Talk:Atheism

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,

FAC attempt

I've submitted this article to FAC in an attempt to get as much widespread input as possible. All suggestions for improvement will be considered. Other than the citation/references section, which could use some cleanup, the article has been thoroughly improved. Leave your opinion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atheism. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-10 15:09Z

2nd paragraph ends "with a more limited scope."????

What exactly changed and what is or was the meaning of this? I'm struggling here. Modocc 01:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've attempted to clarify that sentence. What it's trying to say is that today, atheism is no longer applied as broadly (to anyone who believes in false gods or doesn't agree with state orthodoxy). Is this statement actually true, though, on a global scale? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-11 13:15Z
  • Yes, and thanks for the clarification. Modocc 15:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"is" versus "entails"

Some logical considerations:

(1) "Atheism is ..." specifies both necessary and sufficient conditions for being an atheist.

(2) "Atheism entails ..." specifies only necessary conditions for being an atheist.

Therefore, only formulations of form (1) are definitions, because therein there holds the relation of equivalence:

"Somebody is an atheist if and only if s/he ..."

In contrast to this, formulations of form (2) aren't definitions, because therein there merely holds the relation of entailment / implication:

"Somebody is an atheist only if s/he ..."

So to say that "Atheism entails the absence of belief in the existence of God/gods" is to say that "Belief in the existence of God/gods being absent from somebody's mind is a necessary condition for her/him being an atheist".

This is certainly true! Nobody who doesn't lack belief in the existence of God/gods is an atheist. In other words, if you don't lack belief in the existence of God/gods, you're not an atheist.

By thoughtfully using "entail" instead of "is" in the initial statement, it is not claimed that lacking belief in the existence of God/gods is both a necessary and sufficient condition for being an atheist. Actually, I maintain that lacking theistic belief is not also a sufficient condition for being an atheist. In my opinion, consciously lacking theistic belief is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for being at least a weak atheist.

The problem with using "entails" instead of "is" is that the readers of an encyclopedia expect to find a definition of the expression in question in the initial statement. That is, they want to learn what <expression> is, and not just what it entails. And what is more, I'm sure very many readers don't know the logical difference between the relation of definitional equivalence and the weaker relation of entailment/implication.

From the strictly logical point of view, I now have to concede that the formulation with "entails" is impeccable. This fact notwithstanding, I suspect that many readers will misinterpret it, erroneously thinking that it specifies both necessary and sufficient conditions for being an atheist, which is in fact not the case, since it specifies only a necessary condition for being an atheist.

I'm afraid many readers will commit the following fallacy:

"I read that atheism entails the absence of belief in the existence of God. So anybody lacking belief in the existence of God is an atheist."

This fallacy is called "affirming the consequent", and it's a formal logical fallacy:

If p then q (p only if q)

q

Therefore p

That atheism entails the absence of theistic belief means that everybody who doesn't lack theistic belief is not an atheist, but it doesn't mean that everybody who lacks theistic belief is an atheist.

Only the following type of inference is valid:

p if and only if q

q

Therefore p

That is, if we write that "Atheism is the absence of theistic belief", then the inference from "theistic belief is absent from x" to "x is an atheist" is formally valid.

Editorius 16:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If the readers commit the fallacy of reading more into our words than what they say, that is not our problem. The current phrasing is as clear as possible, given the widespread necessary/sufficient disagreement you outlined above. johnpseudo 16:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Let's not assume our readers are more stupid than we are :) But other than that, people complained bout the previous solutions too. You can see the archives, much agony is about the use of an ambiguous word like "disbelief". Another options would be saying something like Simon Blackburne: "atheism is defined either as the absence of belief or positive belief in non-existence", but this is a bit of an over-simplification. This doesn't consider what Editorius above considered necessary and sufficient, namely explicit weak atheism. I have not seen a better idea than first stating the necessary condition, and then describe the various ways that the sufficient condition can vary. Perhaps it can be better expressed, but this solution is finally something that (at least formally) does justice to all definitions. --Merzul 18:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you insofar as lacking belief in the existence of God/gods is the fundamental necessary condition for being an atheist. It must be included in any set of necessary conditions (or at least be implied by it).—Editorius 22:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Modern acceptance

In some societies, notably the USA, atheists still find themselves victims of discrimination and prejudice. For example a US politician recently 'came out' as an atheist rather than it being common knowledge all along. Some say that it's unlikely that an atheist would ever reach high political office in the US because of the stigma that's attached to it. I think this warrants a mention. --Eamonnca1 17:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• The History section is more of a "history of atheistic thought", not history of its acceptance. I think it's best to just change the header from "Modern acceptance" to "Modern advancement" or some other synonym of "spread". — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-11 17:40Z

Image balancing...

Just a minor layout question, perhaps this is early, but have you considered balancing the images, I think I read somewhere that alternating left/right creates a more balanced feeling to the article. What are the opinions on this? --Merzul 18:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I will have a quick go at tweaking the layout, but feel free to revert. --Merzul 18:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that as well, but other people will argue just as strongly to the contrary. The only times images should definitely not be on the left are when they force a header to move to the right of the image. Images should be moved to the left if they result in less empty whitespace between sections. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-11 18:20Z

Yes, I agree, I tried my best to avoid that, but I didn't entirely succeed, take what you like from this: I leave it for you to decide on this matter. I just wanted to try something :) --Merzul 18:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Types of atheism" vs. "Forms of atheism"

I've noticed that we have two sections with extremely similar titles. "Forms of atheism" seems to me to propose a second method of categorizing different types of atheism after the first method proposed in "Types of atheism". How can we make these section titles more accurate and distinctive? johnpseudo 18:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can change the title of "Types and typologies of atheism" to something like "Scope of atheism", "Scope of the term atheism", "Applications of the term atheism", "Applicability of the term atheism", or "Refinements of the term atheism"? johnpseudo 19:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest renaming "Types" to "Classifications" or "Demarcations", or even "Denominations"? :) — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-11 19:17Z

Ha! Denominations- that's rich. I'm leaning towards "Classifications" (or even just "Classification"), but I don't think that's very different from "types". We need to really define the difference between the two sections... From what I can tell, the first section details the difficulty of defining the term "atheism" due to changing meanings and disagreement in scope (this is a good follow-up to etymology), while the second second deals more with how atheism itself presents itself in the world. johnpseudo 19:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The fundamental problem here is that "Types" is about the classification of atheism while "Forms" classifies atheism. So "Forms" is sort of a subset of "Types", except that it presents one method of classification as being correct. johnpseudo 19:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe use "Typology" instead. According to OED, it's: "The study of classes with common characteristics; classification, esp. of human products, behaviour, characteristics, etc., according to type; the comparative analysis of structural or other characteristics; a classification or analysis of this kind." — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-11 19:58Z

What about renaming the first one something like "taxonomy of definitions". The important thing is that first is really about definitions, as you say. --Merzul 20:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support "Typology of Atheism" or "Definitions of Atheism". johnpseudo 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone think "Modes" is better than "Forms". Mode = "a particular type or form of something". — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-11 20:20Z

I think "Forms" is fine. johnpseudo 20:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Although choosing "Typology" instead of "Types and Typologies" helps to distinguish between the two sections, I think that the entire etymology->typology->forms section needs more continuity. We could explain how the history of the word and its later globalization has led to a wide variety of definitions. We could also use more mentions of how the specific typology we agreed to use in the "Forms" section aligns with other typologies mentioned in the "Typology" section. I'll try a thing or two. johnpseudo 20:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

After more consideration, I feel that "Forms" is a misleading section title. Perhaps since the section deals primarily with the need for arguments (Practical atheists need no arguments, but theoretical atheists do) and method of argumentation, we should title it along those lines ("Debate", "Argumentation", or "Advocation of Atheism"). As is, it seems arbitrary to call Practical vs. Theoretical the "broadest distinction" after having presented so many different and equally-valid methods of distinction in the "typology" section. johnpseudo 22:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• The Typology section lists distinctions based on range/degree/scope. The Forms section lists distinctions based on rationale (or lack of rationale in the case of Practical atheism). Maybe we can reword the section headers/lead sections to reflect this better. Any suggestions? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-11 23:38Z

Theism and Atheism harmony

i have noticed that the following topic has been deleted if there is no meaningful reason for its deletion i will replace it

Theism and Atheism harmony There has been an attempt to provide hamony between theism and atheism see International Creed for Peace the ICP argument

(Motegole 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

• There are no reliable sources for the content, nor is it notable enough for inclusion. 0 mentions in books. 0 mentions in scholarly sources. The only internet reference that isn't a copy from Wikipedia are [1], [2]. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-11 19:50Z

• The article International Creed for Peace shouldn't even exist on Wikipedia; no sources, nothing verifiable. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-11 19:54Z

you still have not justified why a "Theism and Atheism harmony" should not be added to this page except that The article International Creed for Peace shouldn't even exist on Wikipedia. I don't see why the "Theism and Atheism harmony" should not be added to the Atheism page even if the International Creed for Peace does not exist on Wikipedia (Motegole 08:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia should give people an opportunity for enlightened self interest and i think deconstructing Theism and Atheism will give people confidence reading the Atheism page, if Harmony is suggested between Theism and Atheism i am sure all the harm it will do, will be to help build peace in the minds of men (Motegole 09:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

We are not objecting to spreading peace and harmony, but unless a source can be cited to support it, we can't put it in. Cerevox 04:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up "Pejorative definition"

The "Pejorative definition" section seems to include a lot of content that would belong better in the "Forms" section, including a lengthy discussion on "Practical atheism". I was going to suggest moving the section wholesale to "Forms", but that doesn't make total sense. Really, if we want this subsection to be related to typology, it should propose a typology (namely, classifying definitions of atheism based on their level of derision), but I'd be happy with making it exclusively about the pejorative definition. johnpseudo 20:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Most of the discussion of "practical atheism" is actually just "pejorative connotations of practical atheism", so I'm not sure if it should be moved to Practical atheism or remain under Pejorative definition. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-11 20:43Z

I understand what you mean, and the different typologies seem to have come about due to the pejorative definition, so they're hard to separate. I think that we need to improve Typology's cohesion- the information presented needs to be in terms of a larger discussion of typology instead of being subjugated to the subsection's topic. Am I making any sense? I'll make an edit and maybe you'll see what I mean. johnpseudo 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Atheist organizations

The article is quite long, and it seems to me that the list of atheist organizations should be in a sub article. I suggest we add a "see also" section which can also include the "further information" sub articles. -- Scjessey 22:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The article may be long, but moving the "atheist organizations" to a separate page doesn't seem like the right solution. Anyway, WP:SIZE offers a guideline of having no more than 6000-10000 "main body" words, and atheism comes in at around 5600. johnpseudo 23:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a bit odd, frankly, to see a list of organizations in this article. There are no corresponding lists in Theism, or any of the major religion articles I looked at. It just seems so out of place to me. -- Scjessey 23:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you may have a good idea there. I'm a little surprised to not see an "Atheist organizations" category, and I think Wikipedia's general principle (as spelled out in WP:TRIV) is that, if it doesn't belong in the main body of the article, it either isn't notable, or it should be on a separate page. I'll help you create that category, add it to these articles, and remove this section from the article if you'd like. johnpseudo 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Should the category be called "Atheist organizations" then? I want to be sure that the listed organizations can be safely categorized in this manner before proceeding. -- Scjessey 11:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The ones we currently have listed are not all "atheist organizations", but as explained in the lead, are "atheistic or promote related freethinking inquiry". You might call it "Category:Atheistic organizations", I'm not sure... — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 12:43Z

Hmmm. I'm not sure what to do then. The list certainly looks a little out of place in the article. Anyone got any ideas? -- Scjessey 13:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving the section here for now, as requested in the FAC (the section violates WP:NOT). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 14:25Z

Atheist organizations

Noteworthy organizations that are atheistic or promote related freethinking inquiry include:

Atheist Alliance International American Atheists Brights movement Atheist Foundation of Australia American Humanist Association Ayn Rand Institute Camp Quest Center for Inquiry Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion Council for Secular Humanism Danish Atheist Society Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations Freedom From Religion Foundation

Internet Infidels International Humanist and Ethical Union Italian Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers National Secular Society The Objectivist Center Rationalist International Rational Response Squad Secular Coalition for America Secular Student Alliance Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science Society of the Godless

Many organizations that promote skepticism of paranormal claims have goals similar to those of freethought and atheistic organizations, but remain officially neutral on the existence of God. Examples include Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), The Skeptics Society, and the James Randi Educational Foundation.

In 2002, American Atheists organized the "Godless Americans March on Washington". It was broadcast on C-SPAN, which estimated attendance at 2,400.

Fear of atheism

This article need s a section on "Fear of atheism" to explain why do people fear atheism and in the past ages would go as far as burning atheists on the stake. In my humble opinion there are two main reasons
1. Religious people belive that in the afterlife they will be jugded for all their deeds during their mortal life, they may fear that atheists will be tempted by the prospect that they can escape punishment for their bad deeds if they are not caught during their life.
2. Religious organisations used all their powers to discredit atheism as something immoral and bad.

There's some stuff already on atheism being viewed as immoral (especially at Discrimination against atheists, which probably has more of what you are looking for?). It's just not described as a "fear" - are there sources for "fear of atheism"? Mdwh 10:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently I do not have any sources to support my claims but I am sure such sources could be found. And the belief that atheists are immoral is not the same as the belief that atheists "may actually" be more willing than religious people to commit serious crimes like murder, rape etc. (of course no serious researcher would publish such a statement). Mieciu K 10:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

the ICP argument

the ICP argument attempts to provide hamony between theism and atheism in other to justify its conclusion that Independence, Freedom and Justice inherent in the Human mind are realities for peace

1, theism is near atheism in its highest form, in the Christian concept of God, the human being is the representative of God, God is believed to exist in the thoughts, beliefs, and Actions of human beings; therefore a belief in God will be a belief solely in the human being who represents GOD.

2, atheism is near theism in its highest form, in the concept of no god, there are no evidence of god except for imagination of people , god exists only in thoughts of human beings (theist and atheist alike) ; therefore a belief solely in the human being will be a belief in god in the the Christian concept of god sense.

the ICP argument holds that the Human mind is the creator of form and therefore places thoughts and beliefs of human beings above the evidence of religion or science

what is the atheism point of view? (Motegole 10:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

• What does this have to do with improving the article on Atheism? Explain ICP all you want; without reliable sources, it's just original research. If you want to push your ideas, use an internet message board such as Philosophy Forums. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 10:54Z

Awkward sentences and citations needed

I realize it's probably not kosher to use comments in the way I just did, but according to SandyGeorgia's suggestion that we fix awkward prose, I read through the entire article and marked where I saw awkwardness.[3] I also added some "fact" templates after statements where I think we may be making questionable statements and could use more support. johnpseudo 18:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'll attempt to make clarifications and add citations wherever possible. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 18:52Z

Strong = positive = explicit/Weak = negative = implicit?

