Talk:Atheism/Archive 51

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

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

→

Defining "Atheism"

The definition of Atheism seems to have been debated thoroughly, however, the current definition displayed in this article does not follow from the sources cited. The definitions displayed by the sources seem a indicate a definition that would paraphrase the following: "The definition of atheism is controversial. Definitions include a lack of belief in the existence of a god or deities, or an affirmative belief in the nonexistence of a god or deities." The sources do not directly indicate a narrowing of definition and thus this article, to be accurate, should not either. --Michael 23:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Introduction to article: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4][5]" 184.74.137.131 (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Different sources discuss different definitions of the term, and so we have to accommodate each source in some way. Per WP:NOTDICT, we can't begin the article talking about the definition of the term. This article is about the concept, not the definition. It's a subtle nuance, but one you'll hear a lot on this page. — Jess· Δ ♥ 04:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The "analysis" in observing that the competing definitions have differing ranges of applicability is pretty trivial; a comparative source would of course be nice, but probably not strictly necessary. I suppose explicitly stating that definitional controversy exists could be an improvement. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Demographics

I've reverted the change that was made, not because it used one source over another, but because it was misrepresenting the source. User:LeeMcLoughlin1975 added people who answered "I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" to the number of atheists reported by Eurobarometer. Neither Eurobarometer nor any credible source considers such people "atheists." Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

By the three definitions given in the lead paragraph of this article, an atheist can believe in spirits and life forces. Atheists can also believe in ghosts, the tooth fairy and the devil simply because atheists are defined by their non-belief in god! 90.200.220.93 (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You're not saying that they can when you report those figures you're saying that they are. Big difference, especially when that "can" is extremely unlikely. You also cannot extrapolate things like that from sources in general, especially when definitions are contested. Eurobarometer is clearly not considering those people to be atheists. Now stop sock puppeting during your block.Griswaldo (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the Eurobarometer poll 2005 it's clear that the theists and deists are marked in dark blue. The atheists are marked in yellow and the agnostics are marked in grey. That leaves just the light blue section 'I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force'. All theists and deists would be in the yellow section so the light blue section has to be made up of atheists and agnostics. The atheist:agnostic ratio of the light blue section can not be determined so the Eurobarometer poll can't provide accurate atheist percentages. It provides a minimum number of atheists (yellow) and a maximum number of atheists (yellow + light blue). 90.192.121.150 (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

We cannot say whether people who say "I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" are atheists or not, as that would be synthesis not supported by the source. Therefore we cannot add them to the "atheist" total. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, that's what I was saying. The Eurobarometer poll doesn't give accurate atheist percentages and should not be used. 90.192.121.150 (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK, so you're opposing LeeMcLoughlin1975, who added the "I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" respondents to the atheist count, and you're therefore not his sock? My view is that we can use the poll, but only to state what the poll said - we can include no interpretation of it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Having read the report in a bit more detail, I agree that we cannot use the Eurobarometer poll to determine the number of self-professed atheists in the countries surveyed, because it does not include that category. For example, for the UK (that's where I am, so it'll do as an example), the results are...

"I believe there is a God" = 38%
"I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" = 40%
"I don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force" = 20%
"Don't know" = 2% (No figure shown, but 100-(20+40+38)

There is no "I do not believe there is a God" category, and the best we can say is that the poll suggests at least 20% of respondents are atheist. On the subject of belief in God specifically, the 40% in the "I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" category will almost certainly include some agnostics, and it might even include some polytheists and pagans, etc, depending on how they interpreted "a God". The makeup of that group is simply unknown, and we can't categorize its members as theist or atheist - and we certainly can't go to the absurd extreme of calling them all atheists and claiming 60% of UK citizens are atheist. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

templeton foundation

Is the John Templeton Foundation a reliable source for the statement "Although in Western culture atheists are often irreligious, some consider themselves spiritual"? source: http://www.templeton.org/templeton_report/20110601/index.html . The actual survey does not mention anything any questions about spirituality [1].IRWolfie- (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The John Templeton Foundation seems to be a controversial organisation, and there has apparently been numerous accusations of it espousing a hidden agenda, so for general statements like that I think we need a better source. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

They are summarizing a paper published in the journal Sociology of Religion which is itself eminently reliable. The Foundation is also very well respected in academia, though I have personal reservations about their agenda. Their president, John Templeton Jr. donated money to Rick Santorum's superPAC and has all kinds of other ultra-conservative culture wars credentials. However, that does not mean they can't reliably summarize the scholarship of their grantees. It would be better if someone could read the journal article itself. I'll have a look if I can access it.Griswaldo (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the actual paper they are referring to [2], but I do not have access to the last two years of this journal. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems they used the survey I linked to and rang some of the people and asked them open ended questions (their words) and then interpreted those answers. (most of the paper you linked just contains different quotes) IRWolfie- (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what they did, but the paper I linked to is the source for the report on the Templeton website we are currently using as a reference. Do you have access to the paper in Sociology of Religion (I don't)? If our information is accurate I would replace the source with the journal paper, however I'm not sure it belongs in the lead either way.Griswaldo (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it's fine for referencing the initial text. It appears to be the definition of spiritual not of an an alleged immaterial reality but of a sense of wonder or similar (pantheism?): For example, from the paper: "I consider myself in one sense a spiritual person, wondering about the complexity and the majesty of existence as I understand it." IRWolfie- (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Great. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand, but it looks to me like the source is currently deleted from this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Templeton funded psuedoscience with extra propaganda found and deleted. You'll never guess who added it in the first place. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! That text was undue nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "nonsense" or "psuedoscience." It's from a study published in a well respected journal, Sociology of Religion. That said, I agree that it didn't belong in the lead. However, the idea that some atheists may still be spiritual, particularly in the sense that IRWolfie describes above is not only of interest, but it's also nothing new. Just look at the history of the American Secular Humanism. There are plenty of Humanists who have a "spiritual" experience of the grandeur of nature. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

yes it appeared the description was in the sense of pantheism, since there appear to be two meanings to spiritual it may be misleading; the definition of spirtual in the linked article appears a bit vague. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Restored "quote"

Anupam,the quote you restored is not in the link, it appears to be an accidental copy paste from the ref below it. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Upon looking at the revert, I noticed that the link was incorrect, which is what caused the confusion in the first place. Here is the correct hyperlink, which contains the appropriate quote. I hope this helps. Have a nice day! Thanks, Anupam^Talk 15:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There is something very odd about these books: the two quotes are virtually identical. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It turns out they are the same because Rodney Stark wrote the chapter. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the article accordingly. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC, Is it notable to include atheist views about the afterlife?

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

{{rfc|reli}}

There is a dispute above about whether commonly-held atheist views about the afterlife is notable enough for inclusion this article. Therefore, please answer this question:

Do you support or oppose adding atheist views about the afterlife (and what happens after death) in this article? If so, do you support or oppose adding it to the lede?

Support I support adding atheistic views on the afterlife to both article and lede, because i believe it is a notable topic. It is covered in many notable books, variations of "atheist afterlife" all bring high google hits, and it is often discussed in threads and discussions about atheism. For all these reasons i believe that is it notable to include atheist views on what happens after death. I'd say the lede is incomplete because it focuses on demographics, certain religions and etymology, without any mention of what atheists belief happens when you die. Pass a Method talk 17:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Strong Oppose, close premature RFC The editor who started this RFC still has confused WP:N Notability with WP:DUE due weight. I've already pointed out that this does not apply, before he started the RFC [3]. The RFC is premature as the editor hasn't waited for other editors to reply: [4]. The editor also provides a classic bad argument for his suggestion WP:GOOGLEHITS and his own life experiences, this is WP:OR. Article content is not decided by how many google hits different words get or how often people have mentioned things in your daily life, it's decided by reliable sources. So far the editor has suggested no suitable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per 'what the heck?' To include this we'd need sources that state that "atheist views about the afterlife" are relevant to the topic. Where are they? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I've already asked for them, but he apparently wants to wait until the topic is established as being notable by consensus rather than by sources [5]. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, obviously. We need sources first. Discussion should have been open longer, and the editor should have been more open to the advice/opinions of other editors here before starting an RfC. It may be prudent to close this RfC for the time being until discussion has gone on for a little while, our basic sourcing policies are met, and there's a genuine need for outside editors to comment. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Note Based on input in the discussion above, as well as here, I'm going to boldly close the RfC per WP:SNOW. WP:RfC indicates that an editor should discuss the matter on the talk page adequately before starting an RfC. Additionally, there are clear content policies which are not being met by this proposal. If discussion in the section above stalls, with the proposer able to provide the basic materials necessary to meet our content inclusion policies, then he may wish to open an RfC at that time, or seek other methods of dispute resolution. However, I would recommend leaving discussion open for a few days at an absolute minimum before proceeding with DR. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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

religious people and scientific knowledge compared with non believers

According this study, Evans, "Epistemological and Moral Conflict Between Religion and Science", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 50, Issue 4, pages 707–727, December 2011[6], "After controlling for important variables such as education level, income, age, ethnicity, and gender, Evans found that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that religious believers rejected science across the board. In fact, he found that evangelic Protestants had actually taken more college-level science classes than the average non-religious respondent, and that mainline Protestants were more scientifically literate than ordinary Americans! Even conservative fundamentalist Protestants were no less likely to understand important scientific concepts and methods than non-religious Americans with comparable education levels."[7].
I don't know if this is the right WP article for this study but as I read in the article in the Demographic section that "An international study has reported positive correlations between levels of education and not believing in a deity" I could suppose that Evans study could find place in the same section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.169.142 (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Offhand, I would think that Relationship between religion and science might be the best place for that information. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Offhand, the author is clearly attacking a straw man. Also, I'd hate to see his definition of "science". Yet more evidence that our education system is failing miserably. :( Kevin Baas^talk 14:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

2.40.169.142, thanks for your comments. I agree with User:Tryptofish in stating that the study can be added to the Relationship between religion and science article. In the near future I can help you add it if you are having any difficulty in doing so. Additionally, I agree with you in that this section needs balanced because the claim that "An international study has reported positive correlations between levels of education and not believing in a deity" is only the finding of one study. A while ago, a notable study that was discussed in CNN showed the converse relationship. When I get some time, I will add it in the article. Thanks for your willingness to improve Wikipedia! With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize when I made my suggestion above that there would be anything controversial here. Let me just make sure to also point to WP:NPOV, and encourage everyone to be aware of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I added the study in the article but was reverted by User:Abhishikt here, who stated in his/her edit summary that "rv unverifyable content addition. the sources doesn't seem to be fully accessible, reliable or peer-reviewed." The references are clearly given in the article, including the peer reviewed journal (here) as well as a secondary source (here). User:Abhishikt is asked to state his reason for edit warring and removing the information in the article. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 05:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Afterlife

Jimwae, you recently added a part about some atheists believing in an afterlife. But the source says atheists often do not believe in an afterlife. Can you explain yourself? Pass a Method talk 04:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's the source you added isn't it? If you have read the bottom of the page, you can see it says some atheists do NOT reject an afterlife. If you insist, other sources could be found that say specifically some actually believe in it - as do some belive in reincarnation. The idea is that there it could still be some kind of "natural" process -- i.e. not divinely designed, but still somehow in the "natural laws of the universe" that we do not know about. --JimWae (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep. From the source PassaMethod provided...

The idea that nothingness follows death is often associated with atheism. However, it is possible to be an atheist—someone who does not believe in the existence of God or a supreme transcendental Being—and still be open to the possibility, even the hope, that we might survive the death of the body and continue existing in some kind of afterlife. Such atheists still don't believe that there is any kind of theistic Supreme Being that can interact with the earthly world or otherworldly realm, or that there is any kind of deistic God who has created everything but does not interact or intervene with its created world, either earthly or super- natural. There is simply the reality of our human experience, which may be able to continue once our physical bodies have ceased to be viable vehicles for such experiencing.
Handbook to the Afterlife. p. 18.

Nice try. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The source doesn't actually say that such atheists exist. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... "The book includes practical techniques for opening up communication with those who have passed on to the other side. While of interest to anyone seeking a general overview of the subject, Handbook to the Afterlife is particularly useful for those dealing with spirits who have not moved on, such as ghosts."

Nothing like playing on other editors assumptions of good faith to make a point. Deleted. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, unreliable source, I should have checked out the book. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should be putting what are fringe/minority positions amongst atheists into the lede, especially with vague words like "some". IRWolfie- (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well its better than nothing. Atheist opinions about what happens after you die are very important because it is one of the core things that differentiate them from non-atheists. Pass a Method talk 15:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It is very important according to who? Do we have any reliable sources that show it is a very important issue? Adding fringe views because it is better than nothing is not a good rationale. If it's not discussed in reliable sources we don't mention it in the article. Especially not in a featured article. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Its very important to many religious charts who usually tend to include "afterlife beliefs" regarding any religion or belief-system, e.g. [8]. Also "atheist afterlife" gets 5,000,000 hits on google [9], so its obviously a notable topic. Pass a Method talk 16:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The self-published source doesn't state it's important for them, rather you have declared it to be important (it also lists none under afterlife for atheism). It's irrelevant though as the article isn't about religious charts, it's about atheism and nothing that gives WP:DUE weight for the WP:FRINGE position to be mentioned in this article has been shown. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability has no relation to article content, WP:DUE weight does. Also WP:GOOGLEHITS is a poor demonstration of notability or due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Irwolfie, Lets agree to disagree then. Im going to start an RFC below. Pass a Method talk 16:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are you starting an RFC? You have no sources to back up the text you want included and are ignoring policy and guidelines because they disagree with you. This page is also watched by many others but you haven't waited for a reply from them either (i.e it is premature, the first post in this thread was only 12 hours ago). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I can easily find sources for any of the material i post if you just ask. Since we clearly disagree i see no other option but to start an RfC. You are free to post your opinon below in more detail. Pass a Method talk 17:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I also fail to see the point. Atheism is not a belief system. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would it be relevant if I asked or not? You should be showing sources for any suggested content. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Whats the point of showing sources if we cant even agree on notability. First we establish notability, THEN we can move to reliable sources m'kay? Pass a Method talk 17:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have already pointed out that notability is not relevant to article content. I suggest you read WP:NOTABILITY. Here is the very first line: On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. Specifically check this section entitled Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article: WP:NNC which has the line The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you stop teating me like a newbie please. I am probably more familiar with wikipedia policies than you Pass a Method talk 17:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to insult you, can you please just read some of the links I've posted in this discussion before you comment further. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

@PM, how long you've been on WP is irrelevant. You're trying to add content to the article, but have failed to provide any sources to back up that content. That's a problem, not just on this article, but every article on WP. First, we examine sources, then we assign weight, then we include content. Notability, google hits, and personal experiences don't influence article content. Please provide sources first, then we can have a discussion about the content. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If you check my last edit, you will notice that i DID provide sources for my edits. See [10] Pass a Method talk 18:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Those were unreliable sources as noted earlier. (Also note that the lede summarises the article). IRWolfie- (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Number 1 and 3, in particular, are awful sources. The description of #3 begins "The "Calling Card" is a challenge to atheism..." That's not the type of quality source we'd want to describe what atheists believe. The second one seems okay at first glance, but it's not particularly weighty. Also, if no one has said it yet, the lead reflects the body; we'd need to include this content in the body first before even considering summarizing it in the lead. — Jess· Δ ♥ 18:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"A functionalist, reductionist argument" for "resurrecting the dead" (back cover blurb) is "ok at first glance"? I think not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

@Andy Yep. You're right. If it says that, it's certainly not a quality source for our purposes either. — Jess· Δ ♥ 20:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

(Andy: great edit summary!) I think it's time to say some parting words for this proposal to modify the lead, may it rest in peace. I've looked at the three sources. They are simply too WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE to be included in the lead here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, how about these sources? [11], [12]. Are they okay? Pass a Method talk 21:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

These just seem to be memoirs (one looks definetly self published) from random people. They don't even appear to support the text you mentioned. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I just checked, the other is self published as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you stop wasting everyone's time with random results from Google, and instead find a reliable source directly on the subject of atheism, that directly discusses the beliefs of atheists regarding 'the afterlife. Without this, there is nothing further to be said on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Study

Anupam you have inserted a study which has no citations in peer reviewed journals. This is undue in comparison to the statements above it which uses over 40 studies in a meta-analysis, secondary sources like a meta-analysis is preferred to original research articles like the one you added. (I also notice that, bizarrely, the study doesn't explicitly ask for their religious views). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

User:IRWolfie-, with all due respect, this is ridiculous. I never removed the original information. In fact, in the article, there are FIVE sentences which support an inverse correlation between education and religion. I inserted ONE study from an academic journal (which actually is peer reviewed) that shows a proportional relationship and you revert me? WP:NPOV states that "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The study is also a very notable one as it appeared in CNN, The Telegraph, and CP, among other forms of mass media. Writing one sentence among a total six which discuss the subject does meet WP:DUE. In fact, without this statement, it seems like the paragraph has been written to prove a point. I request that you kindly self revert or I will start an RfC here. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 15:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly your reasoning for re-inserting the text makes no sense, notability isn't a reason to insert text, due weight is. You inserted a single study to try and "balance" a meta-analysis of 43 studies, 39 of which gave the connection. That is completely undue. You also added citations to the daily mail of all things to back up this interpretation. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Schwadel's study only looked at one single aspect of atheism versus higher education level: Does higher education level give a person greater tolerance for public expressions of atheism, people speaking out against organized religion? Schwadel found that yes, it does. Educated people are more tolerant of atheism. I cannot support any pop culture (Daily Mail, etc.) conclusions supposedly taken from Schwadel as they wander away from an examination of atheism. Schwadel did not upset the applecart; he found the same sorts of things that previous researchers found, especially that educated people are more tolerant. Anupam would have us believe otherwise, that the Schwadel study was a game changer. Anupam misrepresents Schwadel, taking quotes out of context. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If the source is not being used as some sort of counter to 39 other studies then this is ok. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Characterizing Schwadel(2010) as a "study" in the same sense of the word used by other references in the section is misleading. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

"Schwadel's analysis of the General Social Survey data", I suppose since he didn't actually perform a study. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

In all fairness, whether Schwadel collected his own data or used previously published data has no bearing on the validity of the survey. That it has not been cited by anyone else, though, strongly suggests that the results and conclusions have not been widely accepted in the scholarly community, and have not become an important element of scholarly discourse on the topic. Using a cherry-picked single study of dubious significance to balance 39 studies critically examined in a meta-study is a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes the lack of citations suggests it has not been picked up by anyone in the field and should thus has no weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is bluntly mis-use of WEIGHT.Reality and facts are being ingnored,while there are Reliable sources,and NPOV has been put under the minority?. Justice007 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is not comprehensible. Please try again. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying. Also note that per WP:BRD we don't re-insert newly added contentious content as you did here [13], we reach consensus first on the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Please understand, Dominus Vobisdu, one does not employ an edit summary "Do not edit war..." on their second revert; one's next step after being reverted is the article talk page. Tiderolls 22:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Binksternet states that I am mirepresenting the source despite the fact that the content in the article was a direct quote from the abstract, which states:

Analysis of survey data shows that (1) education negatively affects exclusivist religious viewpoints and biblical literalism but not belief in God or the afterlife; (2) education positively affects religious participation, devotional activities, and emphasizing the importance of religion in daily life

In addition, secondary sources (CNN, The Telegraph, and CP) discussing the study corroborate this key finding, as evidenced by the content in the article, as well as the article title. For example, the article from CNN titled "Study: More educated tend to be more religious, by some measures" states:

With more years of education, you aren’t relatively more likely to say, ‘I don’t believe in God,’” he said. “But you are relatively more likely to say, ‘I believe in a higher power.

