Talk:Atheism/Archive 32

Definition of Atheism (again!)
Returning to the definition of atheism (first two sentences of the article), which I notice has already been discussed extensively above: "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is the absence of belief in the existence of a god.[1][2] Other definitions combine this absence of belief with belief in the nonexistence of God,[3][4] or simply with the conscious rejection of theism." Hopefully no argument is required with respect to the following fact: the definition of words is determined by their usage, and not by the contents of dictionaries (good dictionary writers determine definitions by examining usage, originally in printed media, and in more modern times, in popular media in general). I can certainly understand that the writer of an article would like to have, if possible, definitions of terms that are logical and consistent, as opposed to using definitions based on usage which may very well be inconsistent. The problem with the current definition(s) of atheism as they appear in the first two sentences is that if examined only slightly more closely, the definitions rapidly become circular, which is (of course) inconsistent. Having said all that, I tend to favor a definition based on usage, which would generally (I believe) equate atheism with being non-religious (this has already been commented on). Or perhaps a third sentence could be added to the first paragraph, something like "In popular usage, atheism is equated with being non-religious" (thus retaining the scholarly-sounding but unfortunately inconsisent circular definitions that are already there, but then also stating something factual).

Jtrbnsn 18:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In what way is the current definition circular? johnpseudo 19:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Briefly, because it is equivalent to saying (using the atheistic definition of God, which is the origin of the circularity) that atheism is the lack of belief in something that doesn't exist (weak version), or the belief in the non-existence of something that doesn't exist (strong version).Jtrbnsn 19:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What is your source for this "atheistic definition of God"? Weak atheism certainly doesn't define God that way. Implicit atheism is without definitions. And strong atheism doesn't define God as nonexistent, but rather, provides arguments for the nonexistence of God, and subsequently asserts the validity of those arguments. Very different. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-17 20:10Z


 * First of all, the definition is not an "atheistic" definition. The definition doesn't presume any beliefs in the reader.  Second, the definition of God is external to this article- atheism's relation to theism is independent of how God is defined.  And finally, just because a person doesn't think something exists doesn't mean they cannot conceive of it or define it! johnpseudo 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well let me try again, and to keep things a bit simpler let's stick with strong atheism, which I believe (?) is defined as "belief in the non-existence of God". In order for this phrase to actually mean something, "God" has to have a meaning, to refer to something.  If it refers to something that doesn't exist, the phrase is meaningless (it is a tautology).  If it refers to something that does exist (for example, although people might argue whether it is a proper definition of "God", if one accepts the pantheistic view that God is in some sense the totality of existence, then some might agree that this is something that does exist), then the phrase is by definition false.  It seems that in order to define strong atheism in a way so that the definition actually has some meaning, one has to presuppose that strong atheism is false.  These are the kinds of things I had in mind when I referred to circularity.  These word games are (of course) not new (they are very old), and to be honest I am now quite sorry I mentioned it.  The only point I wish to make here is that the first paragraph could possibly be improved by adding the definition of atheism as determined by its popular usage.  In fact I noticed something of the sort above in the section titled "New Opening Text:", and I think something along these lines could possibly result in an improvement to the article.

Jtrbnsn 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me narrow this down to our disagreement: you state that "If ("belief in the non-existence of God") refers to something that doesn't exist, the phrase is meaningless (it is a tautology)." But that's wrong. The definition makes sense whether or not God exists. Take the two examples:
 * To someone who does believe in God, strong atheism would mean the belief that the God that they worship does not exist.
 * To someone who does not believe in God, strong atheism would mean the belief that the God that #1 worships does not exist.
 * What makes this a tautology? Nothing is being repeated. What makes this circular?  A circular definition would be something like "atheism is the belief in "X",  X being the belief that atheists have." johnpseudo 23:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What if there is a #3 that worships a different God from #1. Does #2 also not believe the God that #3 worships does not exist?--24.57.157.81 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Words only have meaning, if the things they refer to actually exist? Does this mean that words like "Unicorn" and "Hobbit" are also meaningless? Of course not. Mdwh 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe Jtrbnsn is using the propositional definition of atheism and all -isms, as I do. From that perspective someone who is being ignostic with respect to the proposition "God exists" can neither be an atheist nor a theist, since the concept of "God" is considered incoherent (since propositional theism and propositional atheism involve a definitive statement regarding the concept). Similarily, a pantheist is neither a theist nor an atheist, since the proposition of pantheism is not that God exists, but that the universe exists, and that the universe is God. The universe obviously exists, so the issue is whether or not the universe is God.--24.57.157.81 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The SEP is a good resource for anyone that wants to look it up: Pantheism. Obviously it's a lot more complicated, since, it still involves a God, so really it kind of is theism if you mean theism as a category of God beliefs, but it does distinguish pantheism from both theism and atheism.--24.57.157.81 01:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I suppose our definition is also biased towards a non-pantheistic, cognitive (vs. Theological noncognitivism) view. We can go ahead and add these two POV bias complaints to the list for further brainstorming. We should eventually remedy these biases, but they have to be recognized as marginal views- fixing this has to take a lower priority than making the definition clear to the vast majority of cognitivist, non-pantheistic readers. johnpseudo 02:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is a symptom of the problem with the definition. It's not really bias, it's a perceived logical error entailed from the problem with the definition. If you try to counteract the "bias" you are only counteracting the symptoms of the real problem.--24.57.157.81 22:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? What is this "logical error" you speak of? johnpseudo 22:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You should actually read Jtrbnsn's posts before asking this question. He makes quite clear that he thinks there is an error, a logical error, and that that type of error is circularity, that the definition is tautological. He posted his comments under the heading "Definition of atheism." When I opine on his concerns I decide what I believe the issue is and so I decide what I think the solution is. If you think his issue is something else, you are welcome to put it on the table. I'm not going to get drawn into an argument regarding what is logical and what is not logical because a) I did not claim it was, I claimed it was percevied that way and b) because that obviously depends on the definition. My opinion is that your suggestion to reduce non-pantheist bias was intended to treat a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. Got it?--24.57.157.81 23:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it seems to me that his perception of a logical error is due to the bias the definition has towards cognitivist and non-pantheistic views. That perception is a symptom of this bias- the real problem.  Or what do you suggest is the real problem? johnpseudo 23:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem that way to me. The way he has constructed the definition your definitions invoke certain logical errors. So the reason he has a problem is the definition conflict, not any bias that may result from said conflict. Mitigating the bias resulting from the conflict does not solve the conflict. It expands the conflict to include elements which are trivial to the underlying problem. What you suggest is to accomodate views which are created by the conflict. I think that is a case of treating the symptom instead of the disease. It actually makes the conflict harder to see. It masks it and actually makes harder to understand. The perception of bias is a product of the definition conflict. It is not the conflict itself.--24.57.157.81 00:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note too that you are the one that interpreted his criticism that way, he never once said the definition was biased against non-pantheists or cognitivists or any point of view. He said that, from his perspective, the definition creates a logical error. That's not saying the definition is biased, that is saying the definition is illogical.--24.57.157.81 00:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I sort of understand what you're getting at, but if not please bear with me:
 * Using any sort of a definition that includes the concept of "God" while presupposing that the term is meaningful will cause a logical error on Jtrbnsn's part, because he believes in a form of ignosticism.
 * This error is due to a conflict of Jtrbnsn's beliefs (theological noncognitivism) with the assumption that the concept of "God" has meaning (theological cognitivism).
 * Therefore, using the term "God" in the definition exhibits a form of cognitivism. This is what I call bias towards cognitivism- the problem we're trying to avoid.
 * Can you help me understand where our disagreement is here? johnpseudo 00:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Jtrbnsn was confused because his interpretation of the current definition is that it includes theological non-cognitivism and pantheism, which by all accounts, the current definition does. Jrtbnsn says the inclusion of non-cognitivism and pantheism as types of atheism is illogical. Clearly he interprets atheism differently than the definition provided in the article. --24.57.157.81 01:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok- that I can understand. Let me add this complaint to the list. johnpseudo 01:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's not really anything to add. It is essentially the same complaint about the same problem, the manner in which it has manifested itself is trivial. --24.57.157.81 01:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, the article on Ignosticism is great! The quote from that article defining an ignostic as someone who says "I don't know what you mean when you say 'God exists'" is word-for-word what I have said to people (except if they have told me that they're an atheist I would say "I don't know what you mean when you say 'God does not exist'").  However I don't believe that "the question of the existence of a transcendent God" is entirely meaningless (as apparently - based on that article - a true Ignostic would), depending (here we go again) on what the word "God" means. Now as far as words like "Hobbits" having a meaning, yes they have a meaning, and if we accept a definition such as "imaginary beings created and written about by J.R.R. Tolkien", then  statements involving questions of existence such as "Hobbits exist in the novels of J.R.R. Tolkien" and "Hobbits exist in the real world" are trivially true and false (respectively) by definition.  In any case, please be so kind as to regard my views regarding possible circularity in the definitions as they stand (by the way, is a stone a weak atheist? since there is in fact an absence of belief? perhaps this definition should ... no, never mind) as an aberration resulting from too much exposure to mathematics and too little to philosophy.Jtrbnsn 02:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The main point I was originally trying to make, about words being defined by usage, seems to have been lost. This point was partially motivated by the Dude! comment, which seems (?) to have been dismissed.  Let's suppose I meet someone I don't know, and we begin talking.  Assume our talk is neither academic nor philosophical; it's just everyday talk.  After talking about our families, the weather, or whatever, he or she says to me "I am an atheist."  The question is, in everyday usage, what can I conclude from this?  Do I think to myself, oh they are probably a Buddhist (or something of the sort)?  No, then they (probably) would have said "I am a Buddhist."  Can I conclude that they don't believe in God?  No, because I don't know what that means.  Can I conclude that they would probably say (if asked) "I don't believe in God"?  Yes, that is a reasonable conclusion on my part.  However, at this point in the conversation, the primary information that has been conveyed to me is that they probably are not a member of any religious organization, and that if asked, they probably would deny what might be broadly categorized as any kind of statement of religious belief.  Now this is touched upon somewhat in the fourth paragraph ("In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed ..."), but this is commentary about the perception of atheism, not a definition.  I was attempting to suggest that the article might be improved if the non-philosophical, non-academic definition of atheism, determined solely by the way the word is commonly used (and yes I realize there may be some problems in determining this, different groups using the word in different ways for example), were to be included as well in the first paragraph. Jtrbnsn 07:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am belatedly coming to an understanding of some of the problems the writers of the article are facing (please excuse my slowness). In order to expand the definition of atheism to include its meaning as determined by common usage, some sort of authoratative reference (ideally several references) is required (the usual dictionary entries - some already referenced - well they were there a moment ago, Random House, American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, but now they're gone - ? - seem to me to have failed to capture meaning as determined by common usage).  Also, it is likely that my opinion of what it actually means (in everday language) when someone says "I am an atheist" is biased (living as I do in a country that for example has "In God We Trust" imprinted on its currency).  I've started looking, but in a brief search haven't found anything (the closest I've come is some online articles in the field of sociology).  So I suppose until such a reference can be found (I will spend a bit more time looking), this is best disregarded. Jtrbnsn 19:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I found it pretty insightful (and it has given me some other ideas on how to approach this). I think the most common ways are, contemporarily: Atheism: belief God does not exist; Atheist: believes God does not exist. The definition Atheist: non-religious/impious I think is rarely used, used only conversationally, and used facetiously or perjoratively (and even less often perjoratively). Non-religious people usually say they are simply not religious, they do not say they are atheists. I know both the US and Canada have separate boxes for non-religious and atheist in the census. As for ignosticism, remember the word meaningless can mean a lot of different things, you might not actually subscribe to all of ignosticism (or ignosticism might be ill-defined). Just saying since you've only been using it in terms of comprehension.--24.57.157.81 05:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As it seems, the broader definition of atheism has to do with the rejection of theism. Even weak atheists reject theism, because theism says that God definitely exists, and they say that we don't know, so in a sense, both weak and strong atheism can be defined as "rejection of theism".--Orthologist 21:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If implicit weak atheism isn't considered a form of atheism (but e.g. a form of nontheism), then you're right, because all explicit atheists, weak or strong, do reject theism. Rejection is stronger than mere nonbelief but weaker than denial.—Editorius 13:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The equivalent of stating "I'm not a theist" or the equivalent of rejecting all the arguments in favor of theism? I'm guessing the first one since rejecting all the arguments in favor of theism would exclude weak atheism, right? So, saying "I'm an atheist" you would say means "I'm not a theist." Why not just say "I'm not a theist?!" --24.57.157.81 05:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Exsistotheism and Nonexsistotheism
I just made these words up, but maybe they will help you other guys understand. I think of "theism" as a "God exists belief" and atheism as "No God exists belief." Perhaps it is because these words don't exist (as far as I know) people are using theism and atheism to mean this, and in fact your definition really is more correct than mine or others and theism and atheism really are and in fact work with both approaches as classifications rather than propositions. Either way, this is definitely what the people arguing about the definition mean--the words theism and atheism involve existence or non-existence.--24.57.157.81 02:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's definitely what "people" mean? I wish it was that simple. johnpseudo 02:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I wish you wouldn't take things so literally, though I was just going to change it just in case that happend. I mean "the people that treat atheism and theism as propositions, postulations, not classifications or perceptual states." It's changed now. --24.57.157.81 02:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternatives to "believes in the nonexistence of X"

 * believes X does not exist
 * believes the term X does not refer to a real entity
 * denies the existence of X

There is a debate in philosophy over whether or not existence is a predicate & whether "X exists" is a proposition - this should be mentioned & linked to in the article --JimWae 13:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perceptual states? — If I hear a dog bark, then I'm in a perceptual state. A perceptual state is one that involves sensory perception. Perceptual states are mental states, and I suppose that what you really mean is that by saying that atheism consists in belief in God's existence being mentally absent atheism is said to be a negative mental state.—Editorius 13:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "God's existence being mentally absent" is a cognitive condition, a perceptual state, a psychological posture, a circumstance of mind, a mental situation etc.--24.57.157.81 20:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

@JimWae: There is no need to mention the debate in philosophical logic about whether "exist" is a normal first-order predicate or not. Those who don't think it is or that it may be used as such simply need to read "God exists/does not exist" as "There is something/somebody that/who is God" / "There is nothing/nobody that/who is God". Anyway, virtually every non-philosopher readily comprehends sentences such as "God exists/does not exist".—Editorius 13:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. It superfluous to what I was talking about (and use better headings if it's not supposed to be under the topic I started). And it almost seems like you (JimWae) are assuming philosophy is an empirical science, that perhaps one day someone will "discover the truth" that "existence is not a predicate." That is such a gross misinterpretation of philosophy, coming from someone who speaks in terms of predicates and propositions, that it makes me ill so I certainly hope you're not doing that.--24.57.157.81 01:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is really an extreme case of Round In Circles. Can I draw your attention to the 30 talk archives on this page? They are full with exactly this debate, going back to 2001. I think at this point, we really really have to adopt a bad-ass "cite your reliable sources" policy: discussions should be directly aimed at making the article more encyclopedic. There are basically two possibilities: (a) "paragraph (x) isn't well-sourced / encyclopedic, fix it or remove it", and (b) "here is this great encyclopedic source I have, and I want to include this specific point in the article body". There is a scholarly debate on the definition of "atheism"? Great, cite it, don't re-enact it. dab (𒁳) 14:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What you really mean: More than 6 years and 30 pages of criticism and complaints about the article are without merit and are a result of the stupidity of the readers. --24.57.157.81 23:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

JimWae: It is mentioned in the article already, as theological noncognitivism. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-18 14:08Z

24.57.157.81's lead paragraph suggestion (#6 in the brainstorming section)
"Atheism is defined two ways. It is defined as the belief that the proposition that a God or gods exists, theism, is false. As such an atheist would be a person who believes the proposition "God does not exist" is true. It is also defined as a category which encompasses various philosophies which either reasonably entail this proposition (such as logical positivism(?)) or, more broadly, entail a position of reasonable doubt that God does not exist (such as evidentialism(?)). From this broad categorical perspective an atheist would be defined as anyone in a state of disbelief with respect to theism."

