Talk:Atheism/Archive 26

Archive created from this version of Talk:Atheism.

Timespan of material: 2 December 2005 &mdash; 7 March 2006

Inconsitency?
Under the Ignosticism article critical atheism is defined as a type of positive atheism. This seems blatantly wrong to me, and it is (correctly, in my opinion) identified earlier as merely a form of explicit atheism. However, the author felt ignosticism falls under positive atheism due to erroneously identify critical atheism as positive, and classifying ignosticism as a type of critical atheism. It is then said that some ignosticist, through some pointless semantic battle I see as being worthy as label "meaningless" or "nonsense", prefer to think of ignosticism as instead weak atheism. I reccomend completely removing this section or simply stating that it is an example of weak atheism. Apologies in advance for mistakes I probably made posting this, first time editing.

C0h3n 21:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The trouble is, different writers use different terminology, and it's difficult to get the different uses to map onto each other. Which writers have used "critical atheism" as a category? And which have used "positive atheism"? Are they the same people? If so, you can fairly straightforwardly explain how they are treated by those writers. If not, you have to do a bit more work. A lot of these articles suffer through disconnection to the literature. Maybe you can resolve your problem by connecting the article to the literature? --Dannyno 20:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Atheism leads to poor morals and ethics
The section "Atheism leads to poor morals and ethics" needs some citations to research literature showing that crime rates et al for atheists are no higher (and in some cases lower) than those for theists. The whole "atheists are immoral and commit more crimes" line is not only misleading, it is patently untrue. --Cyde Weys [u] [t]  [c] 21:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, but keep in mind that Christians proselytize in prisons, which distorts the issue by increasing the proportion of prisoners who are Christians. Alienus 13:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Is there any evidence as to how successful this proselytism really is? --Dannyno 20:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, actually. Christians are overrepresented in the prison population. Either it's because of the success of this proselytization or perhaps Christians are simply more likely to become convincted criminals. I suspect the former. Alienus 23:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I suspect the actual reason is partially that atheists are less likely to commit crimes slightly due to their worldview (after all, they've only one life to live, and no afterlife to look forward to, so they'd want it to be as good as can be), partially because they have one less type of crime to commit (killing infidels), and partially because they are wealthier, more intelligent, and better educated whites (all factors which make them less likely to be criminals - typically, it is poor, uneducated (and thus less intelligent - see some of the articles about intelligence for that) minorities which commit crimes (in the US, but I'm going to guess that is probably true worldwide) when you're looking at how many crimes they -should- have committed given what proportion of the population they make up). Titanium Dragon 09:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a page with divorce statistics for various religions (atheists 21%; born-again Christians 27%). - 68.33.120.32 21:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

% or percent?
We just had an anonymous user edit the article to change "%" to "percent". I can't say I understand the justification. "%" is a lot more succinct and goes better with numerals. I suppose "percent" would go better with written out numbers, i.e. "And sales increased one hundred and fifty-seven percent." But who would ever want to write that way. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 19:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style %28dates and numbers%29/archive17 for a discussion of this issue. Looks like the best practice is to spell percent when the number is also spelled out, but to use a % sign when the number is a number. For example: "seven percent" and "25%" --Quasipalm 19:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like Associated Press Style. In the journalism, the AP Stylebook is sort of the journalism bible, and according to AP Style rules, the % is never used, but rather spelled out "percent." I don't think it matters much here, and I'm the first to admit AP Style doesn't make a whole lot of sense most of the time. Indy 03:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Religioustolerance.org
This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It sounds like Wikipedia should allow the use of Religioustolerance as a source. The talk page you linked is really, really pathetic. Some of the objections are lame to the extreme. The only good thing on there is the guy who said Wikipedia should not have a blanket ban on any particular source and it should be considered on a case-by-case basis. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 10:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Quibbles
In the "Types and typologies of atheism" section, here:(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&action=edit&section=2)

The following paragraph appears:

"Opponents of atheism have frequently associated atheism with immorality and evil, often characterizing it as a willful and malicious rejection of gods. This, in fact, is the original definition and sense of the word, but changing sensibilities and the normalization of nonreligious viewpoints have caused the term to lose its negative connotations in general parlance."

This immediately follows a section on etymology, which does not describe the word "atheism" as having this original connotation. Certainly a analysis of the word's form does not comport with this definition. If this is true, the scope of "original definition and sense of the word" should be defined. Does this mean that when the word in its present spelling was first placed in a some dictionary, only a derogatory definition was listed? Does it mean that when a close spelling first arose, this was the sense in the vernacular? Farther back? I think the language of the cited paragraph needs some clarification.

At the end of the very next paragraph, strong and weak atheism are introduced, followed by the sentence: " Antony Flew, George H. Smith and Michael Martin fall into this tradition, though they do not use the same terminology."

I cannot tell from the terminal sentence what "tradition" the cited people are purportedly members of--my best guess is weak atheism, but the the meaning is clear as mud.

Next: There was a bit of a flap in the atheist community recently when Antony Flew apparently issued a statment that he was no longer an atheist. See, e.g., here: http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000687.html and here: http://atheism.about.com/b/a/119216.htm and here

I don't think he's a proper example to use given these recent developments.

--Fuhghettaboutit 20:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * On Flew, his contribution to atheist philosophy is not somehow disappeared by more recent events. It was distinctive and influential. Maybe we'd want to note, and just note, that his views may have changed (it's all terribly unclear), but it's still reasonable to use his published work to illustrate the point.


 * The "tradition" referred to is that of defining atheism in terms of a classification into "strong/weak" or "positive/negative". There is no stand-alone "weak atheist" definitional tradition, which seems to be your confusion. But may be it could be tightened up, as the use of "tradition" there was I think originally part of a paragraph talking about definitional traditions.


 * On your query about "original connotations", it is explicitly referred to in the quote from Drachmann under etymology. You appear to have unaccountably missed that.

