Talk:Atheism/Archive 49

Sartre's atheism as abandonment

The section Philosophical concepts>Alternatives includes the statement: 'Marx, Freud, and Sartre all used this argument to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness.'

While I don't want to dwell on Marx and Freud, who I nevertheless don't believe ever took all three positions, I am certain Sartre did not. Moreover, having read the cited reference, I don't see how the conclusion presented here was reached according to that source.

Before I spend time on presenting a referenced exposition on Sartre's position, can someone here help me out? Have I read the sentence correctly in implying that all three thinkers concluded all three outcomes from the same position (axiological/constructive atheism)?

If my reading is wrong, I suggest the sentence is ambiguous and needs to be re-written.

If my reading is acknowledged to have some foundation, I'd also like to know whether I would encounter significant resistance to opening up the section to an expansion on Sartre's views by presenting citations from and about Sartre to demonstrate that he argued that humans are absolutely free because they cannot rely on God to support and validate or to deny and invalidate their actions, that he saw this as a realization of abandonment, not liberation, and as no guarantee at all of realizing any happiness or noble concept of full development.

In fact, in his seminal lecture Existentialism and Humanism he explicitly mentioned the Nazis as proof that humans had used their freedom to achieve the antithesis of hapiness or fulfillment. Moreover, he, like Kierkegaard, associated absolute human freedom with anguish and despair about the weightiness of the choices we all have to make without the prop of divine guidance.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 12:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Cross-posted from elsewhere..."You are, of course, entirely right about Sartre and atheism; I remember reading Existentialism and Humanism several years ago and his discussion of "abandonment" (as well as anguish and despair) certainly does not support the text which it is being used for. The bit on Socrates is pretty lame as well; "by Zeus" isn't anything more than a common exclamation (the Greek equivalent of "Jeez..."), and you can't use Plato's dialogues - particularly the later ones - as evidence for Socrates's beliefs! A much more telling point is actually from Xenophon - can't quite remember where - who says that Socrates always participated in public and private sacrifices. The whole Socrates bit could likely be cut down to one sentence, and the paragraphs on Epicurus and Lucretius should also be merged (as AFAIK their views on the gods don't differ; NB I've read Lucretius more recently and he definitely thinks there are deities - just entirely remote ones. Not sure how he's made it into an article on atheism)." Moreschi (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As per my recent post above, I have added a sub-section on atheist existentialism. I believe it deserves its own section because it is a philosophy entirely based on atheism. Part of my edit was also to remove Sartre's name from the list including Marx and Freud, presented here as arguing that atheism offers happiness and self-fulfilment. Not only do I believe the given citation does not support that claim (I have not removed or challenged the citation), but I believe that Sartre talked compellingly about atheism coming at the price of anguish about making choices, and abandonment because atheists have no higher authority to rely on in making choices; I have not elaborated on those points in my edit because I decided it would add relatively little to the topic, and is properly the preserve of the Sartre or existentialism articles. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 05:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the 2nd paragraph in the new addition might belong in the Sartre article - but it is too detailed for the atheism article, and is not about atheism.--JimWae (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree; it seems too lengthy to me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I presume we are talking about the structure of my contribution as it now exists rather than as I originally presented it. My intention in quoting Goldthorpe was to illustrate that Sartre's existentialist atheism wasn't necessarily anatgonistic to Christian ethics or sensibilities. I reject the argument that it's not about atheism, but I wouldn't lose sleep over losing that reference. Cut it if you will.

The Priest quote was included to illustrate that Sartre's atheism was counter-deterministic and a serious attempt at an entire atheist metaphysics not limited only to a refutation of deism. This also goes to the point of length: Sartre did more than just oppose deism in passing, and therefore deserves a closer examination than some of the other theorists who dealt with the issue only as means to some other project (ie, Marx, Freud). Hence an examination of what Sartre had to say about atheism seems to me to deserve the closer scrutiny (and therefore length) that I presented. So, I would like to see a clearer exposition of why it's too detailed for this article before I'd be comfortable deleting the reference.

The Barnes quote was intended to demonstrate that in Sratre's atheism, the anti-determinism (mentioned by Priest) was evidenced by his rejection of the concept of God as prescribed by organised religions, and therefore also the prescriptions justified by the doctrinaire association of church-imposed ethics or rules with their proprietary conceptions of God. This goes precisely to the nature of the atheism Sartre defined, and, again, I would like to see a more detailed argument for removing it, particularly since the Barnes and Priest observations are thematically interrelated. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 05:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points. Peter asked me at my user talk why I had rearranged the material into two paragraphs, and I think it best that I answer that here, because it overlaps a lot with what Peter is asking about shortening. So first, the reason I reordered it was that the earlier version read to me like a difficult-to-follow back-and-forth along the lines of Sartre said this, and someone else said this about it, and Sartre also said this, and someone else said this, and Sartre also said this, and someone else said this—with each of those six points in its own short paragraph. It makes better sense to me to write a section about Sartre's ideas in the form of here are Sartre's ideas (paragraph one), and here is the commentary by others about it (paragraph two). Perhaps, based on the comment just above, Peter was trying to develop some nuanced points about how each of the responding comments was adding something specifically to the sub-part of Sartre's ideas that it followed, but that wasn't at all clear from the original edit to the page. It was difficult even to follow what Sartre was arguing.

As for shortening the section, it's not something I feel strongly about, else I would have done it when I made my other edits. But I'm sympathetic to what Jim says above. Speaking for me, when I compare the material about Sartre now on the page with the material just above it, about Freud, Marx, Pascal, and others a little above that, it seems to me a bit WP:UNDUE to give that much space, that much text, to Sartre, in relation to the shorter discussions about the other authorities. I'd rather see a paragraph about existentialism about the same length as the paragraph about other alternatives, just above it. But it's not a big deal to me. Peter argues here that the responding sources are directly relevant to the subject of atheism, and I'm willing to accept that. It isn't a matter of including everything that might be considered relevant. It's a matter of covering, in WP:Summary style, the major issues on this page (and we all agree that existentialism is such an issue), and leaving the details for another page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Sartre material is unquestionably difficult, but readers who have come this far (the Sartre section is a fair way into an almost tedious listing of every conceivable taxonomic variant on atheism) deserve not to be treated to a Walt Disney version of his oeuvre, the encyclopaedic focus on plain English notwithstanding. Condensing Sartre's thoughts about atheism into a paragraph is an ambitious undertaking in itself, and given that more has been written about Sartre than by him, condensing relevant points from that stream of available sources is perhaps even more difficult, hence my resort to generalist texts.

I didn't intend to side-track the discussion this way, but Tryptofish thinks it appropriate: Ordering and re-ordering the paragraphs implies epistemological and phenomenological subjectivity with the capacity to convey meaning in its own right; my question was concerned with Tryptofish's intent in that regard and if I understand correctly, the ordering was an arbitrary preference with no such intent at all. It was a question prompted by curiosity, not intent to reverse changes or argue a point.

As for the length of the passage, I see viewpoints re-iterated, but not elaborated on. So I'll repeat my basic premise: Sartre proposed a philosophy of action and ethics entirely based on an atheist weltanschauung, not just passing comments of application to some other project. The relevance of his comments to this topic (atheism) compared to those of some others is therefore commensurately higher than some others whose reference to atheism was almost parenthetical and derives notability from their authors' reputation more than the impact of the comments themselves (Freud, for example). Most specifically, his conception of atheism was not a refutation of religion or religious sensibilities, but rather the rejection of proposing a deistic foundation for human actions, politics and laws. This, I would propose, makes him the pre-eminent voice speaking about atheism in the 20th century, which is, of course, a debate still extant in the academy. In terms of the article though, Sartre's relevance to the topic has already been semiotically diminished by placing him in the dismissive category of 'Alternatives' rather than 'Philosophical concepts'.

I'm not sure whether you implied it Tryptofish, but if my explanation of Sartre's thought is still too scant to make it plain what he meant, perhaps the article needs more material from tertiary sources rather than less. Alternatively, perhaps another editor can attempt to condense his thought to a more tractable form, albeit without reducing his intellectual contribution to a bubble-gum phrase.

Regards — Peter S Strempel | Talk 00:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Short answer: at this point, I'd rather let other editors step in. My overall preference is for succinctness, fewer details rather than more, although certainly not bubble gum. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

'Have at it,' I say. I'm not going to be proprietorial about words so long as the meaning is there. In that regard, I have no objection to you, Tryptofish, doing the editing yourself since I'm reasonably confident you understand my perspective. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 04:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. But you may perhaps be giving me more credit for understanding than I deserve! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Never! I regard you as a thoughtful and considerate editor. That you and I don't agree on some/many matters of perspective and approach doesn't mean that I don't trust you to have the best interests of the article in mind. Regards — Peter S Strempel | Talk 01:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Work needed

Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for dropping by on the atheism talk page. I'm a little bit mystified about what your object is. I saw the cleanup list you linked to, and noted the comments about the atheism article. I also see the templates to that effect every time I use this talk page.

As a matter of opinion, the topic itself is prone to differences of opinion about objectivity and neutrality, not to mention the epistemological difficulties in describing beliefs and their absence. I believe the active editors are trying to work through those to arrive at wording and references that will withstand the critical scrutiny of reviewers, and that will serve to enlighten readers coming from all perspectives. I'm not sure this process can proceed faster than it is at the moment.

As a matter of opinion, I don't think the article is currently ready for an FA review. It might not even meet the criteria of a GA article in its present state.

That said, I find it difficult to discern your intentions from your words, and therefore also what kind of questions I might want to ask you about them. Regards — Peter S Strempel | Talk 01:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is currently a featured article. It has several cleanup templates, and is one of the featured articles with the most cleanup templates, per the link I gave above. Because of this, it does not currently meet the featured article criteria. As such, unless cleanup work is completed, it may need to undergo a featured article review, which determines whether or not the article should retain featured status. Your comment about it not even meeting GA criteria is precisely my point - if cleanup work is not completed, it should not remain at featured status. Due to this discussion, I am now watching this page, so further discussion can take place here and there is no need for talk page pings, although I thank you for the initial one. Dana boomer (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've gone through the page, and unless I missed something, I've fixed all of the tagged passages except for one. There is still a citation needed tag in the Etymology section. If my memory serves, JimWae worked on that material, so perhaps he can provide the cite for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Jim: Thanks, including your catch of my mistake.

Dana: Unless I've missed something, there are no remaining tags. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your work! All of the tags are gone, so that part is fine. Some further issues that could be considered:

• Several hidden comments within the text that relate to possible improvements.
• Several books still missing page numbers
• There are 3 dead links.

Overall looks decently referenced, but I'm not a subject matter expert. Dana boomer (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry people, but if this is what an FA article looks like I cringe in shame.

The wording is so inelegant it might as well be a translation exercise by a foreign-language class. There's far too much contortion to accommodate tendentious viewpoints, and not nearly enough emphasis on presenting unambiguous and cadenced prose to describe the topic. You can, of course, outvote my opinion on that in a consensus exercise, and if you do, honestly presenting your views that the article is fit-for-purpose despite my objections, I shall withdraw and not bicker. — Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 04:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Peter, would you care to help fix the problems you see? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if it's not fast enough for you, Griswaldo. I am writing daily (obsessive scribbling in notebooks, on napkins, even on a tablecloth I got billed for) to offer suggestions, and discarding my suggestions before I post them here because I am frustrated at my inability to put words together that are inclusionist enough to satisfy my own perceptions of fairness. The moment I have the words I'll unveil them here. Until that time, though, let's not call a clusterf*%# something else. Regards — Peter S Strempel | Talk 14:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's just not helpful to show up and call the entry a piece of crap and to leave it at that. I'm glad to see that you're planning to do something proactive to help change it. Also, consider the fact that many of the people who contributed to this entry, and it's prose, are probably not feeling all that great when you say things like the "wording is so inelegant it might as well be a translation exercise by a foreign-language class." Please try to offer critiques that are a bit less insulting. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, I don't 'show up' to piss you off. But if the incrementalism you think passes for intellectual input accurately represents the topic you're wrong. If and when it comes time for someone to come to my door and put a bullet in my chest for not having the right beliefs (and that happens in the world every day) I want to be confident that at the very least the Wikipedia entry on atheism doesn't misrepresent my own views on my rejection of the faith(s) that put the bullet there. Peter S Strempel | Talk 16:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Peter, would it possible for you to share your ideas without the vitriol and rhetoric? Thanks. GManNickG (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Peter I have put next to no work into this article so it's not my own feelings I was speaking of. All I'm asking is for you to find ways to offer criticisms that are not uncivil. That you respond to such a request by being uncivil doesn't bode well. I'm asking you again to please tone it down in the future. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What, is this the pass when the Wikistapo comes a knocking? Incivility? Vitriol? Rhetoric? You guys need to get out more. I didn't call the article a piece of crap, you did that Griswaldo. What I said was that it ain't ready.

A little reality here. I have been shot at and had a car bomb placed in my vehicle because I said I 'don't believe' (nothing to do with this article - yet). I did not vandlaise this article to reflectct that fact. I engaged in the most useful way I could think of, which was about including a short section about an epsitemological effort to understsnd this topic.

Unlike all of you, I sign my name as who I am. The Islamic jihadists won't have to come looking for me under layers of bullshit. Neither will any of you. But if I have to wear bullet holes on my tee shirt for not believing what you do, don't you think that maybe I can call the politically correct efforts in this artcile exactly that?

If you have something to say about atheism that hasn't got to do with censoring atheists, say it; I never reverted a single line in this article, even when I thought the author was wrong. If you want to eject me from the debate, get to it. Just don't insult me with this 'incivility' and 'rhetoric' crap. Regards - Peter S Strempel | Talk 03:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

What you said was much more colorful than the fact that it wasn't ready, and if you don't get how you're being uncivil then good luck here. WP:CIVIL is a policy. We try as hard as we can to keep the atmosphere from becoming unpleasant during our discussions. It has nothing to do with what you say but how you say it. Just tone it down. I'm sorry to hear about your personal troubles, but please do not let them effect how you treat other, good faith editors here on Wikipedia who have nothing to do with your life outside. Please also see, WP:BATTLEGROUND related to this. Lastly I'm unsure what you mean by "f I have to wear bullet holes on my tee shirt for not believing what you do." Do you have any idea what I believe? Do you have any idea what others here believe? Doubtful, but you seem to be jumping to all kinds of conclusions about that. I guarantee you that most of this entry has been written by self-proclaimed atheists, and non-theists of other stripes (which would include someone like myself). So please understand, again that civil behavior is expected of Wikipedia editors. No one is trying to remove you from any debates. We just expect you to act civilly.Griswaldo (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you had some hard times; but this doesn't give you a free pass to pretend that you can say whatever you want however you want. This is still a community and you still need to respect that: some members of the community feel you're being unnecessarily abrasive, so identify why and stop it. You aren't above anyone else for any reason. So again, please remove the emotion and rhetoric from your replies, and stick to simple on-topic points. GManNickG (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding Nietzsche's picture

I would add his picture since I think - and obviously he does - that he is one of the major intellectuals of atheism. One eloquent example: " I do not by any means know atheism as a result; even less as an event: It is a matter of course with me, from instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questionable, too exuberant to stand for any gross answer. God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers -- at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think!" (Ecce Homo)Gregghouse (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the issue here. See "Images must...be significantly and directly related to the article's topic ...[and]...should look like what they are meant to illustrate" in WP:IMAGES. An image of someone who thinks himself an atheist doesn't meet this criterion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, so: what about the picture of Feuerbach, D'Holbach and Epicurus in the article? Gregghouse (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Gregghouse, and by the way, welcome to Wikipedia! I think a lot of the issue was putting the image in the lead, at the top of the page. How about, instead, putting the image somewhere lower on the page? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that was my main objection as well. I wouldn't mind an image of Nietzsche added to the article, it was its placement I wasn't happy about. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Got it. The main reason is that the Facebook social page "atheism" is linked with the Wikipedia article and the first image od the article is used by the FB page. Then, the same picture appears also in your profile , associated with "atheist" when you write it in the "religion" label. And I thought Nitezsche to be the best choice. That's all.Gregghouse (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Zuckerman on atheism and suicide

I removed the Zuckerman quote[1], which was inserted and reinserted by user Anupam, because it cherry-picks from Zuckerman's earlier work. Here is what Zuckerman has to say[2], more recently, about the statistical connections between atheism and suicide:

As for suicide, however, regular church-attending Americans clearly have lower rates than non-attenders (Comstock and Partridge 1972; Stack and Wasserman 1992; Martin 1984), although this correlation has actually not been found in other nations (Stack 1991). Of the current top-ten nations with the highest rates of suicide, most are relatively secular (World Health Organization, 2003). But it is worth noting that eight of these top-ten are post-Soviet countries, suggesting that decades of totalitarianism, depressed economies, and a lack of basic human freedoms may be more significant in explaining the high rates of suicide than low levels of God-belief.

Zuckerman surmises that these other important factors might be more significant, or causal. In other words, there may not be a direct relationship here. Its not enough to only quote his earlier observation. There is nothing here, in fact, to say exactly how much significance, if any, he thinks the relation might be. The proposed addition was misrepresenting the possible causal connection which he found in these statistics and which he is tentative about with regards to its significance. --Modocc (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Zuckerman's views on the report are not as relevant on the actual research conducted by the World Health Organisation, which made the initial report. The information is published by the Cambridge University Press and is reliable. Per WP:OR and WP:CENSOR, we cannot simply remove information if it conflicts with our own interpretation of the findings. We must report what reliable sources publish. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Zuckerman's views are the only thing that is relevant here, because it was Zuckerman who made the initial report and synthesis that was published by Cambridge (look closely at the page headers of that source, because you may have missed this). It is he who refers to the WHO data and its his statistical synthesis and interpretations of those statistics which were published in these articles. It is his synthesis to report, not ours. --Modocc (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

His synthesis in the article you refer to is simply speculation, which is why he uses the word "may"; the Cambridge University Press statement is more reliable because it actually makes a claim supported by World Health Organisation data. A reference from ABC-CLIO also makes the exact same report here. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 23:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"the Cambridge University Press statement" is Zuckermans's statement. The two references you cited in your addition are both from the one and the same source. Compare the relevant text and ther are identical, written by Zuckerman, edited by Martin and published by Cambridge. There is only the one Zuckerman statement. You did not provide two independent sources. You would be very much mistaken to think you did. Even the source you bring now qualifies the atheism/suicide statistic with... "...even though many of these states exhibit severely depressed economic and social conditions." Its not enough to display this stat barren of any of its context, because there is not necessarily a direct connection. In fact, according to Zuckerman not all the research on this subject supports a direct link between atheism and suicide rates. --Modocc (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

See also Correlation does not imply causation, especially Correlation_does_not_imply_causation#Third_factor_C_.28the_common-causal_variable.29_causes_both_A_and_B and Spurious relationship. Zuckerman, as a scientist, is appropriate in noting that his data do not support the claim that athiesm (A) and suicide (B) are directly related, as their are other intervening factors (C) that are more likely to be explanatory. In particular, it is well-established that poverty and lack of opportunity are likely to lead to increased suicide rates, and the fact that the former Soviet Republics are impoverished and offer only limited opportunity for advancement is likely to be more directly related to suicide rates. The fact that the former Soviet republics also had state mandated atheism leads to a spurious correlation. This is the point that Zuckerman accurately makes in other portions of the quote not cited by Anupam (cherry picking, as Modocc correctly notes above). This is the reason I removed this section in the first place. Edhubbard (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Edhubbard, look at many of the claims in this section of the article. Why aren't the same arguments being used for the information present there? With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ffom Modocc's 2009 Zuckerman source: "As for suicide, however, regular church-attending Americans clearly have lower rates than non-attenders." Treatment of suicide is relevant for the article. The sources pass WP:V, WP:RS. If by "cherry-picking" you mean reading a passage from a source and then paraphrasing the material so it is appropriate for the encyclopedia, well then you're referring to all of Wikipedia. If you don't like what the source says, then find your own to refute it. WP is not censored. Lionel (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Stating merely the US suicide rates complies with wp:v, but it would violate wp:undue by not reporting Zuckerman's full analysis on the suicide statistics and it would also violate wp:syn by misrepresenting an association or correlation as being significant. As I stated in my opening post on this thread, his full analysis regarding the significance of the association is guarded. This is in stark contrast to his other conclusions. --Modocc (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Have I been missing something here? If the top 10 most suicidal nations are more secular, sure, let's mention that on the page. But never without context. We must of course also mention the rest of Zuckerman's pointing out the obvious: correlation does not guarantee causation (and sometimes there are other explanations). In this case, we do have a better explanation, as the scientist explains. WP is not censored, it tells the whole story.