Are all of these terms synonyms? If so, we should make that clear, instead of offering only "positive" as a synonym for strong in the "Strong vs. Weak" section. johnpseudo 20:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• No. Strong = positive, and weak = negative. Those are the only synonyms. Implicit just means you haven't made an assertation. Explicit means you have. So you can assert that you're a weak atheist, or you can assert that you're a strong atheist. But, the only implicit atheists are weak atheists. Check out the diagram in the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 20:29Z
  • Ah, OK. Thanks for clearing that up for me. johnpseudo 20:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• If I conducted an opinion poll on the streets, asking people whether they believe in God's existence, how could I tell the implicit weak atheists and the explicit weak atheists apart? Both groups would reply no.—Editorius 13:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • We're trying to classify all possibilities - something that your poll couldn't do. As for implicit weak atheists, they would not say "no", but "meh" or "I don't care", or just ignore you, or any of the other possibilities besides saying "yes" or "no". — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 14:28Z

• By the way, I think that, for example, "deliberative (weak or strong) atheism" and "nondeliberative (weak) atheism" would be better phrases than "explicit (weak or strong) atheism" and "implicit (weak) atheism". A deliberative atheist has given the reasons for his being an atheist some thought.—Editorius 16:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand what you mean. Unfortunately, implicit/explicit is the more common usage. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 16:41Z

• Another point occurring to me is the following one: "implicit" can mean "having no doubts or reservations" (Merriam-Webster) / "having no doubts or reservations; unquestioning" (American Heritage). English is not my mother tongue, but couldn't "implicit atheism/atheist" easily be mistaken for "strong atheism/atheist"?—Editorius 19:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason that "implicit" is defined as "having no doubts or reservations" in addition to its standard definition of "implied though not directly expressed" is because it is generally unnecessary to "directly express" anything that nobody has any "doubts or reservations" over. I agree that the distinction is rather confusing, but if I were you I would rely on the standard definition. johnpseudo 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Distinctions section

Isn't it odd to have a section with only one subsection? I've always thought that if a section only has one subsection, the information presented in the subsection's title could have just as easily be presented in the section's title. It does seem to break things up neatly, though. Also, does the "association with a positive assertion" idea really have no place within the "distinctions" section? This is probably one of the most commonly-made distinctions out there. johnpseudo 15:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed the headers. As for "association with a positive assertion", that's really just explicit atheism. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 15:19Z
  • I disagree. For instance, if you were to ask a person, "Are you an atheist?" a common answer would be "I'm agnostic". That's not explicitly saying you're atheist. Instead, it's associating yourself with the assertion "The existence of God is unknowable," dodging the question of belief. johnpseudo 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If they dodge the question of belief, then they're practical atheists :) So what do you suggest? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 15:46Z
    • Agnosticism isn't a position on whether or not God exists, though. "Are you an atheist?" is a poor choice of question to ascertain someone's theological stance, because atheist means something different to everyone. A better question would be "Do you believe in any deities?" To this, an agnostic could either say "yes" (agnostic theism), "no" (explicit atheism), or "I don't know" (implicit atheism). Just because you consider the existence of God to be unknowable doesn't mean that you don't believe or disbelieve in that existence; physicists can be agnostic about string theory and yet still, privately, either believe or disbelieve in it, depending on how plausible they happen to find it. -Silence 15:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not concerned with determining someone's true theological stance- I'm simply concerned with how a non-theist might draw a distinction between their beliefs and "atheism" by calling themselves an "agnostic", a "humanist", or a "Bright", perhaps in response to atheism's lingering pejorative connotations. In that respect, although it's not strictly philosophical way of classifying definitions of atheism, it is certainly a method of distinction. None of this may be supported by those Berman books that were previously used as citations- I don't know. johnpseudo 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Third sentence

I agree with what Silence brought up about the third sentence. First, although the before-and-after dashes are technically correct, they look really ugly when combined with the commas and citations. Second, the length needs to be reduced for it to be easily readable. Perhaps we can move the three explanations of range, degree, and recognition out of that sentence. Or if we could cut the text of the explanations by 50% or so, I think that would help. johnpseudo 16:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. Different people have had different problems with all the suggested versions. It may be better to remove the lengthy in-line citation and just leave "range, degree, and recognition", or find better words than "range/degree/recognition" (although I think "recognition" is alright). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 16:43Z
  • Maybe we can work on it here. How's this: Definitions of atheism vary in their range of the concept of "theism", degree of belief, and extent to which the atheism must be affirmed. johnpseudo 17:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • How about: Definitions of atheism differ in the scope of rejection and the degree of belief and affirmation. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 17:11Z
      • I don't think "scope of rejection" refers clearly enough to what concept of god is being used, but I agree that the way I had it wasn't clear either. I think that shortening this sentence as we're doing is a good step, but it certainly leaves ambiguity that should be cleared up in a follow-on sentence. I don't think that follow-on sentence can be just a compilation of the removed sections in the existing sentence, though. johnpseudo 17:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me now. One last thing- is there any way we can make the connection from this sentence to the "distinctions" section more clear? johnpseudo 17:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • We could say "Demarcations exist between weak and strong atheism, and implicit and explicit atheism, for example. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 17:50Z

Lead section in general

If we could fix the lead section in the following ways, it would definitely have my vote for FAC:

1. Make it more available, with fewer words like 'entails', 'conceptions', 'pejorative', 'disparaging'
2. Make it flow more smoothly, giving the impression of having one broad idea instead of listing off a number of characteristics of atheism
3. Make it more related to the rest of the article, drawing the reader into the more detailed explanations below johnpseudo 18:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

How about, instead of entails, either requires or involves; and instead of pejorative, either negative or derogatory. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 18:25Z

• I don't think replacing entails with requires or involves would help, but I'm hesitant to suggest any structural change given the headaches we've gone through over the opening sentence. I think derogatory is an improvement. johnpseudo 18:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• I think the recent IP edit adding the sentence "Atheism has also been defined as the belief in the non-existence of God" underscores how this article has slipped into abstraction. The central purpose of this article is still to clarify what is meant by atheism - and that has to be done in the first sentence, not the third. I know...impossible, but it'd be nice. johnpseudo 19:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

How about something like this: "Atheism entails the absence of belief in a God or gods. This may be coupled with the conscious rejection of theistic beliefs, and with the belief in the nonexistence of God." If this was used, we could effectively get rid of the current 2nd sentence. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 20:01Z

I'd prefer the following formulation:

Atheism entails the lack of belief in the existence of God or other gods.

This is the fundamental necessary condition for being an atheist, applying both to non-reflective nonbelief (implicit weak atheism) and reflective rejection of belief (explicit weak & strong atheism).

Editorius 13:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think a distinction between atheism and nontheism is useful:

(a) Nontheism is the mere nonbelief in theism (monotheism or polytheism).

(b) Atheism is the rejection of theism (monotheism or polytheism).

It is important to take notice of the fact that rejection is not the same as denial. So explicit weak atheists do reject theism without denying it, i.e. without asserting or accepting its negation. Only the strong atheists both reject and deny theism.

The logician Graham Priest writes:

"[R]ejecting something is not the same as not believing it: it is much stronger."

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

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

Editorius 13:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference between nontheism and non-reflective nonbelief (= implicit weak atheism)? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-14 18:15Z

All implicit weak atheists are nontheists but not all nontheists are implicit weak atheists (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism). The set of atheists is a subset of the set of nontheists.—Editorius 11:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism and Buddhism again

I notice that the lumping together of Hinduism and Buddhism has crept back into the lead, as well as the use of sources that only talk about Buddhism and Jainism to refer to Hinduism. A citation that I added for a completely different purpose is now being used in the lead to make a point the opposite of what it intends. I have edited those sentences now to clarify these points again. Buddhism and Hinduism are different religions. Please do not use references about Buddhism to cite statements about Hinduism. The phrasing issue is that the sentence made the assertion that "Hinduism" had been considered atheistic, rather than saying that atheistic schools exist within Hinduism. The reference I provided was somehow being used to support a statement that it did not make. Buddhipriya 02:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitions from the 2 standard philosophical encyclopedias

It's clear that a lot of people with opinions about what they think "Atheism" ought to mean have been working on this article, and some of them are keen to broaden the defintion to include. However both the standard modern peer-reviewed philosophical encyclopedias are clear on this, and we should cite them, esp in the introduction, rather than an OR sythesis. Suggested POV departures from these definitions, if properly sourced from reliable sources, should be in the text. NBeale 13:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The wording of the "definition" (be mindful that Wikipedia is not meant to be a dictionary) has been discussed extensively (see considerable archives). It has been carefully written, reviewed and refined by a large body of dedicated Wikipedians. Please seek consensus on this talk page before making changes of this magnitude. -- Scjessey 13:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and it is certainly interesting to directly compare various encyclopedic definitions, but you need to be prepared to compromise and introduce changes step by step: this page has an extremely long and controversial history, and its comparative stability recently is an achievement in itself. dab (𒁳) 13:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

NBeale, we are just recognizing that there are definitions that those encyclopedias are leaving out; if we want to abide by them, fine, but then there will be definitions that we are leaving out too. I don't understand what the issue is here; isn't it better to look through as many reliable sources as possible and come to a conclusion, rather than narrowing our scope to a couple encyclopedias, and basing everything off those? It's clear that some of the greatest atheistic thinkers in the last 300 years disagree with what those encyclopedias say, (assuming that your sentence change actually encompasses what those encyclopedias say), including d'Holbach himself in 1772, so why not explain everything rather than appeal to the authority of 2 encyclopedias (if in fact your one sentence encompasses everything covered in those 2 encyclopedias)? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-14 18:05Z

Well for us to come up with a "definition" which is different from the standard reference works is classic WP:OR. It is not an appeal to authority to quote the standard philosophical definitions, but an appeal to the sources. We can note that some atheists want to broaden the defintion, but we must start with what the reliable sources actually say. I have now looked at the archived discussions in question and I'm afraid they rather illustrate the point. A previous editor (quite rightly) proposed pretty much these changes, and there was a massive discussion of the etymology of "Atheos", citations of obsolete works from 1907 and 1962, and arguments about how far one can strecth the meaning of "disbelief". All the modern authoritative reliable sources agree about this, and we should record this fact, whilst then noting other POVs NBeale

Please address all of these points one by one: 1) We are NOT "coming up with a definition", we are stating all the different possibilities without adhering to any specific one. 2) Your edit is very poorly worded; please don't reimplement it without at least discussing a better wording. 3) Your edit ridiculously oversimplifies the situation, making it seem as if any self-described "atheist" who doesn't positively assert nonexistence also believes that newborns are atheists (this is the most egregious error IMHO). 4) While I don't know your specific view, your edit has the appearance of being written by someone who calls themself an "agnostic" and does not want to be associated with atheism - either way, it has an obvious POV slant. 6) Your edit is weasely ("some atheists") 5) Why have you chosen to accept 2 general encyclopedias of philosophy and reject any more specified literature, including any literature written by self-described atheists over the last 300 years? 7) Your edit also exhibits POV by asserting that one definition is right, and that "some atheists want to broaden the definition", as you say. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 07:10Z

OK here goes:

1. "In the broadest sense, atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of God or other deities." This is a definition. It is also one which is explicitly rejected by both the standard modern philosophical encyclopedias, and this annexation of agnosticism into atheism is highly controversial - I cannot think of a single notable agnostic philosopher who accepts this, and even Dawkins doesn't agree with this in TGD.
2. By all means let's improve the wording, if we take the fundamental point. The first 2 sentences stick rigorously to the sources, which is best in any controversial area. The next 2 should perhaps read:"It contrasts with theism, and with agnosticism[5]. Some atheists extend their defintions of atheism to include anyone who does not believe in God."
3. This deals with point 3.
4. My own position is irrelevant. The point is that, as far as I know no-one who calls themselves an agnostic wants to be called an atheist. It is not a question of agnostics disliking atheists, they are just very clear that they are not atheists (see eg Anthony Kenny). That's why Huxley invented the word.

   No-one? johnpseudo 21:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

5. The best sources for philosophical definitions are the leading philosophical encyclopedias.

   The best part about wikipedia is that, in some ways, we can improve upon existing encyclopedias by being more comprehensive and up-to-date. johnpseudo 21:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

6. There is nothing weasely about "some atheists" - it is quite clear that some do and some don't (eg Dawkins)
7. I merely assert that it is "generally defined philosophically as" - I am not asserting that this is right.

Hope this assuages your conerns, and that we can go back to neutral reliable sources. NBeale 20:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Look at the defs collected in the archives - many reference books, including philo refs, include the broadest def - in fact more include it than do not. It is not just "some atheists extend"ing the def. You can assert differently all you want - but the evidence is not clear on which is the most accepted defintion & to assert one is most accepted is contentious & disruptive to this joint effort. Neither atheists nor agnostics get to have their self-definition be the "most accepted" one, just because they wish it to be so. --JimWae 06:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• just because Huxley invented a new term agnostic does not mean that suddenly the term atheist ha changed in meaning. I agree the intellectual landscape contrasting atheism & agnosticism is not dealt with adequately in the article yet - and the only section that comes close (epistemological atheism) is terribly written - probably the worst-written section of the article--JimWae 06:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As an editor who has been only slightly involved with the article, I preferred seeing inline references to WP:RS because they gave more transparency to the definition. It is probably true that the previous language was based on a careful examination of sources, but how is the reader able to work back to the WP:RS to form their own opinion? Those editors who have been heavily involved with the development of the summary statement may not realize how different the perception is of a general reader, who may look to the citations to form an opinion of the neutrality of the definition. My own experience with this article has demonstrated how citations have drifted from their original uses or been consolidated in ways that changed their meaning. I am referring here to the two occasions when it was necessary to untangle references on the Buddhism issue. I do not think there was any intent to misrepresent things, it is just that with complex ideas sometimes citing individual concepts one by one gives a better paper trail for verifiability. Buddhipriya 06:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• yes, the text of the cited definitions is essential to both readers and editors of this article & needs to be restored --JimWae 06:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Honderich and more

I find no discussion of Honderich in the archives, but note he is editor of The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (2005), which (from the archives) says: "Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods. Thus much Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist."--JimWae 18:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Is he the author & the editor of this? Should the ref be him or the "companion"? Given his controversial standing, is there any reason to include him rather than one of many others who define atheism as "denial of existence of deity"? "His" def is a deconstructive def and never makes a claim about how to define atheism --JimWae 18:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The defs in the archives should have their own page that can still be updated --JimWae 18:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The cited definitions used to appear in the footnotes, but are now gone. I'd prefer to actually present the defs, rather than expect the reader to hunt them all down --JimWae 18:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with you about quoting defs, but multiple people on FAC complained that such lengthy footnotes cluttered the edit window, and indicated inadequacies within the article. If you can find one statement that summarizes the various definitions, please re-add it to the footnotes, but keep it as short as possible. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-14 18:41Z

There's a tendency with every FAC campaign to change the article in response to nearly every mention of criticism. This happens regardless of whether or not there exists a policy or even a stylistic guideline on the matter. Comments on FAC pages get far more attention than comments on talk pages - then after the decision, the people involved in the article have to wrestle back some of the changes that were made. Which serves the READER more - having the cited texts or not? Yes, having cites within the text makes EDITING harder - but there are ways to ameliorate that too - with simple line breaks before and after each ref --JimWae 20:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

-- also, removing the cited defintions makes it HARDER for other editors to evaluate which refs properly belong with which of the 3 defs. I moved the britannica one, but without the texts I cannot tell if any others need to be moved unless I go get each book. These defs must appear somewhere easily acessible. Editors should not need to obtain and hunt through every book in the ref section of every article they edit --JimWae 22:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

-- The standard for changes should be what is in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria - not every criticism should result in a change in the article --JimWae 01:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Still... why include Honderich? --JimWae 20:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I am still seeing many discussions because people do not properly understand what entails means. implies is better understood. Of course, we will always have people who want to have the article begin with what atheism IS - maybe the impossibility of any such simple definition needs to be mentioned up-front in the lede --JimWae 20:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The only section that really deals with any contrasts between agnosticism & atheism is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Epistemological_arguments - wherein among several abstract, obscure, & downright incomprehensible statements -- we apparently can decipher a claim that Kant was NOT a theist --JimWae 21:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made a new subject below to discuss this topic - Talk:Atheism#Epistemological arguments. johnpseudo 21:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ted Honderich is the editor of The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, but the author of the entry atheism and agnosticism is George Mavrodes.—Editorius 23:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Bias: Evidentialist Epistemology

This is the reason people have trouble with the introduction (and various other parts of the article). These parts of the article are written assuming evidentialist epistemology is neutral, and not, say, contrasted with foundationalism (rationalism and empiricism are foundationalist theories).

Not everyone uses evidentialism, and so if you are explaining a point of view which relies on evidentialism without telling your reader, they will get confused and, depending on their convictions, try to argue that you have a made a mistake. This goes both ways, and shows why the common editors here also get confused. They too think that people like me--someone who isn't an evidentialist--for instance, have made a mistake in their thinking. The thing is that no one has made a mistake in their thinking. The mistake is being made in the article. I'm sure if I wrote the article I would have had just as hard a time figuring out what an evidentialist was complaining about as you have had figuring out what I'm complaining about. I would have been biased against evidentialism and told all the evidentialists they were trolls or making mistakes or whatever.

Here is the basic difference, as I understand it: A rationalist, for instance, uses a method of understanding which says that a hypothesis is invalid and should thus be presumed false if no evidence can possibly be produced. An evidentialist goes one step further and a hypothesis is invalid and should thus be presumed false if no evidence has ever been produced.

Where is the bias? Lack of belief, implicit/explicit belief, positive/negative atheism, all appeal to evidentialist justification of atheism. Evidentialism is a pervasive and necessary part of certain arguments and constructs of atheism (Notably, popular author Richard Dawkins uses evidentialist justification of atheism.)

