Talk:Atheism/Archive 47

Symbol
Is there a reliable source that associates this symbol with atheism or was it just created by a Wikipedia user? The article says nothing about it and there's no source for it. —Noisalt (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It resembles the American Atheists' logo. Of course, they're just one atheist group, so it's incorrect to claim it's a logo for atheism/atheists generally. --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's a valid point that we need better sourcing to justify presenting it this way. As a temporary measure, I modified the image caption so it wouldn't sound like it's the logo for all of atheism, but I actually could have justifiably put a citation-needed tag at the end of the caption. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never seen such a symbol before. I have looked all over.  --Atheisty (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It has some vague resemblance to the American Atheists logo but it's clearly not the same symbol: Unless someone can identify where it came from we should remove it. —Noisalt (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have rolled it (two thirds) back if you'd said it was discussed here, (with no explanation required)—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen it before.  However I do see where everyone is coming from.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion regarding historical Jesus
Historical Jesus: 90% of sources are Christian theologians and/or Christian Presses. Feel free to contribute. Noloop (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you mentioning that here? Unomi (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop
There is a ban/topic ban proposal at AN/I.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

How to talk about the bad things in the Bible.
Okay, for starters, we have the story where Abraham thinks God is telling him to sacrifice his son. Even some evangelics might have trouble with this, or if a person thinks god is telling them to do something similar, they might counsel you really want to talk with a mature Christian first.

And, I had a philosophy professor who said, even if you accept the facts of the story largely as laid out, this may not have been god's favorite answer! God may have preferred Abraham to argue with him, to say, with respect, no, I can't do that. Interesting! Yes, it is. There are at least several ways to look at this.

We need to include some of these negative, or highly questionable, parts of the bible, and do so without going overboard. Below, I'm going to make a case that we need to rewrite a passage. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Why are you so concerned with the Christian bible? Atheists disbelieve in all deities equally. We disbelieve in the Hindu elephant boy-deity Ganesh, the Mesoamerican deity Quetzalcoatl, the Muslim/Jewish/Christian monothiestic deity, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster all quite equally. We do not single out one particular deity or religion or holy book for our disbelief, as you seem to think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.249.182 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 August 2010


 * Be careful, as there are plentiful sources which point out that atheism is quite often quite specific about the gods it rejects, while largely ignoring concepts of deity outside the culture in which the atheist finds themselves. In practice, atheists do in fact single out the religion with which they are most concerned, for whatever reason. It is unlikely that an atheist in London has given a moment's thought to Quetzalcoatl. So although you're kind of right that atheists don't believe in any of those gods, I could find you a whole bunch of references backing up the point that nevertheless atheism is often or usually culturally specific in its targets. --Dannyno (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

rewriting a passage in Atheism, religion, and morality
In the fourth paragraph (the big, long paragraph), we have the passage:

“The contemporary British political philosopher Martin Cohen has offered the more historically telling example of Biblical injunctions in favour of torture and slavery as evidence of how religious injunctions follow political and social customs, rather than vice versa. . ”

alright, the word torture jumps out at me because I really don't remember the bible explicitly (or repeatedly) justifying torture, other than an hypothesized hell of course. and even that's not emphasized nearly as much as old-line preachers choose to emphasize it. So, what might you think of a change?

How about "slavery and massacres"? For there were many parts in the old testament where the Israelites were supposedly instructed to go into some area adn kill every man, woman, and child, and even the beasts in the fields! And they were supposedly "disobedient" if they didn't do so.

And here's another problem. The reference given for this passage:

[133] 101 Ethical Dilemmas, 2nd edition, by Cohen, M., Routledge 2007, pp184-5. (Cohen notes particularly that Plato and Aristotle produced arguments in favour of slavery.)

it's just a bare reference, nothing you can click on. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and made the change. Please tell me what you think.   FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "nothing you can click on" Eh? Wikipedia has no policy mandating only online sources. --Cyber cobra (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. Of course the question does arise, how much should we delay progress for a single source.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Atheism and Secularity: Volume 1 & 2, Phil Zuckerman, Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2010.

page 122: “Long before modern genocides, there were religious texts reporting and commanding the total annihilation of some human groups. The Old Testament offers us narratives of the extermination of the Midianites and the Canaanites by the Israelites, as ordered by divine authority (see Numbers 31, 1 Samuel 15). These blood-curdling narratives are totally fictitious, but they reflect very real ideals.”

Bible - Western/Christian POV
Does reference to the bible not introduce a western/christian POV to Atheism. Within my Western POV I could also see merit in looking at frowned upon practices in other religious texts in for example the Greek mythology or the Edda. Arnoutf (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that's a concern. I also think we have to be careful about WP:OR, by avoiding putting material on the page that might be arguments for particular views, instead looking to secondary sources about what constitutes atheism. And this seems to me to not really be about atheism, so much as about Criticism of religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What if we use both primary and secondary?  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That ends up being a very complex question at Wikipedia, especially when editors have differences of opinion. To a large extent, it depends upon how we use those sources: they are each best used in different ways. There's no way I can write an exhaustive explanation of all of that here, but I can certainly point you, for a start, to WP:PSTS. Also, please do consider what I said about Criticism of religion being, perhaps, a better page than this one for such material. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It kind of seems to me that we are trying to answer every question ahead of time. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And I'll tell you, my first reaction was, Man, if the rules say we can't use primary sources, then something's wrong with the rules! And looking at the five pillars, I'd really say that we are more about goals, than we are about rules.   FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the primary source here would be the Bible. And that book is rather hard to interpret as it is a complex text; and is open to multiple (potentially) contradictory explanations. So here you should use an explanation of the Bible in relation to atheism by mainstream theological thinkers; what these guys write on the Bible is a secondary source. So not so strange to ask for a secondary source here. Arnoutf (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Why are you so concerned with the Christian bible? Atheists disbelieve in all deities equally. We disbelieve in the Hindu elephant boy-deity Ganesh, the Mesoamerican deity Quetzalcoatl, the Muslim/Jewish/Christian monothiestic deity, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster all quite equally. We do not single out one particular deity or religion or holy book for our disbelief, as you seem to think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.249.182 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 August 2010
 * Which is my point exactly. Arnoutf (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (a) you copy-pasted this from above, and (b) doing so doesn't make your reply any more true. If you read history of atheism, you will realize that the development of atheism very much does have a cultural background. That background is the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, and the belief atheists overcame was not just any belief, it was Christianity. Obviously you are correct that atheists do not believe in any deity, but this is because they happened to reject the monotheistic theology of Christianity, not Quetzalcoatl. Pretending, as you do, that atheism isn't closely linked to Christian theology is disingenious, and extremely misleading. Atheistic literature de facto does not refute the Edda, or the Metamorphoses, it refutes Christian theology. Because this is so, Wikipedia will follow suit, under WP:DUE. --dab (𒁳) 21:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I disagree. You are presenting a very Euro-centric viewpoint. I live in Asia, and Asian atheists are not atheist because of some western tradition. We are atheist for our own reasons. My country (South Korea) used to be mostly Buddhist, but is now one-quarter Buddhist, one-quarter Christian and half atheist. Our atheism is a result of losing faith in Buddhism, not from losing faith in some western religion. Please try to consider Worldview in your approach to this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.249.92 (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a lot to be said about widening the cultural scope of the article - though there are other articles on atheism in non-Western cultures. But as a Western atheist, I'd just like to observe that although I certainly do not believe in Ganesh or Quetzalcoatl, or the Christian deity, I don't disbelieve in them all equally since I never think about Ganesh or Quetzalcaotl. --Dannyno (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting viewpoint. How can you disbelieve in one thing more than another? Surely disbelief is an absolute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.249.92 (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by "absolute". My disbelief in gods is universal - in other words there are no gods that I believe in.  However, that does not mean that I have paid any attention to more than one or two concepts of deity which are current or significant in my culture.  As an atheist, my expertise is entirely Judeo-Christian and Deist/abstract philosophical.  To say that I "disbelieve equally" to my mind implies a detailed worked-out rejection of every god ever invented.  If a Christian knocks on my door, I know the arguments to be used.  If a fan of Quetzalcoatl knocks on my door, we're not going to have much to say to each other. --Dannyno (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Same for me, but we probably should try to take a global issue by taking at least the current major world religions into account (the largest being Christianity, Islam and Hindu). Arnoutf (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What does "such people" refer to in paragraph 2
The phrase "such people" in paragraph 2 is ambiguous as to its referent.

It appears to refer either to atheists or non-believers, yet the prior sentence gives statistics for god-believers.

I was going to edit it, but, since there was no source for the statistics, I couldn't determine whether it referred to atheists or non-believers.

I would ask the author of the sentence to disambiguate it.

Hsfrey (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point. It's sourced to Zuckermann, but the source is not online. Everywhere else on the page, this source seems to include atheists, agnostics, and non-believers, so I suspect that "such people" should be changed to something like "atheists and other non-believers", but I'm hesitant to make the edit unilaterally. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Didn't there used to be a link? I think I remember having looked at the list of percentages for these countries. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there are plenty of editors commenting in this talk, but not in this thread, so I'm going to go ahead and make this change. But please feel free to check my edit and change it if I am mistaken, OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just come to look at this, and it's worse than you thought. I've compared what the article says with the source, and the text needs rewriting.  Here's the first sentence, sourced to p.56 of Zuckerman: "Between 64% and 80%[9] of Japanese describe themselves as atheists, agnostics, or non-believers."   p.56 is a table of the top 50 countries in terms of people identifying as "atheists, agnostics or non-believers".  Japan's entry there says "64-65"%.  On p.53 the text includes this line: "According to Johnstone (1993:323), 84 percent of the Japanese claim no personal religion, but most follow "the customs of Japanese traditional religion.""   I will change the article in line with the table to read 64-65%.  Next, the text currently says: " The percentage of atheists and other non-believers in European Union member states ranges as low as single digits in Malta, Poland, Romania, Cyprus and some other countries, and up to 85% in Sweden, 80% in Denmark, 72% in Norway, and 60% in Finland."  There are a few problems with this.  First of all, Norway is not a member of the European Union. Secondly, Malta, Poland, Romania and Cyprus do not appear on the table on the cited page (which is after all a top 50, and theses are low scoring countries). The data for Cyprus, Romania, Poland should be sourced to p.51. I couldn't see Malta listed at all.  I will change accordingly. --Dannyno (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Rejection? Really?
I do not like how at the very being of the article, it says "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities". That is horribly offensive to atheists. That is kind of like putting "Christianity, in a broad sense, is the delusional belief in God." That's horribly offensive to Christians. I think it should be changed, as some others before me have suggested.

I suggest putting "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the absence of belief in one or more deities." (I think the "one or more" should be added back, to make it clear that a Christian is an atheist when it comes to the god Thor, or Zeus, which they have an absence of belief for).