--Dannyno 10:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

We need to shorten the article.
The article is now 80kB long (was 84 until I removed the "Three Famous Atheists" essay, which I found did not contribute enough to the article to justify keeping it - assuming for the sake of argument that it wasn't original research). I'm thinking that's a bit large and it's time to start being more concise with what we say here and forking topics into more separate articles, with only stubs here for those topics (as we did a while back with antitheism). The Literate Engineer 00:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

"includes, as atheists,"

 * copied from user talkpage --JimWae 14:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Before we get into a real revert war over that appositive in atheism, I'll go ahead and explain why it's so important to me that it be left out: readability. I think that because it says "all nontheists", it's clear that the sentence defines atheists and not atheism. Thus, "as atheists" is unnecessary. Additionally, I feel that "includes, as atheists," is clumsy phrasing that not only reads as awkward, unnatural prose but has the potential to confuse some readers. Since I think it has cons with no pros, I think it ought to go.

And I realize that those two words are a trivial issue compared to the whole of the article; however, I think they're emblematic of one of the article's two big problems. The first problem is that it covers too many topics in too much detail and needs forking desperately. Once that's completed, the second problem (which this is an example of) needs to be dealt with: convoluted, baroque, and excessively wordy prose. The Literate Engineer 06:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC) I'm all for the precise use of language, but I'm also for avoiding redundancy (which is something I consider awkward). Are we defining atheism or atheists? I don't think it matters (because I don't think it's a meaningful distinction), but the rest of the sentence talks about people, which means the sentence only works if it's talking about atheists - therefore "as atheists" is redundant, and I do believe that following up the word "identifies" with a comma-separated appositive is awkward to begin with. And I don't understand what you mean by "it is not accurately stated". What is inaccurate about it? The Literate Engineer 07:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * While nobody would be confused, it is not accurately stated. I think you are exaggerating when you say the wording is awkward - it is more words, yes, but precise use of language is the opposite of awkwardness. Are we defining atheism or atheists? So, it does have cons. --JimWae 07:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is inaccurate because no transition is explicitly made from defining ATHEISm to defining ATHEISTS - while "this definition covers all nontheists" makes it hard to be mistaken that a switch has been made, the "this definition" part refers to atheism, not atheists. Furthermore, "nontheists" introduces another (fairly new) term & is jargonese as far as Joe Public is concerned - which I thought you objected to --JimWae 07:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Perc. of atheists in world countries
See: remark accompanying last change See: http://adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

China/Vietnam are in the top atheist countries (relative and absolute). Are Buddhist de facto considered to be atheists? And ancestor-worshippers? Surely by syntactical definition of 'atheist', but shouldn't atheist be defined as someone who does not believe in a higher/supreme being (gross over simplification)?

Hitler not a christian????
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

"... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work."

"And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God. "

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed. "

All words of Adolf Hitler, and you're trying to tell me he wasn't a Christian? Hitler may not have been moral, Hitler may not have adhered to biblical law, but he certainly thought of himself as a christian and not "Just a theist." If you're trying to tell me that Hitler wasn't a christian because he was a catholic, keep in mind that catholicism was the first branch of organized christianity.

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_AHitler.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/john_murphy/religionofhitler.html
 * I cannot find any references to Hitler in the article. Perhaps it has been removed since your post. Of course, you are right - Hitler was a deeply spiritial and theistic man. He was also certainly a Christian based on documentary evidence. --Oldak Quill 20:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I Apologize for any confusion. I was refering to (or rather complaining about) comment twelve's decision to delete hitler's religious beliefs from a previous article on atheism.

Sorry...

Freud, Marx and Nietzsche
I'm fairly new so maybe I missed this discussion. Could someone fill me in on why these three get a whole section in the article? Alienus (belatedly signed)
 * I agree with query above (by Alienus who forgot to sign)--this insertion seems out of place and out of focus with general treatment of atheism in article, I vote that it be removed entirely. Anyone else want to comment/vote to reach a concensus?--Fuhghettaboutit 23:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The section as currently written sucks, but Marx, Nietzsche and Freud are the philosophical fathers of modern atheism and deserve a short section. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 00:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think this whole section belongs on the History of Atheism article, not here. MFNickster 00:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd second that. I know it doesn't belong here in atheism, but it might fit into History of Atheism. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alienus (talk &bull; contribs).

Although the section (And much of the entire article) is quite large and messy and could do with some tidying up, I think a section titled as such is warranted within the article. Atheism is a modern philosophical concept and these three people are probably the three most cited modern philosophers around. Their writings on the subject of Atheism and how it fits into wider philosophical theory should therefore, in my opinion, be atleast stated in the article. Although like with many sections in this article it should probably be reduced in length. Canderra 16:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Atheism is ancient. There have been atheists with regard to each and every version of God from the first moment there were theists for it. Alienus 19:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Logos/Tao and atheism
I'm having a hard time figuring out if someone who's beliefs are somewhat related to the Stoic concept of the Logos is conisdered an athiest or not. Admiting that the Logos is simply the "moving force" of the universe, that it is neither inherently good nor evil, nor is it sentient (in the generally accepted sense), can we conclude that it as an "athiest belief"? Mind you that even though I speak of the Logos, the philosophical concept of the Tao could also be used in this question, as there seems to be a significant parallelism between the two.

Judaeo-Christian Religion and Atheism


From Matthew Stewart's The Courtier and the Heretic 2006; 0393058980, p. 73:


 * According to the seventeenth-century way of thinking, an atheist was by definition a decadent. If there is no God (or, at least, no providential, rewarding-and-punishing God of the sort worshipped in all the traditional religions), the reasoning went, then everything is permitted. So a non-believer would be expected to indulge in all manner of sensual stimulation, to fornicate regularly with the most inappropriate partners, to lie, cheat, and steal with abandon, and then to suffer an agonizing death once the Almighty caught up with him, but not before mawkishly recanting his heresies in the presence of a clucking man of the cloth.

I believe that the more important reason is that the atheist undermines the believer's Peace-of-Mind, i.e. the believer's Religion. Kindly see Mark Twain's Little Story.

Yesselman 17:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting History
Why has someone deleted the discussion concerning the accuracy of the following statement: "There are more atheists in the U.S. than members of any religion other than Christianity." Not only is that irresponsible, it is unethical as well. Disagreements should be recorded rather than hidden and deleted.


 * On that note, whoever deleted my comment also took the time to put up a source for that quote...which is good. After examining the source, it is even MORE apparent that the above statement is misleading. The source you provided shows that there are more self-identified nonreligious/secular people than any other religion other than Christianity. Notice that self-identified "atheist" are a distant #7 down the list below Christianity, Nonreligious/Secular, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Agnostic. The fact that "agnostic" appears on this list is evidence alone that "self-identification" is not the best way to count how many "atheists" exist in the US. At a minimum, you should qualify the statement in some way. Something like this: "there are more nonreligious/secular people (who qualify under the title 'weak atheist')...."