Now, I don't understand all this that well, so it's, as they say "clear as mud." But I guarantee that this is the reason people complain about the article, and the reason is that the article fails to mention when it is making appeals to evidentialism, and when definitions and structure are being based on evidentialism. If you consider the conflict to be a result of competing epistemology then I am sure you'll be able to resolve the conflict in this article. The simple solution is to simply identify and provide context to statements which rely on evidentialist epistemology.--24.57.157.81 19:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• I understand the difference between the two, but I don't understand how "Lack of belief, implicit/explicit belief, positive/negative atheism" all appeal to evidentialism. Those are points of view, not rationale; people can have the same point of view but different rationale for that point of view; so, it's possible that there are evidentialists and rationalists who both hold the same point of view (eg, "There is no god", or "I have no belief in god", etc). Can you suggest any specific changes to illustrate the problem you are asserting, or at least list one or two statements in the article that you believe are problematic in this way? I really do want to help. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-14 20:09Z

Well, to a rationalist, a "lack of belief" is unreasonable (or, depending on the meaning, equivalent to agnosticism) and so defining atheism as a "lack of belief" is either unreasonable or a multiplication of entities. A rationalist takes the position the the existence of God is unknown, not presumed false. To an evidentialist, if the position is presumed false, due to lack of evidence, a lack of belief that the position is true is reasonable. To a rationalist, if the position is presumed unknown, a lack of belief that the position is true or false is reasonable. From the perspective of a rationalist, a lack of belief only that the position is (absolutely) true implies the belief that the position is (absolutely) false, which to a rationalist is dogmatic. Thus, defining atheism as a "lack of belief" looks, to a rationalist, to be unreasonable nonsense. The problem is not really specific statements, it is that evidentialist justification is presumed throughout the article to be neutral, and so the article is missing needed context. It is that more context should be added to the article, not necessarily that certain statements are biased. The article needs to be more distinguishing in order to prevent conflict which arises from evidentialist definitions of atheism (which are perfectly reasonable from an evidentialist point of view) and rationalists or other foundationalists defining atheism (which are perfectly reasonable from a foundationalist point of view). That's why I think the conflict exists, but frankly I do not know enough, in detail, about evidentialism (especially) or rationalism, to make specific requests for changes. I was hoping the evidentialists here could help out with that, seeing as they too I'm sure would like to resolve these ongoing conflicts in a neutral way, and that we could work together to identify parts where more context is needed.--24.57.157.81 20:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Regarding "A rationalist takes the position the the existence of God is unknown, not presumed false". - I presume you're objecting to our definition of atheism entailing the absence of belief in deities. If said rationalist believes that the existence of God is unknown, can we agree that they are absent the belief that God exists?
2. Regarding "From the perspective of a rationalist, a lack of belief only that the position is (absolutely) true implies the belief that the position is (absolutely) false, which to a rationalist is dogmatic." I disagree with this assertion, and I think this may be a misunderstanding of the concept of rationalism. Even from a rationalist perspective, someone who believes that something isn't "absolutely true" may have a variety of beliefs- from thinking it is mostly true to entirely false.
3. Regarding "The problem is not really specific statements, it is that evidentialist justification is presumed throughout the article to be neutral." If you can't cite any examples of how evidentialist justification is presumed to be neutral, we don't really have any place to start. Please provide at least one example. johnpseudo 21:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

1. They also have an absence of belief that God does not exist. Do atheists have an absence of belief that God does not exist? No. Clearly there is a difference. Rationalists are agnostic. Evidentialists are atheists.

   Weak atheists do have an absence of belief that God does not exist. Agnostics are a subset of weak atheists. johnpseudo 22:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

   According to the structure prescribed by skepticism and evidentialism, yes. A rational structure would be different. --24.57.157.81 22:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

   I suppose that under rationalism, the distinction between weak and strong atheism is meaningless. Is that the fact you want included? johnpseudo 23:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No. I want the distinction to be in context, within the context of evidentialism. Anything in the context of rationalism should also be noted as being within the context of rationalism. Currently the article does not distinguish between the two, and as a result is confusing for rationalist readers, and their objections cause conflict on the discussion pages. --24.57.157.81 23:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

1. We will have to agree to disagree then. That particular sentence was intended to elucidate on the previous two sentences. If you agree with the previous two sentences, you can simply ignore this sentence that you find objectionable.

   The previous two sentences are very reasonable. This sentence proposes something entirely different. Let me ask you this: From a rationalist point of view, how can doubt exist? You seem to imply that rationalists view anything other than absolute truth and absolute falsehood as unreasonable. Couldn't a rationalist recognize ambiguity and uncertainty about something as complex and vague as the existence of God? johnpseudo 22:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

   If you think it means something different entirely just ignore it like I said. I'll even take the sentence out if it is bothering you that much. And no, that's not what I meant, not what I proposed. --24.57.157.81 22:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

2. The entirety of the post you are replying to is intended as an example. I'm saying the context is missing, and describing why the context is important. Missing context is due to an assumption of neutrality, that the context--in this case evidentialism--is "common sense." That's what I'm saying. --24.57.157.81 22:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

   Ok, explain one thing in particular that could use context. Does this definition need context? Does the distinction section need context? If so, please explain how and why such context would help. johnpseudo 22:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

   No. Try to find the answers to your questions in my previous comments. I have no problem with you asking "Did you mean this?" or "Did you mean that?" But I feel I have already explained it to the best of my abilities. --24.57.157.81 22:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

   Well, I don't think the article requires any change to be inline with your comments. Is that what you mean? johnpseudo 22:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No. If you understood my comments well enough to come to that conclusion would you be asking so many questions? Or were you just criticizing my writing? Your tone seems extremely combative and I find that discouraging. My opinion: add context to distinguish between evidentialist and rationalist interpretations of justified belief and the ongoing conflict--especially with respect to the introduction--will be resolved. Currently, many people, unaware of the differences between evidentialism and rationalism, presume one or the other. As a result, the conflict is basically people arguing in favor of or against evidentialism and rationalism rather than respecting both points of view, because they do not realize the other point of view is different.--24.57.157.81 23:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I momentarily took you for an angry mastodon. I think I understand what you're suggesting and the reasoning for doing so now. Can you point out any specific places that need context outside of the definition and the Strong v. Weak section? I'm just trying to make sure that I understand the scope of the confusion regarding rationalism/evidentialism. If not, that's ok. johnpseudo 00:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well sometimes I am an angry mastadon, but that's usually because I think there a whole herd angry mastadons getting ready to charge me. The introduction I think needs more context. In the Distinctions section, implicit and explicit atheism only work within evidentialism. There's no such thing as implicit belief in rationalist epistemology as far as I can tell--no belief or disbelief is presupposed--so that issue needs to be dealt with. And other things like this sentence: "In order to avoid the persistent negative connotations of atheism, some have begun to clarify their atheism by professing beliefs with positive propositions such as secularism, empiricism, agnosticism (in the case of weak atheism), or the Brights movement." Within rationalist epistemology (again, as far as I can tell) propositions are neither positive nor negative so this is confusing. Basically anywhere it says "positive belief" or "unbelief" or that sort of thing needs to be checked, because I think these are issues only for evidentialists. Like I said before though, I'm not too sure because I'm not an expert in epistemology (obviously). You can also see my 01:40, 15 April 2007 reply below. --24.57.157.81 02:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this: "Atheism is the presumption or belief that God does not exist."

And then later: "Within evidentialist epistemology atheism is an a priori reasonably justified position. The presumption of God's non-existence is considered to be reasonable and justified based on lack of evidence. This is in contrast with foundationalist epistemologies in which disbelief, like belief, requires evidence for its justification."

I'm not sure foundationalism is exactly right here, especially since so many other epistemologies are considered foundationalist. Anyway, it's not perfect but at the least it may help illuminate what I am getting at.--24.57.157.81 01:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I like where you're going with the paragraph there, and I'm sure we can find a place to include that (though I'm not sure it belongs in the lead...Maybe in the header of the Rationale section), and we should also include the clarification I suggested above about how the weak vs. strong distinction is meaningless under rationalism and foundationalism.

I still think that your definition doesn't work. Because the definition of atheism is so varied, we've come to the realization that we'll need to play to the lowest-common-denominator- meaning that we cannot define atheism as a "presumption" or belief that God does not exist.

Perhaps something like this: "Atheism entails the absence of belief in the existence of God or other deities. This may be coupled with the conscious rejection of theistic beliefs, as well as the belief in the nonexistence of God. Under foundationalism and rationalism, absence of belief logically entails disbelief."?

I think writing the definition from an evidentialist perspective helps to play to the lowest common denominator: While "absence of belief" implies disbelief under rationalism/foundationalism, "disbelief" precludes weak atheism under evidentialism. Therein there is less incompatibility with all the epistemologies when we start from a evidentialist perspective. johnpseudo 02:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I will think about this and check out some other stuff and get back to you. In short I'd say that yes, technically, "absence of belief" seems to be the lowest common denominator, but I think people will interpret it differently even though the words are the same. I mean, how many times has someone come on the page and said the technically lowest common denominator was incorrect. All the time, so I think it's pretty clearly not sufficient, even if it might technically be true for both rationalists and evidentialists. I'll elaborate on this a bit when I get to writing a more comprehensive response to your comment. --24.57.157.81 04:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am first going to try a different route. Even if the writers are using a more evidentialist approach obviously they're not doing it knowingly, so if that's the case it must have got in some other way. Since I don't understand the subjects all that well, and neither do you guys, I'm going to try a different route before continuing down this one, and maybe, even if this is true, I can avoid it with a different route and it will work itself out as a result. Perhaps what I think the evidentialist bias is is in fact more a symptom of an error or bias somewhere else (and I do have an idea what that is, but I'm going to add it to another section since this one is getting pushed way up there). --24.57.157.81 18:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• There is no single definition of atheism. There is no point to revisiting this claim. Are you any relation to banned User:24.57.157.81? --JimWae 02:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No need to get snippy-> I think regardless of who this IP is, they are presenting a very valid concern. johnpseudo 02:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• It is not inappropriate to ask someone who wants to ignore all discussion about the impossibility of presenting a single definition, given the same IP address, if they are someone who has been banned for being disruptive. It is not inappropriate to draw the attention of other editors to that possibility when the discussion seems to have become dominated by a potentially banned user. The IPs suggestions are not productive - they are a rehash of old issues combined with imprecise jargon & obfuscation. No case has been made that foundationalism requires that "disbelief/nonbelief" be justified - the user himself has said perhaps it is not the right term --JimWae 03:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• On 2nd thought, I am not at all sure what the user is contending & may need to withdraw the last part above. Is it something like "skepticism cannot be the default position for everything, that universal skepticism itself makes no sense because it itself has a foundation"? It is unclear how that relates to the article. Surely, the article can cite reason for disbelief & even reasons for not believing - but there is no need to say giving such reasons is required - and certainly those who have not considered theism enough to form an opinion do not need to give reasons for not believing - though SOME MIGHT have some. I hope if the user is indeed the banned user, we have not played into his hands by disputing this - as, so far, there seems to be no firm statement to dispute. I have already spent far too much time & energy on this --JimWae 03:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This assertion "skepticism cannot be the default position for everything, that universal skepticism itself makes no sense because it itself has a foundation" is not an assertion I have made. I am not trying to argue in favour of anything (if you are remembering my previous comments, I was arguing against evidentialism and in favour of rationalism--and those arguing against me were arguing the opposite). I am trying to differentiate between various epistemelogical theories, as I believe readers (and editors) are having trouble understanding the article as a result of this hidden difference, and so are criticizing the article to the best of their abilities on the discussion page, not realizing that their arguments are based on two different epistemological theories and all they are in fact arguing about is which type of epistemology they prefer. Since it is complex, deep, and highly obscure, they just think the other guy "won't listen to reason." And they're both right, so the conflict will never be resolved because the conflict is misunderstood, it's not winnable. That's my theory.--24.57.157.81 04:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Epistemological arguments

I agree with JimWae that the Epistemological arguments section is poorly worded and unnecessarily opaque:

1. "In the agnosticism of immanence, the consciousness is considered as an absolute, and all human thought is locked within the subject"
2. "Skepticism, based on the ideas of Hume, asserts that certainty about anything is impossible, so one can never know the existence of God."

We really shouldn't have to rely as heavily on technical jargon as we do in this section. johnpseudo 21:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that sentence 1 does need to be reworked, but sentence 2 seems perfectly clear. I'll see what I can do... — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 07:25Z

Atheism is...

I am starting to think we really need to make some sort of rudimentary "is" statement regarding atheism, at the very beginning, even if it's as simple as "Atheism is a view that entails..." Silence made a good point that saying "Atheism is the absence of belief..." doesn't mean that "absence of belief" is necessary and sufficient to define atheism (just as saying "A dog is an animal with 4 legs" is a correct statement, but not sufficient to define a dog). I'm still a little unsure about that, though, so I'd rather stick with at least saying that "Atheism is a worldview"...

However, implicit weak atheism isn't really a view (I highly doubt babies can be said to hold worldviews). The only other thing I could think of using is "Atheism is a frame of mind that entails...". Does that seem too obscure too anyone? Any other suggestions? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 08:29Z

I would suggest "Atheism is a system of philosophical beliefs which entail the denial of the existence of a deity".--Orthologist 09:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Atheism is not a complex system of beliefs, it is much simpler.—Editorius 12:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't atheism deny any supernatural basis for the origin/events of the world? Even explanations that do not require a deity? bd2412 T 12:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If we want to use "is" instead of "entails", I'm afraid we have to distinguish between a narrow and a broad sense of "atheism":

Atheism is, broadly, the (mere) lack of belief in the existence of God or gods, and, narrowly, the rejection of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Editorius 12:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Three senses in fact - the problem here is that we're then back at the problem of having three definitions to try to lump into one opening statement. I do like the current approach, where we say what atheism implies at the least, and then say what it may also be coupled with. Mdwh 14:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a good point about "A dog is..." - however, I think for an opening statement in an encyclopedia, a reader is expecting a definition, and so would probably assume "is" to mean a two-way definition, as opposed to the one-way implication. I mean, whilst "A dog is an animal with four legs" is a correct statement in most contexts, I would be very unhappy to see an encyclopedia article start that way - if it did, my first objection would be "Well, what about a cat?" and insist on a more rigorous definition. Mdwh 14:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I disagree that "Atheism is X which entails..." is an improvement:

• Although we now have an "Atheism is" start, we've merely passed the buck onto whatever "X" is, which is only defined with what it entails.
• I think the main problem is perhaps that "entails" may seem a more complex start, but this sentence still has that word in.
• We get into problems like whether implicit weak atheism really is a view or frame of mind.
• It unnecessarily complicates the statement. If we can write the same statement with fewer words, that's what we should be doing, not the other way round. Mdwh 14:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If atheism is coupled with naturalism and secular humanism, as it is often the case, then we may speak of a 'belief package', i.e. a complex worldview. Atheism certainly implies the denial of any divine interventions in the natural course of events (since nonexistent gods can impossibly intervene in anything); but I don't think that atheism as such implies the denial of absolutely any supernatural beings ('spooky apparitions', souls of the dead, zombies etc.) or of absolutely any supernatural events not caused by some deity. Only atheism +naturalism rules out the possibility of there being or occurring anything supernatural. By the way, naturalism as the total rejection of the supernatural entails atheism (since gods are by definition supernatural beings), but atheism does not entail naturalism, even though it's just one small step from the former to the latter.—Editorius 12:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think "Atheism is a frame of mind that entails" is an improvement. I think the dog example oversimplifies things a bit, because the two definitions we're trying to rectify conflict much more than any two definitions of dog. It's almost impossible to state anything about atheism without running afoul of somebody's definition, but the way we have it right now does a fair job. I disagree with both Orthologist and Editorius:

1. Atheism is not necessarily a system of beliefs
2. Atheism does not necessitate the denial of the existence of deities - see the "evidentialist bias" explanation above.
3. Giving atheism only two definitions (narrow & broad) oversimplifies and misleads johnpseudo 14:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that atheism concerns a certain state of mind; so there's no need to add phrases like "frame of mind".

ad (1) I'm not claiming that atheim is a system of beliefs, but a reflective (i.e. explicit) atheist does believe something at least: that there are no good/convincing/rational reasons to accept theism. (And that's why she rejects theism.)

ad (2) But reflective (i.e. explicit) atheism necessitates the rejection of theism, not just the mere (accidental) nonbelief in it.

ad (3) I disagree. That there is a broad and a weak sense of atheism is the first thing the reader should learn in case we use "is" instead of "entails".

Editorius 14:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As I already suggested above, the whole shebang would get simpler if we took the category of implicit weak atheism (which appears hardly different from sheer religious indifference) out of the category of atheism and put it in the broader category of nontheism (then, of course, giving implicit weak atheism another name ); for then we could simply write:

Atheism is the rejection of theism, i.e. of the believe in the existence of God or other gods.

If what is called "implicit weak atheism" is no longer part of atheism, then all that remains are two types of atheism, both of which are explicit: weak & strong atheism. All explicit atheists reject theism.—Editorius 15:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

But it's not up to us to decide what can count as atheism, we have to go by how the term has been used. Mdwh 15:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As you probably know, the problem is that the term "atheism" hasn't been used uniformly. So if you want to wash your hands of the matter, you must not state any definition of the form "Atheism is ...". Anyway, I do think that the editors of an encyclopedia are allowed to make certain definitional decisions.—Editorius 16:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The absence of belief is the the one factor that is common between all the definitions, so we can state that as the minimal characteristic of atheism, and then explain the other distinctions. I think johnpseudo's latest change to the first two sentences is an improvement, although it might be reworded more concisely. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 16:13Z

If we want to use "is" instead of "entails", then the following twofold definition seems the best:

Atheism is, broadly, the (mere) lack of belief in the existence of God or other gods, and, narrowly, the (conscious) rejection of belief in the existence of God or other gods.

We can certainly comment on it in passages below, but I fail to see how this one could really be enhanced substantially as the initial statement.—Editorius 16:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could use another twofold quasi-definition:

Atheism is minimally/most broadly/in the broadest sense the mere lack of belief in the existence of God or other gods, and maximally/most narrowly/in the narrowest sense the assertion of the nonexistence of God or other gods.

Editorius 16:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the following formulation seems virtually perfect to me:

Atheism is in the broadest sense the mere lack of belief in the existence of God or other gods, and in the narrowest sense the assertion of the nonexistence of God or other gods.

