Talk:Atheism

Differences

 * atheism is personocratic (it is non-personocratic, but studies the "personocratic criterion" and in philosophy and not only; categories are grouped with the hypernymic criterion of focus) (focused on the denial of the supposed precosmic cosmogonic person); naturalism is physiocratic/naturocratic (it is the pure metaphysics of physics; without a personocratic bias [it is impersonal but it's not that its main point])
 * atheism is a negation; naturalism not
 * atheism as a term is famous nowadays; naturalism is not and doesn't have enough followers (it's not self-evident on philosophical doctrines people to easily move from one idea to a better defined)

Similarities

 * usually (but according to Pew Reseach, Robert Sapolsky and many others) they both accept only science (partially won't do, because theists do the same; partiality here is a bad criterion for categorization)

older comments in Greek, more analytical

References to IQ
The last section references links to atheism and intelligence, however IQ is used and I don't think that's correct. 1. IQ is generally agreed to be an unreliable number. 2. None of the references I was able to view (one is a paywalled) mention IQ, rather they talk about education/intellectualism. Lindsey40186 (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The inline citation shows that atheism correlates with the g factor (psychometrics), AKA IQ. Modocc (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Suggested change to lede
I think the lede should clarify that "the position that there are no deities" is the standard definition of atheism used in academic philosophy.

