Talk:Atheism/Archive 39

Definition of Atheism

This is my first post on Wikipedia, so I apologize in advance if I am trespassing on any of the Wikipedia rules that I may have accidentally overlooked. I'm writing here to see if we can't get a more rigorous definition of atheism. My contention with the current definition is two-fold: 1. It defines atheism as a philosophy 2. the phrase "affirms the nonexistence of gods" is gratuitous and also might be misconstrued.

In terms of number 1, what is the justification for characterizing atheism as a philosophy? Atheism as defined by the dictionaries I've seen is stated as the disbelief in the existence of god(s), which means it is simply a rejection of theism. Therefore, atheism is only the negative space defined by theism. This is just as much of a doctrine of philosophy as being non-Hindu or a non-astrologer. I doubt people would claim these as philosophies. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding this.

For number 2, I refer back to number 1. Atheism is defined by not believing in god(s). By bringing attention to the fact that some atheists "affirm the nonexistence of gods", it not only I think overrepresents "strong atheism" as the article defines it, which I think may be much rarer than weak atheism (although unfortunately I have not seen any data on it), but it is definitionally included in the phrase "rejects theism". In the interest of succinctness I believe "affirms the nonextistence of gods" should be removed.

I am not confident enough to edit the article as of yet, so I welcome any feedback about this topic. Thank you.

Doedicurus (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It says it's a philosophical view, not a philosophy, I don't know if that helps. I think rejecting theism still counts as a "view" in some sense.

We include the "rejection of belief" definition. Plenty of dictionaries contain the "doctrine that gods do not exist" as a separate definition, so we include that too. We say nothing about how common strong atheism is too, due to a lack of reliable sources. Also, just because strong atheism is a subset of the broader definition doesn't mean it should be ignored - the point is that someone using the strong atheism definition wouldn't include weak atheists, thus it is a separate definition of the word. Mdwh (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're looking at atheism a bit too passively. I often hear "atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby". Now, while that analogy is fairly accurate, atheism isn't just the rejection of a god, it's the rejection of *every* theistic viewpoint, which, in my opinion, is a pretty strong philosophical view. -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the definitions. However, there are, by other definitions, atheists who reject God but believe in other supernatural or spiritual concepts. There are several definitions, and they should all be explained. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-18 16:38Z

I'm glad we're off to a good start here. I agree with Mdwh's explanation for keeping both definitions of atheism as separated. So I'll happily retract my sentiment there. I'm also in agreement that atheism should be understood as a view, but characterizing that view as philosophical puts the burden of proof on those who agree with that characterization. I suppose that hypothetically any view can be ascribed with a philisophical nature if you find the view in some philosophical context. But that would render the characterization moot and unnecessary. But then again, I'm not even sure what the term "philosophical view" means, or even if it differs from a "philosophy". So, certainly more clarification is needed from those who would like to keep the definition as is. Doedicurus (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of thought has gone into the exact wording of the first sentence. See here for the discussion of when we first added the term "As a philosophical view". It stemmed from the idea that most philosophical encyclopedias agree to some degree on the definition. johnpseudo 23:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could supply me with links for encyclopedias that support this idea, because I cannot find any sources. My World Book Encyclopedia does not use the word "philosophical". The Encyclopedia Britannica distinctly avoids using the word "philosophy" in the introductory defining sentence, and only mentions it later to show the role of atheism in historical philosophy. "It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Democritus and Epicurus argued for it in the context of materialism. In the 18th century David Hume and Immanuel Kant...". This gives no credence to the idea that atheism is intrinsically a philosophical view. This is a false construct. The idea is also consistently at odds with every dictionary definition I've seen of atheism. None of them mention atheism being characterized this way, and I think we should rely on dictionaries to avoid what seems to be a common misinterpretation. Otherwise, we’re going to be obliged to state that non-astrology is a philosophical view as well. Doedicurus (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess the question is, why do we not just lead with "Atheism is the position...". I think the point is that we wanted to distinguish the first two definitions (which seem to be more common in dictionaries/encylopedias) from the broadest "absence of belief" defintion. But I do wonder if we could just drop the "philosophical view" anyway - the first two definitons are still grouped together as being a "position", where as the broadest definition isn't a position. Mdwh (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we may be able to get rid of "philosophical view" and replace it with a word like judgment, notion, or supposition; we should try to avoid vague words like position, viewpoint, or stance. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-20 14:12Z

I don't see a problem with regards to the distinction of definitions. But to keep the notion of contrast between the two definitions, it could read as "Atheism, in the strict sense, refers to the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism." while keeping everything else the same.Doedicurus (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's too big a change from the current version, considering how much work went into making it. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-21 05:01Z

I agree, that this would not be an improvement. I am not sure that "as a philosophical view" is that bad. It think the careful choice of the word "as" is important here. Arnoutf (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, lets just forget about the additional changes I made in response to Mdwh's comment. Let's make this simple. Why not remove "as a philosophical view" and keep the rest of the sentence intact? The sentence still makes grammatical and logical sense. After all, anyone who favors the current version over this amended version supports the use of the prepositional phrase anyway. So if thats the real issue here, someone needs to justify the inherent philosophical characterization of atheism, or this opposition to changing the definition this way doesn't make any sense.Doedicurus (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment. Atheism does not need to be based on any "philosophical" sense. Informed or rational deliberation is not required. Still, the phrase "as a philosophical view" served as an important qualifier to the first sentence. But since our primary source does support the notion that atheism is a position, we could write: "Atheism, as a position, is either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods or the rejection of theism."Modocc (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the concern, and I agree with that modification as well.Doedicurus (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I note that there has been no objection since January, yet the phrase has reappeared in the past week or so. I have reverted it twice now. =Axlq 18:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish we didn't have to rehash this. PLEASE look in the archives for how we (painfully, laboriously) came to the "as a philosophical view" formulation. There are many definitions of atheism, and the most prevalent definitions are atheism as a philosophical view rather than as a group identification or a pejorative term. We get the most thorough and comprehensive definitions from philosophical encyclopedias, which define the word as a philosophical view. It is very important that we leave this stipulation in here. johnpseudo 18:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My 5 year old daughter does not believe in god. Is this a philosophical view she holds? She doesn't believe in unicorns either, is that also a philosophical view? No doubt many atheists hold a philosophical view regarding their rejection of theism but probably most athesists simply could care less and see no reason to adopt a belief for which there is no evidence for. People reject theism everyday and not for heady reasons other than they simply conclude it's not for them. Angry Christian (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"Is this a philosophical view she holds?" Only if she specifically affirms a belief in no gods. "most atheists simply could care less" Yes, that's practical atheism, that's covered in the second sentence. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-03-21 19:40Z

The phrase "as a philosophical view" was not removed until an IP removed it temporarily two days ago. I think "as a view on deities" is better, since it is much more specific and ties the first sentence in with the second sentence. Modocc (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I think that is not making it better at all, in fact I think that introduces a tautological argument. Atheism is composed of "A" (non / anti or whatever) and "theism" which is about deities. So by introducing "the view on deities" for something that literally includes a variant of "deity" makes it all very circular. (For now I reverted to the last consensus version, this is the "philopsophical" view version, as there was never consensus to change it from that one). Arnoutf (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

We have had a long standing consensus here, and I am not inclined to push too strongly for a change. :) However, "as a philosophical view" is vague and has provoked an occasional objection for being heavy-handed owing to its different connotations. As to your objection, with noncognitivism, the word "deity" is meaningless and apparent circularity arises. So I think I see your point here. But I don't think its tenable, for the notion that "a deity exists" is still a subject (a meaningless one) that, under the strict definitions, is being rejected. If nothing relevant to deities is actively rejected, then atheism is absent except with respect to the broader nontheism definition. In other words, I think the stricter definitions are inherently inclusive of having a position or view on deities (a meaningless subject or not), otherwise there could be no relevant affirmation or rejection. So I don't see a problem, as we have "a position" definition and the "absence of one", on deities. I think my suggestion also ties together well the two approaches on the subject with the introductory sentences. Modocc (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My primary point is "atheism as a philosophical view" is demonstrably false and you're giving far too much credit to atheism to suggest otherwise. It reminds me of the religionists who always portray atheism as a conspiracy or worldview when in fact holding an atheist viewpoint is not that different from saying I prefer vanilla to chocolate. Don't get me wrong, I know there are atheists who have well thought out philosophies where their atheism is central to their identity and world view. I am simply suggesting those folks do not represent all atheists and to suggest atheism is a philosophical view is not entirely accurate. And I appreciate how the article does in fact describe the many faces and flavors of atheism. I am not knocking the article, only airing my objections to the first sentence. Angry Christian (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not always interpreted "as a philosophical view" as a "as a worldview". But it is its ambiguity and vagueness that lends the phrase to this problem, thus I've attempted to addressed this issue before. Presently, I'm in agreement with Jim Wae that it is best removed. But, I've also been hopeful that the first sentence will include a better qualifier in its place. If my bias towards a philosophical perspective shows, my apologies, for most of my edits on Wikipedia to date have been here. Modocc (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

<reduce indent> I have no doubt that was the consensus but it flies in the face of reality. I don't believe in the Greek god, Zeus, but I can assure you I have no philosophy about Greece or Greek gods. In fact I have studied very little on either of those topics and this is the first time I have ever written about either and I don't recall the last time I gave 10 seconds to the subject. Unless of course Wiki is defining "no thank you" to a proposition/invitation to believe is a philosophical viewpoint. Adding some common sense to the article would not corrupt it. Angry Christian (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• It is not the case that every -ISM is a philosophical position amy more than that it is a position in some other field. Consider communism, capitalism, fascism. While I might find the best definitions of these in a reference work on philosophy, that does not make them philosophical positions. It is only because the article is about atheISM & not about atheISTS, that we have needed to separate the definitons. It is quite odd to say a 5 year old is taking a philosophical position when they say they do not believe in ghosts or UFOs or in gods. I think saying "Atheism is the position that..." is quite adequate. --JimWae (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree with you more on all counts, JimWae. And that is exactly the kind of common sense I think will benefit the article. Angry Christian (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

We aren't saying that the only definition is that Atheism is a philosophical view. We're proposing two classifications of definitions: as a philosophical view (sentence #1) and a more-broad definition (sentence #2). 5 year-olds and newborns obviously aren't taking philosophical positions- they are simply nontheists, but that is a less-common definition than the definition of atheism as taking a position/consciously rejecting. johnpseudo 23:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• that was not my point at all. Just as 5-year-olds could reject belief in ghosts, they could reject belief in gods (be active/explicit atheists) & yet we would not generally say they were "taking a philosophical position"--JimWae (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not? johnpseudo 01:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Alternatively, there is a concern to identify what kind of position atheism is, what sphere of intellectuality does it fall within. The more accurate descriptors would be either ontological or theological. Unfortunately, most people would not know what was meant by "Atheism, as an ontological position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism". Also most atheists do not think of themselves as theologians, and so theological is not well-accepted as a good descriptor. The fallback generality (philosophical) suggests perhaps 2 things that are misleading 1>that active/explicit atheists can all readily provide philosophical arguments supporting their position, and 2> that somehow atheism IS itself a philosophy - possibly even part of some philosphical system.
• I think the lede does not provide the opportunity to dissuade readers of these 2 misleading suggestions - and for that reason, it is entirely adequate to say "atheism is the position that...". What kind of position atheism is could then be dealt with later - in the main body, OR in the lede AND the main body. I note that ontology is not yet linked to from the article.

The problem with the "atheism is the position" formulation is that it doesn't clarify that there are multiple definitions, as the second sentence elaborates on. 99% of the criticism/arguments we had before we used "as a philosophical position" were people arguing for one of the definitions over the other. We need to provide a stipulation in the first sentence that the "affirm nonexistence/reject theism" definition is not the only one. Without the word "philosophical", that leaves us with "Atheism, as a position, is...", which just seems stilted to me. johnpseudo 01:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, yes. I realized, then overlooked about that. We would need something like: "Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism also includes the absence of belief in deities (alternatively called nontheism), even when that nonbelief is not explicitly stated." Admittedly a bit wordy in the last part - I will try to devise another. --JimWae (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with "philosophical"? What does "explicit position" even mean? I would understand what it would mean to explicitly take a position, but what is an explicit position? johnpseudo 02:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• The fallback generality (philosophical) suggests perhaps 2 things that are misleading 1>that active/explicit atheists can all readily provide philosophical arguments supporting their position, and 2> that somehow atheism IS itself a philosophy - possibly even part of some philosphical system. The lede does not provide the opportunity to dissuade readers of these 2 misleading suggestions - and for that reason, we are looking for a better way of expressing this. There is no great difficulty in understanding the expression "explicit position" - and there are 11,700 hits for it on google It also has the advantage of intensifying the difference between the 2 definitional sentences --JimWae (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

How does saying something is a philosophical position imply that its holders would have arguments for that position? You can believe something for no good reason. If someone holds the position that no god exists, that is part of their philosophical system. That's not a misleading suggestion. I just think the word philosophical fits much better, gives a lot more information, and is much more easily understood. johnpseudo 05:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• "philosophical" doesn't NECESSARILY IMPLY much of anything (another point against using it) - but it would suggest much to those with certain common interpretations of what "philosophical" means. It commonly suggests reasoned argument &/or a system.
• If someone believes (or, more importantly, does not believe) something "for no good reason", how does that qualify as part of their "philosophical", as opposed to "gut-level", view?
• Your argument that "If someone holds the position that no god exists, that is part of their philosophical system" would only apply to affirming the negative position re deities. We are also discussing rejecting the positive position.
• Your reply includes "part of their philosophical system", seemingly accepting that atheism is part of some philosophical system". The article explains that atheism is not itself a philosophical system. This relates to my 2nd point above, which you have not yet addressed. However, your reply indicates the ease with which "system" becomes part of the discourse as soon as "philosophical" is mentioned.
• The article needs to be quite clear on any relationships & distinctions between atheism & philosophy, and using "philosophical" without qualification as the 4th word of the article suggests a relationship tighter than is justified.
• "explicit position" does the job that is needed - and makes the distinction between the 2 definitional sentences that much clearer --JimWae (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between a "philosophical view" and a "philosophical system". I don't know where you're getting your information about what the "common interpretations" of the word philosophical are, but it seems just your opinion. The word isn't in any sense the antonym of "gut-level". Really, it seems like we're not getting anywhere, and I'd prefer to get other opinions on the matter. johnpseudo 15:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• actually I got some of the interpretations based on your own words. Who said anything about antonyms? Yes, I welcome more opinions here before making the change. So far, I think, you are the only one still supporting retention of "philosophical view". So far your reasons for retention appear to be "I just think the word philosophical fits much better, gives a lot more information, and is much more easily understood". "Fits much better" is far too subjective a criterion. "Philosophical" gives little if any information - it is only there to identify the intellectual field, but is a fallback generality that other editors have agreed leads to MISunderstanding. The task of a good article is not just to say things that could be OK if the words used are interpreted just as the author intended them. A good article avoids saying things in ways that could easily be misuderstood. --JimWae (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Theological would definitely not fit, as it suggests some expertise in the field of theology. In addition to the ambiguity of "philosophical", I think the strongest argument so far has been put forward by Doedicurus above, in that the characterization has not been sourced. Probably, "as a view on deities" suffers from similar problems. I support removing the phrase per above. Also, replacing it with "in its strict sense" would be even better. Modocc (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think that the definition "positively affirms the non-existence of gods" is misplaced. Especially when the reference given explicitly denies the other meaning "rejects theism". You can't cherrypick like that.(anonymous) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.139.24.169 (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

footnote incorrect

Footnote 23 does not support the statement "Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe". Citation needed to support late 18th century change in the definition of the word. Not sure what footnote 23 is supposed to be for "^ In part because of its wide use in monotheistic Western society, atheism is usually described as "disbelief in God", rather than more generally as "disbelief in deities". A clear distinction is rarely drawn in modern writings between these two definitions, but some archaic uses of atheism encompassed only disbelief in the singular God, not in polytheistic deities. It is on this basis that the obsolete term adevism was coined in the late 19th century to describe an absence of belief in plural deities. Britannica (1911). "Atheonism". Encyclopædia Britannica." Looks like maybe someone screwed up the footnotes when they were editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.239.60.79 (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Definition - continued

That sentence - When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities [Natural Atheism] - seems to represent POV of atheists - so it should be noted in the article. --213.195.207.84 (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As was explained here, the opinion atheism is the absence of belief in deities has atheists book as a source. So according to WP:NPOV None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth" and It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. Thus this unexplained revert [1] is against wikipedia guidelines and should be reverted. --windyhead (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else, your edit should be reverted for its poor prose. That aside, it's not at all clear what your objection is. All the article claims is that there exists a broad interpretation of the term. It does not claim that this interpretation is dominant or 'true'. There is no POV violation. Ilkali (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You provided no reference to wikipedia guidelines to support your revertion claims. The objection is the article to follow WP:NPOV which says to indicate who follows the non-encyclopedic opinion in question, as cited above. --windyhead (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

What opinion? Ilkali (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

atheism is the absence of belief in deities --windyhead (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the text. It reads: "When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities". This is not an opinion. Ilkali (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You was asking for an opinion, not for a cite. What it is in your opinion? --windyhead (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

What 'atheism' means is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of how individuals associate words with meanings. If a significant number of those who self-identify as atheists define the term to mean the absence of belief in deities, the definition should be mentioned in this article. Ilkali (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

My revert was not unexplained. I quoted the defective prose in my edit summary. HiDrNick! 12:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I found no rule which says bad grammar or "poor prose" edits should be reverted. You could simply fix bad grammar instead. Your revert although was against WP:NPOV, as cited above. --windyhead (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The only justification needed for reverting an edit is that it worsens the article. Nobody is obligated to fix your wording. Ilkali (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that your changes worse the article even more because they are against WP:NPOV. --windyhead (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to argue convincingly for this. Ilkali (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Webster's International Dictionary of the English Language, 1903. Comprising the issues of 1864, 1879, and 1884.

     atheism: 1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, 
     or supreme intelligent Being.