I also think you should put something in there about how, contrary to popular belief, atheism isn't a religion and does not require faith. Source 1: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/p/DenialGod.htm Source 2: http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/atheism-is-not-a-religion/ Source 3: http://proudatheists.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/atheism-does-not-require-faith-it-requires-courage/ Note: Source 1 and 2 are probably better, but Source 3 is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silkwovenfur (talk • contribs) 20:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For the first part, please see the talk thread immediately above. And for the last part, we need a source. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You've added sources and expanded on your comment, so I ought to similarly update my reply. I think it's fine to discuss yet more changes to the wording of the first lead paragraph, but please be aware that this is a perennial discussion topic, and it is very difficult to get consensus to change the wording. And if what you object to is the word "rejection", on the grounds that it seems POV, I do not think that is the case. In the various definitions of "atheism" that have been discussed (and yes, archived) here, there are forms of atheism in which one actively "rejects" theism, or actively "rejects" the statement that a deity or deities exist. It's a position with respect to theism or to belief that deities exist, not something disparaging in that way that, for example, "lack of belief" might be. And as for those three sources, they are what we consider to be primary sources, for something where secondary sources might be more appropriate. Also, as websites that resemble blogs, they are kind of borderline for WP:RS. Something scholarly would be more persuasive, I think. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The concept of "rejection" carries a number of connotations that poorly describe the position of many atheists. While a rejection in a scientific sense is merely not accepting a theory or argument, in a broad sense it evokes the idea that there is a truth that is being rejected, rather than a proposal. Not only that, the words describe a rejection of belief, which doesn't explicitly limit the rejection to an atheist's own views, but allows an interpretation that atheists reject other's beliefs as well. A more precisely worded description might say that there is a rejection of the idea that deities exist (if the word rejection must be used at all). Ninahexan (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The root meaning of the word "Atheism" is "absence of deity" - a view that I'm sure most all Atheists share - yet 'rejection' is a reflection of a more militant form of Atheism not shared by all. Perhaps keep the introductory definition as simple (global) as possible, and leave the stronger/narrower descriptions of Athiesm to sub-sections describing different forms of Atheism. Cheers. THE PROMENADER  08:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But the lead does indicate that not all forms of atheism are "militant". Again, such changes would need scholarly sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, this is wrong. Not "all" Atheists who reject religion believes Atheism to be a rejection. Many understand that Atheism is the passive position of non belief. And the affirmed position is Anti-Theism. Here I agree with Tryptofish and Dannyno that the current lead does not indicate this notion that rejection is militant. -- Muthsera (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Rejection" is used in the literature by reliable sources as part of a well established typological tradition. We also know, from other reliable sources, that other atheists conceptualise atheism differently, but I'm not aware of anything in reliable sources which regards "rejection" as an offensive term. Nor does "rejection" necessarily have "militant" connotations, as, once again, a consideration of various atheist typologies would establish.  Some of what is said above appears to be no more than issues particular individuals have with this terminology.  But we should not be overly concerned with the views of particular individuals. Let's stick closely to what the literature says. --Dannyno (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Rejection" is critical to atheism in most sources - merely being indifferent to whether belief in god or belief in religion is "logical" is a description of agnosticism. Atheists by their very definition actively reject belief in god and thus actively reject all religion as being based on incorrect mythology. Atheism is also almost completely identical to belief in evolution as a description of how the universe was created, how it has evolved and as a background to nature and life, as opposed to religious beliefs about nature and life. Given that a belief in evolution must automatically lead one to reject opposing beliefs such as creationism, atheists similarly actively reject belief in god.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lekud26 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your assertions here do not reflect the complexity of the literature on the conceptualisation of atheism. Let's stick to the literature, please. Agnosticism cannot be simply characterised as you attempt to, either. By the way, evolution is not a description of how the universe was created, so I don't know what you mean there. --Dannyno (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Gnosticism refers to the quality of possessing certain knowledge. A-Gnosticism (agnosticism) refers to the lack of certain knowledge.
 * Theism refers to belief in a god or gods. A-Theism (atheism) refers to the lack of belief in a god or gods.
 * Simple root words and usage juxtaposition illustrates this point well. --Ninjasaves (talk.stalk) 22:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A Christian isn't defined by their rejection of other gods, but rather their belief in a particular god. Why is it that someone who doesn't believe in any god is suddenly defined by their "rejection" of the belief in deities? The first reference discussing rejection specifically states "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." Since the words themselves seem to be a jumble from various sources why not use Rowe's broad definition- "an atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology". Disbelief is not the same as rejection.Ninahexan (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A Christian believes in their god, while rejecting other gods like Allah, Muhammad, Buddha etc. A atheist doesn't reject to a god because there is nothing there to reject.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are aware, of course, that the statement under discussion is "rejection of belief in a god", not "rejection of a god"? Because this, like, leaves your comment completely pointless. This entire section is a joke. If you are so much into atheism, how about you study history of atheism for a bit and see what atheists have been up to. Rejection of monotheism is exactly what atheism is, because it is an -ism that emerged within human society during the Age of Enlightenment, not some abstract Platonic ideal of godlessness. --dab (𒁳) 09:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Dab, try to remain constructive and objective. Don't make it personal, and don't get sanctimonious. While this section may be "a joke", there are better ways to indicate disagreement. --Ninjasaves (talk.stalk) 15:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I was responding to Ninahexans last statement, in agreement. Also hoping he corrects it, if there is error.  Yes I'm playing catch up. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

According to atheist views, what happens to a person (human being, animal etc.) after his/her death? What about the individuality. There should be some information on this on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayurvg (talk • contribs) 20:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ )? Thanks.
 * Again, this is not the place to ask these questions. We are not supposed to provide answers here. You can use the literature or perhaps ask on the reference desk. If you learn something notable, and have a good source for it, feel free to put it in the article. Again, please do read the articles to which you were pointed on your talk page. DVdm (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * er.. ok, but I believe an atheistic opinion about "what happens after death" should be provided in brief, in the article. I am not saying it has to be answered here. And since I am not an atheist I wouldn't want to contribute anything to the article. Mayurvg (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that someone answered on your talk page. You can chat and argue and ask many more questions over there, and as long as others are interested in chatting, that's fine, but let's keep it firmly out of this page. Although you probably don't agree with the answer given, surely you will agree that it is too trivial to be included in the article. DVdm (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In any case, atheism is about belief in gods, not about belief (or disbelief) in eternal souls. These are not the same. Arnoutf (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"Rejection of monotheism is exactly what atheism is"- and so of course this means that ignorance about the concept of gods would by necessity preclude someone from being an atheist, right? One can't reject something that one does not know about. That aside, I think whoever holds the opinion that atheism is only the rejection of monotheistic gods might want to do some more reading of their own.Ninahexan (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC) I might have missed something, is there some error in anything I said previously? The reply from Dana60Cummins left me confused.Ninahexan (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't see any flaw in Ninahexan's logic.  If "rejection" is required to be an atheist, than the definition would preclude those that never had, and never heard of a belief in god.  But, clearly such a peron IS and athesit, no? Reducto ad aburdum? Steve kap (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems the past discussion got archived. You may wish to check the archives to get caught up on the topic. In short, there is disagreement among dictionaries over what the "proper" definition of atheism is. Some say rejection, others say position of nonbelief, and yet others use your preference of absence. We discussed ordering of those 3 defs based on inclusiveness and WP:Weight, and no consensus formed for a change to the former. We also discussed a change of the lead altogether to a new wording not based on those 3 defs... which seemed to garner more support, but was not unanimous. To my embarrassment, I didn't follow up closely enough with that to make it stick. If you have any new proposals, you're welcome to present them. I would highly recommend first reading through what's been said already, however, so you're not repeating the same mistakes as last time. Jess talk&#124;edits 04:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think I need a NEW proposal, I think I'm allowed to discuss an old one. And if my question has been answered already, fine, its should be easy to answer again. If people can support "rejection", then they should be able to answer this simple question above.  If they can't, they should reconsider their position. My question stands. See above.Steve kap (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. Way to be a jerk about it. Good luck getting consensus on a years-long discussion with that attitude. When you calm down a bit, you might try reading WP:AGF. Jess talk&#124;edits 23:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, when YOU'VE calmed down maybe you can join the discussion on the issue. I think thats a better way to consesus than name calling don't you? I didn't see this question addressed in the archive, but if I missed it, hey, no problem, just tell me what the answer was!! Isn't wouldn't that be easier? AND you wouldn't have to name-call to do it!! Putting Jess's little ad-hom aside, can anyone answer ? That is, if REJECTION of a belief in god is the definition of aeithism, then, a person that has never heard of such a belief, and doesn't hold such a belief, he is then, what, a THEIST?   Steve kap (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Is a person who has never heard of money a capitalist or a socialist? Is a person who never heard of heliocentrism an aheliocentrist or a geocentrist? According to 2 of the 3 defs, people can be nontheists without being atheists. Also: One need not have once been a holder of a belief to reject that belief. You do not have to have once believed in phlogiston to reject belief in it. --JimWae (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but a person has to be AWARE of the existence of a belief to reject it. Thats the point. Steve kap (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, according to 2 of the 3 reliably sourced definitions, one must be aware of the concept to be an an atheist. That is the point. Martin himself holds that the rejection definition includes all explicit atheists. You and Martin prefer the 3rd def, though neither of you are unaware of the concept yourself. What more is there to say?--JimWae (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Still an atheist. The word actually means without theism.  Most folks tend to think of it in terms of a rejection of theism because, I suspect, theistic belief is the assumed default (i.e. most come from a society where there are more religious people than not).  And no, I have no sources dealing with this speculation.  But I have seen plenty that refer to the idea of someone who was never around a religious belief to reject still being considered an atheist (Hutchins and Dawkins, I believe have written about this idea).  Of course said person likely would not think of themselves as such since the word would not likely exist in a society that had no religious beliefs.  If you see what I mean.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  05:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Actually": 1> Even if one had sources for speculation of what the word "originally" meant, there would still be the problem of committing the etymological fallacy. 2> There is no agreement on what the word "atheism" actually means. --JimWae (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Very true on both counts. I believe the explanation that I read covering this definition went on to say that atheist is how one of us (i.e. people who don't come from the society that has never heard of religion) would likely describe said person.  How the person would self-identify upon learning of the concept of religion, well who knows.  Which, if I recall correctly was the whole point of the piece to begin with.  And essentially, that point seems to line up with the consensus here; to leave the definition as is.  Millahnna (mouse)  talk  05:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Millahnna Just for the sake of being pedantic, I don't believe consensus is to leave the article as-is. However, we've been unable to get consensus on any change proposed thus far, so the current lead has stuck (despite almost constant bickering). In fact, my observation has been that substantially more editors want a change to "something", it's just that they don't agree what that "something" is. If someone was able to come up with an acceptable opening paragraph which appeased all these factions of editors, that would be a good thing in the long run. We could at least put this def ranking argument to rest. Jess talk&#124;edits 05:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My view is that the reader is better served by being made aware of all 3 defs. It is because people do not realize that all 3 defs have currency that they talk past one another. Besides that, they are all reliably well-sourced & it is not up to us (as editors, anyway) to choose which is "correct". --JimWae (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes... as I recall, you were about the only one who objected to all my last proposals. Everyone else seemed to go for at least one of them! =P The problem with the 3 defs is there's no consensus on which order they should be in, and someone comes along like clockwork... what, every month?... to argue about how using 'rejection' first is pov. On top of that it's more complex and jargony than any other featured article lead, and any time I've asked other editors outside of this article their opinion on it, their answer has been that it needs to be dramatically changed. Sure, the terms are sourced and 'have currency', but that was never the problem, nor was 'picking one' over the others. I just don't have the time to get involved in another 3+ month discussion about this... Jess talk&#124;edits 06:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Mann-jess. I really only follow the article out of topical interest and have rarely edited it (vandal and non-constructive edit reverts, primarily).  So I don't have any really strong ideas about an improvement to the lead.  But upon rereading it with yours and Jimwae's explanations of article history in mind, I'm wondering if it would help to open with the statement that atheism has three well known definitions before going into the actual definitions themselves.  That would seem to be a neutral opening, although I suppose the argument of which definition comes first could still come up.  To me, when looking at the sources for each definition in the lead, the order they are in at the moment has a fairly logical flow.  Perhaps a slight rephrase would help make the transition from one definition to another more fluid to people who aren't necessarily reading each source as they go.  Am I actually making any sense (sleep deprived)? Since most of my actual editing is related to fiction plots, I tend to think in terms of text flow.  It IS a little abrupt in the opening at the moment.  Perhaps that's why the debate keeps coming up?  Millahnna (mouse)  talk  15:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Millahnna I appreciate the proposal, and perhaps there's some sense in which we could introduce the topic prior to defining it, but I can't think of any immediately which would be an improvement over an upfront definition. It may be helpful if you included some specific text you think would be appropriate so I could more adequately judge. As a note, per WP:Lead, we do have to start the article with something like "Atheism is..." Jess talk&#124;edits 18:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall others who raised objections to EACH also. Btw, the article never received featured status UNTIL it included all 3 defs in the lede. I don't think we should be swayed by drive-by claims of POV. --JimWae (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @JimWae I don't recall anyone else who maintained we keep the lead as-is throughout the whole discussion, but I was really just joking around with you anyway. :) I fully cede that the current lead is far superior to its predecessors, so it makes sense that improving it to this point would have been required for FA status. That doesn't mean it can't be improved more, however, and while the drive-by pov claims certainly aren't a testament in-and-of-themselves of a problem, they are indicative of the general view with which a substantial portion of readers are leaving the page. I think a variety of editors have very clearly demonstrated that there is (at a minimum) potential for problem, particularly with ranking the defs based on some criteria which isn't directly supported by any policy. The difficulty is coming up with a solution which acknowledges the common understanding of the term in all relevant communities, and still manages to sidestep that issue. Unfortunately I don't have any clever solutions. Jess</b> talk&#124;edits 17:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm quite satified with JimWae's explanation. If 2 of 3 definitions for reliable sources say that one must be aware of the ideas of theism in order to be an atheist, thats some good evidence and reasoning.  And that there are three definitions, with varying degrees of exclusivity, that seems fair enough.  I withdraw my objection. Steve kap (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a POV issue in the definitions, I just think there is a logical problem. "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"- this seems logically backwards, since both statements pretty much mean the same thing, only that the inclusion of the concept of "rejection" narrows the definition, which means that the position that there are no deities is the more broad idea. That is one issue, and merely relates to the logical order of the definitions (since one constrains atheism more than the other). The other issue is just a linguistic one, and I might not be explaining myself well. "The rejection of belief in the existence of deities"- the way this is phrased can extend the rejection to the beliefs of others, and taken to the extreme could only ever relate to that. You can't reject a "belief" without the belief existing in the first place, otherwise it is not a belief, it is merely a notion or concept. The only way this could occur is to reject the beliefs of others, and I would suggest that this is not what the article is trying to say. Unfortunately people continue to use the phrase "rejection of belief" so, what I am talking about I suppose goes into the realm of original research. Nonetheless, if you actually read the first reference. you will find it specifically states the following: "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." So, can't we just switch it around so the lede reads "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the position that there are no deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the rejection of belief in the existence of deities"?Ninahexan (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue with ranking defs is covered in the archives. There are those editors who believe that the rankings should be based on inclusiveness, and others who feel that WP:Weight indicates they be based on prominence. Since no consensus formed to rerank to the former, the article has stayed with rejection first. The reason "in a broad sense" is used there, is to contrast it with the 2nd def of "position". Note, it doesn't say "in the broadest sense". That said, I agree with your objection, and I still support reranking absence first. <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:4px">Jess</b> talk&#124;edits 04:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * An alternative solution to your problem could also be to replace "in a broad sense" with another phrase. However, it would need to adequately set up the reader to understand that there were multiple definitions with varying degrees of exclusivity, and introduce the term as "Atheism is" (not "Atheism can be" or "Atheism refers to"), preferably within the first few words. If you have any suggestions to that end, please feel free to propose them. <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:4px">Jess</b> talk&#124;edits 04:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