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

This generates the following definition: atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists. In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ Zarimi (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The first sentence is just wrong.
 * "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities"
 * That is Agnosticism, which is different. Atheism is the belief/position that there are no deities.
 * ''1. "Atheism [...] is the belief that there is no God or gods" (Baggini 2003:3) 2. "At its core, atheism [...] designates a position (not a "belief") that includes or asserts no god(s)" (Eller 2010:1) 3. "[A]n atheist is someone without a belief in God; he or she need not be someone who believes that God does not exist" (Martin 2007:1) 4. "[A]n atheist does not believe in the god that theism favours" (Cliteur 2009:1) 5. "By "atheist", I mean precisely what the word has always been understood to mean - a principled and informed decision to reject belief in God" (McGrath 2004:175)
 * The Oxford Handbook of Atheism, Defining atheism pg 11
 * An atheist is someone who does not say that a god might exist, in contrast to an agnostic. If this overly broad definition is to be given undue weight, then there needs to be a section on agnosticism as a subset of atheism. Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Per wp:lede: "...it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead." The lede was cited . Modocc (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll edit that out lol Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Even in the citations it does seem that the narrower definition is more prominent, so at the very least, the narrow definition should be first Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I would oppose any attempt to narrow the scope of the introduction, which attempts to describe all forms of atheism, not just atheism as currently understood. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I disagree, the article should be on atheism in its current general form, with a section summarising the History of atheism article. I think a good compromise would be:
 * "Atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In a broader sense, atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of deities, although in modern times this is more commonly termed agnosticism. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."
 * I can find and provide citations for this if people feel it's an improvement, it doesn't narrow the scope of the article. Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Or rather, maybe more logically:
 * "Atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. In a broader sense, atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of deities, although in modern times this is more commonly termed agnosticism"
 * Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Many agnostics reject theistic belief(s) too, asserting deities are simply unknowable, so agnosticism is not limited to just unbelief without any rejection. Note also that atheists per the narrowest definition are included within the scope of the broadest definition, it therefore cannot be called agnosticism. The last significant change in consensus occurred 8 years ago with this rather long discussion: Recent edit concern (April 2016) - Lead sentence. All the definitions are current and the lede presently reflects the most recent scholarship.  Modocc (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Reject is not the word I'd use. Agnosticism is more passive and indifferent. You're right that an absence of belief in the existence of deities is not the same as the belief that the existence of god is unknowable, that should be removed from my proposal. The order of the definitions does not reflect the most recent scholarship, even in the citations given the narrower definition is given more prominence. Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My impression is that if a person is secular and respects religion they identify as an agnostic, and if they're secular and don't respect religion they identify as an atheist. The terminology is more descriptive about that person's attitude towards religion. Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is essentially confusing agnosticism with implicit atheism. The two overlap, so it is totally understandable. The current introduction is crafted to reflect the broad scope of atheism in all its forms, and there is no need to narrow its scope to satisfy what is merely the most modern interpretation. Nor is it necessary to invert the introduction so that the most restrictive definition comes first. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything about implicit atheism in academia. I really think this is ridiculous, the modern interpretation is what should be most prominent, and at the very least it should come first. I am not talking about narrowing the scope of the article at all. The status quo is disingenuous and mis-reflects the views of most atheists. Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The editors of The Oxford Handbook of Atheism define atheism in its broadest sense, by default, because it is pervasive (with a few exceptions) amongst recent scholars. Hence we follow in accord with WP: due weight. Modocc (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it is as pervasive a definition among academics as you say, out of the various definitions the source gives, 3/5 comply with the narrower definition, which is also the popular or public understanding of atheism as is represented in media. I do think undue weight is being given to the broad definition by having it first. Personally I think the popular definition, whatever it is, should be first, and then academic definitions which clarify/represent the diversity of opinion, all in the first paragraph. Alexanderkowal (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then it is fortunate that Wikipedia gives deference to academia and the preponderance of reliable sources, rather than personal opinions and recentism. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:Recentism applies to historical events and contemporary events, if the meaning of a word changes then it is the contemporary meaning that should be given prominence. I've backed up my proposal with RS but I can add some more Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, academic sources on the definitions of atheism are still just well-informed personal opinions. Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The broadest definition was adopted by The Oxford Handbook of Atheism (2013) (see page 4). Stephen Bullivant its co-editor writes "...the great utility of this definition [the broadest], and its pervasive – although not universal (see Baggini 2003: 3; Cliteur 2009; Eller 2010) – deployment in recent scholarship on contemporary atheism, more than support its usage." It is its pervasiveness amongst these scholars not general usage that matters with regard to due weight. Modocc (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My bad, I should've read that. I do disagree though, since our readers are just members of the public, the general usage and popular understanding should be more prominent, with academic definitions clarifying.