Although I'm sure most of the editors are suffering from definition revision fatigue, I see no harm in tweaking this suggestion around a bit here to get it in a shape that might solve some of the current definition's problems. My gripes with this suggestion:
 * 1) Atheism is defined in a broad spectrum of ways, but the definitions can be divided in this way. First sentence needs rewording to reflect this.
 * 2) Even weak atheism can be defined as to be something like a perceptual state or state of mind rather than the ambiguous term "category"/"categorical".
 * 3) In general, the third sentence is wordy... "encompasses various philosophies"?
 * 4) The word disbelief is ambiguous. johnpseudo 01:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider "Fruits are colorful objects. Even an apple can be defined as a colorful object." --24.57.157.81 02:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And see Fallacies of definition. --24.57.157.81 02:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to say? johnpseudo 12:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's that you keep appealing to the "absence of belief" definition as the best definition because it is the broadest definition. You talk about dividing a spectrum, making the definition broad enough to include both perspectives. That's not always the best way to do things, and I think trying to include both definitions in one "spectrum" as you put it is quite fallacious. They are simply incompatible.--24.57.157.81 20:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the "absence of belief" definition is the best definition, I just think that it's easier to explain all of the definitions by starting with the broadest one. What I meant by my spectrum comment was this: Your statement "Atheism is defined in two ways" is misleading- it is defined in more than two ways. One definition (the most popular), you've put fairly clearly.  The rest of the spectrum of definitions cannot be narrowed down into one. This is just a semantic argument here.  I'm not proposing that your "proposition" definition has to be integrated with the other definitions.  johnpseudo 21:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The continuum you invoke is defined solely by an "absence of belief." Therefore this is a continuum based on a cognitive state common to the people you call atheists and is defined without respect to the philosophies of these people. That continuum is of interest to cognitive scientists and sociopsychologists but not so much to philosophers. Is the subject of atheism philosophy? Or is the subject of atheism cognitive science and social psychology? That's why it does not work. Whether you need two, or three, or ten or twenty or one hundred definitions you can't just cop out and say "well, this is too hard so instead of defining atheism in terms of philosophy, we'll define it in terms of a cognitive state."--24.57.157.81 22:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's just I do not understand why you said "Even weak atheism can be defined as to be something like a perceptual state or state of mind rather than the ambiguous term "category"/"categorical". What is the problem with calling it a category? Is it because you would rather it was say atheism is a spectrum? Alright, then what is on one side of the spectrum and what is on the other? What you call a spectrum is bounded by a cognitive state--that's your definition of atheism. Now, what is on one side of this continuum, and what is on the other? Strong atheism on one side and weak atheism on the other? Why are they on opposite ends of the continuum? What is the defining difference between strong atheism and weak atheism? One is a positive belief, the other a negative belief, you might say. But now what is the defining difference of and metaphysical and epistemological atheism, which you say are on the same atheist continuum? How else could you differentiate strong and weak atheism? One is propositional one is not? Is metaphysical atheism slightly propositional and epistemological atheism not? No. And so on. Can you differentiate all these "types of atheism" on this continuum in way which would create an actual continuum? --24.57.157.81 02:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, I should not be so challenging. Suffice to say that I hope my questions at least show how deep the schism between these interpretations is. I do, however, have an idea for distinguishing them now. How about analytical atheism and Smithian atheism, as in George H. Smith and the book Atheism: The Case Against God? We can use these to distinguish them perhaps? It seems to me that your interpretation is entirely based on (or at least wholly represented by) his work. Analytical as in analytical philosophy which I'm pretty sure represents my school of thought. (We wouldn't use these in the article. This is just for discussing them.)--24.57.157.81 07:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What I mean by "spectrum" is not necessarily something continuous- you added that idea, and I obviously do not want to call atheism a "spectrum"- I don't know who you are reading. The spectrum of definitions of atheism is full of distinctions like strong/weak, implicit/explicit, range of concept of God.  I agree that the distinction between "analytical atheism" and "Smithian atheism" or "strong vs. weak" is the most important distinction, but it certainly isn't the only one. The subject of this article is philosophy, cognitive science, and sociology.  We have to define it in terms of philosophy and in terms of cognitive science.  The two can coexist peacefully- they don't need to structured the same way, use the same vocabulary, or be incorporated into one all-encompassing definition. johnpseudo 14:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh ok. I thought you meant spectrum more literally. At this time I would say Smithian atheism is a philosophy, and should be called atheism--even if it is related to or defined by cognitive states and such. So yes, defining atheism as an "absence of belief" is ok (in that it is not "incorrect"), and it is philosophy, as it is part of a larger philosophy which entails--I think--that atheism is not a philosophy. Something like that. So what can we compare this problem to? To get ideas on how to solve this problem? Here is another conflict that I believe is actually quite similar. The word "objectivism" and Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Compare objectivity (philosophy) and Objectivism (Ayn Rand). The reason there is little conflict (though there has been some) with the objectivism page is because the very first thing it says is "Objectivism is a philosophy developed by Ayn Rand" so immediately the reader knows that, if they were looking for objectivism as used and on the objectivity page, then this isn't it. The reason there is conflict here is that it does not say "Atheism is a philosophy developed by George Smith. Smith defines atheism as an absence of belief etc." That would make it clear that, whatever followed, it was Smith's ideas, his philosophy. The problem is the that is not totally true. It's not all Smith's work (just based on the fact that he cites and appeals to historical interpretations), so it is harder to delineate than Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Now, I'm going to flip-flop on that definition thing, and say that defining atheism as an absence of belief is, seemingly paradoxically, over-narrow in that it is only one school of thought on atheism. I am an idiot for what looks like a flip-flop? No I don't think so. I was complaining that Smith's definition is over-broad--but there I am complaining about his philosophy (which I shouldn't do). I'm saying he's made a mistake. That's not for an encyclopedia to say of course. In terms of "atheism" however, using only Smith's definition is over-narrow--in terms of an encyclopedia--in that it does not include the analytical approach. I think many people expect an analytical approach for the atheism article, and the propositional definition is the most popular. That's why they go crazy when they see Smith's definition, because they think the word has been "usurped" by Smithian atheism, and quite frankly that is correct. Nothing wrong with that though--Ayn Rand usurped "objectivism" for her philosophy too. But, her article makes it clear that she has usurped it by defining it as her particular school of thought. --24.57.157.81 19:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow! Yeah, I agree with your entire assessment. Except that I wouldn't say that the Smithian definition has completely "usurped" the analytical definition. The proposition just isn't expressed all that clearly, the Smithian definition is presented first, and the two types of definitions aren't delineated nearly enough to account for the wide rift between analytical and Smithian definitions in real life. johnpseudo 19:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hooray! So now we have to figure out how to keep these separate. At least now we can approach the problem. Obviously Smithian atheism is quite a bit more involved (strong/weak/implicit/explicit not a belief etc.), so it would likely make up the bulk of the article. Analytical atheism could just be summed up by the proposition and some examples of arguments, since it is fairly simple--just the proposition that God does not exist. The history of atheism is, well, history, so it would cover everything called atheism, so there's never really been a problem there. I'm not familiar enough with Smithian atheism so, at the moment, I don't have any ideas on how to discuss it, or how to compare and contrast it with analytical/propositional atheism.


 * I agree "usurped" is not the best way to put it, "also uses the word" is perfectly fine. I just mention it because I think the reason the conflict is so heated is because both sides believe the other is trying to or has succeeded in usurping the definition, and they take offense to it.


 * The definition is the key to getting things in their right places. You could say, I think, "The word atheism is used in a variety of ways, the most popular being the definition provided by analytical philosophy: the belief that it is true that God does not exist. Atheism is also be defined by [Smithian Atheism], and consists in an absence of belief that God exists." It's not there yet, but perhaps we're getting closer. Hopefully the rest of the article will more or less fall into place.--24.57.157.81 21:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Smith did not create the idea behind implicit atheism. It's been around since at least d'Holbach (who said "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God"), probably earlier. Or do you mean something different when you're saying "Smithian"?&mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-20 20:02Z
 * It's just for the sake of discussion, per 24.57.157.81's 07:36, 20 April 2007 comment. johnpseudo 20:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ^^Right. I'm only using "Smithian atheism" just as a placeholder because I think his work, for the most part, sums up the philosophy in which atheism can be considered to be an absence of belief. Maybe d'Holbachian atheism is actually more correct so I will look into his work.--24.57.157.81 21:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ad-hoc section break
(unindent) I think the analysis here is essentially correct, I'm not very fond of the overly inclusive definitions, but why do you say that analytic philosophy prefers the narrow definition. If $$g$$ is the proposition that "God exists", $$B(x)$$ denotes the predicate that I believe in proposition $$x$$, then why is $$\neg B(g)$$ any less analytical than $$B(\neg g)$$? Isn't Michael Martin an analytic philosopher who is actively pushing d'Holbachian atheism? --Merzul 21:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying it is. Analytical atheism (as I've called it) is the propositional attitude B applied to the proposition g is false. The proposition is analytical, the propositional attitude is simply a defining characteristic of a person. Since the analysis of attitudes B and not B would be the analysis of different propositions, namely, it seems, one should B or one should not B, they would be a different -ism: d'Holbachianism (which would be what I'm calling d'Holbachian atheism.)--24.57.157.81 22:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And with a cursory glance at what he says, obviously Michael Martin is full-fledged d'Holbachian atheist, seeing as he uses all the terms. Whether or not he's analyzed the propositions of d'Holbachian atheism, I don't know. This article for instance, is not in the style of what I would call analytical philosophy. --24.57.157.81 22:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And, amusingly, I just decided to look up to see what Wittgenstein says about atheism, getting all excited that "Oh yes this is what I mean" and lo and behold there's Michael Martin j'accuseing him with "Is there any interpretation that makes Wittgenstein's view neither noncontroversial nor clearly wrong?" --24.57.157.81 23:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe, yes, Martin indeed... See also William L. Rowe and the linked Martin article. Yes, these are different -isms. I think there is a strong correlation between "unfriendly atheism" and preferring the d'Holbachian definition. --Merzul 02:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Doctrinal atheism
Ahha! I posted this definition somewhere above but I'll post it again here and discuss it. It's "d'Holbachian atheism" but now I see that name too is insufficient. It's the definition from American Atheists:


 * "Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own." - American Atheists

So, what I think we have is this:


 * 1) Analytical Atheism: "the position that the proposition God exists is false."
 * 2) Mental Atheism (i.e. absence of belief definition): "the mental state characterized by non-affirmation of God's existence"
 * 3) Doctrinal Atheism: Definition above.

All of these can be described as an absence of belief. That phrase is huge can of worms and should be avoided altogether. In fact, the word belief should be used as little as possible to avoid confusion. I was going to try explaining some of the problem but damn it is hard to get right. Basically the problem boils down to "belief" meaning more than one thing, most importantly material belief and epistemological belief. Sometimes they can work together or separately and no one notices, other times, they clash and the word becomes equivocable, resulting in misinterpretations.--24.57.157.81 08:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Note: I included "mental atheism" for people who are not doctrinal atheists but still use that definition. Technically that definition would only be an -ism to doctrinal atheists (-isms are necessarily mental states to materialists) but it is still a concept unto itself. I can also try to explain some of the problems if anyone wants (I did write down a few but couldn't resolve them), but like I said it is a can of worms.--24.57.157.81 08:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Post-Soviet countries
I found another good journal article on the spread of religion in post-Soviet countries. We should be careful not to make any sweeping statements though, as this article warns against. I can get the figures from JSTOR if anyone's interested. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-19 04:57Z

Religiosity and intelligence...
Paul Bell in MENSA magazine... In my opinion, these kinds of claims raise a WP:REDFLAG, and so who is this Paul Bell? And MENSA Magazine probably isn't peer-reviewed, so I'm concerned with the credibility of this study! I would like something like of this quality (has nothing to do with the topic, it's just a study with 691 correlations published in a real journal), before including "studies" of controversial nature. Is everyone fine with this, has anyone seen the actual study? Does it merit inclusion, or are we giving some half-scientific study undue weight? --Merzul 15:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think only members of Mensa can see those things. I'm fine with removing it if there's no better source. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-19 15:23Z
 * Perhaps there is some MENSA member, who can give a fair assessment of that study. I have only seen it as cited in The God Delusion. Has anyone seen the actual study? --Merzul 15:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Brutal refactoring.
A have been very brutal in the recent edits. In the process I might have lost some information. I have tried to achieve the following: One of the main things to do is to trim the Further Reading section, by either moving to the refs, or deleting them if they aren't relevant. Good luck, and if this fails, feel free to revert. I'm going to sleep now. --Merzul 22:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I tried to keep only reliable and much used sources in the references section, so I tried to move the Austine Cline refs into notes.
 * 2) I tried to removed duplicated refs when they didn't add much value.
 * 3) I have removed the dictionary definitions as the talk page experience shows this doesn't convince anyone. I think a better idea is to try to address the issue with one footnote linking to web-pages that contain list of other definitions from reliable sources.