 * The point is that your statement is misleading in the sense that people reading it will automatically assume that you mean hard atheist (since that is how most of the population uses the word, as evidenced by your source). Since there is ambiguity on what we mean by atheist, you need to be perfectly clear and state what "atheist" means.


 * This is ALSO discussed in the "Atheism studies and statistics" where is _should_ be discussed. This is crazy. I am removing that quote again. Let me be perfectly clear. That statement does not add ANYTHING to the substance of that section and it CAN be removed. Further, it is discussed in a later section where the proper details can be discussed.

-

Although I'd like there to be some comment about number of atheists in the US, I have to agree that the wording/link at the moment is rather dubious - we can't really say that when "Atheist" is way down the list!

Whilst it is true that the number of people who self-identify as atheist is less than the number who "don't believe in God", we also can't count all "Nonreligious/Secular" as being atheists, since you can certainly be a theist and non-religious. (Of course the converse is also true - Buddhists or Jews may also be atheists for example, not to mention that agnostic isn't mutually exclusive either, so this sort of poll isn't a good way of judging how many atheists there really are.)

A better approach I think would be to find one of those "Do you believe in God" polls, then compare that to the number of followers of other religions. Mdwh 23:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the www.adherents.com link, because it is a survey of religions, not belief in God. I have replaced it with polls which address the issue of belief in God more specifically.

Whilst it's true that the number of people who self-identify as atheists tends to be less than those who don't believe in God, and perhaps this would be worth showing, I do not believe that explains what the www.adherents.com link shows - if you asked me that survey, I would answer "Nonreligious/Secular", even though I identify as atheist, because I do not consider atheism to be a religion! (Also a smaller number of atheists may have identified as another religion, such as Judaism, Buddhism, Humanist.)

But meanwhile, we can't include all of the "Nonreligious/Secular" as being atheists, because some of them may believe in God. So I don't think this poll shows anything useful in this context.

If someone has a poll showing responses to specifically "Are you an atheist?", then that might be worth including, to see how many people self-identify as atheists.

Also, perhaps this is better moved into the "Atheism studies and statistics" section? Mdwh 23:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Naturalism & Atheism
The article writes that, "nevertheless", some authors have chosen to "identify atheism with a naturalistic worldview". I think this fails to really understand their viewpoint. None of the professional academics deny that atheism is a much more specific idea than naturalism, yet broader in the sense that it is compatible with a variety of worldviews and philosophies, including the mystical traditions of Buddhism and Jainism which are anything but philosophical naturalism. It would be misleading to say that the authors "identify atheism with a naturalistic worldview" - as if they feel that atheism is in some way necessarily connected to naturalism. While the article does mention Martin's discussion of what atheism is committed to (1990), noting that atheism is not committed to philosophical naturalism, the point about "identification" implies a more necessary relationship than is the case, and I do not think the referenced authors would agree with the wording of the article. I think readers might potentially gain this misunderstanding from the entry, and so I hope people can agree that the sentence ought to be tweaked for accuracy (perhaps changing it to discuss a correlation between atheism and naturalism that exists *in the West*, but nothing more than this). No direct or necessary relationship between naturalism and atheism should be implied, even vaguely, in this article. It is a major confusion of the general public, and so we ought to strive to make clear that this just ain't so.


 * I don't understand your point. The authors in question explicitly identify atheism and naturalism, and the section correctly quotes them doing so. The authors cited do in fact assert a direct relationship. Hence Thrower, who holds that the naturalistic world view is "atheistic per se" and Baggini, who holds that atheism can legitimately be "seen as a commitment to the view that there is only one world and this is the world of nature". The article I think accurately represents these writers and puts them in appropriate context. It is simply not possible to come up with a single definition of atheism that covers all the reasonable (let alone unreasonable) meanings it has been given); the article recognises this and one way it does so is by acknowledging that some writers construct it as a form of naturalism. In other words, while some atheists understand atheism in such a way that it is possible to be a supernaturalist and an atheist, others do not. Correctly, the article explains this situation. I would very much object to the changes you suggest unless they can be shown to more accurately reflect the intentions of the cited authors. --Dannyno 18:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Prevalence
The article needs to be more careful and precise about prevalence. To begin, there is a mistake I am correcting at Atheism in attributing to adherents.com that "There are more atheists in the U.S. than members of any religion other than Christianity". In fact, adherents.com says the following about the prevalence of atheism:

"People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population in many countries where much large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States (13.2% nonreligious according to ARIS study of 2001) and Australia (15% nonreligious). Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman compiled country-by-country survey, polling and census numbers relating to atheism, agnosticism, disbelief in God and people who state they are non-religious or have no religious preference. These data were published in the chapter titled 'Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns' in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK (2005). Different type of data collection methodologies using different types of questions showed a consistent pattern: In most countries only a tiny number of people (zero to a fraction of 1 percent) will answer 'atheism' or 'atheist' when asked an open-ended question about what their religious preference. A slightly larger number of people will answer 'yes' if asked pointedly if they are an atheist. A slightly larger number than that will answer 'no' when asked if they believe in any type of God, deities, or Higher Power. A slightly larger number answer 'no' when asked simply if they 'believe in God' (omitting wording indicating more nebulous, less anthropomorphic conceptions of divinity). Finally, a larger number of people answer 'none' or 'non-religious' when asked asked an open-ended queston about what their religious preference is. Although figures vary for each country, average numbers indicate that roughly half of the people who self-identify as 'nonreligious' also answer 'yes' when asked if they believe in God or a Higher Power."

The section at adherents.com continues at length without coming to any certain conclusion, but including some useful facts such as:

"'In the Western world, Europe is by far the place with the most self-avowed nonreligious, atheists and agnostics, with the nonreligious proportion of the population particularly high in Scandinavia. The Encyclopedia Britannica reports approximately 41 million atheists in Europe. The self-described nonreligious segment of society in Australia and New Zealand is also high, at around 15%. In Australia less than a tenth of one percent described themselves as atheists in the latest national census (1996). In the U.S. about 13.2% of the population describe themselves as nonreligious, 0.5% describe themselves as agnostic, and a smaller number describe themselves as atheist (Kosmin, ARIS/American Religious Identification Survey, City University of New York, 2001)."