 * See:
 * : Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings
 * : Atheists are people who believe that god or gods (or other supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths and legends or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful.
 * : The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists. 
 * : Atheism is the belief that there are no gods.
 * : the fact of not believing in any god or gods, or the belief that no god or gods exist
 * Furthermore, the History of atheism article defines atheism:
 * Atheism is the rejection of an assertion that a deity exists.  
 * And the simple wikipedia article states:
 * Atheism is rejecting the belief in a God or gods.  Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * On this survey of the first two pages of google "atheism definition", two non academic sources used the broad definition, compared to the five I've put here. Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think one of these middling ones should be used first, and then the broader and narrower definitions after. Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this one:
 *  Atheism, in general, is the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.
 * Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * That is what dictionaries are for. Encyclopedias seek to fully describe a topic. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Lede
 * If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist
 * Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We should not mislead the nonspecialist into thinking atheism is not a complex, multilayered topic. Many would argue that the broad description we begin with represents the largest body of atheists, and you dismiss that as less important than the narrow definition you evidently prefer. As has previously been stated, the makeup and order of the introduction has been exhaustively discussed. You'll find the archive of this talk page contains substantial discussion and debate. You have bought nothing new to the discussion to suggest that a shift is necessary. Atheism has been a thing for thousands of years, but you seem to want this article's focus to be the atheism of just the most recent portion of that time. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You really misunderstand me. I am saying that we should still include all three definitions in the first paragraph. This discussion is about which should be the most prominent and come first. The popular understanding being more prominent is just WP:Common sense Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. It should go from widest scope to narrowest. You are proposing we go from medium to wide to narrow, which makes no sense at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. It should go from widest scope to narrowest. You are proposing we go from medium to wide to narrow, which makes no sense at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the most common definition should come first, which makes perfect sense. At the very least, the lede should state which one is more common. Putting the broad one first gives WP:Undue weight to it. Please provide evidence that the broad definition is more common or prominent. I'm going to edit in "commonly" as a compromise per WP:BRD Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What you have just added is essentially original research, and you have done so without first seeking a consensus for a change here. I suggest you revert it. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have provided evidence here but I can find more concrete evidence. Feel free to revert it per WP:BRD Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Cliteur (2009) argues for a broad definition of atheism, however says:
 * Atheism in the sense coined above seems also a defensible position. The only problem is that hardly anybody follows the semantic convention that I have proposed. In popular parlance, atheism is associated with all kinds of negative ideas and attitudes, especially with the way it can be defended. Atheists have a reputation for being arrogant, militant, missionary, zealous, and also impolite if not rude. For that very reason George Jacob Holyoake coined the word “secularism".
 * Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Modocc Can you please elaborate as to why you reverted my edit? Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * America's Webster's dictionary is inclusive of the broadest meaning. Like it or not Wikipedia's due weight policy regarding the topic is determined by scholarship. Modocc (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My edit was backed up by scholarship, see the above post from a proponent of the broad definition. I think it is right that the broadest definition comes first if that is how people within the movement want to redefine it, but we must clarify what the popular definition is for the reader and that is what my edit did. I can find more sources if you're not satisfied, or rephrase it? Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The current dictionaries determine contemporary usage, as the present Webster's attests. It can no longer be considered less common. No wp:weasel words like "perhaps" either and not by scholar(s) from one and a half or more decades ago. Moreover, the 2013 Oxford Handbook surveyed the scholarship and found the broadest definition pervasive enough amongst scholars to adopt the broadest definition, hence it has more current academic weight than the other definitions. Thus since its the most deployed definition amongst the subject experts we give it the most weight. Modocc (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with the premise here, words are not created by academics, they are created by people collectively and it is the common definition which should be treated as the true definition. In this regard I thought my edit was more than reasonable.