I'm going to continue to be brutal now... I'm going to remove all the quotations that I consider irrelevant, and any refs that don't immediately back up the claims. Just to post a few important old-id's: The first one, in particular, has all quotations for easy verification, but that is information we editors should use to aide the verification process, it's not always that useful to the reader. --Merzul 23:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * March 12
 * April 19

Too Much Absence
If "x is an atheist" is adequately defined as "The belief in the existence of gods is absent from the mind of x", then "x is a theist" is adequately defined as "The belief in the nonexistence of gods is absent from the mind of x" as well. In this case higher animals, human babies and children, mentally severely disabled humans, and agnostics (I mean 'belief agnostics') are both theists and atheists, satisfying both definitions. But are we really prepared to consider the beings mentioned both theists and atheists? I don't think so, for we rather consider them neither theists nor atheists. So "Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods or deities" may be the broadest possible definition, but it's not the broadest proper definition. — Editorius 20:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hasn't this been argued enough? You postulate ridiculous double negatives in an attempt to get a consensus to agree on a narrower definition. A broad definition is favorable because there are so many "flavors" of atheism. If specifics are necessary, they can be explored in subsidiary articles. -- Scjessey 20:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not "postulate ridiculous double negatives in an attempt to get a consensus to agree on a narrower definition." What I actually do is draw logical conclusions in an attempt to get a consensus to agree on a more adequate definition. For it is not simply the case that the broader a definition is, the more adequate it is. What we need is a definition that is not only broad but also broad and adequate. — Editorius 22:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

George Smith writes:
 * "Just take my word for it that historically and philosophically it's very justifiable to say that the best, most generic definition for the term atheism is simply the absence or lack of belief in a god."
 * (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/george_smith/defending.html)

I'm sorry, but I refuse to take his word for it that this is the case; for Smith's definition is inadequate for several reasons. — Editorius 22:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is fortunate, therefore, that a consensus decides such things. -- Scjessey 23:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Editorius, the question is whether you would like to classify someone who thinks the phrase "non-existence of God" is just utter nonsense as a theist because he lacks belief in the "non-existence of God". By your suggested definition of theism, you should classify logical positivists as theists, but do you really want to call someone a theist when they say the following: "I know not what you mean by God; I am without idea of God; the word 'God' is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which by its affirmer, is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to me." I feel quite comfortable calling them atheists! Even if noncognitivist is more accurate, every normal person would consider Carnap et al full-blown atheists. So while the wider definition IMO erroneously classifies infants as atheists, the narrower definition misses a historically significant group of atheists. --Merzul 23:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * @Merzul: First of all, "Theism is the absence of belief in the nonexistence of gods" is not a definition I actually endorse. I just wanted to stress the fact that if "Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods" is deemed adequate, it must be deemed adequate as well.
 * In my opionion, the definition of "atheism" as "the rejection of the truth of 'God exists'/'Gods exist'" is more adequate, counting even the noncognitivists among the atheists. For if "God exists" and "Gods exist" aren't even meaningful propositions, then they aren't even 'truth-apt', which implies that they are not true (and, of course, not false either). And this is exactly what the noncognitivist claims: that "God exists"/"Gods exist" is not true. (Of course, in this case affirming the nontruth of p is not the same as affirming the falsity of p.) — Editorius 00:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Editorius (20:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)): I agree wholeheartedly of course. The problem here is that your line of reasoning is incompatible with their preferred world view and the definitions that they associate with that world view. Here is the problem as I am understanding it. Doctrinal atheists are materialists. So when they talk about theism and atheism they are talking about material conditions (of the brain). The default state of the brain is called atheism--no beliefs regarding the existence of God as being true exist within the brain. This default state is not the belief that God does not exist. All brains are "atheist brains" unless they acquire the condition of theism. Their definitions have nothing to do with the actual question of God's existence at all. --24.57.157.81 00:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

@24.57.157.81: There seem to be two terms: The psychological term "atheism" and the philosophical term "atheism", with the former referring to a certain (negative) cognitive state of minds and the latter to a certain (negative) state of affairs in the (extramental) world. The true default state of the minds of e.g. human children and apes is being devoid of both theism and atheism. A newborn child is not a theist, but it isn't an atheist either. — Editorius 01:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that atheism does need some 'de-psychologization'. — Editorius 01:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes this is the way I look at it too. I would characterize the true default state as agnostic, since babies don't know whether or not God exists. Doctrinal atheism, however, demands that this exact same default state is called a state of atheism, characterized as atheistic. Their reasoning, I believe, is that an agnostic brain and an atheistic brain are both "unafflicted" with theism. Any brain that is unafflicted with theism they call an atheistic brain. The default states of both the baby's brain and the baby's knowledge/beliefs are identical to your description. Agnostic appeals to the baby's knowledge/beliefs whereas atheistic appeals to the baby's brain. Doctrinal atheists, being materialists, are more concerned with the baby's brain than the knowledge/beliefs, and in fact this goes for everyone and everything they talk about. Dawkins, for instance, reports that he does not know whether or not God exists, yet he calls himself an atheist. The reason he calls himself an atheist is based on his atheistic brain; none of his brain can be called theistic (and also probably because he adheres to and believes in doctrinal atheism). Calling himself an atheist tells you nothing about his knowledge/beliefs except that he is not a theist. However, in terms of knowledge, his report indicates he is agnostic.--24.57.157.81 03:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, not about belief. People who call themselves "agnostics" when asked about the existence of God are taking the unspoken step of saying "I can't know it for sure, and if I can't know something for sure, I can't believe it." Whether or not it is atheism or some other term doesn't really matter - they're just labels - but what does matter is that such individuals have been called atheists by reliable sources, so we need to explain that. Explaining it is not adhering to it. Please try to avoid turning this into an OR discussion forum. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-23 04:13Z
 * If you would like to know more about the relationship between knowledge and belief you should read the epistemology article. That's the sense I was using it in. The baby has no beliefs in that sense. Also agnosticism is a belief, specifically, the belief that the truth value of the proposition "God exists" is unknowable. Do not confuse it with the characteristic of being agnostic. --24.57.157.81 06:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As I asked before, how is belief not a psychological phenomenon? Babies cannot be agnostic because they have not formed an opinion about whether knowledge of god is possible. Agnosticism is not simply about knowledge, it is taking a position on knowledge. Dawkins is not out of line, because anyone who says he is an atheist is "telling you nothing about his knowledge/beliefs except that he is not a theist." To use the terms of the article, the "broadest" definition of atheist is anyone who is not a theist. Furthermore, atheism in no way requires or implies materialism or naturalism. There were atheists before there was psychology or neurobiology. MFNickster 04:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (Point: Dawkins not out of line.) I never said Dawkins is out of line. He can call himself whatever he wants to. Agnostics believe God might exist. Dawkins said he believes God might exist. I say he's an agnostic, he says he's an atheist. So I want to figure out why. So, judging by the philosophy involved in doctrinal Atheism, I believe when he says he is an "atheist" he means "my brain is not theistic" not "I propose such and such about the existence of God." I certainly can't tell what he is proposing, if he is, can you? If he just says he's an atheist, can you tell if he is a weak atheist or a strong atheist?


 * You said that "Dawkins, for instance, reports that he does not know whether or not God exists, yet he calls himself an atheist," suggesting that this is somehow contradictory. MFNickster 06:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm speaking about my own experience. Based on my own experience the definition of atheism is "believes God does not exist" and so it is contradictory. So I figure he must be using a different definition, and I want to figure out why his definition is so different. Remember which definition is the more popular, and more common definition. Why does Dawkins go against it? --24.57.157.81 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not contradictory, because knowledge does not equal belief. It is quite possible to believe that god does not exist, without knowing whether he does. MFNickster 18:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (Point: How is belief not a psychological phenomena?) Take for instance "Joe's belief that it is true that apples are red." Yes this is indeed a psychological phenomenon. That statement also contains a proposition: that it is true that apples are red. Usually, propositions are believed. This is a quite common propositional attitude--the "relational mental state connecting a person to a proposition."


 * Exactly-- the truth of a proposition is not dependent on anyone believing the truth of it. Color is a potential problem area, because it relies on an individual's perception. Can apples be "red" without anyone perceiving them visually? I don't know, but atheism is about the existence of an entity or entities known as god(s), which is surely a separate issue from whether anyone believes in them. MFNickster 06:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Color is qualia. You're nitpicking the example. "Joe believes that you use the nickname MFNickster". Better? As for atheism being about the existence of God and not about whether anyone believes in Gods, you are splitting hairs. I can't be bothered to get you out of that mess, since I would have to explain philosophy from first principles. Think about creationism. It's the same construct. You just can't figure it out because you don't think atheism is a belief, when clearly no one actually knows whether or not something that can be called God exists.--24.57.157.81 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this entire discussion is 'nitpicking', but yes, qualia do 'taint' the example with a separate issue. As for 'explaining philosophy from first principles', you have expended a huge amount of verbiage without being able to present a coherent picture of what the issue is. You are also confusing knowledge with belief without justification - nobody, to my knowledge, has defined atheism as 'the knowledge that god does not exist.' Knowledge is relevant to the proposition "god exists", but not to anyone's belief in the proposition. MFNickster 18:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (Point: Atheism in no way requires or implies materialism or naturalism.) I'm talking about doctrinal atheism, which I defined as the definition by American Atheists which I posted above. From my research that is exactly what it says. You don't have to follow all or even any of their particular doctrine to be an atheist. The problem is if you don't follow their doctrine you can't use their same words because their words don't make sense unless you believe that doctrine. The world view of their philosophy is inherent in the use of their definitions. The definitions are specific to the doctrine.--24.57.157.81 06:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * AA have chosen to conflate god beliefs with all supernatural beliefs, but there is no logical reason that they must do so. So, if they are using the words in a non-standard way, it is up to them to explain what they mean by them, not up to the listener to interpret "atheism" to mean "naturalism." I don't see why the article can't mention their usage, as long as it's with proper annotation. MFNickster


 * AA definition says: "This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be." It is quite specific. --24.57.157.81 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah-ha this was on the Naturalism (philosophy) page:
 * "There is currently some dispute over whether naturalism rules out certain areas of philosophy altogether, such as semantics, ethics, aesthetics, or excludes the use of mentalistic vocabulary ("believes", "thinks") in philosophy of mind. Quine avoided most of these topics, but some recent thinkers have argued that even though (according to them) mentalistic descriptions and value judgements cannot be systematically translated into physicalistic descriptions, they also do not need to presuppose the existence of anything other than physical phenomena.


 * Donald Davidson, for example, has argued that individual mental states can (must, in fact) be identical with individual brain states, even though a given kind of mental state (belief in materialism) might not be systematically identified with a given kind of brain state (a particular pattern of neural firings): the former weakly "supervenes" upon the latter. The implication is that naturalism can leave non-physical vocabulary intact where the use of that vocabulary can be explained naturalistically; McDowell has dubbed this level of discourse "second nature"."--24.57.157.81 07:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the "rejection of theism" (explicit weak) definition is the best one, as it includes logical positivists and doesn't include infants; but we have no sources to help us draw the conclusion that it is the best one. All the best original research in the world, isn't going to help us much, unless we have something like "On the evidentialist bias in definitions of atheism" in a very reliable source. The fact is that some very notable philosophers are using the wider definition, d'Holbach specifically saying infants are atheist. --Merzul 09:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's because it's part of doctrinal atheism--it's a whole body of thought, which some might find surprising. Calling a baby an atheist is perfectly reasonable to them. This is because they are not using a wider definition, they are using a completely different definition. When a doctrinal atheist says "you are an atheist" they do not mean they think you believe God does not exist, nor do they even mean you subscribe to their doctrine, they mean your brain matter is not theistic. That's all they will ever mean if they are speaking from a materialist POV, because their doctrine denies all knowledge of metaphysics, including the question of God's existence itself.--24.57.157.81 18:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

@24.57.157.81: I do think that even being an agnostic requires a minimal awareness of one's own ideological attitudes. Hence, I refuse to call babies and apes agnostic, because they actually are ideologically indifferent. In order for somebody to be ideologically indifferent, he doesn't even have to possess and understand the concept of god. — Editorius 10:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree with that. Perhaps babies can be characterized as ignostic? At any rate, I would certainly not say babies have an sort of an -ism. Ideologically indifferent is a fair characterization of a default state.--24.57.157.81 18:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

@Brian0918: You wrote: "Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, not about belief." As I already emphasized, there are two types of agnosticism:
 * (1) (categorical) knowledge agnosticism: "It is impossible to know with (objective) certainty whether p."
 * (2) belief agnosticism: "I believe neither that p nor that not-p." / "I refrain both from believing that p and from believing that not-p." / "p and not-p are equiprobable."