Actually that source has a lot of interesting associations that seem to belong on the atheist page, possibly the morality section. Zuckerman asks in his conclusion "Why are men more likely to be atheists than women? Why is education correlated with secularity? Why are rates of irreligion so high among Jews and Asian Americans? Why are secular people more supportive of homosexual rights than religious people? Why is violent crime most heavily concentrated in the most religious regions of the USA? Why do the most secular nations on earth enjoy the highest levels of gender equality? Alas, such questions abound."

For what it's worth, the claim that atheism increases suicide risk would be extremely dubious in the first place. There is research about religion and happiness that shows that secular belief systems can offer almost exactly the same benefits to individuals (minus that extra "oomph" of hope that comes with thinking you will literally live forever). Such studies suggest that staying in the middle of two meaning systems is what will really causes you to suffer. Not to mention positive psychology's constantly hammering in the point that anything that decreases your social cohesion (e.g. less church attendance, or for that matter, club attendance in general) is going to increase your risk of depression and thus suicide.-Tesseract²(talk) 19:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, but it is also not a journal or an indiscriminate collection of facts. What is the case for inclusion of the atheism/suicide correlations in this article? That Zuckerman investigates these and other specific correlations is not sufficient, because if it were then we would have to include just about anything he ever wrote. His analysis on the various suicide and atheism correlations is nuanced and lengthy and without a summary, and it would be folly for us to even attempt to summarize what he wrote. Also, it would be undue weight to give his analysis ample space, but more importantly, he does not ever say that these correlations have a clear-cut relevance or significance to atheism, thus it simply falls outside the scope of this article. --Modocc (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

the Nones

JimWae thinks this passage from the Atheism page may not be relevant, and I disagree:

Although some thinkers claim that religions like Christianity or Islam are the fastest growing religious status, there is evidence that suggests, at least in the U.S., the fastest growing group is actually "No religion" (aka the "Nones" - which are actually mostly theists and agnostics rather than atheists).

Does anyone else have an opinion on this? We should either delete this info or remove the relevance tag. I added it the atheist page because the link to a page dealing with Claims to be the fastest growing religion would be relevant to them (and includes more information regarding the group to which Atheists often belong on polls in general - the "non religious"). -Tesseract²(talk) 14:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Christian and Islam cover a lot of different things and no-religion is the same. I don't really see the relevance unless you could make the figures more comparable in specificity. Wouldn't it be better to just give the figures for no-religion and atheist as reported and if they are changing say by how much? Dmcq (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Why link to (or even mention) fastest growing religion? Nobody has been claiming atheism is such.--JimWae (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jim and in general I think very little, if any demographic information on "nones" should be in this entry. The entry is not about nones, or irreligion in general. It is specifically about atheism. Consider the claim above. Atheist could be shrinking in number and it would not effect that claim, because it says nothing specific about atheism. Leave it out.Griswaldo (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC on Barna group

Some editors are questioning the addition of a study by Barna Research Group to this article. Proponents of keeping this statement feel it should be done so because the research institute's data is often cited as a reference in many peer reviewed journals, among other sources of reference. Moreover, this particular study finds mention in other secondary sources, which they feel fulfills WP:RS. Opponents of introducing this paragraph assert that this particular study may not be mentioned in a peer reviewed journal and may therefore contain bias; to the opponents of inserting the paragraph in the article, this study should not just be mentioned in any secondary source, such as a newspaper or book, but in a peer reviewed journal. Comments on this issue would be greatly appreciated. As of now, the paragraph has been removed. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 23:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, I want to point out that some opponents of including the material have also stated, above, that the source may not be about atheists per se, but about a differently-defined group. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support with recomendation that Barna source go through RSN. The Los Angeles Times is reliable. Wolfe's book is reliable. I don't see any reason why the content can't be included based on those sources. Barna, however, is debateable. I think it passes WP:SPS and it also should be included. Lionel (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

1. The Barna study does not actually provide results about atheists, but about a much more general and larger group of "no faith" individuals.
2. I have no doubts that the Los Angeles Times is reliable in the sense that we can trust it to accurately report the same results that Barna released on their website and in press releases. That's not the issue. The issue is that the results of scientific studies should be published in academic publications and not referred to in newspapers. As such, a sociological study should be in a publication authored by sociologists who are capable of interpreting the results, and should be peer reviewed by other sociologists who are likewise capable of not only interpreting the results but also of looking critically at the research methods employed. Neither of these sources even remotely fit that criteria. David Wolpe is pretty far from being a sociologist. He's a rabbi and a popular author. His book is pretty far from being a critical scientific study of anything. It is a polemical work.Griswaldo (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I have posted a link to this discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, here: [3]. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support the inclusion of paragraph. (1) The Barna Research Group is widely used as a reference by several peer reviewed journal articles including the Sociology Compass Journal, Sociology of Religion (Oxford), Journal of Adult Development, among many other respectable journals. (2) Moreover, the Barna Research Group's statistics are already indirectly referenced in the article: in this section of the article, a reference from Sociologist Phil Zuckerman is extant and this reference supports the assertion that atheists are more moral individuals than theists. Because an article by Zuckerman is used as a reference within this Wikipedia article, and this article, which references the Barna Research Group, is considered to be reliable, Wikipedia should also be able to the Barna Research Group as a reference. (3) Moreover, there are two reliable secondary sources that support the contents of the paragraph in question. The first of these sources is this Los Angeles Times, the second-largest metropolitan newspaper in circulation in the United States and the fourth most widely distributed newspaper in the country. This newspaper published an article titled "Survey illuminates views of atheists and believers". This reliable article is based on the study from the Barna Group that User:Tryptofish and User:Griswaldo are contesting. Yet, The Los Angeles Times has written an entire article from the Barna Group study. According to WP:RS, "Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable." Furthermore, in another part of the Wikipedia policy, it is written that "Several newspapers host columns that they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources, so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." The article presented by the Los Angeles Times is not even a blog but is written by a Times Staff Writer. It is evident that being peer reviewed is not a requirement of WP:RS, as User:Griswaldo asserts. (4) The second secondary source that supports the data and directly refers to it is from a sociological book by a UCLA professor, David Wolpe, who also quotes the Barna Group's statistics. (5) According to WP:USEBYOTHERS, "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence." It is evident that the Barna Group's study is used by other sources; moreover, as mentioned above, The Barna Research Group is ubiquitous among a search on scholarly papers. This Wikipedia policy also makes it clear that this paragraph belongs in the article. (6) User:siafu has argued that this source is biased towards portraying theists in a positive light. However, it is evident that this is not true, as the Barna Group Research reports that atheists have fewer divorce rates than Christians and that atheists are more likelier than believers to use new technology. (7) In response to the assertion that the study is not about atheists, The Barna Research Group study is relevant here as long as the Wikipedia article states that the study mentions the fact that its results discussed anyone who openly identified themselves as an atheist, an agnostic, or who specifically said they have "no faith". One thing that is certainly noteworthy is that in the atheism Wikipedia article as its stands now, Phil Zuckerman's opposing data is being included on this same standard I just discussed; his data was presented on "atheists and secular people," not solely atheists, and this is likewise mentioned in the article. (8) Finally, another study by Harvard University sociologist, Robert D. Putnam demonstrated the same results when comparing irreligious people and active-faith individuals. In his study, Putnam, explicitly cites examples of the actions of those who have "nonbelief in God." This study was also featured in an article in USA Today. (8) Including the paragraph As a result of these seven reasons, it is definitely my recommendation that the paragraph adds balance to the article. If the paragraph were permanently removed, the article would only contain the first paragraph, not the second. For these reasons, it is my recommendation to include this study in the article. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 02:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note. I moved the RfC tag because I found having discussion under it that was not part of the RfC confusing. Apologies to anyone who thinks it is helpful to include prior discussion within the RfC. Maybe, but it's not usual. --FormerIP (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The source does not pass WP:SPS because it is clearly self-serving - it is basically a faith-based organisation producing a report highlighting the positives of being part of a faith-based organisation. The two third-party reports also cited are reliable sources. However, they should be treated with some caution because the material they are reporting on purports to be social science but is not peer-reviewed. This matters, amongst other things, because correlation is not causation. What statistical regressions have been performed on the data? Religion vs non-religion is known to correlate to a number of other demographic factors (ethnicity, level of education, household income). Since it purports to be scientific but may be self-serving, this material does not pass the noteworthiness threshold for this article, even if it has been reported on by third parties, unless it can be shown that it conforms to proper scientific standards of rigour. --FormerIP (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear User:FormerIP, thanks for your post! Would you mind clarifying what exactly it is that you oppose since you stated that the Los Angeles Times and the UCLA professor's book are reliable? Do you just oppose using the Barna Group reference as a source and instead using the aforementioned two for the paragraph? (similar to Lionel's first comment here) Or, do you oppose the insertion of the paragraph altogether? I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the paragraph altogether. It isn't about the reliability of secondary sources. Given that you could fill libraries with the material that has been written on the topic of the article, for our 6,000 word summary to pay attention to a minor report which is not peer-reviewed, raises obvious questions of interpretation and arguably has an ideological agenda would be WP:UNDUE. These objections would probably not apply to the research by Robert Putnam, but think entirely new content would need to be proposed for that and I'm not sure the report on the Pew Forum website is a good source for this on its own. There's also the objections raised above about not conflating "atheist", "non-churchgoing" and "secular". I think it may need a new proposal to consider that properly. --FormerIP (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:FormerIP. I addressed one of your "agenda" assertion in my point number (6) of my support statement above. Once again, the Barna Research Group has found positive aspects of atheism including the finding that atheists have lower divorce rates than Christians (this finding, as you can tell from clicking the link, was published by the University of Pittsburgh Press) and that atheists are more likely than believers to use new technology. In light of these examples, I don't see your argument here. Moreover, the article as it stands now contains research findings from Phil Zuckerman, who by his own admission, is an atheist. Some individuals have argued that perhaps his findings could be biased because of his personal views as well (I'm not saying they are). However, I don't think inserting either of the statements is wrong as long as we explicitly state in the article from whom the data is derived. For example, the first paragraph of the former revision, which supported the assertion that atheists were more moral than theists started out with "Sociologist Phil Zuckerman analyzed..." Likewise, the information inserted about the Barna Research Group stated "A comprehensive study by The Barna Group found that..." As we can see here, both assertions are being attributed to a source, not being presented as fact. How do you feel about my comments in light of the information I've presented? I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If the same study found positive things which is associates with atheism then, I suppose, that raises the question of why they are not part of the proposed text. However, it's not an answer to my objection. The report is not neutrally authored and doesn't appear to conform to the norms of research in social science. There are also good and obvious reasons to be cautious about presenting the findings as if they prove something significant when we don't know that they do. We have to be selective about what we include in the article, and this doesn't look like very authoritative research. --FormerIP (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• • There are a number of very obvious confounding variables such as sex, age and marital status, but nothing was done by Barna statistically to counteract the effects of these variables as far as I can tell.Griswaldo (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the many statements I've already made.Griswaldo (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Anupam, Griswaldo, and I are principally the editors who were involved here before the RfC, and since they have weighed in with their views, I figure I will too. But I look forward to hearing from editors who have previously been uninvolved. I agree with what Griswaldo, as well as FormerIP, have said. And I'll add another thought that has occurred to me. Perhaps the entire topic can be omitted from this page, which is thorough enough without it, and instead covered at Criticism of atheism, where the views of pro and con organizations can each be presented in context. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you and I have discussed another alternative that is relevant here as well, and I never did anything about it unfortunately. But another alternative is to move all the material that is not explicitly about atheism to entries that are more generally about "irreligion". I would like to do that. The Zuckerman stuff would also go there.Griswaldo (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The group's other studies are not relevant here; a study called "Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians," self-published by an organization that promotes Christianity, would have to be taken with a grain of salt anyway, and if this isn't supported by a reliable source for social science, there is no reason to include it. The Zuckerman survey was published in a reliable journal, so they're not exactly in the same boat. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Self-published research does not qualify as an RS, and furthermore if the multiple claims of this work being cited by RS's are true, we can surely use those sources instead of the Barna study itself. This does not include the LA Times, for example, as a newspaper reprinting self-published research does not make that research into a reliable source, it just shows that the newspaper thinks it is-- we could certainly state that the L.A. Times believes that the Barna study is true, but this is hardly notable. Newspapers also carry astrology columns, but we would not dare suggest that this renders astrological work itself to be an RS, or that this is a notable thing to include. siafu (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Siafu, thanks for your post. Would you mind clarifying what exactly it is that you oppose since you stated that the UCLA professor's book, which discusses the Barna Group's research results, is reliable? Do you just oppose using the Barna Group reference as a source and instead using the aforementioned source for the paragraph? (similar to Lionel's first comment here) Or, do you oppose the insertion of the paragraph altogether? I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I think there are some interesting points raised about the Barna Group and reliability, but I haven't done any in depth research to verify these claims from opponents. What concerns me is the study being off topic. It covers one group of people to another group of people. These groups were selected by an arguably biased organization, which clearly has influenced the results. The groups may be relatively arbitrary, but the main point is, they are not discussing "atheism", but a much larger group which they have come up themselves. To say their findings (which may or may not be reliable in the first place) are related directly to this article is disingenuous. I'd argue the study is first-most off topic here. Whether it is WP:RS is another topic, which I don't think we need to get into. I also wanted to comment that it is really, really silly to make claims that the study itself is clearly unreliable if cited directly, but somehow magically becomes reliable if we instead cite the LA Times using said clearly unreliable source. Notability vs. reliability. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. This is why I've been harping on the manner in which the results are being presented. When social scientists publish the results of a study in a peer reviewed publication they are not simply regurgitating tabulations of raw data. Usually they have applied various statistical measures to the data and have offered interpretations of their findings. On top of this their research methods and their interpretive claims been reviewed by a group of their peers prior to publication. That is quite different from Barna regurgitating tabulations of raw data in percentage form on their own website, or the LA Times simply copying what they said.Griswaldo (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not reliable for the type of source it is trying to be used for here. DreamGuy (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'd oppose this for various reasons. Chief among them would be pointing to a primary source for stats which are obviously going to be controversial. NickCT (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Even if it was WP:RS, the most information is from their POV and not neutral. -Abhishikt 22:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - A meta-analysis of studies about atheism and social behaviour is referenced at the very beginning of the "Atheism, religion, and morality" section. You'd need another meta-analysis to counter that, not one study conducted by an obviously biased organism. Btw, sources don't have to be neutral: they just need to be put in context. Which means that this paragraph would read as "religious people claim that atheists are less moral than theists", and that is already mentioned where it belongs in the article Criticism of atheism (with better sources).--Jules.LT (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

State atheism material in another section already

Anupam ... I did indeed move the material, and I made it clear in the edit summary of the edit just before the one in which I removed the material from the Demographics section. Please be more careful before you suggest that someone is lying. See this edit [4]. Now please revert yourself. The fact that communist nations adopted state atheism, is already covered in the other section, and provides no "demographic" information.Griswaldo (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Griswaldo, I aleady reverted myself at 19:43 21 April 2011, before you wrote this section at 19:44 21 April 2011. I initially only looked at the top edit, without looking at both of them. I apologize for that. Although, I feel that the content is better suited to the demographics section, I will accept your revision. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Article logo

Let's change the current article logo from the Greek word "atheos" to one of the logos of atheism?

We can leave the second copy of the Greek pic under the Etymology section, but the main image of the article - lets change it to the atheism logo, ok?

Could someone do it please - I don't know how to change this myself --KpoT (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that is the atheism logo? I think that is the logo of the american atheists organization. Here is a page with several symbols that seem plausibly atheist. I like the scarlet script A myself. --MTHarden (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think it's the American atheists organization that uses the atheism logo (with a slight addition of the letter A) --KpoT (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

We could use several logos together, frankly. They all look fine at a small enough size to fit four in a block in the current template size on the page; there's no reason for fight vehemently over just one. Perhaps just take the four largest atheist organizations in the world? Or some other suggestion. siafu (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

We have been through this several times already. The image used at the head of this article has nothing to do with the article per se: it is part of the atheism sidebar template. Disscussion about changing the template should be taken there, as that is where the image would have to be changed. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I just don't like current one. So can someone change it already? I don't know how to do this myself --KpoT (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussing the matter here will do you no good. Go to Template:Atheism Sidebar and take it up there. Keep in mind, though, that the question of changing the logo gets brought up frequently, and the consensus has always been to keep it as it is. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The logo you suggested is the most commonly used. I haven't seen the current logo anywhere used other than wiki. -Abhishikt

Strongly urge keep. This is a highly significant third-century historical image—follow the link to the original image caption for details—and it avoids an association with any too-specific modern organization. It's not the article logo, by the way, it's the lede image: more usually a photograph than a drawing. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The caption translates the Greek as "without God" ... note the capital G because that means "without the Judeo-Christian god" (and indeed the context of the phrase makes that clear as well). In other words an atheist, according to this script, is someone who is without the Judeo-Christian god, and not someone who rejects all deities. Seems like a very outmoded understanding of atheism. In fact I'll go further and say that it seems in line with how atheism was used as a slur throughout European history to signify those who live in sin, outside the Christian faith. Is that really the kind of meaning you want attached to this entry?Griswaldo (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Atheists by their very nature have no central organization, so choosing a single organization's logo would be misleading and violate WP:NPOV. Also, wrong venue; we're talking about Template:Atheism Sidebar, not this article per se. This issue came up before, which is how the current graphic was arrived at. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you link to the proper page? I'm not sure how to get to the sidebar page. I think this whole thread can be moved to that talk page.Griswaldo (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep per Old Moonraker. Better to avoid the logo of any paticular organisation.--Charles (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't like any specific language or culture to be falsely associated with atheism

So what if it's a 3rd century image? There is 2 copies of it, one in the Etymology should be more than enough!