The article from Daily Mail, titled "The more education people receive, the more religious they become?" states:

By analyzing data from a large national survey, sociologist Philip Schwadel of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln found that people tend to become more religious - by certain definitions - as they further their education. The survey also qualified what concept of God or a 'higher power' individuals held, as well as whether they had any doubts. Mr Schwadel said that: 'With more years of education, you aren’t relatively more likely to say, "I don’t believe in God," but you are relatively more likely to say, "I believe in a higher power."'

The article from CP, titled "More is More When it Comes to Education and Religion, Study Says New Study Reveals the Highly Educated Are More Religious Today" also states:

Sociologist Philip Schwadel from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) studied this phenomenon. He discovered that people today tend to become more religious as they further their education.

It is quite evident that I am not misrepresenting anything here, which is why the version of the article I reinstated contained all of these references, with the original quotes in the quote parameter (which User:Binksternet removed and supplanted with his own interpretation). I am also equally surprised that User:IRWolfie- stated that he did not approve of the article, but then stated that the source was okay, after User:Binksternet added a new finding from the same article. Once again, I acknowledge the fact that the other studies in the article (given five sentences) show an inverse correlation between education and religion. It is fair, however, to add in one sentence on a study that shows a proportional relationship per WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I am confident that the addition was appropriate and I feel that it might be necessary to ask a third party to resolve the issue, rather than the same editors who frequent this page. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Cherry picking a single paper to counter a meta-analysis of 43 studies is completely undue. I specifically mentioned this above, your comment does not deal with this. You mentioned notability as well earlier, notability has zero to do with article content.IRWolfie- (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply User:IRWolfie. The findings from the metanalysis have a total of FIVE sentences in the article. I am simply adding in ONE sentence regarding the most recent study which found the opposite correlation per WP:NPOV. If the content I added is not restored, I think consulting with Dispute Resolution or starting an RfC would be the best option. To me, the abstract of the article, as well as the media sources that comment on it make the findings of the study clear. I hope this hels. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Just because it is more recent doesn't mean it is somehow trumps other papers. By that logic this paper from 2012: [14] should be used with the nice phrase of: "it appears that highly religious people may also be less skilled at basic logical inference than less religious people.", which cites this 2011 study [15]. Should we add that to? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The number of studies etc and support in the literature for the negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity is a lot higher in ratio than 5:1 sentences, and thus it is undue to include this uncited study. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have fully protected this page as several editors are still reverting as this discussion progresses. If a consensus is formed in the next 24 hours, please let me know and I'll drop the protection, or post a request at WP:RFPP. Kuru (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Closing with Oppose per WP:SNOW IRWolfie- (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Should this sentence regarding atheism and education be included in the article, under the "demographics" section, where atheism and education are discussed? Thanks for your comments. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

However, a 2011 scholarly study published in the Review of Religious Research demonstrated that education is not correlated with disbelief in God and that "education positively affects religious participation, devotional activities, and emphasizing the importance of religion in daily life."^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

^ Schwadel, Philip (2011). "The Effects of Education on Americans' Religious Practices, Beliefs, and Affiliations" (PDF). Review of Religious Research. 53 (2). doi:10.1007/s13644-011-0007-4. Analysis of survey data shows that (1) education negatively affects exclusivist religious viewpoints and biblical literalism but not belief in God or the afterlife; (2) education positively affects religious participation, devotional activities, and emphasizing the importance of religion in daily life

^ Jim Kavanagh (11 August 2011). "Study: More educated tend to be more religious, by some measures". CNN.
"With more years of education, you aren’t relatively more likely to say, 'I don’t believe in God,'" he said. "But you are relatively more likely to say, 'I believe in a higher power.'"

^ "The more education people receive, the more religious they become?". Daily Mail. 12 August 2011.
"By analyzing data from a large national survey, sociologist Philip Schwadel of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln found that people tend to become more religious - by certain definitions - as they further their education. The survey also qualified what concept of God or a 'higher power' individuals held, as well as whether they had any doubts. Mr Schwadel said that: "With more years of education, you aren’t relatively more likely to say, 'I don’t believe in God,' but you are relatively more likely to say, 'I believe in a higher power.'"

^ "More is More When it Comes to Education and Religion, Study Says". Christian Post. 13 August 2011.
"Sociologist Philip Schwadel from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) studied this phenomenon. He discovered that people today tend to become more religious as they further their education."

Added box with proposed sentence and refs—ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed other possible alternative

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Just to add more clarity: Above proposed sentence is to replace an existing sentence shown in below box Abhishikt (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sociologist Philip Schwadel found that higher levels of education correlate with greater tolerance for atheists' public opposition to religion, greater skepticism of religious leaders, and a reconsideration of "the role of religion in secular society".^[1]

^ Schwadel, Philip (2011). "The Effects of Education on Americans' Religious Practices, Beliefs, and Affiliations". Review of Religious Research. 53 (2). doi:10.1007/s13644-011-0007-4. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

The above block was added looking at the history of edit war, where the proposed sentence was replacing above existing sentence. But Anupam conveyed me on my talk page that he is fine with presence of both sentences. So I am stricking out the above part. Sorry for the confusion. Abhishikt (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Strong Support The article currently provides five sentences discussing a positive correlation between disbelief in God and education. In order to balance these claims, the sentence in question, which shows a proportional relationship between religiosity and education must be reincluded in the article per WP:NPOV, which states that "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The sentence is supported by three reliable sources, including the academic journal itself, as well as articles discussing the study (CNN, Daily Mail, and CP), which further demonstrate the notability of the study. Since only one sentence is being added, WP:DUE is fulfilled. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, The Daily Mail is not The Telegraph. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've fixed it! With regards, Anupam^Talk 14:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, per all the comments above. The OP does not appear to be hearing or accepting the comments of others. It's been said repeatedly that notability doesn't influence article content, so that cannot be used as a justification for inclusion of this material. WP:DUE is a substantial part of NPOV, which indicates that we should represent all views in proportion to their significance, a section which the OP appears to be gleaning over. As has been stated repeatedly, the current article reflects the conclusions of a meta-analysis of 43 studies, which has been cited in other formats and had a significant impact on the literature. The new content being inserted is a single study which has not been cited or made any impact on the literature. "Balancing" one with the other would be wholly inappropriate, as it in no way reflects the relative prominence of the sources. Lastly, the source being inserted is being misrepresented, as its conclusions appear to be picked through to draw a particular conclusion counter to the meta-analysis. This has also been pointed out repeatedly. Considering the weight of consensus above, which appears to be wholly in-line with policy, this RfC appears to be a waste of time. — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Support I don't see the reason to not support,the passage meets the NPOV and does not fall under DUE or WEIGHT. Justice007 (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose The discussion in above section is pretty clear that this is WP:UNDUE and cherry picking of sentences to push POV for showing that religious people are not stupid/less educated. I agree iwth Mann_jess that 'this RfC appears to be a waste of time' and I suggest close RfC prematurely. Abhishikt (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. The Schwadel analysis did not find anything radically different from previous studies, and it certainly is not fairly represented by cherry-picking some phrases that seem to make religion more palatable to educated people. Though the analysis found that educated people were more involved with church activities, it also found that they were "more likely ...to question the role of religion in secular society". This last bit has also been in the news; it's not just the more church-ey bits. Newspapers such as the Lincoln Journal-Star ("UNL study: Higher education level boosts churchgoing habits") have discussed the greater churchgoing aspect found by Schwadel but they have balanced that by emphasizing the questioning of religion in secular society. Even the UNL press release and the laughable Daily Mail says that educated people question religion in secular society. We cannot describe the Schwadel analysis as being significantly different. Binksternet (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Using a single cherry-picked study that has never been cited by other researchers to "balance" 39 studies that were critically evaluated in a comprehensive metastudy grossly violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL. All the more so considering that the study is being misrepresented. Agree with MannJess and Abhishikt that this RfC was unnecessary, as consensus is already clear in the discussion above, and it should be terminated forthwith. As consensus is already clear, the only purpose it serves is to waste time. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the appropriate way to carry out the discussion is to let the RfC run its course. The administrator who protected the article, User:Kuru, is going to close the RfC when he feels it is appropriate. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 14:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Where does he say that he will close the RfC? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Note Kuru did not agree to close the RfC as he is currently busy with work User_talk:Kuru#RfC_at_Atheism. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I don't have much to add. Cherry-picking a single study to contradict a large meta-analysis is clear undue weight. Also, something that immediately jumps out at me is that proposed sentence explicitly discusses a single specific study ("a 2011 scholarly study...") and yet has four citations – that stinks of WP:BOMBARDMENT to me. If the study stood on its own as a reliable and significant view, you wouldn't have to pad it out with redundant lower quality references. joe•roe^t•c 07:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose As per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. It's really not all that difficult. -- Skysmurf (Talk) 08:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose It's by far a minority opinion, the study has zero citations and is being placed beside a meta-analysis of 42 studies; Completely WP:UNDUE. Using the Daily Fail and Christian post etc doesn't give due weight, academic acceptance (shown by citations) does. If we were to choose single studies etc, why not [16] with the nice phrase of: "it appears that highly religious people may also be less skilled at basic logical inference than less religious people.", which cites this 2011 study [17]. Lots of other studies exist, Anupam has just cherry picked this one.IRWolfie- (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:WEIGHT and, quite frankly, WP:FRINGE. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Are we seriously considering the Daily Mail a reliable source for this kind of information? It appears that this is an attempt to whitewash the situation with a bevy of questionable sources. eldamorie (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Support. This academic paper looks reliable enough, and there is no problem in including other sourced views. And it is anyway only a short mention, which cannot cause any harm to the article, and it is in accordance with the principle NPOV principle, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". And the paper also appears on "Google Scholar", which is considered a reliable search engine, according to the following guideline, "Google Scholar works well for fields that are paper-oriented and have an online presence in all (or nearly all) respected venues". Cody7777777 (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a reliable source engine. Being on google scholar does not make a source reliable (edit: your quoting a how to guide, not guidelines or policy, it's just information on how to find sources). This paper does not represent a significant view, it's uncited. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, per Dominus Vobisdu. Cherry-picking and misrepresenting one ″study″ using sources like Daily Mail and Christian post is clear violation of WP:UNDUE. I'm also very concerned about Anupam (regular conservapedia contributor) and his/her constant attacks on Atheism related articles. --В и к и T 19:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. I've thought about this carefully, and I agree with the emerging consensus that inclusion would seriously violate WP:UNDUE. I've tried to consider whether, on the other hand, we should include the information in some form, in the manner of providing a "however, there is a minority view" type of statement, for balance, perhaps as a footnote. I've decided that that would be a mistake, because it isn't really clear that the study itself constitutes such a minority view. The fact that it has been characterized as such by secondary sources that appear to have had an agenda means that those sources are not reliable for our purposes in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, because the OP's proposed addition clearly violates wp:undue. It also appears that the current text regarding Bell's metastudy is fine, but based only on our notes (I presently don't have the original sources available for which there are no links given) changing "...by 39 studies" to "...by 39 of 43 studies..." seems reasonable. I--Modocc (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. This looks like a really obvious case of undue weight. --PnakoticInquisitor (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The sentence being discussed in the RfC is neutral and is supported by the academic journal, as well as three media articles that discuss the notable study. The abstract of the article states:

Analysis of survey data shows that (1) education negatively affects exclusivist religious viewpoints and biblical literalism but not belief in God or the afterlife; (2) education positively affects religious participation, devotional activities, and emphasizing the importance of religion in daily life

In addition, secondary sources (CNN, The Telegraph, and CP) discussing the study corroborate this key finding, as evidenced by the content in the article, as well as the article title. For example, the article from CNN titled "Study: More educated tend to be more religious, by some measures" states:

With more years of education, you aren’t relatively more likely to say, ‘I don’t believe in God,’” he said. “But you are relatively more likely to say, ‘I believe in a higher power.

The article from Daily Mail, titled "The more education people receive, the more religious they become?" states:

By analyzing data from a large national survey, sociologist Philip Schwadel of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln found that people tend to become more religious - by certain definitions - as they further their education. The survey also qualified what concept of God or a 'higher power' individuals held, as well as whether they had any doubts. Mr Schwadel said that: 'With more years of education, you aren’t relatively more likely to say, "I don’t believe in God," but you are relatively more likely to say, "I believe in a higher power."'

The article from CP, titled "More is More When it Comes to Education and Religion, Study Says New Study Reveals the Highly Educated Are More Religious Today" also states:

Sociologist Philip Schwadel from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) studied this phenomenon. He discovered that people today tend to become more religious as they further their education.

The version of the article which I favour being reinclude gives all of these references, with the original quotes in the quote parameter. I acknowledge the fact that the other studies in the article (given five sentences) show an inverse correlation between education and religion. It is fair, however, to add in one sentence on a study that shows a proportional relationship per WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I am confident that the addition is appropriate in light of these facts. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's adjust your emphasis: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." eldamorie (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:ArtifexMayhem, thanks for adding the proposed sentence to the RfC stem. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 04:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Eldamorie, the main source being used here is an academic paper. The link from the Daily Mail simply discusses the study. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 14:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Anupam, please address why you ignore the 40+ other studies which make the inverse link that this uncited paper does? Where is the sign of any academic acceptance of this paper? Why has it not been cited by anyone? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:IRWolfie-, as I have stated before, those studies are still mentioned in the article and have been given five sentences. The proposal simply discusses the addition of one study that has gained notability that shows the inverse correlation. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 15:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. It is not a test of due weight in an article. Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies, see WP:N. This has already been pointed out to you, so I assume this is a case of WP:IDHT. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but disagree with it. I do feel that giving one sentence to this study, among six sentences with discuss the topic in full meets WP:DUE. Since we do not see eye to eye here, let us let the RfC run its course and see the outcome. With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

How can you disagree? My comment was not my own words, I copy and pasted straight out of the notability guidelines. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)X2:::Anupam, I'm afraid you're proving my point: Here's my analysis of the above. There is 1 academic study that makes an observation. The vast majority of equivalent studies find the opposite. The above sentence that you are trying to add simply takes one minor study and tacks on several sources that site only that study as justification for that study. Of course Daily Mail is going to discuss a study that supports its editorial position. It's completely worthless as a citation here except to add more numbers next to the sentence to make it look more convincing. eldamorie (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Close I suggest the AfD be closed per WP:SNOW by an uninvolved user. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Concur: This AfD was not needed in the first place. Even without a formal close, consensus is, and was, abundantly clear. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No-one appears to be very forthcoming about a close. Should I just close it? (RfC's don't self close) IRWolfie- (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please feel free to do so, especially since the consensus amounts to "no change needed". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Minor but important change to definition of atheism

The lead to the article seems repetitive, specifically regarding the definition of atheism. I see that this has been debated quite a bit, so since I'm late to the ballgame, this might be settled law by now. But here's my take anyway. I think the first sentence is right. "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1]" What I think should follow that sentence is this: "Atheism is, in a specific sense, the rejection of belief in a specific religious dogma." Because I think Atheism follows two distinct paths - the first is just to reject the immediate dogma of your localized religion, and the second is to reject all deities. Look at Bill Maher. He is arguably the most famous self-proclaimed atheist in the world, and how does he define his atheism? He defines it as a rejection of western religious dogma. When asked about being "spiritual," (define that however you like, but it's related to religion) he says it's "on his to-do list." I think it's possible to be an atheist without being fully vested in the notion that there are no external "supernatural" forces at work, but still being fully certain that the deities within a specific dogma do not exist. Does that make sense?Jasonnewyork (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful way that you raised that, acknowledging the past discussions. Speaking from my individual opinion, I guess that does make some sense, but speaking as a Wikipedia editor, I feel that we have to base what we say on secondary sources, preferably scholarly ones in this case – WP:NOR and all that. And as a survivor of those past discussions, I can confidently tell you that editors are going to insist on that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh right, those secondary sources. I was sorta babbling extemporaneously. <g> I'll keep an eye out for any scholarly wording in that vein, and in the meantime I'll just chime in on other matters as they arise. Cheers.Jasonnewyork (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

US demographics

I was about to add this in. I'll leave it to you guys if you want it. You can cut and paste exactly.