Whom Dawkins calls a 'de facto atheist' is a knowledge agnostic, because he doesn't claim to know with objective certainty (or that it's possible to know with objective certainty) that gods do not exist, but he's surely not a belief agnostic. — Editorius 10:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

@Merzul: I do think that "Atheism is the rejection of theistic belief" (* is more adequate than "Atheism is the absence of theistic belief", because in my opinion a minimal reflective awareness of one's own ideological attitudes is required, including the possession and comprehension of certain ideological concepts such as or . There may be unconscious repression but I doubt there is unconscious rejection. If I reject something, then I'm aware of what that is which I don't accept. — Editorius 10:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (* For example, Kai Nielsen uses this definition:
 * "[T]o be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God (...)."
 * ["Atheism." Encyclopaedia Britannica, from Encyclopaedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2005 DVD. Copyright © 1994-2004 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.])
 * Editorius 10:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And Antony Flew:
 * "[Atheism]. The rejection of belief in God, whether on the grounds that it is meaningful but false to say that God exists, or, as the logical positivists held, that it is meaningless and hence neither true nor false."
 * ["Atheism" in: Flew, Antony, ed. A Dictionary of Philosophy . 2nd ed. New York: Gramercy, 1999.]
 * Editorius 11:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems right to me. But don't forget there is d'Holbach's doctrine which is being called atheism. And also doctrinal atheism's definition of atheism, which is the materialist "not afflicted with the physical mental condition called theism." I'm wondering, though, if they would have the same problem with "rejection" as they do with "deny," but it seems to work with materialism (they reject the theism matter/meme/whatever).--24.57.157.81 18:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "They" cannot have the same problem with "rejection", since rejection is not the same as denial, i.e. affirmation of the negation. One can reject p without affirming not-p. — Editorius 23:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "They" as in doctrinal atheists--those who employ a materialist world view. They're the most vocal and distinguishing, and so out of all atheists--all readers, even--would be the most likely to find some sort of bias in the word "rejection." --24.57.157.81 23:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins's definition
Interesting Richard Dawkins is mentioned above, but he isn't mentioned in the article. He defines an atheist as a person who assigns a low probability to the proposition "God exists". In The God Delusion, p. 50, he has an interesting table: And he classifies himself as a de facto atheist, but not a strong atheist. I wonder, if we should say something about his definition. He is quite notable nowadays. --Merzul 09:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong theist: 100%
 * De facto theist: high, but <100%
 * Theist agnostic: >50%, but not very high
 * Impartial agnostic: 50%
 * Atheist agnostic: <50%, but not very low
 * De facto atheist: low, but >0%
 * Strong atheist: 0%


 * Dawkins's classification appears very useful. If you want to learn whether somebody is a 'purebred' agnostic, a quasi-theist (theistic agnostic)/quasi-atheist (atheistic agnostic), theist/atheist, or strong theist/strong atheist, ask them the following question instead of "Do you think that God exists/Gods exists?":
 * ''"How likely do you think it is that God exists/gods exist?"
 * "Atheism" could then be defined as "the belief that the probability of the existence of gods is lower than roughly 25%". And, for example, "Quasi-Atheism" ("Atheistic Agnosticism") as "the belief that the probability of the existence of gods is higher than roughly 25% but lower than 50%".
 * Editorius 10:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dawkins view was in the article, but was removed as requested in the FAC because it wasn't very lengthy, and it was an opinion espoused by only Dawkins (considering that there are a billion different opinions from experts in this area, I think that is a valid point). &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-23 12:42Z
 * I hope you are joking that is a horrible definition. --24.57.157.81 23:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dawkins view was in the article, but was removed as requested in the FAC because it wasn't very lengthy, and it was an opinion espoused by only Dawkins (considering that there are a billion different opinions from experts in this area, I think that is a valid point). &mdash; BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-23 12:42Z
 * I hope you are joking that is a horrible definition. --24.57.157.81 23:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have just come across a newish article called Spectrum of Theistic Probability, which represents someone's attempt to create a WP article out of this formulation by Dawkins. I make no judgement on whether it's a good article, or a candidate for AfD, but it might be worth the editors of Atheism knowing about it! Snalwibma 07:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

More respect to Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins is one of the most influential atheists of all time. I regard him as a hero. He is great. Dawkins has done more for atheism than anyone has! His image should be at the top. User:devraj


 * Dawkins is a highly respectable person, but we do not have to deify him, do we ...?! (I don't mind the image.) — Editorius 11:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe his recent book has sold a lot of copies, but I'm not sure how influential he will be seen as in 50 years. Certainly not on the same scale as Nietzsche, Marx, Rand, Russell, etc. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-23 12:46Z


 * We atheists will never be very influential, since atheism and naturalism are not taught in the public schools and we don't have a mighty pope or an imperial Vatican.
 * Do you really think that Ayn Rand deserves to be mentioned in the same breath with intellectual titans such as Nietzsche, Marx, and Russell?! (Funny then that hardly any academic student of philosophy knows her name, isn't it?)
 * Editorius 13:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I was giving examples of people Richard Dawkins would most likely be seen as less influential than; not a list of the top 4 most influential atheists. Rand was the least influential of the ones I listed, but still probably more influential than Dawkins in the area of philosophy (maybe not in the area of biology). &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-23 13:27Z


 * Why do you keep reverting? Not only is your caption ungrammatical, it's not accurate and unsourced, and of no importance to the article. It's clear you like Dawkins, but there's no reason to keep reverting without discussing it first, and there's no reason to ignore the entire history of atheism in favor of someone who's alive and writing books. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-23 13:42Z


 * Well brother BRIAN, I disagree with you. Dawkins is great. I have read his book The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion . And his books are great. He will be as influential as intellectual titans such as Nietzsche, Marx, and Russell.
 * And he is more influential than the 18th-century French author Baron d'Holbach.
 * His image should be at the top.
 * User:devraj
 * I have a Master's degree in Physics, not in English. And English is not my First Language.
 * User:devraj
 * Yes, you have read his books. However, the article is not written based on your opinion. Find a reliable source that says Dawkins will be on the same level as Marx and Nietzsche. You won't. The d'Holbach image is relevant to the lead section (which talks about the first self-described atheists), and relevant to the article, which talks about d'Holbach's view. The Dawkins image is not relevant to the lead section, or really to the article either. And the caption of course is inaccurate and ungrammatical. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-23 13:51Z

Brain, Who are you? Einstein? The article is not written based on my opinion or your opinion. And, find a reliable source that says Marx and Nietzsche were better atheists than Dawkins. Guess what, You won't!! Brain, you have just completed a BS in Physics. Well done, Kid. Well, I have a Master's degree in Physics. Now go to a Grad School and complete a Master's. User:devraj


 * It may well be that Dawkins will be seen to have done more to influence the public's perception of Atheism than many. In which direction remains to be seen.  There is general agreement amongst the reviewers that Dawkins, although a fine writer of popular science, is out of his depth when dealing with the philosophical issues in The God Delusion. Although his views are a significant snapshot of what some leading atheists are thinking. NBeale 06:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Devraj: You have a master's in physics? Guess what, I have a PhD in physics! I win! So, clearly, since my degree is higher than yours, Nietzsche is a bigger atheist than Dawkins! .... Seriously, your original argument is that "I think Dawkins is great, therefore Dawkins is one of the most influential atheists of all time." That's fine for your blog, but not for Wikipedia, where we require reliable sources. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-24 20:37Z


 * I agree with Brain. Dawkins may be "your hero," he may turn out to be more influential than any other atheist, and you may be a physics major, but none of these are good enough to justify putting his picture at the top of the page. D'Holbach is a historical figure and for that and other reasons that have already been mentioned (such as him being one of the first self-described atheists), he should be the one on the top of the page. --Alexc3 (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Further reading section
Currently this section doesn't really help our readers. I will now remove the entire section, but if anyone can then produce a section with say at most 10 of the most essential readings on atheism, then that's fine, but I don't think I can make such a selection, and a further reading will just invite people to add more and more books. --Merzul 17:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should have a limited list of useful books, broken up by subject (eg, History, General, Arguments, etc.) But keep the list short. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-23 18:08Z
 * Yes, I put them all back for now, someone more familiar with the literature than myself should make a very selective selection :) --Merzul 19:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

POV Concerns on un-critical espousal of "Weak Atheism"
I'm sorry to keep coming back to this, but I'm afraid I still think there is a fundamental POV problem with this article in that it starts from the POV that Atheism = Strong Atheism + Weak Atheism and does not make it remotely clear that the concept of "Weak Atheism" is highly controversial. People who define themselves as agnostics do so specifically in distinction to being "Atheists" and the idea that newborn babies are all "weak atheists" is also highly controversial (some people think that newborn babies have a direct perception of the divine, and there is actually quite strong empirical evidence that children are instinctive theists). In addiiton leading Atheists like Dawkins specifically do not use the term. Of course it cannot be denied that some atheists have sought to extend the definition of Atheism to cover "weak atheism" - just as some Christians use the term "implicit Christian" and some Muslims suggest assert that "every child is born a Muslim". But the leading dictionaries and philosophical encycolpedias do not take this as the lead sense of the term. And no-one reading this article would realise that there was a problem. I don't think this is an insoluble issue, but I do think it needs to be solved NBeale 06:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC) amended NBeale 17:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you mean specifically implicit atheism here. Explicit weak atheism ("conscious rejection of theism") is not controversial, and supported by many dictionaries (though they don't refer to it as "weak", so the term is a neologism, but that's beside the point here). I'm not sure how it's comparable to "implicit Christian" or Muslim - what definitions of Christian and Muslim are they using to include babies?
 * Is it just in the introduction you see this, in that we start off with the broadest definition, or elsewhere? Are there reliable sources to show that some find this controversial, which could be placed in the implicit vs. explicit section? Mdwh 09:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He hasn't even shown that implicit atheism is controversial. It's been around since the 1700s, and standard encyclopedias of philosophy cite it (such as Routledge: "Another meaning of ‘atheism’ is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. These two different meanings are sometimes characterized as positive atheism (belief in the nonexistence of God) and negative atheism (lack of belief in the existence of God)."), as do countless books on the subject. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-24 14:57Z

I am puzzled by the above comment from NBeale. The article does not at all "start from the POV that Atheism = Strong Atheism + Weak Atheism". It is a well written article that starts from the premise that atheism has many shades of definition, and it carefully avoids adopting a particular stance. But maybe inserting the word "agnostic" somewhere early in the section on strong vs. weak atheism would deal with this objection. I think that's about all it needs. Gnusmas 14:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well let me try to suggest a re-wording of the lead sentence (with refs indicated in brackets for clarity): "The primary meaning of Atheism is belief in the non-existence of God, as opposed to Theism and Agnosticism(ref SEP, REP). However the term is sometimes used (mainly by atheists (ref eg Blackburn, REP)) to mean "absence of belief in the existence of god or gods" and thus to include Agnostics, even if they deny that they are atheists(ref eg Kenny)." That at least alerts the reader to what is going on. NBeale 17:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * When you say "mainly by atheists", what do you mean? What kind of atheists? "Atheism is defined mainly by atheists as..." makes no sense because you haven't yet defined anything. Also, you need to avoid weasel words like "sometimes" and "mainly". You also haven't shown that these "some atheists" label agnostics as "atheists" despite agnostics telling those same "some atheists" that they shouldn't be labelled as such. Otherwise, it violates WP:SYN to connect 2 sourced statements (assertion of atheism; denial of assertion) to form a third unsourced statement (assertion of atheism despite denial of assertion). &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-24 17:53Z
 * I'm sorry, but that didn't make any sense to me either. The wording that the primary meaning of atheism is "belief in the non-existence of God" implies that most atheists are believers of some sort, which I disagree with. Atheism is a far more generic concept, with many flavors. Wikipedia should present a broad definition in the initial instance, and then offer specifics later in the article (or in separate articles). -- Scjessey 17:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We need reputable sources for these assertions:
 * "Belief in the non-existence of God" is the "primary" meaning of atheism.
 * "Belief in the non-existence of God" is "opposed to" agnosticism.
 * "Absence of belief in the existence of god or gods" is a definition used "mainly by atheists".
 * Agnostics "deny that they atheists".
 * Thanks. johnpseudo 19:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The article in its current form may give some readers the "impression" of going so far as to prefer one definition over the other, but the important thing- and the reason the article has been so stable- is that it doesn't actually assert anything that is not supported by reputable sources, while your definition does. The only way we can achieve a NPOV in an article this controversial is to strive for verifiability. If you can find sources for any of the assertions listed, then perhaps we will be able to frame the definition in a more informative way. johnpseudo 19:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK here goes:
 * "Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief...As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God." ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1998). Atheism. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Retrieved April 24, 2007, from http://0-www.rep.routledge.com.libsys.wellcome.ac.uk:80/article/K002SECT1 "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." SEP.
 * "In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God." (BTW it continues: "In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.") ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1998). Agnosticism. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Retrieved April 24, 2007, from http://0-www.rep.routledge.com.libsys.wellcome.ac.uk:80/article/K001
 * Well all the definers so cited are atheists. Perhaps we should say "some atheists ..." and ref Blackburn etc..
 * Anthony Kenny explains at length "Why I am not an Atheist". See also REP op. cit. "Huxley held that neither belief nor disbelief in the existence of God or some supernatural divine reality is warranted, because in his judgment we are simply unable to discover sufficient rational grounds to support either belief or disbelief." (REP) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NBeale (talk • contribs).
 * So your entire source of verification for #1 and #2 is Routledge? As Brian explained before, this encyclopedia decided to explain all the definitions, then adhere to one definition simply because it's the most commonly used definition.  I'm in favor of acknowledging that the strong definition is the most frequently used definition, but absent this article, we could find no supporting references.
 * You could say that the implicit and weak definitions are used by "some atheists," but that doesn't really say anything. Is it just used by some atheists, or is it used by some theists, too?  We don't have a source for that.
 * Actually, minus the "mainly by atheists" bit, the last sentence is fine by me. johnpseudo 21:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, those are good sources for what William L. Rowe thinks is the common understanding of atheism. But we have already considered his opinion. --Merzul 21:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