Editorius 16:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We should immediately introduce the reader to the entire spectrum of definitions, and the easiest way to do this is to start broadly and introduce more narrow distinctions. I understand the problem with starting broadly- it implies that the broadest definition is the standard one. By introducing the clarification "at a minimum" even before the broad definition, maybe we can more straight-forwardly lead the reader into the all-important second sentence.

We can't use the dichotomy of maximum/minimum or most broad/least broad, because there are actually several distinctive dichotomies. Using this terminology implies either that there are only two definitions or that the distinction between the broad and narrow atheists is simply a matter of degree (how atheist are you?). johnpseudo 16:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

For some critics, a world-view approach can be very unappealing indeed, consider this passage from An Emotional Tirade Against Atheism by Jeffery Jay Lowder,“Zacharias next declares that atheism is a worldview (p. 17). However, as Christian philosopher Ronald Nash points out, "A well-rounded world-view includes what a person believes in at least five major topics: God, reality, knowledge, morality, and humankind."[3] Since atheism does not entail any beliefs about epistemology, ethics, or humankind, atheism is not a worldview (though it is an important part of many worldviews)." [4] -Modocc 16:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Johnpseudo, can't you see that the initial statement ought to be as simple and as straightforward as possible? It is not meant to contain its own detailed comment! By using the superlatives "broadest" and "narrowest", it is doubtless implied that there exists a range of senses of "atheism", with there being more than two. In this respect, there in fact are several coarse degrees of 'atheisthood', just as the adjectives "weak" and "strong" suggest, which allow variations: very weak, very strong.—Editorius 16:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It ought to be the simplest whilst still conveying the information. At the moment we cover all three definitions in a fairly concise manner, and I'd object dropping a definition ("the conscious rejection of theism") just to make it shorter. Mdwh 10:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion...

Regarding your suggestion of "Atheism is in the broadest sense the mere lack of belief in the existence of God or other gods, and in the narrowest sense the assertion of the nonexistence of God or other gods.":

Pros of adopting this construction:

1. It sets the broad and narrow definitions on the same level, avoiding any hint of POV.
2. It immediately introduces the primary ways in which the definition varies.

Cons:

1. It is very long for an opening sentence.
2. It has a couple grammar/wording problems: "God or other gods" (unclear to a non-Christian, and repeated), "Atheism is...the assertion" (Although I know what you mean, atheism isn't technically an assertion), "mere lack of belief in the existence of God" (possibly POV?)
3. It introduces a lot of ideas in one sentence instead of breaking it up into more easily-digestable portions.
4. I still don't like how the statement implies that the spectrum between broad and narrow is a continuous one: the differences are very discrete.

If we could fix some of the cons I would be more inclined to accept it. johnpseudo 17:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The 1st paragraph now ends with "It is the antithesis of theism, the belief in one or more gods." If this definition is OK, since no one has yet objected to it yet, then perhaps "Atheism is the antithesis of theism, the belief in one or more gods." should precede the first two sentences? Modocc 17:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case we would privilege strong atheism, because the antithesis of theism is the thesis that it is not the case that gods exists, i.e. that gods do not exist.—Editorius 18:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ad Johnpseudo:

How about the following:

In its broadest sense atheism consists in the mere lack of belief in the existence of gods, and in its narrowest sense in the assertion of the nonexistence of gods.

(Since God is a god, we don't need to mention him explicitly.)

or perhaps:

Broadly conceived, atheism consists in the mere lack of belief in the existence of gods, and, narrowly conceived, in the (outright) assertion of the nonexistence of gods.

Editorius 18:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Using just "gods" excludes monotheism.
2. "Consists in" is improper grammar. Why not just "is"?

In the broadest sense, atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods. In the narrowest sense, it requires an assertion of the nonexistence of all deities.

Would you prefer this over the current definition? If so, why? johnpseudo 18:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) To believe in the existence of gods is to believe in the existence of at least one god. "Xs exist" means "At least one X exists". To deny that gods exist is to reject both monotheism and polytheism.

(2) What's grammatically improper about "consists in"?!

[consists (in)]: be based on something: to be based on or defined by something

(http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861599747)

"to consist in" doesn't mean the same as "to consist of".

Let me remind you that you are the one who criticized me for using "is" in my formulation above.

Editorius 18:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

1. On one level, I see what you mean, but the difference between plural and singular as far as theism goes is more fundamental. To me, using the "belief in gods" implies belief in at least 2, not 1. The phrase "a God or gods" seems more popular anyway [5].
2. You're right. I apologize- 'consists in' is indeed proper grammar. However, using 'is' for the first clause makes the sentence more clear. What I meant initially was that saying that "atheism is an assertion" is wrong, but saying "atheism is the lack of belief..." is correct. johnpseudo 18:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) It may be the case that — to you — "belief in the existence of gods" means "belief in the existence of at least two gods". But to logic and semantics it means precisely "belief in the existence of at least one god" — that's a fact.

(2) In case "atheism is the assertion of ..." appears ill-formulated, "atheism consists in the assertion of ..." doesn't, does it?

(3) Either you write "belief in gods" or "belief in God or (other) gods"; but "belief in a god or gods" is redundant, i.e. the same thing said twice. And "belief in a God or gods" is not really grammatical, because the capitalized "God" is a proper noun; and the indefinite article is normally combined with common nouns such as "god", not with proper nouns.

Here's another proposal:

Atheism consists broadly in the lack of belief in the existence of God or other gods, and narrowly in the assertion of the nonexistence of God or other gods.

Editorius 19:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

1. The term "god" is somewhat of a homonym for the idea of god defined in terms of monotheism, and the idea of god defined in polytheism, and it can be distinguished by the use of capitalized G. I suspect this is why the phrase "a God or gods" is often used.
2. I concede that "consists in" is semantically correct. I still think it's unnecessarily awkward wording. johnpseudo 19:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"consists of" is not a jot more or less awkward than "entails". Anyway, we don't have to remain on the linguistic level of kindergarten English, do we?—Editorius 19:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, entails may be worse, but not by a lot. I still like "requires". And no, we don't need to cater to kindergarteners, but it'd be nice. johnpseudo 19:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't think that the phrasal verb "consist in" is, as you hold, awkward.—Editorius 23:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so we have a proposal: Should we replace this-

In the broadest sense, atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of God or other deities. Other definitions couple this absence of belief with the conscious rejection of theism, as well as the belief in the nonexistence of God.

With this?

Atheism consists broadly in the lack of belief in the existence of God or other gods, and narrowly in the assertion of the nonexistence of God or other gods.

I weakly oppose this change because I believe that, although the proposal evens the playing field on weak vs. strong atheism, it conveys the same information in more-difficult to understand terms. johnpseudo 00:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I would think that"consists" is better used for describing things with distinct attributes. My tea consists of H20 and dried leaves. But, although it can taste really good or really bad, it is difficult to express distinctions(although food experts have attempted to inform us). With respect to atheism, what is being defined by "consists" is unclear. Moreover, I also agree with Johnpseudo that the structure sets up competing stand-alone definitions that preclude give the appearance of precluding the coupling of the central idea or definition with other atheism definitions or atheistic doctrines, for instance the rather common atheism that rejects all supernatural phenomena. The current open-ended structure alludes to other definitions and is therefore more explicitly inclusive, both now and in the future.Modocc 02:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Modocc, you happened to overlook that "to consist in" and "to consist of" do not have the same meaning! I didn't write that "Atheism consists of ..." but that "Atheism consists in ...".—Editorius 09:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Johnpseudo, by "more-difficult to understand terms" you probably mean "consists in", which I don't consider a difficult term at all. If you like, we can use the good old "is" instead of "consists in"; but against this you objected that atheism wasn't "technically" an assertion. What does that mean exactly? The assertion of God's nonexistence is equivalent to the denial of God's existence.—Editorius 09:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"It contrasts with theism..."

User:Silence argues that this is too vague, since "contrasts" has several different definitions. I'm willing to consider this. What would be a good alternative? I suggested "It is the antithesis of theism", which is much less ambiguous, but "antithesis" is not an easy word, apparently. How about just "It is the opposite of theism"? Any other suggestions? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 18:17Z

The antithesis of a thesis is its negation. And the negation of "Gods exist" is "It is not the case that gods exist", i.e. "Gods do not exist". This is strong atheism!—Editorius 18:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to "antithesis" as well as "opposite". Strong atheism is not the "opposite" of theism, because opposite implies that everything not in one category would be in the other, and weak atheism is not the "antithesis" of theism (as Editorius explained). We need a better word. johnpseudo 18:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The opposite of "having a belief in god" (theism) is "not having a belief in god" (minimal atheism). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 18:51Z

Right. The opposite of theism is weak atheism. The antithesis of theism is strong atheism. By using either word, we would be limiting ourselves to one definition of atheism. johnpseudo 18:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

How about "it is in direct contradiction to theism"?--Orthologist 19:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that's not too bad. At least it's technically correct. johnpseudo 19:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Could that be shortened to "contradicts theism"? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 19:55Z

Contradicts is an assertion that the opposite is true. Therefore, entails strong atheism only. Opposite says less, for no assertion is needed. Modocc 20:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Someone's belief structure could only "contradict" theism if it asserted something. johnpseudo 21:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

johnpseudo, I am a strong atheist and I am "not having a belief in god" as Brian put it. Thus, from this statement, I gather that I too am in the category opposite of theism. Or am I mistaken? Modocc 20:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps opposite would work, but I think its meaning is ambiguous and open to the wrong interpretation. I could easily deem anti-theism to be the "opposite" of theism. But maybe what we gain in simple wording overcomes whatever problems there are with ambiguity. johnpseudo 21:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

To remove the ambiguity it would appear that we need to end the paragraph with something else that is not another "is" statement. Modocc 21:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the point of this sentence is not to remove ambiguity-> it's to mention theism. And although "opposite" can be misinterpreted, it's at least more specific than "contrasts with". johnpseudo 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Then I would make it the first sentence and not the last, in the paragraph. == But ==, it would mean making significant change in the prose, since a simple transposition is inadequate. Making the change, even if changing the prose is difficult, might satisfy a general "is", and any ambiguity is then resolved by the current content. Modocc 22:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Modocc 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We could easily define atheism in terms of theism by just saying at the beginning "Atheism is the opposite of theism"... but that seems wrong, considering that the term atheism came before the term theism, and theism was created to contrast with atheism. It seems like a circular definition. So the most we can do with that last sentence is just use it to mention theism. Maybe it would be better, in the etymology paragraph, to note that "atheism" came first, and that "theism" was created to contrast with "atheism".... Then we get to mention theism as well as add a little interesting history... Just an idea... — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-15 22:14Z

Our languages and ideas(and their absence) evolved together. It would be inaccurate to say otherwise, precedence is a false choice, for neither requires the other to exist. :-) Alternatively, they require each other to exist. The terms used are not as important as the ideas held and expressed.Modocc 22:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Other rationales for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical.

This sentence seems like it could use improvement. The "to the...to the" grammar seems informal. Also, this sentence presumably refers to the "rationale" section, but that section doesn't address these three topics explicitly. I suppose "social" would refer to the "Psychological, sociological and economical arguments" section, and "history" might refer to the Theodicean atheists bit, but that's a stretch. Can we find any sources for social or historical rationales for atheism? johnpseudo 23:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Couple?

RE:

Other definitions couple this absence of belief with the conscious rejection of theism,[3] as well as the belief in the nonexistence of God.[4][5][6] It is the opposite of theism, the belief in one or more gods.

Couple suggests 2 & we can end up with 3 necessary conditions - and it is not clear from this that 2 conditions may be added on, and that the result is that there are THREE major definitions proposed. "as well as" suggests the 2 conditions are to be taken as a single unit - which is not the intent

Other definitions add a conscious rejection of theism,[3][&another], and/or a denial of the existence of God.[5][6] (Remove 4th [Honderick] - as he really makes no claim of what a proper definition is, just mentions an ostensible condition that others use. It would be better to include only those who actually advocate it as the best definition). Atheism (by now the pronoun reference could be ambiguous) contrasts with theism, the belief in one or more gods.(Contrasts with is purposely imprecise, whereas opposite of appears precise - I think "the opposite of theism" is not really so clear, but gives the appearance of being so - IF it were clear, then we would be expressing a preference about which definition is "best".) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JimWae (talk • contribs) 03:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree with you about being imprecise with respect to "contrasts with". There are several definitions for atheism; not all of them can be said to be direct opposites to "having a belief in god". — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 13:07Z

I've changed "couple" to "combine". Your version uses "add", but at the expense of not saying what is being added to ("the absence of belief"). "Combine" lets you avoid this confusion. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 13:15Z

Range

RE:

With regard to range, atheism in the strictest sense is regarded as counter to all theism, including monotheism and polytheism. Such atheism entails no belief in the existence of a God or gods. In the broadest sense, atheism may be counter to all supernatural or transcendental phenomena, including spiritualism, animism, mysticism, magic, etc.

It is unclear here what "broadest sense" means - if those extra conditions ARE applied, it actually results in a narrowing (rather than a broadening) of who gets classified as an atheist. This is inconsistent with the way "broadest" is used in lede. --JimWae 04:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've attempted to clarify the wording, although I'm considering just removing the paragraph, as it's unsourced and not very informative. I think I originally added the paragraph, but the source has since been removed after all the shuffling around. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 13:43Z

New Opening Text:

I have been working the opening paragraphs of the article, and I'd like to recommend the current text be replaced with this:

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is the absence of belief in the existence of a god. The term originated from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), which can be translated as “without god” or “not god”. Today, the word is used vairety of senses including these two. Individuals who identify themselves as atheists use the term to denote a wide varriation of beliefs, ranging from a simple absence of belief in a god to the conscious rejection or denial of theism (belief in a god).

In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed to be irreligious or unspiritual. However, religious and spiritual belief systems such as forms of Buddhism that do not advocate belief in God or gods, have been described as atheistic. Although some atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism, rationalism, and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere. Despite these differences in belief and practice, many self-described atheists share common skeptical concerns regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Common rationale include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other rationales for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical.

If this revision is inacted, the following text would need to be worked into the body of the article:

In Ancient Greece term was applied to anyone thought to believe in false gods, no gods, or doctrines that stood in conflict with established religions. Polytheists deemed monotheistic views atheistic; early Christians, for example, were persecuted as atheists by authorities of the Roman Empire. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to describe themselves as "atheists" appeared in the 18th century; today, about 2.3% of the world population describe themselves as atheists.[7]

Any thoughts? Fixer1234 04:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all we do need to fix the confusion about the defintion which is endemic to this article. If you divide the (philosophical) world into theists, agnostics and atheists, all theists and all agnostics agree that atheism does not include agnosticism or simple lack of opinions on god (so called "weak atheism") but some atheists are (controversially) keen to extend the term atheism to include agnosticism and lack of opinion. The lead-in to this article expressly sides with this minority view, and is therefore both POV and distorting. Secondly I am very sceptical about the 2nd suggested para. For example: "early Christians were persecuted as atheists by the Roman empire" is fundamentally wrong, none of the earliest sources suggest this. NBeale 06:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to try to marginalize and neologize the opinion that agnosticism (as a statement about belief) is not to be lumped in with weak atheism; it remains true that some of the greatest thinkers agreed with this, and this opinion has been around since at least the 18th century. Saying "some atheists are controversially..." is ridiculous, unsourced, and marginalizes/neologizes that opinion. In philosophy, agnosticism was never a belief system; it has always been a statement about knowledge; from that, people have taken the unspoken middle step of saying "If I can't know it, I can't believe it" (this step is, as the Stanford Encyc. Phil. puts it, a form of "extreme empiricism"), and thus said that their belief system is "agnostic". However, this is equivalent to the definition of explicit weak atheism. It's fine for Agnosticism and Atheism to explain these overlapping definitions. What's not fine is to pretend that one definition is right and one is wrong, or that one is new/controversial/marginal when in fact it dates back hundreds of years and has been espoused by some of the greatest (albeit atheistic) thinkers. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 11:05Z

--First, the second paragraph (that is the text I noted would need to be reworked) is something I have no opinion about, other than that it seems extraneous to the introduction. (*Edit: However, the statement about christians is verified by the Stanford Encyclopeida of Phil: "As the Romans used the word, ‘atheist’ could be used to refer to theists of another religion, notably the Christians, and so merely to signify disbelief in their own mythical heroes.")

--Secondly, I agree that no form of agnosticism is a form of atheism. (And visa versa) I tried to reuse/rework the existing text, rather than start anew. So it is possible, I implied agnosticism was atheism without meaning to. What I wanted to convey is that there are: (1) atheists who reject the existence of any god and the possibility of god's existence, and believe they can do so; and there are (2) atheists who do not believe in a god (or any non-specific agnostic sense of a god) but do not believe they can disprove or reject the possibility that god exists (for whatever epistemological reasons). I know that statement isn't super clear, and as I reread my proposed edit, I can see that what I meant to say is not what I said. Do you find, however, that my intended point is correct? Fixer1234 07:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, agnosticism or simple lack of opinions would be implicit atheism (I'm an explicit weak atheist - I certainly have an opinion on the matter).

