORUM#FORUM. Wikipedia is not a forum, and hence not the place to discuss the merits of any particular view. If you're interested in pursuing those lines of inquiry further, and would like answers to some of your questions about atheism and science, you may wish to check out ironchariots.org and talk origins. Good luck. Jess talk cs 06:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
To Jess Mann, I KNOW this is not a forum. It was my understanding new additions to atheism can ONLY be added AFTER they go through the discussion page. I think the deities atheism denies MUST be described as ONLY supernatural beings that have been referred to in the history of humanity at present time and the past. The future is still up for grabs. Atheism makes no statements about the future. Atheism is stuck in the present [now 2010] and the past. In other words atheism has definite conceptualized and historical boundaries. And this SHOULD BE NOTED as such in the atheism entry. A present atheist does not have the liberty of changing their mind to suit future evidence.User:kazuba 28 May 2010.
I've read your comment a few times, and I'm having a very difficult time understanding what change you want to make. Is there any way you can make your proposal clearer? You presumably wish to add content. Can you provide:
  1. The section in which the content should go
  2. The textual addition you wish to make
  3. Sources you have for the addition
Thanks Jess talk cs 18:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Kazuba: the key thing is to have sources for that. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If I am understanding the suggestion to be that it should be explicitly stated that atheists do not believe in the existence of supernatural gods, what would an example of a non-supernatural god? If it boils down to the definition of a god then it doesn't really help the article, since that will just end in tautology. Ninahexan (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

buddhism does not advocate belief in gods?

"religious and spiritual belief systems such as forms of Buddhism that do not advocate belief in gods," I'm not able to check the source given for this claim, however it is at the very least arguable; God in Buddhism clearly notes various hindu gods whose existence is admitted in that religion. It only insists none are creators and all are mortal. I'll restrict the claim to reflect this Aryah (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are forms of Buddhism (and of Hinduism) that believe in gods. The sources assert that there are also forms of Buddhism that do not make belief in any deities part of the religion. If a religion maintains there are some mortal non-Creator gods, it would be doubtful it would qualify as atheistic at all. --JimWae (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that you both make valid points, actually. I made a small fix to the wording, making it "some" forms of Buddhism, to try to address these concerns. Was that sufficient? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Buddhism does not necessarily reject gods. The Pali canon notes that the gods helped to protect the Buddha while he attained enlightenment, and that the Buddha latter preached the Dharma to them; they, too, are caught up in the web of samsara. At its most theistic, Buddhism holds that gods should be respected as one would respect a king or other ruler, but not worshipped: worship of any kind -- of gods, mortals, or material comfort -- is an attachment that interferes with enlightenment. Buddhism holds that while some supernatural beings can help one attain enlightenment, salvation is ultimately the result of self-motivation and self-discipline with no gods or bodhisattvas required. The statement you are questioning is basically correct. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

De-emphasizing some sources on the basis of their underling attachments

What has annoyed me greatly in this article is the overemphasize some sources have on shaping this article. I'm talking about sources that say that Atheism is to be understood as a denial or that Atheism is a belief. Thats a prejudice that is foundation on the understanding that another belief is true and Atheism is in opposition to that or that Atheism is an affirmed position of belief. That is only true from the view of a theistic belief. It is not the case from Atheist sources. Like Harris, Hitchens, Dennett, Russell, Smith and Dawkins. Wikipedia don't allow that for other definition. For someone else to define their position.

  1. REDIRECT [[9]] Buddhism isn't defined by Christians as belief that Christ didn't exist.
  2. REDIRECT [[10]] Christianity isn't defined by Muslims as the belief that Christ wasn't just a prophet.
  3. REDIRECT [[11]] Islam isn't defined by Confucians as disbelief in the teaching of Confucius.

Their all defined on the merits of their own position. That is not the case in this article concerning Atheism. Atheists are not defined by the basis of their own claims. But have to contain themselves to be defined by what someone else believes. That is especially true when it comes to the claim that Atheism is a belief or a denial of another claim. I have no problem with that being a subsection of the article, putting it into a historical context. But I reject to the notion that these sources be taken into account for shaping the definition of Atheism on the basis of an Utopian NPOV. -- Muthsera (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we all understood by now that you have a personal point of view on this, even if we are not clear about what precisely it is. Wikipedia, however, is not a forum. All we are interested in is building an encyclopedia based on information from reliable sources. We are not going to be drawn into a debate about your particular opinions. Some atheists do dislike the word "belief". Others have no problem with atheism being described as a belief. Wikipedia need not decide between them. Some atheists have disliked the fact that, as they see it, the word depends too much, in some way, on theism, and is not independent. Others have not worried about that. Again, Wikipedia is not the place to have that argument. Particularly when it is as badly explained as this. --Dannyno (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Everyone has a POV and feel about that as you like. But you did not fully address my claim. Denial is not the same as a belief. Denial is something which is in connection to another term. Belief can stand on it's own merits, where Denial cannot. Including Denial means this term is to be defined by what another term states. We don't allow that for any other term. That was my point.
Secondly. I would like you to source your claim that some Atheist don't mind the claim that Atheism is a belief. You can have that understanding all you like. But if you don't source it, it means nothing. It's simply unsupported. In my experience however. It's been my clear understanding that people who proclaim to have Atheism profess to be without belief. Using the words: "I'm sorry, I a nonbeliever." or "I'm sorry, I don't believe". That seems to be the case for sources who profess to have Atheism as well. Like Smith, Harris, Dennett. To leave out many. I have quoted these sources before. But if you like I can repost them. So I would like you to support your claim that some atheist do in fact consider Atheism a belief.
I'm not here to have a debate or have wiki be my personal forum. And it's not something personal to you or others. I have no conflicting interest in building a well founded encyclopedia. But from what I read on this article right now. It is neither NPOV or well founded. It has been based on loosely connected terms, misapplied arguments and overemphasis on some selective sources. They are not all equal these sources. Some have inherent disproportions to other ideas. This is especially true when it comes to the notion that Atheism is a Denial. Which can take many forms. It's a rejection, it's an opposition, etc. All these terms, have an inherent disproportion to another definition. It something we don't take account in and ignore when we make definitions for other terms. But at this particular term it's breaking NPOV if we do. That you disagree with what this proposal say, should not stop you from addressing it. But rather give support why this proposal is in error. -- Muthsera (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Muthsera, the nonbelief atheism definition is also dependent on the theists' conceptions of a deity (i.e. theism). If we were defining "without education" one would only be uneducated only in the context of what is meant by education. In such cases, the dependency of one concept on the other is simply unavoidable. In addition, most people prefer to consider themselves educated and base their different positions accordingly, and as you are well aware by now, the sources differ as to whether or not all nontheists are considered, or consider themselves, to be atheists. Apparently, that doesn't matter however, because you see atheism as actually being broader than just being defined by the class of atheists, such that everyone has atheism, (correct me if I'm wrong on this). Defining atheism then as such in the lead of this article, or for that matter anywhere in this article, would need adequate sourcing that explicitly says this (e.g. "Atheism is any non-belief in any deity."), not just your interpretation that sources imply it.--Modocc (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll retract this. With the understanding that everyone in some form or another are without some belief. -- Muthsera (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Improve relationships between anti/non-religion/atheism articles?

DISCUSSION MOVED TO Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Atheism#Improve_relationships_between_anti.2Fnon-religion.2Fatheism_articles.3F. Please add any comments there, not here. --18:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In a broad sense

With the present lead (here) there is disagreement over the usage of "commonly described", which is weasel-ly, not all that informative, and perhaps can be seen as POV. In any case, I'm not fond either of any version that starts with the qualifier "narrow", especially when the Britannica uses a more thoughtful and broader definition with "Atheism, in general, is the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs...". In my mind, "critique and denial" translates to "rejection" (whether or not a rejection is also a "critique", which I think rejection entails, would seem beside the point or thrust of what atheism actually is anyway, because all atheists need not ascribe to a rational kind of critique in order to assume what amounts to simply a common explicit position of disbelief and a denial of a belief, ie a rejection). Moreover, the most common usage of dictionaries should not be our only guide, but we need to consider those sources such as Britannica which better encompass current literature and the topic of atheism as a whole with all its nuances. In this regard Britannica clearly leads the pack, reflecting the current literature and we need thus not begin with a narrow definition. Also,in the current lead, the differences between the first two definitions is not made explicit at all and I think this can and should be done. In the past, I thought to introduce more technical terms, perhaps too much so, but if any one term can help with clarifying the non-obvious distinction, it would be strong atheism. By and large, I'm OK with the current lead, but after these considerations, I propose we lose the "is commonly described" and "it can also mean" and modify the current lead to something like the following, which is more informative:

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief that one or more deities exist that any deities exist. More narrowly In a more specific sense, as strong atheism, atheism is the position that there are no deities. More Most inclusively, it is simply the mere absence of belief that any deities exist in the existence of deities. Atheism is distinguished from theism, which in its most general form is belief that at least one deity exists.

--Modocc (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

See my comment below. Britannica does not support the 'inclusive' definition.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure some editors will object to putting that definition first, but I'm not one of them. In the second sentence, I might change "narrowly" to the less judgmental-sounding "specifically". In the third sentence, I would definitely delete "mere", as both redundant and pejorative. That said, I'm not terribly convinced that the additional technical information is really useful. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I've went ahead and struck the word "mere" as being redundant. Mere was used by one of our citations in the past to indicate that the absence is nothing more than what is specified. An online dictionary didn't indicate any pejorative sense. "Simply" has always seemed too ambiguous, and I would prefer dropping it in favor of "mere", but I'm not pressing it as its not terribly important anyway. "More specifically, as..." is awkward, so I've replaced "More broadly," with "In a more specific sense," --Modocc (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
This is much better than the current wording. If anyone objects to putting the broad sense definition first, I think they need to address what you said about Brittanica, etc. in order for the objection to be considered as serious. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
@Modocc: Rejecting belief in Thor is rarely accorded the label "atheism" these days, so I'd suggest: Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. I'd also go with Most inclusively to start the 3rd sentence in order to clarify that it is broader than the first sentence also.--JimWae (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I made the changes along with an additional change to the third definition to vary the prose. --Modocc (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I renew my endorsement for this latest version. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought it would be useful to look at the new proposal, as revised, without the strikeouts, and alongside the current version. The page now has:

Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader meaning is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is distinguished from theism, which in its most general form is belief that at least one deity exists.

The new proposal (with some blue links added back in) is:

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In a more specific sense, as strong atheism, atheism is the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, it is simply the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Atheism is distinguished from theism, which in its most general form is belief that at least one deity exists.

Comparing them, I'd like to suggest a further, rather small, modification:

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a more specific sense, as strong atheism, atheism is the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, it is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is distinguished from theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

What I changed was to interchange the wordings for belief/existence between the first and third sentences, to be more like the current version on the page. I think that wording is more precise as to those two respective definitions, and also makes one blue link a little less Easter eggy. While I was at it, I also inserted "the" before "belief" in the last sentence, for better flow. With my further modification, I'd be fine with making the change. I'm OK with what the page has now, and I would be about equally OK with the new version. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a step back to an unclear def we had before. The reader seeing such a lead will ask "What does that mean? Broad sense, specific sense, most inclusively, what should I prefer?" Where is the source talking about A. in such manner? I see current lead as a compromise which warns the reader that there is a dispute regarding A. def ("It can also mean ...") and letting the reader know about what is the most agreed def. "commonly described" is not weasel as soon as it's what the source says. --windyhead (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, the reader should ask himself which ones he should "prefer" (ie. take away with him) and if commonly is supposedly there to help the reader decide that, then it is unfairly favouring one of the defs. I do not think "commonly" is POV, as it can be easily sourced (though the sources never cite any research other than their own perceptions). But I do not think we necessarily have to include it either just because it can be sourced. Nor does it make any def "clearer". The point of those who take the other defs as primary is that the "common" def is too restrictive. "Broader sense" clearly means "more inclusive", and that does not really require a source (and is already in the current lede, as "broader meaning"). Yet, indeed, there are many sources for "broad sense" -- including the source for the narrowest sense. Btw, I've not seen any source at all that uses "commonly described". Nor should "commonly" be taken to mean "most agreed with". Summer is "commonly" thought to be when Earth is closest to the Sun. The moon is "commonly" thought to be "up", but this has nothing to do with "agreement", but rather with unawareness of directional and gravitational complexity. To be fair to the reader, he needs a "map" for the definitions - and "commonly" is not a map, though it may seem to be selective targetting. --JimWae (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, it shouldn't left the reader strangling about the situation with subject definition and asking himself, instead referring to the article, and there is no encyclopedic articles treating the reader that way. If "commonly" is favouring one def in accordance to WP:WEIGHT than it is not unfair. The "broader sense" part of a current lead is agreed compromise, but if we convert all the def into "in a broad sense / narrow sense / most inclusive sense" than the question is - where is the source presenting subject in that way? If there is no such a source neither this article should be like that. I agree to see "commonly described" as compromise as well but I agree to change it to "commonly understood" per source. --windyhead (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
As I said, I do not think "commonly" is unfair POV, but the reasons you gave for including it indicated "commonly" served to help people decide which to "prefer". It is unfair to the reader not to provide a brief map to compare the defs. "Broader", wider", and "narrower" are easily understood and do not require sourcing - yet we do have sourcing for it, anyway. Right now, the narrowest def is "targetted" and the "broadEST" (nor "broader" as the current lede says) is compared. The rejection def is left hanging with no connection to the others except being an "it can also mean". --JimWae (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no other single source that presents all 3 defs, at least no other encyclopedic one I've ever heard of. That would not be a satisfactory argument for our not doing so. Neither is no source comparing all 3 in terms of inclusiveness a satisfactory argument for our not doing so. We all know (and nobody has disputed) which is most inclusive and which is least, and the Venn diagrams support it.--JimWae (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Smith in The Case Against God (quoted in archive 45 collapsed discussion) does (at least once) present all 3 defs & gives their comparative scopes--JimWae (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In The Case Against God, Smith introduces his persuasive definition of atheism with an etymological approach:

"The prefix “a” means “without,” so the term “a-theism” literally means “without theism,” or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist.

[JW note#1: this is known as the Etymological fallacy ]

Atheism is sometimes defined as “the belief that there is no God of any kind,”9 or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism—and they are somewhat misleading with respect to the basic nature of atheism. Atheism,in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god.

[JW note#2: Above, Smith is contrasting with only one form of explicit atheism.]
[JW note#3: Removing "sometimes defined as" from the beginning of preceding paragraph would alter & defeat Smith's entire argument.]

As here defined, the term “atheism” has a wider scope than the meanings usually attached to it. The two most common usages are described by Paul Edwards as follows:

“First, there is the familiar sense in which a person is an atheist if he maintains that there is no God, where this is taken to mean that “God exists” expresses a false proposition. Secondly, there is also a broader sense in which a person is an atheist if he rejects belief in God, regardless of whether his rejection is based on the view that belief in God is false.”10
[JW note#4: now we have 2 forms of explicit atheism introduced]

Both of these meanings are important kinds of atheism, but neither does justice to atheism in its widest sense....