2nd proposal
Hi John, Merzul: REP is not the entire source, just one convenient one. And of course the REP is peer-reviewed, not just a personal opinion. Sounds like at least John might be happy with: "The common meaning of Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God, as distinct from Theism and Agnosticism(ref SEP, REP). However the term is sometimes used (ref eg Blackburn, REP) to mean "absence of belief in the existence of god or gods" and thus to include Agnostics, even if they deny that they are atheists(ref eg Kenny)." NBeale 06:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We need to include the "rejection of theism" definition, which is common also. And not all agnostics would be included, it depends on the definition, agnosticism is usually a separate issue to belief in god. Mdwh 10:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * NBeale! Thank you for keeping your discussion relevant, and to the point. This, at least, has some hope of improving the article. Two main issues remain:
 * As Mdwh has said, "positive belief" is roughly equal in popularity to "rejection of theism", so Rowe's positive definition isn't ideal, and will not satisfy other editors. (I actually agree with you that it is the most reasonable, and dare I say, the most intellectually honest definition).
 * SEP can't be used to say that atheism is opposed the agnosticism: the entire thesis of SEP's article is that agnosticism isn't that distinct. In the conclusion, he seems to argue that some agnostics ought to call themselves atheists!
 * I do, however, understand your general objection. NPOV doesn't mean we give equal weight to all definitions. Routledge and Britannica are more mainstream, so at the very least, we need to put back the "more common" phrasing, but we need to be very careful. Even if I think this is a non-issue, I'm almost 100% certain that if we use "positive belief", we'll receive thousands of complaints from the other side. --Merzul 16:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that we shouldn't imply that the "absence of belief" definition applies to all agnostics- as done in "and thus to include Agnostics". One could believe that it's impossible to know whether God exists and still affirm a belief in God.
 * The phrase "the common meaning" is misleading, because even though that definition is the most common meaning, there are several common meanings.
 * I agree that we should include the "rejection of theism" (weak atheism) definition-not just the "absence of belief" (implicit atheism) definition. One can consciously reject the proposition of theism and still not affirm the non-existence of God.
 * johnpseudo 16:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

3rd proposal
Hi John, Merzul, Mdwh. I think we may be getting there. To address the points: (a) we could add or "rejection of theism" to cover this; (b)by citing REP and using their wording we are safe from OR so think it's OK for us to say "common meaning" (c) That's why I suggest we say "as distinct from" rather than "as opposed to" (d) we can say "agnostics who do not believe in God". Hence how about: "The common meaning of Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God, as distinct from Theism and Agnosticism(ref SEP, REP). However the term is sometimes used (ref eg Blackburn, REP) to mean "absence of belief in the existence of god or gods" or "rejection of theism" and thus to include Agnostics who do not believe in God, even if they deny that they are atheists(ref eg Kenny)." NBeale 18:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Your point is taken, but I find REP's wording misleading. If there is only one common meaning, why would they mention any other meaning?  I'm still comfortable calling it the most common meaning. Perhaps we could find a source that tells us that other definitions are "uncommon"?
 * 2) I'll grant you that agnosticism is "distinct from" atheism. From my twisted materialist POV it's still misleading though, because agnostics are not "distinct from" atheists.
 * 3) While I have no qualms with including your second sentence somewhere in the article, because it isn't misleading anymore, I don't think it belongs in the article's primary definition: I don't feel that its point that agnostics can be considered atheists is quite that important. It seems specifically worded to imply that the less-common definitions are contradictory nonsense, when really the confusion of agnostics being atheists despite their denial is semantic- these agnostics simply use the word in a different way.
 * johnpseudo 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Problems with NBeale's def
There are a few problems here. Funny, how they correspond to Johnseudo, I wrote this independently of his comment: Anyway, Muhammad's view can be expounded on the Islam page, but I don't see why we can't give due weight to some of the most influential atheist philosophers on an article about atheism. --Merzul 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Most importantly, "belief in the non-existence of God" is not the primary definition of atheism, both Britannica and Stanford define atheism as the "rejection of theism".
 * 2) SEP doesn't see atheism as opposed to agnosticism! The lead paragraph of SEP is very clear on this:
 * The main purpose of this article is to explore the differences between atheism and agnosticism, and the relations between them. The task is made more difficult because each of these words are what Wittgenstein called ‘family resemblance’ words. That is, we cannot expect to find a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for their use. Their use is appropriate if a fair number of the conditions are satisfied. Moreover even particular members of the families are often imprecise, and sometimes almost completely obscure. Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic.
 * 1) The "mainly by atheists" part is needlessly polemical, and implies the other definitions are not used by atheists. In fact, all the sources cited by NBeale are written by atheist authors. And Anthony Flew is no longer an atheist, but still believes atheism is the default position.
 * 2) The section about weak/strong atheism describes the views of Martin and Flew. They are quite notable philosophers, we can't exclude their opinion. It is not Wikipedia who is confused about :Atheism/Agnosticism, we attribute this "confusion" to them. When Kenny says he is an agnostic who is arguing against atheism, it doesn't prevent Martin from saying that Kenny is a weak atheist arguing against strong atheism.
 * 3) Also, I'm still looking for reliable sources that dispute Martin's weak/strong distinction. It is one thing to argue against atheism, but it is another thing to object to being called a weak atheist. Does Kenny explicitly dislike the term weak atheist?


 * The assertion that weak atheism is controversial; or that any definition is used mainly be certain groups would need a reliable source. --h2g2bob 19:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

NBeale, I think you are on the right track. There is doctrinal atheism, where atheism is a belief system. Their "absence of belief" is based on numerous other beliefs, not on science. Strong/weak implicit/explicit is archaic natural philosophy, not philosophy itself. It just looks new because of the atheist revival of these concepts, probably because they are much better at promoting atheism and they appeal to a belief system, which is nice for religious converts. Someone who was just a fundamentalist Christian and had a crisis of faith will readily adopt faith-based designations like "strong" and "weak" atheism, and other ideas they are familiar with like saying that "babies are born into this world as atheists."--24.57.157.81 20:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are grossly narrowing the meaning of atheism, when it has already been argued ad nauseam (with a consensus reached) that a more generic meaning is necessary. One cannot define a meaning for "atheism" that excludes a whole bunch of atheists, can one? -- Scjessey 20:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's just my opinion. Also, your last sentence is a gigantic logical fallacy called begging the question. --24.57.157.81 20:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is fortunate, then, that Wikipedia articles are meant to feature verifiable facts instead of personal opinions. -- Scjessey 20:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a talk page. Your opinion on the problem seems limited to regurgitating Wikipedia rules and making logical fallacies. That's quite unfortunate.--24.57.157.81 21:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a talk page in the sense of WP:TALK, it's not a talk page in the sense of "let's talk about atheism". I know I'm very rude, but this should be made clear: the only purpose of this talk page is to improve the article. --Merzul 21:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it is quite rude to imply my discussion is simply pouring some tea and eating crumpets and having a nice chat about atheism and yet somehow has nothing to do with the nearly constant years-long feuding over the article you regularily edit. --24.57.157.81 21:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm always rude and arrogant, so don't take it personally. Still, the point remains that no matter how insightful an analysis you present here, it isn't going to help unless we can attribute it to some reliable source. --Merzul 22:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There's lots of things that don't help. I prefer insight over Wikipedian appeals to authority. It's not like I'm trying to put what I just explicitly said was my opinion into the article.--24.57.157.81 23:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * @Scjessey: What one can certainly do is define "atheism" in such a way that it excludes some self-declared atheists. I doubt that many would be content with the following pseudo-definition, which excludes absolutely nobody:
 * "x is an atheist" = def "x declares her-/himself an atheist"
 * Editorius 20:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. That is a staggering oversimplification of my argument. -- Scjessey 20:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * @Scjessey: The most generic term for those who are devoid of theistic belief seems to be "nontheists". Theodore Drange is one of those favouring "nontheism" above "atheism":
 * ''"In place of the expression "negative atheist," I shall use the term "nontheist." That seems to be a better term (than "atheist") for capturing the more general concept of "one who is without belief in God," for several reasons:
 * (1) Almost everyone who employs the term "nontheist" already uses it in the given way.
 * (2) As indicated in dictionaries, most native speakers of English use the term "atheist" for the more definite concept of "one who denies that God exists." It is desirable that we abide by common usage and it is foolish (and probably futile) to try to reform people's usage of terms.
 * (3) It would be more natural to call infants and fetuses "nontheists" than to call them "atheists."
 * (4) It is desirable to have a system in which the familiar three classes, theists, atheists, and agnostics, are mutually exclusive, and that would not be possible if the term "atheist" were instead used for the more general concept."
 * (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html)
 * Editorius 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (3) It would be more natural to call infants and fetuses "nontheists" than to call them "atheists."
 * (4) It is desirable to have a system in which the familiar three classes, theists, atheists, and agnostics, are mutually exclusive, and that would not be possible if the term "atheist" were instead used for the more general concept."
 * (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html)
 * Editorius 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Editorius 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To anticipate a possible objection, that the Greek prefix "a(n)-" and the Latin prefix "non-" etymologically mean the same is not decisive with regard to the current meaning of "atheism" and "nontheism". (For example, the adjectives "anaesthetic" and "nonaesthetic" aren't synonymous either.) — Editorius 21:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As has been discussed previously (and often), that narrow definition simply doesn't work. The main reason for this is that it is possible to be an atheist and a theist at the same time (a person can be theistic about one god, but atheistic about all other gods). Drange appears to be confused anyway. Historically, atheism has been taken as "not a theist" (more like nontheist). -- Scjessey 21:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We aren't here to argue at this level, it's original research already. And personally, I agree with every single one of Drange's points. But so what? Michael Martin doesn't agree, and we need to fairly present all views, even those we don't agree with. Why is that so hard to accept? --Merzul 21:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * @Editorius: "Devoid of theistic belief" is a characteristic. Is atheism simply a characteristic? --24.57.157.81 21:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Atheism is a default position. All other positions require some sort of stimulus to be arrived at, so calling atheism a characteristic seems erroneous. -- Scjessey 21:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The beliefs of infants is a different topic to the definition of atheism - perhaps this should be addressed in a section? --h2g2bob 21:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * NBeale made the claim above that "there is actually quite strong empirical evidence that children are instinctive theists." I would love to see this evidence, as I am verrrrrrry skepticl of such a claim! MFNickster 02:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * @Scjessey: Read it again and pay attention. When did I call atheism a characteristic? Did I not just rhetorically imply that it isn't? Or can you not separate the meaning and the label even when the label is not even being used?!--24.57.157.81 21:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please can we talk about making the article better. Comment on content, not on the contributor. --h2g2bob 21:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

@Scjessey: The real cognitive default position is being ideologically indifferent. Strictly logically speaking, somebody who is ideologically indifferent is not a theist, and not an atheist either. Whoever is not a theist and not an atheist, is a nontheist and a nonatheist. Therefore, whoever is not a theist is a nontheist. But this doesn't mean that whoever is a nontheist is only a nontheist, i.e. not also a nonatheist. For it is well possible for one to be both a nontheist and a nonatheist — and that's exactly what (among others) the religiously indifferent are: nontheists & nonatheists. Since not all nontheists have to be atheists, speaking of "nonatheistic nontheists" is by no means a contradiction in terms. For example, agnostics are nonatheistic nontheists. — Editorius 21:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We have already discussed the "default position" at some length. We clearly disagree on several points (I wouldn't call atheism an ideology, for example). That is why a broader (some may say vaguer, others inclusive) definition of atheism is necessary. -- Scjessey 22:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a default position in philosophy. Unless you're religious of course. --24.57.157.81 22:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about a default position in philosophy, but rather of one based in logic. Mercifully, I am not religious. -- Scjessey 22:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Then go ahead and explain your logic.--24.57.157.81 22:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already done so. You will have to delve into the archive if you are interested. -- Scjessey 22:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am interested. If you could direct me to your take on the issue, I would appreciate it. --24.57.157.81 22:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I agree that, usually, an ideology is taken to be a complex body of beliefs. Compared to that, atheism is a very thin ideology. Put simply, an ideology is a way of viewing things. I suspect that the reason why you refrain from calling atheism an ideology is that, for you, atheism is basically 'belief-free'. But as far as I'm concerned, I intuitively think that calling somebody an atheist who doesn't even positively believe in the improbability of the existence of God or gods is inappropriate, seeming almost absurd. — Editorius 22:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, quasi-atheism begins with the conviction that the nonexistence of God is slighty more probable than his existence; and atheism begins with the conviction that the nonexistence of God is much more probable than his existence. The only thing that is completely presupposition-free is the mental state of nontheism. In order for one to be a nontheist, one doesn't have to entertain any conscious beliefs.— Editorius 22:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Another thing that a complex body of beliefs can be called is a doctrine. For instance, the doctrine of atheism as described by American Atheists. Put simply, a philosophy is a way of viewing things. The particular perspective of a doctrine is called a world view.--24.57.157.81 22:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary to dwell on the AA's doctrinal definition of atheism unless you can find some other place that uses the definition. One organization's definition doesn't warrant inclusion in the article, especially since it seems to be quite different than any other definitions we've seen in reliable sources. johnpseudo 22:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh come on. You'd cite them for anything else without batting an eye, why not at least consider their definition as one of the definitions. I sincerely hope you are not letting any bias against belief systems get in the way here.--24.57.157.81 23:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I would never appear to the AA's website for any semblance of authority. Second, I am just concerned that you are conflating the AA's belief system with the other definitions we are discussing.  The doctrine they propose is quite a separate issue from the implicit/"mind states" definitions of atheism we have been discussing. You two (Editorius/24.57) seem to have forgotten the progress we made earlier in distinguishing these concepts - atheism can be defined as both a philosophy/ideology/belief system OR a state of mind johnpseudo 23:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is indeed a significant view, coming from a very significant atheist, Madalyn Murray O'Hair (the original is here). So doctrinal atheism, as you call it, or materialist atheism as she calls it, probably deserves some treatment, but I don't know exactly how. Escpecially, as we have Mr. Baggini who says atheists can have any philosophy, and there are non-materialist atheists, such as our favorite atheist, Michael Martin, who believes in some platonic realism kind of nonsense it seems. --Merzul 23:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * @johnpseudo: I consider doctrinal atheism one of perhaps 3 definitions. I am not conflating it with any other definitions. Clearly they are related, however. I do not think the implicit/"mind states" definitions of atheism are separate (though they can be separated into component concepts), in fact I believe that the doctrine AA is speaking of entails a materialist 18th century natural philosophy type of discourse which is supervening on modern analytical discourse. It is blurring the lines between science and philosophy, which is not surprising since at that time those lines were not there. Yes I know that some people define it as a state of mind. I do not think that is a proper definition for an article about atheism, but I am willing to put it in there so people who use that definition don't get confused. I think that that definition is a result of supervening discourse. This is because the "mind states" definition is the only possible definition a doctrinal atheist can use, since doctrinal atheists deny metaphysics and their system of beliefs says that any analytical propositional discourse which is not materialist is meaningless.--24.57.157.81 23:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 'd like to add an example to what I said above. Note first that their doctrine never says "God does not exist."
 * Here is an example. According to their doctrine, the question "Does God exist?" is meaningless. So whether you answer yes or no it does not matter. Your answer is to a meaningless question. So then why have theism mean "doctrine that God exists" and atheism mean "doctrine that God does not exist?" All these doctrines are meaningless because they are answers to a meaningless question and therefore so are these definitions. But the words are useful: they are useful for describing mind states. Instead of theism being a "doctrine that God exists" it is a "belief that God exists." Most people readily interchange belief with doctrine, but these atheists do not. When they say belief they mean "arrangement of atoms in the brain." Then they go from there, and their discourse begins to supervene on common analytical discourse because they are using equivocable terms. They don't realize they are equivocable because they think their beliefs are right. They think their beliefs are science -- though science of course would disagree. Can one do a scientific experiment to determine whether or not a baby is an atheist? How would you define atheist? How would you do the experiment? You can't. It's just a label. All babies are the same, it makes no difference what you call them. But it looks important and fancy because it uses philosophical language.--24.57.157.81 00:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * @Johnpseudo: Yes, yes, I'm fully aware that there is a psychological and a philosophical notion of atheism, with the former referring to certain cognitive states and the latter to extramental states of affairs. But you shouldn't overlook that there is a bridge between the two. I suppose it's called "propositional attitude". In analytic philosophy, beliefs are commonly deemed propositional attitudes, which consist in a relation between a certain cognitive state and a proposition (which represents a state of affairs). In the case of the cognitive state of belief:
 * <x believes that p (is [probably] true)>
 * Now my question is: If atheism is defined as "the absence of belief in the existence of gods", does that really mean that there need not hold any positive belief relation between an atheistic mind and the proposition <Gods exist> (or <God exists>) — not even a probabilistic one (such as "x believes that <God exists> is probably false")?
 * Editorius 00:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say if babies are called "implicit atheists," then the answer would have to be yes. (The probability part drives me up the wall because propositions are logical, not mathematical. It might be suitable for cognitive states, even formally, and maybe even as a way to informally relate one's position on a variety of propositions and arguments, but it's not propositional.)--24.57.157.81 00:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