We avoided the problem you described by using the word "entails" - i.e., it was saying that all atheists have, at least, an absence of belief in God, without the possible POV problem of suggesting that anyone with an absence of God must be labelled an atheist. But now it's been changed, so we're back to that problem.

As for the proposed new opening, I think I prefer the current version:

• I think it's probably best to give the definitions before moving into the history of the word (is that really appropriate for the opening paragraph?)
• Similarly, when the definitions were used seems best left to later - and I'm not sure it's true that "atheism" originally meant an absence of belief in gods, and the other meanings only came in modern times?
• What "two" does "including these two" refer to?
• Atheism shouldn't be referred to as "beliefs".
• "denial of theism (belief in a god)." seems unclear - we should mention the strong atheist definition clearly here, something like "belief in the nonexistence of God". Mdwh 10:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(Edited formatting of Mdwh's for clearer reading - hope you don't mind) --h2g2bob 12:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I like the current version. There was lots of discussion above on how that should be phrased and the current version really hits the nail on the head by explaining fairly the multiple definitions. The definitions really must go in the very first paragraph. Discussion of etymology and further discussions can come later. --h2g2bob 12:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for Fixer's version. The current version is alright (although a couple words may need tweaking). I don't understand the need to go into detail about how the original atheos meant "without god" or "not god" (is there a source for this latter translation) and then say that those two definitions are still used (is this true? I haven't seen "atheism" defined as "not god"). I like how the current version explains the various definitions immediately, then ties atheos into the beginning of the history paragraph; this lets you segue right into the broad pejorative definition, then into how that definition narrowed to the current definition, then right into those who first self-identified as atheists, then right into the current demographic for self-identifiers. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 13:01Z

I'm interested in knowing what Silence thinks about the current definition. If this is to be a Featured Article we can't have people arguing about the lead paragraph, and that happened constantly with the previous definition using "disbelief". The technically accurate one with "entail" didn't satisfy some people either. Now, the current definition saying "in the broadest sense" is totally fine with me because I don't care about this ridiculous turf-war over the default position, but naturally theists who do care, will find this slightly favouring the broader definition. What can be done about this? --Merzul 16:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

NBeale's "Possible setbacks" paragraph

"Some commentators suggest that Atheism may have peaked in the latter part of the 20th Century. Alister McGrath in The Twilight of Atheism (2004) points out that since the collapse of the Berlin Wall the proportion of the world's population living under officially atheistic regimes has fallen to almost zero. The organisers of the Beyond Belief conference in 2006 observe that "Just 40 years after a famous TIME magazine cover asked "Is God Dead?" the answer appears to be a resounding "No!" According to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life in a recent issue of Foreign Policy magazine, "God is Winning". Religions are increasingly a geopolitical force to be reckoned with" and ask "Will faith and dogma trump rational inquiry, or will it be possible to reconcile religious and scientific worldviews?""

I believe this paragraph speaks for itself... NBeale has also tried multiple times to add this content to Alister McGrath and The Twilight of Atheism, an article which he also created. See related discussion at Talk:The Twilight of Atheism and Talk:Alister McGrath. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 15:45Z

Why not move all this stuff into Nicholas Beale#Science, Technology, Society and Religion, and then at least the rest of Wikipedia can be NPOV. --Merzul 15:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The insertion of this paragraph (or a version of it) into three articles is one of the clearest cases of inappropriate insertion of material into a WP article that I have ever come across. My objection boils down to two very simple points:

1. In the case of the two McGrath-related articles, as far as I can see, there is no explicit connection between the book and the conference, or between McGrath and the conference. It is “relevant” only in the loosest sense of being concerned with approximately the same subject. The explicit link is being made only by NBeale, and it is therefore blatant original research, consisting of a synthesis of unconnected material to promote a particular point of view.
2. The summary of the conference is in any case a gross distortion. The quote used is not a summary of the findings of the conference but an advance-publicity puff, designed to advertise the meeting by the use of “scare” tactics. A fair summary of what it says would not be “religion is winning” but something more like “watch out – if we’re not careful religion might win”!

Snalwibma 16:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Snalwibma; the quote taken from an ad for Beyond Belief lacks any context, and in no way summarizes the conference itself. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 16:07Z

POV Tag

We really need to reflect the facts that:

1. The widening of "atheism" to include "agnosticism" etc.. is not supported by the standard philosphical texts, and is opposed by (as far as I know) all theists and agnostics and some atheists
2. The modern history of atheism is not solely one of "modern advancement" - some critics of atheism suggest that it is in its twilight and at least some leading atheists express the alarm in the terms cited (I am not "misrepresenting" quoting their own signed statement on the "about" page of their website. I have no view on whether this statement represents the conference as a whole.

Deleting well-refed information because you don't like it to protect a specific POV is not what Wikipedia is about. NBeale 16:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding 1, as we've explained ad nauseum already, we are not widening anything. We are explaining the various definitions. You are narrowing by choosing one definition to be correct based on out-of-context sentences in a couple encyclopedias. Regarding 2, "modern advancement" is just the title of the section; that can easily be renamed. Do you have any suggestions? Regarding your last sentence, that is correct, but your latest addition is neither well-referenced, nor NPOV, nor well-written. Please stop re-adding this paragraph to the 3 articles mentioned above (this article included). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 16:16Z
• Just a comment on the "well-refed" notion. Even if something is supported by a pile of good references and is beautifully written, it should still be deleted if it is (a) irrelevant and (b) consists of POV-pushing original research. Snalwibma
• As said above 1) is an incredibly difficult issue, please discuss a solution constructively, so far, we have not been able to satisfy all parties. The stanford encyclopedia places much of the amibiguity into "theism" -- I quote "The word ‘theism’ exhibits family resemblance in another direction. For example should a pantheist call herself an atheist? Or again should belief in Plato's Form of the Good or in John Leslie's idea of God as an abstract principle that brings value into existence count as theism (Leslie 1979)? Let us consider pantheism." Regarding 2) Modern advancement is perhaps not the best section name, it used to be modern acceptance, what is implied is the usage of the term mainly. Criticism of atheism belongs to the criticism section. --Merzul 16:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brian, M., S.. To clarify: I am not suggesting that we hide the fact that some atheists expand the definition. But equally we should not hide the fact that the standard philosophical reference books do not. At present the reader of this article would have no idea that this was the case, and the REP is not even mentioned. I agree we should not take a POV on which is "correct" and I don't think my suggested edits did so. I'm glad that we agree that "modern advancement" is not the right title - let's think of a better one. The point I cite from McGrath & the BB people is not "criticism" of atheism (after all the BB people are as far as I know staunch atheists) it is simply the suggestion that "Just 40 years after a famous TIME magazine cover asked "Is God Dead?" the answer appears to be a resounding "No!" According to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life in a recent issue of Foreign Policy magazine, "God is Winning". Religions are increasingly a geopolitical force to be reckoned with." This is not about whether of not Atheism is true or good, but whether it is in fact on the rise, globally. NBeale 18:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how this is relevant to the article. It doesn't even seem like criticism, it's more like trivia or "atheism is popular culture". Of course God is not dead, even Nietzsche knew that "given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. And we—we still have to vanquish his shadow, too" Anyway, the entire problem here is that you want to use this trivia to argue against the idea that atheism is becoming more accepted. Instead, we either need attribute this implied conclusion that atheism is on the rise, or remove any such implication, but not by including even more problematic source abuse. --Merzul 18:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

NBeale: Can you explain why the Cambridge Companion to Atheism is not an acceptable source? It defines positive (strong) atheism and negative (weak) atheism in the same way we do. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 19:37Z

Hi Brian. Of course the CCA is an acceptable source about what some atheists think and should certainly be cited in support of this (contentious) wider defintion. However the point is that this particular POV within the "atheist community" is not shared by (a) other prominent atheists (such as Dawkins) (b) any agnostics that I know of (c) any theists that I know of. That is why in a mainstream encyclopedia that is not edited entirely by atheists we need to reflect that fact that this is one POV and who it is held by, and peer-reviewed Encyclopedias may note this sense but don't follow it. That's what WP:NPOV is about. NBeale 20:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

NBeale: The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry that you keep citing actually says: "As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Another meaning of ‘atheism’ is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. These two different meanings are sometimes characterized as positive atheism (belief in the nonexistence of God) and negative atheism (lack of belief in the existence of God)."[6] So, one of the "standard philosophical encyclopedias" you cite actually agrees with our explanation of the range of definitions. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 20:29Z

Hi Brian. Yes I have, in its entirety. And I think it supports my position exactly. Let me quote the relevant parts before and after the extract you cite. The article begins: Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief. Since many different gods have been objects of belief, one might be an atheist with respect to one god while believing in the existence of some other god. In the religions of the west – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – the dominant idea of God is of a purely spiritual, supernatural being who is the perfectly good, all-powerful, all-knowing creator of everything other than himself. As used in this entry, in the narrow sense of the term an atheist is anyone who disbelieves in the existence of this being, while in the broader sense an atheist is someone who denies the existence of any sort of divine reality... I omit 2 sentences about justification of Atheism which are not relevant to our debate here. Then there is the text you cite. It continues: Barring inconsistent beliefs, a positive atheist is also a negative atheist, but a negative atheist need not be a positive atheist. One advantage of using ‘atheism’ in these two different senses is that negative atheism, but not positive atheism, characterizes the position of the logical positivists, who hold that statements purportedly about God, including the statement ‘God does not exist’, are cognitively meaningless. If one holds that the statements ‘God exists’ and ‘God does not exist’ are cognitively meaningless, and therefore neither true nor false, one cannot consistently believe that it is true that God does not exist or that it is true that God does exist. So the logical positivist cannot espouse positive atheism, but can be characterized as espousing negative atheism. Nevertheless, since the common use of ‘atheism’ to mean disbelief in God is so thoroughly entrenched, we will follow it. We may use the term ‘non-theist’ to characterize the position of the negative atheist. So instead of saying that the logical positivist is a negative but not a positive atheist, we shall say that the logical positivist is a non-theist but not an atheist. I think we would do very well to follow the main points of this, though its also well worth noting that Agnostic philosophers (like Anthony Kenny expressly deny that they are atheists. NBeale 20:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So basically Routledge explains all the definitions, then adheres to one definition simply because it's the most commonly used definition. We're trying to avoid adhering to any definition, althought it's fine to say which one is the most commonly used. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 21:00Z

Well, William L. Rowe, who wrote this Routledge entry, prefers to use the term non-theist to describe logical positivism, but the impression I got from Britannica's entry on atheism is that they prefer the atheist for such people. On the other hand, the Britannica considers "practical atheism" to be a misleading term, because the position isn't ontological. --Merzul 21:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that something called "practical atheism" might be atheism based on an appeal to the epistemology of pragmatism. --24.57.157.81 22:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The section on practical atheism makes that connection. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 23:00Z

Recent history of Atheism

I think we need to find a way of reflecting the following historical points, which are of course not "criticisms of Atheism" and have no direct relevance on its truth or falsity, and are not the whole of the recent history, so we should by all means add other things as well:

1. "Time magazine spurred public debate 40 years ago with a startling question on its cover: "Is God Dead?" Some estimate that half the world's population was then nominally atheist. And many in the West were predicting that scientific progress would eliminate religious belief altogether by the next century {source eg Jane Leapmann review of The Twilight of Atheism).
2. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall the number of actively atheist regimes has reduced considerably, and it is estimated that about 2.8% of the world's population is now atheist (Source: Encyclopedia Britannica cited in article)
3. Some Christian commentators suggest that atheism is in decline especially since the fall of the Berlin Wall (source eg The Twilight of Atheism)
4. Some atheist commentator suggest that "Just 40 years after a famous TIME magazine cover asked "Is God Dead?" the answer appears to be a resounding "No!" According to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life in a recent issue of Foreign Policy magazine, "God is Winning". Religions are increasingly a geopolitical (source: signed statement calling the Beyond Belief conference) NB I am quite happy that we should make it clear that the authors very much regret this state of affairs or whatever - I am not taking a position on whether this "represents the conference" merely quoting the undoubted fact that they two organisers begin a signed statement explaining what the conference is about with these sentences.

What do people think? NBeale 21:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Do you have a reliable source(s) outside of Twilight for your 1st and 3rd points? Also, what does the Berlin Wall and Nazism have to do with atheism? Do you believe an atheist would make these statements? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 21:56Z

• Also, please be careful in fairly representing the leaflet used in point 4. What do they mean by religion becoming a geopolitical force? The next sentence says "Fundamentalist movements - some violent in the extreme - are growing. Science and religion are at odds in the classrooms and courtrooms. And a return to religious values is widely touted as an antidote to the alleged decline in public morality." So it seems they are talking about fundamentalism, and especially the last sentence seems to be about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. --Merzul 22:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brian. (a)Jane Leapmann in Christian Science Monitor hereAugust 03, 2004] (b) ref 6 of the article (^ a b Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Areas, Mid-2005. Encyclopædia Britannica (2005). Retrieved on 2007 April 15.) (c)(c) big subject! But I don't mention Naziism here, and McGrath's point is that almost all atheistic regimes were communist, and the fall of the wall is to the collapse of communism what the storming of the Bastille is to the French Revolution. You may think he's mistaken, but that's not the point(d) A devious politician with no respect for truth will say whatever it takes for him to gain and hold on to power (I'm a bit sceptical about the Stenger quote though, Stenger is no historian and there is no other source for this I can find on the web. But again this is irrelevant to the points under discussion). Hi Merzul: It's not our job to second-guess what people might mean by signed statements they post on the web calling major conferences. NBeale 05:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, to use that conference flyer as a source for anything is ridiculous. It is clearly an advertising puff, not a statement of any sort of conclusion about the "current state of play" or "the recent history of atheism". Snalwibma 06:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Second guess?? It's the next sentence in their statement! If we are going to quote people out of context, why don't we just write that Darwin thought evolution is "absurd to the highest degree", and be done with it. The current section already covers the issues of communist states in a fairly neutral way, I don't see how including this POV is improving the article. --Merzul 10:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

People proudly put up a signed statement a website devoted to their conference "Beyond Belief" and it's reduced to a "conference flyer" and "advertising puff". Well they quote sources, so we can instead cite this and the paper referred to Timothy Samuel Shah & Monica Toft, “Why God is Winning,” Foreign Policy, July/August 2006, pp. 38-43. The basic point is that people reading this article otherwise would have no idea that the history of atheism was anything other than one of smooth ascent. NBeale 14:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• First, he is talking mostly about the increasing influence that religions have in politics, not about a spread in belief. Second, even if it was about a spread in religion, it's not necessarily a spread in theism: he cites the spread of Buddhism as partial evidence that "God is Winning", ie that theism is spreading. Do you agree? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-17 14:21Z

Hi Brian. Yes he is talking primarily about politics (this is based on his Foreign Affairs piece). His thesis is "religion is booming in many countries and democracy has given religious leaders a growing political influence". So I suggest we say something like this, with the refs cited:

"Time magazine spurred public debate in 196X with the question on its cover: "Is God Dead?"[ref Time] Some estimate that half the world's population was then nominally atheist, and many in the West were predicting that scientific progress would eliminate religious belief altogether by the 21st century[ref:Leapmann]. However, since the fall of the Berlin Wall the number of actively atheist regimes has reduced considerably, and it is estimated that about 2.8% of the world's population is now atheist[ref:Enc. Brit.]. Some Christian commentators suggest that atheism is in decline[ref:McGrath], that religion is booming in many countries and democracy has given religious leaders a growing political influence[ref:Pew]."

We should then add a sentence or two about the atheist response to this - The Beyond Belief statement (not a conference flier BTW, it speaks of the conference in the past tense) could be a source for this ("is this the beginning of a new age of unreason?") but you or another Editor may well have better ideas. NBeale 18:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting better, but it is incredibly synthetic and against my vision of what Wikipedia is about, namely a "compendium of well-established knowledge": the idea of using sources like Magazines, book reviews, flyers, a Christian commentator (not historian of atheism) to string together a case like this is original research. There is certainly a grain of truth in what you want to put forward, but surely some historian has done this analysis and we can use it describe more accurately these setbacks. This is an original synthesis and perhaps suitable to describe McGrath's view, but for an outline of the history of 20th century atheism, we should draw on sources that are more explicitly about the topic, that at least attempt to be neutral, which can't be said about "The Twilight of Atheism". Surely, there are neutral histories of 20th century atheism to draw from. --Merzul 19:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Merzul. Well McGrath is Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford so he is an expert on the subject. Leapman's comments were expressly about McGrath's book, Pew was about the Time article that Leapman mentions and BB pull Time and Pugh together. So it's not WP:SYN. Also WP:NPOV does not mean only use "neutral" sources - there are no such things. So I think we should go with this plus 1-2 sentences that give an Atheist PoV on this. Any suggestions, from you or anyone else? What do people think? NBeale 21:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

2nd introductory sentence should be split

• • • Other definitions combine this absence of belief with the conscious rejection of theism,[3] as well as the belief in the nonexistence of God.