9 John Hick, Philosophy of Religion (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963), p. 4.
10 Paul Edwards, “Some Notes on Anthropomorphic Theology,” Religious Experience and Truth, edited by Sidney Hook (New York: New York University Press, 1961), pp. 241-242.
Agree with this as soon as "The two most common usages are " from the quote above will be retained --windyhead (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that any commonality assertion is necessary though, much less a dual one like that, and we should still paraphrase the Britannica in the first sentence to give the best scope to the opening sentence of this article. Perhaps, changing "In a more specific sense,..." to "In a common specific sense,..." would appease? --Modocc (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I've got a feeling we are going to end up deciding to stay with the status quo, but I think we should try to do better than "common specific sense", which sounds like adjectives piled on by committee. How about changing the second sentence of the proposed new version to: "As strong atheism, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia's copy editors would see that suggestion as an improvement. :-) --Modocc (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I aim to please! :-) So:
Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. As strong atheism, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, it is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is distinguished from theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
--Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I like this last version. However, I think the sentence beginning with "Most inclusively..." should be removed as it is only a rephrasing of the first.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind. According to the Britannica article here, it seems that, contra Modocc and in line with my understanding, Atheism is not the rejection of belief in the existence of deities:
"Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable."
Can anyone find a citation for the 'inclusive' definition of Atheism.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
All 3 defs are cited fully in the wp article, such as Atheism#cite_note-1 --JimWae (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Neilsen's EB article is available here
  • He begins: This article will start with what have been some widely accepted, but still in various ways mistaken or misleading, definitions of atheism and move to more adequate formulations that better capture the full range of atheist thought and more clearly separate unbelief from belief and atheism from agnosticism.
  • He does not give his def of atheism until the last section -- Comprehensive definition of atheism --JimWae (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
When I wrote that most recent version in this talk, just above, I didn't bother including the references, because I assumed that we would continue to use the same references that are on the page now, put into the places to which they correspond. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
At the current point I would say that Britannica is a much better description of the concept than we currently have. We seem to forget that the authors of Explicit and Strong Atheism define quite strongly the position of Weak and Implicit first, with the understanding of "without belief in theism" and a position of passive atheism. So any changes we make to this definition should reflect that point. That we at least first put the understanding of without belief, and then we can broaden the understanding with a rejection view. -- Muthsera (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Very much the opposite. Britannica (Kai Neilsen) does not mention "absence of belief" (nor any form of so-called "implicit atheism") at all. Nagel (see Implicit and explicit atheism#cite note-1) covers it, but specifically says "sheer unbelief" of a child (implicit atheism) is not atheism at all. The "rejection" def encompasses explicit atheism. It includes both explicit weak and explicit strong, but does NOT include "implicit weak", thus is distinct from the "absence" def.--JimWae (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Nagel

There Nagel is basically stating the argument of Atheistic denial, which is based on the argument that Atheism has the burden of disproof. Few atheist philosophers/authors agree with this. Smith at least lays out a case why disproving Theism is strengthening the position of Atheism. There is an argument to be made for that. But Nagel here seems to take a theistic position. Which by all logical arguments would be incorrect as it's impossible to disprove the negative. I also notice that it's not used as a source for Explicit vs Implicit just critical atheism. In all honesty it shouldn't even be linked to that article. As it clearly disputes Implicit atheism which Smith lays out. So I would advise that it is taken out, it only confuses the argument. -- Muthsera (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
No, again. There is no burden of "proof" on atheists for Nagel. No proof is possible either way, anyway. True, Nagel is interested in, and his article is titled, Philosophical Concepts of Atheism - so he is going to be interested in the presentation of arguments. One's interest in the arguments does not mean one has the burden of "proof" - but if the arguments of the opposing side cannot be met, then one would be wise to re-examine one's position. Nagel, as a philosopher, is concerned to meet and overturn the theistic arguments - as are Smith and Martin too.
But for the layperson, all one needs to say when presented with the option of theism is "no thanks, I don't believe". Citing any reason such as Occam's razor is not even a requirement, but, cited or not, it is more than sufficient to place a burden of "argument" on the theist.
You seem to be adding a requirement that refs for an article have to support every idea in the article. Cannot disagree enough with that. Some of the best refs dispute the legitimacy of ideas in an article.
Defining atheism as an absence of belief (which, without further qualification, would allow ants [and much more] to be atheists) avoids the claim that atheism itself requires a leap of faith. However, atheism as "rejection of theistic belief" also avoids that claim. As far as I am concerned, "implicit atheism" is a sophistic fallacy that leads to calling all sorts of things (like mathematics and worms) atheistic -- an abuse of the term, atheism. Still, I strongly support including a NPOV coverage of the "absence" def in this article. --JimWae (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
One does not have to prove something is not true in order to justify rejecting belief that it is true. I do not need to prove that humanity will not be destroyed in 2012 to justify rejecting belief in such. I can even say it is possible that humanity will be destroyed in 2012, and still reject belief in it. I do not even need to hear arguments (neither for nor against it) to reject it & dismiss it from consideration. I might listen to the "arguments" & even be able to explain why they are unworthy, but that does not do anything to change the probability of it actually happening either. --JimWae (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not that he has to agree with every aspect. But you cannot use him there once he is clearly in conflict with the position. He only supports a view of Atheism being a rejection. But that isn't really what Smith lays out. He says that your by default until you have a clear position, to be considered an atheist. Nagel clearly opposes that. You then cannot use him as a source for Explicit vs Implicit, because he doesn't recognize that devision at all. He has also entirely different reasons for going to that step of critique. Then it's dishonest to use him as a source for that as he in reality has another concept. -- Muthsera (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Secondly. Can you post a greater part of Nagel's argument? Because the source posted on Nagel clearly states that he supports the notion of atheistic denial.

"I shall understand by "atheism" a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism... atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief."

He doesn't lay out an argument for coming to that position at all. He just states thats how he understand it. And builds on the argument from there. At any rate. According to the source you have there. He must be understood as holding a position of "atheism needing to disprove theism". That is a theist understanding of atheism. Which no atheist agrees with. Because it lays the burden of proof on disproving the negative. -- Muthsera (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Further discussion of Nagel's reasons is not about how to improve this article. Nagel opposes identifying the so-called "implicit atheism" as atheism because (as already cited) such is not "denying theistic claims". His view is relevant to the Explicit/implicit article (and to this one too). It does not matter whether (as you say) "no [other] atheist agrees with [him]" (which is false anyway). Atheists do not have to "disprove theism", but if they want to be considered as being rational (never mind philosophical) about their view, they need to have some response to theistic claims - which Smith & Martin (neither of whom are implicit atheists) do at length. --JimWae (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


Muthsera is contravening WP:SYNTHESIS. If I can quote directly from Nagel's original Philosophical concepts of atheism, as originally printed in "Basic Beliefs", ed. Johnson E. Fairchild. New York: Sheridan House, 1959, pp.166-186:

As I see it, atheistic philosophies fall into two major groups: I) those which hold that the theistic doctrine is meaningful, but reject it either on the ground that, a) the positive evidence for it is insufficient, or b) the negative evidence is quite overwhelming; and 2) those who hold that the theistic thesis is not even meaningful, and reject it a) as just nonsense or b) as literally meaningless but interpreting it as a symbolic rendering of human ideals, thus reading the theistic thesis in a sense that most believers in theism would disavow. (p.170)

Thus, Nagel (who Edwards follows quite closely in his own later typology) does not hold that atheism is required to disprove theism. --Dannyno (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

@Dannyno, The first definition Nagel has used there is what Dan Dennett calls "Belief in Belief". It is therefor not completely the same argument that Smith or Harris makes on passive disbelief (although very close). And I would claim that it's still in line with the "Atheistic denial" position. The second one is clearly within that notion. And taken the source Jim posted. I think it's pretty clear that he still consider Atheism as a denial of Theism. -- Muthsera (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
@Jim, I wasn't speculating about his motives. I simply requested more quotes as the statement you made on the thinking wasn't supported in the quote supplied from Nagel. But one cannot use that quotation to line Nagel with Smith's argument of implicit vs explicit. Because he clearly defined his understanding of Atheism as a denial and critique of theism. That is so far from Smith's argument that it simply doesn't follow. Dannyno indicated it is WP:SYNTHESIS, and I believe that is right. You've mixed two concept which was on different levels in the argument. I agree however that you can use both as an indication of rejection being part of atheism. But on different arguments. Take that source out of Explicit and move it into the concept of "Atheistic Denial". -- Muthsera (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The Nagel quote is not meant to be used "to line Nagel with Smith" (if that is what you meant). It is a reference supporting the sentence Although Ernest Nagel's position[2] contradicts Smith's definition of atheism as merely "absence of theism" It also presents an opposing viewpoint - per WP:NPOV. And, yes, opposition to the very idea of "implicit atheism" does need to be treated more fully in that article, but in the main body of the article rather than in a subsection -- and not with the ambiguous title you have suggested. --JimWae (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
No, when someone makes out the claim of atheism is a denial of theism. It derives a different position. You basically say that you agree that there are evidence for the existence of deity/deities and that non-believers need to disprove that. That is not on the same level of position Smith has. Which is that criticism of theism is the defense of Atheism. Smith says that clearly in his definition of Explicit. Those are two entirely different positions on the criticism of theism and doesn't belong together at all. -- Muthsera (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
According to WP:NPOV, reliably sourced opposing views merit inclusion --JimWae (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, if they talk about the same thing. But Nagel here doesn't talk about Implicit and Explicit. Both talk about Atheism rejecting Theism but on different levels. They are in two different concept of arguments. You cannot use one of them to merit the other. Nagel here follows the position of theism who says atheism need to disprove theism and thus rejects it. That is one argument. Smith here says that Atheism rejects Theism is a defense of Atheism. As the lack of Theism reverts to Atheism. This article doesn't reflect those two camps at all. You see them as the same argument, when they are really not anywhere related. They belong to different stratas in the Atheistic argument. I agree that both arguments should be reflected in this article to follow WP:NPOV. But not in the way it is done now. This is primarily because we haven't described the "Burden of Proof" argument in "Theism vs Atheism" at all. Who has the responsibility to prove the positive claim. -- Muthsera (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
It is difficult to know what to respond to when you are not using clear English. The paragraph (which was there before I added the source) says that Nagel & Smith agree on how to subdivide explicit atheism into 3 parts - and they do mostly agree (Nagel not calling it "explicit", however, and using "reject belief" instead of "I do not believe"). They also disagree re implicit atheism. The section (in that OTHER article), should probably just be named "Types of explicit atheism". I do agree that that paragraph should perhaps not say they have an identical classification - but that should be taken up at Talk:Implicit and explicit atheism, not here.--JimWae (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I know what you meant with that. But a concise rejection of Theism as an Atheist isn't simply defined as Explicit Atheist. Only some do define it as that. Therefor Nagel's argument doesn't belong in there. That said. It was not me who related it to this text. That was someone else. And it was used as a support to show that Atheism is a rejection of Theism. It is really that what we're discussing here. You have two forms of defining Atheism as a rejection of Theism. One is the Theist position that Atheism is in denial of Theism and thus in rejects it. The other is the Explicit Atheist who say that Atheistic rejection of Theism is a defense of Atheism. Those are to entirely different positions. Where that comes clearly out is Implicit Atheism. As Atheists (Smith in this case) define Atheism as the default position. And Theist defines Atheists as rejectionists to Theism. It's is therefor important to highlight the first discussion which position is Atheism. Does it have the burden of disproving Theism or does Theism have the burden of providing the positive proof. If you follow all these authors. They lay out a position on that first. Then they move on to further defining Atheism. Did I explain that fully? Or was it something which was unclear still? -- Muthsera (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
You write using several incomplete sentences, with other syntactical problems also. You will have to attempt better English syntax to be understood. At this point, I do not see the relevance of your "points" to improving any article at all -- & doubt very much that (no matter how much you respond) we will ever find any relevance to THIS article. I might try as counterpoint that "Smith & Martin are both explicit atheists & both reject theistic belief" and "since when is rejection itself a defense?" and "There are numerous atheist writers who consider implicit atheism bogus" and "among scholars anyway, BOTH sides have a burden to argue (not prove)", but there is little hope of accomplishing dialog when there is no point I can see in what you wrote - so counterpoints become wasted energy. Nagel's name appears nowhere in this article. So again, if you must persist on this topic, Take it to the other article--JimWae (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This book is written from the perspective of critical atheism. Its basic thesis is that the belief in god is entirely unsupported—and, further, that there are many reasons for not believing in a god. If theism is destroyed intellectually, the grounds for believing in a god collapse, and one is rationally obliged not to believe in a god—or, in other words, one is obliged to be atheistic. This book is not a critique of theism plus a defense of atheism: the critique of theism is the defense of atheism. Atheism is not the absence of belief in god plus certain positive beliefs: atheism is the absence of belief in god. If we can show theism to be unsupported, false or nonsensical, then we have simultaneously established the validity of atheism. This is why the case for atheism is The Case Against God.

George Smith, Atheism, A Case Against God. p 15

That is Smiths rejection. It is wholly different from Nagel's Atheistic rejection. This is what we where trying to determine, how to view the Atheistic rejection. And how to put it into context which all the sources. If that isn't relevant. Then I don't know what is. And if we are to disregard Nagel in this. Then its utterly clear. That the definition of Atheism is primarily a default position. Which we then can further explain the positions of atheistic rejection. Because Smith and Martin CLEARLY says this with "Implicit" and "Weak". Which was my original argument here. I'm trying to give you a context in which to view Nagel. -- Muthsera (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
read and ignored as irrelevant to this article. --JimWae (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Would you care to explain why it's irrelevant? Or is it a case of inability/unwillingness to understand the argument? -- Muthsera (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
As I see it, you seem to mainly want 2 things 1> to state that theists have the burden of proof 2> to have the absence def be the primary def.
There is already a pending proposal for a change -- which has been siderailed. Try to make your point in 1 to 3 clear and complete sentences, then present a wording that could be inserted in THIS article. (leave Nagel out of it).--JimWae (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I see your objection more clearly. On the first part. The Burden of Proof argument is the primary argument when it comes to Theism vs Atheism. So I believe that should be reflected in the article. But I will maintain that the answer to that must be the logical conclusion that Wikipedia takes the position that the positive claim has the burden of proof.
Secondly. If you look up above to our discussion. I started with saying that the lead or the start of the definition of Atheism must reflect the notion that Atheism is the passive/default position. As those authors who we have sourced on Atheistic rejection (Smith and Martin), who we consider the source for atheism being a rejection. First lay forward the argument of non belief (Implicit and Weak). And then go on to describe Atheism also as a rejection (Explicit and Strong). I would claim that I've been pretty consistent in that view. And my objective on Nagel was to explain why Nagel didn't fit into that understanding. As he really holds the position of a Theist understanding Atheistic denial. Nor was I the one who introduced him in this discussion. Now that you say it has to do with another article and belongs there. I'm happy to ignore him. You'll have no quarrel with me on that. But it leaves out the notion that Atheism is primarily a rejection. Which only a few authors subscribe to. Other Atheists authors like Harris claim that "Atheism" shouldn't even be a term. As one is not defined by what one does NOT do. That cannot be understood in the context of "Atheism" being a rejection. Hitchens goes on to claim that he is not so much an "Atheist" as he is an "Anti Theist". That follow the same understanding that you are what you do or believe, not what you don't do or don't believe. This is increasingly important distinction for later Atheists. When we then consider Smiths own words for why Atheism should also be Explicit. That the eroding of Theism is the validation of Non belief. Although I'm sure many Atheist agrees with this notion. They do not define their non belief as such. I propose we therefor write it something like this:

Atheism is an absence of a belief in a deity or deities. Some Atheist also include that Atheism is a rejection of Theism as this could be considered a defense of Atheism. Theist sometimes maintain that Atheism is a denial of Theism.

Although that is a horrible lead. I don't know how to get around it to be WP:NPOV. -- Muthsera (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Muthsera, "Some" and "sometimes" are weasel words that are being inappropriately used in your proposal to define agendas of "Some Atheists" and "Theists sometimes". None of which are lede worthy and the placing of the absence definition as our introductory definition has been rejected here many times for being a NPOV violation for the reason that it gives too much weight to a small minority view. --Modocc (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I won't quarrel that it's a bad lede. It was just to illustrate the different positions. That said. I'll be perfectly happy to exclude both. I also agree that it's taking to much weight on a minority position. If that is the problem just do the simple definition of "a"theism = without theism. I can't think of a more NPOV than that. -- Muthsera (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
@Muthsera: Please read WP:NPOV--JimWae (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
@Muthsera: Harris doesn't say that atheism "cannot even be a term". He just didn't think that atheists should label themselves as atheists, which is a quite different point. --Dannyno (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In a broad sense, further comment on