I say replace the 'atheos' with the atom logo! --KpoT (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

For those who cannot find the discussion page, it is at: Template talk:Atheism Sidebar. And, please, read all of the existing talk there, before commenting further. This question has, indeed, been discussed before, and I say keep. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The link of atheism to Jainism and to Buddhism might not be acceptable by most Jains and Eastern Buddhists

Perhaps it should be mentioned that the link between atheism and both Jainism and Buddhism is controversial for followers of those religions.

An alternative perspective to this wiki article is that atheism makes sense only in the context of religions of creationism; It makes sense in the Ancient Greek creationist context from which it originated from. The religions of creationism are those with stories of some god making humans. The key point is that even if there is no belief in a god or gods that created humans, there can still be god or gods. Jainism and Buddhism are distinct from Western creationism because Jainism and Buddhism don't have a Creator god story, not because they don't believe in God or gods.

Perhaps you should mention the strong contemporary debate in Buddhist discussions led by Dr. Alan Wallace, an American translator for the Dalai Lama. Dr. Wallace seems at the forefront on the battle against the notion that Buddha or Buddhists are linked to atheism (Dr. Allan Wallace's web article).

Jainism:

Below is direct from this site from JainUniversity.org

"Jainism believes that universe and all its substances or entities are eternal. It has no beginning or end with respect to time. Universe runs own its own accord by its own cosmic laws. All the substances change or modify their forms continuously. Nothing can be destroyed or created in the universe. There is no need of some one to create or manage the affairs of the universe. Hence Jainism does not believe in God as a creator, survivor, and destroyer of the universe.

However Jainism does believe in God, not as a creator, but as a perfect being. When a person destroys all his karmas, he becomes a liberated soul. He lives in a perfect blissful state in Moksha forever. The liberated soul possesses infinite knowledge, infinite vision, infinite power, and infinite bliss. This living being is a God of Jain religion."

Dev sorib (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Adjective: 'atheist' versus 'atheistic'

Earlier today, I came across the following sentence (emphasis added):

According to one estimate, about 2.3% of the world's population describes itself as atheist, while a further 11.9% is described as nonreligious.

I changed atheist to atheistic because most of this article uses atheistic when the adjective is required. Here is an example (emphasis added):

Atheistic schools are found in early Indian thought and have existed from the times of the historical Vedic religion.

I also think that using atheist as an adjective is probably a bad idea. Consider other ism words, like pessimism. The noun is pessimist ("my friend is a huge pessimist"), and the adjective is pessimistic ("he's very pessimistic"). Surely atheism follows the same pattern, and so saying "they are atheist" is like saying "he's feeling pessimist today".

I'd be interested in others' thoughts here.

—Tommyjb Talk! (20:30, 31 May 2011)

Based on the Britannica citation used, I'm not keen on using either adjective, especially since the term atheist is being used by the source to lump together several descriptors associated with atheism (such as skepticism), but these are not actually self-descriptions of labeling oneself "atheist". The current wording thus does not reflect the source accurately regarding self-description. Also, if someone is "atheistic" are they an atheist? In most cases yes, but there are marginal cases such as with pantheists who are often described as atheistic but they would nevertheless still be called theists and not atheists despite the spin. To avoid any confusion, and to better reflect the source here, which labels 2.3% of the population as "atheist", I suggest revising to simply:

According to one estimate, about 2.3% of the world's population are atheists, while a further 11.9% are nonreligious.

--Modocc (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Modocc makes a valid point, I think, about just using it as a noun. Short of that, I would worry that "atheistic" can be ambiguous as to whether the subject is an atheist, or simply resembles an atheist in some ways. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Otherwise we are getting into the realm of "atheistish" or "atheistical" LOL. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, atheisticaltasically speaking, I think the use of the word atheistic would be appropriate in a different context (ie: I dont think common usage intends for it to be applied as it was). This is not a suggestion to change the lede - it's an explanation on what I think the common usage of that word would be. Example: "According to one estimate, about 2.3% of the world's population describe their beliefs as atheistic." Or, inotherwords, much like Tommy said above. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Good points, and thanks for resolving this issue. —Tommyjb Talk! (23:19, 31 May 2011)

It's all moot now, but I think the analogy with pessimist/pessimistic here is important. Surely atheism follows the same pattern, and so saying "they are atheist" is like saying "he's feeling pessimist today". Just as I would say that I feel pessimistic, but someone is a pessimist, I would say that I "feel" atheistic today, but I am an atheist. I think the difference is more of a state/trait distinction. My current state is pessimistic/optimistic/atheistic, while in general, I am an optimist/pessimist/atheist. So, I would have suggested that the word atheist would have been correct for the for self-description the sentence in the lede. Thinking vs. non-thinking objects often have different thematic relations with beliefs (i.e., sentient objects can "have" them, while non-sentient objects cannot) so the analogy with school doesn't necessarily go through. Edhubbard (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

By that rationale, Christians could be christianistic. Having lived on both sides of the pond, I have found "atheist" to be a more common adjective than "atheistic", even though the latter would seem appropriate. Anyway, it really doesn't matter which form we observe as long as we don't edit war over it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"Christianity" is not an -ism word. If the word were "Christianism", then the word "Christianistic" might be appropriate. —Tommyjb Talk! (14:05, 1 June 2011)

It is only people who are atheistic that are pedantic about such distinctions. :D mezzaninelounge (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment - "Atheistic" is an acceptable adjective, and "atheist" is also acceptable as an adjective. According to the OED both can be dated back to the 17th century as adjectives. I think we need to go with that sounds best in each situation, and if solutions like the one proposed above are available, where the adjective forms can be avoided completely, that is probably preferable. One way to figure out what sounds best, if needed, is to see what is most commonly used. For instance, I would assume that "atheist philosopher" would be more common than "atheistic philosopher" and so on. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your comment. With regard to "atheist philosopher", I think there are some cases where the word "atheist" is a noun functioning as an adjective. Similar examples are "piano player", "sports commentator", and "system error". Here, we don't need to say something like "systemic error"; we can simply use the noun as an adjective. I could be wrong about "atheist philosopher", however. I just thought this was worth adding. —Tommyjb Talk! (14:05, 1 June 2011)

Tommy, I think technically those are all examples of compound words, each of which are nouns - that is both nouns come together to make one new noun. I don't think that atheist philosopher is a compound word. I would also use, "atheist philosophy" for instance. Also, unlike "atheist" the OED does not show an adjectival usage for "piano" (related to the instrument), "sport," or "system." These words have separate adjective forms. In the end this is all immaterial though. I think the best way forward is simply to do what sounds best in context. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, Like noun, per Modocc's edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with those who say "atheist" is an acceptable adjectival form. It's in the OED, and everything! --Dannyno (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"The anthropological benefit of religion"

This phrase is unreferenced, and any claims that the Anthropology of religion (to which the phrase is WikiLinked) asserts that religion is 'beneficial' seem dubious at best - this functionalist approach has little credence in modern anthropology. Unless a proper reference which supports this claim can be found, I shall delete the phrase. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You are, I think, referring to the sentence that you marked as citation needed. I agree with you that a citation is needed. But the sentence isn't asserting that the claim of being beneficial is true, only that there are some sources who make that claim. It's a pretty common claim, whether supported empirically or not. Therefore, I would suggest that you hold off on deleting it while a source is sought (also, one would have to decide how to rewrite the following sentences), because I'm pretty sure there are sources that make the claim. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

With only a cursory search, there are a number of cites that are probably valid for that statement. Including some (possibly valid ones) from places like Emory College, where there are actually courses taught on the subject. I'm off to work... if someone doesn't take care of the cite needed tag before I get some more free time, I'll see what I can do. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the claim that religion has social/personal 'benefits' is problematic - this would be easy enough to source (as a claim). What I'm unhappy about is the way the WikiLink implies that this is supported by the anthropology of religion as a discipline. There may well be anthropologists that support the argument, but I very much doubt it would be generally accepted as the unequivocal 'fact' that is implied here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm glad that you clarified that. Let me suggest, then, that we simply delete the word "anthropological" and delete the wiki-link, thus leaving just the un-linked phrase "benefit of religion". In that case, perhaps we don't need to add a cite either. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be fine, though I think it should read "a benifit of religion" rather than "the benefit...". I suppose a source making this claim explicitly might be worth having, ideally, but it is such a common argument that it probably isn't required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That would also make citing it a bit easier, as "anthropological...religion" doesn't seem a widely used term. Thus, removing the specific term and rewording as proposed would allow us to use any (RS of course) cite on the subject that discussed benefits befitting the section. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

First paragraph definition order

I think it might be better to start the first paragraph with the most inclusive definition of atheism (lack of belief) rather than the more specific rejection of belief or specific disbelief. It seems reasonable to start with the most general definition first, especially because that is the one most self-described atheists use.

E.g.:

In its most general form, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] It can also be used to mean rejection of belief in the existence of deities[1] or specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]

24.17.170.200 (talk)parasoja 05/26/2011

"that is the one most self-described atheists use" --Cybercobra (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Cyercobra, we have pronoun trouble. What is "this", and how are you quoting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs) 06:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Cybercobra is clearly quoting the previous comment, and requesting a citation to verify the statement. It seems perfectly clear to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And he also never used the word "this" in the quote ... Griswaldo (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, I see, Cyercobra is asking for a citation for the statement made by the previous commenter. Very good. Had he just said so directly, we would have missed this lovely chat, and what would we have done with our time. Steve kap (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

'Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.' from Oxford English Dictionary would certainly back up that the broader 'lack of belief' should be used - as the current 'rejection of belief' fails to cover all proper uses of the word.77.101.91.203 (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Using the broadest sense of the word is proper, but its not the primary sense of the word. Failing to cover "all "proper uses" does not mean we can ignore wp:due, in which we determine the weight each viewpoint is given based on the different reliable sources (there have been many discussions involving the sources). In this instance, "disbelief" is defined by the OED as either the "inability or refusal to accept" (the primary definition) or "lack of faith". "To not believe" is a position of disbelief which, unless one is lacking faith due to ignorance, is a non-acceptance of a belief and therefore a rejection of belief. The "lack of faith" definition is not primary and usually involves explicit atheism anyway. Implicit atheism, when considered, is often contentious. --Modocc (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Does the first paragraph really have to be that redundant?

The first three sentences are all pretty much saying the same exact thing. It would probably be best if they were reformed into one. --71.87.155.69 (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Different people learn and use different definitions of atheism, so the article attempts to cover those most used. The nuance can be important, which is why it's there. There's no way you'd be able suggest a single definition that agreeably replaces all three. (Barring the "cheater definition" of packing all three into a single sentence :).) GManNickG (talk) 06:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's tricky. We know this. It's been discussed many many many many times. Perhaps one day some genius will come up with some brilliant formulation that captures the meaning of the word "atheism" like a diamond captures the light of the sun (or something). Until then, we're stuck with what we have as the best we've managed to do so far. --Dannyno (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Many many many many many many times..... Frankly, I think a lot of better alternatives have been proposed. We've failed to produce a good RfC to demonstrate a consensus for change. NickCT (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The three sentences are designed to satisfy different factions. The religious are hell bent on saying that atheist deny God. The atheist don't want to be defined so, but would rather be seen as people not convinced of any gods existance. Steve kap (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think those are the only "factions". --Dannyno (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Definition Question

Atheism is clearly based on opinion not fact. Atheists fail to acknowledge the key point behind belief in a Creator, found in part in Numbers 12:6, is the communication by the Creator to humans. That communication was acknowledged by Jung by being referred to as the Cosmic Consciousness. The recall in words and application of dreams' inbuilt concepts is legion amongst scientists, writers, musicians, inventors and other high achievers, including people like Einstein, Edison, Tesla, Bell, Franklin, and Darwin existing in the front lines plus legions of indigenous peoples. They used their dreams or visions for their creativity and/or direction. Atheists cannot muster any reasonable argument or explanation (other than addled and unsubstantiatable opinion) that does not also support the belief in the Creator being a sentient being which gathers its cognizance from a universal presence (possibly in atomic particles?) That they also dream and are part of the totality of Creation makes their arguments moot at best and ludicrous in the extreme with opinions which attempt to explain this reality of useful communication, a comunication which includes items beyond the possibility of knowledge within our existing cognizance. Belief in the existence of the communication and its usefulness does not support religion, only belief. It appears most people who profess to be atheists therefore are not atheists at all but rather anti-religionists (due to the vast amounts of weak reasoning, inane arguments and inability of clergy to use or address this obvious and widespread shortcoming in religion). So as everyone dreams and each person has the ability to benefit from the communication the Creator provides, most atheists are simply rejecting religion, not belief in the Creator or creation, or they cut themselves off from being able to use the helpful direction their dreams provide which supports life, creativity, health and caring relationships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.52.80 (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

So your saying a "creator" talks to you in your dreams? What is he/she saying? Not sure any of this is logical but it may do better at Dream interpretation if you have any sources. Moxy (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

When you can provide reliable sources that your worldview is right and all others wrong, then the Wikipedia can be edited to reflect that worldview. In the mean time, talk pages are not a forum. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarification: what I am sure TechBear is trying to say in less than the excessive verbosity I use, is, if you find other reliable sources that concur with your opinions on the matter, whether right or wrong, if they are beliefs held by others and citable via reliable sources, and given due weight (and no more weight than that) and are relevant to this article, then by all means, lets discuss this. But if any of that criteria isn't met, then this article at the least (if not Wikipedia as a whole) is not the place for such additions. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

We really need a coherent system of definitions. I always understood atheism to be a dogmatic denial of the existence of any god, until I was told by someone last year that it could also mean lacking belief in God. This implies that all people are born atheist, which is as absurd as the Islamic dogma that all people are born Muslims. To me, that broader definition of unbelief is "non-theism", and different degrees of belief (or lack thereof) need different words to clarify the positions. And can we dump the references to "strong" and "weak" atheism? There is nothing weak about being uncertain about your atheism! It's simply being fair-minded. If we non-theists wish to protest against religious fanaticism and bigotry, we must avoid the danger of being fanatical and bigoted ourselves. Dale Husband 02:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seeker alpha806 (talk • contribs)

Non-theism + Greek = Atheism. We already have exactly what you requested. As to all people being born Atheist - 'if' people are born incapable of belief then this is technically true. Whether babies can believe or not has no doubt been the subject of many a lifetimes theological studies. 77.101.91.203 (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"Weak" and "Strong" in the classifications of atheism that use those terms, are not value judgements. --Dannyno (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The definition is inconsistent

Consider that you see a boy at the mall waiting in line to sit in some old man's lap. You know the guy, with a white beard, rosy cheeks, dressed in red. You tell the boy, "You know, son, that man isn't who he says he is. He's just dressed up in a costume. There is no such person as you're imagining. It's a fantasy and a lie."

"That's your belief, sir," the boy replies.

According to the nonsensical definition of atheism as used on this page, an atheist should respond with something as illogical as the following:

"Actually, son, I don't have a belief regarding his existence."

"But I thought you said he didn't exist."

"That's correct, but I'm not saying that's what I believe. Rather, it's my non-belief."

"So it's a fact, but not one that you believe?"

"That's correct."

"So he might exist, but you're not going to say you believe one way or another."

"Actually, I'm quite sure he doesn't, but I don't believe it. Again, I lack belief that he doesn't exist."

__________ The point, I hope, is clear enough. I've spoken with atheists who aren't so timid to admit that they have a positive statement of faith regarding God's existence. They believe He does not. What perhaps some of you are struggling with is agnosticism, saying the question is unanswerable. And by golly, has the author of this page never met another atheist? You don't see a positive belief in the phrase, "When your heart stops beating, and your brain along with all the cells in your body die, thats it, thats the end! no more life.Jesus doesnt exist and more, nor does allah, or any god"? That was written by an atheist, and typical of the atheistic statements of faith made on many forums. This is not in any way an absence of belief.

I know this isn't the forum, so I'll make a suggestion. Is it possible to replace the current definition with an honest one? For example, "Atheism, in contrast with agnosticism which makes no declaration of belief, is the belief that no god exists, and is a metaphysical answer to the implications of materialism," or something along those lines.CalebPM (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, we have to go by what our reliable sources say, and we have a bunch which support our current wording. Do you have contrary sources we could look at which support your proposal? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The supposedly humorous dialogue above is merely rhetorical. The philosophical literature contains perfectly sincere attempts to distinguish atheisms. An atheist may, according to a significant definitional tradition, reject belief in God for reasons other than that they think that the hypothesis of the existence of God is certainly or probably false. They may, for example, hold that belief in God should be rejected because there is no evidence, or no good evidence, that there is a God. Or they may hold that theists have not properly defined what "God" is. And so on. Certainly there are those who wish to reserve the word "atheist" only for those who have reject belief in God because they think or believe they can demonstrate that God does not exist, but there is no basis for privileging that view above that of others. --Dannyno (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The A symbol in the upper left-hand corner of the article

Can somebody please remove that STUPID symbol? "A common symbol used to represent Atheism"?? As an atheist, I have never seen that thing before in my life. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities, not a religion or unified movement, and therefore does not have some specific symbol. Place it in the Militant atheism article where such a thing belongs. --Adam93989 21:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam9389 (talk • contribs)

It was only there briefly before being reverted. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Compromise on Atheism definition

While atheism can be described as the rejection of belief in a deity, it can also be described as the lack of belief in a deity. The first sentence in it's current state might send the wrong message to people looking for a quick definition. It might make people mistake atheism (without god) for antitheism(against god). By using the word "reject," readers may skip "belief" and go directly interpret atheism as being "rejection of the possibility of existence of god." I would propose that the first sentence be changed to the following:

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of or lack of belief in the existence of deities."

I believe this definition would cover a wider base of the community, as it's more general, while leaving the other definition intact. If this change would get people's undies in a bunch, then a similar change is also acceptable:

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the lack of or rejection of belief in the existence of deities." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpsousa4 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph has consumed 99% of talk page discussion for years, with every possible definition and nuance explored in the most extraordinary detail. There are basically two problems here:

1. This is an encyclopedia entry, not a dictionary definition.
2. Atheism cannot be defined as one thing. It is an umbrella term that applies to several different positions.

I have always thought it would be better to have something like:

Atheism is a term used to describe a number of non-theistic positions that include the rejection of the existence of deities, the position that there are no deities, or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Doubtless some will argue that the order is wrong, or that the language is too complicated for the average reader, but I still think that this sort of approach works best. Anyway, I've sort of given up on the quest to perfect the first paragraph these days. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've likewise given up on participating in these discussions, as when they get rolling every couple months, they consume an exorbitant amount of time and never get anywhere. That aside, I think your definition is a distinct improvement, Scjessey. The current lead is unnecessarily complex, and risks giving a reader who skims it the false impression that one or two of the definitions are accurate without considering the third. Further, the current wording is plain silly: "Atheism, in a broad sense is... In an even broader sense, it's also..." I don't doubt they'll be someone who objects to your proposal, but I think it's at least worth considering over what we have now.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Scjessey, I support your definition. Nevertheless, I would prefer the three different definitions to be listed in this order from the general to the specific: absence, rejection, and no deities. mezzaninelounge (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I Also agree with Scjessey's. While your definition is a mouthful, it accurately describes a number of positions within atheism -- and who should expect to come onto wikipedia and not do a little reading anyway? I'm rather new to wiki'ing, how does something like this get changed properly after a discussion has happened? --Jpsousa4 (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

@Danielkueh, while I support that ordering from a logical standpoint (general -> specific, as opposed to jumbled order), you'll see a huge amount of resistance to it, due to "rejection" being cited more heavily than "absence". Your best bet for arguing that point is to present a good quantity of highly reliable sources which define atheism as "absence of belief", outside of the ones we currently have.