Since conceptions of atheism vary, determining how many atheists exist in the world today is difficult.^[1], but studies indicate that persons claiming "no religion" is increasing. According to the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture, that number increased in the US from 14 million to 34 million between 1990 and 2008, an increase of 171%. ^[2] And according to a 2009 report by the American Religious Identification Survey, people claiming to adhere to "no religion" made up 15% of the population in the US.^[3]

The demos that were just contested are over 6 years old (probably more given study lag times), so this data is more relevant. Plus, I looked at those demos from that 2006 data, and it was reported in a misleading way. You should probably combine atheists and agnostics since the distinction is often confusing.Jasonnewyork (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The 171% is not needed, but I support the rest of the suggestion. Anything to give the reader an idea of demographics, some numbers to give him an idea. Binksternet (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section

There should probably be a genuine criticism of atheism section that summarizes the contents of the criticism of atheism article. The Atheism, religion, and morality section links to the criticism of atheism article, but the section itself contains little critical commentary towards atheism, rather it starts out with a defense of atheism from a demographic perspective. -Stevertigo (t | c) 06:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism sections are bad style, See the style manuals etc. Criticisms are discussed in the relevant sections. Also note that you added a link to the criticism article, it's already linked to 3 times in the article (it's even very prominent on the atheism template at the start of the article). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I fear that it would become another battleground, and we certainly don't need that. I don't think the page currently soft-sells it, but I'd be open to arguments about the current organization about the atheism-religion-morality section. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism sections have been debated, and there is no solid consensus on the matter one way or the other. We still have plenty of sections and articles dedicated to a critical point of view. The criticism of atheism article is an example. Criticism sections and articles serve an important function in allowing critical material to exist within an article when otherwise such material would tend to be removed. This article appears to be such an example. Criticism sections can be written in accord with NPOV and thus dont violate that policy or WEIGHT, in fact such sections help an article comply with WEIGHT by giving due concern to critical issues. Regards,-Stevertigo (t | c) 04:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If your issue is one of lack of critical material then it is better to simplify address the specifics in their relevant sections. There is no need for a criticism section which would simply be a troll magnet. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that hits the nail on the head, for me. Criticism: of course – criticism section: not as helpful. I'd be fine with adding more critical points of view to the sections in which they would be relevant. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Plus one. Criticism: yes; corralled into a separate section: no. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Im only speaking based on ten years of editing here. Criticism sections solve a problem. They aren't perfect, merely functional. Now, why does this article not summarize the criticism of atheism article? -Stevertigo (t | c) 09:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You appear to wish a criticism section for the sake of it rather than for any perceived benefit. You have already stated that there is no consensus on them being required. Therefore the question should be the reverse as you wish to change the article. Why should there be a criticism section rather than having criticism intregrated into the relevant sections? What problem do criticism sections solve? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

They solve the essential problem that critical material tends to be either removed from the article by proponents, or it is simply hard to find by readers. There is a criticism of atheism article. It no doubt started as criticism section at this article. There should be some linkage between this article and that one. Along with this linkage, there should be some summarizing of that article's content. Standard procedure. Regards,-Stevertigo (t | c) 21:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The first 'essential' problem is vandalism by those proponents, however vandalism by some cannot be the sole reason for adding sections. The second reason, would (if extrapolated to the absurd) mean that each and every article in Wikipedia should have each and every section that some reader may look for. This would make all article extremely long and utterly useless. That each article referring to a top level article should have a section in that top level article is not true; for example the United States and state terrorism is not mentioned anywhere in the top level USA article (let alone have a section of its own). If anything, the standard procedure would be to integrate criticism in the texts per WP:CRITICISM. Arnoutf (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism of criticism sections is manageable. WP:CRITICISM is an essay. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Odd I cant find the old talk about this - but yes the above editor is right " criticism sections" was moved to its own article long ago. At that time it was determined a whole section is not a good way to go...instead we should incorporate this type of material into appropriate sections with a nice link to the main article. A whole section is a bit much when we have an article already. Almost every topic will have some criticism and it should be intertwined into the article for flow. All that said way back when there was mention of criticism in the proper sections but this has slowly been removed over the years over to the main artile.Moxy (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in articles where the subject matter has proponents and opponents, the proponents tend to remove critical information. Crit sections serve to keep such information where it belongs, on the article, per WP:WEIGHT. In this case, a short summary section appears to be needed. It can be just one or two short paragraphs outlining one or two of the basic criticisms of atheism. One such criticism that comes to mind is this one: Atheism rejects divine judgment, hence atheism rejects the idea of divine consequence. In an environment where atheism has influence, there is an idea that anything goes - inconsequentialism if you will. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Your example of divine judgment would go into the morality section. I think changing the article to avoid vandalism is not a great reason for the change, particularly considering that this is a featured article. Criticism can still be added to relevant sections. I don't think there has been a tendency to remove critical content by editors of this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add my voice to those who do not like the idea of a criticism section. Criticism sections are always magnets for trolls. And to answer a specific point raised by Stevertigo, if a user is seeking to find criticism of atheism, they will search for "criticism of atheism". I reject the notion that it is "hard to find". -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Seeing how most editors here dislike the idea of a separate criticism section, and seeing how Stevertigo sees the critical editorial matter as being to briefly cover just a few major criticisms, I think we should identify those major criticisms and sources, and then identify where they could best be fit within the existing organization of the page. That should not be difficult. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism sections are magnets for topic bashers (Troll or not). The example by Stevertigo "In an environment where atheism has influence, there is an idea that anything goes - inconsequentialism if you will." does not reassure me at all, as moral psychology has shown repeatedly that this is not the case. Arnoutf (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Scjessey wrote: "Criticism sections are always magnets for trolls." Arnoutf wrote: "Criticism sections are magnets for topic bashers (Troll or not)". I don't see much evidence for this idea that criticism sections 'attract trolls.' What I do see evidence of is that some articles are overrun by proponents. For example if this article were overrun by proponents, it would be largely under the control of atheists, who sanitize the article according to their POV. I'm not saying this is the case, but the lack of critical material, other than an isolated link to the criticism of atheism article, suggests this article needs some protection - not from so-called "trolls", but from so-called "proponents." Note there is a criticism of religion section, which sumarrizes the criticism of religion article, and properly links to that article. Why summarize that and not the other? -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This article did have a criticism section which was integrated into the article with this edit, back in May 2007, just prior to it becoming featured, thus the suggestion that "the lack of critical material, other than an isolated link to the criticism of atheism, suggests..." isn't correct. --Modocc (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You claim there is no criticism in the article and yet you have been invited to add relevant criticism to the relevant section but have not done so. You have shown no evidence of removal by "proponents". Seriously, referring to the article being "under the control of atheists" sounds like borderline WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. When I have time I will cobble together a short treatment. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

PS: Its interesting to note, though, that most of those who have responded in opposition to a criticism of atheism section have indicated some connection to atheism on their userpage. Am I at fault for making such an observation? -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are at fault for that, as it does not assume good faith. So to speak. de Bivort 02:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Its just an observation, and an interesting one. I do not assume bad faith. Its probably only natural that this topic attracts atheists. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Seemed like transparent insinuation to me. de Bivort 05:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "just an observation" when discussing religion.Jasonnewyork (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Back on topic... why is there a need for a specific criticism section when there's already an entire article on criticism of atheism, and even that article is more like "criticism of specific high-profile individuals". How much criticism is really warranted? The major criticisms are all already in the article, what purpose would pulling them out into one section be? eldamorie (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no need here (As the majority believe from above) - We have to be careful not to confuse bigotry with criticism. We must be-carefull not to confuse religious views over scientific data. Like mentioned above that "Atheism" lacks morality - this is not scientific just guess work by the religious right. We would have to specify were sources come from.. To suggest that morality only steams from religion is way off and an uneducated guess - we must say were the info comes from to give it proper weight.Moxy (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Eldamorie wrote: "why is there a need for a specific criticism section when there's already an entire article on criticism of atheism.." - It is standard form to introduce subtopic articles on the main article page via a simple summary section. This is standard for major subtopic articles like criticism of atheism. Moxy wrote: "We have to be careful not to confuse bigotry with criticism. We must be-carefull not to confuse religious views over scientific data. Like mentioned above that "Atheism" lacks morality - this is not scientific just guess work by the religious right.." - Its important to represent the views of the relevant people without trying to qualify those views as "scientific" or not. That's not an NPOV way of representing different views. I have the fortune of seeing things from both sides, and think its possible to write in a neutral way about this. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I am 100% against this idea. Criticism sections suck, regardless of which article they are in, and they are never necessary. I can guarantee that any such section will be abused. And quite frankly, criticism of atheism is poorly-conceived POV fork because atheism is more or less above criticism insofar as it is a non thing (as in "not theism"). It is akin to having a criticism of happiness article. I can totally understand having articles that are critical of the actions of certain atheists or antitheists, but not atheism itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey. Atheism is the rejection of dogma, of deities. There are no tenets of atheism, thus there is nothing to criticize. You can't look at the book of Whoflooberty and say it contradicts the teachings of Gloobernon (like you can with an actual religion). It's like trying to give a dye job to a bald guy. There's nothing there to work with. A criticism section for atheism just turns into a way to target individual atheists and imply that their perspective is universal, which is certainly unfounded. Either that or it becomes a pious rant about how morality only comes from one god. And if you want to make that argument, then imagine what would happen if all the other religions went to the criticism of Christianity page and started saying, "Christians are morally flawed because true morality only comes from my god, __________." (fill in the blank with any number of gods) Because there are citations for that type of stuff.Jasonnewyork (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The criticism of atheism article is already linked to, and fairly prominently - it's the third article listed in the navbox on the right. So I'm unsure as to why we need a separate section, since all of the material that would be in it is already present in the article, which, according to WP:CRIT(Yes, I know, it's "only" an essay) is the ideal way to deal with criticism. eldamorie (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Jason wrote: Atheism is the rejection of dogma, of deities. There are no tenets of atheism, thus there is nothing to criticize. - No, atheism is the dogmatic rejection of deities. Scjessey: atheism is more or less above criticism insofar as it is a non thing (as in "not theism"). - Atheism is "above criticism?" Is there anyone here who can separate their own feelings of moral superiority from their editing? -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Atheism and religion can both be dogmatic (and often are). Atheism is not above criticism, but that in itself is no reason for making a separate criticism section; especially since there is an article on the topic, and criticisms are embedded in the text.

This discussion, however, is going nowhere. Stevertigo, please accept you have a minority position here, which makes a consensus for adding a criticism section unlikely (at best). Arnoutf (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well said, arnoutf. de Bivort 19:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Arnoutf, you say that criticisms are "embedded in the text" of this article, but I only find one, under the Atheist philosophies section:

"One of the most common criticisms of atheism has been to the contrary—that denying the existence of a god leads to moral relativism, leaving one with no moral or ethical foundation,[55] or renders life meaningless and miserable.[56]"

Are there any other criticisms embedded in the text which I may have missed? The scarcity of criticisms in this article would seem to go against the notion that criticisms can be (and have been) embedded rather than put into a separate section. Note that the section that contains the link to the criticism of atheism article doesn't itself mention any such criticisms. This goes against standard policy, which requires that such sections contain relevant summaries. -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't suppose that a call to adhere to a Wikipedia guideline (it doesn't have the status of a firm policy) on the subject will be an end to the matter, but it might be worth reading: it starts "Integrate negative material into sections that cover all viewpoints" and continues in the same vein for the next section: "Avoid sections and articles focusing on "criticisms" or "controversies" (emphasis as original). Wikipedia:NOCRIT gives the link. —Old Moonraker (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry: I missed the post, above, where User:Arnoutf already made a similar point and, no, it didn't put and end to anything. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Since Stevertigo is nowhere near establishing consensus on this, I hope that he/she follows the reasonable procedure already outlined - rather than complain about a lack of criticism integrated into the text, propose new integrations of criticisms, and see how people respond. de Bivort 02:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that you linked to an essay and not a policy or guideline. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

True, an essay is a suggestion and not a policy or guideline; which does not mean an essay is without value altogether. On the other hand while Stevertigo refers to this article "....goes against standard policy" no actual standard policy page is linked to. So it appears that in this case we have an essay and lack of consensus against adding a criticism section; and an unknown/unproven standard policy in favour. Arnoutf (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Besides, with the possible exception of WP:BLP all policies are trumped by consensus, which we clearly have here. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. It's time to move on. But, as noted earlier, it is still quite reasonable to consider adding further criticisms within the existing sections, so long as they are adequately sourced. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed text

Note that the removed text here [18] was sourced and is relevant to the history of atheism. The start of the antiquity section sums things up: Western atheism has its roots in pre-Socratic Greek philosophy, but did not emerge as a distinct world-view until the late Enlightenment, I think it is clear then that this section is not implying Socrates etc were atheists (as well as text saying so: Although he disputed the accusation that he was a "complete atheist") but that they influenced western atheism. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see that you had started a section here so I outlined my concerns in the section below. Could you point me to the source that states that Socrates et al influenced western atheism? My concerns here are two-fold.

1) we could equally well say that Plato, the Academy, Aristotle and pretty much any Greek philosopher you care to name 'influenced western atheism' if we mean just that they provided philosophical resources on which later atheists were to draw. At no point does the current text indicate in what way Socrates was supposed to have been influential. The mere fact that a non-atheist was accused of atheism does not seem sufficient to justify their prominent inclusion in a history of atheism and it is also worth noting that the dispute over him being a 'complete atheist' is not directly related to the charges brought against him but, rather, the fact that he manages to bait Meletus into saying something stupid in the Apology. The actual charge against him was not that of atheism as it is understood in this article.

2) The text is currently phrased in such a way as to leave unclear the most important point re: atheism, which is that Socrates and the Epicureans explicitly believed in god. The phrasing around Epicurus is particularly problematic: "[Epicurus] did not rule out the existence of gods, he believed that if they did exist ...". This just isn't right. He didn't believe that if they existed then certain things followed; he believed that they did exist and certain things followed from this. To describe someone who explicitly holds that the gods exist as 'not ruling out the existence of gods' seems highly misleading. The Pope also does not rule out the existence of god but the equivocal formulation makes it sound as if there is some question over the matter when there is not (actually, there may be some interesting things to say about Epicurus and his presentation by Cicero in De Natura Deorum but I'll leave that aside until the current stuff is sorted out).

Basically, what are the criteria for inclusion in this section? At the moment it looks like it is just a grab-bag of names and doctrines that may be indirectly associated with some aspect of thought that has been adopted by modern atheist thinking. I would think that the place for such associations would be in the discussion of the later atheists who adapt said doctrines to actual atheist positions. BothHandsBlack (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the broader 'History of Atheism' article is much better re: classical antiquity. It deals far more succinctly with Socrates and locates him more clearly in relation to the relevant issues, so I would suggest we adopt this text instead of the present, far more problematic one: "Historically, any person who did not believe in any deity supported by the state was fair game to accusations of atheism, a capital crime. For political reasons, Socrates in Athens (399 BCE) was accused of being 'atheos' ("refusing to acknowledge the gods recognized by the state"). Despite the charges, he claimed inspiration from a divine voice (Daimon)." It might also be worth mentioning that he claimed he received his philosophical mission from the Delphic oracle of Apollo.

The section here on Epicureanism is also far more appropriate, so I would suggest we adopt this as well: "Also important in the history of atheism was Epicurus (c. 300 BCE). Drawing on the ideas of Democritus and the Atomists, he espoused a materialistic philosophy where the universe was governed by the laws of chance without the need for divine intervention. Although he stated that deities existed, he believed that they were uninterested in human existence. The aim of the Epicureans was to attain peace of mind by exposing fear of divine wrath as irrational. One of the most eloquent expressions of Epicurean thought is Lucretius' On the Nature of Things (first century BCE). The Epicureans also denied the existence of an afterlife.[22] Epicureans were not persecuted, but their teachings were controversial." This makes it clear exactly how Epicureanism was significant to the history of atheism without the dubious language being used to avoid simply stating that he believed in gods.

BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to argue against, and I wont. Agree. u n☯mi 12:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that will be fodder for the sockpuppet conspiracy theorists over in the IP topic area :-) BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Funnily enough "You can't defend the indefensible" is what drives me in both topics, can't say I have the time or stomach for IP at the moment though. u n☯mi 12:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Erm, the suggestion is completely absent of any sources. The sourcing does place importance on Epicurus, for example the wording is very faithful to the source [19]. Also note rather than pulling a large amount of content from a featured article it is better to give some time to fix the sourcing. Add verification failed to sources which you think don't verify the text. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The sourcing can be fixed easily enough if we can agree on a text. The problem may be that you are treating a BBC website as an RS for issues of classical philosophy where we should be turning to scholarly sources. I'm happy to provide the scholarly stuff but whether or not the current text matches what the BBC says or not, it does not match up with either the primary sources or scholarly discussions.BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

From the chapter on Theology (by Jaap Mansfeld) in the Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy (1999): "In the Epicurean system the gods play a dual role. they are important in the context of ethics, their blessedness and immortality in fact being the paradigm of what may be attained by mortal men, whereas their role in the context of Epicurean natural philosophy is entirely different from that attributed to them by other philosophers. Epicurus' primary aim is to establish that thhe gods cannot, consistently with their blessed state, be in any way involved in what happens in nature, let alone in what happens to humans." (p. 463) Note that the equivocation over the existence of the gods in the BBC source is not in any way replicated here and, in my experience, this is pretty much standard across the scholarship. There is an interesting argument to be had about whether the Epicurean theology was taken seriously by the Epicureans, a point jokingly made by Cotta, Cicero's Academic spokesman in De Natura Deorum, but bar that all the primary evidence is pretty consistent. The gods do exist, they just play no role in the ordering of the world. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue with relying on an editors experience with the topic is the WP:OR. The current text can be consistent with the above source by changing it from While Epicureanism did not rule out the existence of gods, he believed that if they did exist, they were unconcerned with humanity to Epicurus believed that if the Gods did exist, they were uninvolved with humanity or nature. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not planning on engaging in any OR (too much work!), I'm just trying to tell you what the RSs say. The version you give here may be consistent with the BBC website but it is not consistent with the scholarship. Inserting 'if' when there is no 'if' about it is simply inaccurate. Here's a secondary source that is pretty much standard in the subject area - the commentary from Long and Sedley's The Hellenistic Philosophers, vol. 1 (p. 147) : "We now come to a major stumbling block. If the above interpretation of Epicurean gods as our own instinctive thought-constructs is correct [this is a rather controversial view, by the way], was Epicurus not an atheist? That inference was indeed frequently drawn by his critics, but both Epicurus himself and his followers vehemently denied it, and in source H Epicurus is reported to have been pointedly rude about three of his predecessors standardly listed as 'atheists'. Moreover, while some later Epicureans adhered to the interpretation advanced above ..., many others represented his gods as real living beings. Most modern scholars have accepted this latter interpretation as correct." Admittedly this goes back to 1985 but things don't move terribly quickly in this field and the book is still a standard text, and the report of the scholarly consensus is still accurate. Do you have an RS that backs up the equivocations in the BBC source? BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That is the opposite way that things should be done, we get the sourcing first then the text. If we agree on the text beforehand it will be pure OR and then backup up with cherry picked sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not currently supported by a reliable source in any case. What I mean by finding the sources is that I work in this area professionally and can find the sources to support all elements of the text I have given pretty quickly because it is a fair representation of current views on the subject (in a way that the BBC source is not - contrast it to Mansfeld quoted below). What I want to know is whether there are elements here that you don't think need to be included or whether you think that there are elements missing or some nuance that needs to be emphasised. If I know that then I can find everything in one go rather than wasting time sourcing stuff that doesn't need to be there. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with changing it to Epicurus believed that the Gods did exist but that they were uninvolved with humanity or nature. if that is what you are suggesting? The other pieces on Epicurus can be discussed separately when the sources are present.IRWolfie- (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion for the Epicurus paragraph is as follows:

Also important in the history of atheism was Epicurus (c. 300 BCE). Drawing on the ideas of Democritus and the Atomists, he espoused a materialistic philosophy where the universe was governed by the laws of chance without the need for divine intervention. Although he stated that deities existed, he believed that they were uninterested in human existence. The aim of the Epicureans was to attain peace of mind and one important way of doing this was by exposing fear of divine wrath as irrational. The Epicureans also denied the existence of an afterlife and the need to fear divine punishment after death. ^[4]

I've only put in one source as this material is all covered in the Stanford encyclopedia article. Does that work for you? BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

How about this for Socrates? "Socrates (c. 471–399 BCE) was associated in the Athenian public mind with the trends in pre-Socratic philosophy towards naturalistic inquiry and the rejection of divine explanations for phenomena. Although such an interpretation misrepresents his thought he was portrayed in such a way in Aristophanes’ comic play Clouds and was later to be tried and executed for impiety and corrupting the young. At his trial Socrates is reported as vehemently denying that he was an atheist and contemporary scholarship provides little reason to doubt this claim." (Jan Bremmer 2007, ‘Atheism in Antiquity’, Cambridge Companion to Atheism, p. 14-19)BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If the source verfies the text then I think the proposal is fine. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

On looking at the source I notice it says that socrates was considered to be something like an atheist. (I don't have access to pages 16-17, google preview). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

P.19? If so, that is in connection to Aristophanes' portrayal of him in the Clouds. The play was performed during Socrates' life and he refers to it in the Apology as being a major source for the reputation that led to the charges against him. He is not actually portrayed as an atheist there but, rather, as being a kind of hybrid between a naturalist pre-Socratic and a nihilist sophist. He is presented, there, as making various natural phenomena his gods (a cosmic whorl, if memory serves) and is associated with Anaxagoras. I think it's fair to say that this presentation is 'something like an atheist' but this is more based on an interest in physical principles than a denial of, or suspension of judgement about, god (see also the stuff on p.14). It's also an interpretation of his thought that was fitted for something approximating a comedy show where Socrates stands in as the spokesman for all socially dangerous philosophy in Athens at the time, since he was the most prominent thinker of the period. But it is a view of himself that he directly rejects in the Apology so it is more interesting as a source for what it tells us about Athenian concerns with the new learning than as a source for Socrates himself. I wouldn't have a problem with adding a little more emphasis to the 'public perception' dimension but I would be wary of going too far as it already outweighs his actual thought and I'm not sure how important the public Athenian perception of Socrates was to the history of atheism other than making some people a little more cautious about expressing non-traditional views in public (Plato is one who has sometimes been said to have actually been an esotoric atheist/agnostic). By the way, if you are only missing 16-17 you have all the stuff on Socrates - those two pages are mainly concerned with Critias. BothHandsBlack (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

if possible it might be good to mention the public perception so as to correct it. By the looks of it, that correction has due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The first two of the three sentences are already concerned entirely with the public perception. Do you want to suggest an alternative version? BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood, rejection of divine explanations for phenomena is different than being an atheist. One could be both a theist and reject divine explanations for phenomena. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's exactly the point. Socrates wasn't an atheist but at that time natural philosophers who sought non-divine causal explanations were regarded with suspicion by some and treated as 'something like atheists'. It is just as threatening to the social order to say that the gods are not responsible for these elements in our experience as it is to say that the gods do not exist. So when Bremmer says that Socrates was thought of as something like an atheist he is indicating these elements in the public perception of his views. He is not suggesting that the public perception was that he didn't believe in gods at all (although its possible at least some people might have thought this, the idea that it was a common belief is unlikely or it would have appeared on the charge sheet against him at his trial) but that he supplanted traditional divinity-based explanations for some phenomena with rational explanations or with explanations based on his own understanding of the divine. BothHandsBlack (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's just that your suggested text says that Socrates rejected that his views were the rejection of divine explanations for phenomena. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That's right. The public perception of him as some kind of naturalistic pre-Socratic is wrong. So the public view of him as 'something like an atheist' is an inaccurate view of him (which is why it shouldn't be given too much weight). According to our more reliable sources it does not reflect his actual thought (in the Phaedo Plato has his Socrates say that he very briefly played with physical explanations as a youth before turning to ethics and focussing on teleology, something that physics was unable to adequately cover) but is, rather, a caricature of his views that quite likely came about because Aristophanes used a character called 'Socrates' to stand in for all the new intellectual views in Athens when he wrote the Clouds. So, we have two things: a) Socrates' actual views - definitely not an atheist and also not a natural philosopher; and b) the incorrect public perception of Socrates - not actually an atheist but something like an atheist because he is thought to be interested in natural explanations that may supplant divine explanations and thus diminish the status of the gods. BothHandsBlack (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The proposed text is fine by me. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Also on Socrates, I don't see how you can say that Socrates is irrelevant. the section is discussing the history of atheism in particular with respect to ancient greece, the well sourced sentencing to death of a highly notable historical figure accused of atheism is very relevant to the history. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The thing is the formal charges against him weren't of atheism as we understand it now but of impiety (including the introduction of new gods) and corrupting the youth. At one point (Apology 26c if memory serves) Socrates tricks his accuser Meletus into saying that Socrates doesn't believe in any gods but this is just to show that Meletus is not a serious disputant as he has charged Socrates with introducing new gods and is thus shown to be inconsistent with himself in the manner typical of discussions in Plato's 'early' Socratic dialogues. That particular claim is never actually a formal charge against Socrates and is not something he is found guilty of; it is just an inconsistent mistake that Meletus makes when being cross-examined by Socrates. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

On to Protagoras then. This one strikes me as a bit tricky. My initial reaction was to remove Protagoras because he was an agnostic rather than an atheist and also because his relativism demands that if someone else believes in the gods then that belief will be true for them. But I've since become aware of the long-running discussion here as to the relationship between atheism and agnosticism. Given this, I'm not sure what the best way to approach him is because, whilst this article has a broad understanding of atheism my memory of most of the secondary sources on this topic is that atheism and agnosticism are presented as opposed. In the Bremmer piece, for instance, we read "It is clear from this quote that Protagoras was an agnostic rather than an atheist, as Cicero in his De natura deorum (I.1.2) still recognised" (by the way, I have found a draft of the full text of Bremmer's chapter here http://theol.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2006/Atheism/Bremmer-Atheism.pdf, so I'll refer to this as we both have access to it and then just fix the pagination when finalising things for insertion into the article). In general, scholarship on ancient thought treats the two as quite distinct and frequently opposed notions because atheism was held to be a 'dogmatic' position, as was theism, whilst agnosticism was associated with skeptics or relativists who rejected all the positive views of the dogmatists. So, how do you think we should approach this distinction in our sources in the context of an article that seeks to conflate the two? BothHandsBlack (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that I haven't abandoned the discussion and will have a look at this today or this weekend. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. No hurry. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

How about:

Prodicus made clear atheistic statements in his work, Philodemus noted that Prodicus believed that "the gods of popular belief do not exist". Protagoras has sometimes been taken to be an atheist but rather espoused agnostic views, commenting that Concerning the gods I am unable to discover whether they exist or not, or what they are like in form; for there are many hindrances to knowledge, the obscurity of the subject and the brevity of human life. ^[5]

reference to, ^ Martin, ed. by Michael (2007). The Cambridge companion to atheism (1. publ. ed.). Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 9780521603676,

I worked off the draft so I'm not sure how faithfully it follows the reviewed version. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. If you want to add it in I'll chase up the page numbers and insert those later today. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Prodicus' quote I think that the whole thing deserves inclusion if possible, it seems a valuable passage imo ‘that the gods of popular belief do not exist nor do they know, but primitive man, [out of admiration, deified] the fruits of the earth and virtually everything that contributed to his existence’ - The 2 quotes seem to present early but strikingly well-developed examples of atheism and agnosticism, respectively. u n☯mi 14:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. Missed this earlier. Yes, I think that is a good idea. BothHandsBlack (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Classical Antiquity section

Some problems with the classical antiquity section:

1. Socrates - Why include someone who did not consider himself to be an atheist, is not held to be an atheist by modern scholars, was not held to be an atheist by his contemporaries and was not held to be an atheist (in the sense outlined in the lead) even by his accusers, in a section on the history of atheism? The history intro states: "ideas that would be recognized today as atheistic" appear in classical antiquity but what are these in relation to Socrates? What is the significance of this material for the article?

2. The statement that Protagoras 'probably had atheistic views' is not supported by a source. What are the grounds for this claim?

3. The description of Epicurus and Lucretius as 'not ruling out the possibility' that there are gods is inaccurate. They both state explicitly that there are gods so why are they included in a section on the history of atheism? BothHandsBlack (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Ive gone ahead and restored a passage from this section which BothHandsBlack had removed without comment. -Stevertigo (t | c) 00:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

BothHandsBlack also added a much more detailed passage with his removal of the old passage. The old passage is now redundant to the new one. --Modocc (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies about the lack of an edit summary on that but the new passage was the result of a fairly extensive discussion with IRWolfie above. The material that has been returned is, I think, a bit redundant but if your main interest is in retaining the detailed footnotes it shouldn't be too hard to rework them a little to fit with the new text. BothHandsBlack (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is the atheism definition different?

Sources: Any dictionary amoral: LACK of moral sensibility apathy: LACK of feeling or emotion atheism: ? Why is this definition so different BlushNine (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Atheism has different definitions. Note that the article's lead includes the definition for absence (or lack) of belief in deities, although the sources either do not consider it the primary definition in use, or ignore it. This talkpage is not a forum for discussing why this is the case though, but for discussing improvements of this article on the topic. See wp:forum.--Modocc (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, using “absence” makes the sentence more neutral, since “lack” connotes a deficiency. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTDICT. The topic should not be set by a dictionary but by a current major usage, other meanings are covered by disambiguation. Dmcq (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Dmcq (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Atheism is the specific belief that no deities exist. It is not just a lack of belief, that is agnosticism. The article is not neutral. --41.51.183.182 (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What part of "Atheism has different definitions" is not clear to you? Powers ^T 13:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Atheism is a position on belief, agnosticism is a position on knowledge. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Theism = religion, gnositicism = knowledge. With that said, there are two obviously different usages of the both the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" - one more technical usage, as used by atheists, and the other more colloquial usage, as used by those less familiar with the topic. I think the current article sufficiently covers all bases. Rathilien (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI: "List of atheist ..." rename proposal

FYI: An editor has proposed renaming the "List of atheist ..." articles. ~~Proposal is at this Talk page.~~ Apologies for somewhat off-topic post here, but I know this Talk page is heavily monitored. I also posted a note at the Atheism project Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on this is at this Talk page here. --Noleander (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Bracketing the referent

I am concerned that these misunderstandings precipitated this edit which seems to be unjustified. The removed text can of course be sourced directly to EB2011, as the source excerpt should make clear. I have reverted the edit to reflect RS material. u n☯mi 06:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Misleadingly inserting “Atheism is contrasted ... with agnosticism, which leaves the matter of existence open.” into the lead contradicts the nuanced definition which precedes it, and would give readers a false impression that atheism doesn’t leave the matter open. You’d’ve gone less awry if you’d used the clunky but more accurate wording suggested in that archived discussion you linked to, “It is also distinguished from but not incompatible with agnosticism, the view that the existence of a deity is unknown or unknowable.” ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, there isn't a single definition of what atheism is and it isn't necessarily incompatible with agnosticism. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Can I also suggest people stop inserting the text, get consensus first per WP:BRD. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There was a consensus for the edit at the time, obtained via DR. Please do remember that article text should reflect the weight of RS, are you arguing that EB2011 is not a solid RS in this matter? Also, which RS are you relying on for the conclusion that excluding the EB2011 lead material is appropriate? u n☯mi 16:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Previously ... To the best of my knowledge the last DR discussion is at WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_16#Atheism - reading through the comments indicates to me that the balance of editors, both long-term of this article as well previously uninvolved agreed that the contrast with agnosticism reflected the sources and improved our article. There is of course also an archive of voluminous and vociferous debate to be had in [20] and [21]. u n☯mi 19:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This source discusses the uncertainty over the definitions [22], this source Smith, George H (1979). Atheism: The Case Against God. p. 10-11 used in agnostic atheism which discusses an overlap. And no, there was no consensus at DRN. There has never been consensus for this text. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Absolutely no consensus for this odd inclusion. The overlap of atheism and agnosticism is well known and citable, so it would be peculiar to have anything in the article that essentially says there is no overlap. I assume this is another one of those situations where the author is referring only to the narrower subset of atheism which does not encompass agnosticism. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So, it seems that Encyclopedia Britannica 2011 is not considered an RS by IRWolfie and Scjessy, is that right? Instead the preferred source is the very excerpt that Theodore Drange uses as an exemplar of faulty reasoning:

“

According to this usage, people would be "atheists" even if they answer the question whether it is true that God exists with "no one knows." This is a departure from the most common use of the word "atheist" in ordinary language, which is in itself an important reason to avoid it. Another reason is that infants and fetuses have no belief in God, yet it would be perverse to say that they are all atheists.

”

u n☯mi 23:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just as a comment about clarity, and not the substance of it, I feel as though "Atheism is regarded as compatible with agnosticism, with which it is generally contrasted" just sounds confusing. The first half of the sentence sounds like atheism and agnosticism are similar, whereas the second half of the sentence sounds like they are different. Is there a clearer way to word it? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That is however a fair comment - how about reverting to the previous wording for that section in entirety? u n☯mi 23:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The previous version would appear to be not having it in the article at all. I don't see a problem with that. What are we trying to solve with this addition? Is the article not already sufficiently clear on the various definitions of atheism? It would be helpful if the edit warring stopped in the interim; either remove it entirely or leave it as it is. The most recent addition claims that agnosticism is incompatible, except "it has been argued" to be compatible, which is not consistent with our sources or our already-stated definitions. — Jess· Δ ♥ 07:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

not consistent with our sources - could you clarify just which sources you are referring to?
our already-stated definitions - as you are referring exactly to the definition section this statement seems to stem from a misconception, could you clarify just what you are referring to?
u n☯mi 07:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Within the first 3 sentences, we have set up 3 different definitions for atheism. Two of those three are clearly compatible with agnosticism. To say "at times it has been argued that [agnosticism is compatible with atheism]" is to entirely disregard those 2 definitions. This appears to be what you'd like to do anyway, given your postings here and at the threads you linked at DRN. However, we have strong sourcing to indicate that atheism is more than simply belief in the nonexistence of the "Judeo-Christian God", as you proposed, and we cannot so strongly prefer one source over the plethora of others in such a way. I do not see that you have consensus for the addition at this time, so it would seem to make sense for you to present new sources, or make a new proposal, in order to sway consensus, or let the issue drop. I'm happy to read new sources if you'd like to present them. — Jess· Δ ♥ 08:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Within the first 3 sentences Wait, are you referring to the text in the lead? The text in the lead can only be there by virtue of being supported by what is in the body of the article. The text that you reinstated with this edit states "Atheism is regarded as compatible with agnosticism " - could you please tell me which sources that you find nullify EB2011 to that extent? The sources there are:

1. "In common understanding, agnosticism is contrasted with atheism. In the popular sense an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves that God exists, while an atheist disbelieves that God exists. However, this common contrast of agnosticism with atheism will hold only if one assumes that atheism means positive atheism. In the popular sense, agnosticism is compatible with negative atheism. Since negative atheism by definition simply means not holding any concept of God, it is compatible with neither believing nor disbelieving in God." - (emphasis mine) Not only does the text itself state the general state of affairs, but is also in fact seeking to argue against current consensus on the basis of a conception that is peculiar to a minority of scholars and a certain class of Theist polemicists, as EB2011 is a testament to and as Martin himself concedes.