In the discussion above, the last revision of "in a broad sense" was:
Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. As strong atheism, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, it is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is distinguished from theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
Each of the three definitions presented are different ways that atheism has been distinguished from theism, and all three defintions have been present in the lead since this article became a Featured Article and each have had the citations needed for inclusion in the lede. The most inclusive definition is last however because the most authoritative sources have not made it a primary definition. This proposal paraphrases the Britannica Encyclopedia's opening definition and goes on to distinguish between the definitions thoroughly. --Modocc (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is perennially difficult to follow the thread in this talk. :-) Anyway, I would be quite satisfied with this version, and I also do not object particularly to what we have on the page now. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh for crying out loud. Again with the rejection? Have we not gone two weeks of arguing why this isn't the case. One cannot start out with that. Only some Atheist use this definition of rejection under Explicit and Strong and even then they focused first on Implicit and Weak, they only include rejection as a means to defend non belief. And it's only those Theist who claim Atheism is a denial of Theism who use rejection a primary term for Atheism. That is by definition the wrong position as one cannot disprove the negative. So I strongly object to this notion that we start out with rejection. We've used many pages on discussing that point and here people just ignore it again. Start with the pure definition of disbelief or non belief, then move on to include the positions of rejection. -- Muthsera (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Muthsera, yes again with the rejection, and in more ways than one. You seem to be making the claim that most sources make the nonbelief definition primary, when they do not, thus it is not going to be primary here. The sources do however regard disbelief as a common definition, because disbelief involves a rejection of belief, a fact that you seem to be overlooking occasionally in your advocacy for the default of nonbelief. There is a significant difference between a rejection asserting the negative, "there is no god" (claimed by some that this needs proof) verses the much simpler rejection or denial of believing a theistic claim or theory involving a deity. Both forms of rejection are reasonable. But with the latter form of rejection, only the merits of the claims matter and these can be dismissed as unsound, unwarranted or incomprehensible without a burden to prove the negative. The burden is on the theist to make a convincing case for the existence of their particular deity. Your assertion that rejection puts a burden on the atheist is just not true and has been dismissed repeatedly, ie rejected. Please respond briefly here, and continue in another section detailing any suggestions you may have for this article that better explicates the default of nonbelief or the burden of proof (which is mentioned in the article). --Modocc (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Would you kindly provide some sources for that position. As your leaving out ambivalent and unaware in that definition. Which Smith, Martin, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins all include in their definitions. You basically want the primary use to be a Theistic view of Atheism. As that is the only option left where rejection is a primary definition. -- Muthsera (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
@Muthsera1: The sources are presented in the first paragraph of the current article.
@Muthsera2: All you have provided for your claim that the rejection def puts the burden of proof on the atheist is YOUR own claim and your OWN interpretation of Smith. But that would not matter anyway -- WP:NPOV requires we present all reliably-sourced definitions. --JimWae (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
1.You only used encyclopedias to get to that definition? I cannot control what they have based their arguments on. I only see statements on their definitions. I'm surprised you take such heed to them.
2.That is not my interpretation of Smith. That is what Smith actually says. I've given quotes for this several times. He clearly states that Implicit is non belief. Either from unaware or ambivalent or refusal to take a position. He has NOT stated anywhere that disbelief in theism is Atheism. Martin to, who has been used as a basis for rejection, says that the Greece word "a"=without "theos"=god(s) is the initial understanding and is what he considers negative, positive is the affirmed position that there is no god, not that it's a denial. You cannot then take those two, and use their positive and explicit terms to make denial the primary term. When that is said. I've supplied sources for the burden of proof argument many times. It simply has been ignored. Russell says this, Dawkins says this, Harris says this. Dannett says this, Hitchens says this, Smith says this. Most use Russell's Teapot argument to illustrate that though. And it's not mentioned with one word. Not once. For THE key argument towards who has the burden of proof. At this point I'm very well tempted to accuse many here of incompetence and blindly following other encyclopedias. But I understand that it's very hard to follow these long arguments. And they are complicated at times as well as very fragmented. But then don't accuse me of unsupported arguments when I've supplied them several times. I also find it telling that it has been left out absolutely crucial sources in this article. Bertrand Russell isn't even listed in this article.[1] -- Muthsera (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Smith says the absence def does not have the burden of proof. You have provided nothing showing Smith or Martin or anyone but yourself thinks rejectionists have the burden of proof. You either do not know what you are talking about or you are not expressing yourself well. You choose. You should presume that I ignore most of what you write. It is mostly poor syntax & it would be improper for me to "fill in" what "I think you meant to say"--JimWae (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Your right in that Smith only says that Theism and Explicit needs a positive affirmation. And that Implicit is the neutral or passive position. He also states that Theism and Atheism holds the entire specter. You wouldn't have that separation at all if he understood it such that Atheism had the burden of disproof or needed supplied proof of inexistent. Then he would include Agnosticism in it as undecided. He doesn't, in fact he separates it as a different issue. Smith is very much in line with Russell here. You simply haven't understood how he excludes positions with his statements. I maintain that as true since you didn't understand how to position unaware babies even though he says so clearly. Same goes for Martin as his negative is non belief and his Strong is more narrow. -- Muthsera (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone, including an unaware baby, who does not believe that deities exist (including but not limited to those that believe deities do not exist) is not a theist and is therefore an atheist, in the broadest sense. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes thats what I've been saying, we cannot then use Smith to start out with a narrow sense of rejection. -- Muthsera (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
@Muthsera: Are you even trying to write good English? Are you even trying to be understood? Are you even trying to understand?--JimWae (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry. You lost me. At what point didn't I understand what? -- Muthsera (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Your discussion is hard to follow, but I agree with Muthsera on at least this point: we shouldn't start out with a narrow sense of rejection. I'm unclear as to Jim's position on this. Starting with the narrow sense might have been appropriate in a 1960s encyclopedia in the era of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, but no longer. The meaning and connotation of atheism continues to evolve. But I agree with Jim that Muthsera would be easier to read and understand if his comments weren't riddled with grammatical errors and misspellings. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Muthera is mainly incoherent, but he simply wrong to say that Smith states that explicit atheism requires a "positive affirmation". In fact, Smith clearly states that "explicit atheism" should be conceptualised as "absence of theistic belief" just as implicit atheism is. It's worth pointing out, again, that influential though Smith has been, his typology is only one of several in the literature. Muthsera concentrates on him to the exclusion of others, and we need to remind ourselves of the requirements of NPOV. --Dannyno (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Even Smith was published almost 40 years ago (1974). The narrow rejection sense probably was in most common use back then, but that's no longer the case, and this article, especially the lead, should reflect that. We can't rely on 40 year old references to establish most common usage today. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind reflecting "common usage", if we can properly establish what that is. However, we should also adequately reflect the different conceptualisations of atheism as a specialist technical term. And I would say that the latter should get top billing, because its the specialist meanings of the term that the article is about. Otherwise you'd be in a situation where the article on, say, inferiority complex had to give more space to the popular understanding of that term rather than the very different meaning it actually has in psychology. It's also worth noting that "rejection" isn't necessarily as narrow as all that. --Dannyno (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I have a question, and it really is a question—I'm really asking because I do not understand. Forum-talk aside, is what we are discussing here whether to: (a) write about the three definitions in the order shown at the top of this talk thread, or (b) keep them in the order that is on the page now? Is there anything else about the lead, other than the choice between these two orders of listing? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
@Born2cycle. On the point of +40 year old understanding of Atheism. Well, I personally think we've used to much emphasis on Smith in the first place. As I can't see many modern atheist authors refer to him today. That aside though. I don't have a problem with using him in a broader explanation of Atheism. But as I started out with a few weeks back. There is a zeitgeist on Atheism. It is a movement on what this term really means. One might affirm that view with the emergence of these "new militant atheists", a complete non sequitur, but still it shows that there is a certain movement here. Towards what you say on spelling. Which you and others have taken up. I'm sorry if my writing is confusing. It isn't intentional. I understand much of what I write have very bad structure and syntax. That might come from the fact that English isn't my native language. But also that I tend to edit my responses quite heavily so that might chop up it's original syntax. Or maybe it's simply that I don't fully lay out the complete argument, but expect a certain level of understanding to the argument. Either way. I can see why my arguments are badly laid out. I'm sorry if it's hard to follow.
@Dannyno, I agree with you on the second part. A more technical term should start the article and be most heavily weighted. On Explicit Atheism and what Smith argues. Yes, I seem to have been a bit incoherent here. As I've used "affirmed position" on Explicit, which Smith doesn't actually say. (The implication of that however is that Smith considers Atheism to be completely negative). But I've stated several times that Atheism and Theism holds the entire spectrum according to Smith. That would mean he considers Theism to have the positive claim. Which I've argued several times. But I can see how that was very hard to follow. Now, I've focused on him because he is the one which is most heavily sourced as Atheism being a rejection in this article. I would contain that he is overly emphasized over other atheist authors. I hope that highlight my position on Smith and why I've focused on him. If it is really that many sources from Atheist authors who supports Smith here, post the sources. I've asked for this this may times. But have never been supplied. From what I've read there isn't really any other sources for supporting him here. It's only by misapplying a theist understanding on Atheism towards the Atheistic understanding of Atheism (which Smith argues), that one find support for him. Which is as you pointed out, WP:OR.
@Tryptofish, I don't know if it's either of those two. As personally I'm trying to get Atheism into one clear define term first and then try to expand on that term. But the sources are conflicting so I don't know if we're able to reach a consensus on that. So for me it's a question if those three understandings are actually correct. Not that those three should be displayed in a particular order. -- Muthsera (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Muthsera, for clarifying that question that I had. Mainly to Born2cycle and Dannyno: I'd suggest under the circumstances not getting into talk about how to interpret the sources, except insofar as any specific proposal to actually change the wording on the page. Less frustrating that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There hasn't been discussion on this in a week, yet the previous consensus as of the 12th seemed to be a change to the current lead without using the 'rejection' def as broadest. While I haven't spoken up until now, I have been following along, and I find this consensus to be entirely acceptable. So, what is the current roadblock? Is it coming up with a lead derivative of the above proposal which doesn't begin with rejection? Did interest just fizzle out after weeks of discussion? How can we get this moving to an agreeable change? Jess talk cs 01:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. As strong atheism, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, it is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
To reject beliefs one must first have beliefs. I am an atheist and I have not rejected any belief in any gods, as I never had any belief in any gods. The fairytales were never convincing, the psychological needs for religion were obvious before I knew what psychological meant. Thought made religions ridiculous. Also atheism is not the position that there are no deities. There simply are no deities, and religion is the position that deities exist despite having no evidence or reason for this belief. Atheism is the label believers apply to all those who don't believe, but this does not alter reality and the fact no gods have ever existed outside of a human (or protohumans) mind. Believer use all kinds of wordgames to try and reverse this reality, but that is merely defending the faith and should not be giving undue value in rational discussions and inquery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scifilosophy (talk • contribs) 22:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
If you haven't already, I'd suggest reading through the (rather lengthy) discussion of this above. Unfortunately, your argument here is entirely POV, and can't be considered with respect to changes in the article. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes so we know who we're talking to. Welcome to WP! Jess talk cs 01:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of personal preference or point-of-view, POV, for a specific definition [as Jess has pointed out that these POVs are not germane here], both the current lead and the suggested revision are written so as to be in accordance with wp:NPOV policy, by giving each significant definition its due weight as reflected by the various wp:reliable sources and with the appropriate citations that are required. Furthermore, for someone to disbelieve by rejecting some belief (a belief held by others) does not mean that person had to have once held that belief. This should be pretty obvious. For instance, anyone can reject beliefs besides theistic ones, such as rejecting belief in alien abductions or a flat earth, and thus disbelieve in these too. There are many atheists that have always disbelieved and thus never ever believed. More importantly, the reliable sources often insist that atheism is a position that, at a minimum, requires disbelieving(ie rejecting belief), so as to exclude wavering agnostics and every infant as atheists. Infants, of course, having no position, do not disbelieve, but are included in the most inclusive definition of atheism, which is in the lead, as it is, with the consensus of the many editors that have visited this article. --Modocc (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
@Modocc I have to admit that I'm a little confused. Was your post directed at me? If so, perhaps I didn't make my position totally clear. I agree with the proposed addition, but since it hasn't been added (despite apparent consensus), I'm wondering what work is left to be done. The only problem I have with the 'rejection' position is that it doesn't take into account atheists as the default, and hence is not the broadest sense. i.e. children don't reject theism, they simply disbelieve it due to lack of exposure or understanding. I believe this is the issue previously discussed regarding the first sentence, and I have a suspicion this is the current roadblock preventing us from adopting the proposal as lead. Feel free to chime in if I'm off-base. Jess talk cs 05:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I was addressing Scifilosophy, and I have inserted now a bracketed comment to help clarify that I was. The lead's citations support making the broadest definition only a secondary sense at best. Proponents of making it a primary sense instead would need reliable sources (preferably the majority of the most accepted sources) to assert that toddlers are atheists and/or define atheism in that context without reservation. There is support for this revision, but with some opposition from those that have advocated for the current lead and I'm not sure how strong that opposition is now though. I'm also not prepared to start a wp:BRD cycle at the moment. --Modocc (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion there. I was having a hard time figuring out to which of us you were referring, but rereading your response it does seem a bit clearer now. Regarding the lead, I haven't seen any opposition to the current proposal for some time. The primary objections seem to be what form the proposal will take, rather than opposition to it altogether. Therefore, this is what I would suggest: The current revision appears to be...
Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. As strong atheism, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, it is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is distinguished from theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
While this does begin with rejection, I believe it is still a strong improvement over the current lead, which begins with position. Based on the previous discussion, it seems most others would agree that it is at least an improvement. Therefore, I suggest this be added to the article in its current form, and if necessary improved later. Since this discussion hasn't seen any movement for over a week, I'll make the change in hopes of either improving the article, or attracting attention back to the proposal. If there is strong objection which addresses the issues discussed above, please revert my change and voice it here. Jess talk cs 15:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The change is fine with me. (Next time, please don't mark it as a minor edit, though.) Sorry I didn't comment earlier, but I guess some of us were just commented-out with this endless talk page; it wasn't a rejection of the proposed change. Anyway, what we had before was fine with me, the change is fine with me, and I don't have a strong opinion about which is better. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I see the new version as a bit of an improvement, but I have reservations about leading the 2nd sentence with the jargony phrase strong atheism, which contrasts with the suggestively derogatory term weak atheism. I think we could address this with something like:

The more specific position that there are no deities[2] is sometimes named strong atheism or positive atheism.

For continuity then, the 3rd sentence would probably need to have it changed to atheism--JimWae (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

@Tryptofish Sorry for marking the change as minor. I have it set to default, and occasionally (ugh... almost always) forget to uncheck it. I'll try getting in the habit. Thanks for coming back to the discussion.
@Jimwae I agree with your reservations, but disagree with your proposal. The resulting lead (IMO) doesn't flow very well, and regardless of the position of the label, still contrasts other positions as weak and negative:
Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. The more specific position that there are no deities is sometimes named strong atheism or positive atheism. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is distinguished from theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure I have a really good proposal of my own. Is there a way we could contrast 'Most inclusively' with 'Most exclusively' instead? Alternatively, we could use an separate label, such as: "..in the existence of deities. Gnostic Atheism is the more specific position..." I'm not a huge fan of any of those ideas myself, but perhaps someone else can turn them into something good. Jess talk cs 21:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that would make it worse. It's fine as it is, in my opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Hrmm... yea... I actually agree. I was trying to be constructive, rather than outright critical, and put an idea forward, even though I don't have a solid one. I'm actually ok with the current lead. TBH, my biggest issue is still rejection, but I don't have any great proposals there either. I guess I'll retire unless anyone else has something good to put forward. Thanks guys. Jess talk cs 23:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] Strong atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

I repeat my reservation, now even more strongly with strong atheism now clearly the subject of the sentence (rather than atheism). This makes the sentence even more about the jargony phrase rather than about the position.

Re:

The more specific position that there are no deities is sometimes named positive atheism.

... yes, still contains jargon - but at least the sentence is not primarily ABOUT the jargon. Btw, I cannot find "strong atheism" anywhere but in blogs, newsgroups, and mirrors of wikipedia. I have searched repeatedly & have yet to find it in any even semi-scholarly writings. Hence I have started a discussion about renaming the Strong and weak atheism article --JimWae (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's a bit problematic to introduce "strong atheism" in the lead - it confuses the definition (we should be defining atheism), it's unbalanced (as we don't define weak atheism - indeed, the current wording could imply that atheism is only defined in the broad sense, with the narrow sense always being "strong atheism"). There's also a possible issue with references (how notable and well referenced is the definition "strong atheism"?) The current lead however is much better now that we've got rid of the dubious "commonly described".

I still think we have the problem that we end up going round and round in circles - and we only ever try to make small changes to whatever the current version of the lead is, even when it's not clear that this version of the lead is preferred over many of the good versions we've had previously. By not referring back to previous versions, to consider whether each new version is an improvement or not, I fear we just end up repeating the same discussions over and over.