after edit conflict
 * I do not follow your statements that 1>both statements pretty much mean the same thing 2>the inclusion of the concept of "rejection" narrows the definition 3>the position that there are no deities is the more broad idea.
 * Are you interpreting "in a broad sense" in some way other than as "in a way that includes more than sometimes commonly thought"? Here is the first paragraph in somewhat expanded form:
 * Atheism has been defined three distinct ways in the literature. A definition that is more inclusive than the narrowest (by including all who self-identify as atheists) gives atheism as the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] A narrower, less inclusive definition (which does not include all who self-identify as atheists) has atheism as the position that there are no deities.[2] The most inclusive definition identifies atheism as the simple absence of belief that any deities exist,[3] and would include as atheists anyone who is not a theist (such as those who has never heard of any deity, and those agnostics who are not also theists). Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]--JimWae (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that rejection applies to belief, whereas the position that applies to a supposed "negative fact". The "rejection" is not applied to the possibility of the existence of a deity, but to belief that one really does exist--JimWae (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe his proposal about rejection vs position was intended as sarcasm, to highlight that "broad" was being used on the narrower term. I agree with him, it is a little weird. Prior to encountering the 3rd def, the reader will be left with the impression that it is the broadest def, particularly as it is immediately contrasted with "in a narrower sense". If the broadest term came first, or if we changed the terms we were using for exclusivity, it would flow better. <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:4px">Jess</b> talk&#124;edits 05:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we might better wait for his reply on what sense he gave to "broad", sarcastic or not...--JimWae (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My approach in terms of the sequence of definitions would be to start with the one that applies to the others (breadth), which would be an absence of belief that deities exist. This covers the other two definitions, and makes no reference to the need to have arrived at a conclusion on the matter (as position and rejection does), and covers ignorance of deities as atheistic. In essence, the broad definition (regardless of whether it is the commonest definition, it covers the common thread of atheism). Then the definitions get more narrow, with the position that there are no deities (rejection of belief is by default to take the position that deities don't exist). But, a rejection of the belief in deities involves not merely holding the position that there are no deities, but also makes reference to not only the personal position, but due to loose wording also can be taken to reference the beliefs of others. And as I mentioned previously, it can't be a rejection of a belief within an individual because the belief would not yet exist for it to be rejected, unless the belief existed previously- this constrains the definition to refer to something that really is far too narrow, but that is my opinion. Ultimately the wording would be something like "reject the notion that deities exist". It is the imperfect semantics of the wording that I don't like. I've been involved in these discussions in the past, so maybe I can just ask whether there is any consensus for the order to be: Broadest- absence of belief that deities exist. More narrow- position that deities do not exist. Narrowest- rejecting the belief that deities exist. That order covers the overlapping concepts of the definitions, and in so doing also would be the definition that would apply to the most amount of people. I appreciate the discussion, and don't want to bog anything down here. Ninahexan (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ninahexan, you referred above to Kai Nielson's Britannica entry to make your case. Why would he write at the beginning that "Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs..."? He says "in general", which is synonymous with "in a broad sense", supporting our usage here. The "critique" he speaks of is one of others' metaphysical beliefs and not the beliefs of atheists. A position that there is no god automatically rejects the beliefs of others, and the sources make it abundantly clear that rejecting a theory on grounds other than asserting its falsehood (in particular, the assertion that "God exists" is false or strong atheism) is a sound rational position for an atheist to take.  That divine theories are often rejected as incomprehensible or based on faulty assumptions can be divined. Does my world-saving invention exist? Saying "no it does not exist" is more assertive and specific than simply rejecting a belief that my invention exists because I've yet to provide you evidence as to its existence. The rejection definition is thus broader and more encompassing of diverse views such as explicit weak atheism than the position of strong atheism, see the article's chart (a Venn diagram) for details. Again, Nielson stated "in general". As for the order of the definitions, that they all have "absence of belief" in common is correct, but they are still different views on what atheism is said to be. Please see wp:NPOV, especially, wp:due as to how the different views are to be presented.  Wp:NPOV requires treating the different views on a subject according to their weight or prominence that is given by sources, for instance, by Nielson.  --Modocc (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand why the concept of rejection is being used, I just disagree with the way it is used to refer to a belief, and this is purely for semantic reasons. To reject something is to have something to reject- a belief perhaps? So the belief has to exist in the mind so it can be rejected, otherwise it should be termed a concept/notion/idea/theory etc. That is pretty much where my reasoning on that begins and ends. Aside from that though, I think the order of definitions should be reversed on logical grounds as well. Look at how the second reference (Rowe, 1998) phrases it- "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. Another meaning of "atheism" is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. …an atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology." So you can see where the "broad sense" wording came from, and it didn't use the word reject. I would lead with this definition- "The position that affirms the nonexistence of god..." which seems much more inclusive to me, since it doesn't use words that are loaded with connotations, but then reference Nielsen's definition involving rejection. This order would smoothly tie in with the following paragraph which point blank explains the linguistic root of the word atheism, but which then goes on to refer to how it was applied (ie reject the gods of the day), so in that order would very nicely mirror the preceding definitions. Ninahexan (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For Rowe the difference between broader and narrower hangs entirely on the difference between "God" (narrower) and "every form of deity" (broader), and has nothing to do with the definition as absence (which he soon abandons). He does not consider all three defs we have, but we must. "The position that affirms God does not exist" is among the narrowest in scope & least inclusive of members-- I cannot see how you could interpret it as "much more inclusive". Could you try to explain what you mean by that? In what sense could "the position that God does not exist" be more inclusive than "the rejection of belief that any deities exist, with or without taking the position that no deities exist"? --JimWae (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Ninahexan, I proposed "in a broad sense" sometime ago to paraphrase Nielson (not that other usages can have broader or narrower senses too). Its also not unusual to sometimes have a consensus here on tweaking stuff. But to reject something is simply to refuse to accept it (from the primary connotation of reject), and from the sources, Nielson: "...to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God..." and Edwards:"...an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God...". In other words, refusing to accept belief. Semantically, I see no problem with that, because the notion that someone must have something first to reject it is not accurate... which appears to be the main basis for your objection to its use. --Modocc (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