Everybody's Dictionary, 1912

     atheism disbelief in the existence of a God.

The New Century Dictionary, 1927

     atheism [Gr. atheos, without a god < a, priv. + theos, god] 
     The doctrine that there is no God; disbelief in the existence
     of a God (or of gods)

Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1942.

     atheism [Gr. atheos, an atheist — a, priv. and theos, God] 
     The disbelief   of the existence of a God or Supreme 
     intelligent Being.

Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, 1943.

     atheism [Gr. atheos, a, priv. and theos, God] The disbelief
     of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

The Winston Dictionary, 1943.

     atheism disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God. 
     - obviously written by a monotheist.

Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language, 1947.

     atheism: The denial of or disbelief in God, as a First Cause,
     or Ground, of the universe. As dogmatic atheism it denies, as
     negative atheism it does not believe in, and as critical or
     skeptical atheism (or agnosticism) it doubts, the existence
     of god. - another written by a monotheist.

Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1957

     atheism: Disbelief in the existence of God; the state of
     godlessness. Atheism: unbelief in or denial of God or any 
     supernaturalism; to ancient Greek it meant denial and lack 
     of recognition of state gods. In 18th cent. it was a protest
     against religious hypocrisy; in 19th cent. it was any system
     not recognizing the idea of a personal Creator or any one
     supreme being. It sees marter, not spirit, as sole universal
     principle; its history one of opposition. Term often loosely
     used in referring to agnostics who neither deny nor admit the
     existence of God, or in regard to others who disagree with current
     theological doctrine.

Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictgionary, 1980

     atheist: one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of God. 
     - another written by a monotheist.

Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 2001.

     atheism: disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

Where their is a clear distinction between disbelief and denial, then the religious got their hands on it. How can I possible claim their are no gods, when I havent heard of ever claim of a god or gods... Crazy religious people are willing to lie cheat, and even kill in some cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.171.218 (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So atheism is a disbelief in the existence of a God. (any god) we are all atheist. -Left by user Gplex314159, sorry not sure if this is the right way to do this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gplex314159 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The disbelief would fit better then "absence of belief" which is currently in the article --windyhead (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What you're not understanding is that, just as with any other word, "atheism" has multiple definitions. Rather than prop one definition up as the correct one, we should explain them all. That is what the current article does. Also note that OED, which arguably trumps all these other dictionaries, lists both the disbelief and the absence of belief definitions. They refer to the latter both as "practical atheism" and "godlessness". — BRIAN0918 • 2008-07-11 14:35Z

Yes and no: it's not atheism which has multiple definitions. It's people and encyclopedias who define it differently. And the article, if possible, should explain which group of people stick to what definition. --windyhead (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Words do not exist independent of their creation and usage by humans. It is humans who give them spellings, pronunciations, and definitions. If a reliable source has information indicating that certain groups have used a certain definition, we can add it, but we must be careful that we are not resorting to something like a folk etymology. It's convenient to say that explicit atheists invented the implicit definition, but even the translators of the Bible don't back that up - they translated "atheoi" as "[those] without God". — BRIAN0918 • 2008-07-14 03:28Z

• Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-5 Neither Runes nor Ferm were atheist. --JimWae (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Furthermore, words do not "have meaning" apart from their usage (by people). --JimWae (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Definition: different POVs

OK: My point is stated above: the sentence When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities is supported by atheistic source and represents how atheists define atheism. There is WP:NPOV rule which says None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth" and It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions.. So rules suggest to make it clear who holds the opinion in question. Do you agree with it? --windyhead (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that only atheists define it this way? One of the references for this definition is The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. A quick look at http://www.answers.com/atheism&r=67 gives a few more sources for the "lack of belief" definition. And where do we give this view undue weight or assert it as the truth? Mdwh (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mdwh. If you can provide alternative main-stream definitions of Atheism that contradict this one, or povide reliable sources that state this definition is an atheist point of view, we can discuss about the supposed violation of WP:NPOV, but without any evidence a single Wikipedia editor stating that the quoted sourced present an atheist point of view is not helpful, as we can only weigh evidence from reliable sources. Arnoutf (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Currently the opinion is question is supported by "Natural Atheism" book source. And the stated author of Oxford Dictionary article is an atheist (Simon Blackburn). --windyhead (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Britannika defines atheism as Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. and states that Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not [2] - see what of my changes were reverted - they were supported by sources --windyhead (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly there exist references that only cover the "explicit" positions, but it's not clear that's in contradiction, it's just that difference sources offer different definitions. I don't see how the statement about agnosticism is relevant? That's distinguishing atheism from a lack of knowledge as to whether god exists (agnosticism); it does not say that atheism is distinguished from a "lack of belief". I have no problem with covering how atheism compares to agnosticism (which we already do in the article to some degree).

Another source for the implicit "lack of belief" definition is the US History Encyclopedia ("A more capacious definition of atheism is available, however, one in which the stress is on a lack of belief or even a sheer lack of philosophical interest")

Also, if we are going to start pointing out when the authors of references are atheists, shouldn't we also do the same for when the authors are theists? I'm not sure why sources by atheists are labelled "opinions", but other sources are taken as the correct definition... Mdwh (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Propose your definition then which would conform It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions rule and show that there are different opinions existing (if they are). --windyhead (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is it important to show who holds the opinion; that only becomes relevant when there are several mutually exclusive defintions (ie when sources contradict, it may be useful to know the motivation). So far I have not seen such contradicting definitions. Arnoutf (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

How about "atheism is the absence of belief in deities" from current wikipedia header and "to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons ..."[3], "Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not" [4] ? --windyhead (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Words can have more than one meaning - this doesn't mean there is a contradiction. Sources contradicting means when you have the problem that both cannot be true (e.g., when it's making a claim about some objective fact, such as "Whether passive smoking leads to lung cancer" or "X number of people died in a battle"). This is different to the issue of definitions, where multiple definitions is not a contradiction. As for stating who holds these "opinions" on these definitions, we do cite our sources, so the reader can see where each of these definitions comes from. I see no reason to pigeon hole some definitions as only being held by "some atheists". Mdwh (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• You appear either to not be paying attention or are just not reading clearly replies you have already received multiple times--JimWae (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

In any case Windyheads last entry does not follow from the thread, so I have difficulty to interpret this. And again (indeed answered several times) why would we mention agnosticism. It is plain impossible to mention what Atheism is not (e.g. Atheism is not a table). Arnoutf (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The question was: do you agree that provided definitions do differ? --windyhead (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Provided by whom? The current introduction - yes they do slightly, as they distinguish between a narrow and a broader definition. But so does your suggestion: "atheism is the absence of belief in deities" (broader definition)"to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God " (narrow definition). Although your definition distinguishes between atheism (allowing for broader), and atheist (only allowed the narrow definition); which I think makes no sense. Also I would prefer to start with the narrow definition rather than the broader. And again, mentioning agnosticism is not something for the intro.

In brief, I do not see where your ideas improve or change the current content in a sensible way. Arnoutf (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you please fix the italics. There are no my suggestions or ideas, those are cites from current wikipedia header and britannica (see refs). --windyhead (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

What are the provided defintions if not those (and fixed italics). Arnoutf (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are cites of definitions from britannica - see refs --windyhead (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• If you are going to keep splitting up the sections, you need to reply in the relevant section. Are you surprised that sources, even authoritative ones, differ? --JimWae (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• How many distinct defs would say there were? Previous editors have agreed there are 3 distinct ones. You seem to both support & oppose the first of the three. You have been here 12 hours & most of the discussion is because you have misread the 1>article 2>refs 3>sources 4>talk-page comments. It is my intention to take a break from this discussion and allow us all to digest what this is about. --JimWae (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Here are some sources for the broadest definition - simple absence of belief. Not all sources would appear to be atheistic --JimWae (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

--JimWae (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Well yes, but I truly do not think we need more than one in the introduction. That seems overciting. Also, illegal/unethical conduct of an author has no necessary relation to the works by that person, so your reason for removing David Eller seems irrelevant. Arnoutf (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• The broad definition has repeatedly been the topic of fruitless dialogs here. More than one source is essential - and a source that is in prison is not needed when professors and encyclopedias of philosophy are available. Eller should never have appeared on this page - no less be the ONLY source for that def. --JimWae (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please respect other people's opinions. You maybe think that reason for discussions here is that broad definition lacks sources. Could it be however that Wikipedia's description and presentation of both views leaves questions? The intro should clearly state there is 2 definitions available, who supports which, and so on (it is much better now - but still). All of this is described in WP:NPOV. --windyhead (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is POSSIBLE, but unconfirmed, that there are 2 different David Eller s here. Which means we know nothing of the previous source's credentials --JimWae (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Which David Eller are we talking about? David Eller is in prison for child sex offences, but he doesn't look like an atheist by that article (unless he stopped being religious)? Do we know they are the same person? Either way, I agree with Arnoutf that it is no reason to suspect the source (but I have no objection to adding more sources). Mdwh (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Found additional books by the author at http://www.geocities.com/naturalatheism/ The author has also written under the name Jack David Eller, a different name from the jailed David Barry Eller. Jack (David) Eller is a anthropologist living in Colorado[5]. He's younger (born in '59)[6] and an atheist (of course). So he is definitely not the Eller that was mistakenly linked to (and fortunately only very briefly). Modocc (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is possible, but still not perfectly clear, that David Eller & Jack David Eller are the same person. Although both appear to be atheists, the anthroplogy works & "atheist" works do not appear together in most bibliographies "by this author" - and the names are not identical either. If they are the same person, I have to wonder why the name change.
• I think the 1942 Runes ref is crucial - Vergilius Ferm was apparently a Xn & Runes likely was not an atheit. Having such an old source also indicates this is not a "new view"--JimWae (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition - Britannica and Wikipedia

The brunt of Neilsen's text is that defining atheism as NOT leaving open the question of the existence of deities is NOT an adequate definition of atheism. "Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not" does not mean that atheism is defined by how some people distinguish it from agnosticism - just that Agnosticism (which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not) IS distinguished from atheism. Nelsen does not take the position that THAT is HOW they are best distinguished --JimWae (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

What you are doing here is analysis or synthesis of published source. There is WP:No original research rule which suggests to avoid it. --windyhead (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am not the one that wants to insert within a quote something with ellipsi both before and after it. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that inclusion of that sentence is in accord with the meaning of the entire text - doing that would be more OR than omitting it is - unless overwhelming consensus agreed with you. --JimWae (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neilsen contnues: "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." --JimWae (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

OUTSIDE OPINION I would agree with the reverted version. First, "some atheists define it as..." is weasel wording. As some above have stated, this is a factual definition, and indeed what separates Atheism from Agnosticism. When we're arguing that only some atheists believe this, have there been any sources to suggest that some don't? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by this is a factual definition, and indeed what separates Atheism from Agnosticism - can you please explain? And please suggest something better then some atheists define it as ... . There is no argue that "only some atheists believe this", there is an encyclopedic source [7] saying "Atheism is distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not" which contradicts with opinion in question. --windyhead (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Neilsen continues: "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." --JimWae (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear what you are trying to prove with this citation. Do you have an opinion that this citation means that article header "Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not" is wrong? --windyhead (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think it is plain enough to anyone with sense that it throws ANY earlier presentations of definitions of anything into question --JimWae (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that the quote provided is not easily interpreted; and your last sentence I interpret as something like; forget definitions it is impossible (or do I miss the point).

On the other hand, I have only heard editors claim that the authors of the sources are atheists, without making clear (A) that this matters at all, and (B) that non-atheist sources disagree with these definitions. On top of that (C) it is not completely clear why agnosticism is a necessary added argument; yes some source make that distinction, but whether that should be in our introduction (summary) is not so obvious (it is treated in the "definitions" section further down after all). Arnoutf (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is This article will start with what have been some widely accepted, but still in various ways mistaken or misleading, definitions of atheism. It does not says that what was said before is wrong. --windyhead (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Nielsen gives his definition under the article header: Comprehensive definition of atheism at http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-38269/atheism. I see no header marked '"Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not" --JimWae (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

So the definition from given source is "to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons ...", which is different from "When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities" as it is in wikipedia now. The header you are asking about is at http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109479/atheism --windyhead (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• that is not a header - in the very next paragraph Nielsen throws the content of that first paragraph into question --JimWae (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• the source for "When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities" is |cite book |last=Eller|first=David |year=2004|title=Natural Atheism|pages=p. 12. Please pay attention --JimWae (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The Britannica reference is labelled [2]. The more broadly defined view is supported by ref [3] and [4]; so yes this article does exactly what you ask from it, provide multiple POV's (not only Nielsens but also others). Arnoutf (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree then that there are reliable sources ([8] - to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons ...) which does not support that "more broadly defined view"? --windyhead (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Nielsen argues against the "more broadly" view (to some extent at least) in that article. The "more broadly" view has OTHER sources. I am not sure you are reading people's replies to you. --JimWae (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

So: you stated that there is an encyclopedic source which does not support the "more broadly" view. Thus we have sources with different opinions on the subject of what the atheism is. Please confirm. --windyhead (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Please please please read the whole article not only the lede which is a summary. This argument is treated in detail in the bodytext section on definitions, most explicitly in the Strong vs Weak subheader. Such a detailed account has not place in a summary Arnoutf (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The opening to this should be "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

This covers all the different definitions of atheism.

The current opening:

 Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the
 affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the 
 rejection of theism. It is also defined more 
 broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, 
 including the simple absence of belief in deities.

Just doesn't cut it. It seems to just creates confusion among those wishing to find out what atheism really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.171.218 (talk) 07:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• What does "disbelief" really mean? --JimWae (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And "deny" is possibly POV, as it may imply that God does exist and atheists simply deny something that is true. What is confusing about the current lead? Why doesn't it "cut it"? Mdwh (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight?

I realized that this page has no criticism at all while it is an idea of the minority. Shouldn't this page reflect the point that it is the view of the minority, and thus it should have mostly arguments against it? How is it that the selection creationism is covered with criticism, and yet this page has none at all? EMSPhydeaux (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Atheism#Demographics covers how many people are atheists. It doesn't follow that just because there are aren't as many atheists as theists, that there should be more arguments against it - should Judaism be covered almost entirely with criticisms against it, because there are far fewer Jews?

And we have an entire article for Criticism of atheism. A quick look at creationism shows there to be only a small criticism section (most of it from Christians), so I'm not sure what you are referring to? Not that it matters - atheism and creationism are different types of things. If you have a problem with the amount of criticism on another page, it should be taken up there. Mdwh (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Judaism is a bit different from Atheism. You could say that the vast majority believe that Atheism is flawed, but you could not say the same for Judaism. I wouldn't suggest that we have the page covered almost entirely with criticisms, but I would suggest that we should have at least some criticisms on this page. We should try to make it clear that it is not the view of the majority, and have the view of the majority on this subject in a selection called criticisms.

I didn't realize that, but still this page should have what I have suggested (actually what wikipedia suggested) as it helps the reader to understand that it is a minority view, and exactly what the view of the majority is on this subject. I was thinking of a different article, but this paper should have criticisms regardless of what other papers do have. EMSPhydeaux (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And atheism is different from creationism ;) Do you have evidence that a vast majority think atheism is flawed? How is giving details on the exact numbers of atheists not make it clear how much of a minority view it is?