For reference, the Featured Article version was [12], which leads with "As a philosophical view, atheism is the belief in the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of gods." There's various differences such as "belief in the nonexistence of gods" versus "position that there are no deities" (and indeed, "gods" versus "dieties"), "rejection of theism" versus "rejection of belief in the existence of deities". But it seems to flow much better - following the form: "atheism is the [strong definition] or the [rejection definition]. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of gods." Mdwh (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

We need to be explicitly defining the term atheism for each of its three senses, not just writing that there is a specific position. That this edit undid defining the term atheism was problematic so I reverted it. JimWae's compromise version fails to define the term, rather it only states the strong atheism position. How about just replacing "As strong atheism," with "In a more specific sense," "In a specific sense," and drop the word "specifically" in the main clause of course. Then we can discuss or come to some agreement as to whether or not to append to the sentence ",sometimes called strong atheism", as its informative, but not necessary. I'm not sure whether its undue here given the longer history of the concept, if not the term itself. --Modocc (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing strong atheism from the lead

The apparent consensus at this point, expressed by JimWae, Jess and now Mdwh is that the usage of "As strong atheism" in the lede is unbalanced. Since there are no objections at this point to removing it, and replacing it with "In a specific sense," I'm making the change. --Modocc (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I understand what "in a specific sense" means in this context. --Dannyno (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The context was stripped with the removal of "strong atheism" and "In a specific sense" was replaced by "In a narrow sense" by Cybercobra as being less vague. The second sentence now reads "In a narrow sense, atheism is the position that there are no deities.", but it too is lacking context and should probably be tweaked to "In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities." --Modocc (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Modocc's most recent change here. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
My goodness. I've been out of this article for a while, and have just had a chance to review the talk history. It seems that months of debate has done little to address the fundemental issue of concision in the lead. This whole "broadly, narrowly, most inclusively" language is still horribly twisted. I still feel quite strongly that we have to sacrifice nuance for concision. We really need to have a single unified sentence as a lead.....
To be clear, I'm not suggesting the lede is wrong. In fact I think it's probably quite accurate and thoughtful. I just think it's way too in-depth to be appropriate, and it certainly does nothing to hook the average Joe WP reader into the article. NickCT (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Religion hiding behind atheism

"However, religious and spiritual belief systems such as forms of Buddhism that do not advocate belief in gods, have also been described as atheistic.[14]"

I'm not sure how a religion based on the belief in reincarnation could be considered atheistic? From an atheist perspective this belief is no different to christians heaven, and removing gods but keeping beliefs formed from ignorance and fear does not make a religious group atheistic. I think the confusion surrounding Buddism comes from modern buddists who try to claim buddism is a philosophy and not a religion, simply because there is no god. But reincarnation is the buddists god/heaven, it is most definitely a religion, and at the opposite end of the scale to atheism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scifilosophy (talk • contribs) 21:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing atheism with naturalism. The two are very different. (A)theism only concerns the belief in a deity. A religion without a God is therefore atheistic, regardless of its supernatural claims. Also, please try to keep the discussion NPOV, as this is the only type of comment which can be considered. Thanks for your contribution! :) Jess talk cs 01:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Jess. In the purest sense atheism simply means to not believe in a diety. Hence, allot of what many consider religons could in fact be called "atheistic". The problem with saying "atheism is a rejection of religon" is that one has to go on to define religon. To give a sense of why this is difficult, suppose I believe in just reincarnation but no deties or supernatural mumbo jumbo, am I an atheist? What if I just believe in Karma... am I an athiest? What if am just v. superstitious... am I an atheist? NickCT (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I apparently agree with the above. The article claims that atheists tend to lean towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims and I'm certain that's true for some atheists, but I don't think one can honestly say that's true of atheists, generally, so I added {{Fact}} because that statement needs to be sourced.mcornelius (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
This depends on your definition of atheism, I think. If you include all non-theists, then the statement is surely not true. However, including only professing atheists, I definitely think there is an obvious trend which could be sourced. I don't have time to look for a ref at the moment, but I could go either way on citing or removing that sentence. Jess talk cs 07:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Technically atheism falls within the parameters for a religion or belief system, since it has been stated that a true atheist would not bother to deny (i.e. Apatheism) and that in order to deny something it has to exist. You couldn't base a belief system around something that no one else believed in. Saying "I Deny God" is one of the hallmarks of atheism, whereas "I Deny Snorbgooble" is nonsense.--Auric (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

@Auric You're incorrect. I would suggest reading both the article and my reply to you in the section below. You are employing the No True Scotsman Fallacy in your characterization of true atheists, and strawmanning by attributing denial of god to a hallmark of atheism. Furthermore, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise; Does "I deny the lochness monster" make sense? Sure it does. Denying snorbgooble is only nonsense because you made up a nonsense word to deny. If you'd like to contribute, please try to read through the rather exhaustive list of material in the article, and then suggest specific changes to what has been presented. Jess talk cs 19:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up.--Auric (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
@Jess, What would that entail? Isn't this the argument we've had for a few weeks now weather or not to consider denial a hallmark of atheism? Because that have implication on how we structure the starting sentence. Are we to include a theist understanding of Atheism or not. Because we do find that understanding in the literacy, especially pre 1950. So we can argue until we're blue in the face weather or not that is correct. But if we're supposed to NPOV, then I think we're in a fix. Because I personally believe a denial of theism is a wrong position for Atheism. Or rather that it's fully incorrect. -- 83.108.143.158 (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
@83.108.143.158 I'm sorry, I'm having difficulty understanding you. What would what entail? If you're proposing changes to the lead, I might suggest making those changes in the appropriate section (above), and trying to be specific about the wording you'd like to include. That discussion has been going on for a very long time, so getting some background on the points which have been considered would also be helpful, if you haven't yet read through the archives. Thanks Jess talk cs 06:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry Jess, that was me. Didn't notice I wasn't logged in. Should do so automatic, but I guess the timer went out. To clarify. You said: "and strawmanning by attributing denial of god to a hallmark of atheism." Some sources do indeed claim that denial of theism is also atheism. This is why some have wanted to include "rejection" as the premier definition of Atheism. Scroll up to see the entire discussion. This do indeed seem to be the basic understanding for Encyclopedia Britannica's usage of Atheism. Which is a source we have used. I tried to show that many atheist authors do not agree with that understanding and we should base it instead on a default position. In other words. That Atheism is the mere absence of a theist belief. And that the affirmed positive position is defined as something else. I proposed that could be "Anti Theism". But there seem to be a large objection to that. As we have sources which disagrees with that understanding. -- Muthsera (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Muthsera. I said claiming denial of god is a hallmark of atheism is strawmanning because, in the sense Auric used the phrase, he was conflating the denial def to all atheists (many of whom would not be thus described). Denial of god is indeed atheism, but that doesn't mean all atheists deny god. I believe I understand your position, but your proposal is still unclear. You are suggesting a change to the lead, correct? If so, the above section would be a better place for this discussion. Can you rephrase the lead in a way which demonstrates your proposal? That might make things easier. Jess talk cs 00:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The way it stands now. "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." No it's not. Only some people consider this to be the understanding of Atheism. I certainly don't agree with it. As we strive to be NPOV, this lead is horrible.
Look at the words Smith use: “Theism” is defined as the “belief in a god or gods.” The term “theism” is sometimes used to designate the belief in a articular kind of god—the personal god of monotheism—but as used throughout this book, “theism” signifies the belief in any god or number of gods. The prefix “a” means “without,” so the term “a-theism” literally means “without theism,” or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist. George Smith, ATHEISM: The Case Against God, p 9. Is that consistent with the lead we have now? No, it cannot possibly be. I've tried to explain exactly that problem to this community several times now. And there seem to be an insistence on keeping denial/rejection/opposition to theism as the basic tenant of Atheism. It certainly is not. I keep reverting back to this because it's not been taken into account at all with the continued use of rejection as the basic tenant. Thats an endorsement of a theistic understanding of Atheism from Wikipedia. I reject to that strongly. That some authors use this understanding does not make it NPOV.
So I suggest we start it with this:
"Atheism in a broader understanding is the absence of belief in a deity, in deities or the supernatural. A more narrow usage of the term Atheism is as a denial, rejection or opposition to a theistic belief."
If you look at the sources this is actually what all the sources agree on. That some narrowly define it as a rejection, but broadly it's a lack/absence of a belief. The narrow term incorporates Strong Atheism from Martin, Denial from EB and Nagel, and Explicit Atheism from Smith. What they all have in common however is that they see Atheists in one form or another as not having a belief of what ever kind. -- Muthsera (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. For the record, I share your opposition to rejection being used as the broadest sense, as it clearly (and logically) is not. The current lead was inserted only with the understanding that it was an improvement over its predecessor, which began with position, and I hoped that further discussion could be had to work in a change to the opening. However, to play devil's advocate, I believe the opposition holds that the current sources we're citing to define atheism don't strongly enough maintain absence as a definition, and it would therefore give undue weight to have it listed first of the three defs. It seems to only way to really make progress with this discussion is to either:
  1. Provide alternate reliable sources showing strong enough adoption of the absence def to include it before the others
  2. Show why WP:Weight doesn't apply. (This is unlikely, and I have to say I agree with the argument, even if I oppose the result)
Therefore, citing only Smith probably won't do us any good. Ultimately, you'd have to track down some other notable sources which agree to make ground. The more the better. Jess talk cs 04:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
What I mean with my words are that even if you see Atheism as a denial of Theism. One would still not hold a belief in theism. You have an absence of belief in Theism. Thats common for all modern (post 1800's) sources on Atheism. It's only in very old historical context that Atheism is described as someone not believing in the christian god. By starting out with absence of a belief as the broader understanding. We've also managed to be neutral in the question why you have an Atheistic view. We don't take a position WHY one would have an absence of belief. We simply state that an Atheist doesn't have a belief towards said deity. I believe there can be no doubt this is the most broad definition of Atheism. -- Muthsera (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
@Muthsera: No, there are sources that oppose including so-called implicit atheism as atheism at all - hence it is POV to say "atheism... is the absence of belief in a deity", and would be even more POV to begin with that one. This has been addressed multiple times. --JimWae (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to tweek the understanding a bit here. I'm instead of looking at implicit (god I hate that term) being the only understanding. I'm looking at what combines all these different understandings of Atheism. In other words, what is the common thread? That is the absence of a belief in a god or the supernatural. Be that from a denial, implicit or strong. The common thread is that you don't have a theistic belief. So that can be considered the most broad definition, so we start with that. We then move on to a more narrow understanding. It incorporates every point of view and leaves the statement as a NPOV. -- Muthsera (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Edit- I'm sorry. I didn't fully address your opposition. What Nagel say about Atheism is that it's a denial, it's an affirmed position of rejection. That doesn't mean that Nagel argues that an Atheist do hold a belief in theism. That would be to confuse the two issues and isn't correct. He simply says that you need to hold an affirmed position of rejection to be an Atheist. An Atheist is still without theism. If there are other sources which contradict this view of denial, let me know. Was that to complicated? Maybe I explained myself badly. If so, comment on what doesn't make sense. -- Muthsera (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
1>You are not making sense again 2>All squares have straight sides, but having straight sides is not sufficient to define a square 3> Nagel says "absence" is not enough to define atheism--JimWae (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
@Muthsera I guess I wasn't clear in my response. I understand what you mean. However, the only way to get anywhere with this discussion is to provide lots more reliable sources of the absence def. In other words... you say that absence of belief is common for all modern sources, and it's only historical contexts which define it otherwise. Prove it. Jess talk cs 13:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
@Jess. What? I though this had to be the basic understanding of Atheism. Because it was so plain, everyone would agree. Am I missing something? I thought I just showed that "without theism" is the most broad term we can find. You cannot ask me to disprove a negative. So let me try to put some of the burden on you as well. Which sources that we have used so far in this article, do NOT agree that Atheism is without theism? That has narrowed it down very clearly and something we can test against. I would claim that Nielsen, Edwards, Rowe and Runes all include this understanding (The sources which have been put the greatest emphasis on here).
@Jim. It's simply using the implication of the sources own claims. Even Rowe, who claims that Atheism is also a belief in disbelief. Entails that Atheism have an absence of a belief in theism. That isn't semantics on my part. It's simply using the implications of their own words. If you have sources that objects to this notion that Atheists are without theism. Please show them. -- Muthsera (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
To repeat: All squares are quadrilaterals but not all quadrilaterals are squares. All atheists are without belief in any deities, but not everything that is without belief in deities is generally agreed to be an atheist. Atheism entails no belief in deities, but no belief in deities does not entail atheism. Saying a square is a quadrilateral is insufficient for a definition, as is defining atheism as absence of belief in deities.--JimWae (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
But the definition I posted doesn't say that your completely without a theistic belief. It just claims your without belief towards a deity or deities or the supernatural. Be that towards Thor or the Spaghetti Monster. It doesn't say your without belief in the christian god. Do you understand? Your arguing against something which isn't there. -- Muthsera (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you referring to: "Atheism in a broader understanding is the absence of belief in a deity, in deities or the supernatural."? Do you really want "Atheism ... is the absence of belief in... the supernatural." to stand as one of the definitions of atheism? Haven't we already been over this 3x times since you arrived? And do you also want absence of belief in the supernatural to be compatible with belief in the existence of deities? Find support for any of this --JimWae (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I have ALSO been arguing against "Atheism ...is the absence of belief in any deity" - variations of which you have repeatedly proposed to start the article, and have done so again. You have not addressed the points against doing so raised by many here. I am losing patience with this recycling of the same ideas without in any way addressing the problems already raised. Why should I not just ignore you?--JimWae (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
For my own ineptness, could you redirect me to these arguments? I have great problem finding anything in this 46 page archive. But the definition I posted doesn't say that you are without belief in ANY deity. Although it can be. As it can be without belief in the supernatural. The definition doesn't say your without belief in ALL supernatural phenomenons or deities. But that it can be that to. I think it's a very good definition myself. Your simply objecting to something the definition doesn't claim. -- Muthsera (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I noticed Jim's observation about losing patience, and I'm sorry to say (because I know Muthsera means well) that I lost patience a long time ago. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what more I can do. I've simply pointed out that his objection isn't relevant to the definition. His usage of allegorical argument to show the disconnect in my view is inaccurate and doesn't illustrate any problem. Instead of pointing out how difficult it is to argue against me. Why not address why his allegorical illustration is indeed relevant? I think he simply has misunderstood how absence of a belief in a deity, deities or supernatural is defined here. -- Muthsera (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
@Muthsera You're just repeating yourself, which isn't helping your case at all. WP is run wholly on sources. Please find as many reputable sources backing your argument as you can. Jess talk cs 22:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
@Jess, I've done that several times now. I showed it with Smith, I've showed it with Nagel and I've showed it with Rowe. All proponents of different understanding of Atheism. What your actually asking me to do is to disprove the negative. I cannot possibly find all sources ever made on Atheism to see if they are in disagreement with this understanding. But if some are found. Then it's overturned. I welcome that. The objection so far has been that the definition says that your without any form of theism and supernaturalism. When in fact the definition doesn't say that. But if you must. I can repeat the sources.
  1. REDIRECT [[13]]

"As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Another meaning of "atheism" is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. …an atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology." Rowe, William L, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, subsection: Atheism

Still in line with the definition I posted. Rowe asserts that it's commonly understood in some form an disbelief in a god. To disbelief in that god you need to be without a faith in that god.

  1. REDIRECT [[14]]

"On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition." Edwards, Paul. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, subsection: Atheism

In line with the notion that Atheists reject the belief in god and consequently is without belief in god. That can be understood to be all god. But is inconsequential to the definition. As it only states that it can be against god.

"Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.... Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons" Nielsen, Kai, Encyclopædia Britannica, subsection: Atheism

In line with the understanding above.

"“Theism” is defined as the “belief in a god or gods.” The term “theism” is sometimes used to designate the belief in a particular kind of god—the personal god of monotheism—but as used throughout this book, “theism” signifies the belief in any god or number of gods. The prefix “a” means “without,” so the term “a-theism” literally means “without theism,” or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist." Smith, George, Atheism: A Case Against god. p 9.

Self evident in line with the definition.

  1. REDIRECT [[15]]

"I shall understand by "atheism" a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism... atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist - for he is not denying any theistic claims. Similarly in the case of an adult who, if he has withdrawn from the faith of his father without reflection or because of frank indifference to any theological issue, is also not an atheist - for such an adult is not challenging theism and not professing any views on the subject" Nagel, Ernest. Basic Beliefs: The Religious Philosophies of Mankind

One cannot by definition have faith or belief in something one denies. The logical assumption of that is that your without belief or faith in said god.