To answer the last point first, to follow the definition you (modocc) give to "reject" elucidates the point I am making- "refuse to accept a belief in deities" a belief is something that exists, ie. a state of mind. This means that in order to refuse to accept something there must be something to refuse to accept. The choice between accepting or rejecting something as being true must by definition precede the belief (if indeed it is accepted as being true). Hence, if there is a rejection it has never become a belief. So the sentence "refuse to accept a belief" makes no sense, unless it referred to the beliefs of others, or a belief already held by the person refusing to accept it (ie the belief exists, but the person won't accept that they believe). Though it might sound like I am rebelling against the word rejection, it is the concept of "belief" applied in the current way that I don't see as logical. The trouble is that to more concisely phrase it might become too wordy- "rejects the thought that deities exist"? Indeed, the source uses incorrect wording (in my mind) so who am I to change it (though obviously not everything should be verbatim from the sources)? What I do think should be changed is the sequence of definitions, and I apologise (JimWae) for a previous mistake where I meant to state the disbelief in every form of deity would be what I would lead with (as most inclusive), I just forgot to include it. So in the definitions it would lead with no-belief in deities, then affirmation that no deities exist, then rejection (since rejection is used in a number of defs). That would be a nice mirror to the following paragraph where it states that atheism is formed from the greek- no gods- but which then goes on to refer to the concept of rejection and how it related at that time to the society. I'm used to defining things in broad terms first, like an inverted triangle, and sharpening definitions as I explain further, but my approach might not work in this field, I just thought I'd elaborate to the degree where it might get tedious, I hope I haven't come across at all spiky!Ninahexan (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understood the problem you posed with using rejection with the word belief, although I could have made it clearer that I did, and I can agree with you in part, because of what you said with my emphasis added "...the sentence "refuse to accept a belief" makes no sense, unless it referred to the beliefs of others, or a belief already held by the person refusing to accept it (ie the belief exists, but the person won't accept that they believe)" It makes sense in those contexts, because theism exists. That the two narrower definitions have received substantially greater prominence, which should be reflected here in accordance with wp:due, shouldn't be surprising considering that these definitions do not include uneducated children, undecided agnostics and anyone that the latest missionaries have yet to reach.--Modocc (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I just haven't seen the greater weighting in the sources towards "rejection of belief..." as the most commonly applied definition. I've found the most common wording to focus on the "denial of the existence of deities". The more convincing wording regarding the broadest sense of atheism as not fully being appropriate for the main definition of atheism is that the word is inextricably tied to that of theism (absence of), and as such could only exist within a context where theism is present (choice). It's still hard to reconcile when the linguistic derivation of the word is elaborated- no gods. Nonetheless I do see the benefit of having the article reflect the way other authors have arranged their definitions. I'm still in favour of the switching of reject and position defs though. Ninahexan (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur that the choice between belief and disbelief is the essential division here and I think a case can be made either way as to which of the narrow definitions is given the most weight as it pertains to this article's scope. Any encyclopedia that simply says that the narrowest definition is "commonly understood" is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the view, especially since prominent authors such as Smith have stated that the rejection definition is also common. I've always assumed that the dictionary definitions giving the connotation of "disbelief" have done so to encompass a broader understanding than the narrowest. Of note, Jim Wae once challenged us to try and use the word in a sentence such that it unambiguously means simply "absence of belief" (such that it is clear from the context used in that it does not mean either: unable to believe, the rejection of a belief or, more narrowly, believing something is false). I found this to be an interesting exercise involving some cognitive dissonance!  As I see this topic, the rejection definition has had A) sufficient currency per dictionary usage, B) sufficient prominence given Britannica's treatment of it, and C) a wider, encyclopedic, scope in introducing the topic in compliance with wp:lede. I could say more on this subject, but because of other pressing matters I need to disengage for a while and followup on replies at a later date.  --Modocc (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, there is so much space devoted to this topic I can appreciate how tedious it feels at times. I've gone through many sources, and faithfully have only found two references using "rejection", the two listed on the article. If I am allowed to link, I will give links to the other definitions I found (some of which are from meta-search engines of seemingly reputable publications)- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ http://www.as.ua.edu/rel/aboutreldefinitions.html http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3407700886/atheism.html http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O110-atheism.html http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3424300064.html http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50014051?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=atheism&first=1&max_to_show=10 I didn't want to use the meta-search links, but I'll leave it to others to judge. The rejection notion was set up in Nielsen's book, though it was not straight forward. He gave definitions at the beginning, then went on to elaborate upon the weaknesses of them. For my own interest I'm going to write to him and ask about his use of the phrase "rejection of belief...". He's an adjunct professor, so hopefully he is open to the enquiries of pestering students. I can see the validity of disbelief necessitating a decision, not merely an absence of belief. To disbelieve comes after a choice, as does to believe. Neither can exist before that choice. Accordingly there would never be a belief to reject before that choice, either. Anyway, thanks for the back and forth, it's illuminating. Ninahexan (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with defining atheism as "to not believe in god or gods"? Wouldn't that encompass every person who is not a theist? It seems to me people who don't like this definition simply don't want atheism attached to it. Gordon stein liked this definition too,

"When we examine the components of the word "atheism," we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of "a-" and "-theism." Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix "a-" can mean "not" (or "no") or "without." If it means "not," then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means "without," then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God." [Gordon Stein (Ed.), An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, p. 3. Prometheus, 1980.] Not to say that we should necessarily define atheism as such because that is what it's greek roots may suggest, but because that is a definition most atheists, especially well known atheists agree upon. I see no reason why we shouldn't use this definition as the "broadest sense of the definition" since it would necessarily include even implicit atheists. (which rejection may not.) And yes, not knowing of the concept of god necessarily means you are an atheist if we use the definition I suggest. Because you do not hold a belief in god, if you do not have a belief in god then you do not believe in god, and therefore an atheist. Rejection seems inadequate since it may not encompass these people who don't even know of the concept of god.96.231.153.197 (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1> we do include the absence def as the broadest def - and I see no argument here against continuing to include it. See Talk:Atheism below.
 * 2>it is an unsourced myth that most atheists agree with the absence def. Smith & Martin are the 2 main advocates, but numerous others (atheists & otherwise) do not accept that def. Nagel specifically objects to it, Neilsen & Edwards disregard it, Rowe abandons it, and I see no source that even one of Sam Harris, Daniel C. Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Victor J. Stenger and Christopher Hitchens have adopted it. Dawkins explicitly opposes labelling children as either theist or atheist - and thus implicitly opposes any simple binary definition - such as the absence one. --JimWae (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dawkins "implicitly opposes any simple binary definition", are you sure you are talking about Richard Dawkins?
 * entirely certain - Furhtermore, Dawkins, non-binary & opposed to labelling children, uses a 7 point scale (not a 2 point scale), and nowhere on that scale is there any room for people (nor infants or rocks) unaware of the notion of a deity. --JimWae (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Most atheists(or at least many) do not "reject" the existence of God, but simply don't believe in s/he. I would be for changing this on those very obvious grounds.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Smith, one of the primary originators of the supposed "implicit" atheism, agrees that rejection covers all explicit atheists: "Atheism may be divided into two broad categories: implicit and explicit. (a) Implicit atheism is the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it. (b) Explicit atheism is the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it.... An explicit atheist is one who rejects belief in a god."--JimWae (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

All definitions of atheism require an absence of belief in theistic views no matter what the reasons. Descriptively speaking then, all atheists do have an absence of belief in a deity or deities. An atheist can passionately reject this definition if they want to, but to be an atheist in any way it is required, and therefore all atheists necessarily identify with this definition no matter what other definition they agree with. It makes no sense for an atheist to disagree with this definition because they would be contradicting themselves, thus every atheist implicitly agrees with the absence definition when making their own definition. So in consequence "the absence of belief in any theistic view" seems the fundamental or at least ever present meaning of the word atheism. Thus I consider it the most reasonable definition to use, because every atheist does agree with it. Unless you come up with a definition that does not mean to have an absence of belief in a theistic view, then what definition doesn't agree with the absence def?96.231.153.197 (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to slightly reword most of what you just said, and let's see what it sounds like:
 * "All definitions of explicit atheism require a rejection of belief in theistic views no matter what the reasons. Descriptively speaking then, all explicit atheists do reject belief in a deity or deities. An atheist can passionately reject this definition if they want to, but to be an explicit atheist in any way it is required, and therefore all atheists necessarily identify with this definition no matter what other definition they agree with. It makes no sense for an atheist to disagree with this definition because they would be contradicting themselves, thus every explicit atheist implicitly agrees with the rejection definition when making their own definition. So in consequence "the rejection of belief in any theistic view" seems the fundamental meaning of the word "atheism". Thus it is the most reasonable definition to use, because every explicit atheist does agree with it."

The objection to the absence def is that it gives a necessary condition, but not the sufficient conditions. It would be like defining a rectangle as all shapes with 4 sides. --JimWae (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "All definitions of rectangle require 4 sides, no matter what else is in the definition. Descriptively speaking then, all rectangles have 4 sides. A mathematician can passionately reject this definition if they want to, but to be an rectangle in any way it is required, and therefore all rectangles necessarily have 4 sides, no matter what other definition they agree with. It makes no sense for an mathematician to disagree with this definition because they would be contradicting themselves, thus every mathematician implicitly agrees with the 4 sides definition when making their own definition. So in consequence "the 4 sided figure seems the fundamental meaning of the word "rectangle". Thus it is the most reasonable definition to use, because every mathematician does agree with it."--JimWae (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Who's to decide the sufficient conditions of being an atheist? Doesn't the rejection defintion lack the condition that you must believe there is no god? How do you justify adding on conditions to being an atheist that is more than necessary? Veiwing atheism from the absence definition, the rejection definition makes unnecessary conditions to being an atheist. If the conditions aren't necessarily... necessary, then why add them? Do I make a mistake with that reasoning? 96.231.153.197 (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Who's to decide? Not us. It depends on what the sources, preferably scholarly ones in this case, say. And that goes for all of this terribly long and not particularly productive talk thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose my conservation is just talk with no impending change, I would prefer that the Absence definition be put in the first sentence but I guess it doesn't matter. I really just wanted to know why it wasn't more reasonable to use the Absence definition then the other definitions, and that doesn't really help the page at all. 96.231.153.197 (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