@Jpsousa4, Given the number of times this discussion has been had, it would be prudent to wait a few days for others to comment before making a change. If this discussion doesn't see any movement at all for a day or so, then making the change to the article to draw in other editors would be ok, per WP:BRD. After others have commented and lodged support, and we have gained consensus, then the change can be made to the article and left in.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Jess. Thanks for the heads up. Here are a few sources (they include books, journal articles, a reputable atheist organization, dictionary definition, and surveys) that cite, define, or use the word "atheism/atheist" in a way to mean absence or non-belief in a deity. [5][6][7][8].[9][10][11][12][13][14] [15][16][17][18][19][20][21] I hope this helps. Let me know if you need more. mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I like Man_jess' definition also but I do not want to put the absence definition first. We've discussed this to death, and most recently I was probably to blame for that :). The absence definition is the least notable, historically and/or based on reliable sources. There are quite a few who don't even think it belongs at all in the lead, but are willing, for the sake of peace to leave it there, in the last position (yes I'm one of those people). Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure this has all been discussed to death and I'm sure my comment is going to stir up the hornet's nest, so here goes. The reason why I and I suspect a few others find the current lead definition objectionable is that it is quite exclusive and misleading. To say that someone "rejects" is to describe or assign an intention. I'm not a mind reader. I suspect that many people who describe themselves as atheists or subscribe to atheism as a position do so for a variety of reasons. But what is common about all of them is that they have an absence of belief in a deity. Whether or not they "reject these ideas" or go a step further to say that "these deities do not exist" is not necessarily a defining feature of atheism or an atheist. To say that it is would be exclude a large segment of people who describe themselves as atheists, whose intentions you and I have no access to and will probably never know unless they reveal them to us. Granted, the positive meanings of atheism may be interesting, both historically and philosophically. I am arguing that these definitions are too restrictive/exclusive, and may not capture the large pool of people who call themselves atheists or adopt atheism as a position. For purposes of NPOV and by logic, I find the negative meaning to be the most inclusive and the most general. People who "reject" or state "there isn't a deity" will still have an "absence of belief." The only difference is that they are more vocal about it. My two cents. Now I should run. I'll shut up now. :) mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And do you have any reliable sources to substantiate your claims? As far as I know the vast majority of self-proclaimed atheists do indeed "reject" religious belief. Social scientists have done studies on this. There are not many of them, but I know of no sociologist or psychologist who has studied atheism who uses the absence definition (and a great number of them are atheists/agnostics themselves). The philosophical reasons why the absence definition is problematic don't even have to into the picture because if we stick to WP:V and WP:RS we find that the absence definition is the least notable. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I gave my sources. They are listed above. There are plenty more. Even the "New Atheists" use these negative meaning. Hence, it is quite notable. I don't see how they are not notable based on WP:V and WP:RS. I'm not familiar with any sociology/psychology research that use the positive definition. If there are, I would like see the sources for those. However, I do know psychologists/neurologist who describe themselves with the negative definition (e.g., B.F. Skinner, Freud). mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

First, I'd like to suggest that editors new to the page, if you really want to pursue such changes, please read through the talk archives, starting around archive 40. First-and-a-half, please no one yell at me for saying that. It's just good advice. Second, a problem that has been raised in the past about starting with "Atheism is a term..." is that starting by discussing it as "a term" treats it as a word, rather than as a concept. Some editors then point to WP:NOTDICT, and some other editors then complain loudly about pointing to WP:NOTDICT. Whatever. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish, thank you for pointing to the archives. I looked at the previous discussions. Yikes! That is why I am taking Mann_jess's advice and I am trying accumulate WP:sources to support a change towards the negative definition, which is the most neutral, general, widely applicable, and the most widely understood definition, whether among laymen or atheists. mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Mezza, if you really want to play this game please list your sources by title and please provide quotes. Simply linking like that is messy, confusing and if people don't have full access to what you linked to unproductive. Note, for instance, that you linked the same Dawkins Youtube video twice in that list. That said, your list of sources does not prove that the absence definition is more common (which is what I object to), it simply proves that it exists. Also please note that most of these sources don't actually address the issue at all, or actually contain positive definitions of atheism only.

• Flew, Martin and Smith, all of whom are atheist philosophers, distinguish between implicit/negative and explicit/positive atheism, but do they say that most atheists simply "lack belief"?
• The OED does not contain the absence definition at all (not sure where you are getting that from).
• The Pew Forum does not define atheists through the absence of belief.
• Where does the Gallup source even address the definitional issue?
• Ditto for "More Atheists Shout It from the Rooftops," and the Dawkins video you linked twice.
• The Rowe source uses a different definition - "To be an atheist in the broad sense is to deny the existence of any sort of divine being or divine reality."
• What does Sam Harris actually say? I have the book but he has no index and really like I said you need to provide the quotes here, I shouldn't have to dig through the book for them.
• BBC defines it through absence. Cheers for that one.
• Penn Juliet, who clearly is no a reliable source for these purposes, does not define it through absence. "Not believing in God," is not equivalent to "absence of belief in God."
• Like Harris I don't want to have to find the Hitchens quote, but I note that from perusing the book it seems rather clear that he is using a negative definition of atheism - e.g. "Atheism in its negation of gods ..."
• Is Julia Gillard even an "atheist"? All she has said is that she does not believe in God. I'm not an atheist and I also "do not believe in God." What does that prove?
• Where does the Chronicle use the absence definition?

Other than the three philosophers who promote the different forms atheism I count only one source that uses the absence definition - the BBC website, which is not a reliable source for this purpose. I also want to note, again, that these three philosophers do not claim the absence definition is more common in practice among self-identifying atheists. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, My apologies, I didn't realize you and other editors may not have access to all of the sources. My mistake. Plus, I concede the Oxford definition. With respect to those that you do, I didn't think reviewing them would be too difficult. That said, here it goes.

• GH Smith The Case against God [22] "An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god." p. 9
• M Martin Atheism: A philosophical justification [23] "Nonbelief in the existence of God is a worldwide phenomenon with a long and distinguished history." p. 1
• Flew. The Presumption of Atheism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2: 29. "I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter."
• American Atheists [24] "Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. "
• Pew Research [25] "Among the public as a whole, 85% know that an atheist is someone who does not believe in God. This includes 94% of self-described atheists and agnostics as well as similarly large numbers of white evangelical Protestants (94%). Roughly nine-in-ten Mormons (92%), Jews (91%), white mainline Protestants and white Catholics (88% each) also know what the term “atheist” means. Roughly eight-in-ten black Protestants (79%) are able to define the term “atheist.” Among Hispanic Catholics, about six-in-ten (61%) get this question right."
• Gallup Poll [26] "Interestingly, those without a religious identity, a group that includes atheists and agnostics, also appear to reap the positive wellbeing effect of religiosity."
• L Goodstein, New York Times [27] Polls show that the ranks of atheists are growing. The American Religious Identification Survey, a major study released last month, found that those who claimed “no religion” were the only demographic group that grew in all 50 states in the last 18 years.

Nationally, the “nones” in the population nearly doubled, to 15 percent in 2008 from 8 percent in 1990. In South Carolina, they more than tripled, to 10 percent from 3 percent. Not all the “nones” are necessarily committed atheists or agnostics, but they make up a pool of potential supporters."

• Richard Dawkins, CNN Interview. 0:32 "Why don't you believe in Thor? Why don't you believe in Zeus? Nobody believes in most of the things that you could believe in. You're an atheist with respect to the flying spaghetti monster." He answering a question from a CNN newswoman. I don't mean to stereotype, but I suspect she doesn't believe in the things not because she "rejected them".
• S Harris, Letter to a christian nation, "In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."
• Rowe, [28] "To be an atheist in the broad sense is to deny the existence of any sort of divine being or divine reality."
• BBC [29] "Atheism is the absence of belief in any Gods or spiritual beings. The word Atheism comes from a, meaning without, and theism meaning belief in god or gods."
• P Jilette [30] "I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy — you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? ..."
• C Hitchens, The Portable Atheist [31] "One is continually told as an unbeliever, that it is old fashion to rail against the primitive stupidities and cruelties of religion because after all, ...." p. xiii
• Daily Mail [32] "'I don't believe in God,' says Australia's first female PM"
• Goodmand and Mueller. The Chronicle of Higher Ed [33] "According to a study by the Higher Education Research Institute, "The Spiritual Life of College Students," about 15 percent of college students have no religious preference or interest in religious and spiritual matters. National polls also demonstrate that growing numbers of Americans are indicating "nonreligious" as their religious identification, with college students and college-age Americans constituting the least-religious demographic in the country. While that is not the majority of students, it is certainly a considerable proportion. Yet little is known about such students and their views."

To summarize, I wish to make a few points. First, I cited these references to show that the word "atheism" is used in a "negative sense," i.e., lack of belief. Some of the quotes state this explicitly while others imply them. And BTW, do not = none. A non-swimmer is a person who does not swim. Second, if we are going with what's "most common," then clearly the negative definition is the most common as revealed by Pew research center poll. Third, we're talking about how the term is being used here, which not only includes scientific journals, but also the mass media (newspapers, books, TV, etc). These sources all qualify as "reliable sources," see WP:sources. Let's get real here, we are not trying to describe quantum mechanics. To do so would require peer-reviewed scientific journals. We are here to provide definition of a position, which people called atheists for whatever reason decided to adopt. Thus, a variety of sources do qualify. Finally, this is just a question of logic and taxonomy. All dogs are mammals but not all mammals are dogs. Likewise, all people who reject beliefs in deities are nonbelievers but not all nonbelievers reject beliefs in deities.

So I have given my sources and provided quotes. I've also provided a rationale. You claim that your definition is the more common one. Well, where are the sources to buttress that claim? Unless you have done a systematic count of all the print media in the world or conduct surveys asking people specifically how atheism should be defined, I doubt you will find such sources. Cheers mezzaninelounge (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You have provided quotes but your quotes do not support your point at all. I responded already to each source above. Please reread my point by point response to your sources. In fact not a single one of your sources, save the BBC source, even remotely suggests that the absence definition is more common. Only three others even make reference to it (all by atheist philosophers and all covered already in the entry). BTW, no one is arguing that we should remove the absence definition, simply that it belongs last in the list. Your sources do not provide any rationale for changing the status quo at all. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And for the record social scientists tend to distinguish between atheists and agnostics, among other things. Doing so is incompatible with the absence definition because the absence definition includes agnostics as well as so called "positive/explicit atheists." For instance, Hunsburger and Altemeyer (2006) Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of North America's Nonbelievers - "A few folks, like the authors of this book, say they honestly do not know and are called agnostics. And every now and then you come across and atheist, who positively says the negative--there is no God." I'll list a few more below if you wish.Griswaldo (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's more from peer reviewed literature in the social sciences:

• "... includes both 'atheists,' who deny the existence of God, and 'agnostics,' who hold that the existence of God is unknown and unknowable." - Veevers and Cousineau, 1980. 'The Heathen Canadians: Demographic Correlates of Nonbelief." The Pacific Sociological Review. 23(2)
• "Atheists make a definitive claim that God does not exist, while agnostics assert that such knowledge is beyond the realm of human capacity; they do not affirm or deny the existence of God." - Baker and Smith, 2009. "None Too Simple: Examining Issues of Religious Nonbelief and Nonbelonging in the United States." Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion 48(4)
• "Agnostics neither affirm nor deny the existence of God because they claim that it cannot be known or determined; inherent in this viewpoint is the possibility of God. Conversely, atheists firmly believe that God does not exist, making their views about God distinct from those of other subgroups in the ―no religion category." Hunter, 2010. "Explaining Atheism: Testing the Secondary Compensator Model and Proposing an Alternative Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 6

The belief scales used in almost all the large religion surveys I'm aware of also include differentiation between agnostics and atheists -- this includes the GSS, ARIS, Baylor religion survey, etc. I could list many more publications which do not explicitly define atheism and agnosticism but are written on the basic premise of the distinctions made above, which also correlate with the afore mentioned belief scales. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, I am not sure if you are aware of what my point was. I have read your "point by point" rebuttal and if you read my summary and quotes, you will know I have addressed them. In fact many of your points are not even rebuttals but questions or expressed confusion. Based on your responses, it is clear that you haven't read all the quotes or my sources. Again, if we are going to argue about "what's most common," then the Pew Research clearly shows that the "negative definition" is the most common (see quote above). And if we are going to go with what self-described atheists say, then let's start with the American Atheists organization. They use the negative definition (see quote above).

I have given my sources. Where are yours? How do you know that the majority of self-described atheists adopt your definition? Did you ask them? Did you text them? Did you do a survey? Where is your evidence? You keep bringing up this arbitrary criteria of "most common," which appears more and more speculative. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the "reject definition" is the most common one. After all, you are the one who made that statement. I made my statement based on logic, generality, and comprehensibility.

Finally, there is almost an implied elitism in your definition, whether it is intended or not. If people do not reject beliefs in deities, are they not atheists? By placing the negative definition as the third or last definition, are these atheists second or third class atheists then? Think about it. mezzaninelounge (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

An "implied elitism?" Huh? Many atheist organizations and atheist activists use the "negative definition" not to describe their own beliefs but to claim that there are and have been many more "atheists" in the world than is commonly believed. The reality is that very few people who merely "lack belief in god" actually call themselves atheists. The reality is also that the scholars who actually study the demographics of belief empirically (social scientists) almost always differentiate between agnostics and atheists, reserving "atheism" for those who are positive atheists (see above). Most reference works also only use the positive definitions. The negative are pretty much reserved for some philosophers and atheists who themselves have active disbelief but in order to promote their identity wish to include others who normally do not identify as such.Griswaldo (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And btw, I think you are confused about Pew, because they are not using the absence of belief definition, they are quite clearly using the active disbelief definition. The absence definition includes agnostics, because if you do not know if there is a god you are also absent belief in god. But Pew differentiates this from atheism. When they say "does not believe in God" they mean affirmative disbelief in God, not "lack of belief."Griswaldo (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, First things first. Nobody "owns" the word, position, or concept of "atheism." A sociologist's definition is no more superior to that of a philosopher, laymen, political scientists, psychologists, natural scientists, journalists, etc. Atheism is just a position. There is nothing special about it. You don't have to be smart to be an atheist. You just don't need to believe in god(s). Second, the word agnosticism is also used as an adjective (e.g., see Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God). Thus, it is possible to be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic Christian. Third, I looked at the first two studies you cited (I don't have library access to the third). I noticed that those quotes in those two studies appeared not in the results or discussion section, but in the introduction, and was not informed or formulated by the results of those two studies. In other words, it is not the data that has led these authors to define atheism and agnosticism, but their preconceived notions of what constitutes an atheist and an agnostic. Thus, their definitions are no better than that of an uninformed laymen. Since these authors did not explicitly describe themselves as atheists, I don't see how their works support your claim that their definition is the most common one among self-described atheists. Besides, why are we even appealing to the majority or to certain authorities here? If the majority of sociologists think natural scientists are assholes, should we then define natural scientists as assholes? Fourth, yes, you are right, many atheist organizations do use the negative definition, which means they are more inclusive than they would otherwise be if they adopted your definition. Fifth, does not = none. A non-swimmer does not swim, a non-scientist does not experiment, a non-football player does not play football, and a non-believer does not believe. There is nothing affirmative about it. You are just inferring more than is necessary. Unless you asked, you cannot assume intentions. Cardinal rule of research in the social and behavioral sciences. mezzaninelounge (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A considerable number of appearances of atheism above, as in PEW: "Among the public as a whole, 85% know that an atheist is someone who does not believe in God", cannot be used to show that atheism is being defined rather than described. (The questions asked were: "Is an atheist someone who does NOT believe in God, believes in God, or is unsure whether God exists?" AND "Is an agnostic someone who is unsure whether God exists, does NOT believe in God, or believes in God?") While it is true that absence (not "lack") of belief in deities is a necessary condition for atheism, it is not a sufficient condition - for "atheist" is not a term applied to anyone & everything that has such an absence. Despite what some pamphleteers and those attempting a persuasive redefinition say, infants are not regularly called atheists - nor are dogs, ants, cabbages or rocks (Nor are mathematics & shell collecting generally called atheistic pursuits). The sources that talk about "lack of belief" indicate a general lack of awareness that, while "lack" might leave out infants & rocks, most meanings given of "lack" indicate a deficiency. Atheism as absence does not describe a position. The absence def fails as a definition - because it does NOT give the limits of the actual usage of the term. It is the worst & the most contested def of the three, and is specifically opposed by Nagel (btw, also an atheist). Self-proclaimed atheists are explicit atheists & their position can be given distinctly from so-called implicit atheists. The rejection def includes every self-proclaimed atheist. To be a self-proclaimed atheist, one must be aware of that some people believe in a deity AND one must take the position "I do not believe in any deity" - which is a rejection of belief--JimWae (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

What Jim said. Speaking of atheist philosophers I believe the "absence" or "lack" definition is also rejected by Julian Baggani. Mezza, of course the definition of terms, if there is one, will be found at the beginning of a research paper. The fact that social scientists define terms in a certain way is all I was illustrating. Let's forget about what is most common in popular usage for a second and focus on WP:V and our sourcing standards. Let's say we have 3 different definitions for a term - A, B, and C. Some sources use only one definition, and others use multiple definitions. Let's say in reliable sources usage breaks down as follows - 65% use A, 50% use B, and 5% use C. Which one is least common in usage in reliable sources? Clearly C. That's what we find here. There is no need to argue about what type of scholarship is better or worse to answer this question, because at the end of the day, it is a fact that a minority of all reliable sources use the absence definition (you have only found 3). It is also a fact that no scholar uses ONLY the absence definition while many use only one of the other two options. So even the three philosophers you mention also use the explicit definitions. A survey of scholarship clearly shows that option C is the least common.Griswaldo (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I wish to clarify a few things.

• First I am not making an argument based on "what is the common usage." I'm arguing for a definition that is inclusive and fits the criteria of NPOV. Anyone who reads my posts above will know that very clearly.
• I cited the pew research because we seem to centered on how the term is understood among atheists and the general public (atheists or not). I am not saying that the term is defined that way, I am saying that the term can be understood as such.
• I did not make any claim to say which scholarship is better. This is a red herring. Griswaldo keeps bringing up sociologists and their works. I wish to dispute the notion that we can categorize a heterogeneous group of individuals in this entire planet based on a few studies by a few individuals who study only a small group of people from a small location of the world. And if sociologists are "scholars," then why not philosophers?
• Again, Griswaldo, you keep making absolute statements without providing reference. Who are these "every scholar" that you keep alluding to? And why is it that only scholars' opinions matter here? We're talking about atheism, not particle physics. Contrary to what some atheists like to believe, you are not necessarily bright if you are an atheist.
• If you are going to go by what is common, then why stop there? According to cultural anthropologist, Scott Atran, most atheists are prone to scapegoating [34]. Why not define an atheist as a person "who rejects belief and likes to scapegoat?" If we are going to appeal to majority, then why stop with atheists? Why not do the same for all other categories of people on Wikipedia. Why not just go with stereotypes and define engineers as males, basketball players as African-Americans, homemakers as women, and Republicans as White males?
• The examples of not calling babies, dogs, and cabbages an atheist is a red herring. Of course we don't do that because dogs and cabbages are not people. Plus, it is often frowned upon to call children atheists (even though it is acceptable to call a child a Muslim or a Christian). It doesn't mean that we can't.
• Finally, I suspect this is where the main contention lies. It seems we all agree that an atheist is a person that "does not believe in a deity." What we dispute is whether we can assume an intention simply because someone does not do something. This is a logical fallacy. See affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. Look at the following questions and tell me if we can deductively draw an affirmative conclusion.