I've showed many sources now for this understanding. You cannot possibly ask me to supply all sources for this. I've tried to get as large a scope as possible on the arguments. And they all align nicely to this definition. It should be more than enough. Especially considering how lacking the rejection definition we have now. -- Muthsera (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Neilsen, Edwards, and Nagel would not agree that atheism could be defined as "absence of belief that any deities exist". See my comment on squares & quadrilaterals above. Until you understand why those 2 points are crucial for every proposal you have made, there is no point in discussing this further--JimWae (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Nor does the definition say that. You simply make the assumption that the definition rules out ALL believes in theism. It doesn't. Your simply making a straw-man argument. -- Muthsera (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
@Muthsera You've provided 4, 3 of which have been rejected (at least by JimWae). Asking for more which support your view is hardly asking for every source ever. I'm not trying to be argumentative... I'm simply pointing out the stumbling block keeping your contribution from entering the article. Jess talk cs 01:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Let me try this one last time. As there seem to be a consensus that I haven't addressed this.
  • What Nagel says, and what the denial argument claim is that theism is inherent. To have absence of belief. You need an affirmed position. Innocence is not absence of theism. That goes for Nielsen, Rowe and Edwards as well. It has not been supplied any rebuttal and quotation for why that is not the case.
  • On supernatural. By definition Supernatural is a claim without natural evidence. All what the stated definition requires is that Atheism can be without belief in the supernatural and that a deity can potentially fall under supernatural. That should be self evident by anyone here.
  • On the objection that all atheists are without some belief. But not all without belief are atheists. Simply is a strawman argument. Let me explain. You are perfectly fine to have a christian belief and be without belief in thor. Your not an Atheist because of that non belief. But you do have Atheism towards thor. The definition does not claim that you need to be completely without belief of any kind to have atheism. It just claims that you need to be without belief towards a deity, deities or the supernatural on some level or another. It's the broadest possible interpretation imaginable. What one is holding this definition up against is that Atheism is supposed to define all without belief. That is simply false and doesn't apply. It has not been supplied rebuttal any quotation for why this claim is untrue.
After reading these rebuttals. Is it true or not that I've supplied those arguments earlier in this section? -- Muthsera (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, Nagel does not say that "theism is inherent", whatever that means. Secondly, you have "To have absence of belief" standing alone as a sentence. I cannot make sense of that. Thirdly, nobody says that "Innocence is not absence of theism", since obviously, logically, innocence *is* absence of theism. Where Nagel's classification of atheism differs from Smith's is that Nagel conceptualises atheism as a *position* of rejection with respect to theism, whereas Smith conceptualises it as the presence or absence of theistic belief, regardless of whether there is a rejection of theism. As for the rest of your latest post, I am unable to make any sense of what you've written. Unfortunately this is a common experience. If you wish to be understood, please spend more time writing clearly. --Dannyno (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Your right. The key to Nagel's argument is "Atheism is not identified with sheer unbelief". Where as Smith takes that position. That makes me wrong to argue that "theism is inherent" according to him. I've made a huge error there. I apologize for that.
What is ultimately relevant though. Is if "Atheism is without theism" or "Atheism have absence of theism" can be extrapolated from the meaning of Atheism according to Nagel. In other words: Are Atheists without theism? Objections to that notion have been that one cannot state it like that. Because one needs to associate it completely. That all without theism are Atheist. I tried to show why that is not relevant. Because the requirement for Atheism is simply that your without a belief in something to have Atheism. Let me give a source for that:
The fact that orbiting teapots and tooth fairies are undisprovable is not felt, by any reasonable person, to be the kind of fact that settles any interesting argument. None of us feels an obligation to disprove any of the millions of far-fetched things that a fertile or facetious imagination might dream up. I have found it an amusing strategy, when asked whether I am an atheist, to point out that the questioner is also an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just go one god further.Dawkins, Richard. The god Delusion. p 53
So everyone are actually without belief in something. But since one is defined by what one "do" believe. The objection is irrelevant. -- Muthsera (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Muthsera, the term atheist has been bandied about with regard to specific deities as such, particularly with regard to disbelief in God. But Dawkin's points out too that "I just go one god further." As for improving this article, I responded more fully to your comments above in my response to your other post below here. --Modocc (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Muthsera, you are still treating wikipedia as a forum. --Dannyno (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wildly wrong statistics from Britannica

The claim that only 2.3% of the world population are atheists is wrong, and also contradictory to the rest of the passage. Indeed if we add up 48% of Russian, 65% of Japan's and 85% of Sweden populations we arrive at 160 million people, roughly 2.3% of the world population. Does this number assume no atheism in the rest of the world? Not a single atheist in US, Britain, Germany, France and China whatsoever?

In any case, without including verifiable statistics for China, the number is distorted beyond any significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.163.170 (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I remember a previous discussion about this, somewhere in the ancient archives, but I can't remember where, or the details, any more. Is there a better source for the world number? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
If it is questionable number. I suggest it's left out and not mentioned at all. Instead focus on numbers which are proven for each country. -- Muthsera (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be a reason for not believing, but there is no required rationale for believing?

The article proposes some "rationales for atheism", ignoring the fact that there need not be one in any logical context. In fact, a rationale is required for theism, but none of the Wikipedia pages on religion provide one.

We don't require a rationale for not believing in flying tigers, speaking snakes and ghosts.

The argument that atheism requires a rationale is counter-logical and non-scientific. It is also a disinformation and forms artificial and biased context for the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.163.170 (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it that way at all. It's just a matter of providing information on how sources describe atheistic thought. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
You are both correct. Unfortunately, scholarly works on atheism are few and far between. Those that exist tend to talk about rationales, even though I personally believe that we are all atheists until somebody comes along and makes us be otherwise. The real question should be "why are you a theist?", not "why are you an atheist?" -- Scjessey (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
um, because of the God gene? As long as you are a theist, you are just obeying your inherited programming. WHich is normally a good thing, as with eating, sleeping and procreating... To be an atheist, you need an excellent reason to go against your innate behavioural patterns. The analogy goes like this: we are programmed to eat, yet we are capable of going on hunger strike if we think we have good enough reasons. Similarly, we are programmed to believe in gods, yet we are capable of consciously repudiating such beliefs if we really think it is worth the bother. As soon as we don't have a strong enough incentive to be atheist, we will revert to deifying stuff like Lenin or the Jedi, it's just more comfortable this way. --dab (𒁳) 19:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Anyway... I don't think there is a problem with the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Even if there where a "god gene" that doesn't automatically mean there is a god to believe in. (although this is not what the reasearch tell us about this gene). It just means you have a biological disposition to believe in a god. It says nothing about the state of nonbelief at all. If you lack this gene. Does this mean there is no god? Either way. It has nothing to do with Atheism. Because the god gene does not make the assertion that religion is inherent. Nor do you have any sources to support this argument. -- Muthsera (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually... I agree. Assertions and claims require evidence and rationale. Otherwise, they can be simply rejected due to a lack of evidence. In that case, I think either every religion article should have a rationale section... OR we can do the simple thing and either delete or rework this section. Perhaps a rewording to be more specific and avoid further semantic disagreements. Maybe mention exactly what I just said (theism is an assertion, assertions require rationale, claims require evidence). I am positive you can find the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" argument in a decent source somewhere. It's a relatively common argument. It's at least worth mentioning in this section that some think atheism is/should be a default position and is automatic when the opposing has insufficient rationale. --Ninjasaves (talk.stalk) 01:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The extraordinary claim, require extraordinary evidence source have been supplied here before. I used Richard Dawkins. But he is just using Russell. -- Muthsera (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Atheism sidebar template

See discussion on Atheism sidebar template at Template_talk:Atheism_Sidebar#Merge with Template:Atheism and Irreligion Sidebar sidebar?. --Noleander (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a proposal to merge two sidebar templates (Template:Atheism Sidebar and Template:Irreligion Sidebar) into a single sidebar, with the new title "Atheism and Irreligion". This new sidebar would appear in the Atheism article (its content would be very similar - but the articles in the sidebar list would be in a different order). Please post any comments/objections at Template_talk:Atheism_Sidebar#Merge with Template:Atheism and Irreligion Sidebar sidebar?. --Noleander (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Philosophical truism & Euthyphro dilemma

I'm unsure about this paragraph:

"Although it is a philosophical truism, encapsulated in Plato's Euthyphro dilemma that the role of the gods in determining right from wrong is either unnecessary or arbitrary, the argument that morality must be derived from God and cannot exist without a wise creator has been a persistent feature of political if not so much philosophical debate."

It seems to me that there is philosophical debate regarding the role of gods and morality, and significant philosophical criticism of the Euthyphro dilemma (as being a false dilemma etc.), thus it can hardly be said to be a truism. I think this requires a little more neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealfindo (talk • contribs) 05:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I also think that this is hardly a "truism", but a very deep and unprecedented exploration of theism on the part of Plato. --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The question of burden of proof

I propose we add a subsection dedicated to the Burden of Proof argument. This is an essential argument to modern Atheists in the claim that there is not sufficient evidence to believe in the existence of god. That notion comes from the understanding of burden of proof. That one needs evidence for upholding a belief. For many the only essential question is, does god exist? The opposite notion is twofold. One being that evidence have been supplied but is ignored or denied. The other is that god is apparent and should not be denied. So I propose we add the following:

The Burden of Proof

Many modern Atheists claims the only assertion an Atheist makes is that there is not sufficient evidence to believe in the existence of god.[2] The opposing argument to that is twofold. One is that god is apparent and does not require evidence. [3] The second is that it's the Atheists burden to disprove the existence of god. In the unpublished article in Illustrated Magazine from 1952, Bertrand Russell highlighted the problem of disproving the negative. Using what has later become known as "Russell's Teapot".

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[4]

One should note that "Agnosticism" is not relevant at all to this question. In this regard Agnosticism stands on the sideline, with the understanding that one have not made up once mind what the evidence say, and therefor simply is undecided. -- Muthsera (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

We can link to Russell's Teapot, but this is altogether too tangential to go into in this article. I fail to see how there is a "burden of proof" to a personal opinion either way. The burden of proof lies with whomever embarks on convincing the other side (proselytism). You can react to the "insufficient data" problem with either Russell's Teapot (essentially an illustration of Occam's Razor) or with Pascal's Wager, but that's a matter of personal choice entirely, not of "burden of proof". --dab (𒁳) 09:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That might be your position towards these question that proof is a personal choice. The point however is that this isn't the position many modern atheists take. They take the position that an extraordinary claim for god, needs extraordinary evidence to support it. Or rather, just any factual evidence, since the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. And if one does not supply it. There is no reason to believe in that claim either. This is essentially what is extrapolated from Russell's Teapot argument. We haven't even described this notion with one word in the article. To claim this lack of inclusion as tangential is rather puzzling to me. -- Muthsera (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Muthsera that this seems rather relevant. Re: Occams razor, introducing an ominscient, omnipotent being into your model may sound like adding a single parameter, but it is a parameter containing infinite dimensions, and therefore is in fact adding infinite parameters/complexity to the model, making it the least parsimonious model possible. The God is 1 argument and evolution needs three (mutation, inherentence of characteristics, natural selection) is often made, but to anyone that has a relevant view on science the three parameters in evolution are relatively straightforward and as a combination much simpler than adding an infinitely complex God in the mix (and therefore according to Occam's razor evolution prevails). Arnoutf (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

French Revolution and Reign of Terror

I have just edited the section on atheism during the french revolution. I wanted to justify the edits and invite discussion. Before the edits the passage was poorly formulated allowing a number of misleading impressions. It discussed the reign of terror and the cult of reason etc. But it had formulations like Jacobins lead to reign of terror. More militant atheists introduced Cult of Reason. Now this is misleading. Jacobins were deists. The French Revolution sought to introduce a secular state hence there was a movement to change the role of primarily the Catholic Church relative to the state. But the dominant wing, the Jacobins actually had a deistic Cult of the Supreme Being. Hence to say "more militant atheists" gives the false impression that the Jacobins were atheists and hence that the Reign of Terror is linked to atheism and not to anti-clericalism and general radical excess. The passage also gave the impression that the excesses of the atheist faction ended with the Thermidorian Reaction, when in fact the Jacobins had them executed earlier and the Thermidorian Reaction ended the excesses of the Jacobins. See the wikipedia pages on Jacobins and Hébertists for clarification. The point of discussion is how to keep historic accuracy while not bloating the article. 99.121.29.73 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC).

indeed. if in doubt, shorten it. This sort of thing has an enormous bloat-factor and needs to be made cascading down WP:SS. The "History" section has grown far too detailed, threatening to outgrow the main article. The proper place for this discussion is Atheism in the Age of the Enlightenment. --dab (𒁳) 09:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Relationship to nontheism

First, I wanted to say that the new lead (I'm not sure how long it has been in place) is much much better than the previous version - thanks! On to something else though: the first mention of nontheism is in the second paragraph "... while a further 11.9% is described as nontheist." It is not clear at all what this actually means, and the nontheism article wasn't so helpful to me. Can I suggest we extend the last sentence of the first paragraph that contrasts theism and atheism, by also contrasting atheism and nontheism? I'd offer a suggestion on how to actually do this, but it's still not clear to me the relationship atheism and nontheism share. Cheers, Ben (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it certainly is non-clear. I'm OK with linking to the nontheism page when the word first occurs. I think that the contrast with theism is important in a way that any contrast with nontheism is not. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
If you agree that it is non-clear, then why are you opposed to clarifying the term via a contrast with atheism? Ben (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the problem is that the distinction is unclear generally. For "non-theist", the OED gives merely: "A person who is not a theist." Which seems to make it essentially synonymous with atheist/ism. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Great, then can we give this as a synonym in the lead paragraph (with reference to OED)? Cheers, Ben (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
It is not a synonym. An atheist is a nontheist, but not all nontheists are atheists. Nontheism is an umbrella term that covers religions and nonreligious non-theism, including agnostics, buddhism, etc. Its like squares and rectangles, where atheism is a square and nontheism is a rectangle. They are both forms of rectangles, but you cannot say they are synonyms, thats bad logic. --Extrabatteries (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Ben's question to me is, I admit, a good one. It seems to me that nontheism may, in fact, not really be a notable topic, but rather, a dictionary term that was expanded into a coat rack. There is certainly the word "nontheism", which, as Cybercobra correctly says, just means "not theism", and it appears first on this page in the context of a source that uses the word to characterize poll results. Is there a reliable source that says "the difference between atheism and nontheism is X"? If not, I'm not sure there is much we can do with it here. Atheism and theism are obviously notable concepts, in ways that nontheism may not be. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
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.
I have just removed the "merger" tags from the two pages, on the grounds that, while there are varying opinions, a clear consensus in favor of making the merge has not developed. Instead, it looks like it would be a good idea to fix up the Nontheism (or a new Nontheistic relgion) article as discussed here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Barring a good argument in opposition, I would support merging Nontheism into Atheism and having Nontheism redirect to Atheism. Is that what you're suggesting? --Born2cycle (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
If we're going by the OED quote above then I think that's probably a good idea. Cheers, Ben (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we should. (?) But I think there's enough material at nontheism that we should not do so without going through the proper tagging and full discussion first. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, merging only after proper tagging and if consensus through discussion is achieved. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Procedure set in motion. Atheism & Philosophy WikiProjects pinged; listed at Proposed Mergers. I'm hesitant to merge personally, but perhaps some outside opinion will clarify things. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose merge -- Atheism and nontheism are certainly two different topics, articles and categories. Atheism is the positive statement that "there is not" a god. Nontheism is beyond the question of whether or not there is. Some atheists are religious atheists, in that they hold their belief without any logical or rational reason -- i.e. the person who doesn't care how intellectually honest it is to say we can't know the answer one way or the other (nontheism), but rather goes ahead and make the "leap" to the positive statement of atheism. THAT IS NOT TO SAY that all atheists are religious atheists, but some are. The person who hates god because of something that happened to them in their life is also a religious atheist, but is a "bad faith atheist". The distinction is very useful and should be developed into further relief, rather than being merged. To further clarify: America is not a "Christian nation", nor an "Atheist nation" it is properly a "Nontheist nation" and if people understood the proper meaning of this, there would be no offense at that statement from either atheists or theists. Greg Bard 01:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Atheism is the positive statement that "there is not" a god" Er, see "weak atheism" in this very article. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Er, I think you need to read beyond the Wikipedia article. I am shocked and dismayed at this proposal, quite frankly.

Support Merge - I think they should be merged. As far as I can tell, Nontheism just seems to be a fad-ish word adopted by some because the word "atheism" sounds too ... worn out? tired? Everyone is looking for something fresh. A clue is found in the Nontheism article: "While the Oxford English Dictionary (2007) does not define non-theism ... ". That should say something. I've done tons of reading on atheism, and I've never seen the term "nontheism" used (until I stumbled on it here in WP). I dont doubt that there is some good information in the Nontheism article, and I would not suggest deleting any of the sourced content. Perhaps Nontheism could just re-direct to Atheism, and a new, small "Nontheism" section could be added into Atheism article? --Noleander (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose merge for now - Nontheism needs to be cleaned up first. There is too much material there for this article to absorb without this article being drowned in info about nontheistic religions. I instead support moving much of the nontheism article to a new article such as Nontheistic religions. --JimWae (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I went back and looked again at nontheism in light of what Jim says here, and I think that he has identified the key issue. Most of that page is about "nontheistic religions". Those are absolutely not the same thing as atheism, and in most cases, are not atheism at all. Here, on this page, it is unclear whether the word was used by sources in that sense, or as a vaguer synonym for atheism. It's sort of like the term has been used to refer to nontheistic religion (as in I do not believe in God, but I'm a very spiritual person and I believe in a sort of greater power), as well as to refer to "not theism" (as in, among many other things, secular humanism). It would make sense to merge the "not theism" parts into this page, but to develop the rest into a separate page about something that is clearly not atheism. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Support creation of nontheistic religion and making nontheism a dismbig page linking to this article and the new one. Cheers, Ben (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Support per Ben Jess talk cs 14:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Sentiment seems to be leaning toward repurposing Nontheism's content as Nontheistic religion or similar; this seems reasonable. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Do not merge, as it is completely inappropriate despite the level of development of the nontheism article. There are completely different theories, although similar. Greg Bard 17:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Some nontheistic beliefs are atheistic, but not all nontheistic beliefs are atheistic. According to the article, nontheism " is a term that covers a range of both religious and nonreligious attitudes characterized by the absence of — or the rejection of — theism or any belief in a personal god or gods." By this definition, agnosticism falls under nontheism, but agnosticism is not atheism. --cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 23:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per cymru lass. Atheism in its wider definition (i.e weak and strong atheism) is synonym to non-theism: "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[31] On the other hand most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism: "While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails weak atheism,[28] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.[41]"--E235 (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for now. The nontheism article is highly dubious. The sections from Buddhism down reeks of WP:SYNTH as nontheism is not mentioned at all, or in the sources cited in those sections. The article needs some serious weeding out before it should even be considered merging it with another article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Atheism is more specifically irreligious while nontheism mentions several specific religions that happen to be nontheistic, such as Buddhism. I would, however, like to see more in the way of an Antitheism section, perhaps. --Ninjasaves (talk.stalk) 01:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Merge. After having read the nontheism page the problem is that this field is full of wrangling for definitions. Christian apologists will often define words differently than nonbelievers define it. We find in the nontheism article that Holyoake defined nontheism simply to get a label for atheism that is free of the cultural stigma that was massive at the time. Hence the characterization that is made that this is about a personal god is not compatible with that definition. But this brings me back to Christian apologists. The personal god question is largely dealt with in the article on deism. The right but arduous solution is to marge what is connected to the personal god question with deism and merge the rest with atheism and simply state that Holyoake wanted the label to rid of the implied social stigma. Simply put the term nontheism has not caught on, but rather the term atheism has managed to rid quite a bit of its stigma (not all) making Holyoake's original concern less relevant. But other related terms like secular humanism were also invented to bypass stigma, but it at least caught on and hence deserves a separate entry, it also has sufficient independent content. Some parts of the nontheism article are simply delete-worthy. See sections on Buddhism and Hegel. 99.121.29.73 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC).