2. "On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion." - Could you please indicate if you think that this text supports "Atheism is regarded as compatible with agnosticism " ?

3. ^ Besant, Annie (1884). "Why Should Atheists Be Persecuted?". The Atheistic Platform. London: Freethought Publishing. pp. 185-186. "The Atheist waits for proof of God. Till that proof comes he remains, as his name implies, without God. His mind is open to every new truth, after it has passed the warder Reason at the gate." - Seriously? As a source for explicitly the history of thought fine, but as a counter to EB2011? I really don't think so.

4. ^ Holyoake, George Jacob (1842). "Mr. Mackintosh's New God". The Oracle of Reason, Or, Philosophy Vindicated 1 (23): 186. "On the contrary, I, as an Atheist, simply profess that I do not see sufficient reason to believe that there is a god. I do not pretend to know that there is no god. The whole question of god's existence, belief or disbelief, a question of probability or of improbability, not knowledge." - again, a text from 1842 is not really something that wikipedia editors are expected to be presenting against Encyclopedia Britannica 2011, with good reason.

Please do see WP:WEIGHT and consider if you that is adequately adhered to for the text in question. u n☯mi 09:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Unomi you are going about things the wrong way. If you want a quotation from the source text you can add a {{request quotation}} tag next to the relevant citation. But I think Unomi has a point, and I think his addition adds some degree of nuance and clarity to the passage (revert diff). His point seems to be that stating agnosticism to be "compatible" with atheism is an overstatement of some kind. This appears to depend on what we mean when we say "compatible." His language: "Atheism is generally contrasted with agnosticism, though at times it has been argued that they are compatible" seems more accurate than just stating obtusely that "atheism is regarded as compatible with agnosticism, with which it is generally contrasted." In fact the latter sounds rather convoluted and poorly worded. -Stevertigo (t | c) 09:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

To me, Unomi's "at times" clause seems backward. Atheism was ever compatible with agnosticism; at times opponents pushing an agenda attempt to argue that it isn't, despite the fact that most atheists are agnostics. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain how you square Atheism was ever compatible with agnosticism with EB2011? Or opponents pushing an agenda attempt to argue that it isn't when sources indicate that it was Theist polemicists that wanted to spin them as compatible? u n☯mi 12:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Are we to consider EB2011 as the One True Source™ now? We don't need to reconcile one source with another, but rather simply reflect what the preponderance of reliable sources say without resorting to any kind of synthesis. It's clear that agnosticism and atheism overlap (see agnostic atheism), so the article should reflect that. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No, but it would be nice if you would start considering it, period. Please stop saying 'preponderance' and other absurdities - especially when the next thing you do is point to an article that has 4 sources, 2 from before 1904, 1 which doesn't mention agnosticism at all and the last which is the exact text that Theodore Drange said of: "This is a departure from the most common use of the word "atheist" in ordinary language, which is in itself an important reason to avoid it.". Do you have any idea how delusional you appear to people who aren't wrapped up in your brand of magical thinking? Swap out fossil specimens with sources and I could swear I was dealing with a creationist. Name concrete sources or gtfo. u n☯mi 13:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Try and be civil thanks. [23] explicitly deals with the ambiguities and specifically says I would suggest that if Philo estimates the various plausibilities to be such that on the evidence before him the probability of theism comes out near to one he should describe himself as a theist and if it comes out near zero he should call himself an atheist, and if it comes out somewhere in the middle he should call himself an agnostic. There are no strict rules about this classification because the borderlines are vague. You appear to be trying to explicitly state a particular viewpoint on an issue that is inherently vague. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It may well be that JJC Smart considers the borderlines vague, but I am not really sure why you bring this source up at all since it states fairly clearly: ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. and Perhaps such a logical positivist(the agnostic) should be classified as neither a theist nor an atheist, but her view would be just as objectionable to a theist. - the borderlines he is referring to seems to be in relation to whether Philo might hold a given probability to be 0.24 or 0.26 - he does not seem to argue that they are not discrete states. In my personal and irrelevant opinion I would say that he is too busy focusing on utilitarianism to be of much use. u n☯mi 14:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

EB2011 has a misleading, poorly written lead (which Concise's condensed version worsens to the point of besmirching Britannica’s reliability). However, its later section on Kai’s “comprehensive definition of atheism” corrects misconceptions its lead promotes. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a pretty extraordinary claim, EB has had plenty of feedback regarding it's wording and the text is by Kai Nielsen. Could you please cite where the later section with the “comprehensive definition of atheism” gives you the impression that agnosticism and atheism are not in contrast to each other? u n☯mi 00:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I shall be withdrawing from this discussion after Unomi's disgraceful "GTFO" comment above. I can be recalled if Unomi posts a grovelling apology on my talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Is being likened to a creationist the height of insults here? I thought it was rather funny, given I can see things from Unomi's point of view a bit. -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC) PS: Ah, now I see the GTFO comment. Yeah I think that was a bit over the line, Smokey. -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Was it? These talkpages are for improving the article in line with WPs aspirations and principles, a task that is impossible to do unless discussions are grounded by WP:RS. My comment was Name concrete sources or gtfo. - this is in fact a somewhat more blunt restatement of existing Talkpage guidelines. Personally I find that scjesseys contribution was much more insulting. u n☯mi 00:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, if you don't want to be civil then go elsewhere. You are poisoning the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidently Britannica did not receive nearly enough feedback, nor provide sufficient editorial oversight, to publish an article on atheism so wide of the mark, and so thoroughly lacking in historical perspective that it glaringly omits any mention of the history of persecution of atheists. And all three parts of Kai’s “comprehensive definition of atheism” describe stances which could be taken by an agnostic atheist. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to open a discussion on WP:RSN, explaining the contemporary conception of atheism doesn't require a full treatment of historical artifacts - this is the reason why we have a history of atheism and the article here. u n☯mi 22:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just because we have history of atheism doesn't mean this article concerns only contemporary atheism. This is the parent article for the whole atheism topic. Neither history of religion nor history of India limit the scope of their parent articles to current events either. We need to treat the entire topic of atheism in this article, which includes a variety of definitions. That said, even the contemporary definition is substantially varied. — Jess· Δ ♥ 01:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

EB2011 is one of the best sources that we have for the contemporary understanding of atheism. Certainly sources dating from before 1910 are not relevant to such a discussion. I am not arguing that we shouldn't be touching on historic aspects, but that those historic aspects are not necessarily relevant to presenting the modern conception of atheism. u n☯mi 21:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

So re my criticism of Britannica 2011 for lacking treatment of history, you suggest I open a discussion to argue we should remove treatment of history from our article? You must’ve misunderstood; in my opinion, that was a unencyclopedic failure on Britannica’s part. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I am saying that it doesn't matter how EB2011 decides to treat the history of atheism, as the article is on the contemporary understanding of it, not the historic one. Your opinion on whether that focus on their part renders the encyclopedia "unencyclopedic" is irrelevant, and such a discussion would be more appropriate on WP:RSN. u n☯mi 21:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You just implied above that we should only be "touching" on the history of atheism, and here you've said "the article is on the contemporary understanding of it, not the historic one". You still have the wrong impression of the scope of this article. We treat the entirety of the concept here, which includes the history. We don't just "touch on" the history. This isn't modern atheism or new atheism or atheism in the 21st century, where "touching" on atheism might be relevant for context. This is Atheism, the whole thing. You've proposed wording which says, without any ambiguity, that atheism is incompatible with agnosticism, and you're holding up a single source (which admittedly lacks historical treatment) to support it, while throwing out all our other sources which say the opposite. We just can't do that. I feel like I'm repeating myself at this point, so unless the discussion changes quite dramatically, I'm going to back out and let others comment as necessary. I think you've gotten a fair amount of input that the original text was not appropriate, so it may be most productive at this point to discuss another proposal, such as, perhaps, how to best word the content we do have now. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 22:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Reading comprehension is a minimum requirement for partaking in these discussions. You will probably find better results if you consider context.

1. I opened this discussion with the sole focus on how we present the contemporary conception of atheism. I don't see the need for expanding that discussion here.

2. When I said I am saying that it doesn't matter how EB2011 decides to treat the history of atheism, as the article is on the contemporary understanding of it, not the historic one. - Then I intended the article to refer to the subject of the sentence, as in it doesn't matter how EB2011 decides to treat the history of atheism, as the EB2011 article is on the contemporary understanding of it, not the historic one.

3. Which sources did I throw out please be specific.

4. I never intended to say that we shouldn't touch on historic conceptions in this article, but I think that we should agree that historic conceptions aren't the main focus of our atheism article, and we shouldn't allow the reader to be confused regarding how the weight of WP:RS present the contemporary conception. u n☯mi 22:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Further, you've proposed wording which says, without any ambiguity, that atheism is incompatible with agnosticism, and you're holding up a single source (which admittedly lacks historical treatment) to support it - No, I believe that the majority of available sources support stating clearly that atheism is incompatible with agnosticism, that they are discrete and separate positions within the context of theological positions. I have however chosen to focus on what I believe is the strongest source first, Encyclopaedia Britannica. EB2011 is not only recent, but it is also the kind of source that I believe Wikipedia itself strives to be and seeks to emulate in terms of structure and focus. u n☯mi 00:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You write, “it doesn't matter how EB2011 decides to treat the history of atheism, as the EB2011 article is on the contemporary understanding of it, not the historic one”. And that’s why Britannica’s atheism article fails to be an encyclopedic treatment. We should strive not to emulate Britannica where we can do better.

Any sources you may have which claim that atheism is incompatible with agnosticism put themselves at odds with real life, where a majority of atheists are agnostic atheists. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to try to make the case the EB2011 should not be considered an WP:RS then please go ahead, but this is not the appropriate forum - please take it to WP:RSN. Furthermore, in general, please anchor your arguments in sources, and by that I mean Reliable Sources. Claims such as regarding what the majority of atheists are or aren't need to be sourced in order to be taken seriously. u n☯mi 02:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources and Weight

Unomi, Smith and Martin are respected contemporary sources and they echo the older sources, thus I agree with the other editors that the proposed addition is inadequately written due to its lack of comprehensiveness regarding this article's content. Modocc (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Being contemporary is only one part of the equation, as an example, creationism or timecube are both contemporary but we don't present them on equal footing with other conceptions of reality, the reason for that is down to considering relative reception of those perspectives in the field as a whole. While I can agree that neither Martin nor Smith are on the level of TimeCube, we do have to look at how their peers treat their arguments. What sources do we have in that regard? Theodore Drange has responded to the texts of both authors in a very critical fashion, Kai Nielsen seems to have considered their arguments not worth presenting at all in EB2011. Besides the reception in the field as a whole, please consider that Martin himself expressly acknowledges that his preferred conception of atheism does not enjoy wide support.

Currently our text seems to present "compatible with" and "contrasted with" on equal footing, do you believe that this adequately captures available sources? u n☯mi 03:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Among others whose opinions Kai Nielsen “seems to have considered not worth presenting at all”:

Only once does Kai Nielsen even approach citing the thoughts of a famous atheist:

The second characterization of atheism does not distinguish a fideistic believer (a Blaise Pascal or a Soren Kierkegaard) or an agnostic (a T.H. Huxley or a Sir Leslie Stephen) from an atheist such as Baron d’Holbach. All believe that “there is a God” and “God protects humankind,” however emotionally important they may be, are speculative hypotheses of an extremely low order of probability.

Perhaps Kai Nielsen’s narrow, misleading, unhistorical, and far from encyclopedic article wouldn’t be so lacking in merit and utility, if he had cited fewer theologians, and included any eminent atheists at all.

When it comes to considering perspectives in the field, your metric of “people whose opinions Kai Nielsen considers worth presenting” seems extremely deficient. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

For starters, could you please reduce the list to scholars in the field? It would also be illuminating if you then split them up into which you would consider contemporary vs non-contemporary. u n☯mi 06:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Both Martin and Drange are published scholars, but I view Martin as having had a greater impact, nevertheless any sourcing argument that you might want to develop here has a steep hurdle to overcome in that it dances around the fact that there are plenty examples of significant overlaps in the usage of the terms atheism and agnosticism. For example, you can find that this is the case with this Oxford source. Its of course obvious that with their broadest senses, nontheism and atheism are synonyms that would include anyone having or having had the capacity to be a theist, but are not considered a theist for whatever reason. Consequently, this is clearly an example of the pitfalls of the etymological_fallacy such that when it comes to comparing sources, the differing views and actual usages do matter, with due weight of course, which current sources do establish. --Modocc (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no question in my mind that Martin is an accomplished and well-respected scholar in the field, he has been the editor for a slew of university oriented books and besides that he has also been prolific in forwarding defenses of atheism. The reason that I make a distinction between those 2 activities is because the differences between the bodies of work are significant, as should be clear from looking at them.

When addressing a scholarly audience he clearly identifies the modern understanding of atheism:

The section on the meaning of atheism is also of particular interest, primarily for showing that in the past many atheists have not meant by atheism what is meant by that term today. Stein makes it clear in his introduction that, although today the has come to mean the belief that God does not exist, for many thinkers atheism has merely meant the absence of belief in God. In this older sense atheism is compatible both agnosticism and skepticism.

— Martin, Michael. "Michael Martin's Review of Gordon Stein, ed., AN ANTHOLOGY OF ATHEISM AND RATIONALISM". Teaching Philosophy 9:1 (October 1986): 90-91.

If you read the full review you will see that Martin is overall not impressed with the scholarship of the work. That doesn't stop Martin from citing Stein when trying to argue for acceptance of negative atheism in A Philosophical Justification, if only as an author who also managed to construe atheism unusually ( to paraphrase Flew ). That the etymological fallacy that Drange points out when he considers A Philosophical Justification is not an example of a pitfall is made clear by Martin himself in the first line:

If you look up "atheism" in a dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God.

— Martin, Michael. "Appendix. Atheism Defined and Contrasted". ATHEISM. A Philosophical Justification.

and crystal by Antony Flew:

The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to 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 non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter.
The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage.[2] 'Whyever', it could be asked, 'don't you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?' It is too soon to attempt a full answer to this challenge and this suggestion. My justification for introducing the notion of negative atheism will be found in the whole development of the present chapter.

— Martin, Michael. "The Presumption of Atheism". ATHEISM. A Philosophical Justification.

It should be clear that the negative / positive conception is presented by both Martin and Flew as not enjoying wide contemporary support.

It should also be noted that there seems little evidence that the conception has picked up support in scholarly circles since then, witness the following passages from a text that had Martin as an editor:

Concerning the gods I am unable to discover whether they exist or not, or what they are like in form; for there are many hindrances to knowledge, the obscurity of the subject and the brevity of human life.9 It is clear from this quote that Protagoras was an agnostic rather than an atheist, as Cicero in his De natura deorum (I.1.2) still recognised. ... [Prodicus] maintained ‘that the gods of popular belief do not exist nor do they know, but primitive man, [out of admiration, deified] the fruits of the earth and virtually everything that contributed to his existence’. The highly stylised character of the language suggests that this passage reflects rather closely Prodicus’ very words.23 But what did Prodicus actually mean? ... In addition to Prodicus, the only other fifth-century intellectuals in whose work clear atheistic statements can be found are Euripides and Critias.

— "Atheism in Antiquity by Jan N. Bremmer" (PDF). The Cambridge Companion to Atheism Ed. Michael Martin.

And yes, the text is in the book. This is clear evidence that atheism and agnosticism are treated as contrasting rather than compatible positions in serious works. u n☯mi 21:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the text about Protagorashe, the context of the usage there makes a difference, considering the sensitivities involved with categorizing people. Martin included negative atheism with this piece where he acknowledges it is not the primary sense, but he in no way implies that this broader sense has little or no support. Although narrower unambiguous usage has been and can be employed, the topic area and pitfalls because of actual, verifiable and current usage are still applicable. --Modocc (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, I am not suggesting that no one has used negative atheism, indeed just above I included 3 different sources that did just that, but those sources are all attempts at justifying that usage, and the scholarly consensus seems to reflect a usage of atheism and agnosticism that does not render them compatible, as our most recent and most mainstream source in EB2011 renders clear in the time that it spends on discussing it. Note as an aside that the contributor on the Greek period in atheism in antiquity is very clear in maintaining a contrast between the 2, and I find it likely that he has a fair grasp on a-theos. I don't see a reason to not discuss negative / positive conceptions in its own section, but I fail to see why we should be giving equal weight to something which seems to see little treatment by quality sources. It is quite possible that EB2013 will be all about negative / positive atheism and agnostic atheism etc. but this is not the place to right great wrongs in that regard. u n☯mi 22:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Please, I am not proposing to give equal weight in the summary. But I do object to giving all the weight to just one conception of the relationship and none to the other, because to do so fails to acknowledge the broadest and, arguably, broader atheist concepts given there. At this time, I've other pressing things to do, so I'm leaving for now. Modocc (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Complementary contrasts

I am happy that we can agree on not giving them equal weight, and to be honest I also feel that I could have been spending my time more constructively elsewhere, but I am now a bit more optimistic that we can get this sorted out now. How do you feel about:

Proposed Lead Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that no deities exist,[3][4] distinguished from agnosticism, which makes no knowledge claim regarding whether deities exist.[agnosticism-contrast] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[7][8] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[8][9]	Current Lead Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[7][8] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[8][9]

Any objections? u n☯mi 01:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There probably will be objections. I'm not sure what the proposal is. Please post the current and proposed versions side-by-side, or indicate by using some sort of markup above what the changes would be. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Done! u n☯mi 05:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal implies that hard atheists, whose position is that no deities exist, make a knowledge claim, which does not follow. “I believe no deities exist” does not equal “I know no deities exist”. One can be both an agnostic and a hard atheist. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My proposal implies that we follow the weight of quality sources on the matter, EB2011, EBConcise2011 and indeed EB1911 all use this language. Your interpretation would lead to there being no such thing as a hard atheist - consider what the nutshell definition of 'knowledge' actually is: justified, true, belief and you will see that in the field of the topic beliefs do exactly constitute knowledge claims. Feel free to offer sources that support your position. u n☯mi 08:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You have no quality sources. I’ve already articulated several reasons why Kai Nielsen’s “Atheism” was a low quality encyclopedia article; all of those reasons apply moreso to its oversimplified Concise version.