As I say, we have the other article for criticisms, and it is linked to from here. It's fairly common on Wikipedia to split out sub-sections into separate articles. We do a similar thing with Criticism of Christianity and Christianity for example. Mdwh (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The demographics section shows that it is a minority view. Criticisms are integrated throughout the article. There should be no specific criticism section according to the various Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I don't know what else you're trying to get at other than some sort of appeal to the majority. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-01 14:22Z

Christianity is also a minority view (only a third of the world is even nominally Christian). So, EMSPhydeaux: what do you propose for the Christianity page? --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway vast majority views are really irrelevant in this specific case. In the middle ages the vast majority of people thought the world was flat and the centre of the universe. That did not make it true though. Arnoutf (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is true that there is one part with a criticism and a link to more. However, I wold argue that the criticisms on this page does not clearly express the the view of the majority. This page is here to explain what Atheism is and the views on Atheism. The majority's opinion on Atheism should be represented on this page.

I agree that the part on Demographics shows that it is a minority view, bit it doesn't express the majority view on Atheism. This is why I suggested a selection on criticism.

"Do you have evidence that a vast majority think atheism is flawed?"

It's common knowledge. Could you really imagine the Pope standing on tv and saying 'there is nothing wrong with Atheism?' There are very influential people who should have there views on Atheism on this page.

What sort of argument is that? "It's common knowledge", means it is believed by many, but says nothing about the OBJECT of the belief. Would the Pope be any more likely to say there is nothing wrong with Hinduism, or Eastern Orthodox Christianity, etc. than Atheism? There are some thirty five thousand odd Christians sects in the world, so which one is right, and why? Are the rest also right?85.158.139.99 (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

"Christianity is also a minority view (only a third of the world is even nominally Christian)."

If you think Christianity is a minority view because 1/3 of humanity believes in Christianity then you can go argue that in the Christianity talk.

"It's fairly common on Wikipedia to split out sub-sections into separate articles. We do a similar thing with Criticism of Christianity and Christianity for example."

Christianity is totally different. The page on criticisms of Christianity is not there to represent the majority view on Christianity, but to simply compile criticisms of Christianity. When I am suggesting that we present criticisms of Atheism I am not saying we should find a bunch of criticisms on Atheism and put it in a selection so much as I am saying that we should quote what major influential critics of Atheism have said about Atheism. Rather than simply giving view point of Atheists. I think this is totally within the guidelines of wikipedia's rules. If you think I'm wrong, then point out my error please.

"There should be no specific criticism section according to the various Wikipedia guidelines and policies."

Please read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."

"Anyway vast majority views are really irrelevant in this specific case. In the middle ages the vast majority of people thought the world was flat and the centre of the universe. That did not make it true though."

That is true, but I'm pretty sure this is not how wikipedia works. EMSPhydeaux (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"It is true that there is one part with a criticism and a link to more. However, I wold argue that the criticisms on this page does not clearly express the the view of the majority."

What is the view of the majority?

"It's common knowledge. Could you really imagine the Pope standing on tv and saying 'there is nothing wrong with Atheism?'"

Reliable sources please. AFAIK, the pope hasn't stood on TV and said there is something wrong with atheism. Which influential people? And what evidence is there that these people speak for a "majority view"?

It is not clear to me why atheism requires reference to a "majority view", when Christianity doesn't. The criticism of atheism page is there to compile criticisms of atheism, too.

Re: Undue Weight, I believe that refers to specific things. For example, on evolution, you can't have an Intelligent Design page that pretends that they are in the majority, and that evolution is false. But with something as complex as atheism, which is the majority viewpoint? Christianity? Hinduism? Pantheism? Flying Spaghetti Monsterism? There are a great many different views and issues here, both within theism and atheism. Even with evolution, it isn't a simple case of numbers of believers - worldwide, disbelievers of evolution might outnumber believers, but that doesn't mean that evolution has to be written as a "minority viewpoint" when it is an article about science. Atheism is an article about atheism.

I think it would be better to bring up specific issues with this article please. If you have examples of notable criticisms of atheism, maybe they can be added here or in the other article. But I'm not sure it's necessarily - do we list a long list of everyone who has criticised Christianity? Similarly we don't list everyone who has criticised homosexuality on that article. These things are usually better placed I feel on the relevant person's article. Mdwh (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"What is the view of the majority?"

The only real way to know is through leaders in religion and philosophy. I would suggest that we would quote leaders, because the leaders in most cases represent the views of the majority. You are not asking if the view of the majority is that Atheism is correct are you?

"...the pope hasn't stood on TV and said there is something wrong with atheism."

Maybe not on TV, but he has said that Atheism has led to some of the “greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice” known to mankind...

"Which influential people?"

The Pope, and Billy Graham would definitely count as two very influential Christians. I didn't come here prepared with a selection on criticism. I was simply surprised that there wasn't one, and was curious as to the reasons why.

"And what evidence is there that these people speak for a "majority view"?"

They are influential. If they are influential, that basically means a lot of people agree with them. What more evidence do you need?

"It is not clear to me why atheism requires reference to a "majority view", when Christianity doesn't."

Because Christianity is not "a view held by a small minority." 1/3 of all the people on earth is a significant view. 2.3% is "a view held by a small minority."

"The criticism of atheism page is there to compile criticisms of atheism, too."

Exactly, but I am not saying that we should compile criticisms of Atheism. I am saying that we should make a space in which the majority's view is clearly expressed. It's not even really a place for criticism, just so happens that the majority disagree with Atheism.

"Re: Undue Weight, I believe that refers to specific things. For example, on evolution, you can't have an Intelligent Design page that pretends that they are in the majority, and that evolution is false. But with something as complex as atheism, which is the majority viewpoint? Christianity? Hinduism? Pantheism? Flying Spaghetti Monsterism? There are a great many different views and issues here, both within theism and atheism. Even with evolution, it isn't a simple case of numbers of believers - worldwide, disbelievers of evolution might outnumber believers, but that doesn't mean that evolution has to be written as a "minority viewpoint" when it is an article about science. Atheism is an article about atheism."

The reason evolution is not written as a minority view is because it is not in scientific circles. If evolution was a minority view among scientists, we would have to write the page as such. Atheism is totally different. It still seems that this paper should have a selection on criticism.

"I think it would be better to bring up specific issues with this article please. If you have examples of notable criticisms of atheism, maybe they can be added here or in the other article."

I'll begin to look for some examples. I do want to see what your response is first though.

"But I'm not sure it's necessarily - do we list a long list of everyone who has criticised Christianity?"

I am not suggesting a long list. I am only suggesting that we add a reasonable selection with criticisms from the most influential people. If you have a better idea that would work within the rules of wikipedia, I would be glad to hear it, but a selection with criticisms seems like the best solution to me.EMSPhydeaux (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing majority and influence. This makes your argumentation flawed.

1. Religious or political leaders do not necessarily give a majority view; not even necessarily within their own country/religion; let alone worldwide. Consider e.g. dictators - definitely leaders - but majority view? Even if you list all religious leaders and all government leaders in the world you still have not proven that these people represent a majority view (I agree it is likely, but the evidence is lacking)
2. The pope and Billy Graham count as two influential Christians. Why is Christianity suddenly the only relevant religion; where are example from Hindu or Islam; you need these to make the conclusion from religious leaders you make?? Furthermore, while I tend to agree the pope is very influential (I have seen no evidence, but ok), I think naming Billy Graham very influential is a highly US-centred worldview. Outside the US I think his influence is very limited (if it exists at all), so I would indeed argue against listing Graham as an influential representative of global Christianity. And of course as in both accounts there has been no democratic process underlying their appointment to influential status there is no evidence whatsoever they represent a majority view even within their own Church. Influence=Power but Influence/Power do not necessarily represent Majority
3. Why would size of a minority view determine whether there should be a critisism section? Your argument here is basically something along the lines of "I think small things need to be critised (no argument given) and 33% minority is big and 2.3% minority is small (again no argument given for the distinction)."
4. You want a space for majority view. That is fine, please first write the majority view. Christianity itself is a minority and many Christians may not agree with the majority view in Christianity; so you will have to extend your view well beyond Christian belief only. Basically you have to come up with convincing evidence of the representation of half the worlds people (again leader view does not suffice here).
5. Atheism is not a minority view in atheistic circles. Anyway, the demographics section shows it is a minority view. If all minorities should have critisism sections, you could argue that the native american article needs a critisism section.
6. If you can come up with some reasonable critisism by unsuspect sources, that might be ok. But consider the essential self-interest (ie it is their livelihood) for religious leaders to be against atheism (or indeed rival beliefs). Arnoutf (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The gauntlet has been thrown. User:EMSPhydeaux is now invited to supply reliable sources that support the claim: "the vast majority think atheism is flawed." These sources can then be examined against the claim, and consensus may develop as to whether they pass muster and should be included in the article. Until that time, however, may I suggest that we cease to engage in this hypothetical discussion. It's fine to say that "there are criticisms out there" and that "WP:UNDUE applies", but without actually putting something concrete down, these discussions usually go nowhere. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I think it will be a challenge to find these sources but I am happy to give User:EMSPhydeaux and other a chance. I am curious how it may evolve from here. Arnoutf (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

this looks a lot like an attempt to foist a POV onto this subject. still i agree it would be very interesting to see what evidence, if i any, can be produced LogicLad (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Creationism has a philosophy, a specific interpretation of bibical stories and scientific evidence. There is a lot there to criticize. Atheism is nothing more than the rejection of theism. There is no atheist bible, there is no atheists interpretation of history and no atheist view of scientific evidence. There isn't even a common denominator for why people choose to reject theism. What is being suggested sounds to me like somone wants the article to reflect a bibically inspired bias against rejecting the bible and calling it encyclopedic. Angry Christian (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bad idea to show that in US many people are biased against Atheism, it would be nice to find some reliable source, it wouldn't be hard because there have been many studies and many polls about the issue, however this has to be balance by the fact that there are countries where Atheists are majority (Czech Republic for example "59% of the country is agnostic, atheist, non-believer or no-organised believer" and I can only assume that in general people don't harbor the same view about Atheism as in US), we also should show that Muslims persecute Atheists and that they don't consider that Atheists deserve basic human rights. Maybe we need to have a section about persecution of Atheists.... -- man with one red shoe (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It already exists: Discrimination against atheists --Cubbi (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I see it's under "see also", I was proposing to have a section about that with the link to the article. But this is probably fine too. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Its is however a belief system. The notion that atheists are above believing in the supernatural is superflous in the sense that they believe that there is none. this in itself, however, is a belief based upon no emperical evidence.14:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Scanlon (talk • contribs)

I don't know what you mean by "based on no empirical evidence". Do you mean that there is no empirical evidence to support the claim of "the supernatural"? In this case I would agree that the lack of belief in the supernatural is based on the lack of empirical evidence, by way of Occam's razor (a.k.a. "principle of parsimony). But if you're suggesting that the lack of belief in the supernatural is not justified because there's no empirical evidence that it doesn't exist, that's because you can't prove a negative. That is, you're putting the burden of evidence on the wrong side. There's no empirical evidence disproofing the existence of giant invisible robotic mice that fly. An central part of the atheist belief system is that they're not persuaded by negative proof - that when there is no empirical evidence to support a claim, esp. when it's an extraordinary claim, they reject the claim on account of occam's razor and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Kevin Baas^talk 15:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

So much off-topic nonsense and misapplication of democracy

Things to remember on this page and every other page in this encyclopaedia.

The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to provide as accurate an account of what as many things are as possible. Considerations such as what the majority think things are like are irrelevant (majority views change what things are does not). Not long ago the majority of people in the world thought the Earth was flat. In an article entitled “The Shape of the Earth” only a very poor encyclopaedia would have devoted much space to such a view. Such details would belong in a “What the Ignorant Masses Think” article.

Once this article has said what Atheism is then job done. What the majority think it is or think about it does not change what it is. Democracy is a passable mechanism for choosing governments but please don't use it where it doesn't belong. (Signed: Proudly Anon, won't visit this page again, and just about to recycle my router to get a new IP address to protect my privacy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.216.125 (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I being stupid?

I have tries to edit the page 3 times in the last 30 minutes (I want to cut the last sentence of the demographics section if no one minds, see above) and 3 times I hit save, and the page loaded back up exactly the same. Is it protected? Sorry if I am being a n00b! CaptinJohn (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Change has been made now. Must have just been running slow. Thanks anyway.

CaptinJohn (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes happens, am not sure where to find the discussion you are referring to as a grounds for removal though. Arnoutf (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I put it under "Religiosity and Intelligence" about two thirds of the way down. Basicall I said that the last sentence of the demographics section does not deserve to be included ("Fundamentalist Christians, especially women, tend to acquire fewer years of education than others do"). The first source quoted I dont have access to and the second is about why MORE religious people are going to university not less. I also think that it is irrelevant to the Atheist article that fewer (or more) Christians go to university. So I cut it. Thoughts?

John

CaptinJohn (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Fundamentalist Christians, especially women, tend to acquire fewer years of education than others do" is indeed a rather poor way of putting it. Fundamentalism is, of course, the result of a lack of education, not its cause (you are not born as a fundamentlalist, you are brainwashed into being one as you grow up). Anyway, this opens up the whole nature-or-nurture debate and is offtopic to this article anyway. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 15:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

incidentially, here is a paper on this: Education and Fundamentalism, by Ronald Burton; Stephen Johnson; Joseph Tamney Review of Religious Research © 1989 -- the authors conclude that "there was a weak, negative relationship between edcation and Fundamentalism. However, contrary to our expectations, converts to Fundamentalism were not less educated people" (which I admit sort of invalidates what I say above). A section on this should be added to Christian fundamentalism (offtopic here). dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 15:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Shall we expand this discussion to include the possibility of trimming down the demographics section? The discussion of religiousity and academic achievement is largely offtopic. Furthermore, such a topic with obvious NPOV concerns is probably best incorporated into the Religiosity and intelligence article, where all studies can be given a fair treatment. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I do think that the demographic section (especially the last 2 paragraphs) could be cut down. Not because I disagree with it but just because it does not seem relevant and is very open to POV allegations. I should probably mention at this point that I am a Christian and probably quite fundamentalist, I hope this does not make me POV.

John

CaptinJohn (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The sentence that I removed has re-appeared!? I hope that I have not offended any one.

CaptinJohn (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It was reinserted by User:Debivort with the edit summary "RV deletion of cited material - unjustified either in an edit summary or on the talk page - please discuss there before redeleting".

The discussing on talk is what we are doing now, the edit summary is a one line justification of an edit you can type in the small box below (this will appear in the edit-history tab and is a valuable cue to other editors what just changed).

You could easily argue atheists have a POV on this article as well and should not edit it; leaves it all a bit thin don't you think? excluding both Christians and Atheists from editing an English language (ie predominantly Christian culture) article. But skipping the jokes; Neutral point of view lies in the edits (ie behaviour), not in the opinion/attitude. Once someone starts adding texts like "all atheists should be imprisoned" now that would be breach of NPOV, if a Christian (even a fundamentalist one) respects the article and the viewpoints for an objective view (hard as that maybe), no POV problems are in order.

By the way, now that I have considered the content of the deleted lines in some more detail, I tend to agree that these lines are irrelevant to this article, so perhaps the article is indeed better of without them.Arnoutf (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is going to tell you you can't edit wikipedia because you're a fundamentalist Christian; it is important to make sure that your own personal biases do not make their way into your edits, but that's nothing new - every editor has to do the same, and being a fundamentalist Christian is no different in that regard. There are many Christian contributers to Wikipedia who do a great job. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I support this removal. The sentence is (a) phrased extremely poorly, and (b) patently offtopic. This isn't the "fundamentalism and education" or even the "intelligence and religiosity" article. This isn't even the main Demographics of atheism where questions of the demographics of atheism can be discussed in detail. Let us all try to be reasonable. Your own pov does not prejudice your ability to contribute to articles: what is decisive is your ability to abstract from your own pov and submit to Wikipedia policy. If CaptinJohn is able to do that, his personal views could be somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun or Torquemada the Inquisitor General and he'd still be welcome to contribute. dab (𒁳) 16:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think inclusion of a brief discussion on the relationship between religiousity, religion, and education would be warranted in the article as it is important enough to merit discussion and does come up fairly often. While the article isn't Demographics of atheism some mention of them would be entirely logical, especially given articles on religions often include a bit of demography. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that talking about Fundamentalist Christians having a tendency towards less intelligence/education has a place, but that place is certainly not this article. This article is about atheism and atheists, and there's no reason to single out fundamentalist Christians as a basis of comparison in particular unless there's a compelling reason to do so. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Socrates

Socrates really wasn't an atheist at all, I mean, read the Phaedo. I think it is misleading to include him in the way you have done. He didn't just reject being a "complete atheist", he wasn't an atheist at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.233.78 (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's left over from when there was a section about persecution for what was deemed "atheism". — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-06 13:58Z
• ah, yes, Socrates was accused, tried and found guilty of spreading atheism among Athen's youth. He himself rebuked the allegations, but he was executed as "an atheist" (atheos, godless) nevertheless. dab (𒁳) 14:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with the ancient greek language, but I think the standard interpretation is that his accusers were accusing him of "impiety". I've never heard anyone call it athiesm. Sometimes you can't simply look at the word, and assume that because it is clearly related to a modern word that the ancestor word means exactly the same thing. Atheos very well may have been better interpreted as "impiety" (as gathered from context). Its usually left to the translator who is the expert. Every version of the Apologia and analysis of the scant other sources I've read or heard translates the charges as "impiety".