Support Merge - am persuaded by the IP above - ClemMcGann (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose merge While atheism in itself is difficult enough to define, non theism would make this much harder. Reading the non-theism article, it is both a subset of atheism, a specific form of atheism which fits well with Budhist belief. But at the same time it is superset of which atheism is only part, where non-theism is used as more or less synonymous with secularism. That "ill defined" nature of nontheism alone would already be an argument against merging. Secondly a significant part of the nontheism article is discussing the use of the term "nontheism" which in itself is rather interesting, but too trivial a detail for this larger atheism article. This is an argument to maintain an independent non-theism article (which BTW currently needs a lot of work to improve it - but that is another issue). Arnoutf (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Merge of Nontheism and Atheism - I share the opinions of users cymru lass and Ninjasaves provided above. However, I think I could potentially support the creation of Nontheistic religion, then turning Nontheism into a disambiguation page that links to Atheism and Nontheistic religion, as suggsted by Ben above. John Shandy` • talk 20:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Opening THREE sentences

I'm not very keen on the arrangement of the first three sentences, or the definition given for 'broad sense'. Moving from 'broad' to 'narrow' and then to 'inclusive' seems an odd progression to me.

Also, the word rejection in the first sentence seems inappropriate. Rejecting a belief implies a conscious decision - while the broad view really ought to be more encompassing; more of a general overview. Thoughts please? Obscurasky (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey dude. Good point and I agree. Unfortunately this issue has resulted from endless endless debate stretching back months and months. Compromise and been lumped on compromise to reach this distrubed and contorted language. If you want to try and clarify it, I wish you all the best, but warn you that you are jumping into a frying pan.
Your best option might be to simply float a suggestion for a rewording and seeing if it musters any support. NickCT (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
And please read the talk archives first. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Re reading the archive; I really wouldn't bother. Most of it is mindless. I fear Tryptofish is under the delusion that something erudite has been said. NickCT (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Not by some of us, I'm sure. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I most heartily agree. NickCT (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I know I said I wasn't keen on the previous wording, but the new opening sentence is even more vague. 'Factual assertion' - what does that mean? Are we saying that non-belief has to be asserted as fact in order to count as atheism? What about babies; who have no belief, no concept of facts, and no way of expressing it anyway? Can't we just open with;
'Atheism', in its broadest sense, can be described as the absence of belief in any deity. - and work from there? Obscurasky (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
It looks like that wording was subsequently reverted, and properly so. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I really don't have time for this now... but I was planning to take it up eventually... and with all this talk about using absence the opening, now seems as good as any.

My contention is that:

  1. The atheist community does generally agree that the term includes everyone "without belief in deities". That community should be the one which matters. As put elsewhere, religion articles don't define their subject by their negation to other religions, but instead to their internal identification with their faith. Atheism, therefore, should be largely defined by consensus drawn from notable atheists, with less emphasis placed on definitions used in other communities. This use goes back for centuries:
    1. Paul Baron D'Holbach, Good Sense (1772): "All children are born Atheists; They have no idea of God" Referred to by John Meslier as "the strongest atheistical work". Google Books, pg 26
    2. Charles Bradlaugh, The Freethinker's Textbook (1876): "Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God... I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception"
    3. Chapman Cohen Deity and Design (1912): "If one believes in a god, one is a Theist. If one does not believe in a god, then one is an A-theist — he is without that belief. The distinction between atheism and theism is entirely, exclusively, that of whether one has or has not a belief in God." and "Keep the idea of God away from the child and it will grow up an Atheist."
    4. George Smith Atheism: The Case Against God (1976): "Atheism, properly considered, is simply the absence or lack of theistic belief. In other words, to the question, "Do you believe in God?", if you answer, "No," for whatever reason, you are an atheist. You will often hear it said that an atheist actually denies the existence of a god or gods. This is true; many atheists do but not all. This kind of overt denial of the existence of a god or gods is a sub-category of a broader kind of approach which should in a general sense be known as atheism." Link to speech
    5. Richard Carrier What is Atheism Really All About? (1996): "An atheist is a person who does not believe that any gods exist."
    6. Michael Martin, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (2006): "An atheist is someone without a belief in God; he or she need not be someone who believes that God does not exist."
  2. Regardless of adoption, absence is the broadest sense of the definition. It makes sense (and there appears to be precedent elsewhere) that the article should lead with the most inclusive definition, and then further refine schools of thought therein.
    1. Theism begins with the broadest definition, and further refines to monotheism, despite it being the most prevalent.
    2. Christianity begins with the overarching view of Jesus, regardless of widely held beliefs regarding the trinity or other widely adopted figures.
    3. According to WikiProject Atheism: Importance Scale, top level importance articles should be left in mostly generic terms, partitioning technical definitions and distinctions to more specialized areas. I take this to mean that the article should be clear, unambiguous, and easy to understand for the average uninformed reader, particularly within the first section of the lead. The simplest way to do this is to specify what atheism means for everyone, and then further detail more specialized positions therein. The current lead attacks multiple positions in no clear order, leaving ambiguity with respect to a comprehensive definition.
    4. Simply put, it makes the most sense to espouse the initial definition which includes every atheist, and then further refine to individual positions. The first definition should not be one which excludes those (and I would contend many of those) who label themselves or others in this way.
  3. Contrary to implications made in the previous discussion, there does appear to be a general consensus among philosophers, theologians, and prominent atheists that absence is at least one definition suited to atheism. While some may not hold this position themselves, or even actively argue against it, this should not be confused for lack of adoption of the term; The fact that they reference it at all should be indication enough of its prominence.
    1. Robert Flint Anti-Theistic Theories (1883): "Every man is an atheist who does not believe that there is a God"
    2. Robert Flint Agnosticism (1903): "The word atheist ... means one who does not believe in God, and it means neither more nor less."
    3. Investigatingatheism.info "Negative atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief... This suggests that negative atheism, the minimal position that all atheists share, divides neatly into agnosticism and positive atheism."
    4. The absence definition is even discussed (albeit attacked) by major apologists, including William Lane Craig, Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, and so forth, predominantly during debate.
  4. The Latin root, origin, and history of the term all point to absence of belief. While this alone doesn't signify absence as a primary definition, it does heavily oppose the notion that the definition is not prominent enough to begin the article.
    1. G.W. Foote What is Agnosticism (1902): "Etymologically, as well as philosophically, an ATheist is one without God. That is all the "A" before "Theist" really means."
    2. Michael Martin Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (1990): "If you look up 'atheism' in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative veiew, characterized by the absence of belief in God."
    3. George Smith Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies (1990): "Prominent atheists have defended for many years the view that an atheist is a person who lacks theistic belief." A discussion of the Latin roots and general acceptance of the term
  5. The absence def gets enough exposure elsewhere, regardless of all of the above, to warrant prominent placement in the article.
    1. Butch Baily Atheism is the absence of belief (2007): "Theism is an active belief in a god(s), so the lack of this belief is "a-theism." It requires no active belief, neither affirmative nor negative. It is simply the absence of a belief." Full Article originally appeared in hattiesburgamerican
    2. Austin Cline What is the definition of Atheism: "The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist." Full Article at About.com

As a result of the above, and in light of the support we've seen recently for adoption of absence, I propose the following change:

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism can be the position that there are no deities, or the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

This has the benefit of leading with the most inclusive definition and further refining from there, and condensing the needlessly complicated word-play with have currently down to 3 simpler sentences. Thoughts? Jess talk cs 20:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism can be the position that there are no deities, or the rejection of :belief in the existence of deities, also called Positive Atheism or Strong Atheism. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
All I really did was add a snippet about Strong/Positive Atheism. I think this wording is best. "Rejection" is far too aggressively assertive to refer to a "broad" definition. "Absence" must be the word used. Also, the narrower sense should say that it "can be" rather than "is", as it is possible to claim atheism without claiming positive/strong atheism. This wording is best, as it is the most correct and all-inclusive. --Ninjasaves (talk.stalk) 01:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
We removed references to Strong atheism in the past, both because it was too jargony and because the lead should be in terms of atheism, not another term. While I appreciate the contribution, I have to agree with those objections; I'm not sure the addition of extra terminology improves the sentence. Jess talk cs 05:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. In that case, the previous wording (before my edit to the proposed first sentences) should be the lead to this article. Any objections?
It seems as though we are destined to do this forever. I feel like this discussion has taken place repeatedly and led either to absolutely no action of any decent kind being taken, or to the wording turning into some horrid monstrosity of a definition in some misguided and poorly executed attempt at being all-inclusive. Fortunately, this time someone has put forward several sources that support this newest attempted lead-in. I think something very similar to this new wording (with the inclusion of "absence of belief" and "in a narrower sense can be") is not only the most inclusive, but the most correct. Maybe then we can move forward on other things in this article, finally. --Ninjasaves (talk.stalk) 19:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
There have been members of the "atheist community" who think the "absence" def is quite wrong (Flew, for one). According to reliable sources in the article, the absence def is also the least rigorous & least scholarly of the defs. As Martin & Smith repeatedly admit, the absence def is not commonly accepted -- and neither actually ever specifically state that infants are atheists - they quietly skirt that issue. Most English speakers do not count infants as atheists, and it is not the task of wikipedia to change the way English words are used. The first def ought not be the most contentious one with the least scholarly support and the least in line with the way the word is actually used.
I agree that the first def given ought to be the one that as much as possible includes everyone who self-identifies as an atheist. That is why the rejection def is given first. Rejection need not be militant, nor does it imply that what is being rejected is true - I find no definition given at http://onelook.com/?w=rejection&ls=a supporting either as the meaning of "reject". When one rejects a proposed belief, one declines to believe it and discards it from active consideration. Those who continue to actively consider theism as an alternative view for themselves (without actually yet admitting to believing) are better classified as agnostics rather than as atheists. As expanded later in the article, the rejection def covers all "explicit" atheists. The only implicit atheists, in this view, are those agnostics who have rejected belief without admitting they are atheists. What could it mean to call oneself an atheist and not reject theism for oneself?
Hardly anybody actually use the term the way Smith & Martin define it. Even Chapman Cohen, among the atheists you quote (with "Keep the idea of God away from the child and it will grow up an Atheist") indicates he does not consider the child is yet an atheist. Smith & Martin & others commit the etymological fallacy to give a stipulative definition / persuasive definition. They are not summarizing the way the term is actually used (and they so admit).
Wikipedia is pretty unusual in giving 3 defs of atheism. Most sources only consider 2 & so when they take sides they do so in a different context. Sources from atheist tracts a century or 2 old reflect neither current usage nor even the usage of their time.
Absence of belief is a necessary condition for atheism, but there is scholarly disagreement that absence is a sufficient condition - just as having 4 equal angles is not sufficient for being a rectangle. It would be myopic to lump Marxism and capitalism and mathematics and Darwinism together as forms of atheism.
It would be improper to use "what the atheist community agrees on" as the standard for how to present this topic. Besides, the "atheist community" does not agree on the def. --JimWae (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if I agree with your interpretation of the Chapman Cohen quote. "Keep the idea of God away from the child and it will grow up an Atheist" indicates that atheism is a default state, and that the "idea of God" is the determinant that might change that state. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
@Jim. We've had this discussion before you and I. And as I said to you earlier. It's a strawman objection towards Atheism. Because non belief is a negative. Let me illustrate once more, since you again bring it up. "All Atheists are without belief in a god. But not all those without belief in a god are Atheists." Even if Atheism is an affirmed position of rejection or denial. It's still without a belief in god. It's only by asserting that ALL without belief needs to be Atheists that you arise to this problem. This is what you assert. "All without belief are Atheists. Thus all without belief are Atheists". No one is claiming that. Nor should it be a standard for it. Precisely because Atheism at the very minimum "can be" a negative. It would thus follow. That in the broadest sense possible. Atheism is the absence of the belief that there is a deity. -- Muthsera (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Gnosticism refers to the quality of possessing certain knowledge. A-Gnosticism refers to the lack of certain knowledge.
Theism refers to belief in a god or gods. A-Theism refers to a lack of belief in a god or gods.
In addition to the simplicity of the root words, there is a really quite large number of people in the atheist community who consider anything other than the affirmation of a god-belief to be atheistic. The view goes something like this: "Can you honestly say yes to the question of whether you believe in God?" Anything other than "Yes," and the person answering fits the most broad, over-arching definition of an atheist. Atheism encompasses anything other than theism on the question of belief in a god or gods. This does not speak of certainty (gnosticism/agnosticism), and yes, this includes atheistic topics (that is, topics without the topic of theistic belief) like mathematics, captialism, communism... etc.
JimWae and similar arguers appear to be engaged in a POV attempts to misrepresent the definition of atheism (perhaps unintentionally, I would love to assume good faith) and they appear to be doing so successfully for a large portion of this article's history. Let's correct this, shall we?
Don't forget: the original point of this thread was the odd arrangement of the first sentences. Let's arrange them thus: Atheism is the absence of belief... ...can also be affirmation of belief that there are no gods.... contrasts with theism, etc. This is simply the least POV and most inclusive wording and arrangement. Broad and inclusive, followed by more specific possibilities. --Ninjasaves (talk.stalk) 22:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
That's the Etymological fallacy again. Isn't it just a bit too early to question my "good faith" here instead of addressing even one of the reasons I gave not to start with "absence". All you did besides repeat yourself was to make it a personal matter. Btw, "lack" connotes a deficiency. JimWae (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Gnosticism refers to the quality of possessing certain knowledge. A-Gnosticism refers to the lack of certain knowledge.
Theism refers to belief in a god or gods. A-Theism refers to a lack of belief in a god or gods.
I don't know how much more simply I can put my point. Rejection necessarily implies a position held. While the most broad definition of atheism is the simple absence of theism. And yes, further qualifiers can and should be added onto the definition. My point is that atheistic topics range from those simply unconcerned with the question of theism to those which are explicitly antitheistic. This should be reflected in the definition. "Atheism is, most broadly, this. It can also include the more specific position of... this."
Consider, also, the world "moral". Amoral means simply unconcerned with the question of morality, while immoral means explicitly against the standards of morality. I think my point stands. --Ninjasaves (talk.stalk) 22:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC) PS, you're right, "lack" implies a deficiency. It should be "absence".
@Ninjasaves As much as I'd like to agree with you, you're just repeating yourself... and your replies boil down to unfounded assertions. You really need to back up your position with sources (even if they're the ones I cited above) for them to have any weight. Also, JimWae is right: Accusing other editors of bad faith is bad form. Based on JimWae's history of contributions, I think it's fairly safe to say that he's legitimately trying to improve the article, and has done quite a good job of it to boot. Please try to remain objective, and don't make the discussion personal. Thanks. Jess talk cs 00:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
@Jess. The question isn't if this notion of A-Theism was previously understood in the same setting as we understand it today or not. The question is if this is indeed the how modern A-theism is understood. Any particular Etymological fallacy that potentially arises are irrelevant as the modern understanding is whats relevant to us. If one argues that this was how the term came about. We can discuss this notion of Etymological fallacy. But as far as determine if this is the modern use, an Etymological fallacy is irrelevant. To indeed support Ninjasaves in this assertion that this is the modern understanding. I point to the George Smith source we've listed before. -- Muthsera (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
@Muthsera You're replying out of order. I already covered the objections to etymology below; It has nothing to do with my response to Ninjasaves, which still stands. Jess talk cs 22:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
@Jess, it was not my intention to split the discussion. It was simply to come with an argument to the section where it was relevant. To me that would make it less confusing where it applied to, instead of commenting at the end where it was far below the section it refer to. I also have problem reading where you have addressed Jim's comment on Etymological fallacy in regards to "A-Theism" below. Which is also why I put it in this section instead of commenting on it below. If I made a mistake regarding noticing your post on it. Could you kindly guide me to where you have commented on it? -- Muthsera (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
@Muthsera The problem with replying out of order is twofold: 1) It causes topic drift mid-conversation. While JimWae and I had a short exchange which remained on-point, any newcomers to the discussion will no longer be able to follow our discussion clearly, because after each of our replies there are off-topic discussions involving you. By the time they sift through our discussion here, my reply below may seem off-topic or irrelevant, when in fact in contributed to part of this discussion above. Chronology is important for clarity. 2) Less importantly, it becomes difficult for editors to tell what new points you're making, because they're hidden in the middle of a wall of stale replies. The only way I can follow this thread now is comparing unformatted diffs... which is a pain. Replying at the end and referencing the points you're making should be sufficient, and make it easier for everyone.
Now, on topic... Bullet #5 below addresses the etymology argument. In summation, Smith and Martin don't attempt to say "Atheism means this because its greek roots mean this", nor was that the point I was making by quoting them. However, some (but not full) credence can be given to a proposed definition based on its roots; If two people have opposing modern definitions, and one is supported by historical meaning, then he is more clearly right. After all, the argument is not "absence is the proper definition and the others are wrong", it is "absence is a valid definition supported by modern and historical usage, and deserves prominent placement." That, alone, is why etymology is pertinent, as a response only to the notion that it is a fringe view of the term without enough support to begin the lead. Jess talk cs 02:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
@JimWae Thanks for the response. I'll take your points in order.
  1. I'm not sure Flew is an appropriate representation of the atheist community. While his early contributions may testify to the state of discourse in the past, his more recent conversion to Christianity really disqualifies him from any representative status.
  2. Regarding infants being explicitly defined as atheists, I'm not sure this is a meaningful argument. Are infants explicitly called theists? More to the point, while infants don't have any definite political affiliation, can you find me a source which explicitly labels infants as independent or unaffiliated? They're not explicitly defined this way simply because it would be meaningless to do so. A better example would be an indigenous tribe of islanders who had been recently discovered and introduced to theology. Would these nonbelievers be called atheists? It seems clear to me they would, and I believe the numerous quotes I've cited above would agree.
  3. While Martin and Smith (and indeed some others) may admit that absence is not the most common definition globally, I've seen nowhere that they admit it isn't the most common definition among academic or atheistic circles. Smith, in fact, goes so far as to state the opposite: in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies: "Prominent atheists have defended for many years the view that an atheist is a person who lacks theistic belief." This quote is quite indicative of the state of the label among prominent atheists.