So,
 * 1) There are not more atheists in the U.S. than members of any religion other than Christianity
 * 2) There are somwhere between 6-30 million (0.1% to 0.5% that self-identified as atheist in USA and Australia) and 750 million (1/2 of the 1.5 billion world's "non-religious") atheists in the world.

Let's fix the article to reflect these facts unless somebody has better. Tom Haws 22:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

p.s. The "Atheism studies and statistics" section does a pretty good job. We just need to be consistent. Tom Haws 22:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC) --

Critical atheism subdivision of explicit atheism?
A paragraph currently reads:
 * For Smith, explicit atheism is subdivided further according to whether or not the rejection is on rational grounds. The term critical atheism is used to label the view that belief in god is irrational, and is itself subdivided into a) the view usually expressed by the statement "I do not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being"; b) the view usually expressed by the statement, "god does not exist" or "the existence of god is impossible"; and c) the view which "refuses to discuss the existence or nonexistence of a god" because "the concept of a god is unintelligible" (p.17).

It seems to imply that critical atheism is a subdivision of explicit atheism, and that a) is a subdivision of critical atheism, which is a contradiction since a) is clearly an expression of implicit atheism. --Kvaks 03:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Number of people who don't believe in God in the UK and US
Firstly, the 10% figure refers to the US, not the UK.

The UK figure is 40% - the 33% doesn't include people who believe in "a higher power", but not God. Atheism is about God, not "higher powers other than God", so 33% is incorrect. You need to download the pdf to get the figures on those who don't believe in God. Mdwh 01:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, 40% seems the correct figure to put. The 33% could be called strong atheists (never realised the figure was so high in the UK, however the poll appears well conducted by a big-name surveying organisation) and the other 17% weak atheists. Canderra 16:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have my doubts (!) about the following statement: "The decision was based on a Parliament decision ruling that, while questionable in moral standing, Atheism is a legitimate religion."


 * I suspect that this paraphrase is wrong; I don't think Parliament declared atheism to have "questionable moral standing" but rather that its categorization as a form of religious belief is "questionable" because it is not a religion. I don't think it was declared a "legitimate religion" either, but a legitimate belief. I'll change the wording, but it would be nice if someone who knows the issue better than I do could find the appropriate phrases from the bill referred to. ProhibitOnions 23:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I was wondering this too, and was about to remove it - it looks like it was subtle vandalism. It wasn't put there by the person who originally wrote about the RE teaching decision, but was added later by User:65.190.199.84, whose only other edit to this article was vandalism . Mdwh 00:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed it. Someone can re-add it if they have a source for the reason (it may not even have been based on a Parliamentary decision) (and as an aside, it seemed unclear what it was referring to anyway - presumably the RE classes, but confusingly it was placed after the comment about faith-based schools). Mdwh 00:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

explaining my partial revert
The claim that Christians see Jews as atheists seem pretty radical to me. The editor cited a source, but this source is not listed in the references section. Even if it was, the claim should be worded as a claim, not as an accepted fact. --Allen 04:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The claim was that Jews were seen as atheists. While I don't know of a reference, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case, if only because the term (and the terms that preceded it) were meant as nothing more than insults and was not based on any serious thought into whether or not Jews believed in a god. I think we need to emphasize that it was the case, but is not any more. Within Christianity, there are differing views as to how correct Judaism is with, but I suppose that's not relevant. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 12:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Atheism & Immorality
I remember some time ago seeing some statistics about the supposed immorality of atheists and how they actually had a lower crime rate, divorce rate, ect. It seems to me to be an appropriate inclusion in that section, because I have heard a number of atheists (myself included) make that particular rebuttal. Titanium Dragon 09:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This fact is a major argument of many Atheism advocates and so definatly warrants inclusion. It is already touched upon in the article but if someone can find a good reference it could definatly be improved. The couple of sources I have read on this fact however specify that the increased morality of atheists could be partly due to most atheists coming from more stable families and backgrounds, and from more developed countries. A point which should be noted if appropriate. Canderra 16:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Intelligence
Shouldn't there be something about Atheists having, on average, a higher IQ than religious folk? Maybe something about Atheism being a non-prophet organization... ok bad joke... but seriously. :)


 * No, there shouldn't, unless you have something reliable to back that up with. Do you? --Calamari 01:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have seen statistics to that effect, but I don't have them right now, nor do I remember where to find them. However, I'd recommend not mentioning this fact (and I'm an atheist myself). First of all, the statistics I saw were disputed. Second, even if the statistics turn out to be true, I think mentioning them would give the appearance of arrogance more than it would help the article's encyclopedic nature. Teflon Don 19:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In any case, some of it was already on the wiki: Religiousness and intelligence Teflon Don 07:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Pantheism & Quantum Mechanics
Under 'Weak and Strong Atheism' I'm troubled by this sentence:
 * Theists claim that a single deity or group of deities exists.

Aren't at least some types pantheism considered as falling under theism? And thus, shouldn't that be reflected here?

Another sentence from the same section:
 * Examples of this may be found in quantum physics, where the existance of mutually exclusive data negates the possibility of omniscience, usually a core attribute of monotheistic conceptions of deity.

I might make a guess at what the author means, but the phrase 'mutually exclusive data' is fairly opaque. I did not want to change this as I do not know the exact argument being referred to, and I don't when it might be appropriate to remove something like this that could be unclear enough to confuse people. (Also, I changed the end of the sentence – from 'a core quality of any deity' – which struck me as using too broad a brush. I was not logged in at the time.) --Plover 13:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Pantheism does claim that a deity exists, although not quite the same way that typical Christian theism might. However, it's usually categorized as deism rather than theism, because its notion of God has no personality or moral aspect.
 * As for the QM thing, it looks like a reference to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which sets limits on the total knowledge we can obtain about a system. The typical response is that God's omniscience is not limited by Heisenberg. Alienus 14:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Two main definitions of atheism
I think the introduction is unsatisfactory. I restored the intro paragraph to an ealier, long-standing version today, since it was, in my judgment, better than any of the many recent versions. I refrained from editing it further, since there have been a lot of arbitrary, spurious or inaccurate edits made to that section lately, and I thought it would be a good idea to cool things down and discuss. My main reason for being dissatisfied with the intro is that it frames the broad definition of atheism (lack of belief in a God or gods) as the canonical definition, and portrays the narrow understanding of the word not as a distinct, competing defintion (which it is), but as a subtype of atheism within the broader definition. There are two main (and incompatible) PsOV on what the "proper" meaning of the word is, and the intro paragraph does not reflect this. Look at the first definition listed in any dictionary, or ask just about any English speaker what an atheist is, and they will say that an atheist is someone who denies the existence of God. I'm not saying this is the only acceptable definition for the word, but that it is the most widely accepted one, and that any encyclopedia article adhering to the ideal of representing a topic descriptively--rather than prescriptively--should not give this definition short shrift, or represent it trivially in favor of a competing definition, even though it too is legitimate, and held by a significant number of self-described atheists.