Besides because he was accused and found guilty of "impiety" or athiesm, or whatever, does not mean he was impious or athiest. His accusers probably knew and cared very little of his actual philosophy. It is usually understood that it was a political trial, some powerful people were upset at him for variously speculated at reasons (most likely having to do with some of his students supporting the Spartan puppet government), and trumped up some charges. It had nothing to do with his actual philosophy, and his philosophy probably wasn't discussed much. What Socrates' stances on any particular question is often hard to determine, atleast from Plato. The dialogues are more about the process of questioning and not so focused on conclusions. 76.90.9.68 (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Types of atheism

Perhaps it would be better to have a single article on the classification of atheism (types of atheism or something similar). This would allow the small articles strong and weak and implicit and explicit atheism to be merged together. While I'm here I might suggest expanding the lead to four paragraphs. Richard001 (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I can't believe this is a featured article. It hardly contains any perspective of atheism from authors, philosophers, or groups (Moslems, Jews, Christians) who are critical of atheism. This sounds more like a propaganda tool of atheism. Nothing personal against those who worked on this. Most probably that's the basic perpective they have. But until this is fixed by other editors, the NPOV sign has to stay. NPOV is non-negotiable. Kleinbell (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about your concerns? Maybe you can pick out the section that you think is the worst, and we can start there? ➪HiDrNick! 05:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not one section but the entire thing. I posted this at the Admin noticeboard to get some more eyes. More eyes the better. Clearly, its the entire thing that's problematic. Kleinbell (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, it's not so clear. Also, just for future reference, saying "until this is fixed by other editors, the NPOV sign has to stay. NPOV is non-negotiable" isn't really very civil, or conducive to change. Feel free to add whatever properly sourced material to the page you would like to balance out the page, but please do not assume consensus. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Clearly, its the entire thing that's problematic. But it's not clear at all? This article has been featured for awhile, and was even featured on the Main Page not too long ago; you can't get more eyes than that around here! "The article isn't neutral" does not help us to identify your perceived problem at all. If you can't identify a particular section that bothers you, then what would be the first thing that you would change? ➪HiDrNick! 05:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, my apologies. please address my point: It hardly contains any perspective of atheism from authors, philosophers, or groups (Moslems, Jews, Christians) who are critical of atheism. before removing NPOV sign. Kleinbell (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

For comparison's sake, neither does Christianity, Buddhism, or Mormon. Redrocket (talk) 05:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) {{sofixit}}. But before you do, should articles about Islam, Judaism, and Christianity contain the perspectives of atheistic philosophers? ➪HiDrNick! 05:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the sofixit. Yes I will drop by one day to try fix this. Check out Jesus and you will see the view of atheists or secularists and other non-Christians. Just check out the section on atheism religion and morality of this article. There is one sentence of criticism and a flurry of defense. That's not proportionate. If people who believe in atheism believe in its merits, then they should not worry having all the criticisms aired out because the merits will stand on their own. The truth will out IMHO. Kleinbell (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember we are discussing this article not other articles. Kleinbell (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(OD)I disagree. Other articles of philosophies and religions are valid comparisons, they show how consensus has been gained in other similar situations. Redrocket (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the concept of atheism. If you want to add "criticism" then why not try the Criticism of atheism article as it's in need of references. This article has a broad range of good quality references. Good quality criticism of Atheism is rare so it would take a lot of work to try and work out what you actually want. We would argue this except that you (Kleinbell ) haven't don't anything to help present some references for us to argue over plus you are arguing about lack of criticism in the wrong article and so I feel the tag is misplaced on those grounds. I'm removing it. You (Kleinbell ) can stick it in Criticism_of_atheism article if you want. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As pointed out, you are looking for Criticism of atheism. Jesus is not a valid comparison, as that is about a historical figure, so one would expect a range of viewpoints on his existence and not just the Christian viewpoint. But Christianity does not have a section on criticisms - that's also at Criticism of Christianity. Mdwh (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the points made above. This article is a description of Atheism, not an essay abouts its pros and cons. From the original poster of this section I gather that editor has an anti-atheism point of view (which is his right), however, I would urge everyone not to take their own position into account when discussing the content of this page. Arnoutf (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind Wikipedia:AGF which I assumed earlier for the people who wrote this. I request that people give me the same assumption. You can even think of me as pro-atheist.

I will quote from NPOV. "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each... To give undue weight to a significant-minority view.. might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

I removed the portions on tiny-minority view. There is data to show that point of view of atheists is a significant minority view. see here Or if you wish, one-half of the views, if you look at the data on voting preferences at least in the US. data from atheistic writer

To use the words of Wikipedia:NPOV, the article on atheism "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each," "in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties," i.e. a proportion to the party of those who admire atheism, the party of those who do not admire atheism, the party of those who are critical of atheism. We are talking here of the article on atheism not an article about the criticism of atheism. The latter article has its own "parties." (in fact right now atheism POV is majority there. In that sense it has better neutrality but still not neutral IMO).

If everybody here assumes good faith, we can find more data to give Wikipedia a chance for NPOV in this article.Kleinbell (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A trip to Amazon brought in this best sellers list from the category Atheism. http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/12764/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_b_1_4_last Kleinbell (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The US population is not representative of Atheism as it is only 5% or so of the world population and studies show the US population (not the scientists I would add) are an anomaly in modern western societies with belief in creation and negative belief in Evolution (the scientific view). It would be adding undue weight to a partisan view to add every US-centric poll that shows how pre-enlightenment the US public is without adding balancing polls from other countries. On the other hand public polls simply confirm demographics and it is synthesis to presume this is criticism. The distrust of atheists in a political role in the US public eye is equalled only by the distrust of homosexual politicians. The Wikipedia article on Homosexuality also clearly doesn't have a criticism section (if this Gallup poll is being considered) and for that matter both Theism and Monotheism have no clear criticism sections even though they are related to atheism. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. For example: the current Dutch government has an openly gay minister (from a Christian party), as well as an openly atheist minister; so indeed the US centric view may not reflect world wide views. Arnoutf (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How about your comment on the fact that only 16%in the world are non-religious or if you add buddhism, 22? or even 28% if you add chinese traditional? Kleinbell (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that something is a minority view does not say there should be a criticism section in the article. Christianity is also a minority pov (with about 25% not that much bigger compared to non-religion), as is Islam (about 15%). So that something is a minority view is really no argument in this dicussion. Arnoutf (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(OD)It should probably be noted at this point that after finding consensus on this page and the NPOV board against him, User:Kleinbell has specifically solicited the help of other editors, with requests here. [9] [10] [11] [12]

Outside perspective

As Atheism is a pretty broad subject it naturally will have so much information that it requires spin off articles discussing specific aspects of atheism in detail. One of those aspects is Criticism of Atheism, which was not properly identified as an aspect of this article available to view. I went ahead and added a link to it in order to comply with WP:NPOV, and also for that reason detailed critical material should be added there. (For comparison it'd be like adding critical material to Islam instead of Criticism of Islam) Anynobody 04:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your solution, adding a {{see also}} to the Atheism, religion and morality section seems to be a good compromise. silly rabbit (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is non-negotiable, please. There is no compromise here. Either it is NPOV (contains all important perspectives proportionately) or it is not. I assume your good faith, but sorry. 12:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleinbell (talk • contribs)

The article already is NPOV. It does not focus on reasons for and against atheism, as you have already been told repeatedly above. If there are significant views regarding the definition of atheism or the various forms of atheism that you feel are not significantly represented here, then please present them. If not, then please concede that the article complies with policy. It's time to put this to rest. silly rabbit (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. As previously pointed out, this is an article about what atheism IS. It should indeed contain any notable perspectives regarding what atheism IS. If a contribution by a critic of atheism doesn't offer any new perspective regarding what atheism IS, and we have a spin-off article (linked from the main article) specifically dedicated to Criticism of atheism: that's the most appropriate page for it. And what sort of "criticism" is even possible, anyhow? Atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities. Without good evidence for the existence of deities (other than hearsay, folklore etc)... how is a critique possible? To use another example: nowhere in the Leprechaun article is the viewpoint of unbelievers in leprechauns (aleprechaunists) adequately represented, even though the overwhelming majority of the population is aleprechaunist! So does that article violate NPOV? If not: why not? Should this majority view be given prominence there? Would you like to edit that article first, so that we can see what you have in mind for this one? --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The coexistence of Atheism and Criticism of atheism is a clear example of a POV fork. From Wikipedia:Content forking : Articles should not be split into multiple articles so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. More details can be found in Wikipedia:Criticism that says : Don't make articles entirely devoted to criticism of a topic that has ... its own Wikipedia article. How long have these two article existed separately? They must be fused back together or, if too long (WP:SIZE), prominently linked to each other as per WP:SS. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed here. The Criticism article is not a POV-fork from Atheism. Indeed, there is nothing pro-atheism about the main Atheism article. Likewise, there is nothing explicitly anti-atheism about the Criticism article. Please note that discussion of criticism separately from the main article is a time-honored tradition in articles on religion and theosophy. See Christianity versus Criticism of Christianity, Islam versus Criticism of Islam, Hinduism versus Criticism of Hinduism, Mormonism versus Criticism of Mormonism, and so forth. The fork of Atheism and Criticism of atheism simply follows the model. If you wish for a change in this state of affairs, then Talk:Atheism is not the place to press the point. Instead, you should bring this up at the Village Pump (policy) or other such forum where policy can be applied to a wider grouping of articles. silly rabbit (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree here. When I started setting up the {{Criticism of religion}} template yesterday I found that most religions, some religions texts, and several religious figures have separate "criticism" articles. The primary article describes what something is and the child articles talks about people's issues with that belief. This is much broader than just atheism. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Emmanuelm to address your concerns about a POV fork I must refer you back to summary style. Here you'll see the navigation template used to get around the entire article (including all of its pages).

Part of a series on Atheism

Concepts Religion · Nontheism Antireligion · Antitheism Agnosticism · Humanism Metaphysical naturalism Weak and strong atheism Implicit and explicit atheism History History of atheism Enlightenment · Freethought Arguments Against religion · For nontheism Against god · Against atheism Demographics Atheism · Irreligion Famous atheists · State atheism Discrimination · Persecution

Atheism Portal ·

A POV fork would be the existence of two such smaller articles that could be combined. In this case, there's so much to say about Atheism that criticism of it occupies one of twenty two pages about the subject. Anynobody 03:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Weight of argument

Remember please that promotion and delisting at GAR is based on weight of argument. Decisions are not vote-based.

People here are evading my argument with ad hominems, discussion of another article, other articles, POV forks, number of comments against my position, etc. The argument is: NPOV requires multiple, proportionate perpectives. According to the religions in the world, only 16% are non religious, or even 28%, or if you wish, 50% (an exagerration!) But this article only gives 2% to a critical view of atheism, whereas it should be 84% or 50%. Please, answer this. Kleinbell (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, consensus is not a vote. You are correct, which makes your canvassing here [13] [14] [15] [16] and also here, after my request to stop [17] rather odd.

As for your comment about people evading your argument, that's not true, you just refuse to acknowledge that there is a consensus here. There is an entire article dedicated to what you're asking for, and it's linked on this page. However, in your last paragraph you seem to insist the article is biased if it's not 84% critical of atheism. By your logic, if 10% of the people are homosexual, the corresponding article should be 90% criticism. The 25% of people who follow Christianity (as above) should have to read an article that's 75% criticism of their faith, by your math.

That seems to show either a base lack of understanding of wikipedia, or knowing disregard of it. Redrocket (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Redrocket. WP:NPOV does not require that because only 16% of the population are non-religious, 84% of the article should be dedicated to providing the countering religious view. Indeed to do so would be absurd, resulting in 84% of an article purportedly about atheism not being about atheism at all. I think that the editors have done a great job in producing a nicely balanced article; I particularly like the way that the criticisms have been interleaved into the body of the article itself, instead of being herded into a separate section. I just don't see any POV problems at all with this article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So what changes do you think should be made? So far you have simply said it doesn't have enough criticism - but does that mean you simply want that article merged into this one? Or something else? Is it criticism of atheists themselves, or criticism of the rejection of theism that you want?

This article is about atheism, therefore much of it should be able to be simply stated as fact - e.g., what atheism is, what its history is, how many atheists there are. Are those bits okay with you? The only point where we reach viewpoints is "Rationale", but even here the arguments are kept rather brief, keeping to stating what the arguments are, and including a few references to people who disagree with those arguments. Is it this section you have a problem with? Mdwh (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

People here are evading my argument with ad hominems, discussion of another article, other articles, POV forks, number of comments against my position, etc.
Who ad hominemed you?
What other article(s) do you mean? (I cited Islam as an example of another religious article spanning several pages, is that what you're talking about?)
The editor who brought up this article being part of a POV Fork is supporting your argument.
I'm sorry to have to be so blunt, but Wikipedia:Consensus is pretty much just that; how many people support a position. (Wikipedia is goofy in some ways, in theory if everyone supported an especially POV version of any article it would prevent an editor with correct NPOV concerns from addressing the problem by citing consensus.) Anynobody 04:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Specific problems

Example of tone

The tone shows the article is written from an atheist point of view, e.g. :There is a position claiming that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis, that atheists make deathbed conversions, or that "there are no atheists in foxholes".[30] Some proponents of this view claim that the anthropological benefit of religion is that religious faith enables humans to endure hardships better (c.f. opium of the people).[citation needed] Some atheists emphasize the fact that there have been examples to the contrary, among them examples of literal "atheists in foxholes". -- Comment: claim a word to avoid is used for the theist position. Then are rejoinder from the atheists immediately.

Bibliography and body Lacks some notable sources and opinions:

Dinesh D'Souza of Hoover Institute of Standford University ( a very notable author) - his book and perspectives on atheism:

• His book - NY bestseller;
• God knows why faith is thriving;
• Interview on his book: Atheism is the Opiate of the Morally Corrupt; *Amazon review with per chapter content of book; *What atheism has done for us;
• Atheism

Paul Vitz - Stanford University (1962) and prof emeritus of psychology at New York University. Professor/Senior Scholar at the Institute for Psychological Sciences (IPS) in Arlington, VA.

• Psychology of Atheism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleinbell (talk • contribs) 10:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Tomas Crean - Interview on his book; *Amazon review of atheist who liked the book

John Haught - Landegger Distinguished Professor of Theology at Georgetown University. Founder of Georgetown Center for the Study of Science and Religion

• Why the new Atheism is not serious; *God and New Atheism

Vox Day -

• review of his book;
• Review by an atheist -- this is very good; *other reviews by atheists

Paul Johnson - famous historian

• Ayatollah of Atheism and Darwin’s altars —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleinbell (talk • contribs) 10:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Rationale section is sheer apologetics - yes I agree with Emmanuel that the criticism of atheism is a pov fork and has to be fused back in summary form. (I was referring above to the evasiveness of the people who contradict him).

Demographics section is apologetic - only the positive correlations are included.

Morality section - I already said something about this.

Malleus has been striking down articles at GAR which are pro-religion, and criticize their neutrality. I wonder why he did not see all of these neutrality problems? Kleinbell (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I have been doing no such thing. In fact I am currently supporting Roman Catholic Church in its FA, and would have supported Opus Dei at GAR had a few changes been made to its structure to neutralise its POV. You appear to be suggesting that I have an anti-religious agenda, and I am therefore giving this article an easier ride than I would give to an article on a reliious topic, but I do not believe that the facts support your suggestion of any bias on my part.

I would urge you to try and address your arguments to what you see as the issues with this article, instead of speculating on what the philosophies and ethics of individual editors may or may not be. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah Malleus Fatuorum has answered my question as to what GAR is. Anyway, the article on Physics is written from a naturalist point of view. It fails to admit the supernatural nor magic. The tone of the article is that way because there is little relevant criticism that makes sense. Trust me, I know people who believe in "angels", "channelling","UFOs", and "The Ancients" and modern Physics to them isn't holistic and certainly not enough crystals.