• A non purple flower does not have purple color. Has it "rejected" purple colors?
• A non-swimmer does not swim. Has he or she "rejected" swimming?
• A non-police officer does not police. Has or she "rejected" policing?
• A non-seeing person (blind) does not see. Has or she "rejected" seeing?
• A non-believer does not believe? Has he or she "rejected" believing?

• Unless you can say that the answers to the above questions are "100% yes" without qualifications, then you have no case. mezzaninelounge (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the issue is not intention. The disagreement is whether "not believing in a deity" is a sufficient condition for being an atheist. Ordinary usage says it is not. It is not even sufficient for Smith. --JimWae (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

1) Scott Atran is not a "cultural" anthropologist. He is a cognitive/linguistic anthropologist who might also be described as an evolutionary psychologist. 2) I allude to every scholar because every scholar quoted on this page has affirmed at least one of the explicit definitions, even those who also hold to the implicit one. I can only speak from my own knowledge base, and to date no scholarly work presented here has argued that atheism is only defined as implicit. Most, however, define it only as explicit. What do you not understand about that? 3) It is not a "logical fallacy." When someone, a living thinking human being, says, "I do not believe in God/gods" they are affirming something, they are taking a stance about God/gods. However, if you describe a baby as a being that "does not believe in God," while you are correct in your description the baby has taken no such stance. Indeed the baby cannot do so. If you asked someone who can answer the question but who truly has no concept of God/gods if they believed in God/gods they would not say "no." They would say, "Huh? What are gods? Please let me know so I can answer your question." People understand that words have referents and that when asked questions about words with referents they are unsure of they cannot actually provide answers. In other words the philosophical premise behind the absence definition makes little to no sense cognitively when you deal with actual human beings. It is no surprise at all that sociologists, psychologists and other social scientists have little to no utility for it.Griswaldo (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, on the question of babies being atheists, there are empirical studies that do in fact suggest that most atheists do not consider their children "atheists" until the children are old enough to understand what an atheist is and to have chosen that for themselves. See Hunsberger and Altemeyer for instance. The absence definition is not compatible, in other words, with how most atheists conceptualize their children's beliefs vis-à-vis religion and atheism.Griswaldo (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, the main point that I made about Atran, which you missed is that you are making a statement based on the views of only a small group. In this case, some sociologists. It is like saying that "all apples in the universe are red" because a sample of them in North America are red and that a small group from North America who studied apples said so. And if we are going to follow your approach to its logical extreme, we should not just stop at "reject," we should also define atheists by other demographic criteria, such as a tendency to scapegoat, which Atran brought up. Moreover, we should not stop with atheism, we should do this for all other categories of humans, such as drivers, swimmers, and scientists on Wikipedia. In fact, we can even develop a codified Wikipedia policy based on this approach and then refer to frequently on Talk pages like this.

No one is arguing that humans have thoughts and intentions. That is not even the main point of contention here. It is a red herring, so please stick to the issues. The main contention is that you 1) assume some form of intention among ALL atheists and 2) you have a unique and mysterious ability to clearly identify those intentions as "rejection". If you know behavioral research, you would know that it is inappropriate to make such "mentalistic assumptions," (not my favorite word) about people's intentions, which you are clearly doing. And you have no basis for it.

With respect to that example about asking someone a question that they do not know, why don't you do a thought experiment. Imagine if you were in China and met a Chinese atheist. You then asked that person if he or she believes in Zeus. If he or she says, "huh? What's that?" Does that mean that this individual is not an atheist with respect to Zeus? Of course not. How a person responds and for how long is irrelevant and unnecessary. And what people do or call their children is also irrelevant. It does not make it any more true or false. If I have a son who is lazy but I labeled him the most hardworking person in the world, it still won't change the fact that he is lazy.

It seems to me that this issue could be resolved if "rejection of belief" is replaced by "does not believe." We both agree on this phrase but differ in our interpretation of it. That is fine since no one else would know or care anyway. Cheers. mezzaninelounge (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I never said anything about "ALL" atheists, and what on earth does this have to do with "intentions?" I wrote a longer reply but it is pointless. Two things here. 1) The sourcing is against your wishes. Almost all social scientists (sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, etc,.) and not "not some sociologists," consider atheists those who are of the explicit variety. Unless you can provide sourcing that negates this claim, the 4 sources I have provided are "all" the sources we've seen from social scientists and they are all in agreement with my claim. By and large the only sources that accept the implicit def. are atheist philosophers, but not even all of them do. As Jim and I have pointed out, at least 2 other atheist philosophers refute their positions. Non-atheist philosophers and theologians pretty much completely dismiss the implicit definition. Historians don't use it either. This has been discussed and agreed upon many times in the past so the onus is on you to prove it wrong. The sources you provided failed in doing so. 2) You appear to be much more interested in WP:TRUTH than in WP:V. We are never going to change the lead based on your reasoning alone. You need to support it with sources. Now I will no longer respond to you because I do not think you are actually engaging my points, or perhaps you're not understanding them. Either way this is pointless. This entire discussion should be collapsed or moved to a subpage.Griswaldo (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, I'm assuming that your definition is suppose to describe "all" atheists? If not, then you have proved my point that your definition is narrow, prescriptive, exclusive, and represents only one POV. As for the point on intentions, sigh... You've obviously never heard of "intentional idioms" such as "want, desire, hate, motivated, or rejected?" If you don't understand the point that I made, then I guess there's no need for me go on about it.

As for your standard appeal to social scientists. Well, atheism belongs to everyone and anyone. It is not some peculiar concept that only social scientists are able to understand and define. It is not like particle physics where only physicist are in the best position to provide explanations on how it works. Plus, the sociological POV is not the gold standard in Wikipedia. So I don't see why this discussion ends with just a "few" papers by a "few" sociologists whom you think support your POV. I repeat "few" here because I don't think you have ESP that you can claim to know what " almost all" social scientists think.

As for my sources, you just decided to ignore most of them AND misunderstood their purpose in this discussion. Besides, I wasn't aware that you were appointed as the arbiter of what constitutes acceptable sources on this page. Last I checked at WP:Sources, newspaper articles and other non-peer reviewed sources are just as acceptable. For a non-specialized and intellectually trivial position such as atheism, I really don't know what the big deal is.

I have already addressed your points. You just didn't bother to read or respond to any of mine. No reciprocity.

You can ignore me if you want. But at the end of the day, it is clear that you do not play by the same rules of logic or be willing to consider different vantage points. Indeed, your main purpose from the beginning was to maintain the status quo by stonewalling this discussion. Which is why, this discussion has indeed become meaningless.

Finally, my goal was not WP:Truth. It was about NPOV, which supersedes all other WP policies and especially your POV. Cheers. mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the cosy familiarity of the entirety of the preceeding argument. The problem for me is that trying to find a nice, neutral, definition of atheism is OR, because, in fact, no nice, neutral, please-everyone definition of atheism exists as a consensus in the literature. What we have, in fact, in a wide range of different conceptualisations of atheism. That's the reality, and that's what we have to reflect. The "absence" definition probably is the most universal catch-all definition, but that doesn't make it right for Wikipedia. --Dannyno (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, what is all this? "...people mistake atheism (without god) for antitheism(against god)." This happens. A lot. Shouldn't stopping semantic ignorance/confusion be what matters? Furoar (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Subpage?

Can we create a subpage for these arguments? Again, I admit that the last time around I provoked most of the discussion. I'm sorry about that. But I now understand how frustrating this becomes. I suggest we create a permanent subpage for these debates and direct all discussion to the subpage so that it doesn't clutter the main talk page every 6 months. Anyone else think this is a good idea?Griswaldo (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral. I guess a case can be made that, instead, keeping the whole thing right here serves as a kind of warning, a kind of object lesson, as well as making it easier to refer people back to earlier discussions when, inevitably, they are not aware of that object lesson. There's something to be said for not fragmenting the record of discussion. (Hey Daniel, you can't say I didn't warn you!) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  But if the point is to make it easier to keep track of this particular discussion every time it rears its ugly head a subpage would do that. And I actually think it would be less fragmented, since no intervening discussions about other things would be on the subpage.Griswaldo (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  Well, if you want to create a compendium of that sort, you would also have to go back and collect all the previous discussion threads dealing with the first lead paragraph. If you really want to, more power to you! (Me, I'm just trying not to get into any long discussions about this to begin with, since I pretty much know that nothing new is going to get consensus.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  You're probably right. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Eek! No! It would be like our very own circle of hell. --Dannyno (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"Militant atheism" article in need of backup

Greetings. I thought I'd let you know that a recent article called "militant atheism" is seriously in need of some backup. It violates WP:NOTDICT and WP:NPOV. The meaning of the term is obviously way too broad, and it has become a WP:COATRACK and a WP:CFORK for anti-atheist slurs and propaganda. Obhave (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Opening Sentence proposal (not definition ordering)

Above, the original proposal was a wording change, which didn't seem to elicit any outright objections. However, the discussion quickly transformed into the definition ordering dispute. I think we need to keep these two discussions separate, as they are entirely separate proposals. As such, I've included the original wording change below, and provided room for other proposals to be listed.   — Jess· Δ ♥ 18:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

ScJessey's Proposal

“ Atheism is a term used to describe a number of non-theistic positions that include the rejection of the existence of deities, the position that there are no deities, or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. ”

• Support I believe this is a distinct improvement over the current wording. Are there any objections to it? If so, is there another (similar) proposal which can be made which addresses those objections? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support I think this one is surely better and more accurate than the rest. -Abhishikt 21:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support (with or without reordering). mezzaninelounge (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, per my comment somewhere above that we should treat it as a concept, not as a "term". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't find WP:NOTDICT compelling, personally, in part due to it preventing us from making forward progress away from a controversial and largely jumbled lead. I'm not one to quote IAR, but it seems perfectly applicable in this case; We have a bad lead, and this is the best proposal we have to fix it which hasn't seen opposition on grounds other than NOTDICT. I fully respect your right to oppose the proposal on that ground, but I don't think it's productive. To be clear, do you also object to the proposal for any other reason, or is it acceptable to you aside from the wording "is a term"?   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I restructured the proposals, and included a new one which bypasses NOTDICT below. I'd support either of these proposals equally.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, for me, I'm fine with letting IAR trump NOTDICT. My problem isn't with whether we are or aren't strictly adhering to principle. It's that I don't like the writing, when it's done that way. Atheism simply isn't just a term or a word. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. What is atheism about? "Atheism is a term used to describe a number of non-theistic positions..." Too vague. Not an improvement. — Robin Lionheart (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Atheism is not always regarded as a 'position' at all. --Dannyno (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Clearer and more concise than current lead. NickCT (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Jess's Proposal

“ Atheism is a nontheistic philisophical position which includes the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, the position that there are no deities, or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. ”

• Support, but would welcome suggestions for improvement of the wording. This suggestion bypasses WP:NOTDICT, as well as the current jumbled mess of 3 individual sentences in the lead defining broadness, and is more concise and better summarizes the three views than the present wording.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support But I suggest we keep it simple by deleting "nontheistic philosophical." Plus, I recommend changing "which" to "that," as it is that which is defining. mezzaninelounge (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. 1> As mentioned several times long ago & recently, absence of belief is not even a position - and certainly not a philosophical one. 2>This article should not depend upon the mess that is nontheism 3>There are 3 distinct defs with distinctly different scopes of application. It is not a "jumbled mess" to treat each separately 4>Rejection def is not rejection of existence but rejection of belief 5>... --JimWae (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about "philisophical". I was considering removing it, myself, right after I posted the proposal, but the two of you voted before I could. I don't necessarily agree that "position" cannot refer to "absence of belief", though I understand your argument. For the sake of discussion, assuming we remove the adjective, and find an acceptable replacement for "position" which properly describes "absence", would you support this change?   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The statement overly makes reference to deities, which need not be a part of a belief system - aka Buddhism which rejects the notion of a supreme God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.91.203 (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a separate issue, since the current lead uses this wording as well. That part is a copy/paste job. You'd have to open a new section to discuss that wording.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not always regarded as a philosophical position. --Dannyno (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Danielkueh's Proposal

Jess, might I suggest something even simple? mezzaninelounge (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

“ Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, the position that there are no deities, or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. ”

• Oppose 1> 1st & 2nd do not differ 2> reader cannot be sure if "or" is the "or" of synonymy or of alternatives 3> commas also are used to set off appositives, making it unclear how to treat 2nd (so far indistinct) def 4>..--JimWae (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, how about this then. mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

“ Atheism may refer to the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, the position that there are no deities, or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. ”

Please reread my comments today & trypts--JimWae (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Jess, looks like a nonstarter. One opposes due to WP:NOTDICT and the other opposes due to POV. I suspect more to come. mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I remember proposing almost exactly the same thing as this a long time ago. You can, of course, infer how successful my proposal was then. Just so you don't think I'm being a wet blanket. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh well. I'm testing the waters. :) mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not conclusive yet. It'll take a while for everyone to voice their opinions. I'm also hoping that someone who objects to each of the current proposals might bring up a new one which is more agreeable. No need to rush things. However, I have to agree with JimWae's objections on this one... The first part suffers from a grammar issue, and the second is in the same boat as ScJessey's proposal. I like the direction, but I don't see any way to fix those points.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you then. When it gets close, let me know. I'll vote. :D mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Conceptualises atheism as (x, y or z), whereas what we actually have is something like ((x, y or z) or (x or y) or (z) or (some other thing)). I prefer solutions which explicitly acknowledge that atheism is conceptualised in very different ways. --Dannyno (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Clearer and more concise than current lead. NickCT (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Jess's 2nd Proposal

“ Atheism is a form of nontheism which includes the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, the position that there are no deities, and the absence of belief that any deities exist. ”

• Support I've been others some time to comment, and having read over the concerns presented above, I think something like this might be appropriate. I view it as a combination of the 3 proposals, but 1) avoiding WP:NOTDICT, 2) avoiding "philisophical" and "position", and 3) avoiding an ambiguous "or". If there are any concerns which I've missed, or this suffers from a new problem, please let me know. (I'm also comfortable substituting that last "and" for the original "or simply")   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• What's nontheism?
• 1st & 2nd "definitions" still not distinct
• While it is generally agreed the absence def is included in nontheism, it is disputed that atheism includes ALL 3. The concept is understood in 3 different ways, with 3 different scopes. Why hide that? Only those who advocate the absence redefinition hold that atheism includes all 3. --JimWae (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your objections. 1) Nontheism has an article. 2) The first two definitions are copy/pasted from what we're using now. Rejection of belief and position of nonexistence are indeed different, and even if they weren't and that were a problem, our current lead would suffer from the same oversight. 3) We're not talking about the absence definition. We're listing the 3 ways in which atheism can be understood, by saying it 'includes' (not is) each of the 3. By stating them in separate sentences we're saying exactly the same thing, just in a more complex way. This is intended to be a restatement (and improvement) of the current lead.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

1> I do not see "rejection of belief" in any recent proposal 2> 3> 4> 5> --JimWae (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. That was an oversight on my part. I've fixed it. This correction applies to my initial proposal as well... both of which were intended to be a copy/paste of the current wording. Points 2, 3, 4, and 5 you've left blank, so I can't respond to them... obviously.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I am disappointed that people could have decided they had adequately examined those proposals for merit and still have supported them, despite my previous points directly regarding this oversight. I am discouraged that the format has so quickly become one of support/oppose before previous objections have been addressed.

Look at the syntactic structure of the current proposals: A is a subcategory of X which includes r, d, and a. The structure is the same as Mammals are a subcategory of chordates which includes humans with arms, dogs with injured legs, bats with wings, and whales with an absence of legs AND/OR Mammals are a subcategory of chordates which include carnivores, primates, and, most inclusively, placentals. The expectation that what follows is to be understood as a definition is weakened by the use of "which includes", making nontheism/irreligion the only clearly definitional part of the sentence. Those articles are not themselves featured articles and do not themselves contain clear definitions - indeed contain definitions that I think we would shudder at if applied to atheism. We currently have 3 distinct definitions with 3 distinct scopes, and the wording more clearly indicates that the 3 sentences are to be understood as definitional. Putting everything into one sentence reduces the information presented to the reader - the relative scopes are hidden as well as the fact that these are competing, not complementary (nor completely accepted), definitions. I can easily give my preferred definition in one sentence, but if three sentences is what it takes to give a clear NPOV exposition of the definitions, then so be it.--JimWae (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The nontheism bit is a little wordy for my taste but not a big deal. mezzaninelounge (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yes, "nontheism" has an article, but have you read it? Any clearer about what it means? Thought not. The literature, as distinct to wikipedia's confused approach to this terminology, lacks consensus on whether "nontheism" and atheism are synonymous, or in some kind of hierarchical relationship, or what. Definition as a whole recognises diversity of typological approaches even less clearly than is currently the case. --Dannyno (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish's proposal

I have always liked the idea of getting this "thing" down to a single sentence, and, well, I guess I'm a glutton for punishment. I think Jess' approach has promise, so here is my attempt to start the process of writing by committee tweak it, taking into account the inevitable scwabbling concerns that I know suspect are likely to come up:

“ Atheism is a form of irreligion that includes rejection of belief in the existence of deities, the specific position that there are no deities, and most inclusively, the absence of belief that any deities exist. ”

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support I took the "specifically" and "inclusive" bits out just to be concise, but now reading yours, I slightly prefer it to mine. However, I don't think Irreligion applies here, since Buddhists can be atheists yet still religious. If we change that term, I'm comfortable with this proposal.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

How about changing it to "non-belief"? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The proposed revision is evidently becoming more repetitous and contorted than what is on the article. Also, the way the latest revisions are worded they are unintentionally dubiuous. They are all asserting that "Atheism is a form of non-belief [in..?] that includes... ...absense[in the...]. It may not be all that obvious when buried within the list, but this is an assertion made by some soures whereas other sources contradict it by writing that atheism does not include that particular form. And simply tweaking to "that can include" makes the tabled verse here even more unappealing. --Modocc (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. More convoluted and tendentious that current definition. Atheism is not necessarily "irreligious", in the literature. Also, presents typological elements as complementary or rather constructive of a single classification structure, whereas the typologies of atheism are actually exclusive. Some people think all these things are atheism. Some people think some of these things are atheism. Some people think that atheism is only one of these things. To try to reconcile all of this into a broader definition is plainly OR. --Dannyno (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious? Really? Anyway, this whole thing is no big deal to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Why this talk had died down? This time I'm really hoping that we would be able to update the opening sentence. I strongly feel that any of the above is much better than the current one in the article. I suggest even if we don't reach consensus, we should vote and just select the one with most votes. -Abhishikt 02:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, WP:Consensus, and WP:NOTVOTE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Opening line = awkward and wrong.