I suggest that the intro be reformulated to clearly reflect the two main, competing definitions of atheism. It needn't be a major edit. The change could be made with the same number of words as are now in the introductory paragraph. I would like to see some input here before any edit is made to the long-standing version, to help avoid some of the constant back-and-forth edits that have recently plagued the intro. Rohirok 03:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The definitions you're talking about are not incompatible and not "competing." They are simply two meanings for the same word, which is not unusual at all. In fact, the word atheist (almost self-evidently) means "not a theist", although some here have argued that "atheism" is an "ism" of "atheos" or a religion of non-god (whatever that is). The main difference is the reason for non-belief, but they are alike in that someone of either stripe would answer "no" to the question "are you a theist?" I don't think the definition you describe as "the most widely accepted one" (any references for that claim?) is given short shrift-- in fact, I don't see why the introduction needs to go into that kind of detail at all. MFNickster 03:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * To MFNickster: The definitions are competing because one identifies two groups (the deniers and the mere nonbelievers) as atheists, while the other definition identifies only the deniers as atheists. If one accepts the second definition, one must reject that the mere nonbelievers are really atheists, and so reject the first definition. That's the conflict. You clearly accept the first definition, so you have no problem accepting those identified by the second definition as atheists, but you cannot accept the definition itself without contradiction. You can't believe both that atheists are only those who deny the existence of God, and that atheists can also be mere nonbelievers. Even if the broader definition is the one used by most atheists, the fact is that this is still minority usage. Dictionaries conventionally list the most popular usage first, and you'll find that the narrow definition is usually at the forefront. Sometimes, the narrow definition is the only one listed. Just survey this listings at One Look to see how many times atheism is first defined (or only defined) as the denial of God's existence, or the doctrine that God does not exist. For another list of dictionary definitions, as well as definitions used by some self-identified atheists, see Religious Tolerance.org's page on the definition of atheism. Note the contrast between the two sets of definitions. Note also that the atheists are taking great pains to distinguish their definition of the word from the popular definition. For example, Dan Barker writes: "There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god -- both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter..." The atheists are advocating the broad definition, but recognize that most people do not accept this broad definition. My experience confirms the testimony of these atheists. I have found, and have talked with many other atheists who found, that as soon as one self-identifies as an atheist, most theists respond by asking how you know there is no God. In these cases, if you respond that you do not claim to know, nor do you even believe that God does not exist, they will respond by saying that you aren't really an atheist, but an agnostic. A fruitless semantics debate often follows, with the theist citing "Webster's," and the atheist citing any number of atheologians. This type of theistic response to the broader definition of atheism is a pig-headed treatment of language, and slavishly dictionary-centric, but the fact remains that the narrow definition is still the most popular one, and that's a reality that ought to be reflected in the introduction. It does not now do this. Rohirok 16:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But the second definition is a subset of the first definition. I don't think the intro implies that the former definition is the canonical one. Plenty of dictionaries I've seen give both definitions, and I disagree that most people would use the word "deny" - most commonly I hear the definition "someone who doesn't believe in God". Mdwh 03:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

However, I do think that the introduction is rather poorly worded and confusing. In particular:
 * I'm not sure what it means by nontheists, agnostics and Buddhists - whilst these may be examples of atheists, they are not subcategories of atheism, as could be implied. I don't think this sort of thing should be in the introduction, it isn't part of the definition, and just confuses things.
 * For the "narrower" strong atheism definition, I disagree with describing it as "active rejection" - rejection itself is an ambiguous word, meaning either "not believe" or "deny", so I would argue that rejection of the existance of Gods could include weak atheists too. I'd say that an active rejection covers all explicit atheists, and as described in the article, the distinction between implicit/explicit is not the same as between weak/strong. Is this intended?

I dug this introduction out of the history, which I think may be better:


 * Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This definition includes as atheists both those who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions, however, often only qualify those who actively disbelieve as atheists, labeling the others as nontheists or agnostics.

Mdwh 03:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes! That's the one I remember, and it makes the distinction quite clear. If the intro paragraph reverts to that, I think it would be much better. The only niggle I have against it is the phrase "actively disbelieve," which seems redundant. I would replace it with "deny the existence of God." Rohirok 16:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's a bit unclear. Perhaps it's better to explicitly repeat "those who assert there are no Gods", to make it clear that that's what the narrowere definition is on about. I think that's a good way of describing Strong atheism. Mdwh 02:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Clarifying the relation between the two definitions was actually part of the reason for my edit. And yes, looking at it again, I did use 'comprise' incorrectly. It should have been something more like:
 * Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in any deities. That is, the term covers all those who lack such beliefs for whatever reason, a group comprising nontheists, agnostics, and even Buddhists. Atheism is also commonly used in a narrower sense to mean the active rejection of the existence of gods (whether of a specific or general kind) or even of the possibility that gods can exist.
 * This is at least more syntactically correct, but I suppose might be easy to misconstrue as implying those groups are subsets of atheism, rather than intersecting independent categories. I agree with Rohirok that this could be reframed better. I was trying for a minimal edit rather than a reformulation.


 * In my opinion, the two definitions are not making the distinction between strong atheism and an all-inclusive definition, but between a technical definition and a demotic one. The two definitions have distinctly different emphases with the broad definition focusing on the absence of god-belief, while the narrower one emphasizes disbelief and rejection of religion. Also, note that the narrow definition is not equivalent to strong atheism.