 * Cambridge dictionary: the fact of not believing in any god or gods, or the belief that no god or gods exist
 * Collins dictionary: Atheism is the belief that there is no God
 * Oxford learners dictionary: the belief that God or gods do not exist
 * Merriam webster: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
 * In fact, the Webster's dictionary is the only one that uses the broad definition. We can do an RfC if you still don't agree with my compromise. Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Cambridge includes it with "...not believing...". "...the true definition", really? We have a reliable source that scholars have adopted it. That is because these definitions, in fact, coexist. Modocc (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * True was not the right word, obviously multiple can coexist. We are talking about which definition should be most prominent, whether it is the order or a framing. As you say, dictionaries define words, and 4/6 of the dictionaries we’ve found use the narrow definition, while 1/6 uses both, and 1/6 uses the broad definition. I’ve also provided a source that states the popular definition is the narrow one, and I can provide more if you don’t believe that is beyond reasonable doubt at this point. I’m light of this, there is a very weak case for the status quo and I think my edit was a good compromise. If we did an RfC, would you be okay summarising your argument below the main post? I’d argue for the narrow definition to come first and be framed as the popular understanding, whilst the broad be framed as the recent academic understanding. Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Or maybe a third opinion would be more fruitful. At the end of the day, it’s about the MOS Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Since the dictionaries are all over the place how would we write honestly about that without using weasel words? Modocc (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s funny because we can’t be definitive. I do think differentiating between the popular and academic understanding in the first sentence would be worthwhile, and without implying which is ‘truer’. Is the emphasis on the broader definition to distance the movement from the fundamentalist tendencies of new atheism, and have a wider appeal? Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In other subjects like global warming and monetary policy we determine and give the most weight to what the relevant academicians publish. Also, since their foundation, theology departments have put a lot of emphasis on the existence/nonexistence God debate, but not a lot on what people actually believe or not and the latter has become more popular with time. Modocc (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How about:
 * Atheism is commonly defined as [narrow definition], however experts define it more broadly as [broad definition].
 * So the prominence of the popular definition is negated by the authority of experts, and both are framed. The second sentence can then frame the very narrow definition? Alexanderkowal (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But atheism is commonly defined as "not believing" too. Modocc (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * True, maybe:
 * ”Atheism is commonly defined as [narrow], or, especially among experts, [broad].”
 * Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that the lede introduces three common definitions, and "experts" is too vague. Modocc (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the very narrow one be put in the second sentence as it’s the least common of the two. I don’t think experts is too vague, it’s clear that experts means academics I think Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Unqualified "experts" in precisely what though? Philosophy? Clearly "...scholarship on contemporary atheism..." is interdisciplinary, with Bullivant listing exceptions because the narrowest definition is still very common. Modocc (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by unqualified? All academics writing on this will have relevant qualifications. Maybe replacing experts with scholars or academics Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Unqualified by not informing the reader who the academicians are. It will raise too many unanswered questions in the average readers' minds thus it would get tagged with "by whom?". Bullivant's assertion is useful from a historical and an editorial perspective, but it does not really add anything of substance to the lede. Modocc (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think stating "by scholars" is clear enough providing citations are provided. Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In the definition section it might be worth explaining this discrepancy, like you did for me, so that the lede summarises this and is of substance Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Still, this is a tertiary reference work that reflects accredited published academic work, but your rationale for reordering them does not appear to reflect the weight of that scholarship and it definitely detracts. The phrase "is commonly defined" is wordy and the term "commonly" is superfluous. Modocc (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it is definitely worth framing the three definitions. I'm going to ask for a third opinion Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok.Modocc (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * apparently there needs to be more input for a 3O, so I'll start an RfC Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Does that summarise the arguments adequately and in a neutral way? Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is neutral enough. Perhaps you can add a complete rendering of your proposed text for comparison. Modocc (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Good idea but I’m undecided on what it should specifically be. I’m hoping that someone will come along with a good idea but if not we’ll stick with the status quo Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC on definitions
On the order, wording, and framing of the three definitions in the first paragraph of the lede, which currently is:
 * Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