@24.57.157.81: Anybody who teaches others that God doesn't exist (atheism as a doctrine) and is not a hypocrite believes that God doesn't exist (atheism as a mental state). — Editorius 00:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Doctrines are bodies of knowledge which are presumed to be true. You can teach it, but that's not the point. The atheist doctrine skillfully avoids explicitly proposing that God does not exist. That proposition is not part of their doctrine. Their doctrine, instead, entails that God cannot exist. From their point of view, they are not proposing anything about God. From an analytical point of view, from analyzing their doctrine, their doctrine certainly does propose God does not exist--along with a host of other propositions, such as that free will does not exist. --24.57.157.81 00:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * @24.57.157.81: What do you mean "propositions are logical, not mathematical"? — There is an animal called logical probability:
 * "[T]he logical interpretation [of probability], in its various guises, seeks to encapsulate in full generality the degree of support or confirmation that a piece of evidence E confers upon a given hypothesis H (...)."
 * So, if I believe that the propositional hypothesis <God exists> is probably false, I believe that the degree of support or confirmation of <God exists> is < 0.5.
 * Editorius 00:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean that saying "that it is true that X" is logical (true/false) and propositional (it proposes something). The only thing being proposed if you say "I believe it is 50% true that X" is a proposition about your own beliefs, not about what is true of reality. --24.57.157.81 00:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Lots to respond to, so I'll itemize the responses: johnpseudo 01:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) "Yes I know that some people define it as a state of mind. I do not think that is a proper definition for an article about atheism, but I am willing to put it in there so people who use that definition don't get confused"
 * It's not just a matter of including the "state of mind" definition so that they don't get confused- it's a matter of giving it just as much weight as any other definition, absent any source that tells us the frequency of definition usage.
 * 1) "their system of beliefs says that any analytical propositional discourse which is not materialist is meaningless"
 * There should be no conflict here. We can put the mind-state point-of-view and the philosophical point-of-view side-by-side.  If these materialist readers find one of our proposed definitions to be meaningless, then so what?
 * 1) "According to their doctrine, the question "Does God exist?" is meaningless"
 * How so? Someone's answer to that question is a good indicator of their beliefs- beliefs manifest in their actual brains.
 * 1) "Can one do a scientific experiment to determine whether or not a baby is an atheist?"
 * Just because we don't yet have an accurate scientific way to assess the contents of the human brain doesn't mean that states of mind are not scientific.
 * 1) "How would you define atheist?"
 * Well you know the answer to that, but I guess you're saying "How do we know that infant minds are absent the belief in God?". I guess you couldn't know that for sure- it's just a pretty good assumption.
 * 1) "does that really mean that there need not hold any positive belief relation between an atheistic mind and the proposition <Gods exist> (or <God exists>) — not even a probabilistic one (such as "x believes that <God exists> is probably false")?"
 * Yes, that's right. According to weak and implicit atheism, the label is assigned based on their affirmation of a belief or their stated acceptance of the proposition, not their belief/acceptance itself.


 * 1. We can just agree to include it for different reasons then. I don't have any problem with including it.
 * 2. They don't fit side by side. That is the problem and that is what causes the definition conflict. Their discourse supervenes analytical discourse. The words they use overlap with the words other people use. They are speaking the same language but their word mean different things because of their world view. Search for "Donald Davidson" on this page for a good quote explaining what I mean here. Am I right? I think so. Maybe not though.
 * 3. They deny metaphysics is anything but fiction. In terms of meaningless it is like this: Asking "Do we have free will?" to them is like asking "Do you believe Frodo Baggins drives a Chrysler?" They can still answer "no" to that question. It doesn't mean they think Frodo Baggins is real, or that there are Chryslers in Middle Earth.
 * 4 & 5. Yes, yes. It's not a great example. The point I was trying to make is that you have to define atheist first before you can say a baby is an atheist. It's just a label and all babies are the same. It depends on the rules you give to that label. Materialists give different rules to that label. Rules that are mandated by their doctrine. --24.57.157.81 02:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I decided that the Frodo example is interesting but not perfect or exact, so take it with a grain of salt. I have got a really good question for you (and anyone else) though:


 * Do you see a difference between these two questions:


 * 1. "Is it possible for a God to exist?"
 * 2. "Does a God exist?"


 * Here are my answers:
 * Theist: 1. Yes 2. Yes; Agnostic/Weak atheist: 1. Yes or Maybe 2. Maybe; Strong atheist: 1. Yes or Maybe or No. 2. No or Not applicable; Doctrinal atheist: 1. No. 2. Not applicable.
 * (note that the first question can just be shortened to "Can God exist?" but I wanted to emphasize what I see as the differences between the two quetions.)--24.57.157.81 02:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm getting at the doctrine and how it can entail that God cannot exist (and therefore doesn't) without proposing God does not exist. If it is confusing consider how one would go about arguing the positions (they don't have to be good arguments, just what kind of things one might argue). Someone might say "God doesn't exist because there is no evidence he exists." or "It is impossible for God to exist because the universe has no supernatural element to it." They are interchangeable in one direction only (evidence doesn't make something possible or impossible) and if someone believes the second is true the first argument is moot. --24.57.157.81 03:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether I believe something exists tells you nothing about whether I believe it could possibly exist. If I say I believe there are no unicorns, it does not follow that I believe unicorns are impossible. The converse is not true; if I say that I believe unicorns cannot exist, it follows logically that I believe they do not exist. MFNickster 20:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. The propositions are different, however. Since it follows logically means that the second proposition is unnecessary since it is entailed, logically, from the first. The second proposition is essentially contained within the first.--24.57.157.81 20:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

@24.57.157.81: <a believes that <p> is 0.6-true> is a proposition about a, which contains a proposition, <<p> is 0.6-true>, that is about another proposition, <p>. — Editorius 11:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes that is the problem. <p> is an assertion about something real, the other is simply about <a>'s opinion on what is real (put into a probabilistic form). <a> makes no specific assertion about real things, or, if he is, he is saying that "the chance that God exists is 60%" which cannot be measured and is a rather wasteful proposition seeing as 61% would be a different proposition. Then you'd have to combine all these probabilities and make up a whole mathematical structure regarding the probability existence of God to try to measure it. So, obviously <a> is just talking about his opinion, and is only asserting something about his own beliefs, his own opinions, and not literally that the chance God exists is 60%.--24.57.157.81 20:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Joe believes the belief
Check it out. I think this can show a difference between more mentalist and more materialist language. These are different versions of the same sentence. Read the sentence and just judge each one on how agreeable it is to you. Just good or bad. My comments are me reading it from the top down. If you still fail to see why I am puzzled, read it each one from the bottom up (without the comments obviously). My reactions are in parentheses, theism is agreeable, the bottom of the atheism one not so much.


 * (Joe believes God exists)
 * Joe believes the doctrine of theism.
 * Joe believes in theism.
 * Joe believes theism.
 * Joe believes the belief that God exists.(belief still means doctrine. awkward but rational.)
 * Joe has a belief that God exists. (belief means believing and material state. also a-ok.)


 * (Joe believes God does not exist)
 * Joe believes in the doctrine of atheism.
 * Joe believes in atheism.
 * Joe believes atheism
 * Joe believes the absence of belief that God exists.(!! believes the absence of a doctrine? believes the opposite of believing? Not :believing? Believes it is false God exists?)
 * Joe has an absence of belief that God exists (now where did his doctrine belief go?! He was just believing atheism a second ago!)

Anyone else see a problem here? This is exactly why it puzzles me when someone says the have an "absence of belief." Perhaps a clash between mentalist and materialist language? Personally, I consider myself to believe things, not to have beliefs. My first inclination is to say I believe things. Others first inclination might be to have beliefs. That's how I approach things and I think it is in line with epistemology, believing being a propositional attitude.

And what about: "Joe's belief that God exists is absent." That would be the most materialist language one I think. "Joe believes in atheism" probably the most mentalist. --24.57.157.81 05:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Joe in step 1 (in 2nd group) is not a "weak" atheist - that is why step from 4 to 5 (in 2nd group) does not work. You seem to be stuck on the presumption that atheism has one meaning. The series might work better if you started with "Joe does not believe God "exists" ". It might - but why are we still arguing this? Attempts to downgrade one of the well-sourced definitions is all original research (aside from validity problems) & cannot be used to improve the article --JimWae 05:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The series might work better? You don't get it. I thought it was quite clear why I was posting this. It is a graduated range of mentalist to materialist language. Notice it or don't.--24.57.157.81
 * introducing the possessiveness of "has" is the only step that seems more "materialistic" to me. Well, that and "exists" at very beginning. Still OR & I still do not see relevance to improving the article --JimWae 07:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a supervening discourse, see the note about this exact problem in Naturalism_(philosophy). If you can't see at least that these two discourses clash then there's not much else I can say. If you cannot see the relevance to improving the article bear in mind that I think this is the cause of the definition conflict, which I have mentioned numerous times.--24.57.157.81 17:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And did you read each example from the bottom up? At what point does each example become disagreeable? --24.57.157.81 17:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Reading it from the bottom, uhm, "John has an absence of belief" -- how can you have an absence? --Merzul 18:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly my question. The article defines atheism as "an absence of belief", therefore an atheist can be defined as "someone with an absence of belief" which means they can be said to possess this quality, which means they have this quality. But what does it mean exactly? These people  seem to understand it and use it. My interpretation is that it means "Theism is not something I believe" or "My mental state can be characterized as not including 'theism'." The last one is a characteristic, and characteristics can be possessed so I think that's the most likely meaning there.--24.57.157.81 19:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I see a difference though between saying atheism is the absence of belief as the article does, and postulating it as something that can be possessed. When you write "Joe has an absence of belief in God", there are two interpretations:
 * Idiomatic reading. As in I have an absence of money. Basically meaning Joe lacks belief in God. I'm sure d'Holbach was implying this, without making any philosophical commitments to physicalism.
 * Literal reading. John has, owns, or possesses a postulated characteristic of lacking certain mental states. I simply don't think this is what people mean when they say they lack belief in God.
 * Even if I have admit you do have a point in what you are saying, we really really need to back any such analysis up with reliable sources. --Merzul 19:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * But what reliable sources have studied and evaluated this Wikipedia article? What reliable sources have studied any Wikipedia article? None. However, there is plenty of evidence the definition Wikipedia provides is confusing. And since the editors write the article, it is solely the responsibility of the editors to make it clear. Apply the concept to the writing style, don't include the concept in the article obviously, since that would be original research. --24.57.157.81 20:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And if you want, write "Joe lacks belief in God" and read that upwards too. Joe lacks a doctrine in God (what if he is a strong atheist)? Joe is not believing in God (when? how do you know)? Joe does not affirm God exists (he reports God does not exist or he reports he is agnostic, or he reports that he has no report on the matter)? Joe's 'mental state' is not 'theistic' (how do you know)? Some of these affirm things, some of these don't.--24.57.157.81 20:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that a map can exist in which it must use 5 colours. I can't personally prove this (in fact most people in the world can't prove this and even some mathematicians have doubts given the probabilistic nature of the current "proof") but I believe this to be true. Before someone mentioned the idea that 4 colours are all that are needed people have happily coloured maps in the ignorance of only needing 4 colours. Some may have used 5 colours or more for decorative effect but it is not necessary (well thats my belief today). The problem in phrasing Atheism is similar in that I can have a belief in zero gods or no belief in more than zero gods in the same way that I have a belief in 4 colour maps but no belief in 5 or more colour maps. Before someone raised the problem, though, people had no idea there was a problem ! and before I read about the 4-colour theorem I may or may not have (I can't remember how many colours I used when I was young) used 4 or more colours or I simply copied what every one else did. Ttiotsw 07:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please relate 4 colour map and 5 colour map to my comment. I think I understand your analogy, I just want to be sure. 4 colour map is supposed to represent what and 5 colour map is supposed to represent what? --24.57.157.81 16:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The general sense I'm getting from the discussion is that the article should reflect the usage of 'atheism' as a philosophical term as well as the social-psychological sense, i.e. whether atheism is "about the existence of god(s)" vs. "about whether people believe in god(s)." Whether atheism is belief, or lack of belief, is a separate issue from the propositional meaning. Books on atheism may consider arguments for/against the existence of god(s) and may or may not take a stance on whether these are valid reasons to believe one way or the other. MFNickster 16:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It can reflect both usages. Just so long as they are kept separate to keep the discourse separate. It's not too hard to qualify "belief" in the appropriate way when you use it, just so long as you know that you have to do it otherwise it will cause conflict. If you mean belief as in doctrine, use doctrine. If you mean belief as in something believed, use something believed. If you mean belief as in a material mental state, use material mental state (probably something better than that, but that's the idea). People will misinterpret if you don't.--24.57.157.81 17:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you suggest one or two changes that need to be made to the current article with respect to these distinctions, in order to make it clear where else changes need to be made? If so I'd be happy to help clear up any such ambiguity. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-25 17:29Z
 * Please, by all means either notice my point or don't. At least provide me with the courtesy of a comment upon it instead of asking the "what would you change" question. As for that question, I can only guess at someone else's meaning without being told by the writer what they intended. Furthermore, if they know their meaning they can do it themselves. So, if you wrote a sentence that has the word belief in it, for instance, you could say "Yes, I wrote 'Joe has an absence of belief' and I mean belief as in doctrine" then I would say "Then replace it with the word doctrine." You don't need me. Obviously you do not mean doctrine in that case. But do you mean absence of something believed? No. You mean a mental state which is absent the belief in God--at least I presume you do.--24.57.157.81 17:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed your point. That's why I asked what changes you would suggest, just to make sure I get it. Obviously you can interpret what is meant by statements in the article, and if we agree that a statement means either doctrine/something believed/mental state, then we can make the necessary change. So make a couple interpretations, and then make a couple suggestions based on those interpretations. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-25 17:53Z


