Talk:Atheism/Archive 30

Use of the word belief
(Moved from Talk:WikiProject Atheism)


 * I do not think it "absence of belief" is clear enough. I also think the words "belief" and "believe" are used inconsistently throughout the Atheism article (and others) which is a confusing writing style. These words have different meanings depending on how they are used and in what context they are used. Especially the phrases "belief in" and "believe in."--24.57.157.81 20:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, in this case it is far more helpful to point out where the inconsistencies occur on the particular articles; take atheism, could you point out the two first usages of the word "belief" that are inconsistent in a confusing way. There are complicated issues with what disbelief means; but all the views are accurately (although a bit too extensively) covered in the atheism article. So please point out where these inconsistencies occur, give me two sentences from the articles to look at. --Merzul 20:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, but the first ones are in the introduction and the definition (this is where they cause the most confusion, but the problem is not limited to the definition, nor just the introduction).


 * Atheism is the disbelief(3) in the existence of any deities. It is contrasted with theism, the belief(3?) in a God or gods. Atheism is commonly defined as the positive belief(1) that deities do not exist. However, others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief(3?) in deities (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well. In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief(2?) (strong atheism) or the mere absence of belief(4?) (weak atheism).


 * be·lief [bi-leef]
 * –noun
 * 1.	something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
 * 2.	confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
 * 3.	confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
 * 4.	a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.57.157.81 (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Thank you very much for providing this; this is precisely the kind of thing I wanted, but maybe we should now move this post to the Talk:Atheism page, where more people can read it. I have to sleep now, but thanks for posting the detailed analysis; I'm sure somebody will respond to it. --Merzul 00:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hooray! You finally understood my problem (knock on wood). What parts should we move there? (Silence, do you see why I asked you to look in the dictionary now?) --24.57.157.81 02:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Atheism is the disbelief(3) in the existence of any deities. - "Disbelief" is a completely different word than "belief". Obviously it cannot be defined using one of the meanings for belief. There is already a footnote in the article explaining the many different meanings of disbelief, which are an entirely different subject from the meanings of belief.
 * It is contrasted with theism, the belief(3?) - 1, clearly. As a rule of thumb, definition 3 usually applies to people, whereas definitions 1, 2, and 4 apply to ideas. So clearly none of the uses of belief in this paragraph are meaning 3.
 * define atheism as the simple absence of belief(3?) in deities - 2. 1 and 2 are pretty similar (the main difference is that 1 is a specific belief, whereas 2 is belief in general), so I could see someone misinterpreting a usage of 2 as 1, or vice versa, but 3 is so different from 1 and 2 that it's next to impossible for someone to confuse 3 with 1 or 2 if they're paying attention to context. For example, essentially no one would misinterpret belief in the sentence "I don't believe in Santa Claus" as referring to meaning 3 ("I don't trust Santa Claus"), rather than to 1 or 2 ("I don't believe that Santa Claus exists"). And since 1 and 2 are so similar&mdash;indeed, they're practically different forms of the same meaning&mdash;a little ambiguity over which is being used is quite trivial and doesn't interfere with the sentence's meaning being properly conveyed.
 * one of positive belief(2?) - Yep, 2 again. Here's another rule of thumb to help you clarify the distinction between definitions 1 and 2: If I say "You have a positive belief", then I'm using definition 1. If I say "You have positive belief", then I'm using definition 2. So, in this case, the lack of any articles is your first indication that it's probably 2.
 * or the mere absence of belief(4?) - Surely you jest. You are grossly exaggerating the ambiguity here; even someone with no grasp at all on the differing meanings of belief would never make such an error in the context of the paragraph. The phrasing and context is exactly the same as in the previous instance of "belief", so clearly it uses exactly the same meaning (2). -Silence 06:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Silence on the usage of the word 'belief'. What about the disbelief part, however? This seems a very problematic word to me. One of the meanings of disbelief is 'amazement, astonishment'. I hope we can all agree that that meaning is not appropriate here :) The second meaning however is "the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true" or (another dictionary) "Refusal or reluctance to believe". This sounds like a very negative term. Reluctance? Are atheists people who secretly belief, but do not dare to admit it? Refusal? Are atheists people who are just too stubborn to realise the truth about Gods existence? Inability? Are atheists people who are just too dumb to realise the truth about Gods existence? None of the meanings of disbelief seems to come even remotely close to being practical. Ergo, that sentence about disbelief has to go. Diadem 22:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The relevant meanings of disbelief are already listed in the article, through a footnote. "Various dictionaries give a range of definitions for disbelief, from "lack of belief" to "doubt" and "withholding of belief" to "rejection of belief", "refusal to believe", and "denial"." All of these are relevant to the many different definitions and conceptions of atheism. -Silence 23:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know, I think that's just using the vaguest sense. Silence, could you replace the instances of the word "belief" in the paragraph with something equivalent, based on the senses you've chosen? I think it will end up demonstrating the vagueness of the definitions, rather than showing they are robust. And I don't "surely jest" about that last one: someone who I was talking to about this told me it meant that when I asked them what "absence of belief" means. And of course it would be good to read what other editors might choose as the meanings. --24.57.157.81 21:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You asked that person what "absence of belief" means out of context; to assume that the same ambiguity applies in this specific context, just because the words "absence of belief" are also involved here, is absurd. Context is what gives all words meaning. As for your request that I replace all instances of "belief" with an equivalent word or phrase, one of the main reasons we don't use an alternative word or phrase is because of the difficulty of clearly rephrasing the paragraph accordingly. It would be like asking someone to explain what the word two means without using the word number. But I can provide a close approximation of what the current first paragraph means without belief, at least:
 * "Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities. It is contrasted with theism, the view that a God exists or gods exist. Atheism is commonly defined as the positive view that deities do not exist. However, others&mdash;including most atheistic philosophers and groups&mdash;define atheism as the simple absence of the view that deities exist (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well. In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance a positive view (strong atheism) or the mere absence of a certain view (weak atheism)."
 * There y'go. -Silence 22:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, all you did was replace "belief" with "view". A straight substitution provides no additional understanding and you're making a mockery of my request. The English language is diverse enough to express the same thing in multiple ways, but it might take more than one word. I'd like someone else to give it a go. --24.57.157.81 23:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No he wasn't mocking you, Silence is a nice person, but I'm not; this would be a mockery:
 * Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities. It is contrasted with theism, the religion that a God exists or gods exist. Atheism is sometimes defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist. However, others&mdash;including most atheistic philosophers and groups&mdash;define atheism as the simple absence of the assumption that deities exist (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well. In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance a positive conviction (strong atheism) or the mere absence of a certain fundamentalist creed (weak atheism)."
 * Any attempt to use different words for the word belief will be similarly biased; which is why even Simon Blackburn defines atheism as "either lack of belief in God, or belief that there is no God"; what is the problem with that? --Merzul 00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * How rude. Silence is not a nice person, and neither are you. If any other readers would like to respond, I would appreciate it.--24.57.157.81 02:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'm sorry I was rude, but I again don't understand what you object to. So please specify, if you have a problem with any of these statements:
 * Disbelief is an ambiguous term.
 * Different groups are interested in defining it differently.
 * Wikipedia has a policy of Neutral Point of View.
 * For a fruitful discussion, please identify, which of the premises you disagree to. --Merzul 11:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My concern does not center upon the word disbelief, this is secondary to the points I raised. Your "concern" that perhaps I do not agree with WP:NPOV is once again an insult. Please do not reply to me again until you can stop being rude. --24.57.157.81 20:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a better reason not to use disbelief is that it sounds extremely awkward. Atheism is the absence of belief in deities sounds a lot better than Atheism is disbelief in deities. Saying "Theism is belief in a deity" sounds wrong as well. Titanium Dragon 13:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The only responses to my criticism and request, after two weeks, have been these two jokers. What belief is absent? A belief in God? But what does "belief in God" mean? Does believing in God mean you believe the statement "God exists" is true?--24.57.157.81 21:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If theism is defined as the belief in one or more gods, I think that implies that a believer would say that the statement "God [x, y, z] exists" is true. A polytheist might disagree that "God exists" is true on the basis of its implied monotheism, but they are still a theist. A reasonable definition of "belief" is a statement that a person would agree is true. The key point being that a believer is necessary for a belief to exist-- it has no bearing on the truth of the statement itself, or any referents of the statement. In short, if a "theist" is someone who believes that at least one god exists, then "atheists" could include anyone who is not a theist, or (as in the case of strong atheism) be only a subset of those who are not theists. MFNickster 21:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply but I am disappointed that you didn't answer any of my specific questions. I'm searching for the meaning of the phrase "absence of belief" first--we'll get to labels and existence being a prerequisite for belief and that sort of thing later. So, what is your take on it? What does "belief in God" mean? I'm talking about the whole phrase here in this case: "belief in God," not just the word belief. Is "belief in God" what is said to be "absent" in the phrase "absence of belief?" Surely these simple questions have answers. --24.57.157.81 23:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, "absence of belief" means that "belief in God" is absent. "Belief in God" means "Belief that God exists". I think the reason we have difficulty answering is because we are not sure where exactly you are having trouble understanding? Mdwh 00:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the whole reason that different types of atheism and agnosticism have been described - when you say someone "doesn't believe in God" or has "disbelief in god," does that mean the person would consider the statement "God exists" untrue, uncertain, meaningless, or have they never considered the statement at all? MFNickster 00:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So you (and the other two, since you said "we") say "absence of belief" is equivalent to "absence of belief that God exists." Perhaps I've figured your position out. It seems you are treating the concept of belief psychologically. I do not find this treatment agreeable in the context of metaphysics and philosophy, but I will humor it. In doing so, I come up with the following question: What if one has an "absence of belief that God does not exist?" --24.57.157.81 22:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm treating the concept of belief by the dictionary definition of belief - do you feel there is ambiguity in using the word? I guess those with an "absence of belief that God does not exist" would be everyone except strong atheists (so it would include theists, weak atheists, those with no opinion). There isn't a word for it presumably because it's not a concept people need to refer to often or to identify themselves as. Mdwh 23:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I think there is ambiguity, that's why I started this topic. I am trying to figure out what this "absence of belief" stuff means and how it works, and I thank you for your replies to that effect as I think I am understanding it now. I have some more similar questions, and I'll respond again here fairly soon--I just need to make up some good examples that will demonstrate my concerns with clarity. (You might want to read my response to Nick, too, to get an idea of where I'm coming from--in general as I'm still trying to humour the psychological concept here.)--24.57.157.81 20:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok here is another question: If someone has an absence of belief that God exists and has an absence of belief that God doesn't exist, would they be considered agnostic? I want to make a chart of both the negative and positive beliefs concerning the statement "God exists" and compare the two.--24.57.157.81 04:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

193.130.128.2 10:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC) Belief in gods' existance can have one of only two outcomes; you either do or don't. To say you don't know would not change this, as you still would believe or not. That question does not make sense given the context, unless there was a third option. It is a bit like whether something exists or not. There is no halfway house.193.130.128.2 10:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * They would be a weak atheist (see the bit in this article about implicit weak atheists, explicit weak atheists and strong atheists for how the terms relate). Note that some people do not include implicit weak atheists as "atheists", labelling them as nontheists instead. Agnostics may usually but not always fall into this category - agnosticism is a separate issue (about knowing whether God exists), you can have agnostic theists, for example. Mdwh 12:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * By that logic wouldn't they also be a weak theist? Can this "absence of belief" structure--implicit/explicit, weak/strong--be applied to any proposition, or only to atheism?--24.57.157.81 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Can I have an absence of belief that my hair is red? Is this a philosophy? --24.57.157.81 22:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there an alternative to treating the concept of belief psychologically? I know some people equate "belief" with "faith", but I don't think they are 100% equivalent. MFNickster 23:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how your last remark is relevant (though I agree they are not necessarily equivalent, it depends on how the word is used). As for your question, this is very tricky. I did some research to see if I could explain it succinctly and clearly. This is a major question, even a bone of contention, amongst epistemologists. At least I can show there is a difference: Naturalized epistemology deals with beliefs as psychological--as an empirical science, not philosophy. Traditional epistemology does not concern itself with the mind or things psychological, these are simply ignored. I've tried to come up with an example which shows a marked difference:


 * Joe is blind. Joe says "The sky is blue."


 * Traditional Epistemology: Joe states "the sky is blue" as if it were true. Therefore Joe believes the sky is blue. The sky is blue. Therefore Joe has knowledge that the sky is blue. The statement "Joe knows the sky is blue" is true.


 * Naturalized Epistemology: Joe states "the sky is blue" as if it were true. Therefore Joe believes the sky is blue. However, Joe is blind--Joe does not have knowledge that the sky is blue. The statement "Joe knows the sky is blue" is false.


 * --24.57.157.81 20:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm second guessing myself whether or not I have labelled each of the examples correctly or even semi-correctly. The labels seem to be right, but I'm not an expert in epistemology. Maybe they are both naturalized epistemology, but two different types of naturalized epistemology. Anyway, here is another link to the Stanford philosophy encyclopedia. This article is about knowledge analysis: . At the least this article shows stuff like this can get very complicated :P. (Also, if my examples seem confusing or incomplete I can add a few more qualifiers to them--I didn't want to overdo it) --24.57.157.81 00:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Read this:

"Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term 'belief' to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true."

(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief)

Editorius 01:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My, my. How demanding! Your "bold" interjection leaves me asking "Yes, but what of it?" Please do me the courtesy of elaborating upon what I am sure is quite relevant. "Belief" is quite a broad subject. I did, thanks to your post, indirectly stumble upon this Wikipedia article: internalism and externalism. Externalist epistemic justification seems to be what I am referencing? What do you think? I can also explain in more detail my "school of thought" on belief. If you can then explain to me the philosophies I am touching upon I will be quite grateful. --24.57.157.81 03:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah-ha! From psychologism:


 * "There are other kinds of psychologism. For example, there is a psychologism pertaining to epistemology which states that all knowledge must be justified by experience."


 * There you go. That's pretty much my example, too. --24.57.157.81 05:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And more from anti-psychologism:


 * Anti-psychologism is a thesis about the nature of logical truth, that it does not depend upon the contents of human ideas but exists independently. The term was coined by Gottlob Frege, and has been the centre of an important debate in analytical philosophy, closely related to the internalism and externalism debate in logic and epistemology.


 * The rival thesis, psychologism, is not widely held amongst logicians, but it does have some high-profile defenders, for example Dov Gabbay.


 * --24.57.157.81 22:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Two definitions or one?

 * This article has long said there are 2 definitions of atheism. Trying to subsume the 2 under a word disbelief, which is open to so much interpretation, does not serve well to define atheism. State openly, right from the start, that there are 2 definitions.
 * and I note, agnostics also report incredulity (disbelief). It is not just self-defined-atheists-under-the-2nd-definition-who-write-Internet-&-BBC-columns,that would include them - as the article appears to say (though does not definitely).
 * There is no need to evaluate which of the 2 is more common
 * Both definitions can be sourced to reference material (other than Internet & media reports), not just the narrower definition
 * At issue is whether agnostics & those who have never considered whether any deities exist, can be counted as atheists - the answer is: it depends on how the word is used
 * There is a stronger case for saying that certain types of Buddhism are atheistic, than that babies are atheists - though again, it depends... However, babies are, usually only by analogy, considered to hold to any -ism at all.
 * Even though these Buddhists do not necessarily reject or deny the existence of deities, it is quite reasonable & common to call their world-view atheistic.--JimWae 21:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Atheism is an ontological position, Agnosticism is an epistemological & psychological position. --JimWae 20:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In ontology, "P believes X(s) do not exist" is indistinguishable from "P does not believe X(s) exist". In neither case does P consider the word X to have a referent. It is only when you start talking psychology that the 2 differ. -ISMs are not about psychology, even if -ISTs are--JimWae 21:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone finds it so necessary to subsume the 2 defs into one: Atheism is any world-view that does not include deities.--JimWae 21:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are raising many issues at the same time here. Avoiding the word disbelief does seem like a very good idea. Although it is much used in dictionaries, it is just a convenient way to postpone the ambiguity. It doesn't really add anything to the article, or to our understanding of the concept. The rest of your points are each a topic of discussion of their own, and I have mixed feelings about them. For example, I don't agree that epistemological distinctions are irrelevant to defining atheism, yet your last suggestion "Atheism is any world-view that does not include deities" seems quite successful in defining atheism without any reference to how that view is held. Interesting. --Merzul 21:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, wait, this doesn't include the other definition; this definition is just the wider atheism = non-theism definition, at least the semantic extensions of the terms are inhabited with the same people. --Merzul 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember, there are three definitions covered in this article. I don't mind if we summarise this in the form of two definitions (or even one) for simplicity in the introduction, but it's worth remembering as we try to formulate the introduction. I presume you mean strong and weak as the two definitions - the distinction between implicit and explicit is an issue worth bearing in mind, because many of the references for atheism tend to imply explicit atheism rather than an implicit absence of belief, and so then we get the criticisms that the "broader" definition isn't common, or isn't supported by dictionaries). Mdwh 22:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, currently we are discussing the weak vs. strong; and the new definition presented above ("world-view without deities") would actually be more similar to "explicit non-theism": it includes strong atheists, and some Buddhists, but not infants, because they probably lack what we would call a "world-view". Thus, I don't currently see an easy way to change the introduction at all. --Merzul 23:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * One reason the introduction is confusing is there is no attempt to relate the 1st def (disbelief) to the other 2. I had thought the first an attempt to encompass the next 2 in some way (that was the discussion when it was inserted last Fall) - but I now have doubts about that. I doubt that disbelief is used (except by those stretching a point, perhaps) in such a way to include infants & any others who have never considered whether deities exist - conceivably even some adult non-theistic Buddhists. Yet, it is not clearly wrong to call such people atheists. I think disbelief connotes some "explicit psychological state of awareness", while non-belief does not. It does make some sense even to say that infants are atheists, under the broadest definition - even "the saints" when they were infants, and even the baby Jesus & the baby Mohammed. And it makes even more sense to say that some adults who have not given much consideration to whether deities exist or not are atheists. If it makes some sense to say that, the definition (disbelief) should not outright exclude that use. Again, I suggest 'disbelief' is not appropriate for the first sentence, and we should, from the outset, list the 2 major definitions that now follow (in that 1st paragraph) - without nearly attributing one to Internet blogs only. Dictionaries record usage, they do not always provide all the necessary & sufficient parameters for use of a word - that is what philosophers (& perhaps some encyclopedia editors) work towards - sometimes even when such is not possible.--JimWae 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Defining -ISMs in terms of belief (of adherents) may be fine for theism, polytheism, and a few more theisms. It is not fine for socialism, communism, republicanism, fascism, Nazism, monarchism, Catholicism, Agnosticism, and many more -ISMs. If you are talking about beliefs, you are on safer ground talking about -ISTs (e.g. monarchists, perhaps - though maybe not even them), than about -ISMs. Defining atheism in terms of a psychological state of belief - or disbelief - gives a presumption that some psychological state is an important key to the definition --JimWae 03:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