 * My general idea of the demotic conception is that there are three major categories:
 * religious people - anyone who adheres to a recognizable creed or has a stated belief in a deity
 * non-religious people - anyone who rejects religion or doesn't care about it
 * agnostics - anyone who fudges the issue
 * There can also be a nebulous fourth category which may include deists, pantheists, new-age spiritualists, and anyone else who might seem to have some form of supernatural belief without being conventionally religious. Under this system, 'atheist' is equivalent to 'non-religious'. Yes, this is all very imprecise and informal, but this set of terms, or something close anyway, seems to form a common underlying social conception of religion and irreligion (at least in America).


 * Unfortunately, I have no real idea how to back this up. And I have no idea how widely applicable this conception is. So if everyone thinks I'm way off base, I have no reason to push this. But I would like to stress that there seems to be a significant difference between the formal and informal uses of the concept of atheism that ought to be addressed somehow.
 * --Plover 05:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * To Plover: I think the problem with the categorization you suggest is that atheists can be religious, and theists can be irreligious. Rohirok 16:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not completely sure what you're getting at here. I agree that, under the technical definitions, your statement is accurate. What I'm not sure is how it's relevant to how the terms are used popularly. To most people with little or no acquaintance with the details, a Buddhist is religious and therefore not an atheist. I'm not arguing that the categorization that I've given is consistent or holds up well under scrutiny as a formal system – I don't think it does. Rather, I am attempting to describe how the term atheism is popularly used and conceived, i.e. the kind of organic, imprecise system that arises in common language usage, and which is usually 'good enough' for those who have no motivation to seek more robust definitions.


 * I think it is also what leads to that species of annoying 'fruitless semantics debate' you mention above. I don't think it is even necessary for the person arguing on the side of the popular definitions to be a theist – it depends more on whether that person can be convinced that the distinctions present in the formal system are valid or important. To many people the important point is whether or not another person accepts religion – again, a Buddhist is not considered an atheist. If they don't accept religion, then that person rejects God and is therefore an atheist. The term agnostic is not treated as addressing a distinct issue from the term atheist; it simply means that the person is unsure about whether to accept some religion. All the weak/strong, implicit/explicit distinctions are irrelevant. The point of the system is not to provide an accurate taxonomy of what people believe, but rather to provide a ready social heuristic of a person's in-group/out-group status, a heuristic which does, however, arise from and privilege the theistic POV.


 * The use of the word 'deny' is, perhaps, telling. It is the kind of word that was applied to heretics. It more-or-less assumes the truth of some religion and asks whether a person is 'denying' that religion's God or doctrine. E.g. at the Religious Tolerance.org link you cited above, it says, 'most Muslims believe that all babies are Muslim at birth, and only later in life may accept the teachings of another religion', or in other words, everyone's Muslim until they deny it. Something similar presumably holds for Christians baptized as infants. Note that 'born again' theology seems to also contain the flipside of this formulation: a person must enter the group by 'accepting' Christ rather than just refrain from leaving it by 'denying' the creed.


 * I also wonder whether attempts by atheists to explain the formal distinctions used in philosophy read to many theists like the reasoning they associate with apologetics for specific creeds, i.e. as just another theological argument, and how much this contributes to the accusations that atheism is a religion, and atheists are dogmatists that often show up in theist/atheist discussion.


 * --Plover 02:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Elsewhere the article does attempt to distinguish between the different definitional traditions. That's point one. My second point is that although some (but by no means all) general dictionaries do use the "deny the existence of God" rubric, it is far from clear that "deny" involves what you seem to imply it involves. Look up "deny" in the dictionary. You will invariably discover that to say someone "denies" the existence of God allows for the traditional distinction between positive and negative atheism. Very few dictionaries, in fact, define atheism as "belief that there is no god". --Dannyno 16:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think the distinctions made later in the article are fine. I just thought the intro could be clearer on what I see as the two main definitions of atheism. I concede that "deny" need not always imply the narrow sense of atheism, but my main point is that this narrow sense of deny and of atheism is the one most commonly understood in public usage, and that these different definitions should be presented and distinguished in the intro, just as they are in most of the dictionary definitions I found. I actually like the intro as it is now much better than in some of the recent edits. After re-reading the intro, I see that I was wrong when I said that it treated the broad definition as the "canonical" one. The narrower definition is in there, it's just put a bit more abstrusely than I think it should be.


 * That abstruseness is one mild criticism of the intro right now. Another one is that it muddies the waters by listing Buddhists as those who can be classified as atheists. While some Buddhists (maybe even most) are certainly atheists, many also believe in deities of some sort, and the point being made here is perhaps too subtle for an intro, which ought to stick to some pretty basic definitions of the term. There is the same problem with listing agnostics here, since many agnostics adhere to the narrow definition of atheism, and would reject any categorization as atheists.


 * I like the intro paragraph that Mdwh dug up. It reads: "Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This definition includes as atheists both those who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions, however, often only qualify those who actively disbelieve as atheists, labeling the others as nontheists or agnostics."


 * It's not as good as it could be, but it's a good start, and I think it gets us closer to the ideal of clarity and accuracy. What say we go ahead and close this can of worms, pop that version back in and take it from there? Any votes in favor? If I don't see anything one way or the other on this suggestion, I'll go ahead and do it and see what happens. Rohirok 05:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems like a reasonable interim solution. It is clearer than the current one, though it may veer a bit toward making the narrower definition equivalent to strong atheism, but so far I haven't come up with anything I would consider a distinct improvement. The problem is that the common definition itself is so imprecise, which is probably why the dictionary definitions tend to be so dodgy. If there is agreement on this, and this discussion is ending, I suggest that whoever makes the change also remove the 'ActiveDiscuss' template that I put up.
 * --Plover 06:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with this too. It's a better intro to work from than the current one, I feel. Mdwh 16:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikiman01's edits
Wikiman01 has been editing the introduction to the article. It was his edits and the subsequent reversions that initially spurred the discussion begun above in the section Two main definitions of atheism. From the remarks there, I expect the most likely consensus is that the weak atheism/strong atheism distinction and the etymology of the word 'atheism', edits made by Wikiman01 more than once, do not belong in the intro section. I have reverted the intro again, added the 'ActiveDiscuss' template to the article, and invited Wikiman01 to join the discussion. --Plover 03:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But my reading of the above section is that several people think we do want the two main definitions listed (ie, strong and weak, whether or not we refer to those names in the intro). Are you saying that we should only have a single definition? I'm fine with that too, though it would have to be the broader one which includes both (eg, "someone who doesn't believe in God"). Mdwh 16:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For my part, I've been arguing (and I've read Rohirok as saying something in the same ballpark) that the two definitions which need to be there are the formal, generalized philosophical definition – in my opinion well served by the current phrasing, 'an absence of belief in any deities' – and the informal definition that seems to be in more common usage, and which does not appear to correspond well to any of the formal terms. In my experience, there is also a certain fluidity to usage of the common definition depending on the preconceptions of the speaker. Some people do seem to use 'atheist' as more or less equivalent to the formal term 'strong atheist', but others, often theists with an axe to grind, use 'atheist' as meaning something closer to 'irreligious'; plus, there are variations in between. These variations in usage strike me as causing many of the difficulties I've seen in online discussions of the subject, problems that often seem exacerbated when atheists accustomed to the formal definitions do an unsatisfactory job of conveying how the formal and informal definitions differ.
 * --Plover 01:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for recent edits
'' [I have added timestamps to some interleaved paragraphs to clarify attribution. --Plover] ''