 * You guys are the ones that wrote it, you are the guys that argue in favor of it. So apparently you guys already know what it means. Do you know what I think will happen? I will say "Perhaps this means this" and I will be told "No, it doesn't." Over and over and over again. I think the writers--you and the others--should tell me what they mean, instead of me guessing what they mean.--24.57.157.81 18:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Who's "you guys"? No one person here wrote the whole article. Just give me an example sentence that you want me to interpret, then I can interpret it, and then you can tell me how to rewrite it. How about that? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-25 18:04Z
 * To get things started, I'll pick one at random: "Theoretical, or contemplative, atheism explicitly posits arguments against belief in gods." I think that "belief in gods" here means "affirming the existence of gods". How would you suggest the sentence be rewritten? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-25 18:08Z


 * Not one person wrote the whole article? You are right. I agree. I thought about qualifying that, but instead I thought it would be an insult to your intelligence.
 * If you are saying belief means "affirming the existence of Gods" then I don't think you get it. Doctrines can affirm the existence of Gods. People can affirm the existence of Gods. An abstract "material belief" can be said to affirm the existence of Gods. Believing something can be affirming the existence of Gods. So that's 4 different things that can be said to affirm the existence of Gods. --24.57.157.81 18:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So can you make your own interpretation and provide a rewording to this sentence? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-25 19:05Z
 * I do not know what contemplative atheism is. I have never heard of it, so I can't define it. All the results in Google seem to be this Wikipedia page. I can't find a reliable source, perhaps you could help with that. Then I might be able to make a better guess.--24.57.157.81 19:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone comes to the conclusion through various thought experiments or arguments that the answer to "Does God exist?" is "No", then that person is a theoretical atheist, and will cite those arguments in explaining their rationale. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-25 19:57Z
 * Ummm what else is there? Faith? Divine Revelation? Scientific method?--24.57.157.81 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's try this sentence instead: "Another atomic materialist, Epicurus, disputed many religious beliefs, including the existence of an afterlife or a personal deity." How would you reword it? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-25 20:18Z
 * Belief = Doctrine. --24.57.157.81 20:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Belief is not the same as doctrine. Doctrine is something presented for belief - something to believe in. -- Scjessey 20:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comment illustrates the clash very well. How does one dispute a belief? I'd say by arguing against the doctrine, by saying the doctrine is false, dysfunctional, flawed, etc. Is there any other way to dispute a belief other than making arguments against the doctrine? --24.57.157.81 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can do more Brian. As long as the meaning is implied by the context I can make recommendations for every instance. And I figured out the first one. It should be "Theoretical, or contemplative, atheism explicitly posits arguments against belief believing in gods." --24.57.157.81 22:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This one can go either way though, I'm basing it on the sentence structure. If you want to keep the noun belief then I'd modify this sentence differently, but I'm assuming now that my first inclination based on the sentence structure is right. --24.57.157.81 23:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Said 24.57.157.81: "I am going to be done after my above comment anyway."
 * I guess that didn't really work out then? -- Scjessey 18:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What an amusing joke you have made about your perception of hypocrisy instead of asking me for clarification. If we are to be serious, I will give you a clarification: after this particular discussion is over, the one entitled "Joe believes the belief," I will be done. I hope that clears things up for you. Contribute or don't. --24.57.157.81 18:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Banned user User:Benapgar same as User:24.57.157.81 ?
Knowing how IPs get re-used I normally give benefit of doubt but looking at e.g. this edit here from Benapgar and comparing that to the sentiment of the many recent edits by 24.57.157.81 then they would seem to be the same. Comments ?. Ttiotsw 07:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I must agree that it's very similar. The question is what do we do now? --h2g2bob 09:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I know what I'd like to do. The last few days have involved intense logical and philosophical discussion about minuscule differences in meaning and definition, and my head is beginning to hurt. I ignored the rather personal comment directed at me by 24.57.157.81 yesterday because I was giving the IP address the benefit of the doubt, but I'm going to take a few hours to relax and absorb the discussion before chiming-in again. -- Scjessey 12:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Users who are generally agreed to be a 'reincarnation' of a banned user can be summarily blocked." "Users who have been banned indefinitely by the Arbitration Committee may appeal to the Committee after one year." . As far as I can tell, Benapgar's ban is still in effect. Unless he has successfully appealed the ban, he should not be editing anonymously or as a sockpuppet. MFNickster 13:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You can submit a checkuser request for more information. See Checkuser. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-25 15:01Z


 * I have no comment on whether this is the same person as Benapgar, but even if it isn't, I see absolutely no value in his original research on this talk page. It is not getting us anywhere near a better definition. --Merzul 15:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems my papers are out of order? That doesn't sound good, especially coming from the KGB! Joking aside, Merzul, I am going to be done after my above comment anyway. Did you get it? That's the cause of the definition conflict right there. If no one gets it--they just say I don't understand, or that's stupid, or I'm biased against that, or are you benapgar--that proves something to me, one of those things being that this is a point you will never understand. As such you will prove there won't be any need for my to raise it again. The conflict on the article will, of course, continue. But maybe the new critics will be able to not get anywhere faster than me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.57.157.81 (talk • contribs).

The reason I've been sort of conservative about trying to drive 24.57 away is because he doesn't seem to be exhibiting any of the problems with personal attacks that Benapgar was banned for (except for Scjessey, I guess). I mean, it's obvious that he's the same person, but his contributions seem to be constructive. In this article, there's a certain amount of thinking we have to do for ourselves just in order to understand how we should phrase things- 24.57 might occasionally go overboard with his OR, but I don't think there's any good reason to deny ourselves his point of view. johnpseudo 16:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there really any insight to be gained in the materialist/mentalist and supervenience talk? In my opinion, these things have absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand. The very same people who define atheism as "absence of belief", define theism as belief in God, and whether belief is a mental state has nothing to do with it. Smith could easily have said that implicit atheism is lacking the abstract ideas we associate with belief in God, or perhaps, implicit atheism is ignorance of the universal forms of the divine. --Merzul 18:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine. You disagree. As I said before, if no one gets it, I'm going to give up. You are the first to clearly say I have misidentified the source of the conflict. I believe you misunderstand the concepts, but at least you're thinking about them. But I am done trying to explain them, perhaps it will come in time. At least my theory on the source of the conflict doesn't involve simply calling the readers ignoramuses, and holding myself up as ultimately more knowledgeable, which I presume is what you have been doing all this time, and is your preferred theory. --24.57.157.81 18:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I don't get it, and I'm dismissive and arrogant... --Merzul 19:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood. --24.57.157.81 19:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OK it seems that subtle isn't working - 24.57.157.81 ARE YOU BANNED USER Benapgar (i.e. Ben) ?. Simple question - just yes or no in a reply here. You've added what must be a couple of hundred edits to this talk page over the past few weeks or so. To me the subtle nuance of your argument appears lost in the noise and I'm not exactly thick. There seems to be a divide here both (potentially) in your rights to contribute to the community and the form in which you contribute. If we're mistaken here then fine and I'll happily delete my posts related to this on this page and be first to say sorry but you're being rather sly with your reply. Ttiotsw 19:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize for angering you. Perhaps you are finding it very difficult to connect your interesting analogy to my comment and that is frustrating you. I do think you are on to something, but I want to make sure I know what it is. Obviously you would not be prejudiced against dualism, but it seems to me that is where your analogy is leading--it almost seems like you are trying to convert me to a monist! Dualist 5 colour map and a Monist 4 colour map and so you're saying the idea of humans with minds is as ridiculous as a computer with a mind! Hah! Of course you wouldn't be doing that, so that's why I need some clarification up there. I don't want to assume what you mean because then I might have to assume you are biased.--24.57.157.81 19:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

4th Proposal for lead sentence definition
We've been having a constructive discussion about this (see 2nd & 3rd proposals well above) and I think we may have a consensus around: "The most common meaning of Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God, as distinct from Theism and Agnosticism(ref SEP, REP). However the term is sometimes used (ref eg Blackburn, REP) to mean "absence of belief in the existence of god or gods" or "rejection of theism" (ref ??) and thus to include Agnostics who do not believe in God (even if they deny that they are atheists ref eg Kenny)." I think we then need a bit more discussion further down about some of the issues, and we could usefully reference Theodore M. Drange in this, who gives quite a compelling case for not extending the definitions, from an Atheist PoV. Again I agree that we should report that the extended definitions exist, but we should avoid the impression that they are uncontroversial. NBeale 20:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Britannica is a good ref for the "rejection of theism". Drange's case is indeed very strong, but the wording "most common meaning" is perhaps too strong. And absence of belief is the worst definition (see below), so in you ordering it would make sense to go from narrow to wide, and perhaps this is the order of frequency. Let's see what other people think. My opposition is softening. (I never was really opposed to the definition, I only fear this won't be stable because many people are allergic to calling atheism a belief, fearing it will imply that it's a religion...) --Merzul 21:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see that we can say that the "strong" atheist definition is more common than rejection of theism. Some sources might claim that, but other references put the rejection of theism definition forward.


 * If people are worried that we are giving preference to the "absence of belief" definition, how about simply reversing the current ordering, e.g., something like: "Atheism is either the position that affirms the non-existence of God, or the rejection of theism. However the term is sometimes used to mean "absence of belief in the existence of god or gods"." Maybe we can say that the first two definitons are the common ones.


 * If you feel that we need to state that positive belief in non-existence of God is more common over rejection of belief, then that's going one step further than simply worrying about the absence of belief definition.


 * Also, as I say above, what does "common meaning" actually mean? Is it the "lay" definition? Is it the one most commonly given in references? What evidence is there for this (other than a reference claiming it to be true) - e.g., have surveys been conducted? Is frequency of usage really appropriate for the first sentence anyway? Mdwh 21:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with this approach at all. There is clear dispute (example) about what form of atheism is "common", and Wikipedia should not be giving weight to one particular definition over another. The existing, more inclusive definition is appropriate. -- Scjessey 21:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This Austin Cline guy you linked to seems biased, and rather incorrect to me. We should try to stick to more authoritative sources than opinion articles. johnpseudo 22:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should use "However the term is sometimes used to indicate a person's absence of belief in the existence of god or gods".


 * Of course there is a dispute over which definitions of atheism are common, but we have it from a reliable source that the strong definition is the common one. I think we should try our best to use sources like Routledge- ones that are peer-reviewed, non-biased and recognize the controversy.  Most sources fail to meet at least one of these criteria.


 * Per the "rejection of theism" distinction: Are dictionaries that use the "rejection of theism" phrase just avoiding the controversy, or have we found any sources that use this phrase while acknowledging the controversy? I still object to including the "even if they deny that they are atheists" clause. johnpseudo 22:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Britannica article starts out using "rejection of theism" and then refines it and discusses it. It seemed well informed, but I should read it again more carefully. Britannica does allow exporting links so other everyone can read it, but it didn't work for me... I can try...
 * http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109479/atheism
 * I don't think it will work, I don't know how it is supposed to work. They say it must be put on a web server... --Merzul 23:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, it does work, it's the full article... click next, the second page is the definition. Also, I'd rather use this one than Routledge to source any distinction with agnosticism, it's more explicit here. Stanford as I say is making a very complicated case. --Merzul 23:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are what I think are the relevant points it makes:
 * "Atheism: in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings...This article will start with what have been some widely accepted, but still in various ways mistaken or misleading, definitions of atheism and move to more adequate formulations that better capture the full range of atheist thought and more clearly separate unbelief from belief and atheism from agnosticism...It is necessary, however, if a tolerably adequate understanding of atheism is to be achieved, to give a reading to “rejection of religious belief” and to come to realize how the characterization of atheism as the denial of God or the gods is inadequate...As it is frequently said, atheists believe that it is false that God exists, or that God's existence is a speculative hypothesis of an extremely low order of probability.