THREE definitions
Three definitions are presented in the lede. One tells us what atheism "is"; the next tells us how atheism is "commonly defined", and the last tells us how "others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups" (aka a group with an agenda) define it. How is it that wikipedia can say what atheism "is" when there are 3 competing definitions? Each definition ends up with different groups of people ( & -isms) being sorted as atheist (or not). I propose that instead of expressing right from the outset an editorial preference for one of the 3 definitions, that we present all 3 without favoritism, then examine how they differ. If someone thinks they can demonstrate conclusively that one definition is the "true" definition (without indulging in original research), then that should come later in the article. --JimWae 06:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Something like this:
 * Atheism is a view of the world that does not include a deity. Contrasted with theism, three distinct definitions appear in reference books (though not all three in all reference books). A reference work that does include all three is the Dictionary of Philosophy by Peter A Angeles, 1981: 1. the belief that gods do not, or God does not, exist; 2. The disbelief in any kind of supernatural existence that is supposed to affect the universe; 3. the lack of belief in a particular God< /ref>
 * Each of the three definitions classifies different groups of people as atheists, and different views of the world as atheistic.


 * The most inclusive definition defines an atheist as anyone who does not believe in a deity. Under this definition atheists would include agnostics who do not believe in a deity (but not those who have doubts but still believe in a deity), those who have heard little or nothing about deities (such as small children or members of some isolated cultures), and those who have never given theism much consideration. It would also include (as atheistic) certain religions that do not advocate belief in a deity (such as some forms of Buddhism)


 * The narrowest definition counts as atheists only those who believe (or are willing to assert with a certain amount of certainty) that there are no deities, or explicitly deny the existence of a deity. This definition would not include agnostics, since agnostics do not claim any degree of certainty one way or the other. It would also, of course, also exclude those who have not given the idea of deity much consideration. Atheists under this narrowest definition are often specified as "strong", "hard", "positive". They are always "explicit". Those who are atheists only according to the former, more inclusive definition are often specified as "weak", "soft", "negative", or "neutral".


 * A middle definition, found in many reference books, is that atheists are those who disbelieve in a deity. This definition would exclude those who have not given the idea enough consideration to even register disbelief. However, the term disbelief has a wide range of meaning (from "lack of belief" to "doubt", to "withholding of belief", "rejection of belief", "refusal to believe", and "denial") and most of these meanings would include as atheists many agnostics - especially those who experience or express a degree of disbelief about the existence of a deity. Under this definition, atheism must be "explicit".

References could be added later--JimWae 07:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"Repudiation of God or gods" could even be added as a fourth candidate for definition--JimWae 07:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * JimWae, Its not completely clear how the featured reference you offer here fits with each catagory. To be specific, the second definition "2. The disbelief in any kind of supernatural existence that is supposed to affect the universe;" is a common doctrine, and also goes considerably beyond the mere denial or disbelief in a deity(the focus of your definitions).

Less confusing yet still problematic, "A view of the world that does not include a deity." does not account for athesist branding of the so-called "atheist" infidels that were sometimes were unfortunate enough to deny the world was flat, a Roman god, a Christian God or the Muslim Allah, yet don't fall under the atheism intro because they actually believed in their own deity. never-mind, I suppose that "a deity" is in the eye of the beholder...

It seems, unfortunately, that catagorizing each type of atheism borders on original research. Perhaps not... I'm still mulling over these diverse definitions.Modocc 09:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Roger Lamb 's recent changes / Locked page

 * Referring to definitions as "wrong" or "unhelpful" seems blatant POV / original research to me, but it looks like it's been agreed not to include these changes now.
 * Saying "All agnostics" would be atheists is not correct, as there are some people who are agnostic theists. This should be "many" - perhaps "most" would be okay too, but certainly not "all".
 * ^^^ Here is my talk comment for the recent edit. Sorry it was at some time earlier, but at the time the page was protected. Also I think somewhere else in this page, another editor questions the "all agnostics". Mdwh 11:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "entails, minimally" - I'm not exactly sure what this is trying to convey?
 * "including most atheistic philosophers and groups" - however, I agree that this sort of statement is rather dubious, unless we have some kind of reference for it? Could it perhaps be worded another way, for example saying that atheistic philosophers and/or groups are more likely to use this definition?

And do we really need protection for this? Mdwh 22:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really, the WP:3RR process should have worked !. Diffing the editwar e.g., there are three differences.
 * For the use of "entails, minimally" instead of "is" my opinion of that "is" (the original wording) is best. The new wording sounds to stilted.
 * Dropping the "atheistic philosophers and groups" is fine unless we have some statistics on this
 * The change of "many" to "all" is dangerous as it may be misinterpreting the references that are linked to that sentence (i.e. Stein 1980, p. 3, d'Holbach 1772 or Smith 1979, pp. 13 to 18). Ttiotsw 10:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Mdwh's entry above

 * My unhelpful entry was later stricken.
 * I accept (now) that "all" is too strong, and we should go back to "many".
 * On "entails, minimally": This replaced "is" - which offered up a real definition, viz., "Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities."  The problem here was that if disbelief were to be taken in one of the suggested senses, viz., "lack of belief", atheism would turn out to be nothing more than lack of belief in the existence of any deities.  This would be a real problem because, as a definition of atheism, it is far too weak, yielding - as it does - the false view that anyone who lacks belief is an atheist.  I replaced "is" with "entails, minimally" because that avoids the real problem just alluded to.  Even the strict understanding of atheism - i.e., one which has it that an atheist believes that deities do not exist - can live with the view that this entails that atheists lack belief in deities (setting aside the possibility of inconsistent doxastic states in individual minds).
 * Roger, I confess I fail to see how "entails,minimally" actually changes in anyway the problem of your suggested weak sense of "disbelief".  "Entails" and "minimally" don't modify the verb(change its sense). Do these actually avoid the statement of a "real definition"?  If anything the logical words entail and mimimally make the statement, thus definition, too strong.  Thus,I find myself in agreement with others that nothing seems to be gained by this particular edit, except to add confusion.  Furthermore, the weakest senses are a part of the historical scope of atheism, although subject to the discussion and refinement as is done in the body of the article.Modocc 03:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Entails" is weaker than "is". With "is" (the "is" of identity, or definition), the entailment goes both ways (↔).  So:  "Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities" entails that: (i) "Atheism entails the disbelief in the existence of any deities" and (ii) "The disbelief in the existence of any deities entails atheism".  The first passes muster, but not the second - on the weak sense of "disbelief".  It is the second entailment which is the problematic one, but which is entailed by the "is" of the original text.  So, I replaced what was, in effect, a two-way entailment (otherwise known as a strict equivalence) with a one-way entailment.  One-way entailments are weaker than two-way entailments (they only say half as much).  Not saying as much, they are often not so easily attacked.--Roger Lamb 12:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Roger, with the usage you suggest then disbelief can equal nonbelief then u have the statement that Atheism implies a "non-belief" in God. Or have I got the interpretation of entailment reversed?Modocc 14:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What I think is that if somebody disbelieves something, then - minimally - they lack a belief in that thing. If S disbelieves p, then S lacks a belief that p (where S is any subject, and p is any proposition).  I would think this would hold for any likely interpretation of disbelieves - including very plausible and very strong ones which feature the notion of rejection.  (If S rejects p, then S lacks a belief that p.  Of course, there is - admittedly - more to rejection than just that, but there is at least that.)  The upshot is more or less as you conclude, Modocc, that is, atheism implies a lack of belief in God.  The implication is of a logical kind, so I used the notion reserved for that kind of implication, viz., entailment.--Roger Lamb 01:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But you have not reached your stated goal here,"The problem here was that if disbelief were to be taken in one of the suggested senses, viz., "lack of belief", atheism would turn out to be nothing more than lack of belief in the existence of any deities." Of course, we still have an implied lack of belief along with the stronger usages of disbelief. I understand that there are perhaps other reasons to not define atheism explicitly, thus far I am just not convinced the edit dodges any significant bullets.Modocc 02:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are several definitions that differ significantly. No attempt should be made to pick "the best one" --JimWae 02:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1> I have been demonstrating it is not at all clear the "disbelief" ever means "non-belief"
 * 2> entailment does not have to be bi-directional --JimWae 02:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * JimWae, I agree that the different definitions is perhaps the most persuasive reason for something like "entails, minimally", since the topic of atheism involves more than just any particular affirmation of an atheistic belief. I've been mostly on the fence. But, I do want to consider the practical matter of what can be understood by the average reader. I do like your most recent intro proposal,yet I am not an expert in these matters.Modocc 03:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * On that we completely agree - "minimally entails" does not belong in the intro - even many editors will not be familiar with what it means. This is an encyclopedia, alas, not a journal of philosophy --JimWae 03:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you really think "entails, minimally" is that difficult? And maybe initial familiarity - either for the "average reader" (whoever that might be) or "many editors" - is not the proper touchstone here.  But, say your view prevailed, how about "implies, minimally"?  Still too difficult?  What about "involves, minimally"?--Roger Lamb 14:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that "disbelief" entails MORE than that minimal non-belief. I have collected various definitions of "disbelief" at User:JimWae/Disbelief. ONLY TWO might be said to include non-belief - one using "lack of belief" (as in a deficiency?) - and for both it is truly questionable whether non-belief is intended as a definition or as some kind of ball-park synonym. The overwhelming majority of meaning given by sources involves difficulty in believing or rejection of belief. I repeat my challenge for a usage of disbelief in a sentence where it obviously means non-belief (apart from the context of deities)--JimWae 01:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the challenge lies in the fact that "non-belief" is seldom used. One needs to use the word non-belief and make the substitution and see if the sentence still makes sense. His obvious non-belief in Santa made her cry. His obvious disbelief in Santa made her cry.Modocc 02:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have used non-belief as shorthand for "absence of belief". There seems to be no sentence and no context in which "disbelief" obviously means "absence of belief". AND there are many sentences where its obvious meaning is "rejection of belief"--JimWae 02:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How about "He was too naive to understand and thus his mind wandered in disbelief as it tried to grasp what she was saying."Modocc 03:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Another problem with disbelief is that it is possible both to disbelieve & believe the same proposition. One can disbelieve "X is happening", and immediately (or perhaps even simultaneously) believe "x IS happening". This is because disbelief is often used in shocking situations. (Btw, I am not at all convinced the "God exists" is even a proposition.) --JimWae 01:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Mdwh writes: "Could it perhaps be worded another way, for example saying that atheistic philosophers and/or groups are more likely to use this definition?"  -This, too, would require some plausible sourcing.  And, frankly (as both a self-identifying atheist and a professional philosopher), I doubt, at least with respect to atheistic philosophers, this can be done. --Roger Lamb 01:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * disbelief is too vague a word with too wide a range of meanings to be useful. Saying that atheism minimally entails disbelief is no help if we do not pin down how we are using disbelief.
 * I agree [with JimWae] that disbelief is vague, or at least ambiguous. Unfortunately, so is most of natural language.  The particular sense of disbelief most relevant to atheism is rejection of belief.  All the same, the claim that atheism minimally entails disbelief (where atheism has anything at all to do with belief - cp. Jim's earlier comment dated 03:06, 1 March 2007) is true, given any of  the senses of disbelief alluded to in the body of the article, even the sparsely supported ones.--Roger Lamb 13:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the minimal entailment is "non-belief"--JimWae 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am happy enough to accept this. When I wrote that “Atheism entails, minimally, the disbelief in the existence of any deities”, I was at the time focussing on the problem with the copula, and taking for granted the claim in the first footnote of the article that one of the senses of disbelief was lack of belief.  That claim may be dubious, as JimWae believes.  (Although I note that the OED, in its entry for the verb “disbelieves”, definitionally suggests “not to believe” and “not to believe in” – amongst other definitions.)  Suppose JimWae is right and the OED is wrong.  Then I would amend my edit to read:  “Atheism entails, minimally, the lack (or absence) of belief in the existence of any deities”.--Roger Lamb 14:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am finding there is sparse support for disbelief as meaning non-belief. Such definitions of disbelief as "non-belief" are not only uncommon, but even where they appear, the examples given imply active conscious difficulty believing. Saying atheism minimally entails disbelief can be interpreted as a prejudice against one of the definitions.
 * On Jim's sparse support claim, I note that Webster's unabridged does not give mere nonbelief (or anything like it) as a sense of disbelief (giving only "mental refusal...to accept as true"); and the full OED gives "mental rejection of a statement or assertion" and "positive unbelief". Neither of these would seem to qualify as mere nonbelief.  So I agree with this part of Jim's comment.
 * But I am unsure what to make of Jim's second claim here. Perhaps he is correct.  But, then, which of the definitions (of what?) is the saying (that atheism minimally entails disbelief) plausibly prejudiced against?  And why?--Roger Lamb 13:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Use "disbelief" in a sentence where it means non-belief - apart from the supposed context of atheism. Saying the minimal entailment is "disbelief" stacks the deck against the "non-belief" definition - because it is not clear that "disbelief" ever really means "non-belief"--JimWae 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What all atheists under every definition share is some nonbelief in a divinity - a necessary (but perhaps not a sufficient) condition for being an atheist. Nonbelief is the minimum entailment. Unfortunately using non-belief in a defintion could be construed as a neologism or as original research
 * I agree (again) with Jim on his first claim here. In fact, his first claim seems to say what I said in my minimal entailment claim having to do with lack of belief.  The only caveat I would add is that the condition is certainly not sufficient. --Roger Lamb 13:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I should have said it is sufficient according to one of the definitions --JimWae 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We cannot work on the presumption that any common usage of the term is false here -especially not when a definition of atheism as absence of belief is widely used & appears in many reference books (apparently in more than those in which it does not so appear)
 * Fair enough. Accordingly, what needs to be done is to clearly distinguish the various existent senses of atheism.  They needn't be competitors in a contest about the one true (form of) atheism.  They become (formally) different senses of the term, or (materially) different kinds of (what is called) atheism, possibly logically related in various ways - each with their own adherents, opponents, arguments for and against, etc. --Roger Lamb 13:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes--JimWae 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I happen to recall the first day I "believed" in a god (when I was about 4) - and recall thinking to myself -"what would "he" think of my beliefs if I had died yesterday?" Saying a 2-year old is an atheist carries some meaning - we cannot rule out as wrong a usage that communicates a meaning.
 * Not so sure that we cannot rule out as wrong some usages that communicate a meaning. I can't just use words any which way I like provided I can communicate my meaning.  If I interchanged the usual referents of table and chair persistently and consistently, you might get the idea and, so, I might succeed in communicating when I said I'd be serving dinner on the chair.  But, succeed or not, I think my usage would still be wrong.  It would certainly be idiosyncratic and worth ignoring as a proposal.  --Roger Lamb 13:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I should have added "and that is in common usage and has as many or perhaps more sources than either of the other 2" --JimWae 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's just present the proposed definitions without prejudging them in any way (as "false" or "more common", etc.). Comments on how some authors evaluate each definition could perhaps appear in the body of the article--JimWae 08:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sensible. And in the spirit of my remark above, beginning "Fair enough."  But it does mean a major rewrite.  And first, the padlock has to come away.  Or, is there another way?  --Roger Lamb 13:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Because of prejudice the writer of the article has purposely excluded a whole class of atheists called gnostic atheists. The writer of the article is therefore inaccurate and unreliable. 144.13.106.97 20:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Paul Keller kellerp@uwstout.edu