theism as a vice
some people start with "practical atheism" and take it a little further. starting from rationality, discipline and critical thinking, one sees that being "theistic" requires that one suspend rationality, ignore burden of proof, remove the requirement of empirical evidence, etc. and one who is practiced in them knows all to well that minds that reject these things (or ignore them, or what have you), can lead not only to decadence of the individual, but massive and irreversible damage to entire civilizations (look at hitler). in short, it is reckless and dangerous in the extreme. i don't know about other people here, but when i discover a religious fanatic near me, i get uneasy; i get tense. the scariest thing about a person when they're angry is not so much that they may become violent, but that when people are angry they don't think rationally. at that point, everything is up in the air. the practical consequences of their words and actions - well, not something they're thinking about - at all. and THAT is mankind at his most dangerous. it's that same irrationality that makes me uneasy when a person nearby is a religious fanatic, that makes me fear a strong theist or a staunch conservative. my point of all this is that i think some atheists see theism as a vice in that same way (or similiar), and i don't see the article presenting that. i know it's got to be from reliable sources and all. and i have no specific suggestion. i'm just throwing the idea out there for what it's worth. some atheists see theism as a vice. e.g. as a sign of a lack of intellectual discipline, like sloth or gluttony, but much worse. is there a way to integrate that information into the article? Kevin Baastalk 00:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources? I'm taking no position as to whether or not theism is a vice, but using this talk as a general forum to discuss atheism without directly addressing specific edits or additions to the page certainly is. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I know, i don't mean to use it as a forum. and i don't know any secondary sources.  i admitted that already.  i'm just pointing out something that seems to be missing from the article.  maybe a direction to look and maybe somebody might find something in a secondary source to put in the article.  there's probably a lot of atheists like i described so someone's got to have written about it.  what about that one book by the scientist, "the god delusion"?  anyways, just an idea if anyone knows any material. Kevin Baastalk 00:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, that's Richard Dawkins. Actually, the topic might work better at Criticism of religion than here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I would immediately think that such an angle would better suit the theism page, but upon reflection I think there might be some merit to using sources (which there are) to reflect the ideas on the atheism page. While the sentiment relates primarily to theism, it is also part of the force that is behind some people taking the stronger (or perhaps more vocal) position of atheism. The increasing visibility of atheist debaters and some might say activists may indeed be linked to an increased fear of the avenues that taking things on faith might lead societies, and in turn might reflect something of a bulwark against such a tide. In this manner (for some people) the concept that theism is a frailty/vice that is harmful to society might indeed play a large role in their own decisions, not just in terms of their beliefs but how they express those beliefs. In other words, I am not suggesting it IS a vice, just that some people do, and that that fact is important. Ninahexan (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Atheism shouldn't be equivocated with disliking religion. You are thinking of antitheism or antireligion, where such a viewpoint is outright expressed. Most atheists are perfectly alright with religion, the view that it is dangerous and harmful and needs to be stopped are held by a minority of atheists who fall into those two categories.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? I completely disagree that "most atheists are perfectly alright with religion". Please provide a source for this startling hypothesis. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't equivocating, which is why I qualified it by saying some people might regard it as a vice, and while I imagine it can be a dimension for people adopting an anti-theism position, it can also form part of the force for someone to identify outwardly as atheist whereas without that force they may have proclaimed to be agnostic. I have absolutely no desire to devote any space to criticising theism, but the section that references criticisms to atheism state that some avenues of thought lead people to conclude that atheism leads to X Y and Z, which is why it should not be adopted. Accordingly if people choose not to believe in deities it is perfectly plausible that it might arise from a similar attitude: that adopting theism leads to A B and C. This has actually already been touched upon in the logical arguments and reductionary accounts of religion (should this be changed to "reductionist"?) sections, where it has been mentioned that a secession of rationale may be the genesis of belief in deities. That is one argument, and a retort asks "so what? belief might do more good than harm, even if it is belief in a fiction". The answer to that is what I believe what Kevin_Baas might have been referring to- that some believe that the action of holding such beliefs may cause an erosion of diligence in reasoning, and that this effect is what is problematic. Whether this erosion happens or not is not for me to say, but it is certainly a part of some people's thought processes, and one which doesn't simply equate to an atheist moving to anti-theism. Ninahexan (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Ninahexan, you understand what I was trying to say precisely and said it much better than me.  Thanks. :) Kevin Baastalk 16:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In my view all fundamentalists are in danger of losing perspective (including atheist fundamentalists - whom are perhaps better named anti-theist). Much of the worlds fundamentalisms revolves around religion (although racism seems a good runner up). I count several moderate believers who can cope with a secular lifestyle (i.e. not enforcing their religious views on anyone and accepting of different worldview of others, not bringing religious arguments into any (workrelated or even during lunch break) discussion) among my most valued colleagues. In short, the extremists are scary, the moderates are no problem. Arnoutf (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with that argument, however, is that many fundamentalists actually classify themselves as moderate. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem of the argument, a problem of how fundamentalist behave (which is the argument ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed what you are referring to is a matter of antitheism, and positions that relate to the criticism of the beliefs of others would better suit the antitheism page. The relevance to this page would be where people's personal beliefs are informed by their thoughts about how beliefs in god/gods might lead to negative consequences (for them personally). When discussing "atheist fundamentalists" you might want to clarify the definition- there being no doctrine of atheism. Ninahexan (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding empirical evidence.
Now, Lets try this again.

As I stated before. Modern Atheists often take the position that there are no evidence for the existence of god. And in the void of evidence there is no grounds to say god exist or have faith in a deity/deities. A prelude to that argument is the question of who have the burden of supplying the evidence. The believer or the non believer?

This aspect of modern atheism have not been described with even one word in this article. I've addressed this before, but it have been meet with a wall of silence. So I kindly request that since mine was stowed to obscurity by the bot, someone else steps up and propose a text on this issue. This article is severely lacking in factual understanding if this aspect of atheistic arguments is not addressed. -- Muthsera (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Any proposed text must be supported by reliable sources. If you feel this is a significant issue, please produce examples of sources that refer to it. From my point of view, the burden quite obviously falls upon the "believer", largely because the existence of deities is highly unlikely (per Occam's razor). Giving the burden to the "non believer" would be akin to having someone prove the Moon isn't made of cheese. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Burden of proof is treated as a significant issue in the literature, so there is no reason it cannot be addressed in the article, so long as it discusses the issue in suitably NPOV style. It is worth noting that although some atheists have held that their particular brand of atheism can avoid any burden of proof, others have - inevitably - disagreed. --Dannyno (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Interestingly believers in deities seem not to be bothered at all at providing empirical evidence of the existence of their gods. Arnoutf (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Scjessey. I believe I've provided the sources for this point several times before. But if really needed, I'll post it again. Occam's razor says nothing about proof. It just says which of two equal arguments to pay most weight to. Russel's Teapot shows the practical implication of putting the burden on the negative. -- Muthsera (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Arnoutf: i don't understand what you mean. what you said is at best ambiguous.  in my experience believers aren't "bothered" at all by contradictions and nonsense.  in fact, they embrace it.  but when it comes to "providing empirical evidence", they can't seem to grasp the meaning of the word "empirical" (or "evidence", or "provide", for that matter, either).  and i wouldn't exactly use the word "interesting" to describe any of that. (it's too trite.  "bewildering" or "disturbing", maybe.) so i'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. Kevin Baastalk 19:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion, the word interesting was used in a rather sarcastic way meaning at least "disturbingly" and probably even more... Arnoutf (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

←Rather than skating around the issue with comments like "this should be in the article", may I suggest that someone comes up with some proposed text (with references) so that we can get some idea of what we are talking about. I'm having trouble seeing what the point of this is, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I find it rather puzzling that someone question the validity of including a portion on empirical evidence towards god in regards to atheism. But that might just be me. Anyway. Lets stop muppeting about. Tear the text apart as you see fit, and we'll try to reach a consensus on what goes in.

"The evidence for God

Many self professed Atheist such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, take the position that there is not enough evidence to support the hypothesis of a deity. So consequently there is neither any reason to believe in any deity. This comes from the scientific understanding that it is the person who make the hypothesis who have the burden of providing evidence for it. Some refute this and claim it is the non believer who should provide the evidence for non existence. In the unpublished article in Illustrated Magazine from 1952, Bertrand Russell highlighted the problem of disproving the negative. An argument which has later become known as "Russell's Teapot".

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.""


 * Short and concise. Very similar to the one before as you all can see. But if someone have a more suitable text, by all means please put it forward. I'm sure this can be done better. -- Muthsera (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is a veritable orgy of original research and weasel words; furthermore, I cannot see any logical reason for including this text or anything like it. The premise of inclusion (Russell's Teapot) can apply to almost any counterpoint to fantastic claims (like aliens, ghosts, pixies at the end of my garden) and does nothing to educate or inform the reader on any aspect of atheism. Rather it serves to highlight the absurdity of requiring the so-called "non-believer" to provide evidence to support their skepticism for random extraordinary claims (such as the existence of deities). I'm sorry if this seems rather blunt, but this seems less like a useful tangent and more like a completely separate universe. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The text is a verbatim quote of Bertrand Russell one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, it is the actual quote that introduced the Russell's Teapot argument. Of course it is original research...... by the illustrious Russell at his best. Arnoutf (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the first paragraph that introduces Russell's quote, not the quote itself. Obviously. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry the wording of that paragraph is a bit dodgy indeed. It raises the parsimonuous argument (Occam) Evidence_of_God, where the null hypothesis with the fewest parameters (no God) is always the starting point, unless there is sufficient evidence to adopt the alternative hypothesis (there is a God). Arnoutf (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Scjessey. Don't start the WP:OR bit. We've been over this at least 4 times already. I didn't cite the sources because they have been posted several times already. If you have a problem with it, I suggest you plow trough the last few pages of archive before you comment further. I'm starting to tire of supporting the same arguments over and over, and being meet with what I can only describe as the same uninformed arguments. Atheism today isn't the arguments of Kant and Hume, it' those make by authors such as Harris and Dawkins. But just in case your a bit to lazy to look them up and we'll continue to have this looping argument. Here is a clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtRRv3RV7_s take note to how he says: "at the very least". I also used the word "Many self professed Atheists" because there are indeed "many", and you would know this if you read the sources I've already posted. I singled out two because they are the most prominent. However, I'm very much open to changing the wording of that. Instead of using weasel, I would say it's just bad English.