 * This Britannica article is a must-read for everyone on this project. I'm in awe of its depth and prose.  I feel like we're out of our league... Anyway, I think "critique and denial" is more than just "rejection" and less than an affirmation of the non-existence of God.  Can anyone think of a compromise instead of just listing everything anyone has ever said? johnpseudo 23:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Britannica article seems to have a lot of weasel words in it, but it does make for an interesting read. I reject that article's narrow definition though. The laughable thing about this discussion is that everyone is striving to point out the "commonly accepted definition of atheism" by trying to find that meaning in learned, scholarly articles. That is why I think that article's introduction must remain inclusive, and let the meat of the article get into the various flavors and degrees of atheism. -- Scjessey 00:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Sometimes" is a weasel word; we definitely can't use it in the lead. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-25 23:29Z

Concerning the proposals:
 * Drange's article discusses many topics, including original research that is not peer-reviewed. His atheism  rationale classification scheme is redundant and incomplete. Its not quality source material.
 * Also the first definition put forward is only about God. Most dictionaries have a less God-centric definition, specifically disbelief in "God or gods", because there are people around the world who worship deities that are not God. Modocc 08:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There is good evidence that the narrower defs are more common
I agree with johnpseudo, and hadn't noticed that the Britannica does admit "positive belief" is more common. Also, one of the most influential modern proponents of the negative definition, Anthony Flew, similarly admits it's not common usage here, I'm quoting very selectively:
 * What I want to examine is the contention that the debate about the existence of God should properly begin from the presumption of atheism, that the onus of proof must lie upon the theist. The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively... The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage. 'Whyever', it could be asked, 'don't you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?'

I like his honesty, we have here one of the leading proponents of the wider definition, admitting it is unusual. I think it is sufficient evident that we should prefer the more common, narrower definitions in the lead paragraph, but give due weight to Flew's arguments and present the case of why he thinks atheism is the default position. We don't eliminate any views here, but we should flip things around, going from narrow to wide. --Merzul 10:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The real problem with the broad definition...
I gave it a very deep thought, and it's actually not really the case that "absence of belief in God" is hard to understand. We all know what it means when we say an infant lacks belief in God. The problem is that calling infants atheist is well... childish. And why stop with infants? We have monkeys, Buddhists, fossil rabbits, and my militantly atheist computer. You see, the important thing isn't evidentialist bias, or materialist vs mentalist language: it's just an awful definition. Unfortunately, this definition is supported by some very prominent atheists, probably due to the absence of motherly love, and so we have to give it due weight. The question is... are we giving it too much weight? --Merzul 21:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not up to us judge the definitions or decide on a good one, we should be reporting the notable usages. And we do point out that this would extend to newborn infants - perhaps it would be more balanced if we found some references of people saying that only explicit rejection counted as atheism, as currently the Implicit vs. explicit section only has quotes from those who say atheism does include implicit absence of belief. Mdwh 21:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not childish. A person is free of indoctrination at birth, and only later gets fed nonsense. The reason atheists label infants as atheists is because theists will commonly claim that it is up to atheists to provide evidence against belief in God, when in fact it's the other way around. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-25 23:33Z


 * Whoever proposes something has to prove it. It's not "the other way around." If someone proposes God exists, yes, it is up to them to prove it. If, on the other hand, you propose God does not exist, you have to prove it. --24.57.157.81 00:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So says who? 172.146.2.127 00:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The logic police, obviously.--24.57.157.81 00:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ""But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible, to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?" MFNickster 03:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just empiricism. Philosophy is not empirical, because empiricism gives up at ALL philosophy. It's the dividing line between philosophy and science. Empiricism thinks it's the greatest philosophy ever (and many people agree) so it entails all the -isms, every single one, is a bunch of unprovable bullshiatting. That's why there are scientists, and then there are philosophers. Philosophers can be rationalists instead, or foundationalists. They can't be empiricists though, because if they were empiricists they'd scientists. (technically, though, the scientists should be considered empiricist philosophers). It looks good but it's the wrong tool for philosophy--because none of the isms have any physical evidence! They're philosophies not science experiments. Empricism will just say every doctrine--every belief system--is false until proven true, just like a scientist would! Obvious. So actual philosophy is like saying "let's just ignore empiricism for now and just have some arguments in the meantime." --24.57.157.81 04:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh spiffy! Glad we're past all that article talk- it was getting old. From my materialist/evidentialist POV, God's existence is unimportant - belief in God is just as valid as any other non-provable proposition such as "Human suffering and death is bad" or "Homosexuality is bad"  What matters is how the belief in God influences us.  Theism tends to make great demands on our behavior - far beyond the implications of the simple belief that a god exists.  Religions tie a whole slue of beliefs together and divide people with labels.  To justify any number of a religion's belief's, they use the assertion "It's true because God says so," without any evidence that God exists, much less their God.  These broad belief systems keep us from appealing to universal feelings and limiting disagreements of belief to reasonable discourse.  (Weak) atheism leaves you free to adopt whatever beliefs you want, without being pressured to conform to anyone else's belief system.  It's unfortunate that it is just turning into another divisive label. johnpseudo 00:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC) (changed)


 * I have no idea how that relates to what I said but that does sound spiffy! Also, philosophies are doctrines, and so are never rooted in science. Ah, but what about empiricism, for instance? Yes, our old friend empiricism is not rooted in science. Why? Because it is science. --24.57.157.81 01:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you mean that reviving archaic ideas of who is and who isn't an atheist by calling nontheists atheists and trying to force this discourse on an unwilling public is turning atheism back into a divisive label when it wasn't divisive before. That's the way I look at it. --24.57.157.81 01:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see :P johnpseudo 01:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So maybe this anti-theistic-religion crowd should avoid labeling themselves as anything other than anti-theistic-religion? Yeah...It's starting to come together for me. Theism and atheism are just propositions- religion has hijacked and overloaded theism, just like the doctrinal atheists are starting to hijack and overload atheism.  If behavior is what we materialists are concerned with, we shouldn't be concerning ourselves with propositions- we should be concerned with religions. johnpseudo 01:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I would definitely agree with that. Very much so.--24.57.157.81 02:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The way I look at philosophical doctrines, philosophy even, is not really that I believe or don't believe them--as in believing a doctrine is totally true or believing this other doctrine totally false (I talk about them that way, just because it is easier to say "You are a blahblahist" instead of saying "You are using a blahblahist approach," and because technically isms are things that are believed about the world). Instead I ask of myself "Do I believe this bit of 'wisdom of the ages' will provide me with a true and accurate view unto the world?" If so, I'll say it is a good philosophy. While I am doing science I might be a pure materialist (physicalist, etc.) and not think "I must consider that perhaps ghosts are affecting my experiment!" but while I am just going about my business I'm not going to be a monist (which is what materialism is) since monists think mind and body are literally the same and I don't agree to it. I'm still going to talk in terms of mind/body. First, I don't like that idea. It is very disagreeable to me, and seems to me at least to be blatantly false. And it's just a doctrine anyway, not like anyone has ever proven it. Second, mind/body dualism is pretty much ingrained in the English language anyway, I think even diehard monists talk that way. And while I may be a pure empiricist while doing a scientific experiment, in another setting I might find it better to trust my intuition. I think people take it too far when they say such and such is a perfect philosophy and they go ahead and live their life by it. I mean, the obvious scientific philosophies like empiricism and logic and rationalism and all that I would say are essentially perfect, I obviously believe empiricism is a very good way to find out true things about the world, so I would say I believe them for sure (in fact I'd think you'd have to be an idiot not to respect such obviously good ways of doing things), but I'm not going to automatically presume that they can discover literally everything. --24.57.157.81 03:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (And no, just so no one misinterprets, I don't believe ghosts exist when I'm not doing science either... at least they probably don't exist. But maybe there's some sort of crazy quantum ghosts... :O) --24.57.157.81 03:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

 * For the sake of impartiality, I suggest that the current formulation
 * "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is the absence of belief in the existence of gods."
 * be replaced with the following one:
 * "According to the broadest definition, atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods."
 * (or: "Atheism, according to the broadest definition, is the absence of belief in the existence of gods.")
 * Then we can continue elegantly: "(...) Other, less broad/inclusive definitions (...)."
 * Editorius 10:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (or: "Atheism, according to the broadest definition, is the absence of belief in the existence of gods.")
 * Then we can continue elegantly: "(...) Other, less broad/inclusive definitions (...)."
 * Editorius 10:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid this isn't strong enough. I think we need to be a bit more radical... --Merzul 11:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid the Wikipedia etiquette doesn't support radicalism. ;-) — Editorius 11:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. johnpseudo 13:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, well ...
 * Be radical but be just! ;-)
 * Editorius 15:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If this were church and not wikipedia, "According to scripture, atheism is..." might be frightening... :o). -Modocc 19:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion
Right, my view would be something like this. Trying to give some reason why there are different definitions.
 * Atheism is, in the narrowest sense, the belief that there are no gods. This common definition doesn't adequately capture the wide range of atheist rationale, and a more sophisticated definition is that atheism is the rejection of theism. This includes logical positivists, who consider any God talk to be utterly meaningless, and see themselves incapable of asserting the non-existence of something they don't understand. Atheism has also been defined as the mere absence of belief in order to emphasize that the burden of evidence is on the theist, although she may contend that atheism is equally in need of evidence and the default position is that of agnosticism.

The writing is very very rough, but I think this is the direction we need to go. --Merzul 11:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, which of the given definitions should be mentiond first is a legitimate question: the broadest or the narrowest one?
 * By the way, the narrowest definition states that atheism is the belief that there impossibly are any gods. This is the strongest form of atheism. — Editorius 11:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. you're right, there are probability stuff as well... and that's important because that's probably my own position :) I would positively assert that "God's existence has a probability < 1.38%", so perhaps the narrow def should be
 * "Atheism is, in the narrower sense, the belief that there are no gods or that the existence of one is highly unlikely."
 * Britannica can be used as a source for this, although all of the above is very easy to source. What do you think? --Merzul 11:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * From my strong atheism POV, I like a short narrative construct because it wraps context around each definition, perhaps a mention of recent revisionists such as Flew?, if it can be succinct and still bring together all the views, then great. Such a restructuring can also be pared down to only its essentials too. Modocc 13:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Getting into so much detail in the lead section seems off-putting to anyone unfamiliar with the subject. Mentioning Flew and other philosophers, logical positivism, etc, will get readers confused and send them off to those other articles to find out more, rather than keeping them reading the current article. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-26 13:17Z
 * Hi Brian. :). You accurately characterize Merzul's current narrative and I agree that mentioning logical positivism and the God talk is not the prose or content we need. That said, I am supportive of the current revisionist movement and the proposed narrative might work if it is cleaned up and revised.Modocc 13:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Reorganizing from narrow to broad is fine by me, but the definition doesn't necessarily have to include every single idea anyone has ever thought up about how to define atheism. Thus, I would avoid worrying about including Dawkins's "spectrum of probability" for now, and keep it basic: belief in nonexistence, rejection of theism, absence of belief in gods. Merzul's wording, however, is very very clunky. I would avoid going into so much detail in the lead section; list the 3 definitions, and get on with the rest of the summary... let the article delve into that level of detail. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-26 12:46Z

(unindent) I'm not a native speaker of English. My failure to succinctly express the rationale behind the definitions in a suitable form for the lead is not a good reason to reject the idea that a simple narrative is not possible. About content, I do think we should consider a phrasing that an atheist is a person who assigns a low probability to the statement "God exists", I've seen this terminology being used more and more. Stanford also considers this: In the light of these considerations let us consider the appropriateness or otherwise of someone (call him ‘Philo’) describing himself as a theist, atheist or agnostic. I would suggest that if Philo estimates the various plausibilities to be such that on the evidence before him the probability of theism comes out near to one he should describe himself as a theist and if it comes out near zero he should call himself an atheist, and if it comes out somewhere in the middle he should call himself an agnostic. There are no strict rules about this classification because the borderlines are vague. This isn't Dawkins's invention. I actually think including probabilities might be a reasonable compromise. One of the reasons people dislike the narrow definition is because it seems to imply the atheist has to prove beyond doubt that there is no God, or he should be an agnostic. That's naturally not the case. An atheist is a person who assigns a very low (near zero) probability to the statement "God exists". --Merzul 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources for its earlier usage? Is it mentioned in any of the standard philosophical encyclopedias? We definitely can't give it too much weight if it's not even covered in the most reliable sources, even if we personally like or agree with it. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-26 14:53Z
 * No, SEP is the best source I could find. I didn't check Britannica, but REP doesn't talk probabilities at all in my very superficial reading. I don't think it can have a very long history, it must be the result of the shift towards evidential arguments, and that's fairly recent. --Merzul 15:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Another problem,is the assertions of the narrative give a POV that is not necessarily NPOV. I've tried working on a rewrite, but nothing I have produced has worked(for me anyway)thus far. ;(. I have not yet figured out what merits objection however, as all POV's are worth mentioning or leaving out depending on the level of detail required Modocc 14:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is of course also true. I give up on this for now, although I think it would be nice to give some explanations. Instead of saying "some atheists are controversially trying to redefine it", I would prefer to instead give the reason why, and let the reader judge whether it is controversial to shift the burden of evidence. --Merzul 15:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Changing the definitions of atheism has nothing to do with shifting the burden of evidence/proof! If there are (say) 5 possible senses of a word A1, A2 ...A5 then it can make no difference to the philosophical status of the underlying terms which of them is covered by the word. The problem at the moment is that the present lead gives a highly misleading impression of what the word "atheist" means in common usage, both in common parlance and in philosophical articles. The other proposed senses are extensions of the main sense, and they are controversial. NBeale 21:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing to do with it? I thought that was the main motivation, see quotation above. Flew is changing the definition of atheism deliberately to shift the burden of proof, he couldn't be more explicit about this. I don't know how to answer you objection that one shouldn't be able to redefine something to change the concept's status, because I'm absolutely sure that is precisely what they are trying to do. --Merzul 22:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)