No, your argument that hard atheists don’t exist if they can also be agnostics presupposes a nonexistent incompatibility. Hard atheists may have a justified belief that no gods exist, without knowing for a fact if that belief is true. If I may quote the estimable Mr. Holyoake again, “I do not pretend to know that there is no god. The whole question of god’s existence, belief or disbelief, a question of probability or of improbability, not knowledge. In fine, the Theist believes, and the Atheist disbelieves, that there is a god.” ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have already told you that WP:RSN is the place to get input on whether EB2011 is a "low quality" source. While your apparently earnest protestations that you know more about the topic than Kai Nielsen have been mildly amusing I fear that your insistence on not following talkpage guidelines is beginning to become disruptive and constitutes a misuse of resources.

If you truly wish to engage in productive discussion then please indulge the request for only referring to scholars in the field and filter your list in the previous section accordingly. u n☯mi 01:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You called Kai Nielsen’s article a “quality source”, without foundation. I disputed your characterization, having pointed out several deficiencies where your favorite source lacks quality. But you continue making frequent appeals to its authority. If you truly wish to engage in productive discussion, then don’t just condescend to me, back up your opinion like I did mine. Why should Nielsen be given more weight than other sources? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:PSTS EB enjoys the presumption of RS - if you disagree then open a discussion on RSN. Please point out where you believe yourself to have backed up your opinion in any meaningful way, all I can see that you have done is list a number of names, you have refused to denote which you consider to be scholars in the field and which you would consider to be relevant to looking at modern conceptions of atheism - Holyoake ain't one. u n☯mi 06:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:PSTS, EB is a tertiary source, which you would have us give greater weight to than reliable secondary sources it ignores, like Smith and Martin. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Your selective reading skills are truly remarkable: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other. - Kai Nielsen is an expert in the field, the article is in a respected encyclopedia, and the secondary sources that you mention are polemical in nature and their positions do not seem to have gained wide acceptance in the field. You can see for yourself that Martin writes today the term has come to mean the belief that God does not exist, you can see that other scholars such as Drange disagree with the arguments and conclusions reached by both Stein and Martin, and you can also see that articles included by Martin in his role as editor clearly delineate agnosticism and atheism. Again, feel free to take EB to RSN. u n☯mi 14:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Tertiary sources certainly can be helpful that way. Pity Nielsen 2011 was so unhelpful, not including any history, nor using any atheist scholars for sources, nor anyone since the 1800s. And that Britannica’s editors let his very unencyclopedic treatment slip past them. But EB’s overall merit lies outside my scope here. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the new wording better represents the sources but I think it still has other problems (present in the previous version as well). However, I won't insert those issues into the present discussion. BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm kind of agnostic about how much this page should compare and contrast atheism and agnosticism. But I see all kinds of problems with placing it only with the narrowest definition. I tend to think it would work better to make the comparison at the end, as with theism, if we do it at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

We tried placing it at the end and then people were arguing that it only contrasted with the "narrow" conception. I placed it with the "narrow" conception in order to address that. Could you offer a version that you think would be better? u n☯mi 01:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There is always the don't include it version. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That is also known as the ignore weight of available sources version, see the previous section where Michael Martin states today the has come to mean the belief that God does not exist. u n☯mi 08:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you've provided your analysis of your sources. You've dismissed all other attempts at discussion and successfully run off at least one editor. All you need now is a consensus for your proposal. —ArtifexMayhem (talk)

As I see it my proposal is in WP:Consensus - It reflects the consensus of quality sources, which is what matters. Could you please point to where I have dismissed other attempts at discussion? u n☯mi 10:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Where by “consensus of quality sources” you mean a consensus of Britannica, Britannica, and Britannica. Can you not find a second, independent source? And having read the Britannica articles you cite, apparently not every article they publish is “quality”. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Look at the preceding section where there are more sources, including Michael Martin himself stating:

The section on the meaning of atheism is also of particular interest, primarily for showing that in the past many atheists have not meant by atheism what is meant by that term today. Stein makes it clear in his introduction that, although today the term has come to mean the belief that God does not exist, for many thinkers atheism has merely meant the absence of belief in God. In this older sense atheism is compatible both agnosticism and skepticism.

— Martin, Michael. "Michael Martin's Review of Gordon Stein, ed., AN ANTHOLOGY OF ATHEISM AND RATIONALISM". Teaching Philosophy 9:1 (October 1986): 90-91.

If you have modern counter-sources to present, then please do so. As it stands it seems clear that the mainstream consensus is exactly what is reflected by EB, as much as you seem to believe otherwise. u n☯mi 13:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

~~You cut Martin off right before he undercuts your position, which seems intellectually dishonest of you, Unomi:~~

The section on the meaning of atheism is also of particular interest, primarily for showing that in the past many atheists have not meant by atheism what is meant by that term today. Stein makes it clear in his introduction that, although today the term has come to mean the belief that God does not exist, for many thinkers atheism has merely meant the absence of belief in God. In this older sense atheism is compatible both agnosticism and skepticism.

— Martin, Michael. "Michael Martin's Review of Gordon Stein, ed., AN ANTHOLOGY OF ATHEISM AND RATIONALISM". Teaching Philosophy 9:1 (October 1986): 90-91.

Compatibility with agnosticism was the subject at hand, not whether “atheism” can also mean an affirmative belief. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh please, I included the full quote in the preceding section. If anything it only serves to reaffirm what I have been saying regarding historic vs modern. It is quite possible that an older conception of atheism held them to be compatible, that isn't something that I intend to expand this discussion to, as it is irrelevant to how we present the modern conception of atheism. u n☯mi 14:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Your so‐called “modern” conception of atheism consists of a “consensus” of Nielsen’s survey of only theologians from the 1600s to the 1800s. You seem to have a topsy‐turvy perspective where your outmoded “modern” conception has prevailed over my Internet‐era “historic” worldview. Even if that were so, this article is not titled “21st century atheism”, but “atheism”. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You are completely bonkers. Not only did you apparently manage to develop a blind spot regarding what was in the Martin quote - read your post again, you doubled up on the last sentence. You are now completely ignoring that Martin, Flew and Drange all explicitly state today the term has come to mean the belief that God does not exist, in complete agreement with Nielsen and the majority of dictionaries and other sources available. Do you really think that we are going to present historic conceptions in a manner where the reader thinks that they are still the mainstream scholarly conception? u n☯mi 14:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I’ve ignored your attempts to change the subject to belief. What we were discussing was your proposal’s contention that atheism makes a “knowledge claim regarding whether deities exist”. Martin and Flew do not agree with that proposition. Drange does, bringing your count of modern sources that think so up to two. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder if you yourself find your way of discussing the matter intellectually honest, but I do appreciate this retraction. Do you now agree that Drange, Flew, Martin and Nielsen support stating that the modern mainstream conception of atheism is the belief that God does not exist? u n☯mi 02:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Let’s deal with your proposal on the table now, your insertion about atheism supposedly being mutually exclusive with agnosticism. Then we can discuss other future statements you wish to insert. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Religioustolerance.org

I was just having a look through some of the references and I found this one in note 6. It didn't look like a proper RS to me so I had a look on RSN and found that it has been much debated. My understanding of the most recent consensus there (Dec. 2011) is that it is not an RS for definitions of atheism (or for philosophy/theology more broadly). Does anyone know if there have been any more recent developments? If not, should this ref be removed? BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there have been any new developments. The author as reported in the copyright is B.A. Robinson and the website/organization is in Canada. A quick (yet not exhaustive) query on Google for B.A. Robinson brings up a Canadian utility distribution company, but certainly no scholars or distinguished theologians. I can't see how this website could be a reliable source for much of anything, even though I don't find much to disagree with or pick at in its definitions of atheism. Ultimately, even if this is a reliable source, we have better, more-reliable sources at our disposal. As every page appears to be written and updated by one individual, B.A. Robinson, this website seems like more of a self-published blog to me than anything. John Shandy` • talk 17:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think that note 6 could just be shortened to begin at "Most dictionaries...". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

To throw in my two cents on a slightly related issue, I think there is a significant problem with the lead but this is a problem that can be overcome relatively easily. The problem is the use of the word 'is'. Atheism is treated throughout the lead as a thing (object, theory, phenomena, belief system or whatever) that has certain characteristics and the three senses of atheism in the opening line make it sound like these are three different senses of the same thing and that there is some single atheism that encompasses all three (the language of breadth, narrowness and inclusivity emphasises this impression as does the contrast with theism, which is described as a belief). What we really want, I think, is to shift the language a bit to make it clear that what is being described in this way is the word 'atheism' and not some single theoretical construct (even if there is a theoretical construct that takes in all these senses this is still not the only meaning of atheism). Changing 'is' to 'means' would go a long way towards shifting the sense from a description of the being of some thing (X is Y) to the meaning of a word (X means Y). BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: Change the opening sentences to read something along the lines of: "The word 'Atheism' is used to describe a number of different positions that do not include the theistic belief that at least one deity exists. Most narrowly, 'atheism' can refer to the claim that there are no deities. Some thinkers have used the word more inclusively to describe any position that rejects the belief that one or more deities exists, regardless of whether or not the position involves holding a positive belief that no deities exist. Most inclusively, atheism can mean simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

And perhaps add on the end: "While the latter two senses of the word can be used to describe agnostic views, which reject both the affirmation and denial of the existence of deities, the narrowest sense is inconsistent with agnosticism." BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion is very accurate (I'm not sure about only "some thinkers" see wp:weasel for words to avoid) and perhaps we can ~~take this approach or~~ incorporate ~~it or~~ parts of it somehow, but previously, referring to the term with language of this sort, such as using "has been defined as" was rejected as only being about the term and not about the topic as a whole. ~~I'm ambivalent to this objection though, but~~ as I understand our article guidelines at wp:lede, the lede defines and delimit the article's topic, for which this term's varied usages are central, and this article's topic is primarily about how these concepts, embodied by the term's specific meanings that have contrasted with theism, have been treated, such as being inclusive of prominent atheists. There has been extensive previous discussions, see the large talkpage archives above for these, but the lede has evolved over the years because of such suggestions, :-). Modocc (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I understand the issue with referring to meanings but the current lead already goes down this road by using 'in this sense ... in another sense' type language, so we are already talking about the different meanings of the word. I'm not sure that it is possible to avoid this. WP:Lede says that the first sentence should be a definition of the topic area if there is one but in this particular case we run into a problem, since the only way of providing a single definition of atheism is to privilege an inclusive account, even if this is neither the most popular (it isn't) or the one with the greatest academic support (not sure on this but quite possibly not). In this case I suspect that openly acknowledging that the only way to unify the various atheisms into a single topic is to treat atheism as a single word rather than a single thing will do more good than harm. There is also quite a real sense in which the article is about the various ways in which the word has been and is used. Perhaps there might be a way forward in following the approach taken by George I. Mavrodes in the opening sentence to the entry on Atheism and Agnosticism in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy: "Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God" (my emphasis). I note that the Stanford Encyclopedia also avoids a direct 'is' statement, going with: "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." If the professionals are avoiding straightforward definitions and/or starting from the meaning of the word then we should probably follow their lead.

Re: the weasel words, the guide does say of the 'some X say' formulations that: "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution." I think we would be ok with this in the current article as those who say X or Y are specified later on.BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Many editors, but not all, have objected to privileging the narrowest definition, but fewer have objected to paraphrasing of the introductory sentence of Kia Nielsen's Britianica article since it's inclusive of Nielson's more comprehensive definition. I'm not sure we can do much better than this though. --Modocc (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Here, we are getting into one of the reasons for that screaming red notice at the top of this talk page. I remember discussions, now long-archived, about whether the lead sentence should refer to "the word atheism", and the consensus then, after very long and very heated discussion, was that we are not writing about the word, but about the concept. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair point but the archive is over 50 pages long. Consensus is formed between the editors currently editing an article, so could you summarise the stuff that you think is relevant to the current discussion please? My problem with the notion that we are writing about 'the concept' is a) that there is no single concept and b) that insofar as the current opening is about a single concept it is not really coherent as concepts don't have 'senses', words do. A concept is a concept but what we currently have are descriptions of three different concepts shoehorned into a single concept box in a way that assumes that they are compatible but different dimensions of the same thing rather than three discrete positions that share some conceptual overlap without being the same concept. So, that's one way of putting the problem I have. But what are the issues with either letting 'the word' lead or using an equivocal definition as Mavrodes does?BothHandsBlack (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTDICT, I oppose writing the lead sentence in terms of "the word". And per long-standing consensus, I see no reason to abandon a carefully crafted lead for the Mavrodes source, at least not without a thorough discussion. Really, it's close to being a solution in search of a problem. There's a reason those archives are so long: try to change the lead and things explode. I know from experience that anything that anyone comes up with for the lead will end up with someone else finding nitpicks with it, but I just don't think that the problem you identify is a big deal, nor that the proposed changes are that much of an improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Just type "the word atheism" (with quotes) into the handy-dandy "search the archives" box upstairs and you'll find PLENTY of past discussions. There really is no need to reinvent the wheel. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies but neither of you appear to have addressed any of the concerns I have raised. The talk page is for discussion. Please discuss rather than dictate. BothHandsBlack (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Sorry, 'dictate' is too strong a word. My point is, I'm not interested in forging a consensus with an unresponsive archive. If there are relevant arguments already there that you agree with then please direct me to those specifically. I'm sure you can understand it is a bit frustrating just being waved towards an archive when I don't know which bits of it represent the views you currently hold. BothHandsBlack (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, using that search function was good advice. Here: [24]. I assure you that nobody is meaning to be unresponsive, but you really are trying to reinvent the wheel here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

@BothHandsBlack: No offense, but the archives exist for several reasons, one of which is to prevent constant rehashing of the same old arguments over and over again. If you intend to edit an article, and most particularly a controversial article, it is your responsibility to take the time to familiarize yourself with the archives to figure out what the general consensus is and to avoid wasting other editors time explaning the same stuff again and again. You'll also get to know your fellow editors and better understand where they are coming from. It's part of the learning process, and it'll do you a whole bunch of good. And it's been made a whole lot easier with the search bar. Personally, I read the talk pages of the articles I was interested in editing for several months before I made my first edits. Dive in, and have fun! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is formed by those editors currently involved in editing a page. If I look in the archives I won't find the current consensus, I will find a past consensus and not one that is responsive. Having now had a look at the archives I have to say I don't find them terribly useful. Clear consensus is rarely achieved, important points are mentioned and then ignored or not followed up and, most importantly, lots of different issues get mixed together. Yes, certain issues have been discussed before but I cannot honestly say I think many of the discussions I have reviewed are adequate. Critically, nor do I know which are the live issues from a review of the archives as I don't know which editors are still around and which have changed their minds on what. So, I'm happy to turn to the archive if you want to refer to a specific argument that is there and which encapsulates your position but I am not going to be delving any deeper on the off-chance that it might help me to guess what the current views of current editors are.

Now, it was said above that my suggestion was a solution looking for a problem. Let's put the suggestion aside, then, and see if we can collectively agree on whether there is a problem or not (there doesn't seem to be any point in suggesting changes if there is no agreement on this point). At the moment, the first three sentences all appear to have the same referent, a single concept of atheism. However, the three definitions are not consistent and cannot all apply to the same concept. There is certainly some conceptual overlap but it is incoherent to make three statements about the identity of a single concept if those statements are not compatible. Perhaps I'm wrong about this but if so, could someone explain exactly how these statements collectively avoid incoherence? BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Several divergent concepts share the label “atheism”; if we had to focus on a single conception to be coherent, best we go with the broadest which subsumes the others. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No, this is precisely where the problem lies. It is actually an error to think that a broad theory subsumes a narrower theory concerned with a similar topic. This is not the case. If I come up with a religious belief system that accepts all the views of the various religions in the world it would not be right to equate religion as a whole with this particular religion just because of its inclusivity. At least some of the religions that it seeks to include would themselves reject the inclusive approach and the same is the case with atheism. Just because the narrowest definition of atheism refers to views that can be included in the broadest does not make the two conceptions compatible, for someone who holds the narrow definition will reject the broader definition. It is not the case that the narrow interpretation of atheism is a sub-set of the broader interpretation, as the current sentences have it. Rather, they are two distinct and discrete theories that happen to have some conceptual overlap.BothHandsBlack (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

BothHandsBlack, please let me try to reboot what I said earlier. I recognize that you are a relatively new editor, and that you have been doing really excellent work on this page. I've stayed out of your way on the classical antiquities matters, because you are, frankly, a lot more erudite on the subject than am I. But I really mean what I'm saying to you about the fact that the lead has been a perennial discussion topic. Take a quick look please at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practices, where it says "read the archives". It's just good editing practice. It's less a matter of our responsibility to respond to what you are proposing than it is your responsibility to make a case that what you propose actually addresses something that hasn't already taken up an, um, ungodly amount of time.