There is no broader sense of atheism, that’s hierarchism to claim so. The only thing that is being referred to here, are the differences between weak and strong atheism, instead of the broad and narrow senses of atheism.
 * Would you agree that the definition of weak atheism is "broader" than strong atheism, in that it is more inclusive? It has been mentioned before that strong atheists also fit within the definition of weak atheism, because they not only lack a belief in god(s), they have considered the proposition and rejected it. MFNickster 17:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is that Atheism is being viewed as a general term for all non-believers in a deity. That I find inaccurate, it's like saying that Christianity is a general term for all monotheistic religion.  [Wikiman01 17:10, 18 Feb] 


 * Sorry, but you are way off here. The article does a pretty good job already of explaining why - "atheism" does in fact cover all non-believers in a deity, so it is not inaccurate. Just as "monotheism" (not "Christianity") is a general term describing all monotheistic religion, and as "theism" encompasses monotheism, polytheism and pantheism together (and possibly deism). There is no inherent contradiction in describing Buddhism as an "atheistic religion" if it does not require god-beliefs. Your concern seems to stem from the misconception that "atheism" is synonymous with "nonreligious". MFNickster 02:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, your're right to say that monotheism is a general term for christianity, islam etc... instead of the reverse. And I do believe that most (if not all) religions can be classified into one of four groups, namely Atheism, Monotheism, Polytheism, and Pantheism. But there's a problem with atheism, it doesn't only describes a category for the concept "theism" but also a philosophical point of view (strong atheism), whereas the rest do not. For example i've never heard of a strong or weak monotheist. Further the general public are more familiar with the philosophical description of atheism (strong atheism) instead of it's categorical one (weak atheism). Therefore I would like to advice, that the most familiar (norrow sense) be placed first and the less familiar (boarder sense) be placed after, in the introduction to alleviate confusion. For example: Atheism is ...(the strong atheism description) and atheism can also be seen as.....(the weak atheism description). Something in that order. Wikiman01 03:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Further many agnostics and Buddhists don't like to be referred to as atheist. For example atheism and agnosticism may use the same tools, mainly reason, to analyze the concept of god(s), but they come up with different conclusions. This difference in conclusion could be compared to Islam and Christianity. Though they share many characteristics, they would definitely not want to be identified as a general term of the one another.

My interpretation of atheism is that it is a philosophical point of view, which denies through method of reason the existence of god(s). The art of denying the existence of god(s) through this method is true atheism. Any other meaning, would be due to the association of atheism with another philosophy e.g. humanism (forming secular humanism).  [Wikiman01 17:10, 18 Feb] 


 * You are describing strong atheism, which is only one kind of atheism. Again, the article already explains why your interpretation is incomplete. MFNickster 02:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the general confusion lies with the etymology of the word atheist (atheos) which literally means "Without God". One must be careful not to take the etymological meaning to literally, for example one cannot say that Islam (with literally means to "to surrender" or "to obey") is the general term for all who obeys or surrender to god.

To make a long story short the only thing that concerns me is the following sentence: "whether they are nontheists, agnostics, or even Buddhists — are covered under this term" Other then that, I’m very satisfied with the article.

Wikiman01 17:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The phrase 'whether they are nontheists, agnostics, or even Buddhists' was removed in the version that was decided upon as being too confusing for the introduction. Although when 'atheism' is used as a purely descriptive term, the phrase is accurate enough. You say you conceive of atheism as a 'philosophical point of view'. However, this is, from everything I've seen, not how the word is used in a philosophical context, where it is treated as a purely descriptive term for those who lack belief in any deities. I agree that most Buddhists would likely not accept being associated with atheism conceived as a philosophical program, but that was not the meaning being used. On the other hand, even under the formal definition not all Buddhists (or agnostics) are atheists either; they are independent, overlapping categories.


 * The 'Atheism' article is part of the Wikipedia philosophy project, so providing a clear sense of how the word is used in that context is one of the chief goals – though it is also, in a sense, the easy part. Conveying the relation between the philosophical sense of 'atheism' and that of other perspectives (including those resembling your own) in a descriptive fashion and without privileging any of them strikes me as equally important and likely more difficult.
 * --Plover 02:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

'Discrimination' edit
Someone proposed changing the phrase 'in the 20th century, atheists, socialists and communists were persecuted alongside Jews by the Nazis' to capitalize 'socialists' and 'communists'. I would assume that the capitalized forms refer explicitly to members of Communist and Socialist parties, rather than all who might consider themselves communists or socialists. I doubt the Nazis were sticklers on that point. Though I suppose it is possible that, at the time, international Communism was monolithic in a way that might warrant the capitalization. Any other perspectives on this? --Plover 00:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * At its simplest, since neither Socialist or Communist is a proper noun on its own, and they are not based on proper nouns (cf. "Confucianist"), I don't see any reason to capitalize them. I would also recommend changing the sentence to focus on the article topic, to something like "in the 20th century, atheists were persecuted by the Nazis alongside socialists, communists, and Jews." MFNickster