It has been stipulated that the middling definition is more commonly found in dictionaries and among the general population and should have primacy, and that the status quo gives the broad definition WP:Undue weight, however the broad definition is supported by a plurality of recent academia and its primacy allows for a natural procession into narrower definitions.

An alternative might be:
 * Atheism is the absence of or rejection of belief in the existence of a god or gods. In a narrower sense, atheism is the position or belief that there are no deities. (needs to be edited slightly)

Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Simply here to help guide you..... have no vested interest in the article. Can we get an example of the changes.... As in now and text to be..... and a few sources of academic caliber. .... Feel free to erase this comment at will. Moxy 🍁 22:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I’ll do this tomorrow Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't like the muddling. The definition of atheism is, by the very word itself, "not theism"&mdash;anything but an affirmative answer to the question "Do you believe one or more gods exist?". So, the definition is the first one; the other two are subsets of atheism, not definitions of it. Certainly, people who reject such claims or affirmatively assert that no gods exist are indeed atheists, but they are not the only types of atheists. So, just use the actual definition (an absence of belief in the existence of deities) as the definition, and then the rest of the article can cover various subcategories and subsets of that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That is the benefit of going with the broad definition, however it would be going against most dictionary definitions Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We should be able to do better then WP:TERTIARY sources...as this topic is an academic discipline WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Moxy 🍁 23:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Surely this is an exception as tertiary academic sources aimed at defining atheism provide an overview of the material, which is what is useful when deciding on something like this Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Which dictionaries? I just tried Merriam-Webster, which gives a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods, Cambridge the fact of not believing in any god or gods, or the belief that no god or gods exist:, dictionary.com  disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or a supreme being or beings.. I'd have to go to the library to look at the OED, but I imagine it's similar. But certainly those three all give the "lack of belief" definition. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's some dictionary definitions:
 * Cambridge dictionary: the fact of not believing in any god or gods, or the belief that no god or gods exist
 * Collins dictionary: Atheism is the belief that there is no God
 * Oxford learners dictionary: the belief that God or gods do not exist
 * Merriam webster: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
 * OED: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of a God
 * Chambers: the belief that there is no god
 * Brittanica: a person who believes that God does not exist
 * I think the OED one works best here. Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the OED one really doesn't work well at all, being incomplete. Those are a subset of atheists, but not the whole. Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, etc., encapsulate the whole thing. So, we should start with the complete definition of the entire thing, and then drill down into subsets as the article continues. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree because the broad definition is less common, especially among the general population, and giving it primacy would be giving it WP:Undue weight. We should prioritise focussing on representing the popularity of academic definitions as accurately as we can, and then secondly making it flow, or summarise the article Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the fact that a term is sometimes, or even commonly, misused, has anything to do with what the article should read at all. We don't say "literal" means "figurative but meant really strongly" just because a lot of people misuse it like that. If a lot of people misunderstand what something means, that makes it all the more important that the article describe it accurately. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree, words mean what people understand them to mean and thus use them to mean. Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If Humpty Dumpty wrote our articles, maybe that would be so. But if language is to have any actual utility, words have to have actual meanings. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ? There is no actual meaning, dictionaries are the authority on what a word means and they alter or differ on their definitions often. I think you view reality as overly absolutist and totally independent of perception. Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree [that "they alter or differ on their definitions often"]. I was raised in a university town, the home of UNC. The few dictionaries my school and town's libraries had in the 60s and 70s listed only the active disbelief definitions. The first time I encountered the broadest "not believing" definition was with Smith's book Atheism: The Case Against God (1974). Even today if an elderly preacher here were to inform me that his "atheist grandson" needs to be saved I would certainly assume he means a   rebellious grandson who is not a toddler. Modocc (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the OED's definition that fits the broad and narrow into one sentence, with the broad first? Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think disbelief is a good word that sits in the middle of passive and active. I'd be okay with moving rejection to the second sentence to be honest. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe scepticism or doubt would be good words that leave it broader? Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As I have said before (and not to be redundant but I repeat here for the benefit of others) the broadest definition that is adopted by The Oxford Handbook of Atheism (2013) is "Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of a God or gods" (page 4). Stephen Bullivant its co-editor writes that "...the great utility of this definition [the broadest], and its pervasive – although not universal (see Baggini 2003: 3; Cliteur 2009; Eller 2010) – deployment in recent scholarship on contemporary atheism, more than support its usage." Of course, these other definitions are not as broad, but Wikipedia has included it in the lede since day one. . Modocc (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a sentence in etymology explaining the a- prefix and theism. Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How about