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities"- Firstly this is not the broad sense, it is in fact more narrow than the absence of belief. I can't believe the wording has remained the same for so long, after so much discussion. The next point is one of semantics, and I have raised it before. You can not reject a belief unless the belief exists in the first place. What is stated here is that the belief exists and is rejected (either deemed false or declined for other reasons). This by definition relates to knowledge of other people's conceptions of a god. Accordingly it is not a rejection of one's own belief, but rather a rejection of someone else's. Doesn't anyone else think this is somewhat problematic?137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm with you and I wish you the best of luck with this. mezzaninelounge (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please expand on this. Do you mean that belief is a misplaced word? Should it be the word faith instead?

An atheist can believe that a religious person believes in God, and that as soon as there is one such person, the concept of God has a reality, even if the atheist does not subscribe to that concept.

In that vein, I have no religious faith, and certainly no faith that any deities exist, but I acknowledge as a matter of belief (because I can never be absolutely certain about other people's faiths or sincerity) that other people do have such faiths rather than just saying so. To restate the original problem, I can reject a faith without ever subscribing to it. I can do this just by being aware of it and dismissing its validity as a personal choice. And that is a narrow choice, dealing with each individual faith separately rather than dismissing out of hand the validity of any and all faiths.

Is that what you're trying to get at, or am I off on a tangent here? Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 09:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The original comment fails to point out that the absence definition is stated in the first sentence and it is preceded by, "most inclusively ..." Is the issue that it is stated third? The reasons for that have been thoroughly discussed here already. The absence definition is not common, except for among some Atheist evangelists and those who have latched onto their arguments. Among most scholars it is never used, and among philosophers it is controversial. That is why we put it third. Being most broad, in its internal logic, does not grant it priority seating. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the second point the poster is simply wrong. You can reject a belief as long as the belief exists, and you are aware of this. There is not a single self-proclaiming atheist in the world who does not fit that bill - who does not know that others believe in God/god(s) while rejecting those beliefs.Griswaldo (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again. "Absence" definition not common? Clearly false. And who are these "scholars" again? Sociologists who published in obscure journals? mezzaninelounge (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Not so. Most of your sources basically showed that a number of people say they do not believe, are absent belief, or the like and so you then wp:SYN that into supporting your contention here that because this is consistent with the absence definition, that this somehow makes the definition more common. But that inference is completely wrong for these informed people have rejected faith and they have not done so blindly. If we ignore your wp:SYN and compare the reliable sources which actually define atheism, the absence definition is not at all common. --Modocc (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a good amount of options presented for opening line at Talk:Atheism#Opening_Sentence_proposal_.28not_definition_ordering.29. There is lots of discussion happened there. I suggest we should expand on there and try to reach consensus. -Abhishikt 01:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

See wp:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT concerning the objections to those proposals. --Modocc (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No, Griswaldo, rejecting belief in deities and rejecting the existence of deities are two concretely different positions. The wording as it stands is grammatically ambiguous. Moreover, I reject the concatenation of atheism with evangelism as a tautology made possible only by presupposing atheism must be defined exclusively in opposition to religious faith. It is the logical fallacy of defining atheism as deviance from religion, and zealous advocacy of counter-religion as necessarily atheist. I would like to hear back from the IP editor regardless of your dismissive comments. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 01:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Neither is in the entry. The entry states "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." The wording is not "grammatically ambiguous" or at least no more so than the statement that "I reject the use of torture." Sure I could qualify that statement a hundred times over with all kinds of conditions, but as it stands it is understood to mean that I always reject the use of all torture. Meaning is not simply a function of grammar. Atheism is, de facto, defined in relation to religion. It only exists as a concept at all because theistic beliefs exist. That is not a "logical fallacy" but a social fact. If there was no religion, no belief in gods, and no knowledge of "belief in gods" even in the abstract there wouldn't be any atheism. There wouldn't be any "-theism" of any kind. I never said that all zelous advocacy of "counter-religion" (what is that anyway?) is necessarily atheism. I simply pointed out that those who promote the absence definition tend to evangelize atheism. That is again, an observable social fact. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether wrong or right, the cited sources we give for the first definition are unambiguous regarding the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. --Modocc (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Modocc, No. 1, I am puzzled by your contention that I engaged in WP: original research. You need to provide a more specific example before making such a claim. No. 2, it seems to me you are the one engaging in original research by saying that "these informed people have rejected faith and they have not done so blindly." Did you ask them? How do you know they are informed? Do you have ESP? Are you a mind reader? No. 3, which definition are these reliable sources stating to be the most common one? Did they conduct a survey to ask? Except for the two in the lead, what or where are these reliable sources? Obscure no name journals that only 3 people read? mezzaninelounge (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You would not be suggesting that the atheists you quoted do not know what they are talking about would you? No I don't think ESP is needed to infer that they actually do. In any case, you simply have not made a convincing source-based case for the absence definition. You have not done better than the sources cited that actually define atheism, one of which is the Britannica and there are plenty more similar sources that define atheism even narrower. That's what we have to deal with. --Modocc (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

First, I would not be making inferences what people do or do not know. To do so would be WP:original research. A policy that you brought up. Second, I am not arguing for a change to the current definition, which I suspect is a lost cause. I am arguing against the rationale that is being used here to justify the status quo or to make statements such as "that is the most common definition." For example, the journal articles that were cited to make the case that the positive atheism definition is the most common one ARE NO BETTER than newspaper articles, surveys, books, etc. Why? Because the definition in those journal articles did not come about as a result of careful research and data collection. If you read those articles, the definition was stated at the beginning. A couple of them didn't even bother to cite! Thus, they are just opinions of individuals, and are therefore no better than a non-peer reviewed source. That is why I am puzzled that they should be given more weight than the definition from a source such as the American Atheist organization (one of the sources I gave). Besides, atheism is not an intellectually sophisticated position, philosophy, or whatever. You don't have to be literate to be an atheist. It helps, but it's not a prerequisite. Which is why I don't understand this slavish adherence to a few "scholars" who didn't even do the work to provide a definitive definition. So I did give plenty of sources. For the above reasons, they were just ignored. mezzaninelounge (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You quoted atheists saying they do not believe, even though strong atheists do not believe. For the most part, your cites were not evidence. Certainly some sources are more reliable than others. We do not need journals, for what we have now suffices, and there are a number of other encyclopedic definitions (buried in the archives) that only give the narrowest definition. --Modocc (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Modocc, this is detracting from the discussions below. I was originally questioning the comment by Griswaldo about the views of scholars on this matter as I feel it is often used as a tactic to close or stop discussions. Anyway, your last statement (or dismissive comment) does not even make sense, so I won't even respond to it. mezzaninelounge (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Danielkueh, its unclear which comment you do not understand, but I'll assume that you don't understand my comment about strong atheism. A strong atheist will agree with the position that they do not think gods exist. They also can and very often say too that they are absent belief in any god. Either way they say it they are explicit atheists. If you were to ask people if they also think agnostics, babies or the uninformed are atheists too, it will depend on whether or not they see atheism as being synonymous with non-theism. Simply citing atheists saying they do not believe is hardly the kind of sourcing we need. --Modocc (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid I just don't follow your logic and I don't see the relevance it has with respect to which definition is the most common, which was the main point of contention in the previous discussion, which was closed. If you want to discuss it, then discuss it there or on my talk page. mezzaninelounge (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The relevance here is that you overstate in this thread that the mere absence definition is more common and deserves more weight in the lede and that your arguments regarding this were ignored. They were not. Negative atheism is certainly much more common, as you and everyone else no doubt understands, for negative atheism is disbelief, but negative atheism does not imply or necessarily include implicit atheism, the mere absence of belief. Atheism is a class-name for atheists, which usually does not include babies, even if they are cute little atheists. Since these little atheists are usually not considered atheists, negative atheism is typically not defined as mere absence, but instead as a negative atheism that is due to nonacceptance. Compared with definitions of disbelief and/or denial, very few sources define atheism as mere absence. --Modocc (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I overstated nothing. And that gobbledegook about negative not being implicit, etc is muddled and just red herring. Maybe I'm not making myself clear to you or maybe you, like many pedantic atheists, like to have the last word. If you want to have this discussion on my sources, then do it in the above discussion section or on my talk page. Because the main point of contention in this section is the anonymous IP's concern about the phrase "broadest sense." I was merely questioning Griswaldo's statements in response to anonymous IP. And you out of nowhere decided to discuss the sources that I provided in the previous discussion. Quite frankly, I don't just care to discuss it. It's over. mezzaninelounge (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

@Peterstrempel- yes I think this is where my thoughts are. The wording as it is relates to the faith/belief of others is centred on a response to other people's beliefs. I believe the wording at the moment is there to allow semantic links to be made to atheism being a belief, although this is not what the wording actual means. At first read the rejection of belief appears to be about the individual rejecting their own beliefs, as if holding a belief is the default position. This is where a more specific wording gets tricky, and verbose. I actually think the word "faith" circumvents many of these problems, as it is not loaded with the semantic problems that "belief" has (although it does share some of them). I actually think "faith" is a better word to describe the active positions relating to deities, and a rejection of this faith in an atheist. @Griswaldo- I said that "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities" is simply wrong, since it is not a broad sense- "broad sense" relates to the sense of the wording, not how widespread the use is. I don't know how to make the point clearer that a rejection of belief is not more broad than an absence of belief, it is a matter of logic. I am not commenting on the ordering of the definitions. On the second point I think you missed my point- I stated explicitly that the belief has to exist before it is rejected, which means the rejection is of other people's beliefs. And so logically, if a hindu thinks a christian's god does not exist, but believes in their own god then what are we to say about that? They reject the belief in the christian god, so are we then to conclude that they are an atheist? Of course not, because they believe in their own deity. This is where it doesn't make sense to use rejection of a deity as a definition, since what differentiates the hindu from an atheist is the fact that they believe in their own god, not merely that they don't reject one of the many gods others believe in.137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It is, indeed "a broad sense." Your objection appears to be that it isn't the broadest sense, but the current language never makes that claim anyway (again it already identifies the absence definition as broadest by calling it most inclusive). I did not equate the broadness with commonality in use so I have no clue where you got that from. I said that the ordering of the definitions relates to commonality. I think you misunderstand the meaning of "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." If I said, "I reject the cruel treatment of dogs," what is the primary way to understand what I meant? That I reject the cruel treatment of my dog, but not the cruel treatment of yours? NO. It is understood that I mean this universally - that I reject the cruel treatment of all dogs or all of the cruel treatments of dogs. Could it possibly mean that I reject only the cruel treatment of some dogs? OK sure grammatically that possibility is left open, but no one would make that leap, and no one would start a discussion about it either.Griswaldo (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have mistaken my objection. I am not assuming that "broad sense" means "broadest sense", which perhaps explains why you don't agree. However, you yourself state that it is made clear that the more inclusive definition is the absence of belief. This is why "broad sense" doesn't work here, because this more inclusive definition of absence of belief is the logical comparison to the first definition, and quite obviously this comparison shows that the rejection of etc is not the broad sense here, but is in fact the more limited sense. As for your analogy to cruelty to dogs, again I think you may have missed the point. Rejecting a belief by definition can only happen when a belief exists. Rejecting cruelty to animals doesn't by definition mean you can not be cruel to your animal. This is precisely the point, the use of the word "belief" has implications that other words do not.137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Look, you keep on saying that I'm wrong but then you illustrate exactly what I say. There are three definitions. The rejection definition is broader than the positive belief definition, but not as broad the absence definition. The relative breadth of each is made clear in the sentence, abundantly clear. This is a non-issue entirely and I'm unsure why you keep harping on it. Yes it is not as broad as the absence def. but it is broader than the other, and in that sense it is "broad." Case closed. Rejecting a belief can only happen when a belief exists. Yes clearly. But the belief does exist, and every single self-proclaiming atheist in the world knows that others believe in the existence of god(s), and all these atheists don't believe despite this knowledge. From a sociological or psychological perspective you simply cannot be an atheist without rejecting belief in the existence of deities. Indeed given a basic social science understanding of human inter-subjectivity and cognition you cannot logically be an atheist without rejecting belief in the existence of deities. This belief does not, in any way, have to be held by the person doing the rejection. Not at all. It is indeed the same as the example I gave though perhaps you simply don't understand the similarity. With that I am done. At some point one just has to stop saying the same things over and over again. Good luck.Griswaldo (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(posting after edit conflict) Whether or not a definition of atheim is a broad depends on the source one cites. In this case, we are citing the Britannica which writes that "Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings" Instead of "in general" we write "in a broad sense". That there is an even broader understanding is important, but its not a primary understanding of what atheism is nor is it predominant in the wp:reliable sources, and we give the most wp:weight to views which are predominant in the sources (see wp:NPOV). Also, the word "belief" is used by the source here and rejecting "faith" is rejecting belief, but rejecting faith could imply that one simply thinks that they believe in and actually know God and thus do not need faith. --Modocc (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not about the source here, since this is not a matter of usage. "Broad sense" here doesn't logically fit because this part is about definitions not about how widespread the uses are. "Broad sense" here relates to how encompassing the definitions are, not what that the majority of people define atheism as. The problem is that if you remove the "broad sense" you are left to make stronger justifications for the ordering of the definitions. To use "in general" then means you have to source the frequencies of usage of definitions, whereas the ambiguity created by "broad sense" allows the assertion to be made about usage without being explicit. I am not in favour of creating logical inconsistencies for the sake of ambiguously making subtle points. As for "belief" there is no belief without others, and so rejecting belief necessitates others. If a person forms their own conception of god independent of others, they have rejected everyone's beliefs and yet are not an atheist. This is because the difference between an atheist and a theist (or deist) is not a matter of what is rejected, but what is accepted. I grant that "faith" muddies the waters, upon reflection of your logic. 137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A problem with your analysis is that there is more than one broad sense. Just because a definition is broader does not mean the Britannica's definition is not also broad. Thus, there is no inconsistency stating that there is a sense that is broad (the Britannica's) and that there is another broad sense that is broadest. The Britannica is a highly regarded encyclopedia, so this definition is wp:VERIFIABLE (that is a very important policy here). Every theist forms their own conception of god and are therefore not rejecting belief, so it doesn't matter if they reject other conceptions of god. The Britannica rejects the broadest definition of atheism, but it accepts a broad definition which happens to be commonly understood (dictionaries frequently say that atheism is a "disbelief", which has a primary sense of nonacceptance). Your understanding of atheism differs from the Britannica entry, but that does not necessarily make its understanding of atheism wrong, just different. Which means that we have different definitions to consider with regards to wp:verifiability and wp:weight. --Modocc (talk) 04:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Breaking down the first sentence along symbolic logic

• Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. --> A = not(belief) of Exist (objects)

That is not the same as A = not Exist (objects) or Atheism is the rejection of deities existence

There are plenty of people out there that believe in the existence of deities and I do not reject that they believe in their gods. I would change the first sentence to One definition of atheism is to reject a personal belief in a deity's existence.

• In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. This is wider than the first instance, not narrower. This here is A = not Exist (objects) for All while the first assertion is A = not Exist (objects) for individual

And we don't have information on how widely the two assertions are held amongst the populace we can't use narrow in a demographic way so how about a reword as such. Another that includes the first definition is atheism is a rejection of any assertion that deities exist.

• Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

This statement includes agnostics who don't concern themselves with the debate and thus also have an absence of belief. Why are we including those that are A >?< Exist (objects)? Since this definition necessarily wrongly includes agnostics I don't support it. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Join the club. Kevin Baas^talk 18:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Are there different names for these two types of atheists? Activist atheist and private atheist? 97.85.163.245 (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, "atheists" and "agnostics". Kevin Baas^talk 18:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I meant the first two definitions. The atheist who actively goes around telling everyone that theists are idiots for believing what they do and there clearly is no deity anywhere and those that deny the existence of a deity but don't deny that proof could come and do not actively try and denounce theists. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That includes only ONE of the 3. Btw, which symbolic logic notation are you using?--JimWae (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access to a symbol alphabet to put in the reverse 'E' and other specialty symbols. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

but what is the name of the notation you intend, who else uses it? Statements about necessity and possibility have special symbols in modal logic. Statements about beliefs involve doxastic logic, for which no notation is standard yet. --JimWae (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to get you up to speed on this debate with a pictoral view. consider this graphic: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/29/us/politics/20110729-debt-matrix.html?ref=politics The are in the upper left represents the 2 or 3 editors here that are forcing the first paragraph to remain as it is, while the upper right area and to a lesser extent the lower left area represents, well, everyone else. Kevin Baas^talk 19:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hehee, nice choice of graph. mezzaninelounge (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an addiction for me so I don't sign in any more and can't promise I'll be rechecking this page but be it clear that if there is another consensus vote to count my rejection of phrase 3 in that vote. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that defining atheism so as to include infants (and even ants) as atheists (and mathematics and basket-weaving as forms of atheism) is a horrible definition, contrary to the actual, non-polemical application of the word "atheist". However, it is found in some reliable sources & few reliable sources exist to demonstrate what an abomination it is. Thus, to follow WP:NPOV, it gets to be included--JimWae (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Its a "horrible" "abomination" of a definition, and thus there is no good reason other than that we must follow wp:NPOV? Is the word "non-theist", defined by the OED as "A person who is not a theist" just as unacceptable a concept for the same reasons that you have chosen to give? Certainly "non-theist" is without "polemical application" because it cannot ever have the primary connotation of rejection that "atheist" has had, nevertheless "atheist" can be synonymous with "non-theist" and, as far as I can tell, there is nothing particularly wrong with talking about non-theists.--Modocc (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I would not use "atheist" and "non-theist" as synonyms. I take "atheist" as a subset of "nontheist", but would not define atheism in terms of "nontheism" because "nontheism" is something of a neologism and nontheist can include some who believe in deities (such as deists). That deists qualify as nontheists but not as atheists speaks against synonymy of atheism with nontheism.--JimWae (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What is meant by "theist" as in "not a theist" by the OED is debatable. Deists are usually considered to be theists, and that they are sometimes not is simply a theological debate (for those that care whether or not a theist must believe in an active personal deity). In any case, "non-theist" is not a neologism and since babies are non-theists, I've always been a non-theist. --Modocc (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

First sentence misleading

Please change to "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is the lack of belief in gods."