Dinesh D'Souza, labels all of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong as "atheist" and yet fails to notice that Hitler wasn't clearly an atheist by any sensible measure. A more obvious correlation between those three is totalitarianism (A Bad Thing^TM). I think we can safely put D'Souza into the box labelled partisan with his views at least on this subject.

Tomas Crean doesn't add much about atheism (the concept). He's just critical of certain atheist writers and especially indignant about one, Dawkins. Dawkins though seems to be Crean's raison d'être at least for this interview. What does that say about "atheism". This is like being critical of a set of black authors and equating this as being criticism of the state of being "black". That's just prejudice.

John Haught has taken the divide between Faith and Reason to one of Materialism, Intelligent Design and Creation. This is reflected in his use of the word "Scientism" in what looks like a pejorative way. By sticking 'ism' to the ends of words, Haught hands candy to his audience. Again he is critical of a class of authors as with Crean, though in this case it is focused on.....Dawkins. Is Dawkins an Atheist ? Yes. Is Dawkins representative of what an Atheist is ?. Who can tell. An Atheist makes only one claim: that there is no or they have no belief in God or Gods. It says nothing else and the conflation is in the eyes of the critics.

Then there is "Vox Day". Where shall we start ?. We won't. He hasn't lost the plot, he makes it up as we go along. This is OK for fiction, OK for games, but we live in reality.

Rationale section, Demographics section, Morality section, yeah whatever, you do the work. Ttiotsw (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Kleinbell are you advocating the article take on a Christian POV regarding atheism because there are more Christians than atheists? Anynobody 06:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it might help if you showed us an example of what you think an appropriate Rationale section should look like. Anynobody 06:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Maleus. I was just tired fighting off too many opponents here. Thanks for your suggestion. Kleinbell (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for Ttiotsw. Yes I will do the work. Thank you for your support. Your comments on each author are nice but are not relevant sorry. Neutrality just tells us to write down opinions of notable authors no matter if they are right or wrong. Wikipedia does not evaluate. We are tertiary sources. Not original evaluators. Kleinbell (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality doesn't tell us to write down opinions. An encyclopedia is about supportable facts, not opinions. This may be where your difficulties in understanding the current consensus comes from. Redrocket (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

How about the ideas of BAggini etc and all the writers in your biblio? They are all factual?

I haven't read them all, but they are factual enough to serve as reliable sources on wikipedia to provide NPOV information on the subject. Redrocket (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Anynobody. I never said christian pov. I said add other additional povs from notable sources. That's neutrality per wikipedia. Right? Kleinbell (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

I'm sorry if I was unclear, but to be precise I didn't mean to imply you were actually saying more Christian pov should be added. However the sources you cited, being Roman Catholics, seemed to convey your desire for more Christian pov in this article.

Honestly though this page is the main one in a series which makes up an article called Atheism. Almost anything of a reliable, verifiable nature is fair game for inclusion provided it goes in the right place. Here that means on the correct page. If acceptable sources could be found to create a page called Christian views of Atheism that page would span two articles, Christianity and Atheism. Same goes for any other religion; Islamic, Jewish, Scientologist, etc. views of Atheism. Because this is a main page an overall encyclopedic description of Atheism is appropriate here. Going into specifics about criticism, outside views, detailed atheist concepts, etc. belongs on those pages.

(Sorry to jump ahead of you Redrocket, I wanted to clarify what I said before but I fully agree with your concise explanation This is an encyclopedia, which needs facts, not POV.) Anynobody 04:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

Again, no. This is an encyclopedia, which needs facts, not POV. You seem to want some kind of rebuttal to this article, because you see it having some kind of pro-atheism POV, in spite of what the current consensus is. Multiple editors, including at least one you canvassed for help on the article, have agreed the article is sufficiently NPOV. Therefore, it doesn't need an opposing viewpoint. Redrocket (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Redrocket. The consensus so far in this subsection is shown by Ttiosw and me. We both support reworking. Anynobody was just asking not opposing. I quote NPOV policy not the policy of so and so: "A simple formulation: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves" "To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups." "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" "When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner." "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one." "Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, writing clearly about each side; but they are not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular." I can go on and on. But not even one official quote supports your view. Sorry. :( Kleinbell (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just like to point out that contrary to what Kleinbell says, I do not support a re-write. If Kleinbell re-wrote it I would evaluate the changes on their merits but from what Kleinbell has proposed to add to date I think they're picking both the wrong article (it should be Criticism of atheism) and truthfully the references proposed above and below are crap. Ttiotsw (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What I have is a new proposal, new argument for change, so all the comments of others on my first proposal do not matter. Kleinbell (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As for your proposals, if you no longer abide by something you suggested on this page, might I suggest you strike through it? It would make it easier to follow which of your proposals you're asking for feedback on.

No need to be sorry, consensus has been established both here, and also in other locations on similar topics. You see the article as WP:NPOV, and will continue to until (since 16% of the world is allegedly atheist) 84% of the article is critical of the subject.

Again, good luck with all that. Redrocket (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Redrocket! I continue to abide by my first proposal (the article is a clear violation of NPOV). I abide that my first argument for that proposal is correct by weight of argument (other views should be represented not by the poor .5% this article has done. My 84 was obvious hyperbole to show disparity). And I abide by my second proposal and argument which now has consensus.

My sorry was for your opinion that only facts should be included and not opinions contrary to NPOV official policy: Assert facts, including facts about opinions. As this article has done with Marx, Engles, Dawkins, Freud. Sartre, Smith, Kant's opinions, so shall we now with DSouza, Vitz, Aquinas, Ratzinger, Haught's opinions becauuse official policy is : "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" "When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page. Kleinbell (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost - what is your "second proposal and argument" that you say now has consensus? My viewpoint is that the article is NPOV. If any of the people you list directly rebutted the arguments put forward by Marx, Engles etc, then it might be fine to include them. Even there it's not clear - this section is explaining the views of various atheists because this is an article on atheism; NPOV doesn't require that we include the views of people who disagree with them, when their views are covered elsewhere. We don't do this is any of the religion articles as far as I can tell. And this section certainly shouldn't be turned into a general "arguments for God" section; we have plenty of articles on that elsewhere. Mdwh (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(OD) Just for future reference, you don't have consensus. The majority of editors have disagreed with you, both here and at your NPOV discussion. Consensus is not something you can just say you've established, especially when it contradicts the current consensus that multiple editors have worked for months and months to establish on a topic prone to controversy and vandalism.

Again, you've done quite a bit of suggesting and proposing on this page, and it becomes hard to follow. I would suggest you strike through any proposals you're no longer supporting, it will make it easier to follow for new editors coming to this page. Redrocket (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The section atheism, religion and morality might try to balance views, although the statement "Some philosophers, however, have equated atheism with immorality" again hasn't been sufficiently referenced. Dostoevsky was not a philosopher (arguments for and against that can be made, but then by that logic all authors are philosophers) and the quote from Smith ""Among the many myths associated with religion, none is more widespread—or more disastrous in its effects—than the myth that moral values cannot be divorced from the belief in a god" seems to say the exact opposite to what one might expect from this reference. Perhaps the quote is incorrect, or the double negative is confusing. Either way, the paragraph should either be refined to more coherently reflect philosopher's views or it should perhaps be balanced by the notion (a Freud reference would do) that indeed the concept of god is a reflection of our own intrinsic morality and as such atheism is not a rebellion against the notion of god but rather a turning from social norms and rules. Ninahexan (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts on NPOV

I have read some of the discussions here, but I haven't gone over everything, so I apologize in advance if I'm repeating the ideas of others. Although Kleinbell is correct when talking talking about the lack of a Criticism section, the supposition that the article somehow does not contain castigations of atheism from other major religions is demonstrably false. Allegations against atheism abound in this article, and they are strategically placed in several sections. One of them is the following under Practical atheism:

Historically, practical atheism was considered by some people to be associated with moral failure, willful ignorance and impiety. Those considered practical atheists were said to behave as though God, ethics and social responsibility did not exist; they abandoned duty and embraced hedonism. According to the French Catholic philosopher Étienne Borne, "Practical atheism is not the denial of the existence of God, but complete godlessness of action; it is a moral evil, implying not the denial of the absolute validity of the moral law but simply rebellion against that law."

That seems like a standard, traditional Christian critique of atheism, but also one featured in the dialogue of other major world religions. Under Anthropocentric arguments, the second paragraph explicitly references the main article about the criticism of atheism:

One of the most common criticisms of atheism has been to the contrary—that denying the existence of a just God leads to moral relativism, leaving one with no moral or ethical foundation,[59] or renders life meaningless and miserable.[60] Blaise Pascal argued this view in 1669.

And so on.....holistically speaking, this article is fairly neutral. I do have one suggestion for improvement though. Most of the criticisms in the article involve morality, but something should also be added about the ontological objections to atheism - that is, the arguments for theism on ontological grounds. We don't want to give the impression that atheism is only chastised for putatively leading to immoral demeanor; obviously it's also criticized in other ways. I don't think I saw much about this, but if I missed anything, then ignore this last part.UberCryxic (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure whether this article is the place at all for adding arguments in favour of theism. Also the ontological arguments are frequently shaky; so it may not be the way to go. Arnoutf (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I just offered it as a suggestion, mostly to legitimately make the article better, but also to placate Kleinbell somewhat. The merits of the ontological arguments are not up to Wikipedia editors to decide, so that's not a condition that we can use to recuse the inclusion of ontological objections to atheism. Personally I believe this article is worthy of its FA status and, as I said, fairly neutral. But if there is a push for compromise, I think it can be made on these ontological disagreements, among others.UberCryxic (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate the honest discussion here, and if consensus goes to add something, I'm all for it. However, please do not feel you have to "placate Kleinbell", or that there is a "push for compromise." He is only one editor who has been pushing his POV that the article is biased, and as you can tell from this page and his campaign at the NPOV board, has not received much support. The article seems perfectly NPOV to me, and to most of the other editors who have commented on the page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Redrocket (talk • contribs)

I agree with the above entirely. One editor's opinions do not equate to consensus. I am saying that, should there be a future point where we are generally concerned about the neutrality of the article, the ontological objections could be one area in which we might focus. This is all very preliminary; I'm not arguing that we should be doing anything drastic right now.UberCryxic (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I appeciate your approach and ideas. My worry as I tried to explain above is that we the approach in this article should be based on Atheism; not on arguments in favour of something else. My second worry is that if we want to have NPOV approach to criticism we must make sure the source of that critisism is either above any doubts itself (I doubt this is the case for ontological arguments), or if this is not the case, that both the critisism and the weaknesses of the critisism is reported (which may lead to very lengthy off-topic arguments, but if we do not include this a POV will emerge based on partial information).

So while I think your ideas may help, I think the suggestions need to be developed to prevent these kinds of problems before actually implementing it in mainspace. Arnoutf (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The length of this article is 76 kb. Normally that's considered long, but for a topic so rich and complex, there wouldn't be a problem pushing the boundary a little bit more (as long as we keep it under 100 kb). So if we decide to include any of those ontological criticisms - in no more than a paragraph or two, I'd say - then we can afford to offer rebuttals to the criticisms themselves. I'm not sure whether Wikipedia has a universal standard on counter-responses; for several articles I've written, featured or otherwise, I've tried to include a healthy portion of criticism accompanied by counter-criticism. It's a delicate balance though, and admittedly quite difficult to preclude the torrent of information from cascading into a debate within the article itself.UberCryxic (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, as of right now, my view is that this article does not need major structural changes or content modifications. It's basically fine.UberCryxic (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Another argument

I think we need to add the argument made by Richard Dawkins that a God who is supposed to have created a complex Universe and who has all the powers ascribed to him by the major religions should be himself very complex and there is no explanation for that complexity and doesn't seem very likely. So my question is, who made first this argument, Dawkins himself or he borrowed the idea from somebody else? Second, shouldn't we include this since Dawkins is a rather relevant person in this discussion and this argument doesn't seem to be discussed in the article. -- Man with one red shoe (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as this article should not be an article filled with critisism against Atheism (see discussions above), this article should also no list critisism against a theistic worldview. This should be a neutral article, describing what it is.

So no, I do not think that argument should be in this article. Arnoutf (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

But the Rationale section does list various arguments for atheism -- briefly, and with links elsewhere, but they're there. Reference to what we might call the complexity or Occam's Razor argument wouldn't be out of place, and I think it pre-dates Dawkins, especially in the form "reference to God doesn't actually explain anything." -- Mindstalk (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as is relevant and passes the test of notability I think it should be there. -- Man with one red shoe (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but let's be carefull about POV. Perhaps Bertrand Russell might be a direction to look for Occam type arguments (I agree Dawkins arguments is basically one of that type). Arnoutf (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I think at most it can be used as an extension as it talks about the likelihood of existence of such a complex being, while Occam's Razor is basically "don't use additional entities to explain things" Dawkins makes the argument that such an entity is unlikely because it would have to be very complex and in Universe we see an evolution from low level of complexity to high levels of complexity, this argument is not specifically about Occam's Razor it can work even if we accept the idea of creating entities to solve problems. However, this argument could be conflated with Occam's Razor into something like: "don't use an unlikely additional entity to explain things" and it can make Occam's Razor more compelling, but it's not in itself an Occam type of argument (as I see it), by the way if Occam's Razor has been used by notable Atheists it should be added in this article too. I understand that this article is not a laundry list, but if notable Atheists used notable arguments they should be mentioned. -- Man with one red shoe (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is not Occam exactly but very similar. The Dawkins argument turns the critisism against atheism upside down by stating something like if we can explain it with the 3 simple rules of evolution (mutation, copyng, selection) that is a much more simple explanation (even if it needs 3 mehcanisms) compared to an omniscient, omnipotent being (which might be a single thing but a single thing of staggering complexity). In that case he uses a variation on Occams razor. But I doubt he would be the first. It could be added as an argument for atheism, with one or two advocates of the argument, but I would not add lists inside the article Arnoutf (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Dawkins is what happens when you let a biologist out of the lab and allow him to write an angry, fallicious arguement against a diety he doesn't believe in in the first place. How this man has gained influence is beyond me. I know college students who could refute every single arguement he puts forth. Richard Dawkins, like Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan, and Steven Weinberg all echoe an old, dead arguement, made again by Sam Harris, and it goes something like this: "If God created the universe, what created God?" Now without pointing out the obvious idiocy of the question, because by definition God is, always was, and always will be; because if He/She were not, they would not be God, let us first identify this arguement as the infinite regression arguement. These men raise the "problem" of infinite regress. Yes, there has to be a chain of causation, but why does it have to stop with God? Why can't it go on forever? Dawkins expands the thought further by pointing out that only a complex God could have created such a complex universe,and we cannot account for one form of unexplained complexity (the universe) by pointing to an even greater form of unexplained complexity (God). So he concludes that "the theist answer has utterly failed" and he sees "no alternative but to dismiss it." There are numerous problems with this arguement, but let us settle for an easier one. First of all, Dawkins is still working on the assumption that God requires a beginning, and dismisses the idea of an infinite God? By definition, God is infinite, so it is puzzling to hear a man of brilliance make such a profoundly stupid question in defense of his faith in science and his reason. Blind faith in reason and in your own reason is still blind faith. He is also oh so quick to point out the atrocities of Christianity. The Crusades and the Inquisition and Witch trials, all events lasting centuries, but do you no how many people were actually killed over that time span? About 2014. No taking a pragmatic and functionalist approach, what are the atrocities of atheism? Let's see, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Castro...and oh yeah...they killed millions in one whole century. This page is in dire need of ommitted facts. Some my take this criticism of your faith personally, but reactions of a nasty sort are typical for those whose faith is challenged. Just saying this article has ALOT of work needed to be done to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.131.27 (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point. "God has always existed" is not an explanation: we would then require an explanation of WHY "God has always existed" and WHY God has the (alleged) properties that he/she/it supposedly has (like sentience, for instance). Merely taking away the chronological instant of the "creation of God" doesn't change the fact that a complex entity is unaccounted for (and, apparently, unnecessary). As for "omitted facts": Hitler was no atheist, and the number of people killed in the Crusades alone is far greater than the figure you have provided! --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Dawkins does not make the assumption that God had a beginning. See Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. Also note that the "Who designed the designer" question follows from the theist assertion that complex things must be designed. If we reject that assertion, then there is no reason to believe in a God in the first place.