You ask here how the current lead avoids incoherence. I think "incoherence" is an overstatement, but I'll readily concede that it's flawed. What the lead does avoid is large-scale editor objections, that I assure you have existed in the past. I've already told you what is a live concern for me: that WP:NOTDICT means that it's bad practice to start a page saying what "the word means". Yes, atheism isn't a single concept, but the lead does make very clear that it isn't just one "thing". And putting "ostensibly" in there, in Wikipedia's voice, would just be editorializing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Per this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTDICT#Fixing_bad_articles.2Fstubs and WP:REFERS, I struck out my ambivalence to the objection and concur with it. I've been an editor here long enough to know better and thus should have taken it more serious, and been able to link to it too. My bad. Modocc (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the NOTDICT objection (although I think incoherence is a bigger problem that conformity with a style guide). However, if that is considered to be a central issue then it needs to be followed through with properly. The present opening is confused because what it wants to be describing is a single concept but does so in a way that is actually consistent with describing a word and is inconsistent with describing a single concept because it ascribes mutually contradictory positions to that concept. I don't think that the lead does make it clear that it is not just one thing being described here. On the contrary, the language chosen directly implies that it is the same thing: 'atheism is' is repeated three times without giving any indication that the concept to which the word refers is a different one in each case and the language of different senses implies 'different senses of the same thing' (this language, in particular, contributes to the confusion because it is accurate if taken in terms of different senses of the word 'atheism'). Further, the broad/narrow language again connects the different definitions as aspects of the same thing rather than distinguishing between them. So, I don't think it is an overstatement to say that the sentences are incoherent if they are taken as referring to a single thing and completely unclear if they are taken to be referring to different things. The first step to take in trying to fix these sentences is to decide what they should actually be referring to. BothHandsBlack (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: the archives, I accept it would be good practice, in theory, to read them but Archive 50 alone runs to about 35000 words and if that is an accurate sample of the others then we are talking about a total of 1.75 million words - roughly the same length as 15-20 doctoral theses or books. At a reading rate of c. 6000 words an hour, which is pretty much my standard for complex philosophical discussion, we are looking at a workload of about 290 hours (!) of reading to work through it properly. I'm sorry but I think that is an unreasonably high bar for engaging in discussion on these issues, especially given the highly questionable quality of a lot of the content of the archives and the obvious problems with the sentences that have been arrived at so far (obviously not all the discussion refers to the lead but a great deal of it does). If that archive is to be of any real use to new editors of the page then someone needs to index it. I shudder to think what it will look like in ten years time! BothHandsBlack (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is an idea to have an FAQ on this article talk page discussing the consensus and linking to archived discussions where the discussions took place. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. Could I cheekily suggest that the current discussion might provide a useful context for a systematic exposition of the grounding for the current consensus. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

A new thread should be started that is focused on creating a FAQ regarding a consensus, which not all editors may entirely agree with, but significant objections could be included within its scope. Of course, the lede's first paragraph must define the article's subject, which is about at least three different but closely related concepts that are spelled out by the word's different senses (and we can easily append a sentence regarding agnosticism too). In addition, the subject's introduction should not be exclusively focused on the term atheism because the article is not about the term, but about the related concepts represented by the term. As I said before, I am not sure we can do much better than what we have. --Modocc (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This sums up the confusion nicely. As you point out, the three concepts are unified by sharing the same term but they are three different concepts. At the moment the opening sentences only make sense if they are understood as being about the term but the NOTDICT requirement has led to statements that are coherent as descriptions of the term being crammed into an incoherent formula so that they look like they are about a concept. If there are going to be three statements about three different concepts then the fact that the concepts are different needs to be flagged. I can think of various ways to do so but we are trapped in a vicious circle if, on the one hand, we accept that there is no single concept here but we also think that the style guides demand that the opening sentence be about a single concept. It seems clear that it is impossible to reconcile these two conflicting principles and an attempt to do so can only lead to incoherence as we have now. There seem to be two options to restore coherence: 1) either take a more liberal attitude towards the style guidelines and make it clear that there is no single concept 'atheism' that the article is about but, rather, a group of inter-related concepts with mutual overlaps but no single definable common feature; or 2) Take a hard line on the style and accept that a given article can only be about one of the types of atheism. It is really not possible to have it both ways. On the other hand, if there is anyone who thinks the current opening is coherent, please explain how it overcomes the difficulties I have identified. BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the lede's sentences refers to the word's senses does not make it incoherent though. Other entries discuss the word's nuances without explicitly discussing the term. If for example, should we have this: Broadly speaking, atheism is synonymous with nontheism, but more commonly it is the belief no deity exists. The word's senses are being referred to and one could invoke the "we are doing it anyway" argument, but it misses the point that WP:REFERS is mostly about emphasis. Given any similar version that is only about the term it becomes more difficult and incoherent to talk about the subject, such as simply pointing out that there is a contrast between atheism and theism (which was omitted in the above). But even if the content of the versions were the same, we just have different emphasis that would not be in accordance with practice. Modocc (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't really make sense of this. You seem to want the three sentences to be referring to the word when it is convenient to so understand them but also to the concept when required. But this can't work since the concept and the word are two different things. We have three sentences:

1) Atheism is X.

2) Atheism is Y.

3) Atheism is Z.

In each sentence 'atheism' can denote either the 'the word atheism' or 'the concept atheism' but not both. You are right that if it is 'the word atheism' that is referred to (and 'is' is understood to actually stand in for 'means' or 'refers to') then there is no incoherence. But if it is 'the concept atheism' in each sentence then the three sentences are not consistent as they do not each describe the same single concept. Equally, if you want 'atheism' to stand in for both then a) the language is wrong since the language does not indicate any such meaning and b) the conceptual incoherence still applies.

1) The concept atheism is X and the word 'atheism' means X.

2) The concept atheism is Y and the word 'atheism' means Y.

3) The concept atheism is Z and the word 'atheism' means Z.

In this case there will be a coherent set of statements about the word and an incoherent set of statements about the concept.

Could you make clear for me whether you think the subject of each sentence is the concept, the word, or both? BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to make this quick, and won't get back to this until late tonight or maybe not til late tomorrow cause I'm fixing to make time for some outdoor activities. First, we cannot split up this article into three sections nor into three articles because the usage of the word is just too ambiguous to do so. That clearly leaves us with the option of but only one article and subject! Of course you know this and so its moot to go there. These concepts are represented by the word for which the intended meaning (concept) depends on solely on the writers and the contexts and arguments in which they use the word. We can only do our best to disambiguate whenever needed but we may not be able to do so which is why sometimes people can take away different interpretations of the same text. The concepts are represented by the same word. I am not sure I know what you mean by "The concept atheism is Z and the word 'atheism' means Z." and I don't have time to look more closely at the setup of this at the moment to critique it, perhaps later though. But since this is clearly not faithful to the syntax we use it may be a strawman. The syntax is "atheism (sense Z) is concept Z" or "atheism has a particular sense that is concept Z." It clear we have three definitions and three corresponding concepts that are known as different nuances. Dictionaries would not need to and unable to list different senses if this was not the case and we do this accordingly. You need critique your suggestion and address the deficiencies of referring to the term as you are suggesting. How would you include the contrast with theism? I need to go. Later. --Modocc (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If the syntax is, as you say, "atheism (sense Z) is concept Z" then the subject of each of the sentences is 'one sense of the word atheism (is concept Z)'. But if that's the case why are we pretending that the subject of the sentence is 'the concept atheism'? I accept that on that analysis the sentences are not incoherent but if this is what is meant then why don't we actually say that. We can't really conform to NOTDICT just by changing 'refers to' to 'is' if the subject of each sentence is, in fact, the word rather than the concept.BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict here - will reply to your previous post above)Slightly off-topic but I note that [WP:REFERS] (which is an essay rather than a guideline) appears to suggest that one way of resolving the difficulty of having a multiplicity of different concepts being referred to by the same name is simply to enumerate the concepts: "Disambiguation articles mention the term, so it is correct to write (e.g.) "The term Great Schism refers to either one of two schisms in the history of Christianity: ...", but a content article should read "There have been two Great Schisms in the history of Christianity"." This is actually a pretty poor way of saying what the essay used to say (which is that it is actually fine to use 'refers to' when this is the correct thing to say) until it was unilaterally rewritten (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWriting_better_articles&diff=451184656&oldid=450591996) with no talk page discussion and contrary to the consensus established on the topic (according to the archives :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Writing_better_articles/Use_of_%27refers_to%27). BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You cannot even begin to conceive of the gigantic size of the can of worms you are looking to open here. The seemingly tortuous opening sentence of the introduction was indeed the product of several exhaustive discussions that took forever, basically. Although consensus can change, you are talking about a consensus that was years in the making, involved dozens of editors and covered everything from the relative scarcity of useful sources to the reading grade level of the paragraph. Any proposal to change it would have to be very carefully considered. Consider this a heads-up for what you might have to expect. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Baby steps first :-) I'm not (yet!) interested in changing the actual content, weighting or sourcing but just trying to get the sentences into a coherent form. My suspicion is that one problem with the current formula may have been 'too much' consensus in the past because it looks like some hard but necessary choices haven't been made so we have ended up with a text that attempts to meet conflicting criteria and, naturally, doesn't manage to do so coherently. Maybe it can be solved and maybe not but its worth a try, especially as the editors here seem to all have the genuine interests of the article at heart. I was previously editing in the Israel/Palestine topic area so it is a massive relief to be able to assume good faith without feeling like a complete idiot :-)BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've managed to get online, briefly. You ask why? So I'll clarify the problem. Because to do otherwise changes the subject of the paragraph (and the article too) from the subject called "A" to the subject "this term A" for if we then append another sentence say "A is contrasted with theism" the topic changes. It is incoherent. Modocc (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

So, just to clarify, are you saying that in each of the three sentences 'Atheism is X', we are to understand 'The concept atheism is X'? Sorry if this is getting repetitive but your posts above seemed to draw on the idea that it is actually the word that is being described. You said, "The syntax is "atheism (sense Z) is concept Z" or "atheism has a particular sense that is concept Z."" but in both these examples "atheism" is "the word 'atheism'" and not "the concept 'atheism'". In the two examples you gave there it is not possible to replace "atheism" with "the concept atheism" without the sum of the three sentences being incoherent. But please go be sporty as this can wait till tomorrow. I would genuinely hate to think I'm keeping someone from the fresh air :-)BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I see my somewhat rushed response below was inadequate for I did not answer the query for clarification properly. No, we have the 'The concept atheism(x) is X'. The syntax A(x) is used to disambiguate any A which has variability, either discrete or continuous, thus we often title separate articles this way when necessary. Thus, we have in each sentence a different assignment of a concept, for instance the assignment "atheism(broadest)='absence of belief'". --Modocc (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Right - so each sentence is about a distinct concept (A(1), A(2) and A(3)). What is the ambiguous A in virtue of which the three concepts are related? There seem to me to be two options: we could say either that the ambiguous object is the word atheism and that the disambiguation distinguishes the different meanings of the word. Or we could say that A is the topic ATHEISM, which includes the three specific concepts of atheism but is not the same type of object as are the particular. What I don't think we can say is that A is itself a further concept of atheism that subsumes the other three concepts since the other three concepts include incompatible premises which would make any such inclusive concept incoherent. (see here for some more thoughts on this issue - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BothHandsBlack) BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems I am able to get access more than I thought I would as I am traveling a bit and running errands. :-) I've other reasons to object that are more marginal and could air them later, but what I am certain of now is that explicitly referring to the term results in incoherence. You are saying that what we have now is incoherent anyway, but this is disputed. I see the broad, narrower, and most inclusively clauses as unifying, with each definition being about one of the nuanced conceptions of atheism and which does make sense, and I think other editors do to or they would have reverted a long time ago. I put the word in bold to demonstrate that I am referring to the subject of atheism and not to any particular sense. Hence, I am not planning to jump from the kettle of a featured long standing article that is now said to be incoherent though this is disputed into the fire (definitely incoherent and certainly goes against what is written on a policy page). --Modocc (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get you to accept any alternative as yet so please don't base your answers around a comparison betwen the current wording and what you imagine my suggested wording will be. I have no brief for any particular wording or approach and at the moment I am only interested in defining the problem with the current text. Once there is ome agreement on that we can try to solve the problem collectively but lets take things one step at a time. BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What a lot of pixels spilled, and I'm not seeing anything that would change my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Probaly too many pixels. Let me simplify thing by asking you both a few questions:

1) Do you accept that that the three concepts of atheism defined in the first three sentences are not compatible and that one cannot coherently hold all three positions at the same time?

2) Do you accept that a definition of the topic 'atheism' is a definition of something different from any particular conception of atheism (even if it is defined using the same words)? This is to say that the definition of atheism as a topic stands to particular theories of atheism in the same way that the definition of religion a a topic stands to particular theories of religion?

More to follow once I know where you stand on these two questions.BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have long thought that atheism is an umbrella term for the three "flavors" described in the opening sentence. I would not say the three flavors are "incompatible", but rather they are complementary within the umbrella. A person's point of view may experience all three positions. For example, a baby is born an atheist with an absence of belief that any deities exist, but as the child learns that some people believe in gods he/she may choose to not believe in them, and then eventually develop a conviction that they don't exist. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I should probably clarify what I mean by incompatible. The sense I intended to convey was the sense in which two theories are incompatible if it is not possible to hold both theories to be true without holding contradictory premises to be true at the same time. For instance, it is not possible to consistently hold both that "atheism is (just)the belief that no deities exist" and that "atheism is something other than the belief that no deities exist" at the same time. To put it another way, someone who believes that one is an atheist if and only if one holds a positive belief about the non-existence of god cannot also hold that one is an atheist if one rejects beliefs in god without also holding the positive view that deities do not exist. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I need time to read the newest posts, just noting here that I just added this post [25] regarding disambiguation functions into the above discussion, so no one misses it.--Modocc (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

My answers to the two questions:

1) I accept that there is at least an argument to be made that someone who purports to hold more than one of these positions simultaneously is taking a logically inconsistent position. That said, I think that my, or any other editor, saying that is merely WP:OR, unless we actually have source material pointing out the contradiction. If we have that source material, we would then have to determine whether or not it is WP:UNDUE to make that source material the guiding source for the first few sentences of the lead. I also do not think that the current version of the lead creates any kind of misleading implication that there are significant numbers of people who hold more than one of those positions simultaneously. Rather, I read the current lead as saying that the sources indicate that some people hold the narrowest position, some the broadest, and some the one in the middle.

2) It's complicated. I agree that there are many forms of religion, and therefore it is a complex matter to come up with a general definition of religion – although we do have a lead section at Religion, so it's not like Wikipedia finds it impossible to deal with. I don't think that one can make a simplistic parallel between religion and atheism here, but I accept that a few sentences at the beginning of the lead section are not going to explore in detail every aspect of the subject. Sure, there will be some persons somewhere in the world or sometime in history who consider(ed) themselves to be atheists but who would not exactly recognize themselves in Wikipedia's lead section, although I'm not aware of sourcing that would indicate that such persons would be anything more than WP:UNDUE for the opening of the lead.

--Tryptofish (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: 1) I'm not sure the source issues you identify really apply here. The current presentation of the opening sentences (taken collectively) does not follow a logical form found in any of the sources (as far as I can see) and nor do any of the sources state that one can consistently hold to be true the two statements I identified. The logical implications of arranging the sentences in a certain way derive from the work of wikipedia editors and not the sources and, as such, there is no need to find a source that supports a critique of it. If I think the logic of a statement made by an editor is flawed then I can just point that out and try to get agreement on that fact. I don't have to find a source that does so unless I am critiquing a logical structure that is found in a source. Some of our sources assert that 'atheism' adequately describes all three concepts and that we can reasonably call people who hold any of those positions atheists but I have been unable to find one that claims one can consistently hold all three positions to be true at the same time.

Re: 2) My point may not have been clear here. What I want to know is whether you accept that a definition of a subject area (be it religion, atheism or what have you), defines a completely different type of thing to a definition of a particular theory that falls under the purview of that subject. That is to say that as the subject RELIGION is not a particular 'concept of (what) religion (is)' and is not related to particular concepts in the same way that such concepts are related to each other, so too ATHEISM as a topic is not the same type of object as particular concepts of atheism are. A particular concept of atheism will identify what it is that atheism consists in, which is to say what is true and false of atheism. The topic ATHEISM, on the other hand, is something different: it will be defined by what the various concepts of atheism have in common and not by what atheism itself consists in. I think that recognising such a distinction may have considerable value for crafting a good set of opening sentences (because a definition of the topic will interact differently with definitions of particular concepts than will other definitions of particular concepts) but would like to know, first, whether the distinction is accepted (for a bit more on this distinction see my notes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BothHandsBlack). BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I promise you that I read what you wrote here very carefully, and yet I'm utterly confused as to what you are arguing for. I accept that we can disagree about WP:BURDEN with respect to point (1). However, beyond that, it seems to me that what I already said, that: "I also do not think that the current version of the lead creates any kind of misleading implication that there are significant numbers of people who hold more than one of those positions simultaneously. Rather, I read the current lead as saying that the sources indicate that some people hold the narrowest position, some the broadest, and some the one in the middle." means that we don't have a problem with what I think, but am not sure, is what you are getting at. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if I'm not managing to make myself clear enough then I should probably stop torturing you guys for a bit and come back to it in a month or so. I'll give it one last go though. I'm not really arguing for anything directly at the moment, just trying to reach agreement on basic principles from which an argument can then be constructed, so my comments are not addressed towards reader confusion or anything like that at this point. I just want to know whether we can agree that when I say 'Atheism is the topic of this article', I refer to a different type of object governed by different rule (the topic of atheism) than when I say 'One conception of atheism is X, another is Y and a third is Z'. In the latter case the word atheism names each of three different theories while in the first case the word names a topic defined by the common ground or conceptual overlap between theories but which is not a theory itself and should not be expected to act like a theory or to have the same sort of content as a theory. As I say, if this still isn't coming through I'll drop it. Promise :-). BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It is important that we focus on improving the article, rather than debating meaning. With that in mind, it makes it much easier if you simply propose a new opening sentence here and then we have something tangible we can discuss. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any hope for improving the first sentences if we are unable to agree on first principles. I would have thought that the appropriate way to build consensus would be to start from points that are agreed upon and then try to build from there. At the moment, I think there is a significant problem with the current sentences and I am interesting in fixing that problem in whatever way might gain consensus; I'm not interested in pushing some particular alternative that I'm sure is right. However, if I am unable to persuade other editors that there is a significant problem with the current text it won't matter what alternative I offer. Long and short of it is, discussing the underlying meaning of the contents of the article is a vital element in improving the article since the value of the article is in its meaning. By the way, did you have answers for my two questions? BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, what I see is an awful lot of discussion in which absolutely nothing has been achieved, because we are basically skirting around the issue instead of getting to the heart of the matter. Although I replied to your 2 questions comment, I did not directly respond to them because I thought that neither question was particularly important. To put it another way, I disagreed with the need for those 2 questions and instead explored a different path with my response. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't really show you where an inconsistency that is not immediately evident to you lies if you are not willing to provide me with the building blocks necessary to construct an argument that you will accept. "The Socratic method is a negative method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions. The Socratic method searches for general, commonly held truths that shape opinion, and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic, exploring the definitions or logoi (singular logos), seeking to characterize the general characteristics shared by various particular instances." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method) BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's assume for a second that I'm a dumbass without a degree in Greek philosophy and a total lack of patience because I'm involved in editing dozens of articles at any one time. What I'm suggesting is that you throw some grass seed onto the ground, give it some water and see what happens. Don't bother trying to get the dirt's opinion on what seed it will prefer because growing season is only so long. Propose some new text and then let us discuss it's merits. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