Thanks, Dr oco (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify the distinction that you make between "gods" and "deities"? I can't think of any difference that would matter to the definition of atheism, which impartially rejects every variety of theism, regardless of classifications, labels, or names. How could using one label rather than another be misleading in this context? Ornithikos (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Or better yet, please read past talk, where this issue has already been discussed to death. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps those threads have been archived, I saw only synonymous usage, like "existence of deities (gods)". I would not want to revisit what sounds like an arduous discussion. Did it end with any consensus that you could briefly describe? Ornithikos (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you go through the archives, it's in virtually every one (one place to start: Talk:Atheism/Archive 40#"God" or "gods" in lead, continuing through many archives thereafter). Given how much it's been discussed, please forgive me if I smile at the question about any consensus that could be described briefly. I suppose the answer might be that few editors are genuinely happy with the lead, but every alternative that has been presented, and there have probably been hundreds, has been met by objections that it would be even worse. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I had only done a fast keyword search looking for "god" and "deity" found adjacently, so I missed "Compromise on Atheism definition" right at the top. Lord knows you tried! I advocate no changes and recommend no revisiting. This dialog is happening only because Dr oco wrote, and I thought on general principles that someone should reply, but seeing the history I should have left that to you. In future cases I will be more careful to check what has gone before. This isn't my area anyway. The One True Faith is obviously agnosticism! Ornithikos (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no need to be sorry! You aren't the first, nor will you be the last. Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

So, you two agree that it should be changed to "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is the lack of belief in deities." Glad we could get that cleared up so easily.

Thanks, Dr oco (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I see no such agreement. There are several of us who would like to see "lack of belief" removed from the first sentence altogether. This is the best compromise that has been found so far after many discussions. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

And after all this, methinks I see someone under the bridge. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean Dr oco. It looks like the same thing that comes up every few months to me. There are plenty of atheist organizations who promote the lack definition outright. It should not be a surprise that new editors show up here wanting to see the Wikipedia page reflect this POV.Griswaldo (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You assume correctly. Nuff said. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, you seem to be confused. "Lack of belief" doesn't appear in the first sentence.Dr oco (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the synonymous phrase "absences of belief" does.Griswaldo (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Which I think is perfectly acceptable to convey the same meaning. In actuality (though personally I couldn't care less about such), using the word "absence(s)" as opposed to "lack" may be preferable, as some may deem that "lack" implies a negative connotation, in a similar fashion as the word "lacking" is often used to denote. Either way, I'd say it's covered with the current wording. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we disagree on the meaning of the word "sentence" as neither of the phrases under discussion appear in the first one. I agree that "absence of belief" is suitable. However, as it is, "rejection of belief" is the first definition that the reader is treated to. And for some reason "rejection of belief" is qualified as "in a broad sense" even though it is a rather narrow sense. I care not about the distinction between god and deity of lack vs. absence, but the issue is that the first sentence is poorly worded and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr oco (talk • contribs) 20:02, 8 August 2011

My mistake. The first paragraph. The first sentence is not misleading, but you are welcome to that opinion. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A narrow definition be referred to as a broad one is quite misleading.Dr oco (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, but the problem isn't the sentence, per se. The "problem" (if there is one) is that is exactly what the source says. We cannot simply change the sentence, unless we find another suitable source that says something different (ie: we can't mischaracterize what the source is saying by changing the sentence to say something unsupported). But, with everyone's edit history who's involved in this discussion, I'm sure everyone knows that. Thus, the point is, it's different sources that need to be found before changing the sentence is considered. Then we must determine the validity of the sources (both as accepted belief, properly "reviewed" material, from someone acknowledged as an expert in the required fields, etc). Not the other way around. Changing the sentence and finding a source creates a POV issue where we create a POV with our chosen/desired wording, and then try to find a source to fit that POV. In all actuality, there may not be an equal quality or better quality source that support a different sentence - though I for one am open to suggestions. But lacking the ability to find an equal or better source, then there is no problem, and the sentence should stand as written, regardless of your/my/anyone else's opinions on the matter. Hopefully that clarifies the true problem here. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

And I quote (to show what I am saying): "a more adequate characterization of atheism... (snip) is to be someone who rejects belief in God". We cannot WP:SYNTH either. The cites say what they do, not necessarily what we want - thus, so must the article, sans equal/better sources that say differently (in which case, each should be given appropriate weight - other equally valid sources saying something different is still not license for simply removing a sentence that's not liked, otherwise we end up inserting BIAS, POV, etc, etc. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing can ever resolve debates like this, because they aren't debates about facts but about the definitions of terms. The term Atheism, like most terms outside math and science, has a family of related definitions that cannot be coalesced. The article does its best not to prefer any one definition to the disparagement of the others, and to give each definition a fair hearing expressed from that definition's viewpoint. No other approach can achieve NPOV. Can we not settle for that? How many atheists belong on the point of a pin? Ornithikos (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It depends on who you ask. From a social science perspective all atheists "reject" belief in religion. You will not find a self-identifying atheist who does not reject belief in religion him/herself even if they believe others are "weaker" atheists than they are. From some atheist perspectives anyone who doesn't affirmatively hold a theistic position in an atheist (i.e. "lacks" belief in gods). So who do you want to do the counting? IMO, for our purposes I'd rather have a sociologist do the counting, but clearly some here don't agree. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"How many atheists belong on the point of a pin?" meant "Let us avoid emulating the fruitless disputations of medieval philosophers." Obviously that technique didn't work. I will hereafter avoid asking rhetorical questions. Ornithikos (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ornithikos, the problem is, there shouldn't be a debate. It does not matter who here is atheist or not, or how they identify or not. All that matters is what the reliable sources say, which is accurately portrayed in the lede. So, I really am not sure why anyone is debating anything. I am sure no one is suggestiong we introduce our own WP:OR or WP:SYNTH or wp:POV - and any attempt to change that sentence without both (a) finding a suitable source, and (b) giving due weight to the current "perspective" and the new one would be just that. I really am not sure why this conversation is even occurring. The source says one thing. The article says the same thing with no mischaracterization... and most of what I see above is "I think this" and "I don't like this term" with not one attempt at finding a source to support their feelings - to which I say (no offense to anyone), I don't care - and neither should anyone else. Using such as a reason is not valid here.

This discussion is entirely pointless until someone finds a disputing source and has the willingness to give both proper weight. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think every such "I dont like..."/"I believe..." should be able to be responded to with a template that basically says "Sorry, your opinion is irrelevant. Please find a reliable source and get back to us". ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you read what I actually wrote? Its point was, as you say, "there shouldn't be a debate." I wrote: "Nothing can ever resolve debates like this" ... "The article does its best" ... "to give each definition a fair hearing" ... "Can we not settle for that?" followed by an allusion that meant, to use your words, "This discussion is entirely pointless". I thought the backhanded reference to angels dancing on the head of a pin would be obvious, and might even get a chuckle while yet making its point. I didn't say "I dont like..." or "I believe..." anything, yet you seem to present your statements as a rejoinder to me. Please let me off the hook! Can't you tell an ally when you see one? Ornithikos (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't directed at you. I understood what you were saying. It was directed at those who keep bringing this up, over and over again, etc, etc, etc... guess you can consider it an agreement through venting with an addendum to those who keep bringing it up what my response will be each time in the future. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

An interesting article on atheist studies

"One problem of atheism research is that we simply can't agree on a unified terminology," notes Kosmin. "Every researcher thinks he is Linnaeus and invents his own labels." Couldn't this source be used to add the concept to the lead sentence that the definition of atheism has flexibility and disagreements over usage and scope even amongst researchers? It would satisfy the various POV's here and maybe quell some of this debate if we state clearly that some aspects of the definition are not agreed upon. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Only a small portion of secularists are as radical as the "strong atheists" championed by British evolutionary biologist and author Richard Dawkins. The majority are more likely to be indifferent to religion or mildly agnostic, according to Kosmin's analysis. There are also secular humanists, free thinkers and many other factions. "One problem of atheism research is that we simply can't agree on a unified terminology," notes Kosmin. "Every researcher thinks he is Linnaeus and invents his own labels."

Then he tells of a meeting of secular groups last year in Washington. They were planning a big demonstration. "But they couldn't even agree on a motto," he says. "It was like herding cats, straight out of a Monty Python sketch." In the end, the march was called off. (I especially liked this last paragraph.)

Secularists make up some 15 percent of the global population, or about 1 billion people. As a group, this puts them third in size behind Christians (2.3 billion) and Muslims (1.6 billion). An interesting factoid. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

How is "Secularist" being defined?! --Dannyno (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I want to add worldwide empirical research on the beliefs, cultural developments, and rationality approaches in atheism

Here is what I wish to publish on this page. please give me suggestions:

A recent set of studies that collected empirical data on the beliefs, attitudes, customs, and religious groups of atheists from all over the world (Atheism and Secularity, Phil Zuckerman) gives a detailed glimpse of atheism and atheists from a global perspective. This was completed by late 2009 and published. In one of the articles on the first volume, Jack David Eller, an anthropologist of religion, mentions "Surprisingly, atheism is not the opposite or lack, let alone the enemy, of religion but is the most common form of religion." and "However, some atheists call themselves "spiritual", and as we have shown above, atheism in its broadest sense does not preclude other religious concepts like nature spirits, dead ancestors, and supernatural forces." By definition, atheism is just about the question of god, not religion or the rest of the supernatural. In this same first volume, empirical details on the how atheists believe what they believe is summarized by Gregory Paul ("Atheism and Secularity" (2 vol.) Phil Zuckerman)

"Nor is it likely that most atheists and agnostics base their decision to not believe in the gods on a careful, rational analysis of the pertinent philosophical and scientific arguments. As noted earlier Europeans score about as poorly on tests of scientific knowledge as do the more religious American population. The common perplexment of rationalists that so many people are superstitious is psychosociologically naive, most people do not care all that much about scientific rationalism, which explains why three quarters of Americans and many other Westerners believe in something paranormal aside from gods. A growing body of research indicates that humans are not a predominantly rational species; intuitive thinking based on on inadequate information being the norm..."

• • • • • (I wrote the following on the Religiosity and intelligence page)

Evidence, showing what Gregory Paul mentions, that the American population, which is considered religious, and secular western populations have very similar scores and knowledge when it comes to mathematics and science, is available from Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) for the years 1999, 2003, 2007. This is an international research program from the US Department of Education in collaboration with many other countries on data on 4th and 8th graders. Data on understanding of math and science and young age is relevant since this is a time where religious influences may shape a child's intellectual abilities to solve problems and thus be relevant to intelligence. Also, since mathematics and science are more universal then this may show the truer reality between religious belief and intelligence. Objections such as racial bias and cultural bias, which are sometimes raised in other tests on intelligence, are reduced greatly. Furthermore, a research paper on scientific literacy in adults in the US and comparing to other nations, states (The Surprising Effectiveness of College Scientific Literacy Courses, Art Hobson, The Physics Teacher (peer reviewed journal), 46 (7) 2008)

"Research by Jon Miller, professor of Interdisciplinary Studies and director of the International Center for Scientific Literacy at Michigan State University, shows that the U.S. scientific literacy course requirements for nonscience college students pull the United States into second place in international rankings of adult scientific literacy. This despite the poor science scores of U.S. primary and secondary school students as compared with other nations. The far lower adult scientific literacy rankings of most European nations and other industrialized nations appear to be due to the lack of any such college scientific literacy requirement in those nations."

Intelligence and level of rationality seems to not be based on one's belief in theism or atheism at all since most atheists in the US and Europe come genetically, culturally, and historically from theistic parents and cultures.

• • • • end my requote

Having mentioned the common and normative mindset among atheists world wide, superstitious thought can be found among "convinced atheists" as well. Data from the Netherlands from people who classified themselves as "convinced atheists": 41.1% of them believed in telepathy, 21.1% believed in reincarnation, 13.3% believed in life after death, and 1.6% believed in heaven. These percentages on telepathy and reincarnation were similar to the percentages of "religious people". Loek Halman, the author of this section, correctly claims, "Thus, despite the fact that they claim to be convinced atheists and the majority deny the existence of a personal god, a rather large minority of the Dutch convinced atheists believe in a supernatural power!" This is quite common since most atheists such as Buddhists, Taoists, etc. believe in supernatural things. Further data on many atheist cultures such as Japanese atheism being a supernaturlistic atheism, British atheism as an indifferent atheism, atheism in Netherlands as a subjective atheism, etc. can be found in Atheism and Secularity.

Ramos1990 (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I need to comment here, as I relied only on my necessarily terse edit summary at Religiosity and intelligence ‎ .

From MOS:HEAD: headings should be "natural, precise...concise".

Try to stick closely to the article topic; some of the material seems digressive. More at WP:TOPIC.

You seem to open with some original research, reporting "a research project... a more realistic view of atheism and atheists from a global perspective". For this to stick you would need to offer both the source of the information about the project (Zuckermann and Paul) and a further reliable commentator who has commented on the project in those terms.

Try to integrate the material into the article, rather than present it in essay-style chunks; more at Wikipedia:BETTER#Integrate_changes.

Use your own words, rather than extensive quoting. This will help the reader because the narrative will flow more easily. More at WP:NPS.

Finally: please don't let grumpy editors get you down. A lot of work has gone into your edits and other editors' responses on Religiosity and intelligence must have been discouraging.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep another grumpy editor here, but don't be put off! Saying something you found gives 'a more realistic view' or 'and correctly emphasizes' indicate a problem with dispassionate evaluation of the source. I can see how editors in that other article would have problems also with sticking in an article about knowledge of science and mathematics which has nothing in it about religion and then drawing ones own conclusions about religion. Dmcq (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We have an article on Religiosity and intelligence???? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of these issues seem to be "easily" resolvable by taking off some phrases and that have been suggested by the watchdogs of this article. Just take away "correctly states" and "The first research project that collected empirical data on the beliefs, attitudes, customs, and religious groups of atheists from all over the world" and stuff like this. (I edited some of it). Whatever, I don't mind. If anyone cares to synthesize this information in a better manner and in their own interpretation then its ok too. I only really care for the references and citations. Nothing more. Furthermore a professional review of "Atheism and Secularity" by a Graduate Student of Nonreligion (Christopher Corter. Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review, Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2011, pp. 176-180(5)) found in

http://edinburgh.academia.edu/ChristopherCotter/Papers/614290/Review_of_Atheism_and_Secularity_edited_by_Phil_Zuckerman_

offers good criticism of the volumes in terms of conceptual inconsistency such as terms being inconsistently used or even redundantly used and bias against "religion" (usually theism specifically). I have noted this elsewhere on another other site reviewing the volumes. I think this makes the volumes more powerful, however, because the bias against "religion" by the contributors of the volumes and the fact they still end up admitting much convergence and overlap between "secular" and "religious" people is worth looking into "Atheism and Secularity". Finally, the impressive wealth of data such as tables and graphs that were compiled offer the first inner look from a multitude of cultures on the religious beliefs and realities on normative, not superior, rationalities that atheists exhibit constantly. This detailed data deserves mention on both wikipedia articles previously mentioned by the watchdog editors.

Data on prayer and even church attendance by American atheists found in "Atheism and Secularity" should be mentioned somewhere including writings on atheism as religion such as from "Journal of Liberal Religion" :

http://meadville.edu/LL_JLR_v8_n1_Pomeroy.htm

Examples of organizations that exhibit the same characteristics as any other religions group include (Taoism, Buddhism, Church of Satan, Skeptics Society, Minnesota Atheists, American Atheists, Humanism, Freedom From Religion Inc., Unitarian Universalists, UFO religions like Realianism, etc.) Of course, some of these try to deny that they are "religions" or "religious groups" but the characteristics of many aspects of religions such as ritual and communities based on atheistic worldview are found among them (i.e. books like "Funerals Without God: A Practical Guide to Non-Religious Funerals", "A Humanist Wedding Service", and "Raising Freethinkers: A Practical Guide for Parenting Beyond Belief") Even chaplains for atheists in universities and the military are being pushed and found even in the US:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/27atheists.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17558400

Greg Epstein is a notable chaplain for non-theists who is well known.

I have many other valuable references available from my years of investigating the dynamics and nature of atheists and monitoring some activities and even joining some of these organizations mentioned. I even have collected some data including violence and genocide committed by atheists worldwide("Death By Government" for example), but I think this all should suffice for what its worth.

Its no wonder Christel Manning writes "We are beginning to see some hopeful signs that secular worldviews are being recognized as religious equivalents" in "Atheism and Secularity".

On the Religiosity and intelligence page, I had

_______

[Hobson, Art (2008). The Surprising Effectiveness of College Scientific Literacy Courses. The Physics Teacher 46 (7)] states,

"Research by Jon Miller, professor of Interdisciplinary Studies and director of the International Center for Scientific Literacy at Michigan State University, shows that the U.S. scientific literacy course requirements for nonscience college students pull the United States into second place in international rankings of adult scientific literacy. This despite the poor science scores of U.S. primary and secondary school students as compared with other nations. The far lower adult scientific literacy rankings of most European nations and other industrialized nations appear to be due to the lack of any such college scientific literacy requirement in those nations."

Jon Miller's data from 1998 shows this in [Miller, Jon. The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science. 1998. 7(3):203-223]

Intelligence seems to not be based on one's belief in theism or atheism at all since most atheists in the US and Europe come genetically, culturally, and historically from theistic parents and cultures. Cultural influences and personal drive seem to impact intellectual development more than personal beliefs overall.

The history of science shows that atheistic societies and theistic societies are at times very intelligent and at times not so intelligent since theistic societies like Christian, Greek, Roman, Arab have all advanced much of the science and mathematics we see today. Atheistic societies such as China and Japan have done their fair share on scientific developments also.

See "The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West" by Toby Huff for some perspective.

________

Say what you will about this section, but if the Religiosity and intelligence page is really about any data on religiosity and intelligence, then ANY data from science and math scores from international comparative studies such as Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) or Jon Miller's data on math, science, and religiosity IS relevant to the discourse. America is seen and has been polled to be as a "very religious" and theistic country and Scandanavia, Norway, Sweden have seen and polled as a "very secular" and atheistic countries (Phil Zuckerman. Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment, NYU Press. 2008).

If some citations like (Lynn, Richard; John Harvey and Helmuth Nyborg. "Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations". Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.004. Retrieved 2008-06-27.) and (Nyborg, Helmuth (2008-03). "The intelligence–religiosity nexus: A representative study of white adolescent Americans". doi:10.1016/j.intell.2008.08.003. Retrieved 2008-10-17.) are allowed on wikipedia to be shown (might as well add - Satoshi Kanazawa, Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent, Social Psychology Quarterly March 2010 vol. 73 no. 1 33-57- to this article) then why can't raw data such as TIMSS and Jon Miller's data and Phil Zuckerman's data be used or at least referenced for people to see that results from much of the citations Nyborg, Lynn, Kanazawa are not visible in science and math scores for children in "religious" (US) and "secular" (Europe) countries or international adult scientific literacy tests. The "religious" and the "secular" children all score about the same in math and science (TIMSS) despite these other articles claiming higher intelligence for "secular, liberal, and atheist" people and societies. Asian countries scoring better than both the US and Europe seem to be due to rigorousness of educational programs, not belief or disbelief in the supernatural or theism since "Atheism and Secularity" shows that Asians display supernatural beliefs constantly such as Japanese atheism. Many times in the form of Buddhism and other religious beliefs. Art Hobson's references on Jon Miller's research cite US adults as having higher scientific literacy since 1988 over Europeans adults. Art's article finds college course requirements, not religious stance, as a definitive marker on scientific literacy even though he mentions that religiosity was measured to see if it impacted scientific literacy among other factors. As mentioned earlier, science and math are usually thought of when people think of intelligence, though other part of intelligence do exist. Also science and math are useful markers of cognitive abilities. Many times people are interested in religiosity and ability to understand science and math as an indicator for intelligence and rationality.