 * @Arnoutf. I'm sorry but Occam's razor only provides the position of which two valid arguments one is to put most weight to. Your argument presupposes that the simplest position is the null hypothesis. One could invalidate that position with the notion that there is something instead of nothing in the universe. Russel's teapot however is another notion. It presupposes that the question is for now unknown. But in the absence of evidence, the burden of providing the evidence is on the person making the positive claim. They are two wholly different concepts. You'll also see very few atheistic authors use Occam's razor as it on some levels indicates that the theistic position is a valid one. That said. I'm sure the text could be highly improved upon. -- Muthsera (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As an after thought. I do know I can seem very cranky with this bit. But I do have these arguments in here it seems all the time. And I'm always meet with unsupported proclamation of some said understanding. At least try to support it with quotation now and then. Although it doesn't seem like it. I do appreciate even these negative feedback. But it would help out a lot though if one also added a solution or a replacement text for those parts you don't agree with, not just state the negative. There is a political notion which says that, if you don't have a solution to the problem, you shouldn't bother speaking. Although I wouldn't go so far. It's in general a good guide. -- Muthsera (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was a bit brief, the person providing the hypothesis should provide the evidence is only partially linked to the parsimonious issue. That Occams razor is in favour of the theistic view is indeed the oversimplistic argument; i.e. by putting a single parameter into the model (an omnipotent, omniscient God) you explain everything!. However, this omnipotent, omniscient God is also an infinitely complex thing, and hence considering its inclusion as the inclusion of one parameter is doing God no justice as you would have to specify God as simple as a number (42 perhaps?), instead you should include God as an infinite set of parameters, bringing Occam full circle. However, this requires some complicated reasoning and is usually not worth the effort.
 * The main 'problem' with your wording is that it allows both theists and atheists to declare their own null and alternative hypothesis. Perhaps that is your intention, but in that case it would be best to make it explicit. It follows this or a similar line of reasoning: The theist will say: Tradition has given us that God exists, and the new hypothesis to be proven is her non-existence. The atheist will say: Tradition is not a relevant source to base anything on as tradition is more often wrong than right (flat earth, divine right of kings, etc.), and since there are (besides tradition) no indication God exists, the hypothesis to proven is her existence. Of course, much of the debate unfolds along these lines (you have to prove your idea, no you yours, no you your etc ad infinitum); and I agree that's where Russell comes in with his elegant example. Arnoutf (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Muthsera - I stand by my comment, and I further add that I think you misunderstand Occam's Razor by narrowing its application. I am not interesting in going back at looking at archive pages or watching videos to support your original research. I specifically requested a proposed text with references. The burden of proving the legitimacy of proposed text falls upon the editor proposing it, which I think you'll agree is a delicious bit of symmetry. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

←@Arnoutf, I would only claim that Occam's razor could potentially be in favor of a very limited deity. In the form that god nudge the initial creation along. Which seems to be a particular favorite of some catholic and jewish teachers. Now, that is another type of god than the omnipresent, omnipotent god of abraham. But it's still a deity, neither to fully rule out the pantheist deity. Even then, Occam's razor only makes a probability prediction. It is never a prediction of certain knowledge. Which one would be after under empirical evidence arguments. Although I agree with you that Occam's razor have a place here. It's not the logical endgame in my view. Neither do have I seen it used in many books and lectures arguing for non belief. However, I wouldn't mind if you posted a source on that argument of Occam's razor, and we could try to find a place for it.

That said. It is indeed my intention to highlight these two positions of negative and positive claims. As it is the chief concern: Does god exist? (any form) Otherwise you have a utilitarian argument. Or to use another term, a belief in belief. But chiefly it is a large part of staying a non believer. Being that one stays unconvinced of the evidence provided which could overturn ones non belief to a belief.

@Scjessey. I'm sorry that I cut this corner to get this text going. It was only a preliminary text which I expected to be changed massively. Consequently I didn't bother right there to supply sources for it. I was under the obvious misguided belief that everyone in these discussion knew the basics of where these arguments is coming from, so I didn't bother. I made an error there.

But on the notion of not accepting clips as sources(which I understand your objection to be). That is not my problem. I gave a source which validated my position. The legacy problem of the source is not a premier concern in this case, nor is it meant to be a future source for this article. If you can not be bother to review a source provided it is not really my problem, that must fall on your own irrationality. I could agree to disregard that form of source for the basis of this article because of it's inherent legacy and transcript problem. But if that was the only concern, we could overcome that with attaining a written transcripts of the program. The date in question should not be hard to obtain. It would then be as valid a source as any normal publication. None of these issues however validates your position of not bothering to view the source I provided. If you can't be bothered to search older discussions on this topic. A potential solution to that would be to ask if I could redirect you to the sources in question is. And not to be accused of dodging the issue at hand. Here is a written transcript for the claims: (there is no available transcripts of these debates so these are mine, if anyone could validate them as an accurate transcript that would be greatly appreciated)

Hitchens vs Hitchens debate. Grand Valley State University, Michigan, April 3rd 2008. original source

Christopher Hitchens:
 * The Atheist proposition is the following. Most of the time. It may not be said, that there is no god. It may be said that there is no reason to think there is one. That was the situation after Lucretius and Democritus and the original Anti-Theistic thinkers began their critique of religion, and I would just ask you all ladies and gentlemen to bear in mind this mild distinction while we go on.

Sam Harris Article.Huffington Post


 * The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.


 * It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (eighty-seven percent of the population) who claim to “never doubt the existence of God” should be obliged to present evidence for his existence

Now, before you all accuse me of WP:OR again. This is the same argument as Hitchens. Ie, the positive claim have the burden of proof (theists should provide evidence), and one refuses to deny the obvious falsity of the theistic claim (at least without evidence). And thus it is no reason to believe in god. According to Harris.

I would however be more than happy to hear any alternative text you would propose on this issue. -- Muthsera (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I completely get your line "Or to use another term, a belief in belief. But chiefly it is a large part of staying a non believer. Being that one stays unconvinced of the evidence provided which could overturn ones non belief to a belief."
 * I think there is abundant evidence for belief (i.e that there are people who truly believe); however that in itself has little relevance whether the topic of their belief does exist (many people believed the earth to be flat). The problem with Gods is, that evidence that there is seems to be mainly semantic (ontological) the evolutionary wiring of humans to think in cause-effect relations which makes the absense of a prime mover inconceivable (but is also the cause for a lot of superstition where coincidental co-occurence is interpreted as a cause-effect relation) and a whole bunch of historical source, and personal revelations (none of which have more validity than the claims of any other person having a vision). If we rule out these three lines of evidence (none of which empirical, or in any other way valid) than your claim that atheists strive to "stays unconvinced of the evidence" seems overly harsh and an untestable hypothesis, as no empirical evidence for the provision of a god was ever provided (note that even Dawkins states he would yield to convincing empirical evidence) Arnoutf (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly so. And I think it is important that we do not rely on the likes of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens for sourcing. They are prominent because of their activism, and dispassionate sources are always going to be more useful to an encyclopedia article. Incidentally, I cannot see how Occam's Razor could ever be in favor of any deity, however limited in scope. The only conceivable way it might favor the existence of a deity is if the choice presented was a false dichotomy. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your objections are simply irrelevant. You have simply stated personal opinions. Without sources, quotation or other evidences. I on the other hand have indeed supplied sources for my position. Our footing is not equal. I'll admit that the text proposed could be massively improved. But no alternative have arisen. I suggest you address that, with evidence. Instead of going on a rant of your own opinions. Until then. I'll continue to view your objections as irrelevant. -- Muthsera (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think our opinions are not that far apart. Only we should be careful with double negatives as that easily lead to ambiguous texts; and also we should be very careful in distinguishing between belief (i.e. that what believers do) and belief as something alike confidence/trust in a position. These two uses of the same word are subtly different (I do belief (trust it exists) in belief (people doing the act of believing in a God)). Most of it seems to be wording rather than content. Arnoutf (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am having trouble understanding why Muthsera is citing the Hitchens and Harris statements above.  Neither appear to be substantive to the topic of the availability or otherwise of empirical evidence or where the burden of proof lies.  Hitchens makes a common distinction, but says nothing whatsoever about the status of empirical evidence or where the burden of proof lies.  Far from Harris making "the same argument" as Hitchens, as Muthsera asserts, in fact they are addressing separate issues. But insofar as you can interpret their statements, Harris seems to be saying that the nonexistence of God is "obvious"; but he doesn't say anything about where the burden of proof therefore lies. So, although Muthsera insists on directing us to his sources, the sources don't help because they don't say what he appears to be saying they say.  --Dannyno (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the characterisation of Dawkins' and Hitchens' positions in the original suggested text appears not to be an accurate summary of what Dawkins and Hitchens actually think. --Dannyno (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And another thing. Hard to see how you can discuss the issue of burden of proof without mentioning how Flew responded to the issue.  Secondly, I don't think Russell's Teapot speaks directly to the burden of proof anyway.  To present it in this context seems to presume two things: first, that "proving a negative" is what having the burden of proof would require of an atheist (Original Research); second, that to demonstrate the alleged absurdity of the demand to "prove a negative" would be suitable response to the claim that the atheist bears a burden of proof (again, Original Research).  No, this whole things looks like a misconceived non-starter to me. --Dannyno (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Dannyno. Harris speaks directly to the notion that theists need to provide evidence for their belief. How can you square that with having no burden of proof? Secondly, Hitchens says that Atheists are unconvinced of the case for god. That would not follow if no convincing evidence is supplied for the position who ought to provide it. Also note how he profess that Atheism is not a belief or assertion. Richard Dawkins always talk about the lack of evidence for god. It would be very far fetched to imagine that he does not agree that the positive claim have the burden to provide evidence. As in this text from Dawkins.


 * The fact that I cannot know whether your red is the same as my green doesn't make the probability 50 per cent. The proposition on offer is too meaningless to be dignified with a probability. Nevertheless, it is a common error, which we shall meet again, to leap from the premise that the question of god's existence is in principle unanswerable to the conclusion that his existence and non-existence are equiprobable. Another way to express that error is in terms of the burden of proof, and in this form it is pleasingly demonstrated by Bertrand Russell's parable of the celestial teapot. Richard Dawkins. The god Delusion. p51


 * At the very least. Russell's illustration show that Atheism does not have the burden of proof. Which is what the ultimate proposition is. And since the only proposition is. Does god exist? Only one of the two can potentially have a burden of proof. The negative or the positive claim. It would therefor be reasonable to conclude that Dawkins and Russell both follow this understanding that the Theist claim have a burden of proof.
 * So as far as I can tell, although I'm obviously partial. That the text I wrote was accurate, although admittedly slightly lacking in style and composure.


 * @Arnoutf. Yes, I agree with that notion. I only fear that "belief" in most cases would be understood as "trust without evidence". -- Muthsera (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to throw this in here as well.


 * Can you prove that Allah is not the one, true god? Can you prove that the archangel Gabriel did not visits Muhammad in his cave? Of course not. But you need not prove any of these things to reject the beliefs of muslims as absurd. The burden of proof is upon them to prove that their beliefs about god and Muhammad are valid. Sam Harris, Letter to a christian nation, p6. -- Muthsera (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Muthsera. You said: "Harris speaks directly to the notion that theists need to provide evidence for their belief. How can you square that with having no burden of proof?"  I don't understand the second sentence.  With regard to your first sentence, Harris does nothing of the kind, as is perfectly and plainly evident from the actual text you posted, which obviously doesn't speak directly to the notion at all.  At most, you could pick out this sentence (a heavy weight for a sentence taken out of context to bear): "The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for."  That could be interpreted as saying that atheists should provide evidence, couldn't it?