One can reject one god and have no opinion about another god(rejection is reserved). This sentence is also too long and seems to conglomerate together expressed rejections. I suggest splitting the sentence to something like:

Some Common definitions combine this absence of belief with the conscious rejection of God. Still other definitions object to the possibility of any gods. Modocc 16:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that something needs to be done; I'm not sure that 2 sentences repeatedly saying "some/other definitions..." is the best solution. Maybe change "as well as" to "or", or to "and/or"? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 16:50Z
  • I am not sure how to vary the prose either. The first sentence(of the split) proposed should be amended to "reject God or other gods"Modocc 16:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And/or is what we mean, but it's still awkward and misleading. The comma also is misleading, implying that the two subjects at the end are equivalent. johnpseudo 17:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • How about: "Other definitions combine this absence of belief with the conscious rejection of theism, which may be coupled with belief in the nonexistence of God." or something like that? That would be correct in every sense (either atheism is only absence of belief, or it's that plus conscious rejection, or it's the absence of belief plus the (necessarily-coupled) rejection of theism and belief in nonexistence). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 17:01Z
      • Still misleading. There's got to be an elegant solution. johnpseudo 17:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
        • What is misleading about it? Another suggestion: "Other definitions combine this absence of belief with belief in the nonexistence of God, or simply the conscious rejection of theism." This is shorter, and avoids the and/or confusion. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 17:06Z
          • Actually, I take that back. Is there such thing as implicit strong atheism? If not, the first sentence you suggested was great, Brian. johnpseudo 17:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
            • That shouldn't be possible. Strong atheism is a belief, a positive assertion. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 17:21Z
      • Not clear enough distinction. The clauses need to be a god(such as God), or any god. Modocc 17:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
        • However, the implication in Brian's first suggestion is lost that "coupling with belief in the nonbelief in God" results in another definition. The "or simply" part of the second suggestion might imply that the two are the same. johnpseudo 17:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
          • • How about changing it to "or simply with", so it's clear that the last criterion has to be combined with the first? So we'd have: "Other definitions combine this absence of belief with belief in the nonexistence of God, or simply with the conscious rejection of theism." — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 17:40Z
              • Looks good to me. johnpseudo 17:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • So what about "Other definitions combine this absence of belief with the conscious rejection of theism or go further, coupling conscious rejection with the belief in the nonexistence of God." I'm trying to avoid the sentence being construed to say: "Other definitions combine absence with conscious rejection. Conscious rejection may be coupled with belief in nonexistence, but no definitions require belief in nonexistence." johnpseudo 17:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
            • go further is confusing here, if one rejects all gods(theism) what is left to reject? Being more specific is not necessary. :) Modocc 17:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Consider,"Other definitions combine this absence of belief with the conscious rejection with the belief in the nonexistence of God or go further, coupling conscious rejection with disbelief of theism."- Modocc 17:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Err, I'm confused... first, "conscious rejection" is "disbelief of theism"; second, "belief in nonexistence" requires by definition "conscious rejection of theism". — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 17:49Z
              • Messed up with the editor and my connection is slow and I couldn't fix fast enough. :-))Modocc 17:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Maybe this is less confusing, "Other definitions combine this absence of belief with the conscious rejection of monotheism or go further, coupling this conscious rejection with disbelief in theism." Monotheism is a subset of theism. Modocc 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
                • Disbelief (aka "refusal to believe") in existence is not the same as belief in nonexistence, though. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 18:24Z
                  • Granted, I suppose we could SHOULD ignore "disbelief" in the lead, but somehow I doubt others will. Perhaps there is some way we can include it? BTW,I've other things to do and will soon disappear for a good while.Modocc 18:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

EMPHATIC SUPPORT for current lead paragraph. Which is:

• Atheism, in the broadest sense, is the absence of belief in the existence of a god.[1][2] Other definitions combine this absence of belief with belief in the nonexistence of God,[3][4] or simply with the conscious rejection of theism.[5] It is the opposite of theism, the belief in one or more gods.

• Good luck with the FAC. :-)! Modocc 20:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not done yet...

I agree with NBeale in a sense that we should at least specify, as other philosophical encyclopedias do, which definition is the most common. According to Routledge and the other philosophical works, belief in nonexistence is the most common definition. So, I suggest we reword it to reflect that. Possibly: "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is the absence of belief in the existence of a god.[1][2] The most common definition combines this absence of belief with belief in the nonexistence of God, while others simply assert the conscious rejection of theism." or maybe better: "Other definitions combine this absence of belief with the conscious rejection of theism; the most common definition adds belief in the nonexistence of God." Or maybe we don't need to do this in the lead section; maybe it can be explained in another section. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 20:36Z

I like the first one with a change: "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is the absence of belief in the existence of a god.[1][2] The most common definition combines this absence of belief with belief in the nonexistence of God, while others simply include a conscious rejection of theism.". I like this minor change because it avoids attributing an assertion of "the conscious rejection of theism" to a definition instead of the atheist. johnpseudo 20:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Just change OTHER to "The most common". I think that will work. Modocc 20:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Both doctrines are "common", thus I see no need to differentiate, between them.Modocc 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty important to give a perspective on things. Most disagreement with the definition lies in very small academic and atheist communities. The "most common" definition is actually very common. johnpseudo 21:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the "belief in nonexistence" definition is more common than "conscious rejection/disbelief" definition. The problem is that since different references give different definitions, it's not clear how we say that only one of these references decides which is the most common. The most I think we can say is that both of these two definitions seem more common than the "absence of belief" definition (so I would accept "The most common definitions combine..."), but even then, it's dubious. I think it's best and simplest to leave out judging which is more common, especially in the opening paragraph.

It's also not clear what "most common" means here. I'm not sure it's most common among atheists (do strong outnumber weak?). It's also not the most common definition given by references, since most seem to give both explicit definitions. Is it the most common among philosophers? It probably is most common among non-philosopher non-atheists - but I think this needs to be clarified in the article. And saying which definitions are common in which contexts is probably better off later on than in the lead. Mdwh 21:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree and my suggestion is not dubious. We should present the reader with our best effort! That means putting in relevant information where it is needed and when it is possible. Modocc 21:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

By dubious, I mean I'm not sure it's true, and this isn't the sort of thing that can be resolved by referring to a single reference, but needs some study of a large number of references or people. And if this is the most common definition amongst the general population, as opposed to amongst those who describe themselves as atheists, then I think that context needs stating. Also, earlier you said "Both doctrines are "common", thus I see no need to differentiate, between them.", have you changed your mind, or am I misunderstanding what you said earlier? Mdwh 22:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right and I do agree that we need adequate justification(s) and its hard sometimes to disentangle them. I've been on this computer far too long and I've got to go. Again good luck with the FAC.:-) Modocc 22:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

But yes, I am fine with "The most common definitions" for putting "absence of belief" into perspective. Mdwh 22:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's not clear how it's the most common definition. Without that information, maybe we should leave it out of the lead, if it's not possible to explain in few words. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 21:49Z

I think that the wording of Routledge (which we are using here) is actually quite clear. It's obviously not making a statement about the frequency of strong vs. weak atheists- it's making a statement about how common the definitions are. This means that, of the people who have some definition of atheism, the most common definition is strong atheism. johnpseudo 21:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We need to appease the doctrinaires too! Otherwise we will be accused of treason for giving the absence of belief too much weight! Modocc 21:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Modocc's change

Modocc's recent change to "The most common definitions combine this absence of belief with belief in the nonexistence of God, or simply with the conscious rejection of theism" implies that the simple conscious rejection of theism is one of the "most common definitions". Is that supported by the references? Routledge only goes so far as to say that "Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God." is the "commonly understood" definition. johnpseudo 22:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently, it is very bad, as said above, the only thing that is more or less certain is that "absence of belief" is the least common, but positive belief isn't more usual than "simply conscious rejection" -- I think Britannica defines it a "rejection of theist methaphysics" and then try to be more precise. --Merzul 22:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We definitely need more sources. However, the one source I'm aware of (Routledge) clearly does not include "simply conscious rejection" in its "commonly understood" definition. I don't think it's completely impossible that it's right, either. The majority of religious people I know understand atheism to be the belief that there is no god. The only people who have a real reason to split hairs are atheists. johnpseudo 22:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree we need more sources - do they cite their sources? E.g., have they performed surveys on what people most commonly use it to mean? Until we have more sources, I think we shouldn't be saying that one is more common. Even then, I think discussion of most common definitions is better discussed in more detail later on, as different definitions may be more common in different contexts (e.g., among self-identified atheists, or among philosophers, rather than among people in general). Mdwh 23:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Routledge says the most common definition is "disbelief [or, refusal to believe] in God". This isn't strong atheism, but explicit weak atheism. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 22:51Z

I think they are using disbelief in a more specific sense, as they do earlier in the passage: "Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief." (strong atheism). They explicitly state that they are adhering to the popular understanding- it's pretty safe to assume that they are referring to both the mini-definition of "disbelief" as well as the more-elaborated strong atheism definition that they start with. johnpseudo 23:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As someone asked before, this is why we shouldn't use the word "disbelief". — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 23:10Z

Atheism: A perceptual state is not philosophy

Here is what I think the error of the editors is. A "lack of belief" is not a philosophy, it is a perceptual state. It does not postulate anything, and all of philosophy is postulations about reality. So here atheism (and agnosticism, and some other related articles) are being treated as a category of perceptual states, rather than a category of postulations. If you define atheism as an "absence of belief" nothing is being postulated, no argument is needed. Then it is simply a category of a certain perceptual state.

Now, perhaps what the atheists that define it this way actually mean, in terms of their philosophy, is some sort of other postulation that isn't being referenced. I believe one of the only options is that it is based on evidentialism--evidentialism is a postulation--it asserts what is reasonable and what isn't--and it (as far as I know) entails this perceptual state. Regardless of the reason, I think that perhaps editors, in trying to accomodate all possible views, have modified atheism to being defined by a perceptual state rather than a postulation. If atheism is defined by a perceptual state is not a philosophy and so shouldn't be in the philosophy category. It is fine to talk about perceptual states and how one arrives at those perceptual states within the article (reasons for perceptual states) but the article must be defined in the form of a postulation, not a perceptual state.--24.57.157.81 19:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Weak atheism is a perceptual state. Strong atheism is a philosophy. The article simply must clearly state what all accepted definitions entail, regardless of it does that by using a postulation. johnpseudo 19:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "strong atheism" as in believing that God does not exist is true is a philosophy. "Weak atheism," as in "possessing the perceptual state of a lack of belief" is not a philosophy. Philosophies are not perceptual states, so we should not define the atheism in terms of a perceptual state. Just because someone uses a word to mean something else, in this case a perceptual state instead of a philosophy, does not mean they relatable on the same level, or even relatable at all. As for the definition of atheism as "the perceptual state of a lack of belief" this alone is not a philosophy. --24.57.157.81 19:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you say that "absence of theism" and "denial of theism" are not relatable? And if different people refer to them with the same word, then they assuredly belong in the same place on wikipedia, whether or not they are both philosophies. johnpseudo 19:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

They are not relatable on the same level. I see it as generalizing far too much. Just because the perceptual states are the same does not mean that the perceptual states were arrived at in the same way. How does one arrive at the perceptual state of "a lack of belief?" Why does anyone have a "lack of belief?" These are the questions people expect to be answered on a page about philosophy. They surely do not expect merely categorical divisions of perceptual states. They expect to learn why. And even if they were arrived at the same way it would not matter because atheism is a philosophy not a perceptual state. It is a categorical error to define atheism as being based upon a perceptual state. Atheism is based upon the postulation "God exists"--that's the reason "lack of belief" is discussed on the page, not the other way around.--24.57.157.81 19:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "atheism is a philosophy not a perceptual state": We've already established that this isn't true. Strong atheism is a philosophy. Weak atheism is a perceptual state. Regarding "These are the questions people expect to be answered on a page about philosophy": This is a page about the term 'atheism', not necessarily a page about philosophy. johnpseudo 20:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article is about a term. If the article is merely about a term then it should be in a dictionary. If the article is about a concept, then it should be in an encyclopedia. The subject of this concept is philosophy, clearly, as the "lack of belief" definition is based on the philosophy. The perceptual state "lack of belief" is subordinate to the philosophy, to the postulation on which this perceptual state is apparently based. Would a "lack of belief" definition even exist without the postulation "God exists?" No. I say that this is a page should be about the philosophy of atheism. The various perceptual states involved are trivial when it comes to philosophy, because they are not postulations. --24.57.157.81 20:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "subordinate to the philosophy"? Yes, the "lack of belief" definition is based on the philosophy of theism, but the perceptual states involved in the various definitions of atheism are not trivial.

Are you suggesting that we have two articles- "Atheism (philosophy)" and "Atheism (perceptual state)"? Surely the disambiguation page would have to detail how and why the two are different (no easy task absent the context given throughout the article). And besides this one difference in definition, the two concepts are entirely identical. Splitting the definitions of atheism into separate articles would cause far more harm than good. johnpseudo 20:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to put them in separate articles, but yes making sure a discussion of perceptual states is separate from a discussion of philosophy makes sense to me. Perceptual states are trivial within an article about a philosophy. The perceptual state is subordinate in that the state obviously requires some sort of interaction with the postulation, whereas the postulation, being a postualtion, does not require anything. That relationship of the state to the postulation should be discussed--clearly it exists. The postulation is the definitive concept, not the perceptual states which relate to it. --24.57.157.81 20:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out the skepticism article. It's not perfect but maybe you can see the differences there between treating skepticism as a perceptual state (an "absence of belief") and treating skepticism as an actual philosophy. --24.57.157.81 20:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We do discuss the "relationship of the state to the postulation": The postulation "a god exists" is mentioned several times in the first paragraph with relation to the various definitions of atheism. Again, the perceptual state is not trivial- distinguishing people who believe that they know there is no god and people who presume that there is no god is very important. What do you suggest we change? I agree that without the postulation "a god exists", there would be no atheism, but in what specific way do you feel the article is lacking? johnpseudo 21:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the primary definition is currently based on personal accounts of a perceptual state, not a postulation regarding reality. --24.57.157.81 21:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look at some of the discussions regarding the definition above, you'll see that every single one is a rewording of different perceptual states. It means "Atheism is term for a variety of perceptual states." This is a lot different than "Atheism is a term for a variety of postulations." --24.57.157.81 21:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We do indeed make the definition of the perceptual state of weak atheism in relation to a postulation: "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is the absence of belief in the existence of a god." You seem to want to define atheism in terms of strong atheism, which is part of a discussion we've had for a long time. The consensus for that discussion was that, because strong atheism precludes weak atheism, the definition of strong atheism cannot with any stylistic grace precede the definition of weak atheism. johnpseudo 22:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter what precludes anything. Where is the postulation? No postulation means no philosophy. If these articles are to be scholastic they are to respect their subject: philosophy. There is no such thing as strong and weak atheism in philosophy they are not different postulations, you've arranged them in terms of perceptual states which is not philosophy.--24.57.157.81 22:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The postulation is "a god exists", and it's right there: "the existence of a god". Do you need for it to have its own sentence? We're trying to make elegant prose, not conform strictly to the philosophical standards regarding postulational construction. The subject of this article is twofold: philosophy and perceptional states. Philosophy, as you've said, does not address the distinction between strong atheism and weak atheism. Here on this article, we must. Please make an explicit suggestion. johnpseudo 22:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"In general, atheism is the philosophy of the non-existence of God. The philosophy asserts that God does not exist; that theism is false. Arguments for atheism are usually arguments intended to contradict theism or theitical postulations with respect to God. Other arguments for the position are entailed from various other philosophies, especially within epistemology. Some atheists, however, define atheism as only a perceptual state derived from these philosophies, an absence of belief that God does not exist, not a philosophy unto itself." --24.57.157.81 22:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making a suggestion. A couple sections of this seem to include weasel words: Where can you find a citation for this form of definition (meaning one that says that atheism, in general, is a philosophy)? Also, "some atheists define" is inaccurate. The weak definition of atheism is widespread, even among academics and in published encyclopedias. This lead paragraph does more than define atheism from a philosophical point of view- it pushes the POV of the strong definition of atheism. The philosophical aspects of atheism are no more important than the social aspects(which constitute the bulk of the article), but no social aspects are mentioned here. johnpseudo 23:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what about "Atheism centers on the philosophy of the non-existence of God." or "Atheism centers on the proposition that God does not exist." For "some atheists define" you could change that to "Atheism is oftentimes defined as..." The social aspects would come in the next paragraph after the definition so I didn't include anything like that there. --24.57.157.81 23:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Centers on" doesn't define anything and is too vague to be useful. In what way does it center on the philosophy of the non-existence of God? "oftentimes" is also vague. I do like your original sentence "philosophy asserts that God does not exist". Perhaps we could replace "Other definitions combine this absence of belief with belief in the nonexistence of God," in the second sentence with "Other definitions combine this absence of belief with the postulation that no god exists," or "...the assertion that no god exists," or "...the philosophical proposition that no god exists,". johnpseudo 00:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, "centers on" is bit better than "broadly consists in" I'd say. I don't like using the word "combine" either, I don't think small changes to the current definition will help. Anyway, I have another idea for a definition to try that you might like better anyway, I'll put it down below (should be number 6). --24.57.157.81 00:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Atheism is the absence, critique, or denial of belief in the existence of a god."