[Smith, Christian (2009). Souls in Transition: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195371796] summarizes recent research on religiosity, higher education, and mentions that religiosity is increasing among US universities - contrary to many secularization theories that are popular and available.

I understand that some of this may be actual "original research" but all of these references I have cited deserve to be cited somewhere in the articles on Religiosity and intelligence and Atheism or Demographics of atheism or elsewhere.

That last sentence pretty much summarizes my position and ultimate hope. I wanted to just publish some of these references somewhere for people to look and have available. All else is worthless to me since I usually never trust anything written on wikipedia. I usually just skip to the references and ignore the whole article since I know that many of these pages change considerably daily and are thus , not reliable to base much of my faith in. The raw references on the other hand are probably the only valuable part of wikipedia, in my opinion. This is my opinion based on my experience here thus far and from before I got an account here.

I am personally not that interested in making contributions to wikipedia anymore. Its very much pointless and my time spent on gathering this information for both pages has been futile, if not wasted. Whoever reads my previous comments, there are the sources for further research and data. All the claims made by me can be edited to be more "neutral" wherever needed - if anyone cares.

Thanks to those who have given me some support, but perhaps I am better off contributing to peer reviewed articles in research journals like I did before. This may be my final post. If I post again it will most likely be just references to encourage further research to whoever cares.

Ramos1990 (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Atheistic Morality

This talk page is for discussions regarding improving the article, and isn't a soapbox: see WP:NOTFORUM

I believe we should have a paragraph on what Vaishnavism has to say about atheism and atheistic moarlity. Someone is preventing me from editing the ethics section. I want justification. I agree I should not add the second paragraph. But the following paragraph should remain. After all it is an opinion. (But atheists: Please examine your own hearts. You will find a lot of truth. If you don't believe in morality, that's another thing) Vaishnavism strongly opposes atheism and points out what it believes to be serious flaws in "atheistic morality": Pushed by their own selfish desires, people may act morally for some time, but when they think it over, they will eventually sin. They will say to themselves: "O my brother, don't stay away from sense pleasures. Enjoy sense pleasures as you like, as long as others do not know of them. Why not? I do not think the world will collapse because of them. There is no God, an all-seeing God who gives to us the results of our actions. What have you to fear? Just be a little careful, so no one will know. If they learn of it, then you will lose your good reputation, and perhaps the government or bad people will make trouble for you. If that happens neither you nor others will be happy." Know for certain that if the hearts of the preachers of atheistic morality were examined, these thoughts would be found.Yottamaster (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC) That someone was me. Please read WP:NOR. If you can find reliable secondary sources that are independent of Vaishnavism, that indicate that these issues are important to the subject of atheism, then we may have something to discuss here. Otherwise, there is no reason to weigh down the page with every theist, deist, and anti-atheist view of atheism. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC) I'm in complete agreement with Tryptofish on this. Unless a preponderance of verified reliable sources specifically state that Vaishnavism is of profound significance to atheism, it is inappropriate to have that kind of screed in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Vaishnavism is theistic, establishing the supremacy of a single God, and is based on very sound and highly complete logical arguments and it strongly opposes atheism. Atheism cannot appreciate Vaishnavism, because Atheism is highly motivated by self interest. If you are interested in sincerely searching for truth, you have to examine every statement you read very scrutinizingly. You can't just depend on "reliable sources". So I do not wish to add anything to that section. But just to remind you: Atheism also requires faith—unreasonable faith that there is no God. Yottamaster (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC) See WP:NOTFORUM: Please take your soapboxing elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC) I'm Sorry.Yottamaster (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC) (after 2 edit conflicts) - Wikipedia is really not a good place to engage in proselytism, or for disparaging Wikipedia editors. If you aren't prepared to accept Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and original research, you'd better find some other website to do your thing. This talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not for discussing the subject of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Discussion of the subject of the article is necessary for improvement of it. Though these comments were clearly out of line.167.171.195.39 (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Er... no. Discussion about the article is necessary for improvement, but not discussion about the subject of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC) I agree I should not add things which have "no reliable sources" to Wikipedia articles, but I fail to understand, how we can improve an article without discussion about the "subject" of the article. There are many things which are not liked by people with a bias.Yottamaster (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not to say that the subject shouldn't be discussed in general! It's just that this is not the place for it...this Talk page has a specific function, and general discussion or discussion of our personal views on a subject are not part of that function. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.246 (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Major glossing over of history.

Hatting off topic WP:FORUM discussion about world history
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In regards to the History portion of this article, why is there such gross glossing over of the brutal persecutions carried out against the religious populations of the atheist regimes of the 20th century? There isn't a single mention of any persecution...just glossed over vocabulary such as "opposed" or the use of the sentence "campaigns to persuade people to abandon religion". Killing people and destroying their religious buildings isn't persuasion, it is persecution. Where is the intellectual honesty and reason that Atheists so often champion? It certainly isn't anywhere to be found in the 1900's section. I'm not asking for paragraphs here, but a single sentence stating that the religious were violently persecuted under atheist regimes should be added. It's not a flawless worldview with a spotless history, no mattter how badly dishonest people want it to be. There is an entire Violence section on the main Religion article, as there should be, but not a single sentence about the violent persecution carried out by atheist regimes here. It's simply ridiculous.--Jesspiper (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Examples? References? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC) For examples I would suggest the numerous Bishops and thousand or so Orhtohox Priests executed in the USSR in the attempt to eradicate religion, or the demolishing of the Cathedral of Christ The Saviour (one out of many destroyed churches/mosques/synagoges) as well as numerous religious people being sent to mental hospitals, prison camps and labour camps. The confiscation of all Orthodox Church property and subsequent near annihilation of the Orthodox Church would be another. Outside the Soviet Union, perhaps the murder of thousands of Roman Catholic clergy during the Spanish Red Terror. Or the executions of priests and monks in the Killing Fields of the Khmer Rouge. The list is long and several pages on Wikipedia are dedicated to all of these events carried out by atheist organizations, with corresponding references; you don't have to look far. The Rage Against God by Peter Hitchens (yes, brother to Christopher) is a good place to start. It shouldn't be too hard to add a single sentence to this article when there are pages upon pages devoted to the subject elsewhere on Wikipedia.--Jesspiper (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC) The content you're looking for should be summarized in the sectionAtheism#Since_1900. I agree that the content presented there is sparse and choppy. One obvious way to handle this would be to write a simple 2-3 paragraph summary of state atheism, which could then be inserted in the article as it's own section. You're welcome to give that a go, or offer up another alternative. aprock (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC) The above works for me. I see you added "See: State Atheism". That is a huge step to improve this article. A quick mention of the violent persecutions against the religious populations, particularily clergy, of said atheist regimes is all that is necessary, in my opinion. It should be short and factual. Basically that there were atheist regimes and they at times violently persecuted their religious populations and clergy. If people want more they can follow the links.--Jesspiper (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Few atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism (the Khmer Rouge being the notable exception). Stalin was an atheist, but the brutal acts of his regime where not committed because of this fact. Jesspiper is overstating these "persecutions" to a considerable degree. It's also important to note that they pale in comparison to contemporary religious atrocities. Also significant is that religious atrocities continue to this day, whereas there are no atheist atrocities taking place. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC) The distinctions you make are all reasonable, and are welcome in the article. Some sort of coherent summary of state atheism should be in the history section. aprock (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC) On second thought, what really need to happen is for Atheism#History and History of atheism to be properly synched, then replacing the content in Atheism#History with a summary of History of atheism, maybe 3-5 paragraphs in length. aprock (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC) No present day atheist atrocities taking place? I'm afraid you're gravely mistaken. Being a Christian is synonymous with a death sentence in present day North Korea under its current atheist regime. Thousands of Christians in North Korea must practice in secret or else it's off to concentration camp and/or execution. And furthermore, what "name" an atrocity is committed in is a superficial thing. The atheist atrocities discussed were in the name of "progress". The cause of said atrocities, however, is another matter. Especially when it comes to demolishing churches and slaughtering clergy. What worldview often considers religion to be a thing of the past and in need of removal? What worldview considers it backwards and contrary to progress? Stop fooling yourself. The answer is obvious. Every single atheist regime in the 20th century attempting to stamp out religion once and for all is no coincidence. "Not in the name of" is the biggest dodge out there. And to say they pale compared to today's religious atrocities is simply a gross ignorance of history. The regimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the rest slaughtered more people than all of the religious wars across history combined, let alone the current tribal flare ups. In the name of or cause is irrelevant to the article anyways, as it is a fact that these were atheist regimes and they all slaughtered millions of their own people, with the religious and clergy as specific targets. Let the reader determin why/cause/correlation etc. --Jesspiper (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC) @Jess: with respect to North Korea, if you have sources, by all means introduce them. Content correctly sourced to reliable secondary sources is always welcome. However, if all the sources say the atrocities were committed in the name of "progress", it's not up to us to reinterpret that as actually meaning "atheism". Cheers, and please do return with relevant sources for that and any of the other specific issues you mention. aprock (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC) This is a useless pissing contest and it is not relevant to the entry. I would please ask that all personal opinions about which ideology has caused more death than other ideologies be left in user space. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Agreed, which is why I never brought up anything about body counts, causes, "in the name of" etc in the first place. You can thank Scjessey for that. I just want the fact that it happened at all mentioned, because right now it's just being hidden.--Jesspiper (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Nothing is hidden. Regimes like the one in North Korea oppose Christianity because any organization which introduces outside views is a threat to the regime—it has nothing to do with atheism. You might find a source saying that a regime promoted atheism, but atheism has nothing to do with persecution—such persecution is an attempt by a totalitarian regime to ensure that there is no group which does not accept its authority. As noted above, reliable sources are needed for any assertions in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC) I'm not overly concerned with giving the list of who did (or continues to do) what, where, when and why. Atheist regimes have and continue to persecute their people, particularily their religious people and clergy. Period. Johnuniq certainly has an opinion as to why, as do I and others. But as aprock said, it's neither here nor there to say why. But there is no indication of any of this in the article. None. One notable and recent source for this persecution is The Rage Against God by Peter Hitchens. --Jesspiper (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC) If you would like there to be an indication, then you're going to have to bring some mainstream secondary sources to the table. aprock (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Jesspiper has got his coatrack about the horror that is atheism in the sorry excuse for an article named State atheism. But it should stay there, and not spread into the main article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC) It appears that I have a wikipedia stalker. How cute. Anyways, for those that asked for sources/references, here is a varied list: http://www.opendoorsuk.org/resources/persecution.php?country=north_korea http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2007/90140.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide4.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide9.htm http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rory-fitzgerald/richard-dawkins-should-be_b_541387.html The Rage Against God by Peter Hitchens: Chapters 12- Fake Miracles and Grotesque Relics and 13- Provoking a Bloody War with the Church. The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day: Chapter 13 - The Red Hand of Atheism. --Jesspiper (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Reviewing your first source, we have what appears to be a self published web page which makes no connection between the atrocities of North Korea and it's main religion, "Atheism/traditional beliefs". It appears that you are reasoning that because the word "atheism" appears on the page, the atrocities should be mentioned on Atheism. I posit that you'll have just as much luck getting this sort of content included on the page million. You might have better luck at Communism, but you could also consider trying dictatorship and christian as well. Your 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sources do not mention atheism. Your 5th and 6th are the best ones you've got, but they are both op-ed pieces. The polemic by Peter Hitchens hardly constitutes robust mainstream sourcing. Likewise, the polemic by a guy who writes video games is curiously amusing, but hardly what I would call a good source. When you find something more robust and broader, you're welcome to bring them to talk. aprock (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC) (after edit conflict) Seriously? These references either do not support your assertions, or are unreliable: Open Doors - A religious group that tours the world giving out bibles. Statements they make on their website do not support the assertion that atheists persecute religious people. United States Department of State - The link you provide makes no mention of atheism or atheists. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance - Neither link you provided refers to atheism or atheists. Christian Science Monitor - The link you provide is to an opinion piece by evangelical Christian apologist Dinesh D'Souza, who is reliable only for spouting hate about pretty much anything non-religious or vaguely liberal. Huffington Post - The link you provide is to an opinion piece written by Rory Fitzgerald, an Irish lawyer who just doesn't like Richard Dawkins. The Rage Against God - I don't have this book so I cannot comment on it. The Irrational Atheist - Vox Day is actually Theodore Beale, a computer game designer who also happens to be a science-denying Southern Baptist, and not a reliable source for anything except designing computer games. None of your sources appear to support the notion that atheism is the reason for anything bad that ever happened anywhere. If you're intent on putting atheist-hating nonsense into this article, you're going to have to come up with some actual reliable sources from scholars and writers notable for their work in the field. From where I'm sitting, this looks like nothing more than POV-pushing. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC) I'll say it again: my request is not to prove that atheism is the cause of said persecutions. People just (predictably) get all defensive and warp my request into that. Repeatedly. It's presumably to mask my original request, which was to add that the "campaigns" already mentioned in this article actually included violence and slayings as opposed to the innocently glossed over "presuasion" already mentioned. Communism is an explicitely atheist ideology. It is no secret that the USSR, Khmer Rouge and North Korea were/are all atheist regimes. Source 2, 3, 4 all confirm the violent atrocities commited by said regimes. These regimes are already covered in this article, their association with atheism has never been my request because it is already made apparent in this article, and rightly so. My issue is that there is no mention whatsoever of the violence carried out by said regimes in their "persuasion campaigns", which is what I originally requested and still do. Sources 2, 3, 4 and 5 (which is mainstream, the man is a recognized journalist, lived in the USSR and saw first-hand its effects and wrote about it) all describe the violence missing in the "Since 1900" paragraph. My request is simply to acknowledge the violence of said regimes. Four of my sources provide this.--Jesspiper (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Having some trouble defining atheism?

The problem with defining atheism is that it doesn't exist. There is no -ism in atheist.

ism (zm) n. Informal A distinctive doctrine, system, or theory. [35]

An Atheist is someone who rejects the theist claim. Nothing more.

If you really want an accurate description of atheism you should inform people of the fact that there is no atheism. ResidentAtheist (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not any grounds to do anything about the article. See WP:SYNTH about making your own deductions rather than summarizing what reliable sources have said. Dmcq (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

One would think this should be perfectly acceptable if you consider that atheism comes from the a-(theos-ism) construct. In my mind it's simply the antithesis of theism rather than a doctrine in itself, much in the same way as atheist is used. Again, that's purely my assumption.--Topperfalkon (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"Just as the created can't be created since it is already created, the uncreated can't be uncreated since it is already uncreated" (Troy Brooks). http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?4558-Why-Can-t-the-Uncreated-be-Uncreated&p=9301#post9301 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.207.176 (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The definition of Atheist should be the opposite definition of Theism, as simple as that. Some one cited: "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist[3]" to me that doesn't makes sense, that would mean that babies and even inanimate objects are atheists. In my humble opinion, Atheism definition should be: Disbelieving in at least one deity.Alusky (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the definition cited IS the opposite of theism. Just like the opposite of emotion is apathy. By the positive disbelief definition, all Monotheists, and virtually every other religious person would be atheists as well. eldamorie (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the definition should be what the reliable sources say the definition is. Anything else is WP:OR. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually no. Reliable sources for word definitions would be editors of dictionaries, with and without personal agendas, trying, as best they can, to describe the most accepted use of the word at any given time. Atheism is a word that is often stretched to mean a lot of things, and no reliable source exists. But all of that doesn't really matter, since it's definition is given, even in this article. Atheism includes both strong and weak atheism - both the rejection of belief in deities, and the absence of belief in deities, as any reference to atheism in general must be a reference to the lowest common denominator, the only definition that can be true, is that atheism is the absence of belief in deities, and hence the all-excluding opposite of theism. Atheism is not an -ism, the -ism is the theism - the thing that atheists are not. The article also has incorrect use of the word agnostic. Agnosticism is a claim about knowledge, not about existence or belief, and as such it has nothing to do with atheism or theism, and is by no means a third position between atheism and theism - it has to do with knowledge - that the existence of deities is unknown or unknowable. That you have agnostic theists as well as agnostic atheist is no different than the fact that you have agnostic bakers and agnostic wikipedia-editors. There can be no doubt that the word atheist have been used to vilify non-believers, and that many people as a result feel uncomfortable with that label, but as such the label doesn't say anything about values or beliefs, it doesn't say anything about anything else, than that anyone that is not a theist - anyone that does not have a belief in a deity - by definition is an a-theist. SorenOlin ^{[ talk to me ]} 04:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The Britannica is not a dictionary and its not like its our own sophomoric opinion about how inclusive atheism happens to be, thus when it comes to our writing about the different viewpoints expressed, please see the policy wp:NPOV. In addition, often agnostics do not consider themselves to be either atheists or theists, because they don't subscribe to the absence definition as you do. --Modocc (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

But all of that still does not matter matter, since its definition is given, even in this article. There is consensus that the word 'Atheism' covers different types of atheism, and there is consensus that these include both implicit and explicit atheism - also in this article. As long as the parts are defined and agreed upon, their sum is given, and above personal opinions, sophomoric or otherwise. The conclusion can not be of greater generality than its premises. That some people will not label themselves either theist or atheist is a fair point to include, if they like to use the label 'agnostic' is fine, but has nothing to do with their theism or lack of same. The talk about babies being atheists is, while true, not interesting. Atheism only exists as concept because it is or were opposite to norm, exactly like the word 'single' i.e. That babies are atheists by definition, just as they are single, unmarried and apolitical is only true by definition, and doesn't add new knowledge, though calling them any of the above specifically, would place unreasonable focus on that specific part of things that they are not. SorenOlin ^{[ talk to me ]} 12:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The Britanicca and other sources do not include all nontheists as atheists which is why these definitions are given weight in accordance with wp:due. See wp:TRUTH. --Modocc (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. Words are defined by their usage much more than by their etimology. If we followed the "agnostic are really atheists" line of reasoning we should also affirm that "anemic" means without blood. Also, regardless of one's personal opinion, every dictionary I checked referred to atheism as "disbelief in the existence of deity", with disbelief meaning "mental rejection of something as untrue". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.227.66.211 (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The front section of this article is in shambles

Wow, that first paragraph is a mess. It's basically impenetrable. Just as an example, what is "broad" about the first definition? What the hell does broad refer to here? I am an atheist, and was a philosophy major, and I have no idea. How, then, could this possibly capture the Wikipedia goal of being a general interest encyclopedia—that is, if it is actually somehow technically correct, as murky as it is, and is not just a nonsense statement. The article has some very good content (I have a few criticisms as to other parts, but nothing like the front section). It really is awful. Now, I know that it easy to come and just complain and not suggest an alternative, but I get the feeling from looking at a bit of the article's history that I would need to first get some agreement that there is a problem before delving into replacement material.--108.54.26.7 (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There has been plenty of discussions (see the archives) about the available references, especially those provided in the article. Please refer to those references, or to other references that would be appropriate to use in their place when making suggestions. Doing this will help maintain the verifiability of what is added or changed. For instance, the first sentence's use of "in a broad sense" paraphrases the Britannica's use of "in general" for this one definition. The most inclusive definition possible which as a viewpoint is included per wp:NPOV is given significantly less weight per wp:due in the third sentence because of the Britannica and other encyclopedias ignoring it. --Modocc (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)