 * @Muthsera. You further said: "Secondly, Hitchens says that Atheists are unconvinced of the case for god."  No he didn't. In the text you posted, he said: "The Atheist proposition is the following... It may not be said, that there is no god. It may be said that there is no reason to think there is one."  You say "That would not follow if no convincing evidence is supplied for the position who ought to provide it."  But whether convincing evidence has or has not been supplied does not tell you anything about whose responsibility it is to provide evidence. The fact of being unconvinced, or of atheism being defined as not being convinced, does not tell you anything about burden of proof.  You go on to say: "Also note how he profess that Atheism is not a belief or assertion."  However, the title of the debate is "God does not exist, and he is not Great". Christopher starts that debate with the comment: "I don't think it's going to take ten minutes to disprove the existence of God."  Hitchens is emphatically not sitting back being unconvinced; listen to the debate! One of the points he makes is that we now know things we didn't know when religion first appeared.   Nor do I hear him saying that atheism is not a belief or assertion.  Do you have a time reference?


 * @Muthsera. you quoted Dawkins citing Russell's teapot. Clearly Russell's point is, as he says in the article, "Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake."   Dawkins uses the analogy slightly differently, against the idea that a hypothesis that cannot be demonstrated is as probable as its denial: so what if you can't disprove god's existence: you can't disprove anything's existence. Although the teapot is connected to the issue of burden of proof, it doesn't lead us to think that atheists don't need to provide any evidence or reasons themselves. It doesn't "show" what you say it shows.  You say, "It would therefor be reasonable to conclude that Dawkins and Russell both follow this understanding that the Theist claim have a burden of proof."   This is your own opinion.  What we need are sources that we can cite. At least your final Sam Harris quote is on-topic. Well done.

--Dannyno (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1st part. On this it would simply be enough for me to point to the second quote I gave from Harris. Furthermore it could only be argued that Harris believes that the positive assertion having a burden to provide evidence. Which we really are after.


 * 2nd part. Your confusing two issues now. Hitchens professes himself as Anti-Theist more than an Atheist. You have not distinguished between the two. So any overreaching critical claim he has towards Theism or about it's falsehood. Must be viewed in light of his claim to be Anti Theist. As far time reference. I need to get back to you on that. But I believe it's the second session some 25 minutes into the video. The reason I posted this quote was because it illustrates exactly his position to non belief. That you need not do anything until sufficient evidence is provided. Which is what we're after when we want to describe what some atheists assert about their position in relation to evidence.


 * 3rd part. You said: "Although the teapot is connected to the issue of burden of proof, it doesn't lead us to think that atheists don't need to provide any evidence or reasons themselves." How do you conclude that? You cannot simply proclaim it does not. Especially considering the following argument Dawkins makes after Russell's quote. We would not waste time saying so because nobody, so far as I know, worships teapots; but, if pressed, we would not hesitate to declear our strong belief that there is positively no orbiting teapot. Yet strictly speaking we should all be teapot agnostics: we cannot prove, for sure, that there is no celestial teapot. In practice, we move away from teapot agnosticism towards a-teapotisn. Now, the thing is, the reason I left this quote out was because now we'll have a four hour session about the word "belief". So in the interest of time. May we ignore that for now? What you are arguing above. Is that Dawkins and Russell both should support the notion that Atheists have to provide evidence for their position. Yet we can clearly see from this argument that he does not argue so.


 * 4th part. I'm confused why you simply glossed over the second quote from Harris whit a sly remark. Did it not provide validity to the claim I made that some form of text should be included in the article about atheists position to giving evidence for god's existence? Would it then not behave a serius poster to provide some alternative if he disagreed with some parts of my text? To improve upon it instead of dismissing it entirely. And may I just finally say, if your going to continue to be condescending with remarks like "well done", I'll start ignoring you. Feel about me personally what ever way you please. But when you post here, post professionally. -- Muthsera (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Yeah, the second Harris quote is on-topic. I have already said so. But my feeling is we can do better; there are more substantive contributions to the issue than that. For a start, there's still an ambiguity: Harris says that you don't have to have proof in order to reject religious beliefs as absurd.  That's true, of course, you don't. But you would need to show that the beliefs are absurd, if you were rejecting them for that reason. An unsupported assertion isn't necessarily absurd, of course. Also, a position of rejection is an active position, not mere "absence".  This is why we need to be careful about POV.


 * 2. No, I don't think I'm confusing anything. I'm pointing out why the Hitchens quote is inadequate, because it doesn't show what you say it shows. You say, "The reason I posted this quote was because it illustrates exactly his position to non belief. That you need not do anything until sufficient evidence is provided."  But it doesn't illustrate any such thing, and he doesn't actually say that atheists "need not do anything until sufficient evidence is provided". Hitchens is not a good example of "not doing anything until sufficient evidence is provided", and the debate linked to demonstrates that very well.  Thus, the example is inappropriate.


 * 3. You ask: " What you are arguing above. Is that Dawkins and Russell both should support the notion that Atheists have to provide evidence for their position. Yet we can clearly see from this argument that he does not argue so." I'm not arguing either way: this isn't a discussion forum.  I'm merely pointing out that the quotes used do not support the point being made, for the reasons I gave.  It is one thing to say that it is important that theists need to provide arguments for their position, and quite another to claim that atheists need to do nothing at all in the meantime.  Dawkins and Russell are both good examples of atheists who have offered arguments against the existence of God. They have not been satisfied with merely pointing out that theists have not succeeded in proving their case. My worry about the approach you've taken is that it seems to be leaning in a particular direction with regard to how atheism is conceptualised - especially bearing in mind previous discussions. I think some mention of the burden of proof issue is worthwhile, but not this way.


 * 4. Harris's second quote is on topic, as I have said, but it's ambiguous, as I have explained above. We should look for a better illustrative quote. And quite frankly, if I wish to confine my contributions to this particular topic to criticism of the contributions of others, that's my right. --Dannyno (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ayn Rand (famous novelist, philosopher and atheist) interview on this exact topic telling that there is no proof/evidence of god and burden of proof is on the believers - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTmac2fs5HQ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LoOYIvN2Q0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs) 01:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not very substantive, is it? Interestingly, not only does she say it's not up to anyone to prove a negative, and that theists must prove their case, she says she concludes from the failure of theists to prove their case that therefore there is no God. I recall another philosopher making a similar argument: i.e. that in the case of theism absence of evidence is evidence of absence.  This wasn't quite where we started, but it is a position we might want to write about. --Dannyno (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Now your confusing two issues in Harris argument. Proof and evidence. It's just a question of level in regards to the hypothesis of god. If you have strong indication the hypothesis is wrong on the evidence you have collected, you can say something about the likelihood of that hypothesis before it is absolutely conclusive. Either way, this goes directly to what we where trying to frame, an portion on what many atheists affirm is their position in regards to the evidence for the question: does god exist?


 * 2. I see your point. But I think it's wrong because whats key to us here is his statement: "It is no reason to believe there is one" It is actually all we have to contain ourselves with. If there is no reason to believe there is one, then the only reason that could derive from is that the evidence for that hypothesis isn't favorable. Either way. It is a direct statement about non believers position to evidence for the question: Does god exist?


 * 3. Both Dennett and Dawkins argues that since theists take license to speculate about the outcome before the original question is settled. One is forced to take up the position of disproving their inaccurate claims. That follows quite naturally. It would be inaccurate to claim that Dennett and Dawkins both had the position that Atheist need to provide evidence for their non belief. Which is really what your arguing. Either way, the teapot argument is about how to relate to evidence and claims. For me this seems utterly intuitive.


 * 4. I'll just merge this with point 1.


 * On Ayn Rand. Thank you. Sincerely. You have no idea how long I've been looking for that clip. I've seen that a few years back and couldn't for the life of me find out who said it. I don't agree with her on her reason for asserting the claim that god does not exist. But, I take notice to that she claims that it is only from the lack of proof that she claims there is no god. Not simply by her own wishful thinking.


 * On Absence of evidence is evidence for Absence. Carl Sagan had an argument where he claimed this was not the case. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. One could point to paleontology and the forming of fossils for why absence of evidence isn't necessarily an indication of absence. But I agree with you Dannyno, this is something we definitely should have in the article. -- Muthsera (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * JL Schellenberg says, in "Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason" (2nd ed 2006), that "the weakness of evidence for theism, I maintain, is itself evidence against it." (p.2). This is something that ought to be considered here. --Dannyno (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph
I know I've spoken about this before, but nothing has been done and I'm really frustrated by the poor quality of the opening paragraph.

The claim that 'atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities' is spurious. It implies, for example, that babies are not considered to be atheists and this is clearly not a view which is 'broadly' held.

Also, the contrasting of 'broad view' and the 'most inclusively' view is vague. Different definitions are given, but don't these terms mean the same thing? Obscurasky (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am in complete agreement with you. Babies are born atheists and only become theists by exposure; however, virtually all sourcing available on atheism supports the "rejection" terminology. If you peruse through the article's history (and the talk page archive), you will see that the opening paragraph has been revised about eleventy-billion times with an extraordinary amount of related discussion. For some reason, "activist" atheists favor the "rejection" terminology, and their like often edit in this realm. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No babies are not atheists, they are non-theists as they have no idea what a deity is. Atheism is generally considered to relate to a conscious decision about belief in gods. Something babies cannot yet do. Arnoutf (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources who say babies are atheists. And I fully agree that the leading paragraph should be changed. It is a huge frustration of mine that it stand as it does now. -- Muthsera (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, but then so will animals be atheists, and plants, and rocks for that matter. I know that Dawkins (o.a.) once made the baby argument, but there are also plenty of sources that say that atheism, as belief is a conscious choice. Arnoutf (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Smith. All made the babies argument. That is enough to disregard the notion that Atheism is an affirmed position alone. Then it's a question when the sources disagree, of which definition should we start out with? Essentially as it stands now. The faction which says Atheism is an affirmed position of rejection defines primarily Atheism. In other words, we have let one of the most narrow understandings be the primary definition. We all know that to be wrong. Yet we are deadlocked on a new definition. At the very least, we should provide a disclaimer that this is a definition we know to be inaccurate.
 * You have something here, and it is actually in the opening, but hidden...
 * "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] "
 * The first line is an average view (rejection of belief), the second is narrower (active position). And the third broader (any absence of belief) - this is where the babies would fir. Arnoutf (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * On animals, rocks etc being atheists. Smith have addressed this already in his book which is sourced in the article. -- Muthsera (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But Arnoutf, if animals, plants and rocks are to be categorized the same as babies, your arguement is that these things are non-theists?
 * I have no problem accepting that some people consider atheism to be related to a conscious decision about belief in gods - my point is that this is not the broad view. The broad view should be the most encompassing, and the most inclusive view.Obscurasky (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well rocks are definitely not theists ;-). But anyway, the current 3rd line of the lede mentions that absence of belief is the most inclusive definition. That does include babies (and possibly rocks). Re Smith, I do not know the eact argument Smith made about the difference between children and animals, but I do know that with the study of evolutionary biology, paleontology and DNA sampling in the 1990's the difference between animals and humans has become much less strictly defined than in 1979 when Smith wrote his book. Arnoutf (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, well that was actually my other point - that contrasting of 'broad view' and the 'most inclusively' view is vague. Don't these terms mean the same thing?Obscurasky (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The lede does not say "atheism, in the broad sense, ..." nor "atheism, in the broadest sense, ...". It says "atheism, in a broad sense, ...". If there were only 2 defs and we said "in a broad sense" this repeated objection might be more plausible. It may be true that some people cannot differentiate this distinction, but has anyone here been arguing that point? Btw, Dawkins has argued against calling babies either theists or atheists. Certainly it is not an undisputed fact that they are either, nor are they commonly classified as such. To say they are one or the other is POV dogmatism. The "absence" def is a persuasive definition, not a descriptive one - it does not describe the way the word is actually used, it is part of an agenda to redefine (poorly) the word. The absence def would seem to classify infants (& foetuses & blastocysts) as atheists, for there is nothing in the absence def to exclude even those ants with an "absence of belief". Yet, even Smith shies away from declaring babies to be atheists by saying "This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved".