This single sentence says everything the previous version of this intro said. Introducing a multitude of defintions will simply cause confusion. Exact defintions of “atheism” as they are used by various atheists are fleshed out later in the article. Lets keep the beginning simple and clear. Fixer1234 22:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity will cause even more confusion. There is no one accepted definition of atheism. Your definition would be "weak atheism," which is a minority POV that we should not push. johnpseudo 22:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes precisely, if we attempt to put all definitions in one sentence, then we are immediately supporting the POV that atheism encompasses all of them. So, let's go back, what was the problem with "disbelief" again, I remember people complaining, but what exactly was the problem with Silence's preferred version? --Merzul 22:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I see the problem with my current wording. I don't think, however, that we cannot give a suitable definition of Atheism in one sentance. The current version may say what needs to be said, but it does so in a clumsy and unclear manner. Those of you who have been working on this article for sometime now may not be able to see it, but as an outsider, I find the current wording less than perfect. I will think about this some more. Fixer1234 22:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well, let's brainstorm then... Let's just add lead-proposals without any discussion, and then we can see if something evolves. --Merzul 23:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Brainstorm

1. Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities. It is contrasted with theism, the belief in a God or gods. Atheism is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism. However, others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well. In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief (strong atheism) or the mere absence of belief (weak atheism).
2. Atheism entails, minimally, the absence of belief in the existence of any deities. It is contrasted with theism, the belief in a God or gods. Atheism is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism. However, others define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities (cf. nontheism), thereby designating all agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well. In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief (strong atheism) or the mere absence of belief (weak atheism).
3. Atheism is generally defined philosophically as "the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief." English dictionaries generally define it as "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God" It contrasts with theism, and with agnosticism. Some atheists extend their definitions of atheism to include anyone who does not have a belief in God.
4. Atheism, in the broadest sense, is the absence of belief in the existence of a god. Other definitions combine this absence of belief with belief in the nonexistence of God, or simply with the conscious rejection of theism.
5. Atheism centers on the proposition of theism, that a God or Gods exist, and the view that this proposition is false. Arguments which favor theism being false are usually arguments intended to contradict the proposition of theism or theological assertions which presume certain Gods exist. Other arguments for the position are entailed from various other philosophies, especially within epistemology. Atheists oftentimes define atheism not as a philosophy, but as only a perceptual state derived from these philosophies, and not solely a proposition in and of itself.
6. Atheism is defined two ways. It is defined as the belief that the proposition that a God or gods exists, theism, is false. As such an atheist would be a person who believes the proposition "God does not exist" is true. It is also defined as a category which encompasses various philosophies which either reasonably entail this proposition (such as logical positivism(?)) or, more broadly, entail a position of reasonable doubt that God does not exist (such as evidentialism(?)). From this broad categorical perspective an atheist would be defined as anyone in a state of disbelief with respect to theism.
7. Atheism, popularily, is defined as the belief that a God or gods do not exist. It is the belief that the proposition of theism is false. However, a movement to encourage the redevelopment of atheism as a sociopsychological schema in place of the philosophical definition defines atheism by the perceptual state of disbelief in theism, thus encompassing every person who is not a convinced theist.

Discussion

Any ideas? Is there hope for this? --Merzul 23:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please don't let this turn this into a poll/vote... — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 23:14Z
• No, most certainly not a poll! I hate polls! --Merzul 23:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  The idea is simply that perhaps watching some previous version might give someone the inspiration to write something that might satisfy all of us. --Merzul 23:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Can I put my definitions in the brainstorm part too or are you guys talkin about something else? --24.57.157.81 23:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, please do put it there! We are talking about how we should not decide on what to use, but currently all proposals would be very helpful, perhaps something can develop from the different ideas. We should later also discuss what the objections are to each proposal. --Merzul 23:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Can we start with objections to the current revision, so we will be moving in a positive direction? Feel free to add your own:

1. We need some impartial evidence of the frequency of use of the different definitions.
2. We should word the lead so that it reflects that frequency of use.
3. We should reduce the epistemological bias towards evidentialism. (24.57.157.81)
4. We should make the wording more clear. (Fixer1234) johnpseudo 00:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
5. We should remove the bias towards a non-pantheistic, cognitive (vs. Theological noncognitivism) view, and clarify whether or not atheism includes these views (pantheism or ignosticism). johnpseudo 02:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree - as someone who quite likes the current and recent versions, I see many of these new proposals severely lacking in comparison (e.g., some don't even address all three definitions). The first question I think is: What is wrong with the current version? I guess the main criticism is that starting off with the broadest definition could imply that it is more important or common. On this note, I randomly stumbled across the article Meat - a very different article of course, but I noticed it faces the same problem of multiple definitions which all need to be covered. It too starts off with the broadest definition, even though it isn't the common one.

I don't feel we need to state the frequency of use if it's not easy to do so reliably, especially not for a lead. Mdwh 02:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, topically speaking, my beef with the current definition isn't the frequency issues, my only concern is that people keep complaining, and this article can't be featured, if there is constant dispute about the very first sentence. Perhaps using the word "combines" is what gives a perceived prominence to lack of belief. --Merzul 09:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the primary reason people complain is because they feel that their definition isn't getting the weight it deserves. Adding some kind of frequency info. might help. And we don't need a survey to tell us that the strong atheism definition is the prevailing one- we just need a few authoritative sources that make the claim, which we may already have.johnpseudo 16:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

negatively biased website. positively biased website. I think that the reason we can't find neutral sources talking about this is because nobody wants to touch it with a ten-foot pole. However, these two websites, on opposite sides of the debate, both acknowledge that the strong definition (atheism is the belief that God does not exist) is the popular one. I think we should add the "most common" language back in, perhaps with a clarifier that the definition varies most widely from the "strong atheism" definition within the atheist community. johnpseudo 17:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that either of those are reliable sources though. Also, both of those are only talking about the usage of the "absence of belief" definition being uncommon (which I agree, is probably more uncommon). I don't think they address the "rejection of belief" definition, so that doesn't help us decide. And they don't seem to be talking about how common, they appear to be saying that the dictionary doesn't support that definition at all.

Just because they haven't found the right dictionaries, we have found sources supporting the rejection of belief definition, and even absence of belief.

I'm also wondering if part of the problem is that there's a difference between "most references define it as" and "what most people define it as", and the problem is that "most common definition" is ambiguous. I'd have a lot less problem with a statement that most people view atheism as the strong type (but this needs sources that refer to some kind of survey or something I feel), but I disagree that the "strong" definition is significantly more common in references than the rejection of belief, rather, both of these are common in comparison to absence of belief. I also feel that any statement about common usage should be balanced with a statement of what definitions are common among self-identified atheists. Mdwh 23:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree- I would suggest we include both that the strong definition is the most common usage and that that may not be the case among self-identified atheists. I think that it may be important enough to include this even with only second-hand sources because, although authoritative references are hard to come by, it seems to be something that almost everybody agrees upon. johnpseudo 00:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Meta-studies of atheist definitions?

Are there any good sources that have themselves compared and contrasted various definitions? I found at least two rather interesting web pages:

• http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm
• http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html -- linked from the above (and biased naturally)
• http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm -- very interesting, atheist source, upset about us redefining atheism.

We should ideally cite a source like this, and not rely too much on our own meta-study of available definitions. I wasn't able to find anything similar in slightly more reliable sources. --Merzul 23:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So can we agree that these support the notion that strong atheism is the most common definition, and that explicit weak atheism should not be included in the "most common definitions" category? I'm not saying these are enough support to add that back in, just asking if people agree with my understanding. johnpseudo 00:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The infidels.org surely doesn't support this notion, rather it supports the opposite?

The evilbible.com one just argues against the "lack of belief" definition, and says nothing about "conscious rejection of belief".

Even if we had conclusive sources, I disagree with simply stating it is most common, without the context. For example, the religioustolerance.org link states it's the most common among the public (and only the North American public come to that - what about the rest of the world?), but then states "Most Atheists simply have no belief about deity. For them, Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief."

Plus I'm not sure any of these are reliable sources (except for the dictionaries etc cited in turn). Mdwh 02:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Those with access to the Encyclopeida Britannica may find its article helpful, as it “compares and contrastes various definitions” of the word. The article begins by defining atheisem: “in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.” But quickly notes: “The dialectic of the argument between forms of belief and unbelief raises questions concerning the most perspicuous delineation, or characterization, of atheism, agnosticism, and theism. It is necessary not only to probe the warrant for atheism but also carefully to consider what is the most adequate definition of atheism. This article will start with what have been some widely accepted, but still in various ways mistaken or misleading, definitions of atheism and move to more adequate formulations that better capture the full range of atheist thought and more clearly separate unbelief from belief and atheism from agnosticism. In the course of this delineation the section also will consider key arguments for and against atheism.” "atheism." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 16 Apr. 2007 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109479>. Fixer1234 02:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Kai Neilsen (EB contributor for atheism) writes interesting philosophy articles - but is not a good model for a NPOV encyclopedia article --JimWae 02:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• In the archives, more definitions of atheism include weak atheism than exclude it. There is not enough data to clearly decide which definition is "the more/most common". Even if there were a way to decide, it is still unnecessary to do so in the lead. Given the incomplete data, any attempt to have wikipedia say which is most common will appear to be POV -- and will just lead to continued dispute & reversions. Conceivably the body of the article could report who says which is most common - but doing it in that manner is less "interesting" - likely because it is not undermining other definitions as soon as they are presented --JimWae 02:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dan Barker: "There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god -- both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter..."

I think he'd count as a rather authoritative source, at least for popular usage. Actually you could probably just quote this in the article.--24.57.157.81 04:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

General reply.... Yes, the sources I sited would not count as reliable enough to resolve so controversial a debate as we have here, but they offer secondary level analysis, in particular, the religious tolerance entry, maintained by American Atheists, I think, is a reasonable source for the claim that there is no consensus on how to define atheism, but we already know that! :) --Merzul 09:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It is the "news feed" (i.e. the news page on that site) which is maintained by American Atheists, not the whole site. I'd also like you to read the American Atheists definition:

"Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."[7]

The first philosophy they include is called naturalism and they tack materialism on to it. They also state atheism is a doctrine. Doctrines are belief systems, and I am certain, based on the definition you use, you would disagree that atheism is a belief system. That thought is a function of matter is a philosophy called monism (compare with dualism). The view that there is nothing which transcends nature is metaphysical naturalism. "Humankind is on its own" barely implies the belief that God does not exist (even then this could include Deism, which has the same philosophy)

Do we include their definition of atheism too? It's very very different. They don't even explicitly mention the existence of God. Their definition is at least a philosophy, however.--24.57.157.81 02:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is the fact that the first christians in Rome were called atheists forbidden in Wiki?

I had even a link Limboot 04:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not forbidden it's already in both the introduction and the history section.

I've seen it suggested in some articles about Atheism that early Christians were called atheists during the Roman Empire. It may well have happened some time between 150 and 373. But I'm moderately familiar with the sources on this, and certainly the earliest sources do not do so, so before asserting it as a fact we should find a reliable primary source - otherwise we should say "X suggests that ..." And of course people in 150-200 were no more "the first Christians" than people in 1937-1987 were "the first US Citizens" NBeale 06:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude?

Shouldn't the first paragraph also mention most if not all atheist don't believe in non monotheistic/polytheistic religions such as Taoism Buddhism etc... Manic Hispanic 05:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

— BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-17 12:57Z

I think that's probably true of people who call themselves atheists, but some would say that that's false just based on the definition of atheism. What you are really saying is that most if not all atheists are irreligious, and that depends on the definition of atheism you're using, since some would say Taoism, for instance, is by definition an atheist religion. --24.57.157.81 14:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

References.... abandoning Harvard ref templates?

What is the real benefit from this rocket-science reference system?

1. Is currently inconsistent as not all the references are going through the Harvard refs.
2. Many refs have been removed, but their corresponding harvard ref node things is still there causing a large number of non-functional link-backs.
3. How many of the references actually benefit from this? It's Baggini, Martin, Smith, essentially...
4. The page loading and saving time is very slow, it must be due to this ref system.

How about just avoiding the linked harvard refs, there is really little benefit in that little up and down jump especially when at the bottom of the page you don't always land at the right place, so the benefit of this entire thing is minimal compared to Second Seminole War. --Merzul 11:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• I count 58 occurrences of {{ref, 92 of {{note, and 91 of {{cite, totalling 241 of those templates in the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-17 12:53Z

This whole ref-thing is what's annoying me the most actually. Are we going to stick with this system? If yes, then I would like to delete all those 92-58 unmatched note-tags. If no, and people are fine with simplifying this, then I would like to remove this rocket science system once and for all, meaning giving direct refs to sources that are used only once, and use non-linked harvard refs, for the others. Then, all the sources that are not used, will be moved to a further reading section (if they merit inclusion as such). I would prefer the latter solution, is anyone strongly in favour of the current system? --Merzul 15:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I must be blind, seems Brian0918 is already working on this... --Merzul 15:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it that there are 58 {{refs but 92 {{notes? Are there a lot of note labels that point nowhere? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-19 16:34Z

Now there are 39 {{ref, 38 {{note, and 83 {{cite. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-19 17:11Z

Wow, you have already moved most of the single refs inline. The old system has a very high maintenance overhead, e.g. when someone remove a {{ref then a dangling {{note remains below. Also, I see little need for these backlinks (even for normal refs, the browsers back function is easier than hitting the right letter). I'm glad you are cleaning this up, but I wonder what to do with those sources, such as Baggini's, who has many refs to different pages. One option is like Charles Darwin, another option is the simple plain text Harvard ref. The important thing is the consistency. --Merzul 17:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The 20th Century

The more I read it, the less I like this section. It does little to summarize atheist thought in the 20th century, and is more a tangential discussion about the negative associations of the word "atheism" and how atheists have reacted to this. I'm rewriting it at Talk:Atheism/20th century. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-17 17:52Z

Gosh. I like some of your re-write but it does need a bit of adjusting! Apparently Atheism "paralleled the advancement of applied scientific knowledge and increased reliance on science and technology" so naturally the most techologically advanced countries like the USA and the UK were the most atheistic and backward countries like Russia and China remained bastions of religion: South Korea became wholly atheistic whilst there was a major Christian revival in North Korea so that it became the largest religion, etc...? :-) I think if we merge your material with what we were discussing above we could get something that represented both major POVs - I'll have a go. NBeale 21:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I referred to practical atheism in that reference, not strong atheism. The number of believers in the scientific community is at an all time low due to this practical atheism of the 20th century. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-17 22:53Z

Interestingly not. Although the 1998 numbers for NAS members were at an all time low belief amongst US scientists was slightly up from 1937. But the basic point, that there is no simple correlation between the "advancement of scientfic knowledge" and atheism, remains, and the current "20th C History" is a very 1960s view. I've had a go at fixing this but will engage on your talk page (which I don't think was there last time??) with what I think the text should be. NBeale 06:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What's your source for the 1937 statement? Do you also have a source for the statement against correlating the methodological naturalism that (naturally) came with the advancement of science and the spread of practical atheism? The source I cited says this [8]. What is your source? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 11:03Z

One problem with telling the story of the 20th-century story is that we have (a) a point at which "half the world's population was nominally atheist" - i.e. living in officially atheist regimes - and then (b) a recent survey which finds that 3% (or 2.8%, or 11.9%, or whatever) of people self-identify as atheists. Earlier versions of this section of the article seemed to be presenting this as evidence that atheism is vanishing fast. Of course it's nothing of the sort, as the two figures describe very different things. And I am pleased to see that the current version (this one) does not make this specious comparison - but it's something the article must be wary of. Just a thought... Snalwibma 06:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made some rearrangements with NBeale's text, and used the original TIME Magazine for the source (instead of some random book review). Overall it's a positive addition, as it extends the history beyond 1989. I removed the bit about "many countries", since we don't want to be weasely. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 14:14Z

This is fairly NPOV, but I still don't like the idea of "extending history beyond 1989". Just as we ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, we shouldn't cite various facts from magazines, and create a historical narrative based on that. I'm currently looking for sources explicitly about "the history of atheism in the 20th century"; surely there has to be sources directly about it. I do believe there can be neutral sources for this. Even McGrath, when his article is accepted for a journal like Religious Studies is reasonably neutral, but of course he isn't trying to be neutral in a popular apologetic work like "The Twilight of Atheism". --Merzul 09:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at a few source, very few ([9], [10]), I think Peter L. Berger is giving quite an adequate description of the situation here, namely, the secularization thesis is faulty, and sociologists seem to agree that with the exception of Western Europe and a subsection of the US intelligentsia, the role of religion is increasing, or at least religion isn't losing its significance. However, these authors do not relate this to the state atheism of Soviet Russia or the collapse of the Berlin Wall. That's Wikipedia's own conclusion -- or is it McGrath's conclusion? Not clear from the article currently. --Merzul 10:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Atheism (again!)