Dawkins addresses the issue of Mao, Hitler, Stalin etc: that Hitler was not an atheist; and although Mao and Stalin were, they did not commit their acts in the name of atheism, they just happened to be atheists - the point isn't that the Inquisition and the 9/11 terrorists (who make that number a lot more than 2014) happened to be theists, it's that they committed their acts in the name of their belief in God. What changes to this article exactly are you asking for, or which bits do you think are wrong? Mdwh (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am curious where you got that 2014 number from because it looks patently false. But in any case, that's not the point, we are not here to judge which argument is good or bad, we are here to present relevant and notable things said about the existence of God regardless if we consider the arguments correct or not. Man with one red shoe (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Dawkins's argument in fact has an article to itself at Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit, so we don't need to repeat it here, or probably even link to it (we don't seem to link directly to the other arguments). It should probably be linked to from Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_belief_in_God (which is linked to from here) though... Mdwh (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that we are talking improvement of the article here, and are not judging the existence of God. The original question was whether Dawkins argument should be listed on this page, whether we agree with that argument is NOT the issue of this (specific) discussion. Neither is the issues whether religion or atheism has caused more death/suffering/amoral behaviour. Arnoutf (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! So, in conclusion should we add a new category of arguments? How would we call it? "Occam's Razor based arguments" doesn't sound very well... Man with one red shoe (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not completely convinced. Dawkins has become a fanatic preacher of atheism more than a good scientist (ie, he sets out to defeat his oponents rather than questioning his own views; compare this to his views in Selfish Gene and Blind Watchmaker). I think the more moderate issues raised by Daniel Dennett in Breaking the Spell are more relevant. Dennett invites religious believers to subject their belief to objective testing. He argues he is willing to adopt theism if evidence is ever provided (which he thinks is unlikely), but asks religious believers to accept (and possibly adopt) the position of atheists if no such evidence is provided. Arnoutf (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Misconceptions

Wow, this is a heated talk page if I've ever seen one. I'm actually suprised this article even resembles something readable with all the vandalism it probably recieves on a daily basis. It looks good, but someone's comment made me realize something.... why the hell does everybody think Hitler was an atheist??? Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs are probably the most misunderstood beliefs of any one person in modern history.

But my point is, perhaps we should have a small section or a separate article dedicated to the misconceptions about atheism, or "atheist urban myths". Such as: All atheists are inherently immoral, all atheists are communists, that all communists are atheists, that communism is an atheist invention, or religious leaders vs atheist leaders (the idea that atheist leaders are more immoral than religious leaders, the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases have proven that is not the case). Well you get my point... such an article would probably be difficult, to say the least, but would be worth the effort. I dunno, just a thought. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Criticism of atheism does seem to cover much of that. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti christian bias on Wikipedia

I can't help but notice, why are the articles on Christianity negative and articlex on atheism positive? Such as the Criticism of Athiesm page, seems to be more about defense of athiesm than critism. Then you go to the critisms of Christianity page, and it's the opposite. As a Christian, I do not condemn athiesm nor do i support it. However I find this to be violating the NPOV policy.Invisible Noise (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The articles are simply products of the editors, get involved and make some changes if you see fit. Be prepared to defend you positions on a page like this, but standing on the sidelines and commenting on a perceived bias helps neither you nor the encyclopedia. Mstuczynski (talk) 06:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of it is actually due to the difference in the quality of the arguments used by those who make the criticisms. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities: most Christians seem to understand that this doesn't provide much of a target for critical arguments (as they know that they can't actually produce their deity for the atheist to inspect). Hence, those who still feel the need to come up with some sort of an argument are driven to more desperate measures. With most actual religions, there's a whole load of specific claims made by the religion that can be argued against. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides, even believers are non-believers when it come to other religions, it's pretty easy to find arguments against a specific religion (oh, and there are always nuts who do something in the name of their God, atheists have the advantage of not believing in a God to do something crazy in His name, so if they do something crazy they do it on their own, not in the name of a God. There's is no "Atheist Church" that tries to rule the life of people, and there are no Atheist priests to molest kids) -- man with one red shoe (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not insult Catholicism, or any other religion for that matter. Although you are entitled to your own beliefs, to publicly insult any religious organization shows evidence of an inept mind, not to mention an ingrained since of bigotry. You really do not have any reason to do so. Please refrain from making any such comments in the future. Thank you. --Halim7 —Preceding comment was added at 00:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks against other editors, as you did above. Civility is very important on wikipedia, especially on articles such as this. Besides, man with one red shoe did not mention Catholicism at all in his post. Redrocket (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

In what sense is the Christianity article negative? What specific changes should be made to this article? Mdwh (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No matter what is the response to this question I think it needs to be discussed on talk:Christianity, I'm also sorry if my mentioning of child molester priests made Halim7 think of Catholicism, I assure him it was not my intention, just as I don't intend to discuss Catholicism or Christianity here. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this should be a discussion on talk:Christianity. I don't think this article is really pro-atheism, but if you feel that Christianity is negative, I suggest you post your concerns there. Ketsuekigata (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

List of atheists

Hello. I appreciate all of the effort that went into earning featured status for this article. I am especially impressed with the care that went into defining atheism in the introduction--no small task, given the frequently contentious nature of defining such a controversial position (and term). Perhaps editors here could apply the same sort of care and expertise toward a related article and perform an informal peer review of the List of atheists. Specifically, I am interested in getting opinions concerning the current introduction wording and inclusion criteria for the list. I've been pretty heavily involved in developing both, but I'd like to get some other perspectives, just to make sure that they have the support of wider consensus. Thanks. Nick Graves (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I added Mao Ze Dong and Pol Pot. Hellohigudby (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you add a reference for those two ?. All the others have references. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Conservapedia on Atheism

Try and read this http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism

It's a great article. Love it. You'll find many things to post in Wikipedia atheism and improve this article many times by giving it more balance. Hellohigudby (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It also has a good list of videos http://www.conservapedia.com/Online_Videos_Regarding_Atheism

You'll like them too. Hellohigudby (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, a true classic. Jefffire (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Uncyclopedia article is actually much more accurate, but not as funny. Nick Graves (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I love all the red-linked "doctors". — BRIAN0918 • 2008-04-03 14:00Z

I see it hasn't improved! A Conservapaedia editor popped up on the Internet Infidels forum awhile back, [18], supposedly seeking improvements to the article (or possibly trolling: he eventually got banned for "preaching"). Yet he repeatedly refused to amend the "Reasonable Explanations for Atheism" section to include the actual reason given by atheists themselves for their atheism: "Deemed Superstitous and Mythical". They prepared a paragraph for him, but he refused to add it. And the "encyclopaedia" that declares itself to be "neutral with regard to facts" is well-protected against the insertion of inconvenient facts by others who actually know what they're talking about. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's hilarious, I can heartily recommend the section on "the causes of atheism" for anyone looking for a laughAlastairthegreat (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the bit about "trouble with father". 66.222.251.232 (talk) 07:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)illisium

Very entertaining. And remember, kids, if you're not from America you basically don't exist. HonestTom (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Euhemerus

I added a paragraph on Euhemerus. Strictly speaking he was not an atheist, as I also wrote in the paragraph, but like Socrates he was criticized as being one, so I guess there is reason to keep the info. —Eickenberg (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That paragraph seems more about Euhemerus than about atheism. I'm going to remove the paragraph for the time being, but feel free to work on it a bit to make it more appropriate and better-sourced for this article. Or preferably, make your suggestion here to get some feedback first. johnpseudo 13:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I won't actually. I don't care that much. Just wanted to share info (incl. sufficient sources btw) that neatly fits the paragraph on Socrates (minus the death sentence). So if you don't care either, it'll stay deleted. —Eickenberg (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

But just as a sidenote: Christian theists like T.R. Glover write this about Euhemerus: "Euhemerus, by recklessly turning all the gods into generals and admirals and kings of ancient days, has covered the whole world with atheism." Just to point out the relevance and polemics, still today. —Eickenberg (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please deal with the fact that while Socrates is extremely well known, and the Euhemerus is much less so. So perhaps you should limit the attention to him, or make clear why he should be in; in your text before it is added. Arnoutf (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that Eickenberg isn't interested in doing so, maybe we should include the material for now, and try to add slightly better info. about how relevant his changes to philosophy were to the spread of atheism. johnpseudo 15:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have found the source for T.R. Glover's remark, which is Plutarch's "Isis & Osiris": in it Plutarch writes that Euhemerus' "deceitful utterances […] spread atheism over the whole inhabited earth." For me this qualifies as relevance in terms of atheist thought in antiquity. T.R Glover himself made Plutarch's opinion his own on p. 106 (see quote above) and p. 5 of his book "Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire", where he writes: "But most of the contemporary view on the origin of religion were shallow. Euhemerism with its deified men, and inspiration with its distraught voteries were perhaps nobler, a little nobler, but in reality there was little respect for religion among the philosophic." It's true that Euhemerus is lesser known than e.g. Socrates. The reason is probably because he was not a full-fledged atheist. "Der Kleine Pauly" states that he merely adapted the divine Greek mythology to the necessities of the ensuing ruler cult and divinizations. (The same applies for Ennius' popular translation of Euhemerus' work into Latin, which seemed necessary to mythographically pave the way for the planned deification of Scipio Africanus.) Nevertheless, Euhemerus' work and Ennius' translation seem to have been (mis?)used to spread atheist thought in antiquity. —Eickenberg (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting it back in (^_^). I have added more sources, as you stated above. —Eickenberg (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph might fit better in History of atheism, with perhaps a sentence or two here. The section here seems a bit unbalanced at the moment with undue prominence given to Euhemerus over the other philosophers of ancient Greece. Singinglemon (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see… I didn't realize there was an article on the history of atheism. So I'm with you: one or two sentences here, and the whole bulk into the other article. I'll do this soon. Thanks for the info. —Eickenberg (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Better this way. —Eickenberg (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeking opinions

I left my reasons for why I think state atheism and criticism of atheism should both be deleted here on the Atheism Project talk page. I'd like to get a broad variety of viewpoints on the subject. if you have an opinion please chime in on that talk page. Thanks Angry Christian (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Spiritual Atheism

I came across Spiritual Atheism, and noticed it was new, only edited by one primary editor, and not incorporated with the existing series of articles on atheism. Just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention, in case you were unaware of it. What you do with this knowledge is now in your hands;) -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Formatting of "Time magazine"

I have changed the format from "TIME magazine" to "Time magazine". Per the Manual of Style, only acronyms should be in all-caps, while proper nouns should be capitalized, even if they are in all-caps in popular usage. -Pgan002 (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). silly rabbit (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispassionate Atheism

I believe that Wikipedia should add an article on said subject, or add a section to the current article on atheism. Though this is only the philosophy of a minority group within a minority group, I believe that Wikipedia would benefit from the addition of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Timothy James Busson (talk • contribs) 13:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate on what you mean? And would not a similar argument/article go for dispassionate Christianity? Arnoutf (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

By dispassionate atheism I mean "explicit atheism", not "weak" or "soft" atheism. The difference with dispassionate atheism is that, while denying the existence of God, these atheists believe that whether you are religious or not does not matter if your beliefs make you happy. This is summed up by: "If you are content within your sphere of belief, then all is well. This is regardless of whether my beliefs contradict with yours or not." Jordan Busson (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem notable enough. It's not a type of atheism and the term isn't at all common (two hits on Google!). Ilkali (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I found 31000 matches on Google, although many of them do not provide clear information.One definition states that it is the "dispassionate search for truth". I will see if it comes up under another name or title. If so I will continue looking into the subject. Jordan Busson (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"I found 31000 matches on Google". No you didn't. Learn how to use Google. Ilkali (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, if I may interrupt. Jordan, if you place your search terms within quotation marks, google will only return hits for those specific words. I got 5 hits for "dispassionate atheism" (although it seems none of those hits were relevant), 13 for "dispassionate atheist" (didn't bother to read them), and 31,000 for plain 'ol dispassionate atheism. But let it be said that google hits are not necessarily a good indication of notoriety. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, if you use the quotation marks you look for the phrase "dispassionate atheist", (i.e.) where these words occur together, and you will not find the many articles that mention the word "dispassionate" and the word "atheist" somewhere in the text but not togehter. It is a bit more advanced use of Google but essential if you want to have a more directed search. Arnoutf (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me both my transgressions and my naïveté in the ways of Google Advanced Search. My apologies to Ilkali. I will make use of your information. I now see that at present the notability of said article is irrelevant. Jordan Busson (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, we live and learn ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look into the mysterious ways of Google Advanced Search before next citing the amount of search results, although perhaps advocates of the "Google Way" should take a leaf out of Wikipedia's book and learn to not "bite the newcomers" due to their lack of knowledge relating to the subtelties of Google :) Jordan Busson (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"dispasionate atheism" should go under irreligion and/or nontheism. A standalone article seems unwarranted. Btw., is there a term for "effective theism", the belief that there are not "really" any gods, but that it is for all practical purposes important to believe in them anyway? post-atheism may be a related concept. dab (𒁳) 13:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Where's Post-modern section?

? 24.105.236.66 (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a 20th century section. If you feel there should be a post-modern section, be bold! -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk &#149; contribs)} 15:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Investigating Atheism

RE: http://www.investigatingatheism.info

Hereby I protest against the removal of the above link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#External_links !

Even though the people running this website are members of the theological faculties of the universities of Cambridge and Oxford, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. As far as the Investigating Atheism Project is concerned, they do not intend to take the theists' side:

"The Investigating Atheism project is designed to stimulate interest, thought and debate on this important topic (one that has rapidly gained a whole new audience in recent years). The website has been put together by a group of academics and researchers at the faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, and at the University of Oxford. The team have no set view on the subject, and aim to give a fully independent, but informed statement about this important subject." (http://www.investigatingatheism.info/aboutus.html)

Their depiction of atheism and its history is fair, objective, and very informative! So there is no reason not to include the website in the list of external links, for it's a really good one, much better than many others (and I'm saying this as a "strong" atheist)! —Editorius (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No need to be aggressive. Anyway there is always one reason not to include any link: The need to reduce the number of external links. Arnoutf (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the article already has more than enough external links; no need to clutter with any more. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• I must say though that (apart from repeated use of "LACK of belief" & one or two other word choices) it does treat the topic very even-handedly & I have added it to my favorites --JimWae (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• For me the site shows bias by what it does not discuss. For example, it lists many arguments for theism under the Arguments for Atheism, treating these arguments more seriously than they are often treated in reality. What may be considered one of the most powerful arguments against theism - the incoherence of what is meant by "god" among believers - is reduced to a few sentences summarized with "too abstract to have a powerful impact", and "this is not given a lot of weight". — BRIAN0918 • 2008-04-28 15:08Z

Please make the article less bias

Why don't you make the Wikipedia atheism article more realistic and have it contain some of the negative aspects of atheism like Conservapedia does? http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism Currently, this article is very biased/POV.Dunkendonuts (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In what ways is this page biased? You're going to have to provide examples. I really don't think Conservapedia should be used as an example of NPOV. Paragon12321 (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it won't be good. I'll point out that post was the first from this editor, and just advise him to read the other discussions above as a good start. Redrocket (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the argument has some merit, Conservapedia would be indefinitely improved if it took over some of the effort of NPOV treatment of this topic on Wikipedia ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not copy conservipedia EVER that site is biased and so are the articles. Good works so far on article could be improved 129.137.179.32 (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

http://Conservapedia.com/Atheism is less bias then the wiki article--DelilahC (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, that is a personal opinion, stated as a fact.

Secondly read the following (random) line (without reference) from the conservapedia article "Militant atheism which continues to suppress and oppress religious believers today especially in Communist countries." (note that the militant atheism article mentions Sam Harris, Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins as its main supporters) and please maintain THAT article is unbiased.

Thridly, unless you remove any and all pro-religion coloured worldviews from your opinion your view is biased in itself, and therefore does not contribute to this issue. If you manage to see this without any (internal) reference to a religious worldview, you might still find both articles biased, but I seriously doubt whether the Wiki one is (if you do that honestly) more biased. Arnoutf (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, both of the two OPs have only edited talk pages. On Conservapedia, they'd have been blocked (permanently)for breaking the 90/10 rule. Then again, even Schlafly himself breaks that rule. Paragon12321 (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a separate Criticism of Atheism article for any known criticisms. If anyone wishes to outline bias in the article, they'll have to either correct it themselves or provide valid examples on the talk page. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism and nontheism

This article gives no definition of "personal god", so I'm assuming that it uses the definitions giving in the Wikipedia article on personal gods.

a being with a personality, including the capacity to reason and feel love

By that definition, Buddhism has personal gods, beings who respond to requests for help, acting out of compassion, which has the same meaning as the word "love" in the quote above; concern for someone's welfare (as opposed to erotic love). However, the article has a picture of a statue of the Buddha with the caption

Because of its absence of a personal god, Buddhism is commonly described as nontheistic.