Category to add
Someone please add "Category:Disengagement from religion" whenever this article is available for editing. --WassermannNYC 10:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My version of the definition of atheism
Atheism is a system of thought (or ideology?) which is opposed either to theism or the belief in God and/or deities. Atheism can be divided into two branches: the first one means the ABSENCE OF BELIEF in God or any other deities, the other one means the DISBELIEF in God or the BELIEF THAT NO GOD OR DEITIES EXIST. - Rannit
 * That's three definitions, isn't it...? (Absense of belief, disbelief, belief that no god exists.) I disagree with system of thought or ideology as this only really applies to belief that no god exists, and even then, a single belief doesn't constitute a system or ideology. Also saying it's "opposed" could mislead people into thinking that atheists are against theism (as in antitheism), rather than being opposed in the sense of the definition. Mdwh 12:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that atheism is a single belief and therefore does not constitute a system of thought. As it is opposed to the belief in God, in its entirety, it has many concepts, doctrines and theories which in fact are the same thing as an ideology. - Rannit
 * Sorry, but that's just incorrect. You need to do more research. MFNickster 13:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean I need to do more research? I have read the article, most of the sources and other materials and I have also read the discussion. Is this not sufficient? This exactly is the problem in this discussion: nobody dares think independently, using the facts and materials given, to reach certain conclusions. If it is known that an ideology is an (organized) collection of political, philosophical or religious ideas, and that atheism is a collection of religious ideas - no matter that it denies religion; it also concerns religion - then we can say it is an ideology. Rannit
 * I was born in an Atheist country. I don't have the slightest idea of what a "god" is. Nobody can make any sense out of that word. I don't concern myself with anything that relates to "god". I have no idea about that, let alone a whole ideology... Just like I don't need an "ideology" to disbelieve in #$%#$#$$%, or es8g&tth*^639.--Dimror 17:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are an ignosticist, not an atheist. You cannot be an atheist without accepting that the word "God" has meaning. --24.57.157.81 22:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That still means that I don't believe in "god". I pass my whole day without believing in "god" at all. It looks like pure atheism. :) --Dimror 05:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you believe in leprechauns? No? Then you are an 'aleprechaunist.' Aleprechaunism is opposed to leprechaunism, or the belief in leprechauns. Please describe for us the concepts, doctrines, and theories which make up the 'ideology of aleprechaunism.' MFNickster 17:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Opposed to" would be antileprechaunism, and as such it would be an ideology (that aleprechaunism is ideal). --24.57.157.81 22:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So in Rannit's statement above that "atheism is a system of thought (or ideology?) which is opposed either to theism or the belief in God and/or deities," he really meant to say 'antitheism'? MFNickster 22:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have to ask him, but, yes, "opposed to theism" is antitheism. He may have instead meant something along the lines of "the opposite of" or "contradicts the proposition of."--24.57.157.81 22:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * While this issue is pretty much sorted (I think), I'll add my 2 cents. I see it, atheism is anything which isn't theism - that is, it is the absence of belief in a god. Atheism is divided into strong and weak atheism, where strong atheism is the belief that there is no god. Presumably ignosticism would be a subset of atheism, so Dimror would be a ignostic atheist.
 * The online Oxford English Dictionary (requires subscription) defines atheism as "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism)." It provides several definitions of the noun atheist: "1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God"; and "2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man."
 * He key word here, as I see it, is "disbelieves" - not a belief but a lack of belief. --h2g2bob 23:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that this issue is long since settled, so why does it keep cropping up over and over and over and over?? MFNickster 00:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As to the belief in leprechauns - if you believe that such a ??? exists, you have to give a cause for that, and doing this, you must define all CONCEPTS concerning the THEORY that leprechauns exists. And, having explained your DOCTRINE, the entire belief becomes an IDEOLOGY. And, if I do not believe in leprechauns, then I disagree with all of the concepts, theories and doctrines you proposed and the act of mine - belief that no leprechauns exists - also becomes an IDEOLOGY.
 * You'd better think carefully about this, if you are seriously suggesting that there does, in fact, exist an "ideology of aleprechaunism." And it's not simply a case of not believing in leprechauns, but an ideology that is defined by what other people believe about leprechauns? This is surely worthy of its own aleprechaunism article, as well as the ideologies of abigfootism, asantaclausism, atoothfairyism, alochnessmonsterism, etc.! MFNickster 14:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As for my statement, what I meant was exactly what 24.57.157.81 offered - "contradicts the proposition of." --Rannit
 * Nice try, but still missing it. I don't have an ideology that contradicts another ideology. I just don't share your belief. Else put: I'm not performing "the act of believing", I am missing that specific theistic belief, I am devoid of that belief. This is not an "ideology". It's a not-having-that-specific-belief of the theist. When for example I don't share the delusion/belief of sb. claiming to believe in *&76783hjdg - I don't have an ideology to counter that, for what I care he can believe in *&76783hjdg all he wants, whatever that is, but I'm not. --Dimror 09:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are missing it yourself. There is no such thing as a SIMPLE belief. If you believe in something, you must have certain information, facts, or arguments/reasons for believing in it and all that is sufficient to constitute an ideology. We don't have to draw parallels, we can focus on the current topic, belief in God and the disbelief in God. Do you agree that christian religion is an ideology? --Rannit
 * Not the point. Disagreeing with a proposition is not the same as holding an ideology. Are you saying that everyone who is not a fascist holds to the afascist or antifascist ideology? You can hold to other ideologies that are different than or opposed to fascism (democracy, anarchism, communism, etc.), but one is not necessarily an antifascist. For example, the Western English-speaking countries, US, UK and Australia all, were not actively opposed to fascism until it was necessary to be. They were not fascist, but nor were they antifascist. You can not paint a lack of belief as an ideology, because an ideology necessarily entails theory and positive belief. A lack of belief, or disbelief, is not always a positive belief, and even when it is it does not always entail theory or doctrine. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  12:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are drawing an uncorrect parallel. Fascism is a political ideology and on the political arena things are not black and white. As you said, you can contradict fascism even if you are not an anti-fascist - you can also be a communist, anarchist etc. But here, the question is whether one believes that God exists or not. Just two things. If you believe that God exists, you are holding one of the two possible attitudes - you are one who believes in God; and, if you believe that no God exists, you are holding the second one of the two possible attitudes - you are one who doesn't believe in God. (If you want to contact me in the future, do it on my talk page, please.)--Rannit
 * If you had facts, it'd be knowledge, not belief. But you tend to take the wrong path again, I don't concern myself with christian ideology at all. The point here is not atheists vs christians, but one of being a theist, or an atheist. Theism includes but doesn't equal christendom. Do I carry out the act of believing in "god", or not? I carry that out, thus I'm a theist. I don't carry that out, thus I'm an atheist. There's no ideology in play. An ideology may be needed for disproving theism, but that actually requires that theists prove their position first (which really defeats the point of being a theist). --Dimror 14:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, my definition of atheism is not acceptable, but I still have some questions to you. Firstly, if atheism means just a simple non-belief (disbelief, lack of belief etc) in God and the contradiction of theism and so on, why is so long and thorough an article needed to explain it? If atheism is not a SYSTEM of thought (=ideology), why is it necessery to describe the etymology, the types and typologies of atheism, the scope of atheism, atheism as immorality, atheism as the belief that no deities exist, atheism as the absence of belief in deities, the history of atheism, the demographics, the atheist organizations and the reasons for atheism?? - All that seems to allude to a whole system of ideas.--Rannit
 * Maybe because theists have meade their theism important and oppress anything that doesn't buy into their belief... or vandalize the article, insert misconceptions, etc. Practically speaking the article is a bit long even for my taste, but it's length becomes pretty much understandable if one has to clear up all the misconceptions and accusations thrown at atheists, as also to describe the various forms of how come one doesn't believe in "god". Than atheism seen from the historical point of view, etc. Atheism would not be important if theists din't make theism important. Maybe tomorrow leprechauns will make leprechaunism important, so there'll be an article this long explaining why are there aleprechauns and what is aleprechaunism.--Dimror 09:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dimror, as I can see you are an atheist yourself. That's nice. I am also an atheist. I cannot grasp at all how it is possible to believe in any supreme beings if it is clearly evident that no such beings (can) exist. But that's another topic.--Rannit

Atheism that is inclusively defined
I am an atheist. The problem with the introduction is it is more narrowly defined than common usage. Its not minimal. The cited definitions clearly state disbelief in God OR gods. In other words, deity OR deities. It is difficult for some to comprehend, but to be an atheist it is not necessary to disbelieve in "deities". One can believe in spiritual extensions of our known self-aware nature. Some may say this is belief in deities. Yet regardless of how one characterises such belief, atheists like myself are agnostic can be either agnostic or on the fence with respect to belief in spirit and afterlife, yet refuse to believe in paternalistic supreme beings. All my life, I have told others that the greater good of our spirits and/or community is clearly greater than any deity, especially any with powers which cannot be held to account. Instead of "Atheism entails, minimally, the disbelief[1] in the existence of any deities", the cited definitions only support the statement that "Atheism entails, minimally, the disbelief[1] in the existence of a deity or deities.[2]" This best paraphrases common usage and the definitions. It is is far more inclusive and does not force any one's spectrum of what is "atheism" into a dogmatic pigeonhole.Modocc 19:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional sources are not really needed for a broader definition. What is needed is for the introductory text to more accurately reflect the different definitions of the cited sources.Modocc 20:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * agreed --Frantik 03:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The adminstrative change to the introduction nullifies my objection, for the new statement does not give the false notion that there must be a positive rejection in all things unexplained. Thankyou wikipedians!!!!!!!! :).Modocc 21:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggested intRo
I'd like to start a discussion into some version of the 3 introduction paragraphs everyone is satisfied with, so we can come to some firm agreement on what it should be. I think most of it is great, I can only see 2 parts which (in my opinion) could be improved: Are these changes good or bad? Are there other changes that need to be considered? If we agree on something, I (or someone) should ask User:Steel359 to remove protection. --h2g2bob 00:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to change "Atheism entails, minimally..." to "Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities". I don't think this basic definition is disputed, only the definition of the word "disbelief" in this context. The reason I'd like this changed is that it really sounds like weasel words, but I'd accept the status quo if this is not the case.
 * I'd also like to remove "all agnostics, and" from "others define atheism as the simple absence of belief [...] designating all agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists". As I understand it, agnosticism is the belief that the existence of god can not be proven. It is possible to be both theistic and agnostic - you can hold a belief in god without evidence.

H2g2bob, I do like your changes. In addition, the lanquage also needs to be more consistent with the citations. Here are the first two:


 * "1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings." (Random House 2006)
 * "1. a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. Including the existence of the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim God. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality." (American Heritage Dictionary 2000)

The phrased "any deities" is not used. The definitions of "no God or gods" and "supreme being or beings" is inclusive of those that simply do not believe in God or theistic "higher power". As for spirits, I am sometimes on the fence, typically disbelieving, yet certainly I don't believe in any deity that I can't have a conversation with. Deities or gods are ill-defined, and its not necessary to have any strong opinion about such, but I do disbelieve in a God or gods in any meaningful context. The problem with saying "any deity" is that one person's ghost is another person's god, and thus "any deities" is subject to dispute for being too exclusionary. The phrase "any deities" is not cited, but "God or gods" is certainly, alternatively "deity or deities" is ok. Modocc 01:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the Random House definition. The two definitions are markedly different and the readers of this article must be made aware of their differences. There is no such thing as an "implicit" or "explicit" doctrine, so there is no such thing as "implicit atheism" or "explicit atheism" if the first definition of atheism is used. "Implicit/explicit" atheism is only coherent if definition number 2 is used. --24.57.157.81 01:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

disbelief (plural: disbeliefs)
 * No, "Atheism IS disbelief" is too restrictive - there are 3 definitions - and disbelief rarely if ever means non-belief. (Use it in a sentence where it means non-belief [outside of atheism]). Disbelief is a psychological state, non-belief is not. Even if "disbelief" ever means "non-belief", using "disbelief" as THE definition is far too ambiguous. As I have said a number of times, state all 3 definitions without stating WHAT atheism "IS". I'd also appreciate someone taking notice of the 4 paragraph or so intro I put here a week ago -- though we could consider using "rejection of belief" instead of "disbelief". Alternatively, instead of going into details on all 3, each could be stated & the first main section could be "The problem of definition". Also see wiktionary entry on disbelief --JimWae 04:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Jim, OK here is the wiktionary definition for disbelief:

1. the difficulty, inability, or refusal to believe something

My sister cried out in disbelief when she heard that terrorists had crashed an airplane into the World Trade Center in New York City.

Its not hard to use the word disbelief either... "Looking bewildered with disbelief when he was told that God had killed everyone that wasn't on the big boat, the boy asked 'why'?"

Most atheists refuse to believe in God or gods. My unabridged Webster also states that atheism is "the belief that there is no God." I don't see that disbelief is inconsistent for it includes "refusal". Theists will also argue that atheists are misguided to the point of simply finding the "truth" difficult to grasp. Belief is a state of mind anyway so I fail to see how splitting hairs here makes any difference. Even non-belief requires atheists to have formed an opinion about the nonrealtiy of deities(at the very least some idea of what is meant by the words "supernatural", "god", "deity" etc).Modocc 05:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Disbelief" does not clearly mean simple "non-belief" there - in those examples it clearly means "rejection of belief". "Rejection of belief" is just one of at least 3 definitions of atheism & cuts out those who have never even considered theism. We cannot prefer one definition over any other by saying it IS any of the 3. One (well-referenced) definition includes as atheists those who have never considered theism --JimWae 05:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that "disbelief" isn't clear - how about "lack of belief"..? --h2g2bob 06:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * lack --Deficiency; want; need; destitution; failure; as, a lack of sufficient food --JimWae 06:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Jim, then we should then be able to cite your reference and state that "Atheism is the disbelief or non-belief in the existance of God or gods." If the reference checks out and it is adequate and others agree it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Modocc (talk • contribs) 06:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Please see above There are more sources that include the simple "absence of belief" usage than those that do not include it. BUT I do not think we should ever say what atheism IS - we should present the 3 definitions & discuss their implications --JimWae 06:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How about "Atheism is commonly defined as the disbelief in the existance of God or gods. In addition, atheism sometimes refers also to those individuals that simply lack theistic belief(s)." Modocc 07:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said above "Let's just present the proposed definitions without prejudging them in any way (as "false" or "more common", etc.). Comments on how some authors evaluate each definition could perhaps appear in the body of the article" -- and "lack" implies a deficiency --JimWae 07:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the definitions are ordered in accordance with such usage and the references do fall into this particular order. Thus its probably not original research, but verifiable. In any case, instead of just critique, perhaps you can write such an intro and offer it up to the wiki gods?Modocc 07:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How many times do I have to point above? There is no need to be evaluative when first introducing the 3 definitions - and ALL 3 should be presented - they are distinct & no attempt to subsume one under another would comply with WP:NPOV. The Britannica entry (by Kai Neilsen) makes an interesting philosophy article - but fails as an encyclopedia article because it is an argument for a particular thesis about what the "best" usage is. Any attempt at being evaluative on commonality or correctness will just lead to endless reversions anyway --JimWae 07:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Jim... I "lack" sleep, and your comments are interesting and its a late hour. Nearly forgot that you wrote that, and it is a big improvement over whats now frozen into the front page.  The athesist orgs out there are dismissive of my brand of atheism and insist that we can't possibly dare consider a belief in anything unscientific, such as ghosts and the like.  I've also read that fifty percent of athesists actually believe in an afterlife.Modocc 08:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with H2g2bob. "Atheism entails, minimally, the..." is not a beginning of a definition. A definition starts with "is-" phrases: "Atheism IS...", because to define a thing means to explain what it IS, not what it minimally entails. I would agree with : "Atheism is the disbelief or non-belief (or lack, absence of belief) in the existance of God or gods.(or deities, supreme beings) ". --Rannit
 * I don't think it's fair to assert that there is one correct definition when there are obviously varying interpretations. I would prefer a leading sentence that does not define, but explains the underlying concept(s)."Atheism is defined most broadly as a lack of belief in any deities. Definitions have varying restrictiveness; a strict definition would entail the positive assertion that God does not exist.'"This seems more reasonable to me. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  12:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Switch, "in ANY deities"?  You forget that many people paint others with an even broader brush... such as "all people that do not believe in God are atheists". Although this may not be a problem for self-described atheists which do not believe in ANY form of deity(subject to dispute, for is any type of "ghost" a deity?), yet the usage of ANY is a problem when many texts still define atheists as denying a specific deity(encompassing a broad number of supposed "atheists").   "Most broadly" does not really past muster.Modocc 15:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ack! I had taken that into account, but I got confused when I was constructing it. Consider this."Atheism is defined most broadly as a lack of belief in God. Definitions have varying restrictiveness; a strict definition would entail the positive assertion that no deities at all exist.'"Or possibly this."Atheism is defined most strictly as the positive assertion that no deities at all exist. Definitions have varying restrictiveness; the broadest definition would merely entail a lack of belief in God.'"That's more along the lines of what I meant. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  04:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What User:SwitChar's above proposed definition lacks:
 * ABSENCE of belief rather than lack (Am I repeating myself too many times?)
 * So change it. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  09:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * god rather than God
 * Because that is how it is defined when using the strictest definition; as absence of belief in God, not just a god. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  09:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * the context for "broadly" & "most strictly" & "restrictiveness" - I would take "broadly"'s context to be about inclusiveness, but not all would. Restrictiveness could be a reference to some coalition of language police and clergy, however.
 * What? ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  09:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * a third well-accepted definition: the rejection of belief in a deity (rather than rejection of existence of a deity)
 * To be explained in the sentences following the absolutely initial explanation of what the term can mean, which is what I offered. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  09:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can understand there could be some reluctance to having so much of the lede be just about the 3 (or more) distinct definitions. The above recent proposal by User:SwitChar is far too short however, and does not reflect the discussion that has been taking place here for so long. I will think of how to shorten my proposal and move some of it into an early section on === Several distinct definitions of atheism and their implications (extensions)=== --JimWae 05:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above is only meant to offer an alternative to a definition, which some people still seem to insist on starting the article with, when obviously the word does not have a static definition. It is not meant to be the entire lead. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  09:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was referring to my proposed intro which has received hardly any comment after 10 days --JimWae 16:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding absence of belief
Which of the following, if any, does an "absence of belief in God" logically entail?