One problem with attempting to find agreement about problems before proposing solutions is that you're only discussing the matter with one or two editors, of a few dozen who are interested in the page. If you do manage to find agreement with those one or two, then once you propose a specific change, you'll have to rehash the whole discussion with one or two others when they inevitably disagree with the specifics. Another issue is that establishing there's a problem with the article will nonetheless often lead to different editors understanding the problem differently, which leads to mutually exclusive opinions on how to appropriately solve it. Such is the issue with this page; nearly everyone agrees that the first few sentences are imperfect, but everyone has different ideas about how to solve the problem, so we've absolved to accept the intro because all the alternatives are worse to someone. All this discussion serves little purpose. Really, we need to either discuss a specific proposal, or it's time we move on. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said, that was my last attempt for a while. However, I have to say that I think quite a few editors on this page have become sufficiently jaded and tired of the issue that it might be better if they just moved on to other topics for a bit if they are no longer interested in actively working towards building consensus on this one. In a number of cases there has not been any attempt to engage constructively beyond posting repeated warnings about how futile it is to try to improve the opening. I can understand why this might be given the years of discussion on this page but if one's first impulse is to discourage discussion then its probably best to take the page off one's watch list for a while and allow editors who haven't yet been ground down by the difficulties to have a bash at it. BothHandsBlack (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I realize of course that you were saying that broadly and not pointing to anyone in particular, and that it is good advice, but I just want to add the minor clarification that, at least for me personally, I'm not fatigued of discussion in that way, but rather trying to speak from my experience of what does and what does not prove to be useful for improving the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 June 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breda_O%27Brien should be added with reference 44; she authored the post in the newspaper. If not a reliable source that should be removed from the page.

Randomness151 (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Redlink policy

I've just restored a deleted redlink, removed with reference to WP:WTAF in the edit summary. WP:WTAF is an essay setting out an editor's opinion; it relates only to adding these links at "list pages, disambiguation pages, or templates", but not to articles. The official policy advocates redlinks in articles: "red links help… Wikipedia grow". --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. From a quick look at sources the Phil Zuckerman article should survive, and there are several other potential links to it. Mcewan (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:Write the article first. It would be nice if each newly added red-link could be easily evaluated. If you do recent pages patrol, you would probably come to the conclusion that doing so is not practical with the current tools. While running huggle, I probably removed 5-20 red links per hour (inc. Phil Zuckerman). If a person is not white-listed by huggle, they probably have about a 100x increased chance of having their red-link removed. Jim1138 (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I see that Huggle "is a Windows application for dealing with vandalism". Some mission creep is in evidence here, perhaps, as this wasn't vandalism but a legitimate edit. In particular (and at the risk of boring anyone following the thread), the essay Wikipedia:Write the article first doesn't apply to redlinks within articles, only in "list pages, disambiguation pages, or templates". --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I would say that Huggle, Twinkle, and other such software has an "undefined mission" as there is really not a clear set of directions nor examples. Most probably start with vandalism, then watch other users, especially admins, and copy what they do (without knowing the reasoning, of course). My reverting redlinks as an example. I probably saw it happen several times, then started doing it myself. Correction often comes in this manner. Jim1138 (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:REDLINK is a Wikipedia editing guideline, whereas WP:RTAF is only an essay. The redlink should stay; a brief glance around the interwebs makes me think Phil Zuckerman is notable enough to have an article written about him. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that a diligent contributor is now preparing one. --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Spelling correction

The last word of the fourth paragraph of the introduction, "spiritually", should be "spirituality". Would correct myself but can't be bothered creating an account.203.96.144.136 (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed! BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! And I'm flabbergasted that none of us noticed that before! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Definitions and Distinctions

The last sentence in this sections reads:

There are various terms atheists use to self-describe, including humanist, skeptic, agnostic, bright, nontheist, secularist, freethinker, nonbeliever, and rationalist.[36]

The reference link on the page leads to a personal blog of which the original text reads:

Consider the multitude of other ways to describe a non-believer: Agnostic, Atheist, Bright, Ethical Culturalist, Freethinker, Humanist, Infidel, Naturalist, Nihilist, Non-believer,Non-theist, Objectivist, Realist, Rationalist, Secular Humanist, Secularist, Skeptic, Transhumanist....

So not only is the reference an unreliable source, the reference material has been manipulated to the editors liking and is, in my opinion, not neutral. I would suggest removal and would like to hear opinions. -Percelle (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Not having looked at the ref at all, I'd just have to point out that it seems likely we'd be able to find other references to support that statement even if it turns out our current sourcing is sub-par. I think it's likely these terms are occasionally used to refer to the same thing in some reliable sources. If I get a chance, I'll look over the current source and, if necessary, see if I can suggest alternatives. In the meantime, I don't think outright removing the sentence without first looking for better sources is the best step forward. Feel free to disagree, obviously :) — Jess· Δ ♥ 04:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that sentence was just added very recently, and I'm not convinced that it helps that much. (WP:NOTDICT, and all that.) I don't feel very strongly, but I'd kind of lean towards just deleting it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the language is very "weasely." Perhaps suggesting that those particular groups are atheists, when in reality they can be distinctive. That is at least how I perceived it. I'd also agree trypto that it doesn't add much. I think the related concepts section covers that pretty well. Would like to hear more. :) -207.119.115.145 (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way, so don't let my opposition stand in the way. If consensus is to cut it out, then go for it. Personally, I think if we have a strong source which says that atheists sometimes self-describe in this way, then that would belong in the Atheism article. Then again, until we have a strong source, that point is moot. — Jess· Δ ♥ 05:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I just added a source. Pass a Method talk 09:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The source link doesn't display the book page. Can we verify that the source supports the material? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if one source said it, how authoritative is it? The phrase is unnecessary and misleading, since these words all cover different concepts. This blog post by the same author [26] makes me think that this guy likes to lump all atheists together, and that is exactly what that phrase is.--Jules.LT (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand, I don't think we need to set a very high standard for simply sourcing the fact that various terms are used; that, in itself, is not a big deal. I agree with your point that it is a bigger deal to imply that all atheists can be placed into a single group (cf our famous lead sentence!), although I suppose we could word the passage to indicate that the terms are not all used interchangeably. But, on the other hand, I'm not really convinced that we need to have a thesaurus list in this article at all, regardless of the sourcing. Again, WP:NOTDICT. I'm not sold on it being sufficiently encyclopedic to include it at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I just re-deleted it, and I think it should stay deleted. It was cited to a page that doesn't exist in the book. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that the first two sentences are unclear, in that they seem to almost define atheism the same way twice (first the broad way, defined as 'rejecting', and then the narrow way, 'believing theism to be false', which is essentially just 'rejecting' again). Shouldn't it be "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the lack* of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities" instead? Related reading: http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/LackBeliefGod.htm (i.e. the god claim is an assertion, atheist is defined in the same way as asexual or apolitical, one who is not a theist in the broad sense. A lack of belief in the theistic assertion, not belief in another assertion of there being no god, which most atheists also deride as non-scientific from what I've seen on the largest atheism web forums). AnOnlineHandle (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There have been roughly eleventy-billion discussions about this already (see talk page archive) and the only thing we could all agree on is that nobody agrees with each other. All I can say is that the existing language is from a consensus formed from exhaustive debate and discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a real shame if that's where it ends up, because it describes 'atheism' as an assertion, when by grammatical definition, and by practical implementation (there's no scripture etc), it's the lack of a common assertion (akin to asexual or apolitical). AnOnlineHandle (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"Lack" implies a deficiency. One definition (included in the lede) is simple "absence" (rather than "lack"). In my opinion, defining atheism in terms of absence is a howler, since (lacking further qualification) it would include mathematics and music as forms of atheism, and brain-dead people, ants, cabbages - and even rocks - as atheists. Regrettably, that howler gets to be kept in our article because it appears in the literature from reliable sources. Reliable sources also clearly contain a distinction between rejecting belief in the existence of X and asserting the non-existence of X, even if some minds lack the distinction. Also, 1>the narrow def is not presented as "believing theism to be false", and 2> see etymological fallacy. If a person is an explicit atheist (as it seems you are), then such a person has heard about deities and has made a determination that belief in deities is not for them, i.e. has rejected such belief. ----JimWae (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I was more so concerned about that other people (trying to insist that 'atheist' is a positive assertion or a faith) won't bother to differentiate between the first and second definition, as the first does lend itself to an equivocation in my opinion (using the word 'reject') if one wanted to be pigheaded about straw manning 'atheists' (broadly) as something which we are not. "Absence" would be fine. To be honest, I have used the argument that atheism describes all who are without theism, including rocks/trees/etc, only to point out that it's possible to not be a theist without claiming that theism is wrong (obviously it's a confusing argument, and I've decided that it's better to just stick to examples such as people who have never heard of a given religion's claims, or those who don't accept say alien life as being definitively true, but don't say that it is untrue, ruling out the 'necessary dichotomy' mode of thought). AnOnlineHandle (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Huh, I thought "atheist rocks" was a theist's straw man, but apparently at least one atheist does claim that rocks are atheists. Me, I'd never include inanimate objects, defining an atheist as "someone who has no belief in deities", not "something that has no belief in deities". ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Two definitions of atheism are widely used: "absence of belief in deities" and "belief in the nonexistence of deities". "Rejection of belief" is just an unclear, awkwardly worded compromise. Let's remove that last one and push "Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist." to the first place --Jules.LT (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's an awkwardly worded compromise. However, I strongly suggest that no one attempt to forge another compromise without realizing beforehand just how awkward such an effort will become. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me word out my proposal of rearrangement of the existing opening definitions (as opposed to outright changing them):

"Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7]; in a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5]"

--Jules.LT (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way to word that, that would start with "Atheism is...", instead of "Most inclusively,", and that would avoid saying "is simply" so early in the sequence, where it sounds sort of apologetic? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

From the top of the article:

The 3 definitions presented in the first paragraph were arrived at after extensive debate and searches of existing sources. It has been the consensus since April 2007 to present all three of these definitions in the first paragraph, and it was in that manner that the article achieved FA status.

If we are going to start discussing which of the three to remove, I am sure there would be points raised against all 3. Personally, I think the absence def is a howler - and there are reliable sources that agree. The rejection def (which covers ALL explicit atheists) is the only one of the three for which there are no reliable sources opposing it. Three definitions exist, and it is not our place to decide which to remove.--JimWae (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

After some research, I'm afraid that the statu quo seems best for now. Although it is definitely our place as contributors to change whatever we feel makes Wikipedia better. It's just that sometimes you need a wider consensus to do it.--Jules.LT (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It is, indeed, very difficult to get consensus on this one. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand: Schwadel's study

In the article in the demographic section I read that "Sociologist Philip Schwadel found that higher levels of education correlate with greater tolerance for atheists' public opposition to religion, greater skepticism of religious leaders, and a reconsideration of "the role of religion in secular society" (Schwadel, Philip (2011). "The Effects of Education on Americans’ Religious Practices, Beliefs, and Affiliations". Review of Religious Research 53).
It seems to me that Schwadel's study is reported in a strange or selective way as in the abstract of this article we can read: "I challenge the scholarly contention that increases in education uniformly lead to declines in religious participation, belief, and affiliation. I argue that education influences strategies of action, and these strategies of action are relevant to some religious beliefs and activities but not others. Analysis of survey data shows that (1) education negatively affects exclusivist religious viewpoints and biblical literalism but not belief in God or the afterlife; (2) education positively affects religious participation, devotional activities, and emphasizing the importance of religion in daily life; (3) education positively affects switching religious affiliations, particularly to a mainline Protestant denomination, but not disaffiliation; (4) education is positively associated with questioning the role of religion in secular society but not with support for curbing the public opinions of religious leaders; and (5) the effects of education on religious beliefs and participation vary across religious traditions. Education does influence Americans’ religious beliefs and activities, but the effects of education on religion are complex. KeywordsEducation–Social class–Culture–Religious tradition"[27] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.136.58 (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked, and that is indeed what the source abstract says. However, I think that "higher levels of education correlate with greater tolerance for atheists' public opposition to religion" (from our page) may be consistent with "education negatively affects exclusivist religious viewpoints and biblical literalism" (the source), and "greater skepticism of religious leaders" (page) with "education is positively associated with questioning the role of religion in secular society" (source). I guess the question comes down to where the source follows each point with a qualifying "but", and our summary leaves that out, in a manner that may alter the emphasis. Should we revise it? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

1) "consistent"? but this proves that the sentences are a bit ambiguous if you have to interpret them in order to find a consistency. WP should be more clear. I propose to quote as written in the abstract so there are no problems. 2) Why is not reported that Schwadel challenges that increases in education uniformly lead to declines in religious participation, belief, and affiliation?--2.40.151.148 (talk) 08:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We should be able to do better than to simply quote verbatim and at length from the source. I'm not arguing that anyone needs to interpret anything. What I'm saying is that the sentences on the page correctly report what seems to be the main points of the source, but leave out what the source says after the qualifying "but"s. And I'm not disagreeing with making what we say reflect that part of what the source says. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

TMHO, this hereabove jesuitical "ballet" about correctly reporting or interpreting, and hard-fighting on each and every single sentence in an abstract of a source... reveals the never-ending try, by quibbling believers, to entangle any discussion as soon as it deals with matters like faith (or non-faith), the role of the church, etc...

BTW : has anyone actually read the original Schwadel article "The Effects of Education on Americans’ Religious Practices, Beliefs, and Affiliations" ??? And has it been checked if the disputed "abstract" faithfully reflects the contents of the article ? The funny thing would be that the quibbled-upon abstract didn't "correctly report" the real text ! lol...

--Mezzkal (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

All one has to do, to read the full article, is to click on the DOI link in the citation on the page. Anyway, I've made a revision to the sentence in question, and I think it now accurately reflects the source. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Mezzkal, I was not disputing the abstract but as Schwadel's article was summarized in WP: for example was omitted all the point about the level of education and religiosity. Of course the abstract reflects the content of the article! Anyway, thanks Tryptofish, I think that now WP text reflects all the points of Schwadel's paper as we can read in the abstract. --2.40.168.110 (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I hit SpringerLink's paywall: USD 34.95 for the article. Ouch! The UNC-CH library has this journal, but I've not visited there in awhile, but plan to. -Modocc (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

^ Zuckerman, Phil (2007). Martin, Michael T (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. p. 56. ISBN 978-0-521-60367-6. OL 22379448M. Retrieved 2011-04-09.
^ http://www.trincoll.edu/Academics/centers/isssc/Pages/Academic-Research.aspx
^ http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/atheism/index.html
^ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/
^ Martin, ed. by Michael (2007). The Cambridge companion to atheism (1. publ. ed.). Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 9780521603676. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)

[1] Schwadel, Philip (2011). "The Effects of Education on Americans' Religious Practices, Beliefs, and Affiliations" (PDF). Review of Religious Research. 53 (2). doi:10.1007/s13644-011-0007-4. Analysis of survey data shows that (1) education negatively affects exclusivist religious viewpoints and biblical literalism but not belief in God or the afterlife; (2) education positively affects religious participation, devotional activities, and emphasizing the importance of religion in daily life

[2] Jim Kavanagh (11 August 2011). "Study: More educated tend to be more religious, by some measures". CNN.
"With more years of education, you aren’t relatively more likely to say, 'I don’t believe in God,'" he said. "But you are relatively more likely to say, 'I believe in a higher power.'"

[3] "The more education people receive, the more religious they become?". Daily Mail. 12 August 2011.
"By analyzing data from a large national survey, sociologist Philip Schwadel of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln found that people tend to become more religious - by certain definitions - as they further their education. The survey also qualified what concept of God or a 'higher power' individuals held, as well as whether they had any doubts. Mr Schwadel said that: "With more years of education, you aren’t relatively more likely to say, 'I don’t believe in God,' but you are relatively more likely to say, 'I believe in a higher power.'"

[4] "More is More When it Comes to Education and Religion, Study Says". Christian Post. 13 August 2011.
"Sociologist Philip Schwadel from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) studied this phenomenon. He discovered that people today tend to become more religious as they further their education."

[5] Schwadel, Philip (2011). "The Effects of Education on Americans' Religious Practices, Beliefs, and Affiliations". Review of Religious Research. 53 (2). doi:10.1007/s13644-011-0007-4. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

[Martin2007-6] Zuckerman, Phil (2007). Martin, Michael T (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. p. 56. ISBN 978-0-521-60367-6. OL 22379448M. Retrieved 2011-04-09.

[7] ttp://www.trincoll.edu/Academics/centers/isssc/Pages/Academic-Research.aspx

[8] ttp://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/atheism/index.html

[9] ttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/

[CCtoA-10] Martin, ed. by Michael (2007). The Cambridge companion to atheism (1. publ. ed.). Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 9780521603676. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]