Elsewhere the article says that Buddhism rejects a personal creator god, which is true; there is no creator god in Buddhism. However, the vast majority of Buddhists worship some sort of god. which they petition for personal help. Gombrich's field work in Sri Lanka and the work of researchers in other countries shows that most Theravada Buddhists worship a god of some sort. Theravada Buddhism doesn't teach non-theism, in the general sense (non-belief in any god). It teaches that gods cannot help us liberate ourselves from dukkha, and that gods are themselves mortal and unliberated. So the following statement is only partially true.

...some varieties of Buddhism such as Theravada, either actively teach nontheism or do not include belief in a personal god as a tenet of the religion

While Theravada does not include belief in a personal god as a tenet, it does not actively teach nontheism. In fact, the suttas record the Buddha discussing various gods in terms that indicate that he believed that they existed, although weren't helpful in seeking liberation from dukkha.

The caption should be changed so that "creator" replaces "personal", and the statement about Theravada should have the phrase "either actively teach nontheism" removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RenGalskap (talk • contribs) 16:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You misquoted - it says "a god who is a personal being", and then personal being is defined by what you quoted. Obviously being a god is an important part of the definition! And being a god usually implies aspects such as being supernatural or a creator. Note also that the issue is not what the majority of Buddhists think, but whether Buddhism is inherently a theistic religion. Are all Buddhists theists, or could some be nontheists? If it is the latter, then that is the point the article is trying to make. Mdwh (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you misquoted. The phrase "a god who is a personal being" isn't found in the article. (I just did a search.) My quotes are accurate. I copied and pasted.

In talking about Theravada, the article makes claims about what Theravada teaches. Theravada factually does not teach nontheism. The caption stated that Buddhism lacks a personal god, whjch is factually not true. Your statement about the point the article was making about Buddhism is not true. Aside from that, your statements are irrelevant. RenGalskap 19:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The phase "a god who is a personal being" is in Personal god [19]. Which article are you looking at? Still, I'm fine with the article as it is now - "do not include belief in a personal god as a tenet of the religion" sums it up. Mdwh (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Which article are you looking at?" This one, the one that we are discussing. Since you didn't say which quote you were referring to or which article it came from, I had no way of knowing that you were talking about some other article.

My quote was accurate. That part that I left out specified that it defines a god, but since I was explicitly quoting a definition of "personal god", the meaning wasn't affected. I couldn't have been talking about anything other than a god. RenGalskap 19:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Singular and plural references.

A point was raised in the Template for God that the Atheism lead para only mentioned "Gods" and not "God". On that basis "Atheism" wasn't recognised as a "general approach" for the god template (which some of the other editors seem to feel should only be for monotheism). I noticed that the reference of Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy specifically says "God". On that basis I have made it the singular. Do we need a reference for the plural ?. It is kind of implied though not explicitly stated. Anyone know a nice ref ? Ttiotsw (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we use gods without capitals in this article. The problem with denying the existence of God (sing) as opposed to gods (plural); is that this would imply ancients Greeks, Romans, Germans etc. were atheists as they believed in Zeus, Appolo, Jupiter, Wodan etc. It would also imply all Hindus and even Muslims are atheists as they also don't believe in God (although it can be argued Allah is another name for God). So I think, regardless what the reference states, the plural is essential. I don't think we can decide whether the reference qualifies from the one-liner reported. We need to read the full reference in context to determine whether it is suitable to support that statement. Arnoutf (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Allah" is Arabic for God. Muslims believe in the Abrahamic God. Almost every non-English speaking theist has a name for their god that is not "God". Linguistic differences cannot be allowed to be dragged into this discussion. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Within Wikipedia we seem to use God to mean "the principal or sole deity in religions and other belief systems that worship one deity.", so your examples are wrong. My whole point was to have references for both rather than make up our own definition. Ttiotsw (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Atheism is absolutely not specific to God. If the reference gives a bad definition, it should be changed. Ilkali (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Atheism is applicable to all deities including the specific monotheistic "God". I don't believe we see Routledge as an unreliable source so the lead sentences should be changed to show the specific objection to the monotheistic God that Routledge references as well as the general objection to all gods (for which we must easily be able to add in a suitable reference). Ttiotsw (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The question is: Are there many people who would describe polytheists as atheists? Sometimes the way a definition is framed is dependent on the environment. In a society where almost all theism is monotheism, defining atheism relative to God communicates pretty much all the information the reader needs, and sidesteps use of other definitions which may be long, relatively complex or potentially offensive. My point is that sometimes reliable sources will give definitions that are excessively narrow. Ideally we would be able to identify these and limit their influence. Ilkali (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not a valid question but a red herring. The issue is that the majority of religions are monotheistic and so the majority of definitions of atheism have referred to objections to this monotheism. Our original research is by giving an undue weight that atheism has objecting to polytheistic religions whereas it has in the majority been an objection to monotheism. It can be extrapolated to all gods though this is less mentioned by references. What started this off for me discovering our mis-referenced claim in a lead sentence was that the Template:God has been changed so that it is restricted to only monotheistic references. I felt that was too was also excessively narrow. Pretty much your objection to us using narrow references in the way they were presented thus applies to the scope of Template:God. Ttiotsw (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct definition does not mean "undue weight". Saying atheists do not belive in God (singular, capitalized) is not only wrong, it leads the reader towards thinking "atheists are the people who hate christians". --Cubbi (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because a majority of people are monotheistic doesn't mean that we should define atheism to ONLY apply to the monotheistic idea of God. By using the term "gods", we're referring to both monotheistic and polytheistic deities. The God template can be whatever they want it to be, but atheism applies to all kinds of deities. johnpseudo 14:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ttiotsw, you say "The issue is that the majority of religions are monotheistic and so the majority of definitions of atheism have referred to objections to this monotheism." Firstly I'm not convinced that the majority of religions are monotheistic. But even if that is the case, and the majority of atheists/definitions of atheism are objecting to monotheism, I agree with Johnpseudo that saying gods covers both adequately. Yes, if every definition was about non-belief in Yahweh it'd be silly to say gods instead of God, but if even a non-trivial minority are about multiple gods it seems perfectly reasonable to me. I don't think many people are likely to not realize that "nonexistence of gods" includes "nonexistence of God" and be misled. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I think people are ignoring the obvious issue of wanting to maintain text in the lead sentences that is unsupported by the provided reference !. Bizarre. Little Red Hen says I guess I'm going to have to find a reference that actually says "gods" to justify our text (which is what I suggested in my original post anyway). We *know* it means 1 or many but what we're not here to document what we know but what other reliable sources know. I suggest the text,

Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of God[1] or gods[?] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] etc etc

will work once I get [?]. We already have reference [1] which is.... ^ Rowe, William L. (1998). "Atheism". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Edward Craig. “Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”

(my bold). I just need the other reference. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't agree as atheism affirms the nonexistence of each montheistic god, as well as any polytheistic god, or rejects theism. Singling out God as the one rejected monotheistic god, makes this a Western/Christian point of view, and as such not neutral. Not singling out God would require mention of all monotheistic gods in ever worshipped (Aton, Jahweh, Allah, God, etc.) which would make the sentence unwieldy and unfit for the intro section. Arnoutf (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a slippery sloop argument. I think you'll find that the references probably say "God", "god" or "gods" so we only have to argue my suggested text above (which just adds in two words). I don't think that's unweildy. If you can find a reference that says "Atheism blah blah blah not Zeus blah blah not Aton" then we have to consider that, but find the reference first. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My argument is that referring to "gods" will include both monotheistic and polytheistic beliefs in a single go, while any mention of "God" (capital - hence exlusively the Christian god) in only refers to one single monotheistic belief, and would require that all other monotheistic belief require equal attention to prevent POV. In other words, any editor who introduces "God" as a specific example has to provide reference to the denial of all other monotheist deities as well. That burden lies with the editor replacing the all-encompassing "gods" with the christian specific "God" (ie you), not with me (as I argue against that replacement). (Of course a reference making it explicit that atheists only reject polytheism and the Christian God, but accept existence of any other monotheistic deity would also suffice; but that seems far-fetched not to say impossible).

Your counterargument to this could be that the other monotheistic deities are included in the "gods" section, but than paying explicit attention to the christian God is western POV and should be removed. Arnoutf (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ttiotsw , do you really think that the statement "Atheists don't believe in gods" doesn't fall under general common knowledge, or at the least, subject-specific common knowledge, neither of which require citations? I'm sure I can find one, but it feels a bit of a waste of time to me when I'd have thought it's a well-known, uncontroversial statement. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Olaf, no as you have presented a more strong-Atheist position rather than "Atheists have no belief in any god" !. Anyone looking at the talk page on this article would also never be so rash as to claim anything to do with the definition of Atheism fell under the "general common knowledge" opt-out for references. Atheism in the past and even today is used also when somebody doesn't believe in the specific deity of the State. In this respect Routledge use of what we consider a non-NPOV "God" with a capital 'G' is not neutral as it shows a western bias. We should thus remove Routledge. I will propose that as a new discussion section. Ttiotsw (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Olaf, no as you have presented a more strong-Atheist position rather than "Atheists have no belief in any god" !". His definition: ""Atheists don't believe in gods". This is not strong atheism. It has exactly the same meaning as the definition you just gave. Ilkali (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I too am confused by the difference in strength between "Atheists have no belief in any god" and "Atheists don't believe in gods". Do you think it comes from the use of "don't believe" instead of "have no belief", or in "gods" instead of "any god"? Olaf Davis | Talk 07:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Routledge reference in lead - NPOV ?

Given the huge disparity in the meaning between "God" and "gods" that we in Wikipedia have then Routledge isn't a neutral reference for our purposes due to their non-neutral use of the word "God". In the lead paragraph Routledge is used as a reference for the claim,

Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] etc etc

The reference [1] which is.... ^ Rowe, William L. (1998). "Atheism". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Edward Craig. “Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”

(my bold) The problem presented is that we cannot use the wording of the reference i.e. we cannot use "God" with a capital 'G' as it is claimed to only present an objection to the specific Christian God, but are able to change this to suit what we feel is a claim that doesn't need any reference to support our change. The Routledge reference could be used to support the word "affirms" but given that Routledge only refers to the Christian God it is a bit of a leap of faith to presume that this means all gods. Routledge is thus not a suitable reference.Ttiotsw (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

So, are you saying that we should remove Routledge but keep 'gods'? Or keep Routledge but replace 'gods' with 'God'? Or add another reference for 'gods' and footnote Routledge from 'God'? Olaf Davis | Talk 07:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Remove Routledge as a reference from that first lead sentence. It doesn't precisely support the text.Ttiotsw (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. Arnoutf (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine with me. Perhaps we could add it to #Range as an example of the pre-20th century definition applying mainly to God? Olaf Davis | Talk 12:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ttiotsw makes a fair point in that it isn't our business to interpret Routledge. I've changed the citation to the Oxford American Dictionary. Mdiamante (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Good alternative, thanks. Olaf Davis | Talk 20:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Distorted/Incomplete rendering of Plato's apology to give weight to Atheism in antiquity.

I was disturbed to see that Plato's apology was used to support atheism in antiquity. For anyone who has actually read the work they will know that Plato portrays Socrates as one who claims to serve 'the God'. Meletus' charge of atheism is not the same as the modern understanding of the word - it was a charge referring to Socrates' disbelief in the Greek pantheon of gods.

The article does acknowledge that Plato has Socrates denying 'complete atheism'. However, this seems a defensive and clumsy attempt to give the section credibility yet hide the plain fact that Plato's potrayal of Socrates shows him to be a committed monotheist, who actually believes he has a call from 'the God' to speak truth to the people of Athens. Using the Apology as an example of atheism in antiquity therefore is laughable. No wonder many academics penalise their students for using wiki articles

How on earth this article got a star as a 'featured article' with this level of bias and inaccuracy is sad.

Lance Sharpe lancersharpe@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.41.157 (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Apology used incorrectly

The argument above is absolutely correct, even a cursory reading of Wik's own article on Apology will reveal quotes that show Plato protrayed Socrates as a montheist - so much so in fact he died believing he had a divine mandate to practice philosophy and speak the truth!

Using this example in some way to support atheism in antiquity is absolutely without foundation and makes one question the integrity of FA-class articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyr10310 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no use of the apology to "support" atheism. It is merely shown as an example of early uses of the term "atheist" as applied to those who dared to disagree with popular religion. Whether Socrates was a modern "atheist" as you see it is beside the point, the fact is, he expressed a disbelief in certain gods which is relevant to this article. What you both are aruging is that he was not a "true atheist" which is irrelevant. An atheist is anyone who expresses disbelief in a god and that makes everyone an atheist. A few great men once said... "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." and... "I contend we are all atheists, I simply believe in one less god than you do." Both of you accusing the entire article of being "inaccurate" based on this one little fact you disagree with is laughable. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit lead for readability

I am accepting Brian0918's offer to discuss this issue. The problem is that two definitions are provided but the reader is not given a signal to warn that this is what is happening. So the reader has to read both of the "old" first two sentences, and then go back and figure out that the second sentence is presenting a new and different concept. Brian0918 criticized my solution to this problem but didn't propose one of his own. Any better ideas out there? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph is fine as it is. The decision to put the "rejection of theism" definition first was a very conscious one, as it is the more common and widely-accepted definition. It is very important to put forth some kind of definition in the first sentence of every article. Beginning the article with "Atheism generally has one of two meanings" is simply not adequate. johnpseudo 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well then, how about this: "Atheism, viewed narrowly as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2]"? This puts forth some kind of definition in the first sentence while, at the same time, giving the reader a clue that a different definition will follow in the second sentence. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that is not better, actually I would say, worse for two reasons. (1) It complicates the prose. (2) The first definition is not necessarily very narrow; which would be implied by your version. The current version does not implie that version is narrow, only that the other definition is broader. Arnoutf (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone saying "that doesn't work" to my suggestions. However, no one has yet said "the current version is not difficult for the first time reader to follow" or "here is a better way to solve the problem." Am I the only one who thinks that the first two sentences are, as currently written, bit difficult for a first time reader to digest because the fact that two different concepts are being presented isn't made clear until the second sentence? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

We could change "more broadly" to "as an implicit assumption" to contrast with the "explicit" first sentence. However I think the problem we ran into with this before is that people who affirm the first sentence implicitly affirm the second sentence. That is why the second uses "more broadly", because the first is sentence is a subset of the second. As for your original claim that the user is given no warning, I think the warning is obvious in the phrase "When defined more broadly". Do you disagree or have another suggestion to replace that phrase? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-06-03 16:21Z

I agree with Brian that the current version does give enough warning to the first-time reader. I might agree with BWDIK if the two sentences were spaced further apart (say the second came a paragraph later), but I really don't think introducing a broader definition fifteen words into the article is a problem. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because the current version is adequate doesn’t mean it can’t be improved. I know of at least one first-time reader (o.k., me) who stumbled over the first two sentences as they are currently written. Here is another proposal to fix that problem (the “most commonly” text is based on johnpseudo’s comment):

Atheism most commonly means an explicit position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] However, it is also defined more broadly to mean the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.[4]

How’s that? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not a reliable source. "Most commonly" is just a consensus that we reached here on the talk page to decide how to structure the lede, based on informal surveys of the definitions available. johnpseudo 01:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC) (I do not read this comment as suggesting any change to my proposed text. If I am wrong, please edit this comment and delete this note. (And, by the way, I think foonote 4 also supports the "most commonly" text. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC))

I favor leaving the lede as-is. We should not include "most commonly" without a reliable source. Footnote 4 does seem to favor "most commonly", but it is only semi-reliable in my opinion. johnpseudo 19:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the proposed change. It starts off by referring to the word itself, rather than the subject itself. To be grammatically correct, you would either have to italicize the first word, or put it in quotes. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-06-16 20:04Z

O.k., the problem seems to be changes to the first sentence. How about we leave it intact and only modify the second sentence, to wit:

Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] It is also defined more broadly to mean the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.[4]

That way the reader gets a signal at the beginning of the second sentence that something new is happening. Your thoughts?Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There is Natural Atheism book as a source for defined more broadly to mean the absence of belief, so according to WP:NPOV it should be pointed that it's an atheist's opinion. --213.195.207.84 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think your concern relates to substantive content that is already in the second sentence. With my proposal I'm just trying to improve readability of what is already there. If you have an issue with the "defined more broadly" text you should probably open up a new section to discuss it. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contribution to the article. New version ("It is also defined more broadly ...") is better then "When defined more broadly ..." . It still raises questions like Who defines it more broadly and When it is defined more broadly. Can those be addressed? --windyhead (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think those are both great ideas. I suggest that you first start a new section in which you propose a solution to the passive voice issue ("It is ..."). Then, once that is resolved, you start a separate section to deal with the "when" question. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Apology

An otherwise good article is spoilt by this crass use of the Apology as an example of atheism in history. The article does not make any caveat about how Plato understood the court's meaning of the word. The modern understanding is clearly different and needs explaining. Frankly to argue we are all atheists to some degree is semantic babble.