 * 1) The belief that the doctrine of theism, "God exists," is not an accurate representation of reality.
 * 2) The belief that the doctrine of theism, "God exists," might be an accurate representation of reality.
 * 3) The belief that the doctrine of theism, "God exists," is an accurate representation of reality.
 * 4) Either 1 or 2
 * 5) The questions/answers are out of context (explain).

--24.57.157.81 20:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The belief that the map of treasure island is accurate/inaccurate/not accurate, requires an opinion of the map, so ask its owner.:) Non-belief of said map implies simply that one has no opinion of said map. Thus none of the answers are entailed.Modocc 21:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's say I own a map of treasure island. If I show you my map and ask you "Is my map accurate?" how would you respond? With "no comment?" --24.57.157.81 21:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Answer will depend on whether or not on I can relate to it and to you. Perhaps you will let me keep it? Then I might try to validate it. :)Modocc 22:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Everyone has a reasonable aversion to expressing beliefs that are not based in firm evidence one way or the other. Such an expression of belief could come back to bite you if it's incorrect.  Uncertainty of belief, however, does not imply an absence of belief.  If I asked you whether my flipping a coin would result in a heads or tails, you would be totally uncertain, and yet by "guessing" heads, you are stating your belief that it will land heads.  Even in the absence of any strong evidence one way or the other, anyone who is introduced to the idea of God has a belief as to whether or not that God exists. Along the same lines, classifying yourself as "agnostic" does not answer the question "Do you believe in God?". johnpseudo 22:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have seperately answered two different and unrelated questions with two sets of possible answers. The first question was for the implication of a nonbelief and then the second question for what would be my reply when given an informed belief. I am not "agnostic", for I firmly believe there is no God.  Of course learning concepts informs us. With our beliefs, their weights can change from 100% to zip to anywhere inbetween depending on our judgements.  With a treasure map, I might see if the map leads me to the promised treasure or pile of dust. Modocc 00:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I am not being enlightened by your responses. This sounds more like a "philosophy of doctrine" than anything to do with God. Is "absence of belief" some sort of philosophy with respect to doctrine? I think I can safely say you see it as something more than psychological, more than just a state of mind.--24.57.157.81 20:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * it can actually be something quite less than a psychological state - it can be just never having thought about it all. There is no need to discuss further whether "absence of belief" should appear in the article or not - it appears in definitions in the majority of the sources --JimWae 20:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether or not "absence of belief" is to be included is not what is being discussed here. Rather, it is what absence of belief means so it can be included in context with respect to philosophy, and with clarity, as many readers find the explanation in the article confusing and vague. And it would seem to me that thoughts, and the absence of thoughts, are psychological issues concerning the psychological nature of "thought," not something philosophical. It is "personal mind logic," not "nature of reality logic". --24.57.157.81 21:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And of course I would be happy to hear what you have to say about the original question--regardless of whether or not you agree with any of the other responses (start a new thread under this topic if you do). And please don't reference other people's responses, I would like your take on it; perhaps re-explaining a point in your own words will make it easier to understand than other people's explanations. --24.57.157.81 21:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * in short, an absence of belief in anything (God or not) does not entail any belief at all --JimWae 21:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Then it I'd say it is not philosophy, it is merely a description of a psychological state of person's mind. With that, ideas like "implicit" and "explicit" atheism are also mere psychology, and should not be treated as philosophical. That is how it looks to me. --24.57.157.81 22:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What "it" is not philosophy? (and what does it matter?) Atheism is not A philosophy, but how to define atheism (and many words) can involve philosophy. Btw, hardly anyone, when asked their philosopy answers "atheism". Also hardly anyone asked their religion would say "atheism" instead of "none" - (calling atheism a religion is an issue the article needs to deal with DIRECTLY). There really is no -ISM to define - what we are really debating here is who is to be included as "atheist" - a term which all my readings indicate preceded the term "atheism". We also need to deal with what -ISMs can be called "atheistic". Buddhism & Darwinism come to mind, as well as the whole field of science, since it is an attempt at explanation without deus ex machina. Communism & Capitalism too. Creationism, of course, is not atheistic. --JimWae 22:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Philosophers need to beware of drawing any conclusion from one belief to another - as people are notoriously inconsistent. Philosophers are on safer ground drawing conclusions from one concept to another, however--JimWae 22:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Philosophers need to beware of drawing any conclusion from one belief to another - as people are notoriously inconsistent.


 * People?! This is not how philosophy works. Philosophers don't take other people's beliefs and draw conclusions from them. Philosophy is the process of creating knowledge through observing the universe. When Descartes said "I think therefore I am" he was talking about himself not about you or anyone else.--24.57.157.81 23:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * By beware, I meant "avoid", "stay away from" - what did you think I meant? Btw, If you are advocating solipsism, you do not need my reply --JimWae 23:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I am not. The Descartes example has confused you. It was intended to illustrate the nature of philosophizing, not advocate anything. Indeed, solipsism, mind is everything, seems to be what these "absence of belief" people believe. Their belief in solipsism has lead them to construct a perverted nonsense form of philosophy which interprets psychological attitudes as universal truths. This conversation is over, thank you for your replies. --24.57.157.81 23:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What can we do to make this article GA
I feel as if since this is a real important article to wikipedia it should be at least a GA. I am wondering what all of you think we need to do to make this a GA or even a FA. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 20:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Look around a bit: At the top of this page there is a "to do" list, and you can click "show" on the failed GA template to see results from previous attempts, which might point you to needed improvements. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's "memes" isn't it
"I am not infected with the 'God exists' virus" = "My memeplex doesn't have the 'God exists' meme in it" = "I have an absence of belief."

That's it right? You're declaring yourself free of infection of the evil God exists virus, correct? You're freethoughting your memeplex so you can be on the rational response squad, right?

Well guess what: MEMES AREN'T REAL.--24.57.157.81 01:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No offense, but did you come here to debate or to work on the article? MFNickster 01:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * People post on this talk page nearly every day saying they have no idea what this "absence of belief" stuff means, that the definition is messed up. So don't tell me who has and who hasn't been working on the article. --24.57.157.81 01:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * p.s. Am I right? Is that what absence of belief is about? Because you didn't say. As usual. I've asked what "absence of belief" means on this talk page probably 8 or 9 times and I've never gotten a straight answer. --24.57.157.81 01:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I can't speak for everyone, but it seems fairly obvious to me. If you count the set of beliefs a person holds, and "God (XYZ) exists" is not among them, that belief would be absent from the set. MFNickster 02:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's the straightest answer yet, I wish you or someone else had made it sooner. Yep, this makes sense informally or in psychology. Perfectly fine for everyday usage--that's why it's in the dictionary (as the 2nd definition). It is an attitude towards the doctrine of/belief in theism. But the isms of philosophy are not propositional attitudes, they are doctrines. I will show you why this absence of belief stuff does not work:


 * Can you define "absence of belief" without either a) talking about yourself or b) talking about psychology? No. Does philosophy care about you? No, you can't. Does philosophy have anything to say about you? No. Does philosophy have anything to say about mind? Yes. It is called the philosophy of mind. Is an absence of belief of a philosophy of mind? No. It is therefore psychology.


 * It's just useless in metaphysics. Atheism is metaphysics, God is a metaphysical concept. An "absence of belief" has no use in metaphysics so what the heck is it doing here? What does an absence of belief have to do with the actual doctrine of theism? Not the what you think about it part, the doctrine. It's like "Yeah you don't have any beliefs about God? Ok, who cares then, since you're adding nothing to the discussion." --24.57.157.81 06:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the "absence of belief" is very similar to the question of whether metaphysics existed before there were any people to consider metaphysical concepts. Ontology considers whether potential existence is equivalent to actual existence, or in the case of St. Anselm's proof, is the concept of God enough to establish God's actual existence (in a very Platonic way)? MFNickster 06:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That question is complete nonsense and shows a complete lack of understanding of metaphysics, indeed philosophy. The question you ask is equivalent to asking whether or not physics existed before there were any people to consider physics concepts. This is an extremely stupid question, that is not how these things work. It is especially stupid when you are trying to explain ontology to me, as if I understood it less than you do, meanwhile you're saying things like this. I can only assume you are talking out your ass and just cherry-picking things to continue arguing because you in fact have no idea what you are talking about. Yes that's a little rude, but it is far more rude of you to act like you understand things when you don't. You can talk the talk, but you certainly don't walk the walk. --24.57.157.81 19:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * All I'm asking is whether beliefs exist without believers. You seem to think that they do, which strikes me as very Platonic. MFNickster 19:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are equivocating with the word belief. You use "beliefs" to mean both "metaphysical doctrines" and "doctrinal mind states." I don't "seem to think" anything about a fallacious question. Are you playing around?--24.57.157.81 20:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I'm not playing around! I'm trying to understand your point. Unfortunately, rather than try to understand what I was asking, you just dismissed it as a "stupid question." I'm not claiming to be an expert in philosophy, but you should be able to consider the proposition regardless of the context of the word "belief." Does philosophy exist without philosophers? Does physics exist without physicists, or is "physics" simply a word for our limited understanding of something beyond ourselves? How can you say on one hand that "memes aren't real" and on the other that metaphysics is real? MFNickster 22:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you say the moon travels around the Earth because of physics? If you would say that you would be wrong. The moon travels around the Earth. We describe the moon travelling around the Earth with physics. Is that an eye-opener? --24.57.157.81 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (And no I've not said metaphysics is "real." I don't know where you got that idea. Physics isn't "real" either. What I mean by real here, and in the first post of this topic, is that these are not substances and conceiving of them as something real and substantial is an error of the type I illustrated in the above comment.)--24.57.157.81 00:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you exclude the "doctrinal mind state" usage of "belief," that leaves only the metaphysical doctrine to consider. Does a belief-as-metaphysical-doctrine "exist" if there is no one to believe it? There would be no mind states involved, so if such a thing "exists" then metaphysics must be "real" independent of whether anyone studies it, no? MFNickster 01:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank you for clarifying the question. The answer is what I just said in the comment you are responding to. Metaphysics isn't "real," and I thought that I showed why in the post above that. The word "real" is just as slippery as "belief," so if you mean "real" in a different way, you are going to have to define it. I appreciate that you are trying to understand where I am coming from so you can tailor your response to my questions about "absence of belief," but keep in mind the answers to those questions don't have anything to do with what I think. Where are you going with this?--24.57.157.81 03:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The bottom line is this: are you are demanding a published, reliable source for the "absence of belief" angle (implying it should be removed if it's uncited), or are you planning to provide a reference showing how "absence of belief" poses a semantic or philosophical problem? MFNickster 14:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would be happy to have any source which clearly explains the "absence of belief" angle and its relationship to metaphysics and philosophy in general. It seems to me to be based on equivocation of the word "belief," so I hope any source you find defines belief clearly and in terms which can be critically analyzed under the auspices of analytical philosophy. And that it explain why this angle is so important within the philosophy of atheism yet conspicuously absent from any other philosophy.--24.57.157.81 20:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: I notice you made these same arguments last year as User:Benapgar, and have been banned indefinitely. You probably shouldn't be editing this article or debating its contents here on the talk page. MFNickster 03:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well there's not much I can say to that, is there?--24.57.157.81 05:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You could explain why "this conversation is over" means "I'm going to keep debating" :) MFNickster 06:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The conversation between me and JimWae... --24.57.157.81 19:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could this be an absence of belief that it is over ?. Oh, I don't know, I'm still trying to not think of the white bear and then along comes another pile of cute Polar bear cub pictures. Ttiotsw 06:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you denying that you are User:Benapgar or that you have been banned indefinitely from editing Wikipedia? MFNickster 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You have the power, He-man. --24.57.157.81 20:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't, actually, but aren't you evading the ban? Why would you do that? MFNickster 21:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

God misnamed?
The opening sentence says: "Atheism entails, minimally, the disbelief[1] in the existence of any deities.[2]" I think to the average person atheism means the belief in the non-existence of a supernatural creator of the universe, called in English "God". Maybe back in ancient Rome atheists disbelieved in lesser supernatural beings, called "gods", but I don't think that is how it is defined today. Just a thought. I'm sure that a lot of discussion has gone on already. Steve Dufour 10:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Advertising is a rich source of Bandwagon arguments, with many products claiming to be "number 1" or "most popular", even though this is irrelevant to the product's merits. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html Dimror 11:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If I worship Thor, will you call me an atheist? No, then I'd be that crazy guy who worships Thor. Atheism is the lack of belief in any deities. --Savant13 11:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How would you define a "deity"? For all we know Thor might be an alien from another planet. As far as I know nobody has ever said that he created the universe. Hence, it seems to me anyway, a person could believe in the powerful non-human being "Thor" and still not believe that the universe has a supernatural creator. Steve Dufour 15:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A supernatural entity which is omnipotent (in any context), created existence as we know it, has unlimited power over anything, and is above logic. At least, this is how monotheistic theists define it. Polytheists on the other hand assign one ability or element (for pagans) to each god, so the above doesn't apply to Thor.--Orthologist 16:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Many dharmic religions have deities which did not supposedly create the universe. People who worship them are not considered atheists.  --Savant13 19:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A deity is generally defined as an entity which has one of the above qualities, sorry about the misunderstanding. The majority of gods said to exist by most religions have a lot of these characteristics, however.--Orthologist 20:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I still think to the modern Western person an "atheist" is a person who does not believe that the universe has a supernatural creator. Worship does not come into it.  BTW I understand that in ancient Greece and Rome, and perhaps China too, some educated people did not believe in the gods but still took part in worship since they thought it was good for the social order. I really have no idea how the opening sentence should define "atheist", it's a tough question. Steve Dufour 20:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, atheism derives from the greek word "atheos" (un+god), which means that an atheist is one who does not believe in any form of deities. However, this doesn't prohibit him technically from believing in the supernatural, although I don't think that there are any atheists believing in something supernatural.--Orthologist 20:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To be a theist (deist) you must have a certain belief of the existence of a "deity". The atheist doesn't have that belief. Atheism doesn't state what are the "deity's" characteristics to refute "it" in basis of it's characteristics. It just says that the atheist doesn't hold this belief that the theist holds. Atheism includes but doesn't equal antitheism. Theism includes but doesn't equal monotheism.Dimror 20:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. But the definition of atheism doesn't need to include definitions of each concept in it -nor do any definitions. While it is true that atheism and theism are opposites, there is agnosticism, the middle ground. However, you're right: atheism doesn't imply antitheism, but it is true that only a minority of atheists -like me- advocate religion.--Orthologist 21:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think agnosticism isn't a middle ground. As a position it has nothing to do with belief in "deities". It has to do with the deities' characteristics. Thus if an agnosticist holds the belief of a theist, he's a theist. Otherwise he's an atheist. Dimror 21:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But all dictionaries define agnosticism as "the view according to which it is impossible to prove whether there is a deity or not". Surely, its strenght depends on the agnosticist to decide, but this is it, basically.Orthologist 14:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But being a theist or an atheist has to do with having or not having theistic beliefs, not proving sth. about them... So agnosticism doesn't in any way answer the question "do you believe in #%$%##$?" It goes on and says "I don't know if #%$%##$ exists". Ok, the agnosticist doesn't have knowledge about the existence or about specific characteristics of #%$%##$, but that doesn't address at any point the belief/absence-of-belief option. He still either is a theist, either not. Dimror 15:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Eg. neither the theist has any knowledge about his "deity's" existence. He just believes in it and he's an agnostic. That's why he's called a believer. If he knew he'd have no use for belief (and would be an unbeliever, disbeliever) and would be called a gnostic. Dimror 15:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits
Recent edits by Brian0918 appear to be vandalism. I am not sure how he got through the page protection, but I was unable to fix it. I am fairly certain that it violated NPOV. --Savant13 19:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Vandalism how? Also, I "got through" the page protection because I'm an admin. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-03-26 19:15Z


 * Well, the first sentence is better than it was, but
 * "entails" has confused editors here, so it perhaps is not a good word choice
 * "lack" implies deficiency
 * "any" is not clearly the minimal - the term has also been applied to those who believe in god X but not god Y
 * The first now is irrelevant, and the first "however" is off-target
 * Most of the other changes were improvements, however
 * Is it good policy for admins to edit while nobody else can?
 * What will it take to unlock the page? --JimWae 00:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that "lack" is not good, something like "absence of belief" would be better. Also I too am not sure about "entails" and "any".