Returning to the definition of atheism (first two sentences of the article), which I notice has already been discussed extensively above:
"Atheism, in the broadest sense, is the absence of belief in the existence of a god.[1][2] Other definitions combine this absence of belief with belief in the nonexistence of God,[3][4] or simply with the conscious rejection of theism."
Hopefully no argument is required with respect to the following fact: the definition of words is determined by their usage, and not by the contents of dictionaries (good dictionary writers determine definitions by examining usage, originally in printed media, and in more modern times, in popular media in general). I can certainly understand that the writer of an article would like to have, if possible, definitions of terms that are logical and consistent, as opposed to using definitions based on usage which may very well be inconsistent. The problem with the current definition(s) of atheism as they appear in the first two sentences is that if examined only slightly more closely, the definitions rapidly become circular, which is (of course) inconsistent. Having said all that, I tend to favor a definition based on usage, which would generally (I believe) equate atheism with being non-religious (this has already been commented on). Or perhaps a third sentence could be added to the first paragraph, something like "In popular usage, atheism is equated with being non-religious" (thus retaining the scholarly-sounding but unfortunately inconsisent circular definitions that are already there, but then also stating something factual).
Jtrbnsn 18:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In what way is the current definition circular? johnpseudo 19:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Briefly, because it is equivalent to saying (using the atheistic definition of God, which is the origin of the circularity) that atheism is the lack of belief in something that doesn't exist (weak version), or the belief in the non-existence of something that doesn't exist (strong version).Jtrbnsn 19:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What is your source for this "atheistic definition of God"? Weak atheism certainly doesn't define God that way. Implicit atheism is without definitions. And strong atheism doesn't define God as nonexistent, but rather, provides arguments for the nonexistence of God, and subsequently asserts the validity of those arguments. Very different. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-17 20:10Z

First of all, the definition is not an "atheistic" definition. The definition doesn't presume any beliefs in the reader. Second, the definition of God is external to this article- atheism's relation to theism is independent of how God is defined. And finally, just because a person doesn't think something exists doesn't mean they cannot conceive of it or define it! johnpseudo 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well let me try again, and to keep things a bit simpler let's stick with strong atheism, which I believe (?) is defined as "belief in the non-existence of God". In order for this phrase to actually mean something, "God" has to have a meaning, to refer to something. If it refers to something that doesn't exist, the phrase is meaningless (it is a tautology). If it refers to something that does exist (for example, although people might argue whether it is a proper definition of "God", if one accepts the pantheistic view that God is in some sense the totality of existence, then some might agree that this is something that does exist), then the phrase is by definition false. It seems that in order to define strong atheism in a way so that the definition actually has some meaning, one has to presuppose that strong atheism is false. These are the kinds of things I had in mind when I referred to circularity. These word games are (of course) not new (they are very old), and to be honest I am now quite sorry I mentioned it. The only point I wish to make here is that the first paragraph could possibly be improved by adding the definition of atheism as determined by its popular usage. In fact I noticed something of the sort above in the section titled "New Opening Text:", and I think something along these lines could possibly result in an improvement to the article.

Jtrbnsn 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me narrow this down to our disagreement: you state that "If ("belief in the non-existence of God") refers to something that doesn't exist, the phrase is meaningless (it is a tautology)." But that's wrong. The definition makes sense whether or not God exists. Take the two examples:

1. To someone who does believe in God, strong atheism would mean the belief that the God that they worship does not exist.
2. To someone who does not believe in God, strong atheism would mean the belief that the God that #1 worships does not exist.

What makes this a tautology? Nothing is being repeated. What makes this circular? A circular definition would be something like "atheism is the belief in "X", X being the belief that atheists have." johnpseudo 23:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What if there is a #3 that worships a different God from #1. Does #2 also not believe the God that #3 worships does not exist?--24.57.157.81 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Words only have meaning, if the things they refer to actually exist? Does this mean that words like "Unicorn" and "Hobbit" are also meaningless? Of course not. Mdwh 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe Jtrbnsn is using the propositional definition of atheism and all -isms, as I do. From that perspective someone who is being ignostic with respect to the proposition "God exists" can neither be an atheist nor a theist, since the concept of "God" is considered incoherent (since propositional theism and propositional atheism involve a definitive statement regarding the concept). Similarily, a pantheist is neither a theist nor an atheist, since the proposition of pantheism is not that God exists, but that the universe exists, and that the universe is God. The universe obviously exists, so the issue is whether or not the universe is God.--24.57.157.81 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The SEP is a good resource for anyone that wants to look it up: Pantheism. Obviously it's a lot more complicated, since, it still involves a God, so really it kind of is theism if you mean theism as a category of God beliefs, but it does distinguish pantheism from both theism and atheism.--24.57.157.81 01:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I suppose our definition is also biased towards a non-pantheistic, cognitive (vs. Theological noncognitivism) view. We can go ahead and add these two POV bias complaints to the list for further brainstorming. We should eventually remedy these biases, but they have to be recognized as marginal views- fixing this has to take a lower priority than making the definition clear to the vast majority of cognitivist, non-pantheistic readers. johnpseudo 02:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue is a symptom of the problem with the definition. It's not really bias, it's a perceived logical error entailed from the problem with the definition. If you try to counteract the "bias" you are only counteracting the symptoms of the real problem.--24.57.157.81 22:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? What is this "logical error" you speak of? johnpseudo 22:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You should actually read Jtrbnsn's posts before asking this question. He makes quite clear that he thinks there is an error, a logical error, and that that type of error is circularity, that the definition is tautological. He posted his comments under the heading "Definition of atheism." When I opine on his concerns I decide what I believe the issue is and so I decide what I think the solution is. If you think his issue is something else, you are welcome to put it on the table. I'm not going to get drawn into an argument regarding what is logical and what is not logical because a) I did not claim it was, I claimed it was percevied that way and b) because that obviously depends on the definition. My opinion is that your suggestion to reduce non-pantheist bias was intended to treat a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. Got it?--24.57.157.81 23:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems to me that his perception of a logical error is due to the bias the definition has towards cognitivist and non-pantheistic views. That perception is a symptom of this bias- the real problem. Or what do you suggest is the real problem? johnpseudo 23:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that way to me. The way he has constructed the definition your definitions invoke certain logical errors. So the reason he has a problem is the definition conflict, not any bias that may result from said conflict. Mitigating the bias resulting from the conflict does not solve the conflict. It expands the conflict to include elements which are trivial to the underlying problem. What you suggest is to accomodate views which are created by the conflict. I think that is a case of treating the symptom instead of the disease. It actually makes the conflict harder to see. It masks it and actually makes harder to understand. The perception of bias is a product of the definition conflict. It is not the conflict itself.--24.57.157.81 00:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Note too that you are the one that interpreted his criticism that way, he never once said the definition was biased against non-pantheists or cognitivists or any point of view. He said that, from his perspective, the definition creates a logical error. That's not saying the definition is biased, that is saying the definition is illogical.--24.57.157.81 00:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I sort of understand what you're getting at, but if not please bear with me:

1. Using any sort of a definition that includes the concept of "God" while presupposing that the term is meaningful will cause a logical error on Jtrbnsn's part, because he believes in a form of ignosticism.
2. This error is due to a conflict of Jtrbnsn's beliefs (theological noncognitivism) with the assumption that the concept of "God" has meaning (theological cognitivism).
3. Therefore, using the term "God" in the definition exhibits a form of cognitivism. This is what I call bias towards cognitivism- the problem we're trying to avoid.

Can you help me understand where our disagreement is here? johnpseudo 00:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Jtrbnsn was confused because his interpretation of the current definition is that it includes theological non-cognitivism and pantheism, which by all accounts, the current definition does. Jrtbnsn says the inclusion of non-cognitivism and pantheism as types of atheism is illogical. Clearly he interprets atheism differently than the definition provided in the article. --24.57.157.81 01:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok- that I can understand. Let me add this complaint to the list. johnpseudo 01:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There's not really anything to add. It is essentially the same complaint about the same problem, the manner in which it has manifested itself is trivial. --24.57.157.81 01:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, the article on Ignosticism is great! The quote from that article defining an ignostic as someone who says "I don't know what you mean when you say 'God exists'" is word-for-word what I have said to people (except if they have told me that they're an atheist I would say "I don't know what you mean when you say 'God does not exist'"). However I don't believe that "the question of the existence of a transcendent God" is entirely meaningless (as apparently - based on that article - a true Ignostic would), depending (here we go again) on what the word "God" means. Now as far as words like "Hobbits" having a meaning, yes they have a meaning, and if we accept a definition such as "imaginary beings created and written about by J.R.R. Tolkien", then statements involving questions of existence such as "Hobbits exist in the novels of J.R.R. Tolkien" and "Hobbits exist in the real world" are trivially true and false (respectively) by definition. In any case, please be so kind as to regard my views regarding possible circularity in the definitions as they stand (by the way, is a stone a weak atheist? since there is in fact an absence of belief? perhaps this definition should ... no, never mind) as an aberration resulting from too much exposure to mathematics and too little to philosophy.Jtrbnsn 02:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The main point I was originally trying to make, about words being defined by usage, seems to have been lost. This point was partially motivated by the Dude! comment, which seems (?) to have been dismissed. Let's suppose I meet someone I don't know, and we begin talking. Assume our talk is neither academic nor philosophical; it's just everyday talk. After talking about our families, the weather, or whatever, he or she says to me "I am an atheist." The question is, in everyday usage, what can I conclude from this? Do I think to myself, oh they are probably a Buddhist (or something of the sort)? No, then they (probably) would have said "I am a Buddhist." Can I conclude that they don't believe in God? No, because I don't know what that means. Can I conclude that they would probably say (if asked) "I don't believe in God"? Yes, that is a reasonable conclusion on my part. However, at this point in the conversation, the primary information that has been conveyed to me is that they probably are not a member of any religious organization, and that if asked, they probably would deny what might be broadly categorized as any kind of statement of religious belief. Now this is touched upon somewhat in the fourth paragraph ("In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed ..."), but this is commentary about the perception of atheism, not a definition. I was attempting to suggest that the article might be improved if the non-philosophical, non-academic definition of atheism, determined solely by the way the word is commonly used (and yes I realize there may be some problems in determining this, different groups using the word in different ways for example), were to be included as well in the first paragraph. Jtrbnsn 07:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am belatedly coming to an understanding of some of the problems the writers of the article are facing (please excuse my slowness). In order to expand the definition of atheism to include its meaning as determined by common usage, some sort of authoratative reference (ideally several references) is required (the usual dictionary entries - some already referenced - well they were there a moment ago, Random House, American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, but now they're gone - ? - seem to me to have failed to capture meaning as determined by common usage). Also, it is likely that my opinion of what it actually means (in everday language) when someone says "I am an atheist" is biased (living as I do in a country that for example has "In God We Trust" imprinted on its currency). I've started looking, but in a brief search haven't found anything (the closest I've come is some online articles in the field of sociology). So I suppose until such a reference can be found (I will spend a bit more time looking), this is best disregarded. Jtrbnsn 19:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As it seems, the broader definition of atheism has to do with the rejection of theism. Even weak atheists reject theism, because theism says that God definitely exists, and they say that we don't know, so in a sense, both weak and strong atheism can be defined as "rejection of theism".--Orthologist 21:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If implicit weak atheism isn't considered a form of atheism (but e.g. a form of nontheism), then you're right, because all explicit atheists, weak or strong, do reject theism. Rejection is stronger than mere nonbelief but weaker than denial.—Editorius 13:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Exsistotheism and Nonexsistotheism

I just made these words up, but maybe they will help you other guys understand. I think of "theism" as a "God exists belief" and atheism as "No God exists belief." Perhaps it is because these words don't exist (as far as I know) people are using theism and atheism to mean this, and in fact your definition really is more correct than mine or others and theism and atheism really are and in fact work with both approaches as classifications rather than propositions. Either way, this is definitely what the people arguing about the definition mean--the words theism and atheism involve existence or non-existence.--24.57.157.81 02:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That's definitely what "people" mean? I wish it was that simple. johnpseudo 02:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I wish you wouldn't take things so literally, though I was just going to change it just in case that happend. I mean "the people that treat atheism and theism as propositions, postulations, not classifications or perceptual states." It's changed now. --24.57.157.81 02:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternatives to "believes in the nonexistence of X"

• believes X does not exist
• believes the term X does not refer to a real entity
• denies the existence of X
• --

There is a debate in philosophy over whether or not existence is a predicate & whether "X exists" is a proposition - this should be mentioned & linked to in the article --JimWae 13:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Perceptual states? — If I hear a dog bark, then I'm in a perceptual state. A perceptual state is one that involves sensory perception. Perceptual states are mental states, and I suppose that what you really mean is that by saying that atheism consists in belief in God's existence being mentally absent atheism is said to be a negative mental state.—Editorius 13:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"God's existence being mentally absent" is a cognitive condition, a perceptual state, a psychological posture, a circumstance of mind, a mental situation etc.--24.57.157.81 20:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

@JimWae: There is no need to mention the debate in philosophical logic about whether "exist" is a normal first-order predicate or not. Those who don't think it is or that it may be used as such simply need to read "God exists/does not exist" as "There is something/somebody that/who is God" / "There is nothing/nobody that/who is God". Anyway, virtually every non-philosopher readily comprehends sentences such as "God exists/does not exist".—Editorius 13:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It superfluous to what I was talking about (and use better headings if it's not supposed to be under the topic I started). And it almost seems like you (JimWae) are assuming philosophy is an empirical science, that perhaps one day someone will "discover the truth" that "existence is not a predicate." That is such a gross misinterpretation of philosophy, coming from someone who speaks in terms of predicates and propositions, that it makes me ill so I certainly hope you're not doing that.--24.57.157.81 01:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is really an extreme case of {{Round In Circles}}. Can I draw your attention to the 30 talk archives on this page? They are full with exactly this debate, going back to 2001. I think at this point, we really really have to adopt a bad-ass "cite your reliable sources" policy: discussions should be directly aimed at making the article more encyclopedic. There are basically two possibilities: (a) "paragraph (x) isn't well-sourced / encyclopedic, fix it or remove it", and (b) "here is this great encyclopedic source I have, and I want to include this specific point in the article body". There is a scholarly debate on the definition of "atheism"? Great, cite it, don't re-enact it. dab (𒁳) 14:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What you really mean: More than 6 years and 30 pages of criticism and complaints about the article are without merit and are a result of the stupidity of the readers. --24.57.157.81 23:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

JimWae: It is mentioned in the article already, as theological noncognitivism. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 14:08Z

24.57.157.81's lead paragraph suggestion (#6 in the brainstorming section)

"Atheism is defined two ways. It is defined as the belief that the proposition that a God or gods exists, theism, is false. As such an atheist would be a person who believes the proposition "God does not exist" is true. It is also defined as a category which encompasses various philosophies which either reasonably entail this proposition (such as logical positivism(?)) or, more broadly, entail a position of reasonable doubt that God does not exist (such as evidentialism(?)). From this broad categorical perspective an atheist would be defined as anyone in a state of disbelief with respect to theism."

Although I'm sure most of the editors are suffering from definition revision fatigue, I see no harm in tweaking this suggestion around a bit here to get it in a shape that might solve some of the current definition's problems. My gripes with this suggestion:

1. Atheism is defined in a broad spectrum of ways, but the definitions can be divided in this way. First sentence needs rewording to reflect this.
2. Even weak atheism can be defined as to be something like a perceptual state or state of mind rather than the ambiguous term "category"/"categorical".
3. In general, the third sentence is wordy... "encompasses various philosophies"?
4. The word disbelief is ambiguous. johnpseudo 01:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider "Fruits are colorful objects. Even an apple can be defined as a colorful object." --24.57.157.81 02:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And see Fallacies of definition#Over-broad definitions. --24.57.157.81 02:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? johnpseudo 12:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Post-Soviet countries

I found another good journal article on the spread of religion in post-Soviet countries [11]. We should be careful not to make any sweeping statements though, as this article warns against. I can get the figures from JSTOR if anyone's interested. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-19 04:57Z

Religiosity and intelligence...

Paul Bell in MENSA magazine... In my opinion, these kinds of claims raise a WP:REDFLAG, and so who is this Paul Bell? And MENSA Magazine probably isn't peer-reviewed, so I'm concerned with the credibility of this study! I would like something like of this quality (has nothing to do with the topic, it's just a study with 691 correlations published in a real journal), before including "studies" of controversial nature. Is everyone fine with this, has anyone seen the actual study? Does it merit inclusion, or are we giving some half-scientific study undue weight? --Merzul 15:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think only members of Mensa can see those things. I'm fine with removing it if there's no better source. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-19 15:23Z
• Perhaps there is some MENSA member, who can give a fair assessment of that study. I have only seen it as cited in The God Delusion. Has anyone seen the actual study? --Merzul 15:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)