 * Atheism is the absence of or rejection of belief in the existence of a god.
 * Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The currently lede is super clunky and unclear. The second and third sentences are saying the same thing as each other.
 * I support Modocc's suggestion from The Oxford Handbook of Atheism, i.e. "Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of a God or gods" for the lede. With the exception of going with 'a deity or deities' instead of "God or gods" as it avoids the theologically difficult issue of capitalising "God".
 * As with every subject in every humanities discipline, there is no one single right answer, which the editors of the handbook point out. However we have to start somewhere, and this definition is simple clear and succinct, which is what the lede should be.
 * Further distinctions between the kinds of atheists, the common misunderstanding of the difference between atheism and agnosticism etc. can be elucidated in the body of the article with appropriate sources. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Er, the rejection of believing that something is true is not the same as believing its negation. Is there a card in my wallet, yes or no?  Perhaps most days there is, but you can reject that belief without believing there is no card. Dictionaries, Smith and other reliable sources distinguish between them too. See also the Wiktionary entry). Because of this,  I favor keeping the status quo, especially since this talkpage has been relatively quiet the past 8 years with it given this newer source material. Modocc (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That Wiktionary definition for atheism is actually incorrect as it includes "a belief that there is insufficient evidence to believe in a god." which is actually agnosticism, see Wiktionary entry agnosticism "The view that absolute truth or ultimate certainty is unattainable, especially regarding knowledge not based on experience or perceivable phenomena." and "The view that the existence of God or of all deities is unknown, unknowable, unproven, or unprovable."
 * In this context "the rejection of believing that something is true" is agnosticism whereas "believing its negation." is atheism.
 * Regardless of which, the aforementoned handbook is a reliable source and I support its definition. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That would mean ignoring the dictionary definitions that are more narrow. Please see the sources I've provided Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not at all. As I said above, those can be added in the body with explanations, but the lede should be clear and unambiguous. Morgan Leigh | Talk Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - this article covers the entire topic of atheism, which necessarily spans thousands of years of history. During that time, the definition of atheism has expanded, contracted and evolved over time. But the definition of the word is a matter for dictionaries, not encyclopedias. The introductory paragraph of this article has been discussed extensively and exhaustively on many separate occasions, as a perusal through the talk page archive will reveal, and in each and every case the consensus has affirmed the current arrangement of introducing atheism by its widest scope and ending with its narrowest (and least used). This approach is well supported by scholarly sources, which is why it came about in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I really don't get this point, the function of the first sentence/paragraph per WP:Lede is to define the topic. Are you saying we shouldn't prioritise including an accurate definition? Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The words topic (an encyclopedia thing) and definition (a dictionary thing) are not interchangeable, and it is my view that the topic is much broader than just the definition of the word. The reason for the structure of the introduction has already been explained to you above, mulitple times. You have already stated your opposition to my point of view and you do not need to restate that opposition in the RfC. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed you don't think an accurate definition or series of definitions should be prioritised. The reasoning for the structure of the introduction is purely just aesthetics, and should come secondary to putting an accurate definition. Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd like to apologise for my conduct on this page, I've been too combative and adversarial from the start, as well as mindless. Whilst I still think the first paragraph can be improved upon, this wasn't the right way to go about it. I do think the paragraph could do with being rewritten to ensure more clarity for the reader, such as having a broad academic definition, and then going into its popular associations as scepticism, personal rejection of religious belief, and absolute rejection of religious belief on an academic level. I think this should be able to be done in one sentence following the broad definition. Regardless, I'll unwatch this page and leave it to people more knowledgeable than me on the topic. Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Sources:
 * Oxford Handbook of Atheism (2013), Defining atheism :
 * The precise definition of atheism is both a vexed and vexatious issue ... Etymologically, atheism is derived from the classical Greek a- (normally meaning 'not' or 'without') and theos ('god') ... there is no clear, academic consensus on how exactly the term should be used ... a study of over 700 students found ... the most popular choice was "A person who believes there is no God, or gods" The chapter argues for the broad definition