 * I've requested unprotection at Requests_for_page_protection. Mdwh 03:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Atheism and Education Level
I recently gathered statistics from the US Census Bureau and USA Today in an attempt to find correlation between atheism and education level. I gathered the religious data from and the education level information from. Would this be something worth adding to the article? 68.85.119.250 20:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Problem is 'no religion' does not equate with 'atheist' However a chart would be nice. But most people know that atheists are more educated. 68.109.234.155 20:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is a problem with the different meanings, but I must also say that by and large there is no correlation according to those two sources. Maybe I am working the data incorrectly. 68.85.119.250 20:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be original research unless you can point out a reliable source that arrives at those conclusions from the same or similar data. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-03-26 20:57Z


 * No need. From Atheism"According to a study by Paul Bell, published in the Mensa Magazine in 2002, there is an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence. Analyzing 43 studies carried out since 1927, Bell finds that all but four reported such a connection, and concludes that 'the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind.' A survey published in Nature confirms that belief in a personal god or afterlife is at an all time low among the members of the National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of which believed in a personal god as compared to more than 85% of the US general population.[81]"This is already mentioned in the article, and a while ago there was some big kerfuffle about it too. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  00:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But showing that scientists are more likely to be atheists does not mean that there are not a lot of intelligent theists. And perhaps intelligent people who are theists are more likely to go into more theological fields. 68.109.234.155 00:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to be confused. Nonreligious people are, on average, more intelligent than religious people. That does not mean all smart people are nonreligious, or that all nonreligious people are more intelligent than religious people. All it really means is that if you take a random religious person and a random nonreligious person, chances are the nonreligious person is smarter, but this isn't true 100% of the time. Titanium Dragon 10:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Weak and Strong?
I know Suppose, I am a strong atheist about God and a weak atheist about gods, what kind of atheist am I? Am I only a weak atheist or something else?Modocc 00:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is an alternate version: I am a strong atheist about supreme beings and a weak atheist about some lesser beings. What am I?Modocc 01:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Still another version, which is the reversal of the first: I am a strong atheist about gods and a weak atheist about God. What am I?Modocc 01:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

These kind of questions are part of the reason I don't plan to spend much time working on this article. :-) To me a "deity" or "god" is a supernatural being whom humans should worship.  Supernatural beings which usually are not worshiped include "ghosts", "spirits", "demons", "titans", and others. "God" (with a capital "G") is the creator of the universe.  A person can believe in God without worshiping him or worship without believing, the same with the others. Steve Dufour 02:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The endless logical alternatives are enough to make anyone's head spin.:-) Thanks.Modocc 02:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * PS. My conclusion is that atheists are actually free to size the supposed deity candidate up or down, and even undress or tar the guy. :-)Modocc 03:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

unprotection?
could the article be unprotected - it's been closed doors for a while now..... Petesmiles 01:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Last try
(I've now refined this into a much better syllogism below 08:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC))
 * Possible beliefs (belief and disbelief) in the proposition "God exists."
 * 1) Belief that God exists = belief that the proposition God exists is true.
 * 2) Belief that God doesn't exist = belief that the proposition God exists is false.
 * 3) Disbelief that God exists = disbelief that the proposition God exists is true.
 * 4) Disbelief that God doesn't exist = disbelief that the proposition God exists is false.


 * Natural reasons for disbelief in a proposition[1]
 * 1) Because one does not know any arguments.


 * Critical reasons for disbelief in a proposition
 * 1) Because one does not know if the arguments are sound.
 * 2) Because the proposition is proven flawed[3].


 * Agnosticism
 * 1) If one does not know if the arguments are sound, one does not know if the proposition is true or false.
 * 2) If one does not know if the proposition is true or false, one is an agnostic[4].

Therefore critical disbelief is agnosticism.

[1]Unawareness of a proposition is "natural" but not a "natural reason."

[3]This can be another set of beliefs and disbeliefs unto itself. The critical reason, however, is that it be known to be flawed.

[4]Note that there is only one proposition to not know whether it is true or false: God exists.


 * Trivia: Disbelief and belief are propositional attitudes.

If anyone notices any ambiguity or errors, let me know and I will correct them - ba.--24.57.157.81 06:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem I feel is that you express this as a dichotomy of just true and false. Science has shades of grey (it's not maths after all) in that there is a probability of hypothesis being proven true or false (which over time can migrate from one to the other). If we consider a hypothesis of god entities (one or many, take your pick) then my feeling is that it is unlikely. This doesn't make me an agnostic but a tick under a strong atheist (along with Dawkins). Using true and false unreasonably fills the agnostic camp. Ttiotsw 07:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. I am more concerned with valid reasons for disbelief. Of course one can believe or disbelieve something without a valid reason for doing so. --24.57.157.81 07:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC) (Edit: 08:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC))


 * I don't think there is a large issue with the concern Ttiotsw expresses. As I understand, it is possible to be both a strong atheist and an agnostic - one who believes, but not to the point of claiming knowledge, that god(s) do(es) not exist(s). That would accurately describe myself. Huxley contended that the approach-to-divinity of agnosticism necessarily resulted in atheism - or am I confusing him with someone else? ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  12:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am looking for valid reasons though. I am looking only for justified belief/disbelief. If you believe God does not exist but you cannot justify it critically, you do not have a valid reason for believing God does not exist.--24.57.157.81 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Refined version
Arguments have assertions. The assertion here is "The proposition God exists is true." If the argument for this assertion is sound, valid and the premises are true, then one is justified in believing the proposition God exists is true, and therefore in believing God exists. If the argument is not sound, one is justified in disbelief that the proposition God exists is true.

Another assertion is "The proposition God exists is false." If the argument is sound, one is justified in believing the proposition God exists is false, and therefore in believing God does not exist. If the argument is not sound, one is justified in disbelief that the proposition God exists is false.

As mentioned under Agnosticism above, if neither argument is sound, one does not know if the proposition is true or false. If one argument is not sound, both arguments must not be sound as the assertions are logically opposite. --24.57.157.81 07:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT CAVEAT:

This is the logic I use to define theism, atheism, and being agnostic with respect to the proposition. I think this is the proper philosophical way, as it is formal logic and rational.

Now, that being said, I think I now have an idea why it can get confusing. When I state something like "the proposition God exists is false" (rationally, it is unproven so this is "a belief" it is faith), I mean it completely irrespective of every religion that has ever existed. One can believe or disbelieve a proposition on one's own terms. God is defined by the reader, not by the culture. Again, I think this is the best possible way of defining the topics of theism and atheism, as it is very simple, completely generalized, and totally rational. This is likely because I was not brought up religious, at all. I've been to church--sit down and listen to a priest--maybe 3 or 4 times in my life, and that was mainly for the Christmas carols.

The "theistic beliefs" people talk about are theological propositions, not metaphysical propositions, and so are reasonable only within theology (which presumes God exists). One can believe God exists while rejecting every other religious proposition, such as the proposition that the world is 6000 years old, which has been empirically proven to be false, or the proposition that God is a nice guy.

It seems to me that people are using "atheism" in reference to all propositions related to theism--except the proposition that God exists. While I would agree that these views fall under the auspices of atheism, as does theology fall under the auspices of theism, "disbelief in God" should not be promoted as the formal philosophical definition, as it confuses the issue. --24.57.157.81 01:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Rational logical argument here? Anyone home?

Here I'll tell you the way most people think of this:


 * Theist: Someone who believes God exists, whether or not they think they're being rational about it (note the vast majority of theist religion focuses on faith--would you call a Christian an agnostic? That's a red flag that you're getting off course).
 * Atheist: Someone who believes God doesn't exist, whether or not they think they're being rational about it. These people are often referred to as "unbelievers" or "disbelievers."
 * Agnostic: Someone who is uncertain whether or not God exists. These people are less often referred to as "unbelievers" or "disbelievers."

The only "non-faith" position is agnostic.

That's all you need to describe people's beliefs in God. It covers all the bases.

But what about implicit and explicit belief? You do not need "positive" and "negative" belief, or "implicit" and "explicit" belief. These are propositional attitudes that can be applied to anything, not just the existence of God. They are superfluous. They can be applied to any belief, even the belief that the sky is blue. All including them here does is confuse people. Just because some science fiction writer made them up with respect to atheism doesn't mean that atheism is somehow their subject. And they do confuse people, as demonstrated by this very talk page. And of course there is "strong" and "weak" atheism. Ridiculous. This is an arbitrary division. A clear cut "pov fork" as you Wikipedians might call it.

To include discussion on propositional attitudes and dividing up atheism every which way and pulling it apart is needlessly multiplying entities. Theist: Believes God exists. Atheist: Believes God does not exist. Agnostic: Is unsure whether or not God exists. Don't make it more complicated than it has to be by including all this extraneous crap.

That is ALL you need. Ism means belief, ism means faith. It is a simple, simple, simple, rule, and, as long as you abide by it everything makes a lot of sense. If you pretend it means nothing, then you screw everything up.

Frankly, I think the only reason you guys talk about the "lack of belief" as if it were something different than being agnostic is because your only opinion, and the only research you ever did, comes from the informal second definition in a dictionary.

And let me re-iterate one more time: the editors of this article, who constantly filibuster and block queries from readers, editors who, believing in their arrogance that they have it all sorted out, have demonstrably failed in their duty to express the ideas clearly and succinctly; something clearly demonstrated by the large number of people who complain about the definition.

Editor grade: F for failure.

--24.57.157.81 19:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to think the article should take a stand on these issues, rather than report on the subject as it has been examined in the literature. You make complaints but don't offer any external sources to corroborate, which makes it appear that you are doing original research. Is your issue really with the 'arrogance' of other editors, or with the authors of the works in question, such as George H. Smith, A.J. Ayer, Kai Nielsen, and Antony Flew? MFNickster 20:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You can go filibuster yourself, since I'm done here. You can't even intelligently respond to a Socratic argument.--24.57.157.81 20:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

“Democratic” atheists...
Democratic atheists can each choose the best criteria of their threshold(what is or isn’t a deity), and maybe get introduced to a candidate deity, “Hi there. ‘He’s just this guy you know.’” or just the idea of it.

They can then assess their situation... "am I ignoring this one?", "am I confused?", "am I not comprehending?", "where are my glasses?", "do I believe any of it"(et cetera) or "am I registering disapproval(s)"? "Should I vote?" or "abstain from voting if I am not sure?", "what if I just give it 9?" or "would a forty-two out of nothing be good enough?".

And whenever it seems we are losing it, "Don’t Panic.". Aye! :-) Modocc 07:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Also note that democratic atheists can give us "democratic atheism(s)". Modocc 08:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Combining Refs
I thought I'd try combining the refs, although it's all pretty complex. If this kind of combination has been rejected in the past, feel free to let me know with a comment on my talk page. Otherwise, I thought I'd try to re-finagle it so we could combine the ones in the first paragraph while keeping the rest in tact. Mackan79 02:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Image of Socrates
The image caption indicates that Socrates was charged with being an atheist. However, Plato's writings tended to suggest that all the charges against him, including impiety, were false. The text of the article doesn't indicate that anyone today regards him as an atheist. May I suggest an image of an undisputed historical atheist to lead the history section? The Socrates image could be misleading and confusing to a casual reader, who might tend to conclude by the way the image is depicted that Socrates was an atheist. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Until more recently, "atheist" was more often a charge against someone than a positive statement held by someone, so it makes more sense to use the most famous charge of atheism from classical antiquity. Socrates doesn't really deny the charge outright either. Should we also remove the image of Buddha, so as not to confuse casual readers? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-03-28 16:51Z


 * Plato portrayed Socrates as claiming, among other things, to receive visitations and inspiration from a daemon which Socrates regarded as a divine being. I don't believe Wikipedia should be suggesting otherwise in the absence of a source. Do you have a source who says otherwise? I wouldn't have thought finding an image of a well-known historical atheist would present a problem or create any need for delving into anything controversial. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't my purpose to "find an image of a well-known historical atheist". It was my purpose to describe the most notable example of [authority X] condemning [individual Y] with the claim of atheism. As I explained above, back then, "atheism" was more often a condemnation, so it makes sense to illustrate the most famous such condemnation. Your argument rests on redefining my purpose in using the image. I'm not saying he's an atheist. The caption doesn't say he is an atheist. It's the history section; I'm illustrating the most famous event in history related to the usage of "atheism" during that period. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-03-28 19:38Z


 * I have less of a basis for the Buddha image. However, given the prevalence of theistic Buddhism which perceives Buddha as a divine figure, it would seem that the claim that Budda was an atheist is only one POV. My view is that images should generaly reflect consensus. There is danger in using images to push particular POVs in complicatd controversies, particularly when the controversies are parenthetical to the main article topic. Otherwise one is in danger of presenting associations that are iconographic rather than informative in nature. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that there's anything controversial about Socrates being *accused* of atheism. For example, consider the entry on athiesm in the Catholic Encyclopedia (presumably an authority on atheism) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm
 * " Atheism is that system of thought which is formally opposed to theism. Since its first coming into use the term atheism has been very vaguely employed, generally as an epithet of accusation against any system that called in question the popular gods of the day. Thus while Socrates was accused of atheism (Plato, Apol., 26,c.) and Diagoras called an atheist by Cicero (Nat. Deor., I, 23), Democritus and Epicurus were styled in the same sense impious (without respect for the gods) on account of their trend of their new atomistic philosophy."


 * Or consider the Annotated text of the Apology, from the Clarke University Department of Philosophy: http://socrates.clarke.edu/aplg0104.htm


 * 26b
 * Soc. Then, by the gods, Meletus, of whom we are speaking, tell me and the court, in somewhat plainer terms, what you mean! For I do not as yet understand whether you affirm that I teach other men to acknowledge some gods, and therefore that I do believe in gods, and am not an entire atheist - this you do not lay to my charge, - but only you say that they are not the same gods which the city recognizes - the charge is that they are different gods. Or, do you mean that I am an atheist simply, and a teacher of atheism?


 * Commentary: Socrates is declared by Meletus to be an atheist and to corrupt the religion of the young.
 * Mel. I mean the latter - that you are a complete atheist.


 * 26c
 * Soc. What an extraordinary statement! Why do you think so, Meletus? Do you mean that I do not believe in the godhead of the sun or moon, like other men?


 * Edhubbard 19:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

All vs many agnostics
I don't understand this distinction. According to Merriam Webster, the broad definition of an agnostic is "one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god". An agnostic is someone who does not have a belief either way, right? (if not, then what is it called?) An agnostic questions the very existence/nonexistence of a deity. An agnostic theist simply acknowledges that it is not knowable, but still has a belief in god. Thus they couldn't be part of the set of "agnostics". &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-03-29 12:43Z
 * There are two types of agnostics. One believes that proving or disproving god is completely impossible, and maintains an equality over the two positions, and the agnostic who believes it is possible to prove or disprove god, but it's not feasible. However, I'm not sure if agnostics question the ability to prove god, that's scepticism. Sceptics believe in something, but query knowledge itself, while standing by their beliefs. Agnostics, however, are totally not commited to any opinion.--Orthologist 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So you agree that all agnostics are without beliefs either way? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-03-29 16:34Z
 * That's the definition. Complete agnostics don't even assign even probabilities to whether god exists or not- they don't think it's 50-50. They just don't take a stance, temporarily for weak agnostics, and permanently for strong agnostics.--Orthologist 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So a broad definition of atheism as "absence of belief in god" would therefore include agnostics, correct? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-03-29 16:52Z
 * That's a good point. Maybe we can replace "absence of belief in God" with "denial that God exists" or something like that. After all, even weak atheists deny god; they're just not that explicit as strong atheists.--Orthologist 17:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well "denial" and so on are already covered - the point is to include the "absence of belief" definition, and we can't ignore it. According to this definition, non-believers in God would be atheists even if they have never denied God (they'd be implicit weak atheists). Mdwh 22:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The article agnostic theism may help clarify these distinction(s). I have not finished reading it though, so I'll hold my breath. :-) Modocc 18:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agnostic theists choose to believe in god without evidence, just as most theists do. Such a person cannot be "one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god" as is required by agnosticism. Agnostic theists are a subset of theists (or indeed they represent all theists), but they are not a subset of agnostics. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-03-29 18:43Z
 * I agree completely, under the broadest definition of agnostics. But with a stricter definition, god being unknowable, the agnostic theist might call themselves "agnostic" when asked, but perhaps either worship or pray in private or wobble a path though the thickets, thorns and bushes, unsure of what to believe. Modocc 19:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about people who lie to other people. Agnostic theists believe in a god, but don't know what name to call him. Agnostics have no belief in god. Very big difference. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-03-29 19:08Z
 * I don't see a burning bush here either. :) The MANY and perhaps the agnostic theism too can go. Modocc 19:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that there is more than one definition of agnosticism. It often means either "someone who doesn't know if God exists" or "someone who believes we can't know if God exists" - these are a separate issue to belief, and it is possible to hold one of these positions, whilst also believing that God exists (agnostic theism). However, another definition (that appears to be the more "lay" usage that has become common) is someone who neither believes in the existence or the nonexistance of God - this definition is equivalent to weak atheism (either explicit or implicit).