  4. Even Chapman Cohen, among the atheists you quote (with "Keep the idea of God away from the child and it will grow up an Atheist") indicates he does not consider the child is yet an atheist

    I'm not sure where you've gotten this idea, since the quote I provided seems extremely clear. Googling turns up little but support for the quote. Could you source it, please?
  5. Smith and Martin, in their discussion of the etymology of the term, don't attempt to describe the way the label is used, nor were their quotes cited in an attempt to bolster that argument. Their point is to place the roots of the term, which I think they do rather well. If the roots of the term indicate it was used in a particular way, it gives some (though not full) credence to the idea that it means that thing. Smith and Martin both defend usage of the label in other areas, some of which I've cited above.

  6. Absence of belief is a necessary condition for atheism, but there is scholarly disagreement that absence is a sufficient condition

    But it is the broadest definition with sufficient support to be placed in the lead, and therefore should be used first before further refinements. I would cede the case if the term had insufficient adoption to support prominent placement, but it clearly does, and my case is that placing it after more exclusive definitions is therefore inappropriate. When describing Christianity, we don't say "Christianity is the belief in the Bible and adherence to the Pope. Most inclusively, it is only the belief in the bible and not the Pope". The number of Catholics vs other denominations of Christianity has no place in that lead, nor should it ever, regardless of the numbers. The most appropriate lead should define the term in a way which is inclusive of everyone under that label, and then refine schools of thought therein. This appears to follow precedent, and is a more logical, and clearer way to present the article. Jess talk cs 01:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Does this mean that you understand any sub definitions such as "Strong Atheism" or "Explicit Atheism" to be excluded from the lead? Either way. This is an improvement on what stands now. -- Muthsera (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
@Muthsera I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Also, please reply at the end of the discussion, rather than inserting comments in the middle. If we continue this way it'll quickly turn a chronologically ordered discussion which is easy to follow into indecipherable ramblings. Jess talk cs 22:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that the basic proposal here is to change from the present lead, to an organization in which the most inclusive definition is listed first, followed by the two less inclusive definitions, without "ranking" the degree of inclusiveness of those latter two? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

@Tryptofish. I believe this have been the minimum proposal for several sections now.-- Muthsera (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
@Trypto That seems to be a reasonable summation. I'm not convinced (either way) that the following enumeration should be ranked in terms of inclusiveness. That said, this would be a reasonable alternative:

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism can be the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, or the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Or (rephrasing only for flow):

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism can be the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, or the position that no deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Jess talk cs 22:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
What about unaware? Atheism "can be" the state of not knowing about any deities. Not having an affirmed position of any kind. -- Muthsera (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
That would be covered by absence of belief. Listing it would therefore be redundant. Jess talk cs 22:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed it could be. But so does the other narrow definitions. However, I see no point in pressing to include unaware in it's own narrow subsection as well. I have no problem with this definition as lead. -- Muthsera (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I like the last version listed, the one rephrased for flow. Perhaps, in the second sentence, change "can be" to "is". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The above proposal, even with a change to "is", would be a distinct improvement over what we have now, so I won't push back too hard on this... but that said, I do think using "can be" is better. In the initial proposal, we've given a definition which is all inclusive of all atheists, and then refined what it can be (but isn't always) for others. I think that, to use "is", needlessly confuses that point, as it makes the wording seem a little clunky. With that in mind, I also understand that there may be style guidelines for definitions in the lead which we're trying to adhere to, and there is some merit to maintaining the structure of "term is definition" consistently. In short, I don't think it's an improvement, but I'm willing to accept it. Thoughts? Jess talk cs 01:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Using "is" instead of "can be". Could lead to the misunderstanding that Atheism is (always) a rejection of theism. Instead of the notion that it sometimes have that form. Describing it as a narrow form prior to that, I have no faith that it would be understood as such. So to me it's a point of clarity even if it's not technically the best use.
@Jess, regarding above section of Strong and Explicit being left out. It was only a question of confirmation. It's irrelevant now that you have posted the definition. -- Muthsera (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
@Jess. Fair enough. Lets try it like this.
On the subject of Etymological fallacy. Yes, I see now how you answered that. I initially understood that to be pointed at the notion of "absence" between what Smith/Martin understood and a historical understanding. I didn't connect that to the Etymological fallacy Jim was talking about. But I'm unsure if that was what Jim meant. I think he meant that the words Smith used might simply be a modern understanding of A-Theism. Instead of two conflicting modern understandings. In the first regard it made the assertion mute. But in the second it is as you say a weight towards which is more historical accurate. That though don't take into account a zeitgeist which might mean it's more accurate today than historically. But that is needlessly going in debt of the analysis. -- Muthsera (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Heh! Well, that one probably could have gone up at the top... since we already broke up the conversation enough. Thanks for the understanding though! :) Jess talk cs 03:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


Re: Flew & Nagel & the "atheist community"

The above is such a mess, I am going to have to start separate sections for responses.

Regarding Flew and "the atheist community"

Inasmuch as the core response to my mention of Flew was to point out his conversion, it makes the fact that I should have said "Nagel" that much more relevant. Indeed, it was actually Flew who was among the first to advocate the "absence" def. In 1984, in The Presumption of Atheism, to his credit, Flew explicitly acknowledges this as a "new" definition:

...we need to give a new and much more comprehensive meaning to the term "atheist." Whereas it is currently construed as referring to a person who positively disbelieves that there is an object corresponding to what is thus tacitly taken to be a or the legitimate concept of God, I would now urge that the word be hereafter understood not positively but negatively. Let the originally Greek prefix "a" be read in the same way in "atheist" as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as "amoral," atypical," and "asymmetrical." In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the nonexistence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist.

It was Ernest Nagel who contradicted Flew & Smith's definition of atheism as merely "absence of theism", acknowledging only "explicit" atheism as true "atheism".

I shall understand by "atheism" a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism... atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist - for he is not denying any theistic claims. Similarly in the case of an adult who, if he has withdrawn from the faith of his father without reflection or because of frank indifference to any theological issue, is also not an atheist - for such an adult is not challenging theism and not professing any views on the subject.[5]

I think we all must reject the notion that the "atheist community" should get to decide how to present this topic. The primary standards are WP:NPOV WP:Undue and WP:RS. Xns do not get to decide how to present the article on Christianity, and it would be sad to think they ever could use the atheism article to say there was precedent for doing so.

I do, however, as I have already said, agree that the first def ought to as much as possible include all who self-identify as atheists. This is, as far as I can see, Jess's main justification for wanting to put the absence def first (though he also says the present order is "strange" - yet has proposed "widest, then narrowest, then medium" as less strange [which is only because he has also omitted the "map" for the comparative scope of the rejection and "positive" defs while also lumping the two together in one sentence so it is no longer clear that there are 3 defs]) But, as I said above already, this is the very reason why the rejection def is presently given first, because it does indeed include all who self-identify as atheists. The only group that the absence def adds are the supposedly implicit atheists, who do not self-identify as atheists. It is true that there are self-identifying atheists who do not espouse the rejection def, but that is apparently because 1> they have not been exposed to the def enough, AND 2> they have a mistaken idea of what "rejection" means. It seems I must repeat myself here, for I see no response to this point: see above: "Rejection need not be militant, nor does it imply that what is being rejected is true.... What could it mean to call oneself an atheist and not reject theism for oneself?"

The fact that the absence def is 1> the most controversial, 2> admittedly a persuasive definition (or at least a stipulative definition) - and thus admittedly 3> the least in accord with ACTUAL usage, 4> ignored by most encyclopedias, and 5> contradicted by others such as Nagel are considerable reasons not to have it first. That it is currently popular on the Internet and in a few books speaks to its inclusion in the article, but Jess's argument that "it is the broadest definition with sufficient support to be placed in the lead, and therefore should be used first before further refinements" just does not have any deductive force. Just because the theism article uses the broadest one first is no argument that this article should. (Besides, the general def of theism is well accepted and in accord with actual usage.) More soon --JimWae (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The consensus (on all "sides" of this discussion) seems to be that the order of the sentences is odd. I agree, medium-narrow-inclusive is a poor choice. So let us take what we already have, since it was featured and all, and reorder it.

Atheism, most inclusively, is the absence of belief that any deities exist. In a broad sense, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism can specifically be the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

As I said, all I've done here is reorder the existing sentences. Most seem to agree that the broadest definition should be first, and it can get more specific from there. I've ordered them most inclusive, medium, narrow. Thoughts? --Ninjasaves (talk.stalk) 15:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
My concern with this version is the use of "In a broad sense" to describe what is actually the "medium" sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I was actually going to suggest the same thing (but with a more in-depth reply I didn't have a chance to write up!). I think my proposal is better than a simple reordering, but I'm willing to compromise on that point if a reordering is acceptable to JimWae. With respect to Tryptofish's comment, I would suggest:
Atheism, in a broad sense, is the absence of belief that any deities exist. In a narrower sense, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. Most exclusively, atheism can specifically be the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
That said, I doubt this will be acceptable to JimWae, in which case I'll get back to defending the initial proposal once I get some breathing room to do so. Jess talk cs 17:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
@Jim. I think you need to go back and read Nagel again. You cannot in any honest interpretation claim that Nagel claims that Atheism is a theistic belief. It's a belief yes. But not a theistic one. So to claim that Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Is accurate, even according to Nagel. That he refutes Smith and Martin here is rather irrelevant. As far as Atheist community. Well, I agree that it should have little to do with things. As long as one doesn't misrepresent what it claims. -- Muthsera (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, I see nowhere that JimWae confuses Atheism with theistic belief. Further, I'm not sure it would have anything to do with the discussion even if he did, except for excluding Nagel from our list of reputable sources. Regardless, what we're waiting for right now is a response from JimWae as to the acceptability of my latest proposal, which it seems the other editors have signed off on. That said, there's little reason to confuse the issue further by sidetracking the discussion to previous topics. Jess talk cs 18:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Your "guess" was right. I see a slight improvement in using 3 sentences, but still see no rationale for changing to having the absence def first -- AND 5 reasons given (with no response) for not doing so. --JimWae (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
IF the argument is strictly that the scope should move in one direction only, then moving from narrowest to broadest is as much "less strange" as moving from broadest to narrowest. There are other standards for which comes first. Using the standard of commonest, the narrowest would qualify again. However, Jess identified a standard of having the one that includes all self-identifiers first. Under that standard the "rejection" def should come first - which is how things currently are. While the current version may seem "strange" for not being "unidirectional" in scope, it is not strange in terms of including all self-identifiers first. I see no argument that the rejection def does not include all self-identifiers. I see 5 unanswered arguments not to begin with the "absence" def. I think those 5 arguments counteract any argument for "unidirectionality". I think the argument for including all self-identifiers is a good reason not to put the narrowest first, but would prefer commonest first to absence first. I also think that it shows a lack of confidence to make the first definition of atheism be the one that makes no distinction between atheists and a hollow-skulled foetus. --JimWae (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It makes no sense to move from narrowest to broadest. That's like defining human beings as "Male members of the species Homo Sapiens. More inclusively, Human Beings could also include the female members of the species". You start with the widest, most inclusive definition and work your way to more specifically define from there.

I think the latest proposal makes a good bit of sense. You're right, the word "broad" implies a larger scope than it should. I like the latest wording. It seems to me that pretty much everyone (besides Jim) agrees. I fear, though, that JimWae is difficult to please. --Ninjasaves (talk.stalk) 17:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