 * Malik (2018): Defining Atheism and the Burden of Proof :
 * In this paper I demonstrate how certain contemporary atheists have problematically conflated atheism with agnosticism (knowingly or unknowingly). The first type of conflation is semantic fusion, where the lack of belief in God is combined with the outright denial of God, under the single label of ‘atheism’... Conflating these positions under the single term ‘atheism’ mischaracterises agnostics and inflates the territory of atheists. I don't have access to the article
 * Cliteur (2009) : argues for the broad definition
 * Atheism in the sense coined above seems also a defensible position. The only problem is that hardly anybody follows the semantic convention that I have proposed. In popular parlance, atheism is associated with all kinds of negative ideas and attitudes, especially with the way it can be defended. Atheists have a reputation for being arrogant, militant, missionary, zealous, and also impolite if not rude. For that very reason George Jacob Holyoake coined the word “secularism".
 * Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose change, Keep Status quo. I think the ideal way to phrase it is the current structure of the first paragraph of the lede, which goes from the broadest historical sense to the most specific. The proposed change muddies the water for no clear benefit. Psychastes (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The phrasing should not be prioritised over having an accurate definition. Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * the current definition is wholly accurate, and despite writing quite a lot on this talk page, you've laid out no coherent argument to the contrary. Psychastes (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You haven't read much then. When I say accurate, I mean the emphasis placed on each represents their popularity/frequency of use. So putting the broad one first despite not being the popular definition, nor the agreed upon scholarly one gives it WP:Undue weight. Does that make sense? Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * your argument defeats itself, by the very source you quoted, there is no clear, academic consensus on how exactly the term should be used. hence, incoherent. Psychastes (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense, I'm not saying there should only be one definition. Never have I said that, you've just ignored or not understood what I wrote above. Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Can I request that someone else summarises my position and argument based on this RfC as it does not seem I'm being understood. Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I know I haven't been very coherent or concise but I do believe there are very valid points behind what I am saying Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Though I know over all topic I found the discussion like WP:TLDR, hence did not participate. May be synopsis of previous discussion would have helped? &#32;Bookku   (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I did try to put my argument in the RfC post but obv not clear enough (not saying I’m right, just saying it hasn’t really been addressed) Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There are various definitions given by various sources, there's no need to privilege one or the other. Reflecktor (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree however it necessitates that put them in an order, therefore privileging some Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose change, there is not one definition of "atheism" and as said this is about the entire history of atheism in all its forms. Wikipedia is also WP:NOTDICTIONARY. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose change, for the lede is accurate and it reflects, with due weight, the various academic source descriptions of what atheism is. Bullivant's assertion that the broadest definition has gained academic weight amongst many scholars justifies their present order. Before that, the ubiquitous disbelief/rejection definitions were considered to be more befitting of rational thought than the other two definitions. Prior to that, dictionaries tended to favor the narrowest definition, but now many have changed so as to be inclusive of the broadest definition. Modocc (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Summary - there appears to be strong consensus for the status quo as of now
 * Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have the impression that most atheists use the broad definition, but that the narrow definition is preferred by Christian apologists. I suspect the reason for this is that missionary-minded religious institutions want to make a distinction between those non-believers who are reachable (characterized as "hungry for the truth" or "ripe for evangelism") and those whose ideas are so fixed that they won't be convinced by an evangelizer and might even get the better of him in an argument (characterized as hostile, angry and dangerous, driven by a desire to be free to sin). The latter group are called atheists to make this distinction. My own journey out of Evangelicalism means that I know this thinking very well. For what it's worth, today I understand my atheism to mean: "There is no god in my worldview and no god in my life, and I feel no desire for one, and I've already invested the time to give religion a chance, and I'm not going to do it again because I have a life to live." Now I realize that that is very personal and subjective, but I talk regularly to people in exvangelical circles, and generally speaking, people who self-identify as atheists are saying something like that. Doric Loon (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Going to be honest, upon making this RfC I didn’t appreciate how awful evangelicalism is Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please do not use Wikipedia as a WP:FORUM to air personal views. Not article talk pages at any rate. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It wasn't my intention to air my views so much as to share my experience on the question under discussion. I know it is anecdotal and way short of an RS, but it is relevant to what goes into the article. Doric Loon (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose change. The current lede describes what the atheists think. It is backed by academic sources. --Thi (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose the proposed alternative. I think there's some room to improve the current text - having three very similar definitions in the lead is not ideal - but Atheism is the absence of or rejection of belief in the existence of a God is obviously not acceptable because it's written from a weirdly monotheistic perspective, both in terms of a god, singular, and in terms of capitalizing the first letter of "god", which makes it seem like it's referring to a specific deity or somesuch. No rationale has been presented for why we would move away from "deities", plural, which is present in all three definitions currently used and which is more neutral because it encompasses all the various deities of multiple different faiths. I'd strenuously oppose any version that uses "god", singular, in any context, or which uses a capital-g for god in any context. --Aquillion (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Completely agree, that was an oversight Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current version is much better. But I think there is another issue. The difference between atheism and agnosticism should be explained in the lead, not only in the body of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. From reading the discussions before this RFC and the various academic and dictionary sources, editors seem to agree that that the 1st ("broadest") definition (absence of belief) appears less often than the 2nd and 3rd definitions (rejection of belief, or outright belief in the opposite) both within the set of dictionary definitions and within the set of academic definitions. In fact, it appears that some academic papers outright reject the inclusion of the 1st, broadest definition. I wouldn't be opposed to writing that says "atheism is the 2nd and 3rd definition. Less often, atheism also more broadly means the 1st definition." This sentence would most closely describe the current state of literature on this topic. spintheer (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2024
change """ Historically, evidence of atheistic viewpoints can be traced back to classical antiquity and early Indian philosophy. In the Western world, atheism declined as Christianity gained prominence. """

to

""" Historically, evidence of atheistic viewpoints can be traced back to classical antiquity and early Indian philosophy. In the Western world, atheism declined as Christianity gained prominence. """ Jjamesstark (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: not needed per MOS:LEAD.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 06:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)