We can't label all agnostics as having an absence of belief, when that doesn't apply to some self-identified agnostics (under the first definitions I gave). If this is considered too confusing, perhaps instead we should drop the reference to agnosticism here altogether. Mdwh 22:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Implications concerning agnostics and children could left out of the intro. With children in particular, important nature vs nurture issues will likely need to be addressed at some point. The implication that everyone's kids are atheists should only be done with sensitivity and great detail. Within the intro, the theistic readers may just get angry and not read past this implication. Modocc 01:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It says "newborn children", I don't think anyone would say they have any beliefs? It's not saying that they are atheists as an absolute fact, it's saying that they would be included in this broadest definition of atheism. Mdwh 02:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists is saying they are atheists! No need to mince words, either. I just don't think its necessary to point it out, especially with a POV "however".  Its tends to show or imply bias toward the former definition. For theists, nature vs nurture is important for there is a perception that perception is preordained and part of nature and not nurtured... innocent nature can be corrupted by nurture(evil atheists).   Its an issue, whether or not it gets addressed.  In any case, removing this part makes sense as far as making the intro more abstract and minimizing the number of references needed at this juncture.Modocc 02:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If we remove it from the intro, we would have to explain it elsewhere, at least. I don't think the "newborn atheist" view is explained anywhere else in the article, is it? I would be fine with removing it from the intro and explaining it elsewhere in the article. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-03-30 03:08Z
 * I've been thinking this recently too. It would be better to cut the definition part of the lead severely, and merge what is currently there with "Etymology" and "Scope of atheism" into a new initial section covering all of that, titled something like "The word atheist" or "Scope of the word". ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  09:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean that it says they are atheists according to that one definition of atheism. All of the definitions are POV in that sense, in that not everyone agrees with each definition. I guess the question is, are there people who accept the "absence of belief" definition, but say that newborn children have beliefs in god therefore aren't included. Though having said that, I don't mind removing it from the intro as it's a bit unclear and better to mention later on. Mdwh 09:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the problem here is trying to work out a sharp, universally agreed upon boundary line between one category and another when they really shade into each other, with somewhat difficult to agree upon boundaries, which may vary from commentator to commentator. One solution would be to admit someplace in the definition section, that some individuals hold some difficult to classify views, which might slip across the magic line in the sand depending on where different commentators decide to draw it.  Perhaps we could find some references that note the difficulty we are struggling over here, note them, and not necessarily have to decide ourselves what is and isn't atheism, what is and isn't agnosticism.  As wikipedians, our role is not to decide on the debate ourselves, but merely to report on it in an NPOV and verifiable fashion.  Edhubbard 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article already goes to great lengths to report from a NPOV on a large body of literature. Abstracting this work into a summary is necessary, but not easy, given the diversity. Modocc 01:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

From the wikipedia agnostic page "Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and non-religious people,[1] although this can be misleading depending on the number of agnostic theists who identify themselves first as agnostics and second as followers of a particular religion." Thus, I will have to agree that confusion reigns, perhaps MOST agnostics is best ? I would prefer no qualifier. "Many" is ok, it can go, but perhaps it should not. I don't know how many believers would say, first, they are "agnostic", but perhaps its important not to lump all agnostics as having the same belief system. Modocc 23:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We could add a qualifier, i.e. "unbelieving agnostic" (although to me that seems redundant). I think we should keep in the statement about newborn children, since it's a very interesting and unexpected perspective. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-03-30 02:45Z
 * "unbelieving agnostic" works. :-) if it is not misconstrued as an insult. I agree the implications are interesting and unexpected for some and will not cause most readers to blink. Yet, it will certainly raise the ire of many and likely cause those that need to read it the most to never do so, because they judge the book by its cover.  I'm on the fence, but I also think it is awkward too. Perhaps too many issues are being raised in this summary. I'm ok with it if most wiki editors are too.  Modocc 03:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If we remove it from the intro, we would have to explain it elsewhere, at least. I don't think the "newborn atheist" view is explained anywhere else in the article, is it? I would be fine with removing it from the intro and explaining it elsewhere in the article. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-03-30 03:28Z
 * Its discussed in the body and with the same references too.  "Although this definition of atheism is frequently disputed, it is not a recent invention; as far back as 1772, d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God".[47] More recently, science fiction author George H. Smith (1979) put forth a similar view:..." Modocc 03:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Road to featured status
I'd like to help improve this article to featured status. I noticed that the German Wikipedia version is featured, so I checked out what their article looked like when it became featured. I'm not sure we need to include every detail they have, and there is most likely bias in their scope (as there is in ours), but here are their subheadings:


 * 1) systematics of the term
 * 2) history of western atheism
 * 3) Greek and Roman Antiquity
 * 4) Middle Ages
 * 5) Reformation
 * 6) Enlightenment
 * 7) Enlightenment in France
 * 8) Immanuel Kant
 * 9) 19th and 20th Century
 * 10) materialistic atheism (Marx, Engels, Feuerbach)
 * 11) Friedrich Nietzsche
 * 12) Sigmund Freud
 * 13) existentialist atheism
 * 14) analytic philosophy
 * 15) atheism in different manifestations
 * 16) atheism and politics
 * 17) atheism and religion
 * 18) Atheistic views in eastern religions
 * 19) Pantheism
 * 20) Christian atheism
 * 21) atheism and science
 * 22) practical atheism
 * 23) atheism and morality
 * 24) demographics
 * 25) criticism of atheism
 * 26) references
 * 27) reference books and other literature

It looks like we have a lot of work to go. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-03-29 19:30Z

Weasel words
If we want this to get to featured status someday, we really need to work on curbing the weasel words in the article. There are 28 occurrences of "many", 28 of "some", 14 of "most", 1 of "several", 13 of "often", 4 of "frequently", and 3 of "sometimes". Either we need to find specific information to replace these vagueries, or we need to reword the sentences to avoid them. In any case, sources need to be used where possible. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-03-30 17:02Z

Rewriting lead section
The lead section was chock full of weasel words ("more", "some", "many", "frequently", etc) and restated the same thing over and over again. Using the German Featured article as a partial basis, and with pithiness in mind, I've been rewriting the lead section. I've used the first paragraph as a basic intro, the 2nd paragraph as a history of the term, and the 3rd paragraph as an explanation of the various modern groups that may be seen as "atheistic". Most importantly, I've tried to get rid of all weaseliness and make the writing as concise as possible. Let me know how you like the changes, or have questions about my reasons for the changes. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-03-30 20:19Z
 * I'm afraid to point out that I think the definition is still not good enough. Before we even get on with this, we have to define god. I don't think there are atheists who believe in the supernatural, and being an atheist does not entail not believing in a creator god, which would be "anti-deism". Moreover, I still don't think that absence of belief makes one atheist; one has to clearly renounce god to be declared an one.--Orthologist 21:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you basing those opinions on? All atheists have an "absense of belief in [some] god". We should leave the definition of "god" to the article on god. There are varying definitions of atheism, so you can't simply apply one narrow definition and say all others are invalid. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-03-30 23:51Z
 * I agree, a broad definition that applies to all forms of atheism is preferable as the definition and more specific forms of atheism can be discussed in the article. --Alexc3 (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Terry Pratchett is an atheist who believes in the existence of souls. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  07:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Footnote 4 - about antitheism & Zacharias is off-topic. Antitheism is not the same as either denial of existence nor the same as rejection of belief in a deity - and has not been even introduced yet - nor has Zacharias been introduced. The footnote definition section should distinguish denial of existence from rejection of theistic belief --JimWae 17:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Trash the "scope of atheism" section

 * Part of the ambiguity in defining atheism arises from the related difficulty in defining words like deity and God. The various conceptions of God and deities lead to differing ideas regarding the scope of atheism.
 * In contexts where theism is defined as the belief in a singular personal God, for example, people who believe in a variety of other deities may be classified as atheists, including deists and even polytheists. In the 20th century, this view has fallen into disfavor as theism has come to encompass belief in all divinities, not just the Abrahamic one. However, in the Western world arguments against the Christian God often continue to be seen as arguments for atheism, because of the strong influence of traditional theological thought.[14][16]
 * A problematic consequence of the broader redefinition of theism is that atheism can be seen as disbelief in almost anything; many pantheists, in particular, believe in a "God" that is synonymous with the natural world, which would make disbelieving in such a God result in disbelief in nature.[17] Increasingly abstract or figurative conceptions of divinity have led some sources to circumvent the problem by defining atheism as disbelief in all "immaterial beings",[2] rejection of the supernatural world altogether, or simply as irreligion.[6] However, god-centered definitions of atheism remain more common.

I propose we delete the "scope of atheism" subsection, possibly merging paragraph 1 into the "types and typologies" lead paragraph. Paragraph 2 is just a restatement of things said in other sections, and paragraph 3 is just garbage. At best the whole section is more of a discussion of the scope of theism, reworded as a discussion of atheism by sticking in the result of "disbelief in X" for the various definitions X of theism. I think paragraph 1 of this section summarizes it well enough, and if people want to examine the full scope of theism, they can check out theism (which is linked in paragraph 1).

I just don't think the section can be salvaged. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-01 03:48Z


 * I agree with its removal. Atheism is pretty simple in it's scope, it embraces everything theism isn't. The case of pantheism I think is a case of atheism but reworded not to offend the religious majority of the societies where it historically appeared. It hasn't been always this easy to just say you're an atheist, and pantheism fitted in nicely. And also if "god" makes for a synonym of nature then you by default don't "believe" in nature, because you "know" nature. Those "arguments" seem like empty pedantic rhetoric going nowhere.Dimror 06:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It was quite painful to read. The section was added in its entirity pretty recently, by User:Silence on January 5th. I've updated the article with my proposed change. It may still need some work, but I'm just glad that the section is gone. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-01 14:27Z

Proposal: Cleanup or delete the last paragraph of "Pejorative definition: atheism as immorality"

 * In modern times, opponents continue to conflate atheism with such beliefs as communism, nihilism, irreligion, and antitheism. Antitheism typically refers to a direct opposition to theism; however, antitheism has also been used, particularly in religious contexts, to refer to opposition to God or divinity, rather than to the belief in God.[28] Under the latter definition, it may actually be necessary to be a theist in order to be an antitheist, to oppose God itself and not the idea of God. This position is seldom expressed, though opponents of atheism often claim that atheists hate God. Under the former definition, antitheists may be atheists who believe that theism is harmful to human progression, or simply ones who have little tolerance for views they perceive as irrational (cf. faith and rationality).[29] A related stance is militant atheism, which is generally characterized by antireligious views.[30]

I propose getting rid of all or much of this paragraph. While the first sentence is usable, and fits with the section ("pejorative definition"), the 2nd to 4th sentences are an unrelated digression, and the 5th and 6th sentences have nothing to do with the section. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-01 15:37Z


 * Support Not only this paragraph, there seems to be a lot of digressions and ill-written or irrelevant information scattered all over. --Hirak 99 14:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Add links to Newsweek/MNSBC story?
In the most recent issue of Newsweek, and reprinted online at msnbc.com is an extended story and debate (10 pages of debate and 6 pages of introduction and background) on the question of Religion: Is God Real? The participants in the debate are Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation and Rick Warren author of A Purpose Driven Life. Obviously, these two individuals are among the current voices of their respective groups.

The story begins here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889147/site/newsweek/ and the abridged text of the discussion is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889148/site/newsweek/. I think that these are useful additions to the atheism page, because they show the contemporary state of the debate. They are not necessarily authoritative, and clearly reflect the two participant's particular POVs, but they do reflect the ongoing, and rising, discussion of faith and atheism in the United States. I will also copy this to the Sam Harris page. Thoughts? Edhubbard 16:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't NewScientist have a similar feature recently with Dawkins debating some other guy? ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺ )  16:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't see it, but I would guess it was Dawkins vs. Alister McGrath, who has been an outspoken critic of Dawkins... indeed, some might even say that McGrath's fame comes from being Dawkins' most outspoken critic. I haven't seen the story, or a link, so we'd have to look at that. Implicit in your question is a bigger question, which is do we want to have every news story that's going on right now about prominent athiests and thier critics?  When does this move from useful linking to just overwhelming recentism?  This is part of why I wanted to see what people thought before adding these links.  Edhubbard 16:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Need to rewrite "positive/negative defintion" sections
These sections are hopelessly confusing, and restate the same thing over and over. The definitions for terms in the first section aren't given until the 2nd section. Essentially, both sections need to be merged together and made more concise. In any case, it needs to be rewritten from scratch. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-02 15:00Z

I've set up a rewrite area at Atheism/temp. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-02 15:24Z

Support I have come to the same conclusion independently. Instead of being a crisp encyclopedia article, there seems to be lots of text here which refer to confusing and badly presented material. --Hirak 99 14:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait, are you referring to the original version of this section, or my updated version? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-03 15:36Z


 * Sorry I was referring to the original version. --Hirak 99 20:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I support a simplification, we don't need so much detail on how to define this term, there are two subarticles on issues of weak/strong and implicit/explicit, and it's not that interesting! Just because there's a pointless turf war over who gets to have the default position, doesn't mean the issue is particularly interesting. I supporting making room for more of the relevant stuff, following ze German example. Some of the cutting here has been brutal, but it's moving in the right direction I think. --Merzul 00:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Your Edits to Atheism"

 * moved from user talk:brian0918

I am concerned about your edits to Atheism. It seems to me as if you are working against the efforts of the wikipedia community, possibly as part of some religious agenda. I certainly hope this is not the case, but your persistent efforts to change the article against the efforts of the majority concerns me. --Savant13 13:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which edits are you referring to? Most of my changes are to clarify very poorly-written text. I've explained the reasons for much of my changes above (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) - have you replied to any of these? Which "persistent efforts" are you referring to; have I been edit-warring with someone without realizing it? I'm going to need more information before I can provide a substantial reply. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-03 13:19Z
 * I didn't go into too much depth, but this seems like a good faith effort to clean up an article that was a bit too technical. I didn't look into all the discussion, but I don't see any religious agenda. Also, if there is a thrust to improve this article, one thing that has always bothered me is the pejorative definition inside a types and topology section. I wonder if the pejorative definition couldn't be merged into the history... so the main sections would smoothly go from Etymology, History, and then to modern definitions. Just a thought... --Merzul 17:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how I could be seen as having a religious agenda... &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-03 17:34Z
 * I have seen you making similar edits before (which were promptly changed back by many and varied users), and I object to you moving this discussion to this page. Because there was no evidence of bad faith, I did not want to make a public accusation.  In regards to a religious agenda, it seemed to me that some of the deleting of information you deleted was meant to eliminate misconceptions about atheism.  --Savant13 22:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which edits? You still have not said which of my edits you object to. My user talk page is public; as is this page. This page also happens to be the page for discussions about editing this article, not my talk page. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-04 04:31Z
 * Your talk page is more private than this, and you can delete stuff that is on your talk page. I am now dropping the subject because others have started removing all mild POV.  No hard feelings, Savant13 12:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't delete stuff from your talk page, only archive it. You still haven't said which "POV edits" you're referring to. As far as I can tell, nobody has corrected anything of mine with the reason that it was POV. I've seen corrections based on my misinterpretation of early Indic beliefs, and my misinterpretation of strong atheism, but that's about it. I still don't know how I could possibly have a religious bias... &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-04 12:50Z


 * I see, you are probably primarily referring to the lead paragraph? This has been a bit brutally shifted to primarily imply that atheism is absence of belief and the other definitions can accompany it. I think the general idea is very good, I wonder if this can be expressed more neutrally. The first two sentences are at least absolutely undisputable, no matter how you define atheism, it will entail an absence of belief in God, and can be contrasted with theism. We could now follow the german wikipedia's example saying that atheism can then vary in scope (ranging from the denial of the Christian god to denial of everything deity-like), strength (from weak to strong) and awareness (from implicit to explicit). --Merzul 22:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this was an excellent addition, and a great way of summarizing the various definitions in one sentence. Maybe it can be made more concisely? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-04 04:34Z

I'm glad you liked it. The exact formulation could perhaps be improved, but I really like this general idea: I liked the way it has been tweaked, and I'm quite happy with the current lead. The parenthesis are perhaps annoying, but before we spend to much time tweaking the wording, I would like to ask if this general idea is acceptable to most contributors. At least this edit by Mdwh, indicates he might agree to the general idea. Is that so? And what do other people think? --Merzul 10:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Expressing the necessary condition for an atheist definition: "atheism entails absence of belief" and that it is contrasted with theism.
 * 2) Clarifying how different definitions vary in range, degree and recognition, as it were.
 * Looks good to me. Maybe replace the parentheses with dashes? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-04 12:50Z

Weasels?
How to deal with them? Do we just add footnotes to back up "many atheists". The right thing would be to probably rephrase the statements. What do you all think? --Merzul 22:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC) True. I sort of gave up anyway, they are too weaselling, so the structure needs re-doing, again perhaps following the German example of fleshing out the historical section giving the reasons for atheism there. They don't have this separate "reasons not to believe", and what a good idea. Isn't a section entitled "reasons for atheism" an open invitation for Original Research? --Merzul 09:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Yes, you are right, they set it up within the types and topologies section, that's interesting. In any case, it is much better than our weasels because it attributes the view to a certain school of thought, and is far more specific than "some people". --Merzul 14:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * According to WP:WEASEL we should specifically refer to the people who we are quoting. Most of the sections that currently are filled with weasel words need to be rewritten from scratch, so I wouldn't bother trying to fix any of it for now. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-04 04:30Z
 * Actually, they do have such a section, it's just set up differently. Instead of listing different reasons, they list different names for atheists, based on their reasons ("Pragmatischer Atheismus", "Agnostizismus", "Szientistischer Atheismus", etc). &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-04 12:45Z
 * Some people would disagree with you. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918  &bull; 2007-04-04 18:22Z