@Ninjasaves To be fair, no one has really responded to JimWae's 5 points in his recent reply. I haven't done so for a number of reasons. 1) I dispute a few of them, 2) I find them to be irrelevant to the discussion, and 3) they appear to sidestep the points I raised earlier.
@JimWae Nonetheless, I'll address them, so you can't say I'm ignoring your replies. 1) Any definition of atheism is controversial. The only reason absence could be seen as most controversial is because it's the most broad. No one disputes that "the position there is no god" is a form of atheism because it is the most extreme. Should that be our first definition? 2) I dispute this, but even if I grant that absence is stipulative, this doesn't speak to its inclusion in the article. It is a definition which enjoys common use in a broad range of literature and discourse, some of which I've cited extensively above. 3) I dispute this as well. While entirely anecdotal, absence is the most agreed upon definition within multiple groups I frequent, some of which are non-local. Furthermore, I've also included hard sources arguing for this definition, the commonality of the definition, the historical accuracy of the definition, and so forth, all supporting this observation. 4) By encyclopedias, I assume you mean dictionaries. Few dictionaries agree on a definition for atheism, so this is hardly a case for using some "agreed upon" def. 5) I've provided 15+ citations from 11 sources. Surely you don't think that saying "Nagel disagrees" is a valid argument. So what? They disagree with him. Further, his even addressing this point is additional evidence that it is a definition prominent enough for him to both be aware of it, and feel inclined enough to respond to it. That he disagrees is entirely irrelevant.
But again, this is sidestepping the issue. The absence def already enjoys prominent placement in the opening of the lead, so disputing its use is a waste of time. I've provided ample sourcing, against which I've seen none. Consensus seems to overwhelmingly support using absence first, and precedent (and logic) appear to dictate that a broad definition followed by refinements makes more sense than some other arbitrary ranking system. It seems that to strengthen your case, you would have to provide some WP guideline which backs up your proposed ranking system, show why all my sources are either wrong or irrelevant, or demonstrate why overwhelming consensus should not factor into the discussion. Jess talk cs 18:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The very limited discussion above between less than a handful of editors is not sufficient to draw any conclusion as to the degree of support, or lack there of, anyone's particular position. Its also unclear as to which references you provide above should be footnoted and how? For instance, that there are prominent advocates of the inclusive definition is simply to be expected. But beyond that, merely asserting that this or that viewpoint is more worthy as the broadest and so forth is inadequate. Policy (wp:DUE and wp:NPOV) prescribes that a majority viewpoint in reliable sources gets top billing. That the first definition is a majority viewpoint of what atheism is, in reliable sources, is necessary and needs to be verified. Readers should be able to verify the relative weight (wp:DUE) or prominence which is given to each view, by consulting with commonly accepted reference texts. The current lede achieves this NPOV verifiability to a certain extent, by first paraphrasing the renowned Britannica. --Modocc (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't personally particularly care if it's 100 people who disagree or 1. Are they relevant objections, then they are relevant and we need to correct for that. But I simply think the objections made have been wrong or irrelevant.
1. ""Absence" def is the most controversial of the leads proposed". I don't understand why this would be relevant. Is the definition the most accurate or not? I can easily give example how some fundamentalists would actively object to any understanding which didn't fully encumbered their own view of Atheism. Does that really mean anything even if they where numerical?
2. "That the "Absence" definition is designed to be persuasive instead of most accurate" (correct me if I misunderstood that objection). I take the same position as above. That it's rather irrelevant to us. What matters is if this is indeed what the sources combined all say or not. Not if it's persuasive.
3. "That the definition is the least in accord with actual usage". Not to be difficult. But actual usage where? Where I live it was actual understood as pure absence. I knew of none who used it otherwise in my surroundings. What does that say? Nothing really. Other than where I live it had that understanding. Again, is this really relevant to us? I also commonly hear from some quarters on the internet that Atheists are without morals. Should we put that in as well?
4. "Ignored by most encyclopedias." I'm of the clear mind that reputable encyclopedia such as Britannica is outright wrong when they say primarily it's an affirmed position of rejection. I would surely like to see what they base that on. But ultimately it does not contradict the lead proposed.
5. "That Nagel objects to the notion of "Absence"". I think I've already argued why this is not the case. Even if it's an affirmed belief. It's still not a theistic one.
Only point 4 and 5 is relevant to us in my mind. But they amount to the same argument. What all other do, have little to do with wikipedia, if they do not accurately portray what Atheism actually entails according to the sources. They should simply be dismissed.
In the end. One cannot argue. That Atheism is with a belief in god. So the proposed statement rings true. That Atheism is the absence of a belief in the existence of a deity. I believe we have supported that notion. We say nothing about Atheism being simply absence. Although it can also be understood as such.
On starting with the narrow or most common understanding. One could probably find many common usages which rings true for most people regarding Catholic priests. But are they really true or relevant? Is it then prudent to start out with that common use when defining the concept of Catholic priests? And if one did, would this even tell us anything? Starting with the broadest definition possible is in my mind the only objectively honest approach. -- Muthsera (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Muthsera, thanks for addressing JimWae's points (ditto thanks to Jess too) but we are already citing the Briticanica, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. and The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. We could even cite a number of other encyclopedia's too. Moreover, what such commonly accepted reference texts say does matter, and arguing that these are all wrong, even should you be right, does not matter because Wikipedia is not about wp:TRUTH, because, in this case, ascertaining what meanings of the term are best based on our own preferences and experiences is very limited here when we have policies to adhere to. You said, "We say nothing about Atheism being simply absence." I don't understand this statement or what you mean by it. In fact, because of wp:NPOV, Wikipedia, unlike other sources, does present minority views when there are prominent advocates for those views. The how and why the references state what they do is surely varied and its not are job to correct them and this is not a forum. Thus arguments about an alternate wp:TRUTHs rarely helps, but sometimes discussion can reduce conflict. Thus I'll elaborate on just one additional, but important reason why there can be legitimate disagreement on these definitions. We include the "atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any deity" definition that is all inclusive, including agnostics. However, many agnostics either deny or have denied being atheists, such as the prominent Carl Sagan and they perhaps see some reasonable potential in a pantheistic divinity (such as the laws of physics) and thus distinguished themselves as not being atheists (some agnostics are theistic apologists, others are quite the opposite) even when they are nontheists and have no explicit belief in a deity. The prominence of this non-rejecting non-belief position that causes some nontheists to reject being called atheists is just one more reason the reference texts we can cite will not likely change anytime soon. --Modocc (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I think Modocc's points are very well-taken here. Although I also appreciate that all of the other editors in this thread have been very thoughtfully examining the subject, it seems to me that all of this talk is about nothing more than the order in which the three or so definitions are presented, and maybe it's not that big a deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I can certainly dismiss the notion that it's not a big deal. Just look at the discussion we're having on it. Atheism is NOT broadly a rejection of the theistic belief, that is a narrow understanding of it. That is utterly clear from the sources we have. If that somehow is trivial. Then I'm sorry, I respectfully disagree. And we've not argued in despite of the sources. We've argued WITH sources. It have simply not been taken into account. So wp:TRUTH is not relevant to us. Because this is not the issue at all. As the definition stands now. It's clearly inaccurate portrayal of what the sources tell us. That is the entire point, and nobody have argued differently. The definition we have is wrong on the basis of the sources. Not because of some logical argument or because I believe it to be. Some sources have the position that Atheism is an affirmed position of belief. But other claim it's pure absence of belief. What they all have in common however is that Atheism is not a theistic belief. That must be the broadest possible understanding of Atheism. -- Muthsera (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Muthsera, you are right in that absence definition is the broadest understanding possible as Jess's and your sources have shown, but it is not the understanding of what atheism is in the majority of reference texts. We should not be cherry-picking authors to portray what atheism is when we have tertiary sources for that purpose. My position on keeping the current order of the definitions based on the use of some commonly accepted reference texts comes from wp:due, the relevant text is:

"Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

This policy is pretty much self-explanatory. --Modocc (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Your mixing two issues again. Your mixing the notion that Atheism is a pure absence of belief. And the notion that Atheism is the absence of a theistic belief. Rejection being an asserted position of belief is one claim we see from the sources. But aside from that, I highly dispute that rejection is the majority view of self proclaimed atheist sources. Like I said. Most self ascribed modern Atheist only profess that there is no evidence given to support a belief in god. And we've supplied numerous sources which supports that notion. From Smith, Flew, Dawkins, Harris, Hithchens, Dennett, Russell, Martin, etc, etc. Am I wrong in understanding them as among the most prevalent reliable sources? -- Muthsera (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Atheism is a pure absence of belief." Sorry, but this statement is incomplete. What does "absence of belief" refer to and why, whatever it is, how it is different from your other statement. To clarify my point, by the "absence definition" I was referring to the third definition which we state in the current lede following "Most inclusively,...". As for lacking evidence and any supposed mere absence of belief, just about everyone agrees that the evidence for god is lacking (we do need a section on "empirical arguments"), but theists make a leap of faith, and agnostics and atheists do not, and both reject the leap of faith, i.e. a rejection of belief in a god. For the wavering agnostic, its not a complete rejection of belief though. As for your last point, sure those primarily new atheist authors are among the many reliable sources, but they are by no means the only reliable sources, and most are not authors of any of the many tertiary reference works. --Modocc (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Besides, I do not recall seeing any quotes from "Dawkins, Harris, Hithchens, Dennett, Russell" that the only "correct" (nor even best) definition of atheism is "absence of belief...".--JimWae (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
@Modocc, will it help you to understand what I'm talking about if I used the word "Innocence" instead of "pure absence"? There is a difference between an affirmed position of rejection, and simply not having a belief. Nor do I personally think it's correct to claim that both atheists and agnostics reject the leap of faith. That seem to me that it entails that you need to have an affirmed position towards faith. I personally don't believe you need to. And we find the same position in many of the sources as well.
@Jim, you really do need to stop creating strawmen. I've not made such an argument above. And I'm not fully sure you actually understood the argument I made since you managed to create a strawman out of it. What I simply claimed. Is that those sources do not support the notion that Atheism is an affirmed rejection. And they don't do that from all the quotation we have supplied. If this is indeed not the case, and I've somehow misrepresented their view. Please do show support for that and correct me. -- Muthsera (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Even Martin, when he wrote the article for Encarta, did not give absence first. He even chose the unfortunate "lack" tack as 2nd def.--JimWae (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Martin's ranking there seems utterly arbitrary. It's no argument linked to it being that way. So might as well be a reason of flow. We see him start with "Weak" atheism in other places. But even if that was the case as you point out. It is not enough to establish this as the "most common" use. Which is what I think your trying to portray here. We have many other sources which completely oppose this notion and are quite numerous. And even if that was to be overcome and we had several hundreds of sources which states rejection is the most common. We're still left with rejection leading as a narrow understanding of atheism. It's like starting: "Hinduism" are those who come from India and believe in Hinduism, might also be those who believe in Hinduism (it's a non sequitur use of Hinduism but ignore that, it's just an illustration). I'm sure we could find a great many sources which say Indians are Hindus. And Hindus come from India. And thus establish some "most common" use argument from that. -- Muthsera (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

New Proposal

I've been talking this issue over with other editors, and putting a good deal of thought into it myself, and I believe there's a deeper issue. In trying to support my position above, I spent considerable time searching GA and FA lists for a topic which was handled as multiple opening defs, and was unable to find any. This should be telling of a greater problem; We're handling this issue differently than any other well written article. Why? Furthermore, by partitioning the lead into the three defs, we're not adequately describing the real topic. This is most important: it's clunky, and fails to simply convey what atheism is, in favor of describing what it can be.

I therefore propose a rewrite of the first few sentences. My proposal below is a working copy adapted from the suggestion of another editor. The larger issue I want to get across is a change in the way we're thinking about the lead, rather than this specific wording. As such, feel free to expand upon it as you see fit.

Atheism can refer to a number of personal and philosophical positions that preclude the existence of a god or gods, ranging from an absence of any beliefs about god(s) (compare with agnosticism) to an overt rejection of any belief in god(s)

The benefit of this proposal is that it begins the article clearly and succinctly, by describing what atheism really is without getting bogged down with jargon. Since it doesn't begin with the all-too-specific "Atheism is...", there's also no conflict between varying definitions, and no possible conflict of interest pushing anyone's preferred def to the front.

I've put considerable thought into this, and I strongly believe moving away from our three def approach is necessary. I believe this sort of proposal is therefore a good improvement. Suggestions are welcome. Jess talk cs 01:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

1> Again all the arguments against putting absence first still apply. 2> Btw, "can refer to" violates WP:NOT#DIC 3> I see no reason why we should not be up-front about there being 3 defs. It is because people are unaware there are 3 defs that they talk past one another. 4>If we ever had to go with one def, it ought to be the rejection def. Even Martin says the rejection def covers all explicit atheists. Since we have to begin with one of the 3, it ought to be the one that includes all explicit atheists --- not with a def (or a "range" boundary) that includes people who claim not to be atheists and people who have hollow brains. 5> We do not CURRENTLY say what atheism "can be". However, instead of saying what it "is, in a ... sense," three times, we should be saying how it has been variously defined (3 ways). 6> Absence of belief is not a position - neither personal nor philosophical. 7>The proposal does not, as you say, say "what atheism really is". 8>It is not our job to say what it "really is" anyway. 9>"having an absence of belief in deities" does not preclude the existence of a god or gods. Nor does "rejecting belief in deities" preclude their existence 10>"having an absence of belief in deities" does not even "preclude" (i.e. make impossible [especially beforehand], prevent) the possibility of some future "belief" 11>Where's the case that what we have will be improved by any changes of this sort? Putting absence first does not by itself constitute any improvement - in fact, the opposite applies. --JimWae (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

-

I think Man Jess' approach is good, and I like the wording.
If folk cannot agree on what "Atheism is...", then editors will waste years haggling over a lede that begins with "Atheism is..." - time which could be used more productively elsewhere. I wrote a comment along the lines of "but people will find something else to disagree with instead", and JimWae posted a response in the meantime, making my comment redundant.
I would rather take the proposal a step further, by removing the mention of agnosticism - it could easily go in a following sentence, and have a few more words lavished on it if necessary. This would make the opening sentence sharper / clearer, I hope.
It is unclear to me how the proposed lede violates WP:NOTDIC any more than the existing lede. One way or another, the article really ought to start with an definition of what atheism is; avoiding the need to push three definitions forward scarcely turns this article into a dictionary entry - there is (and will continue to be) a lot more to the article than that.
If rejection really has to get mentioned first, perhaps that could be done simply by changing the order in the latter part of the proposed sentence, ie. "ranging from rejection... to absence...". Or are there further criteria to be satisfied in the hierarchy of definitions?
bobrayner (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with JimWae about the not-dictionary aspect of this. I appreciate Jess's intent of a lead that gets to what atheism is, instead of giving a list of scholarly definitions, but I think that this particular proposal suffers from framing the issue in terms of what the word atheism "can refer to". That makes it about the word, rather than about the subject. But if there's a way of making this really about the subject, I'd be very receptive to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I really don't think that's the intent of WP:NOTDICT. Kevin Baastalk 20:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
In particular, note the following passage at the very beginning of WP:NOTDICT:
Wikipedia articles should begin with a good ___definition___ and description of one topic.
(emphasis added) Kevin Baastalk 20:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Of one topic, not of one word. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
good, you are putting your reading comprehension skills to work. Now consider the next part of the sentence: "however, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well.". Now why would they say "...however, they should [also]..." if that was already included in the "should begin with..." part? Kevin Baastalk 14:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
This is Talk:Atheism, not WT:NOTDICT. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
non-sequitor much? If you hadn't realized, my question was rhetorical. Atheism is an article on wikipedia. on which we are bound by certain policies and guidelines, one of which is WP:NOTDICT  :-) Kevin Baastalk 15:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The point of my rhetorical question was to show that the statement in question, and esp. the conjunction "however", implies that the beginning, "a good definition and description of one topic" (emphasis added again), does not include "other types of information about that topic". I have more if you're ready to go on. Kevin Baastalk 18:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the crucial thing for people to know when they read this page is that the meaning of atheism is contested. There is simply no agreement in the literature on how to conceptualise, categorise or classify atheism. Instead, there are some definitional traditions, if you will. Everyone has their favourite, and our problem here is that people want their favourite to get the glory. I've got my favourite, but I think the job of this encyclopedia is to discuss the issue. Whatever WP:NOTDICT says, the fact is that we cannot provide a clear single definition of atheism, because there isn't one. Instead, we have to say that atheism is understood in different ways. --Dannyno (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Nicely put, dannyno. bobrayner (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
It may be nicely put, but we need to be aware that the definition is disputed in highly technical circles. There is considerable unity in the common conceptions of atheism. This just means that while we struggle to find a wording that accomodates all the sources, it's hard to go terribly wrong by emphasizing any one of them. de Bivort 21:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC) de Bivort 21:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Dannyo, that IS what WP:NOTDICT says! It says that, in addition to the simple introduction, an article should also include more discursive information in its body. I quote: "Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, however, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well." Kevin Baastalk 17:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, there you go then. --Dannyno (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
KB, further down under section 2.1 "Good definitions" of this policy we have more fully, "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[3]), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well." This article is arguably one topic or highly related topics, depending on one's assumed definition of atheism. If one assumes the broadest view, its only one topic, otherwise its two or more related topics. Either way, NPOV policy is also applicable. As for Jess's proposal above, it is not an improvement over what we have now. --Modocc (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
No argument here. Though your interpretation of that is a little of a stretch. It definitely doesn't say that you should give multiple definitions. (And it doesn't use the word homonyms.) In fact, it says explicity that encyclopedias should begin with a definition. Not three. (Oh, and NPOV - as i've discussed ad nasuem (in the archives now), in its present form it's in violation of NPOV.)
Right under that, it states that
"A definition aims to describe or delimit the meaning of some term (a word or a phrase) by giving a statement of essential properties or distinguishing characteristics of the concept, entity, or kind of entity, denoted by that term.".
That is what we are trying to accomplish: we want, to, in a statement, answer the question "what is essential to aetheism?", and "how is different from related topics? (e.g. theism, agnosticism)". that is what person after person who comes to this page - for months now - has been trying to accomplish. However, there are certain editors here who are simply not having it. Kevin Baastalk 14:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, please forgo the bashing, because any NPOV violation assertion that you have made must have gotten lost in the archive clutter. So, please clear this point up for discussion. Also, if you were to propose something that is adequate that doesn't violate any part of NPOV with specific references to back it, bring it on board too. --Modocc (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
If we've proved anything over the years, it's that it is very difficult to characterise atheism, or to find an unbiased form of words that encompasses the many meanings of the term. I don't think it's fair to say that insisting on the importance of doing this right, and fairly, and with regard to the literature, is "simply not having it". If contributors are surprised at how hard it is to define atheism in simple terms, then I'm afraid they're just going to have to get used to the feeling. --Dannyno (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
If I may say so, amen. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
But you see, that's not what you have been insisting. What you have been insisting is in contravention of WP:NOTDICT in multiple ways, and thus clearly isn't "doing this right". I'm surprised you missed that part because it was my whole point. (And I certainly have not been reticent about it.) But don't fret, because if past is prologue, you're going to keep hearing about it from others who read the article until it is done right. Kevin Baastalk 18:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
  2. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbhFXpI8DHA
  3. ^ Alvin Plantinga: God and Other Minds
  4. ^ Bertrand Russell: Is There a God?
  5. ^ Nagel, Ernest (1959). "Philosophical Concepts of Atheism". Basic Beliefs: The Religious Philosophies of Mankind. Sheridan House.
    reprinted in Critiques of God, edited by Peter A. Angeles, Prometheus Books, 1997.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism/Archive_46&oldid=1136536028"