The question is: does the article really portray Plato's Apology truthfully as an example of Atheism? Surely putting in a more detailed caveat other than 'not a complete atheist' would improve the article. The argument above has already robbed the word atheism of any identity, since we are all atheists - so 'not a complete atheist' dosen't really cut it seeing as Plato portrays Socrates as a monotheist on a mission - serving 'the God' by practising philosophy.

I think the use of Apology as an example may well take on a different shade in the average person's mind with that fact stated. This makes the article unworthy of the top rating and defending this faux pas just makes me chuckle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyr10310 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't say he was an atheist, just that he was condemned as one according to English translations of the Apology. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-06-03 22:00Z

My point was, the condemnation of the entire article for this one little disagreement was laughable. If you have such a problem with Socrates being portrayed as a "modern atheist" then why don't you fix it yourself? The way I see it, the article clearly portrays Socrates as a monotheist who was labeled an "atheist" by his peers due to his beliefs, which I think is relevant to an article about atheism. Whether or not he was a "true atheist" is not the point, the point is he was accused of being an atheist and is probably the earliest notable figure accused of being an atheist and that in itself deserves a mention. I clearly understood the difference and if you don't think the apology is used ambiguously then feel free to do something about it instead of wasting your breath complaining about it. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused here... who are you replying to? I am not against mentioning Socrates in the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-06-04 14:58Z

I'm replying to Zephyr, sorry for the confusion. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ergo for stating the obvious - again....

You keep repeating the moot point about Plato being 'accused of atheism' - it is how the word is understood by the average reader that is the problem. This is shown by the debate on definitions.

Can anyone argue that some extra caveats would avoid an average reader actually believing that Plato portrayed Socrates as an 'almost atheist' - that is the clear impression the example gives. Clearly the Apology does nothing of the sort and shows Socrates as a believer in 'the God' much so that he was willing to die for his beliefs. This is hardly articulated by saying that Socrates reportedly disputed the charge of atheism by describing him as 'not a complete atheist'. That is my point and it is irrefutable.

Why ergosum is so defensive is baffling? Isn't this a forum for discussion? Why dismiss my point, which clearly has merit, by asking me to change the article. It will be edited back anyway one suspects being an FA - class and all that. Ergo, if you don't like adversarial debate please question why you 'contribute'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyr10310 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please make a suggestion for how this can be reworded. I agree that there may be a bias through omission but I also believe it should be left in, though with some other addition to make it clear. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-06-10 14:25Z

FA class articles are not above correction or editing. If you (Zephyr) feel like something is misleading or incorrect, then change it and if someone reverts your changes then discuss it with them and let them know what you are doing. Thats how it works around here. I was merely suggesting that instead of complaining about it, doing something about it would be more constructive. My "defensiveness" was your accusation that the "integrity of FA class articles" was compromised by this one little ambiguity, and of Anonmyous' claim that the entire article was crap because of this one little issue. Does that clear things up? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Pwned by Conservapedia

Wow, check out the brilliant article on atheism at Conservapedia! It's the article of the year! Our pathetic article has only 11 sections, whereas their one has 28, and is waaaaay longer (and therefore better). And it was approved by Andrew Schlafly himself! Checkmate, Wikipedia!

(Seriously though, ours could do with a slightly longer lead IMO, though it's still a lot better than their 4 line lead (introductions there are apparently limited to one paragraph, possibly simply to be different from Wikipedia)). Richard001 (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does ours need more, it has a 3 para intro, which covers the main points. More is not always better.... Arnoutf (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never read such crap before. I quote: "Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through studies" and "Atheism stems from a deliberate choice to ignore the reality of God's existence". I love it Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, bigger is NOT better. Take, for example, the Battle of Thermoplyae. Second of all, an article wholly contributed to by extreme Christian/conservative rightists and excluding those who wish to advocate non-religion/liberal concepts is not my idea of a "brilliant" article. Third of all, Andrew Schlafly endorsing an article on Conservapedia is like President Bush endorsing his own movements to establish Christianity as America's state religion. By the way, note that this article has been a featured article on an online encyclopedia of more than 2 million articles, edited by people of all beliefs from around the world, while the one on Conservapedia is a featured article on an online encyclopedia of more than ? articles of dubious neutrality, edited mostly by trained monkeys at computers the American conservative "right." 余^(姚七) 00:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Latest book on Atheism

One of the latest is by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker. It has very good reviews. May I suggest that insights from the book be added to this article to make it more balanced. Anthony Flew said of the book: "Rarely, if ever, in my many years as a Professor of Philosphy did I ever have the opportunity to read such a compelling argument." 4672mtem (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

More balanced????

Inclusion of insights should be driven by the article, not by a books that are published. We don't use Dawkins who has written many books on atheism as a source either, we only use authors that give us a reasonably balanced view of what atheism is.

This specific book is written from an anti-atheist point of view (just like Dawkins books are those of a supporter). The very good reviews have all been written by critics of atheism (see their own published works), which makes these reviews also suspect of an anti-atheist point of view. (except for Anthony Flew, who has long been a recognised atheist but whose views have been less focussed in more recent years see this article)

In that light I would say, no you should not add arguments of that specific book into the article. Arnoutf (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please post the text you want to add here. --windyhead (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

irreligion claim

Since it really hasn't been discussed here, unless I missed something, the statement of "although atheism is often equated with irreligion" definitely needs a quote. It's just begging the question "by whom?" and if that's ever the case it should have a source. Imasleepviking ( talk ) 13:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm against this obsession with flooding the lead with sources. Normally the lead is supposed to summarize the article, where everything is sourced as necessary. The lead itself does not necessarily need every statement sourced, provided that it is sourced later in the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-07-08 16:51Z

Imasleepviking is correct, this sentence is POV and the article should mention whose POV it is. Also the word "often" is questionable - what source it is from? --windyhead (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"often" is a weasel word, it should be avoided. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In any case, if it is a summary the sourced claim should be in the main text. The only other mention of irreligion is in the last line "Although people who self-identify as atheists are usually assumed to be irreligious, some sects within major religions reject the existence of a personal, creator deity" besides being a very modest line for attention in the lead, the lead line is (MHO) not the same in meaning as the line in the lead. Arnoutf (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Reviving the God + gods discussion

I read through the above section and it seems no consensus was reached. I changed the text to read "a God or gods" which encompasses Western and Eastern, and all other I think, concepts of God. My argument to the revert is below:

1) User:Ilkali said it borders on ungrammatical yet I found it in two reputable places on the web, Dictionary.com [20] and Britannica.com [21]. The wording is slightly different so I would be more than willing to modify it so that it more closely matches the referenced documents.

2) User:Ilkali say it violates MoS but I read through the document and found references to "God" yet no explicit or implicit prohibitions, just guidance on capitalization. Is there another part I'm missing?

3) The reason I made the distinction is that there are people who believe in only one God and therefore they also deny the existence of "gods", as that is explicitly plural. Then on the other hand, there are those who deny that there is just one God, pagans come to mind, so they implicitly deny the existence of "God" in the singular.

It just seems that if a monotheist reads it they get one interpretation, is a polytheist reads it, they get another. We can't assume all readers are academics or have researched the various religions. We don't have to be a textbook on the matter but maybe assuming some ignorance (and I don't mean that in a bad way) is good, it forces us to be more clear.

Any thoughts? Can I get an "Amen!" --Stuthomas4 (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, indeed, that is why I reverted it to your text in the first place. "A God or gods" is the only phrasing that does not show bias towards either side. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping that more people weigh in on this issue. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be "a god or gods", in this case "god" is common name and it shouldn't be capitalized. From MoS: "Common nouns denoting deities or religious figures are not capitalized; thus the Romans worshipped many gods, many Anglo-Saxons worshipped the god Wotan, Jesus and Muhammad are both considered prophets in Islam, biblical scholars dispute whether Mary was a virgin for her entire life, and her husband was her muse."

Another options would be to use "any god" but I don't think it fits there. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

MWORS makes an excellent point, one that is recommended on Wikipedia and in scholarly articles. Capitalized God refers within the scholarly community to the Abrahamic god. (Typing "Abrahamic" in front of "god" gets old really fast). I'll change the article. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• "any deity" would do the job & is less cumbersome. However, the sentence & paragraph have other problems.

"As the strictest sense of positive atheism does not entail any specific beliefs outside of disbelief in any deity" strongly suggests that positive atheism's disbelief IS a belief. Then the topic is immediately dropped, & morality is discussed instead. I think the entire sentence could be dropped without loss of meaning --JimWae (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that my proposal "a god or gods" was accepted, "any deity" would work just as well. I think that "entail any specific beliefs outside of disbelief" is a valid sentence although I understand the misgivings about it, I don't suppose that "hold any specific opinions outside of disbelief" sounds much better... I do think the sentence is important because it makes it clear that beside that lack of belief there are no common beliefs among atheists. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Then there should be a paragraph about that - I think there already is. As it stands, the topic is orphaned in this paragraph. Any suggesting disbelief is a belief is still not good anyway --JimWae (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• That's exactly what the paragraph is about, the fact there's no common belief and that atheists adhere to different morality models, what separate paragraph do you want? As for disbelief not being a belief... I think is fair to say that disbelief is an opinion, right? And an opinion sometimes is called "belief" like in "I'm of opinion that... ", "I believe that..." so it's not entirely wrong as I see it. man with one red shoe (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• IN that section,the 1st paragraph & only the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph are about religion. The entire rest of the section is about morality. That sentence needs detail to support it & does not belong in that paragraph. It needs to be stated that there are considerable numbers of atheists who still consider themselves religious/spiritual, with examples given. As it stands, that sentence is nothing more than a clumsy segue to the next topic. --JimWae (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'm reading through the article and it's written a few different ways - and really inconsistently. It probably should be spelled out nearer to the top, then shorthanded for the balance of the article. I think a closer look, and probably a series of edits just for consistency and flow are needed. But tomorrow.... --Stuthomas4 (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"User:Ilkali said it borders on ungrammatical yet I found it in two reputable places on the web". No you didn't. As you say, neither source has that exact wording.

"User:Ilkali say it violates MoS but I read through the document and found references to "God" yet no explicit or implicit prohibitions". It states that common nouns don't capitalise.

"The reason I made the distinction is that there are people who believe in only one God and therefore they also deny the existence of "gods", as that is explicitly plural". English just doesn't work that way. If I tell you I don't believe in unicorns, am I leaving open the possibility that I believe in only one unicorn? Clearly not! The sentence means that nothing I believe in is a unicorn.

Furthermore, people that merely don't believe in "a God" are not necessarily atheists, whereas people that don't believe in gods necessarily are. By joining the two with an 'or', you admit all those in the former category that just don't fit the bill.

'any deity' isn't as concise as 'gods', but is much better than 'a God or gods'. Ilkali (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with "god or gods". Firstly, why is this dispute only occurring on one sentence deep in the article, and not anywhere else we have this, including the lead? Secondly, it is grammatically clumsy and unnecessarily complex. If someone doesn't believe in any gods, then they don't believe in any god - as Ilkali states. Perhaps we could change it to "any god"? Thirdly and most seriously, it is incorrect: it implies that someone who disbelieves a particular god, but still believes in some gods in general, is an atheist, which is untrue. Mdwh (talk) 09:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to "any deity". I think the sentence should stay, it's meant to be a segue to the part about morality, it explains that atheists don't hold common beliefs (except for not believing in any deity), and I think it does the job. If I were to change that it would be the first paragraph, especially "Christian atheist" part that doesn't make much sense, is pretty much an oxymoron. I see that 3 books used that term is that enough to support an oxymoron? And I see it's linked to "Agnostic theism" article that doesn't quote its sources and even more, that article talks about "Christian agnosticism" not "Christian atheism" which to me means something else. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually Mdwh you're incorrect. Historically if you did not believe in a monotheistic god, they called you an atheist. It may be untrue today but I would bet you could find those that still feel that if you're a pagan for instance, you might as well be an atheist because you don't believe in the traditional Christian God. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"It may be untrue today" It's "today" that I'm talking about, as that's what the article is about, so my statement is correct. Fine if we want to mention the historical usage of the word (in fact we already do, under Etymology), but that's not appropriate for the context being discussed, and we shouldn't conflate meanings of the word. Mdwh (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

But you're ok with the phrase "any diety"? (That's not meant to be sarcastic, I'm actually asking.)--Stuthomas4 (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Mdwh (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Psychology of Atheism

Would a psychology of Atheism section be useful? We can draw from the work of Hunsberger and Altmeyer (2006), which found that Atheists tend to be: liberal, older, with little doubt about the non-existence of God, mostly had very little religious upbringing as children, those that did grow up in a religious home came to their Atheism by themselves and did so by reading a lot and talking very little, felt stigmatized often for being nonbelievers, tend to want to avoid indoctrinating their children even into nonbelief as they would rather they make up their own minds, give little indication of wanting to convert others to unbelief, disliked fundamentalists, and score very low on authoritarianism. Such a psyc. of atheismm section might naturally follow from the demographics section. I'd be happy to contribute to it, as I'm familiar with the literature and irreligious research. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoejamma (talk • contribs)

"Phychology of atheism" sounds like it's a mental disease, I think this is POVish subject. It's like having a section "Intelligence negative influence on religiosity" in Christianity or Islam articles. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the title is not very nice sounding and sounds like a very likely POV trap. If we do something like this I would write it into the demographics section, as "liberal....upbringing" could be seen as demographics. Arnoutf (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Hoejamma (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Hoe

How widely accepted is Hunsberger and Altmeyer's assessment? I'd have questions about some of those - "with little doubt about the non-existence of God" could easily be a selection effect of picking 'atheists' not 'agnostics', and "felt stigmatized often for being nonbelievers" sounds to me like a US-centric perspective.

I agree with the US-centric critique... we'd have to specify the geopolitical source of the study. As an weak Atheist, I was disappointed to see that the tendency in the Atheist sample was to have little doubt about the non-existence, which is a hallmark of strong Atheism. Future research should make an effort to distinguish between strong and weak Atheists to avoid this confound. Hoejamma (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Hoe

Not saying the stuff's invalid or that it shouldn't go in, I'm just genuinely curious as to how accepted the claims are among academics. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A&H's findings were methodologically sound, and they have an excellent limitations section where they detail all the potential shortcomings of their study... very professionally done. So, I would say it is valid, though with any social science research, you can always question whether a set of findings truly generalizes to the majority of that group. Hoejamma (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Hoe

Can you provide the full reference of the A&H story, as I am truly interested but have trouble locating the publication you find (both on Scopus and on Google Scholar). I did find: Altemeyer, Bob and Bruce Hunsberger (1992). "Authoritarianism, Religious Fundamentalism, Quest, and Prejudice". International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. 2(2). pp. 113–133. which indeed seems like a well thought out story. Arnoutf (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

2 New Articles

Recently, in a discussion, we came to the conclusion that anyone who is not a theist is an atheist, because the theistic *conception of God* is a very distinct one, which can be called theos. Being atheist doesn't necessarily mean that a person does not believe in any *conception of God*, just the theistic conception. They could very easily be a atheistic deist, or an atheistic pantheist. Since the word theism doesn't encompass deists and pantheists, neither should atheism. So, atheism means "no theos". If a person does not believe in deism or pantheism, then they would be adeistic (no deos) and apantheistic (no pantheos). There needs to be 2 separate terms for those. If a person disbelieves in all 3 (which happens to be the COMMON and ERRONEOUS definition of the word "atheism") then they are an adeistic apantheistic atheist; or, more succinctly, a naturalist. That's my take on it. If we don't think of it in these terms, we risk prolonging and muddling the debate with erroneous and unutilitarian language use. Consider it. 66.69.194.16 (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"we came to the conclusion" sounds like original research. Please provide well respected scientific sources for this idea. Arnoutf (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that "There are not agnostics" argument is hardly a new thing - you could probably find some sources on that if you look hard enough. Otherwise, it would fall under WP:OR.

Either way, this is irrelevant to the article, but might be levelled somewhere in Criticism of Atheism article or somesuch. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What Thomas Paine said

Some of the argument I've seen on this discussion page is as convoluted as those between theologians of different sects or Marxists of different schools (which may as well actually be theologians of different sects). I can't tell--was it ever decided how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?

Paine equated deism with atheism, and vice versa. Given what deism means, atheism at that time apparently meant "without theism". Deism, for those who aren't aware, was a movement that came out of the Scottish Enlightenment centered around the idea of a Creator who created the universe and then let it go its own way and doesn't interfere. Theism, on the other, involves a deity which interacts. Natty4bumpo (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)