Hinduism issues
Namaste. I recently made a comment that the article is written from a Western point of view and has some mischaracterization of Eastern religions. I noticed today that the Rig Veda is now being characterized as a font of atheist inspiration (it is in fact one of the most resoundingly theistic collections of religious literature ever written). Also, the largely extinct philosophical school of Carvaka, which is not even mentioned in most general texts on Hinduism, is perhaps being mischaracterized. The issue here is that Hinduism on the whole is a decidedly theistic religion from the point of view of popular practice, and these few comments taken out of context do not give a very meaningful sense of that. A similar problem exists for the Buddhist references, but to a different degree, and fails to take into account the variation in Buddhism by country and sect. I mention this not to be critical but in hopes that people will take care not to overgeneralize with regard to these complex religions which have millions of adherents and hundreds of active sects, each with somewhat different views. I will try to add a couple of additional citations to the article specifically with a view to clarifying these points. I welcome dialog on the issue, and enjoy the opportunity to engage in interfaith discussions so I may learn more about this interesting subject. Buddhipriya 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this should be taken seriously, if you have knowledge on these issues, then please do help. Consider the quotation "I have never seen thee, O Lord my God; I do not know thy form." You might think this expresses some agnosticism, but it is Anselm of Canterbury lamenting over divine hiddenness, and so we must be equally careful with these very complicated eastern traditions. I have no knowledge of their intricate details, so I can't help here. The citation we have for interpreting the hymn as agnostic is certainly more competent than myself, but it isn't exactly a scholarly journal. I'm not saying this is wrong, just that Buddhipriya's concerns should be taken seriously. --Merzul 02:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that your quotation from Anselm of Canterbury captures the idea of the Rig Veda hymn perfectly. I will continue to add additional references to strengthen the position of the article.  A comment on the word "Eastern", by the way, is that in the field it is more common to refer to "Indic" (as in Indology) to refer to the Dharmic religions, which in the case of Buddhism later spread out to the "Far East" in China and Japan at a much later period.  The development of Buddhism in the Far East and in Tibet is when the divinization of Buddhism had full flower, and many of the Japanese and Tibetan forms are extremely theistic in practice. Buddhipriya 03:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Expressing atheism and expressing views that can lead to atheism are two different things. The Rig Veda is one of the latter. Regardless, it is relevant to this article. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-04 04:36Z
 * I agree. Certainly this belongs to the article, but I welcome Buddhipriya's work to balance the coverage. We lose credibility by making too sweeping assertions about these traditions. This is one of the points that external reviewers might consider a "big blunder" in comparison to the Britannica ;) I'm just saying we need to be careful, but I guess we all agree to that. --Merzul 09:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Since it appears that the Rig Veda hymn connection to atheism/agnosticism is strenuous at best, I think we should just remove that bit from the article. It's a nice analysis of the hymn, but not really relevant to the history of atheism, now that it's clear that it was probably taken out of context. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-04 17:59Z

Rewriting "Reasons for atheism"

 * See previous discussion at ; See rewrite page at Talk:Atheism/reasons

As discussed above, this section is flooded with weasel words and vagueries. We should rewrite it in the style used by the Featured German article, in which different views/reasons for atheism are given names and explanations, split up between Weak and Strong atheism. (see the #2 subsection of Systematik des Begriffs) I've set up a rewrite page to work on this at. If anyone can help translate from German, thanks. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-04 18:28Z

The rewrite is coming along nicely and nearing completion. Please provide input at Talk:Atheism/reasons. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-09 18:32Z

See Talk:Atheism/reasons/draft for the rewrite being suggested to replace the "Reasons for atheism" section. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-09 20:19Z

Buddhism
Buddhism is NOT Atheistic. --J.Dayton 00:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes it is. Belief in God is a form of grasping at an illusory concept that distracts the individual from examining imperfection and keeps him trapped in samsara. Arrow740 07:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not very well-versed in Buddhism, what kind of god do they believe in? Are there different 'sects' of Buddhists, some of whom may be theistic, others atheistic? MFNickster 01:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Certain sects of Buddhism belief in no personal or creator God. That qualifies as atheistic. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-05 01:41Z


 * Again, it is risky business to make sweeping statements about Buddhism, which has many variant sects. The larger issue (beyond the question of existence of gods) is that much of Buddhist philosophy is based on the concept of impermanence, under which no persistent objects exist.  It is the rejection of the concept of anything being eternal that is the crux of the issue. Consider these ideas drawn from Edward Conze's Buddhist Thought In India (University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1967) ISBN 0-472-06129-1.


 * The Buddhist doctrine of viparyāsa (the "perverted views" or "wrong notion") draws attention to what Conze refers to "empirical mistakes" (pp.39-40). There are four of these "wrong notions" that are regularly defined.  The first of them "consists in the attempt to seek, or to find (1) permanence in what is essentially impermanent...'   For example, "... people may, on critical reflection, formulate a theory to the effect that the world contains permanent or eternal objects - such as the sun, the soul, a Creator God, etc.... [other examples omitted] All such 'optimistic' philosophies would be regarded as examples of 'perverted opinion.'" (p. 41)


 * Abstract philosophy is one thing, and popular religion is another matter. Many Western people are drawn to Buddhist philosophy but may know little about Buddhist religion as it is practiced in countries such as China, Japan, Thailand, Sri Lanka, and Tibet.  Ordinary people often find comfort in turning to deities, and the role of supernatural beings in assisting worshippers is an important part of devotional Buddhism.  In most cases, Buddhism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings, and in fact there are a great many divinities and semi-divine entities that are worshipped within various sects (E.g. ).  This pantheon exists side-by-side with the philosophical system that Westerners often think of when "Buddhism" is mentioned.


 * A. G. S. Kariyawasam makes this point in his monograph on Buddhist Ceremonies and Rituals of Sri Lanka :


 * "'It has been an inevitable phenomenon in the history of religion that whenever a religion was newly introduced to a culture, its adherents assimilated it and adapted it in ways that harmonized with their own social and cultural needs.... Though the study focuses on Buddhism as practiced in Sri Lanka, the same basic round of rituals and ceremonies, with minor variations, can be found in the other countries following Theravada Buddhism, such as Burma and Thailand. I also hope that this survey will demonstrate that the expression of Buddhist piety in devotional forms is a necessity if Buddhism is to survive at the popular level as a vital and vibrant force in the daily life of its adherents. Thus the votaries of a 'pristine pure Buddhism' posited on the basis of the canonical texts should not ignore or devalue this aspect of Buddhism as an alien encroachment on the Buddha's original doctrine. Rather, they should come to recognize the devotional manifestation of Buddhism as an essential feature of the tradition, needed to mediate between its exalted ideals and the everyday concerns of the vast majority of its followers.'"


 * Relevant Wikikinks: God_in_Buddhism, Category:Buddhist deities, bodhisattvas, and demons Buddhipriya 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Buddhipriya. The Buddha also specifically attacked the notion of an uppercase God. There's a link to a discussion of it by Gunasekara at List of atheists. Arrow740 19:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that Buddhism shouldn't be called atheistic but nontheistic.—Editorius 10:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unitarian Universalism
WHAT? I'm a Unitarian Universalist, and, trust me, there are plenty of theists in my congregation. This is ludicrous. --J.Dayton 00:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Straight from the UU article: "Some believe that there is no god; others believe in many gods." &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-05 01:43Z

Burden of proof
I've changed "point out" to "suggest" in the burden of proof because although to many atheists this seems self-evident it is in fact highly controversial. Of course it is irrational to believe something if, when challenged, one can offer no reason whatsoever for a belief. But the idea that you should only believe things for which you have conclusive and irrefutable evidence or proof is as Self-refuting idea. And philsophers like Anthony Kenny argue that the default position is Agnosticism not Atheism. NBeale 09:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well actually I think that atheism would be the default since when you are born you have no concept of gods and have to be told that they "exist" or come to a sort of deity yourself in order for the concept of gods to even appear.71.193.233.96 14:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Contrary to NBeale there is no controversy. It would be a sorry day when scientists (or ideally anyone) have a default position of "whatev-ah" when asked about something. No, they may not know now but certainly they know how to find out if they were so tasked. The scientific method is a methodology and it's default position is to not say it cannot know these things (agnostic) but that it is unlikely unless proven otherwise (weak atheism). It is only in maths (which is not a science) that a certain proof can be provided (usually). Ttiotsw 16:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't even bother editing the "Reasons" section. It's being rewritten from scratch at Talk:Atheism/reasons. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-07 17:00Z

Archive
This discussion page's very long already. :)
 * Done. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-07 18:22Z

Nonbelief

 * Moved from user talk:brian0918.

You wrote (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&action=history):

"According to OED 'nonbelief' entails more than just 'absence of belief'."

May I enquire what more?

"absence of belief" sounds terribly sterile. In this sense my computer is an atheist, because theistic belief is absent from it. Basically, atheism is the conscious, reflective nonbelief in the existence of personal gods. "nonbelief in the existence of ..." means not the same as "belief in the nonexistence of ...". Only the former is entailed by both weak and strong atheism.

Regards , Editorius 22:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * First, as the article clearly explains, "atheism" may entail more than simply "conscious, reflective nonbelief", but even unconscious nonbelief (practical atheism, presumption of atheism, etc), as well as theological noncognitivism, which doesn't fit into any of the usual categories (see my section on noncognitivism at Atheism/reasons). &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918  &bull; 2007-04-09 01:10Z

You seem to have packed three different things into the dubious notion of practical atheism:
 * Religious indifference
 * Non-practised theism (no church-going, ignoring of religious rituals and customs)
 * Methodological atheism (as practised by science)

I reject the opinion that in order for somebody to be an atheist s/he doesn't even have to be aware of being one. To hold, as d'Holbach did, that all children are born atheists, is a terminological misuse, because infants are actually totally religiously indifferent; they are neither theists nor atheists.—Editorius 12:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't pack anything into "practical atheism"; I only listed it as one of several examples. As for your rejection of d'Holbach's claim: you're fine to have your own opinions, but they are only your own, and cannot possibly influence the article. Again, you are using a stricter definition of "atheism" than what has been traditionally argued, as is explained quite clearly in the typologies section. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-09 13:01Z


 * Second, according to OED, a "non-believer" is someone who fits any of these criteria: "a person who does not believe in something, esp. one with no religious faith; occasionally, specifically a person who does not accept a particular religious belief or doctrine." &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918  &bull; 2007-04-09 01:10Z

I fail to discern any semantic difference between "X does not believe in the existence of Y" and "X lacks belief in the existence of Y"/"The belief in the existence of Y is absent from Y". Your reference to the OED by no means substantiates your claim that "'nonbelief' entails more than just 'absence of belief'".—Editorius 12:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you use quotes around statements that are your own paraphrases? The OED source doesn't say what you quote it as saying. Regardless, it's much clearer what "absence of belief" means than what "nonbelief" means. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-09 13:01Z


 * (1) "You're fine to have your own opinions, but they are only your own, and cannot possibly influence the article."
 * ???—I certainly state my opinions here, like everybody else does; but that doesn't mean that what I state is only my own opinion. Moreover, anybody's opinion can possibly influence any article in Wikipedia, can't it?!
 * Ad rem:
 * If an atheist doesn't even have to be intellectually aware of her/his/its lack of theistic belief, then all mentally severely disabled humans, all infants, all animals, all plants, all chunks of dead matter are atheists! To count all these among the atheists is simply grotesque!
 * Atheism is a conscious attitude of persons.


 * (2) I've used quotes above since one has always got to use quotes when one talks (meta-linguistically) about linguistic items such as sentences. And I didn't use them here in order to quote the OED; so that happens to be a misinterpretation on your part.


 * (3) The claim that "Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of ..." is "much clearer" (here I'm quoting you!) than "Atheism is the nonbelief in the existence of ..." is hardly defensible, since both mean the same. But from the stylistic point of view, the latter appears a little less 'aseptic'.
 * By the way, I presume the curious reader wants to learn what atheism is, and not just what it entails.
 * Editorius 14:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Editorius 14:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding 1) Again, that is your opinion, and the opinion of others; it's not the only opinion though, and the article makes that clear. As for your expansion to animals, plants, etc, there's no reason to take things to an absurd extreme; it's obvious we're only talking about the human consciousness; are all plants agnostics because they "have no knowledge either way"??? You have defined atheism as an explicit attitude, whereas others see newborns as free of any attitudes, later given attitudes by their parents; they consider a lack of attitudes to be the original default position, and label this a type of "weak atheism". Regarding 2) You referenced my OED quotation by changing their words and arguing that your various rewordings are identical; that's fine, but you haven't shown that the OED quotations are synonymous with your rewordings. Regarding 3) I argued that they don't necessarily mean the same thing, and that one is clearer than the other. You can't argue that one is preferable simply because you believe they have identical meanings; we aren't just trying to write correct statements, but also write them clearly, and "absence of belief" is clearer than "nonbelief" just as "water" is clearer than "dihydrogen monoxide" to the layperson. As for your 4th point, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue; "atheism" is a single term for different concepts - the article lists the various definitions and connotations. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-09 15:00Z


 * (1) Okay, that "absence of belief" is to be understood as "absence of belief from the minds of humans" may be considered a pragmatic presupposition.
 * (2) But that still doesn't answer the question as to whether infants, young children, and mentally severely disabled humans can justifiably be called atheists in the weak sense. My answer is no, because it appears improper to let atheism already begin with sheer religious unawareness and indifference. The notion of unconscious atheism is ideologically fishy.
 * (3) There generally are no necessary connections between linguistic expressions and their meanings but merely contingent ones, which of course doesn't mean that what a word or phrase means is not a matter of linguistic fact: "absence/lack of believe" and "nonbelief" factually mean the same—and that's not only my own opinion.
 * You are right insofar as, if by "clearer" you mean "more readily comprehensible to the layperson", "water" is indeed likely to be more readily comprehensible than "dihydrogen monoxide", even though they are synonymous. But this example is not really analogous to "absence of belief" and "nonbelief" ("unbelief"), since neither of these is a technical term. Both concepts are part of ordinary language, and they are synonymous. So I still fail to see a reason why "absence/lack of belief" should be considered clearer than "nonbelief".
 * But maybe we can meet halfway: "lack of belief" instead of "absence of belief" (?)
 * (4) Julian Baggini writes that "atheism is in fact extremely simple to define" (*.
 * When one reads the Wikipedia article on atheism, one gets the impression that atheism is in fact extremely difficult to define. ;-)
 * (Baggini, Julian. Atheism: A Very Short Introduction . Oxford: Oxford UP, 2003. p. 3)
 * Editorius 16:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (2) "appears improper to let atheism already begin with sheer religious unawareness and indifference". Why? Also, what does "ideologically fishy" mean??
 * (3) Because "nonbelief" may entail more than just "absence of belief".
 * (3a) Also, what is the difference between "lack" and "absence"?
 * (4) The various definitions of "atheism" minimally entail "absence of belief in one or more Gods", which is very simple. Baggini's definition of "atheism" as "belief that there is no God or gods" is one of the more specific definitions. No definition is right/wrong, so they should all be explained. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-09 18:20Z


 * I ask you again:
 * What is the semantic difference between "absence/lack of belief" and "nonbelief" ("unbelief")?
 * I deny there is any. Somebody who lacks belief in X does not believe in X, and vice versa.
 * (There is no semantic difference between "absence of belief" and "lack of belief" either.)
 * Editorius 11:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As I understand it from OED, "nonbelief" may have a specific connotation of explicitness, as may "disbelief", whereas "unbelief" appears to be the closest to "absence of belief" (OED defines disbelief as "positive unbelief"!).
 * However, to me, the word "unbelief" is the most obscure of the choices (for the layperson), thus my reason for selecting "absence of belief", as it clearly presents the object ( belief ) and how it relates to the individual ( absent from ). None of the other terms make it so obvious. Question: You suggested "lack" over "absence"; I'm willing to consider that, but what is the difference between the two? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-10 13:01Z


 * (1) There is at most a stylistic difference between "lack of belief" and "absence of belief".
 * (2) If by "'nonbelief' may have a specific connotation of explicitness" you mean that "'nonbelief' may have a specific connotation of consciousness/awareness", then I'd welcome such a connotation. But does this specific connotation really exist, or is it just the case that it may exist?
 * (3) Don't you think that calling "unbelief" an obscure word is a bit of an exaggeration?
 * Editorius 00:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are multiple definitions for "nonbelief". None of them are the right one, because there is no right one. That's why I said "may". The connotation does exist, though. As for "unbelief", I didn't say it was obscure, just that it was the most obscure of the choices; I then explained why "absence of belief" is the least obscure. Which do you think is the least obscure, and why? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-11 01:44Z

lack --Deficiency; want; need; destitution; failure; as, a lack of sufficient food --JimWae 06:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC) --JimWae 01:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, there aren't multiple definitions of "nonbelief". Multiple subjective connotations might be associated with it, but it has only one denotation, which is determined by the logical meaning of the prefix "non-": "lack of belief (in whatever)"
 * Editorius 13:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We should avoid unnecessary connotations as well, if possible. Which of these do you think is the least obscure, and why: "nonbelief", "unbelief", "lack of belief", "absence of belief". &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-11 14:06Z