Atoms and atheism?
Zanaq put this image up in the article. I've never heard of this before. I didn't know atheism had a symbol. Do other people think this is appropriate? --Plover 05:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Atom of atheism" (the image's name) gets zero hits on Google, so there is a very good chance that this image is original research (or close to it) and should be struck immediately. The image description page suggests that the image was newly custom-made by a Wiki-user, and could be an attempt to use Wikipedia to popularize an image, rather than to make note of an image that's already popular among atheists. If so, putting it on an article is unacceptable. If not, it should be easy to provide a couple of good references that will confirm the atom's use and acceptance among a significant number of atheists (even if plenty of other atheists reject it, which I'm absolutely sure a great many would), and the image can either be left at the top of the page (if there aren't any strong objections and the sources cited suggest that this is a really common and popular atheist symbol) or moved to a lower part of the page (like "distribution of atheists" or a new section like "atheistic organizations") to make it clear that the image represents a certain major group of atheists (which it does, at best), not all atheists (and not "atheism" itself, since an atom seems to have little to do with lacking or denying theism (or at least, as little to do with it as a "doesn't believe in Santa Claus" movement using an atom-symbol would) and could be perceived as somewhat insulting to theistic scientists and physicists). If the image is removed, I just thought of a good replacement for the top of the page, since we're unlikely to find any icon, photograph, etc. that all atheists are willing to agree represents the "atheism" topic well: a template listing various beliefs regarding theism (atheism, agnosticism, theism, deism, monism, etc.) would fit perfectly here, if there aren't any objections. So the question here is (1) whether the image is already, outside of Wikipedia and its users, noteworthy and well-established enough to pass Wikipedia's minimum standards for inclusion, and (2) if so, whether the image should be left at the top of the page or moved down to a lower section. So far, the only cites I can find supporting the use of an atom icon for atheism is, an amusing little site that seems more concerned with spreading new trends and forwarding its agenda than with neutrally reporting on existing trends (and that makes some rather bizarre connections, for example calling "Paganism" a form of "Naturalism"!), though I'm sure there are plenty more (Google Image search laziness). I see "Atheist Atom" gets many more hits. (argh, forgot to hit "send") -Silence 06:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Even so, 1640 hits is pretty obscure. Apart from http://www.evolvefish.com, the hits appear to just be blogs and forum posts. Mdwh 06:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is fairly dubious. Maybe we should just use the image on American Atheists, and have it in a section for "Atheistic organizations" rather than at the very top of the article. I like the idea of linking to other articles with a pretty colored box in this case, even though in most cases I prefer an image to a simple list of see-also links at the top of articles. Just this once, there's just not a good enough image for the topic to be featured at the top; there are no prominent atheists, symbols, or organizations that a large number of other atheists wouldn't object to using. -Silence 06:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I recall reading once that the grave markers of atheist soldiers in US national cemetaries have an atom symbol. Also, American Atheists have an atom symbol much like that one. So it's not outlandish, though a cite would be nice as always. Bryan 05:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that sounds really interesting. -Silence 06:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * American Atheists used an atom with a capital "A" in the middle, and there are some atheists who use the atom, but I wouldn't consider it "official" or very wide-ranging. Justin Eiler 05:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am the one who "designed" this symbol. It is based on the elements of the American Atheists which I think are uncopyrightable. I must say I also didn't know the atom was "the" (later corrected to "a") symbol of atheism, but if the american atheists say so, and the google image search gives (I must atmit) not many hits I just assumed there was no atom there because no-one had made a suitable GFDL-version.
 * Removing the image is just fine, I will do the same on the Dutch wiki. Zanaq 13:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. I suddenly remember where I "learnt" about "The Atom". It was an ano suggestion on Talk:List_of_religious_symbols. Zanaq 14:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, here are some possible templates to work with for the articles: Template:Atheism, Template:Agnosticism, Template:Theism. -Silence 15:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Rationale for introductory paragraph change
The second paragraph ends with the following sentence: "Additionally, there are atheists who are religious or spiritual, though many of these would not describe themselves as atheists." I think this puts the cart before the horse. The immediately preceding introductory sentences gives a precis of the categorized uses to which the word atheist is put. The structure of the quoted sentence, however, implies that some types of religious and spiritual beliefs are atheist, rather than something to the effect that they "may be sometimes categorized as atheist." The point of the opening is to introduce what atheism can entail in broad strokes. It is out of place to shift gears and single out and define these groups as atheist rather than as possibly falling under that penumbra. Accordingly, here's the change I have made: "Additionally, there are certain individuals whose religious or spiritual beliefs some might describe as atheistic, though those holding such beliefs do not normally describe themselves as atheists."--Fuhghettaboutit 22:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

At one time, the paragraph also included a remark that not all atheists consider themselves non-religious --JimWae 23:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for help with Humanism articles
(Request has been deleted by its author. Problem has been mostly resolved.) Rohirok 01:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

(Response deleted by its author) --Couttsie 00:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Atheophobia
User:Democracylover proposed the following addition:


 * Atheophobia is a term defined by David Warden of the Dorset branch of the British Humanist Association. Warden uses the term to describe a number of characteristic features of discrimination against atheists. Atheophobia includes the irrational hatred or fear of atheists and atheism; discrimination against such people and the belief that atheists cannot be moral or good people; punitive or murderous impulses towards unbelievers, apostates, freethinkers, heretics and blasphemers; the belief that all such people will be consigned to hell or eternal punishment in an afterlife.

The word is a neologism, it's not wide-spread, and I have some real doubts that it's an actual "phobia" so much as a polemic tool. However, the word was proposed on its own article, nominated for deletion, and the merge proposed (see the AFD. I don't think the AfD is the best place to discuss the addition on its own merits.

I'll be honest--I don't think the addition is really notable. But I wanted to give the community here as a whole the chance to voice their opinions. Justin Eiler 17:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem notable enough to mention. --Yath 18:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation of statistics
I've just added a sub-section on the Talk:Major_world_religions

adherants.com like to point that that atheists are a minority (less than 1%), whereas the same figures are used by atheists and interpreted quite differently. My own view is that, regardless of what your interpretation is, our governments should be forced to allow accurate recirding of such data via the census, and then forced to provide the nonreligious amongst us with statistics showing how mant people have our particular nonrelgious affiliation (eg. atheism, agnosticism, rationalism, Humanism (belief system) etc). --Couttsie 23:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What busineness is it of any gov't what religion people are? --JimWae 04:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)