 * (1)If there may be what you call "unnecessary connotations" of "nonbelief", then there may be such ones with regard to the synonymous "absence/lack of belief" as well. So we've got a stalemate here.
 * (2) I consider neither "nonbelief"/"unbelief" nor "lack of belief" nor "absence of belief" obscure. All three words/phrases are equally readily comprehensible. I merely find that, stylistically, the last one is the most 'aseptic'.
 * Editorius 14:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal gods
I've reverted the last edit which narrowed the definition of atheism to mean the lack of belief in personal gods. It is my understanding that this is an "umbrella" article for atheism in general, and such specifics should be confined to articles or sections discussing types of atheism. In contradiction to comments above by Editorius, atheism can be regarded as the default position of humans (including newborn children, etc.) because the burden of proof for any sort of deity clearly rests with theists. The recent edits made my Brian0918 seem to follow the long-established consensus of this article's contributors. -- Scjessey 17:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The claim that (weak) atheism is the "default position of humans" is purely ideological.
 * Of course it is not the case that any person is born a theist — but the crucial point you have intentionally swept under the carpet is that no person is born an atheist either!
 * The newborn are in fact absolutely ideologically indifferent and totally unaware of any religious or philosophical matters, and hence incorporating them into the atheists is an unjustified act motivated by certain ideological interests on the part of certain atheists.
 * In order for one to be an atheist, one has at least to be aware of being one and of what being an atheist means. No newborn child satisfies these conditions (and cannot possibly satisfy them).
 * By saying that atheism, even weak atheism, is a conscious attitude, I don't mean to say that explicit, i.e. analytic and systematic philosophical reflection on the pros and cons of theism/atheism is required. But what is required is that the atheist is at least explicitly aware of being an atheist, whatever his reasons for being one.
 * An atheist knows what being an atheist means, and s/he knows that s/he is one.
 * So we cannot just write that atheism entails "the lack of belief in ...", but we have to write that atheism entails "the conscious lack of belief in ..." Otherwise the current definition is insufficient.
 * For even if it is pragmatically presupposed that "absence of belief" means "absence of belief from human consciousness", this doesn't mean per se that the atheist, from whose consciousness theistic belief is absent, is also conscious of the fact that theistic belief is absent from his consciousness.
 * Editorius 17:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: "no person is born an atheist"; again, your view, not the absolute view (there isn't an absolute view). Re: "ideologically indifferent and unaware of religious matters" - this qualifies under "practical atheism"; Re: "be aware", your opinion, and not a very sound position - must one be aware of what it means to believe in the flying spaghetti monster in order to be aware of what it means not to believe in such, in order not to believe in it? Re: "must be explicitly aware", again, this is a matter of semantics, and not everyone agrees with your view, so it's better to explain all the views than assume (as you are doing) that one is correct. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-09 18:14Z


 * There is no single definition of atheism. Atheism as "absence of belief..." is one of several well-documented usages of the term. Wikipedia cannot choose which of the several is the "correct one" (nor should any encyclopedia). --JimWae 18:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "But what is required is that the atheist is at least explicitly aware of being an atheist, whatever his reasons for being one."
 * I completely disagree with this statement. The term atheism, which is a generic term at best, should be applied to humans completely unaware of deities/supernatural beings/gods/whatever (implicit atheism). You appear to be trying to narrow the meaning of the term to the explicit atheism subset. -- Scjessey 18:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If the phrase "explicitly aware" somehow bothers you, then delete "explicitly" and keep "aware".
 * And "implicit atheism" sounds like "implicit pregnancy". If that alleged type of atheism is so implicit that the implicit atheist isn't even aware of being one and of what it is in whose existence he doesn't believe, then we definitely need a new label for those, wherein "atheism" doesn't occur.
 * Editorius


 * Neither "absence of belief" nor "lack of belief" require that one be aware of theism (nor any particular belief). You are barking up the wrong tree. Though you are free to not use this usage & definition in your own discourse, they are well-documented & cannot be expunged --JimWae 19:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * this is one of the ways atheism & agnosticism form a different intellectual framework. I do agree the definition you prefer needs more attention in the intro. I also think more attention to the dispute over the differences between atheism & agnosticism is needed throughout the article--JimWae 19:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * there are egoists who have never heard of egoism, capitalists who've never heard of capitalism, even theists who have never heard of theism (though of course, for this case, they have heard of at least one deity). Just because a term ends in -ISM does not mean all -ISTs must be proponents of the -ISM. Anyway, there is no point in arguing this further - the usage is widespread & supported by reference works --JimWae 19:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the definition of "atheism" as "mere absence of belief in the existence of God or gods" is so excessively broad (even if it is pragmatically presupposed here that "absence" means "absence from human minds") that it includes all the babies, all the infants, all the mentally severely disabled, all the religiously indifferent, all the irreligious/religionless persons, and last but not least, all the agnostics.
 * In the light of the above definition the atheists who resolutely belief in the nonexistence of God or gods appear to be of marginal importance.—Editorius 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is necessary for the initial definition to be the broadest known, and based on the sources, this is the broadest known definition. It's not the only definition; it's not the right definition (there is no right definition, of course). As is proper, the article explains all the definitions, without adhering to any one definition, as you seem to prefer. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-10 00:06Z
 * Definition? Its like saying My life involves others therefore I am others. We are using ENTAILS not IS. And I had to revert an IS a few days ago.  I think ENTAILS is appropriate, yet readers aren't comprehending. I hope we can keep this house in order. :-) Modocc 01:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Definition" may not have been the best choice, but I think you knew what I meant. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-10 13:09Z
 * Yes, I know what you mean and meant and I have liked your edits and proposals and support them fully. Modocc 14:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Editorius, the first sentence of the atheism introduction is an incomplete definition of atheism. Its a broad descriptive statement about atheism(s) that is true and yet it is not a complete definition. As a strong atheist myself, I agree with the statement and do not think it marginalizes my belief in anyway.Modocc 14:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would be much more fruitful if we worked with three categories:
 * (1) the atheists = those who don't believe that God exists/gods exist and believe that God doesn't exist/gods don't exist
 * (2) the agnostics (=the "weak"/"negative" atheists [*) = those who don't believe that God exists/gods exist and don't believe that God doesn't exist/gods don't exist
 * (3) the irreligious (the religiously indifferent) = those who don't believe that God exists/gods exist and don't believe that God doesn't exist/gods don't exist and don't reflect upon this.
 * [* There seems to be no difference between a weak atheist and an agnostic. The former doesn't believe that God exists/gods exist, and so does so latter. The latter doesn't believe that God doesn't exist/gods don't exist, and neither does the former. Therefore, both believe the same.]
 * Editorius 23:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect. There is a clear distinction between weak atheists and agnostics. The former group say they do not know if any god or gods exists, and choose to not believe in a god or gods. The latter group say they cannot know if any god or gods exists, and some choose to believe (agnostic theists) or not believe (agnostic atheists) in a god or gods. -- Scjessey 23:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. That was a point I had been confused about. Agnosticism minimally entails only a statement about your knowledge, not your belief. Any philosophical paper (such as the well-written and comprehensive article found in the Universal Encyclopedia linked in the References section) does not use "agnosticism" to refer to a statement of belief, but only as a statement of knowledge. Thus, there are agnostics who choose to belief nothing, agnostics who choose to belief in God, and agnostics who choose not to believe. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918  &bull; 2007-04-10 00:06Z


 * I'm glad that my comment helped. It's certainly complicated enough to make my head hurt sometimes! Scjessey 00:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, all intellectually honest theists and atheists are "agnostic" insofar as they refrain from claiming that it's possible to attain genuine knowledge in metaphysical matters, to which religious matters belong. For example, the well-known philosopher David Armstrong writes:
 * "Though I myself, fairly strongly inclining to the atheist position as I do, nevertheless do not claim knowledge that there is no God. To that extent I am an agnostic."
 * (Armstrong, D. M. Truth and Truthmakers . Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004. p. 35.)
 * Talking about references, here's Merriam-Webster's perfectly fitting definition of "agnostic":
 * "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"
 * (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=agnostic)
 * In what is probably the most usual sense (*, the agnostic is somebody who neither believes that God exists nor believes that God doesn't exist, because he believes that it's impossible to know whether God exists or not. So agnosticism contains an ethics of belief: "You had better abstain from both belief and nonbelief in case knowledge is unattainable!"
 * (* If somebody introduces himself as an agnostic somewhere, I'm sure the vast majority will think that he is neither a theist nor an atheist.)
 * On the belief level weak atheists and agnostics are indistinguishable; and as concerns the knowledge level, it is doubtful whether a weak atheist is by definition committed to claiming nothing more than that knowledge about God's existence or nonexistence happens not to be had. Why shouldn't the weak atheist be free to also claim—as the agnostic does—that knowledge about God's existence or nonexistence cannot ever be had?!
 * If agnosticism has no bearing on the belief level, then it gets rather platitudinous.
 * "Agnosticism: That doctrine which, professing ignorance, neither asserts nor denies."
 * (http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=agnosticism)
 * Editorius 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Agnosticism: That doctrine which, professing ignorance, neither asserts nor denies."
 * (http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=agnosticism)
 * Editorius 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Editorius 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The weak atheist is free to be agnostic. Agnosticism has no bearing on belief, only on knowledge, so there is no problem with calling yourself an "agnostic weak atheist", which is essentially what all people who say "I'm agnostic" mean. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-10 12:54Z


 * If "I'm an agnostic" is predominantly used to mean "I'm an agnostic weak atheist", then agnosticism does have a bearing on belief, which fact is taken into account by Merriam-Webster's definition:
 * "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"
 * (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=agnostic)
 * An agnostic weak atheist is precisely somebody who doesn't claim to know that God exists/gods exist or that God doesn't exist/gods don't exist, and who neither believes that God exists/gods exist nor believes that God doesn't exist/gods don't exist.
 * Editorius 01:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I clarified what is meant philosophically by the common lay usage of "agnostic", and you used that common lay usage to redefine what is meant philosophically. It looks like circular reasoning to me. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-11 01:53Z


 * I maintain that already the philosophical conception(s) of agnosticism tend(s) to have a bearing on what to believe and what not to believe. And this implicit tendency has become explicit in common parlance.
 * Strictly speaking, there are two types of agnostics:
 * (1) The mere know-not agnostics
 * (All intellectually honest theists and atheists, who do believe more or less firmly that God exists/doesn't exist, are know-not agnostics, because, in the narrow sense of "know", they don't claim to know or that it's possible to know that God exists/doesn't exist.)
 * (2) The believe-not agnostics
 * (Those who abstain both from belief in God's existence and from belief in God's nonexistence)
 * The second entails the first, but not vice versa.
 * One can be a theistic or atheistic know-not agnostic, but one cannot be a theistic or atheistic believe-not agnostic.
 * Editorius 12:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your assumption is the same as that of anyone else who says "I'm agnostic" when asked about their beliefs. That statement is actually saying, "There is no evidence either way, and might never be, and because I am also an adherent to some form of physicalism/skepticism, I choose to have no belief either way." As for your assertion that one cannot be a "believe-not" atheist - weak atheists have no belief either way. All we're doing here is making linguistic arguments, and really not doing much that's actually productive. This whole debate would never exist if words like theist/agnostic/atheist didn't exist, and instead people just said what they do/don't know/believe. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-11 13:27Z


 * (1) Okay, if "atheistic believe-not agnostic" is simply a synonym of "weak atheist", then one can of course be an atheistic believe-not agnostic. Actually, there is no difference between a belief-not agnostic and a weak atheist, because both believe neither that God exists nor that God doesn't exist. Many self-declared weak/negative atheists seem not to be aware of the fact that nonbelief in the existence of God implies nonbelief in the nonexistence of God. A weak atheist will answer no to the question "Do you believe that God does not exist?". This is so because s/he doesn't believe in God's nonexistence.
 * There is truth in the saying that "agnostics are shamefaced atheists". The agnostics, i.e. the believe-not agnostics, are actually (weak) atheists, but they refuse to call themselves so, probably because the label "atheist" with its obsolete negative ethical connotations somehow shocks them. ;-)
 * (2) The labels "theist", "atheist", etc. do happen to exist, and so we've got to deal with them somehow in a reasonable way.
 * Editorius 15:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of "Reasons for atheism"

 * See previous discussions at and 

After lots of reading, work, and input from others, here's the proposed replacement for the "Reasons for atheism" section: Talk:Atheism/reasons/draft. While it may not yet be comprehensive, it's a great improvement over the current section. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-09 20:21Z
 * This suggestion is very clear and well-cited. Thank you for your work.  Are you suggesting we replace the "Reasons for Atheism" section with a "Forms of Atheism" section?  Also, I'm not sure the 'Practical Atheism' subsection is wide enough in scope.  Specifically, the explanation "The existence of gods is not denied, but designated unnecessary or useless".  This seems still to imply that the idea of God must be consciously rejected.  I realize good sources are hard to come by here, but I'd like to hear how you might rectify this section with your above comments regarding "no person is born an atheist".


 * I also feel like the social and cultural reasons for atheism deserve some place in the article, and replacing "reasons for atheism" with "forms of atheism" denies this. Of course, if there are no sources, there are no sources... johnpseudo 20:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand what you mean. It's unclear from my sources where the boundaries are for practical atheism. I think the simple fact that it is contrasted with theoretical atheism means that it is implicit, but could also be an explicit indifference. As for social/cultural reasons, it could still be fit in under "forms of atheism". Can you make a suggestion about what such a section would discuss? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-09 20:55Z


 * "I also feel like the social and cultural reasons for atheism deserve some place in the article"
 * With tongue firmly in cheek, I would counter this by saying that you don't need a social or cultural reason to be an atheist. Atheism is the default position, so social and cultural influences come into play when listing reasons for theism. -- Scjessey 11:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither theism nor atheism is "the default position". No ideology is innate. Being devoid of any ideology, religious or nonreligious, is the true default position.—Editorius 01:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak implicit atheism is the lack of a religious ideology without an explicit statement - this is synonymous with what you are saying. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-11 01:37Z


 * Being devoid of any theistic ideology is certainly a necessary condition for being a weak atheist, but I deny that it's also a sufficient condition for being one.
 * To count a mentally severely disabled person, who cannot even understand any concept of god, among the atheists by making up an artificial subcategory of atheism labelled "weak implicit atheism", appears ideologically tendentious and hence inappropriate to me.
 * Once again, I really do think that being conscious of one's nonbelief is a necessary condition for being justifiably called a weak atheist.
 * So-called weak implicit atheism seems to be nothing but sheer indifferentism.
 * For instance, babies and mentally severely disabled people are neither theists nor atheists but simply indifferentists. Being devoid of any theistic belief is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for being a religious indifferentist, but it's only a necessary condition for being a (weak) atheist; for what is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for being a (weak) atheist is being consciously devoid of any theistic belief.
 * Editorius 12:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see a reason why chimpanzees shouldn't be called atheists as well if being devoid of theistic belief is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for being an atheist?! There can be no doubt that theism is entirely absent from their minds. But doesn't it strike you as absurd to call chimps (or any other animals) atheists?!
 * Editorius 12:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Now you are just being silly, Editorius. Any human being with an absence of belief in any kind of god or gods can be classified under the umbrella term of atheist, and that includes newborn babies. After being born, atheists learn about gods, at which point they either become theists or remain atheists. That is why I consider atheism to be a "default" position. It is the desire of a consensus of contributors to keep the meaning of atheism as generic as possible, and then let the article and sub-articles explore the various narrower definitions. It is not for the Wikipedia to make judgments in the way you appear to be suggesting. -- Scjessey 13:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Editorius, the opinion you express is common. To improve this article, it would be appropriate to include all support for this position in the "Implicit, explicit, positive and negative definitions" sub-section, in a separate paragraph from the one recognizing newborns. Whatever is written there, it should be cited. Modocc 13:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) The real "default position" of newborn babies is indifferentism, i.e neither theism nor atheism. I think that in order for somebody to be ideologically indifferent s/he doesn't necessarily have to be aware of this. I consider it very improper to count a chimp or a baby or a mentally severely disabled adult, who isn't even cognitively able to understand the question "Do you believe in the existence of God/gods?", among the atheists.
 * (2) You seem to believe that the broadest definition of a term is per se the most ideologically neutral one. I doubt this. Consider the following example:
 * There was a time when homosexuality was covered by the umbrella term "sexual perversion".
 * Then, being homosexual was a sufficient condition for being counted among the sexual perverts.
 * Nowadays, psychiatrists have narrowed the category so that homosexuality is no longer included. And the reason for this semantic narrowing is that the older and broader conception of sexual perversion has turned out to be anything else but ideologically neutral.
 * What I'm trying to demonstrate with the above example is that one needs to argue for the view that the broadest possible definition of "atheism" is the most (idelogically) neutral and thus the most preferable one. You're begging the question if you simply take it for granted that the broadest possible definition is per se the most suitable one, representing "the default position".
 * Editorius 13:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Editorius, your argument is valid, if merely because a broad definition differs from a narrow definition. As JimWae has repeated here, we should not prefer either.  The first paragraph reflects this conclusion by saying only what the topic of atheism involves, and the fact that there are different definitions and views expressed in the literature.Modocc 14:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "in order for somebody to be ideologically indifferent"
 * Maybe that's the problem right there. I do not consider atheism to be an ideology, just a word to describe a sort of fundamental platform on which ideologies can be built. In this respect, I consider it to be analogous to a child who has yet to learn any form of language, or perhaps a blank piece of paper. A newborn baby will only consider theism if exposed to theistic concepts, or if the child independently invents the concept of theism as an original thought. Having said that, my view of atheism is but one of many, and it is the many that the article should encompass. -- Scjessey 14:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The blank mind of a newborn child is devoid of any ideological attitude, of any Weltanschauung (http://www.bartleby.com/61/15/W0091500.html), as we Germans say. And that's why they and others should be categorized not as atheists but as indifferentists (I know that's a stilted name, but for want of a better one I'm going to use it.)—Editorius 15:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)