I suppose we need not characterize the scope of the rejection def at all, since we have both a wider sense & a narrower sense - making it naturally fall between the two. We could, instead say:
 * Atheism has been defined as the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] Defined more narrowly, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Atheism has been most inclusively defined as the simple absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]

--JimWae (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The over use of passive voice and use of past tense is not an improvement though. @Obscurasky, Wae is right, there are many definitions with varying degrees of broadness and the words used here are "in a broad sense", and not "the broad sense" as if its the only such sense. Nor is it equivalent to "the broadest". It paraphrases the Britannica source which is cited that says Atheism, "in general...". --Modocc (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Within the "most inclusive" sense definitional tradition - the privationists, if you like, as contrast with the rejectionists - I think the mainstream would still understand atheism as a (apophatic) position you have to take. Atheism understood as a label for nonpositional theismic obliviousness is not a major theme in the literature (and is opposed by plenty, for example Paul Cliteur in his recent The secular outlool).   I don't think we need to get too deep into this in an opening paragraph! --Dannyno (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Modocc: In passive voice, the subject of the sentence gets acted upon by an agent, and the agent usually comes after the verb. We have no agent here, nor is the word order any different than saying "atheism is the rejection...". What we do have is the "present perfect progressive" tense. Actually, the present use of "sense" in the lede falls afoul of WP:NAD because words have "senses", whereas concepts and topics get defined--JimWae (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My grammar lessons were ages ago, and grammar didn't interest me much, thus many of the particulars didn't stick with me always. Anyway... atheism is presently defined by each of these definitions, yet "has been" could refer to yesterday or hundred years ago. It too vague and should be avoided and not simply used to appease or appeal to competing POVs. Taken to the extreme, lots of articles could end up avoiding how to say their topic is currently defined. I too have been concerned about your last point, but it seems a very minor infraction [if it is one] in that senses are views too. Changing "in a broad sense" to "in general" would work and be supported, but I think that comes even closer to stating its the broadest view, which is why this thread was started in the first place. --Modocc (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Modoccc: I must disagree again. Present perfect progressive tense is for "actions" that began in the past & continue to the present. Past tense would be "had been defined" or "was defined". "Atheism is defined as.." would also be accurate - but might be more open to claims of endorsement by wp. The not a dictionary problem does need addressing someday.--JimWae (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my brain cells are not functioning very well today, as I do get that way occasionally and make all sorts of mistakes and your right (so I don't mean to be difficult if I am incorrect) that its actually present perfect progressive tense, and at least in many contexts it is exactly that and perhaps this one too or at least that it what is intended as such and can be used as such, but I can say further that one of my college papers has been referenced a few times, but I don't know if it has been referenced lately. So my definitions might be obsolete. ;) And, my hair has been cut too gnarly at other times too. Maybe the up-to-the-present meaning applies in these examples, but its just not very obvious. Or maybe it is just poor English that I've picked up on, as luck would have it, it wouldn't be the first time. I suppose with the lede there isn't much context to begin with, to make this work for me. But perhaps I am confused in some other way. --Modocc (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)  I just found this to be helpful. Note that the present perfect progressive tense is actually used in different ways.  Thus I don't think I stated anything improper regarding what "has been" can refer to, thus my objection that it does not properly define current usage still stands. --Modocc (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Senses" are not "views", and "has been defined as" is still entirely appropriate, especially with nothing to indicate any ending to the "action". Haircuts are well-known not to be continuous activities, nor are dreams --JimWae (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In my haste, I was perhaps too general in what I wrote and should have said that meanings conveyed or intended by some words and phrases are views (in the manner views are usually conceived). The import or sense of what I am trying to get across is instantiated by terms and these are mere labels for the ideas (the senses) conveyed by each. The "has been" construction requires the reader to infer what kind of action is occurring, the extent of it and suspend judgment as to whether or not the action is occurring until they finish reading everything that pertains to it for some resolution. All that without any certainty or clarity that is usually present when defining with is. That the "has been" construction can convey present usage, does not mean every reader, especially one without any prior exposure to what defined might entail (for it immediately raises questions of when, who, how, why and in what context) is going to read it that way, and a careful reader will not make assumptions to do so. The use of "philosophical view", which received far more support than "has been" has, was rejected before on similar grounds of unintended vagueness and ambiguity.  --Modocc (talk) 08:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "In general"? I don't feel that's better than "in a broad sense" at all. We have to indicate the existence of more than one way of conceptualising atheism, and we have to indicate the way in which they differ. Pointing out that one is broader than another is a perfectly good way of doing some of that. --Dannyno (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a good argument for not saying "in general, atheism is the absence..." too. --Modocc (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It probably is. I just don't think there is any such thing as "atheism in general". --Dannyno (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's statement above, "Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Smith. All made the babies argument." I don't think they all did, in fact.  Dawkins, of course, insists that children should not be labelled at all.  I don't recall ever seeing him saying that "atheist" would nevertheless be a suitable label.  References? --Dannyno (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Dannyno. Let me retract all but Smith. You are of course right on Dawkins. He refuses to label children. I should have stated that as "all made the unaware argument". But I can't be bothered to look it all up on all three, so I'll just retract it. Smith I recall from memory uses the unaware babies are atheists on page 13 in The Case Against god. -- Muthsera (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I already quoted in bold just above - from page 13: "This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist." Smith never uses the word "baby" or "babies" anywhere in the book. He shies away from any clear cut determination for babies. He does not himself follow through on the implications for the absence def - The absence def is an insufficient description of his own usage --JimWae (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Implications"? If privationists (upholders of the absence definition) want to arbitrarily exclude those who would not be capable of understanding theism, if they encountered it, they're entitled to do so.  There's a danger there, in that "mental capability" does not exhaust the types of relevant capability.  An alien may lack the symbolic apparatus necessary to understanding theism; a member of a lost Amazon tribe may find theism to be completely socially incomprehensible. I would assume that if privationists - at least of a certain stripe - want to do anything, it is to allow nontheistic aliens and nontheistic tribes to be counted as atheists - and you can see the point of that, if they have a worldview that is complete on their own terms? So perhaps this is a troublesome point.  But it's not Wikipedia's job to sort this out. Those privationists who are upholding an essentially apophatic characterisation of atheism need not worry about babies anyway, since while negative, their atheism is still a taken position. I mean that even privationists may not try to conceptualise atheism as a universal default.


 * @Muthsera. Dawkins refuses to label children.  Harris refuses to label anyone.  Smith, as JimWae has pointed out, does not include "babies" without qualification.  You need better sources than these. --Dannyno (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Jim. It's rather unclear if Smith only means that as one example of people who are implicit atheists or it is a minimum requirement for participation. As we can read in the above section from your quote Implicit atheism is the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it. and also Man is not born with innate knowledge of the supernatural; until he is introduced to this idea or thinks of it himself, he is unable to affirm or deny its truth -- or even to "suspend" his judgment. further more The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist. Since these instances of nonbelief are not the result of conscious rejection, they are best designated as implicit atheism. So on one hand, he singles out children with the ability to affirm a belief. But on the other he includes every human without an affirmed belief in theism as implicit. Either way, is it really the babies definition we're after or is it the support for atheism being a "default"?


 * @Dannyno. It depends what we mean with "unaware" does it not? If babies have cognitive ability and so on. But I believe I've already clarified this point, I should not have used the word "babies". It lead to a needless distinction when I reality meant "unaware" or "absence". -- Muthsera (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't need "support for atheism being a "default"". The article already makes it clear that some atheists regard atheism as default, whereas others treat it as a deliberate position or choice. I think there is plenty here on this. --Dannyno (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The question wasn't really if there was support for a default position or not. But if "rejection" was a widely help position to have such a prominent role in the starting paragraph. -- Muthsera (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is. --Dannyno (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the article on Islam and Atheism?
Hi, I remember re-reading a number of times the articles on early Islamic atheism and agnosticism, that included such thinkers as Ibn al-Rawandi, and that's all I can find now. I remember there was a Persian guy who was a doctor who helped treat loads of diseases, and was the first to differentiate Small Pox and the Measles(?), and had some very interesting thoughts on religion. I've also noticed in the Apostasy in Islam page it only includes modern thinkers.

There was loads of fascinating links to the various thinkers of Islam who questioned their religion. Now there's nothing. I'm not going to say there's been a white-wash, but wikipedia is really missing something from the loss of these pages. I'm sure there are plenty of Muslim's who have doubt in Allah, and are missing out on learning about their predecessors doubts in Allah. And beyond that, it's such a fascinating subject!

I do accept there is this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_Muslims#Became_Atheists But there is no formal article on the history of atheism and islam like there used to be, and it's a real shame!

81.129.102.124 (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You may find what you are looking for at the Atheism and religion article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism
There is a logical and philosophical argument that holds; should one wish to dismiss a ‘thing’, awareness of what that ‘thing’ is, is required in order to postulate a logical absolute answer regarding the dismissal of said ‘thing’.

In order for one to state absolutely; ‘there is no Godhead’, one is required to have an awareness of what Godhead is. One must accept Godhead, as per definition that primary and secondary sources prescribe, in order to validate the postulation as logical and absolute.

For an absolute and logical dismissive answer to be yielded, the qualities of Godhead must also be accepted as of relation to Godhead. There must also be grounds on which the dismissal of Godhead as defined is permissible.

In terms of the analytic proof method, this is not possible. The definition of ‘at least one’ Godhead renders Godhead as objective and hence an absolute. Human understanding is typically bound by the subjective, through such as the empirical method, and hence cannot reach objectively absolute results.

This is the main reason science does not formally attempt to ascertain definitively Godhead. The scientific proof requires that it be shown that Godhead is neither; existent nor non-existent ‘within and beyond space and time’ (where our subjective understanding of existence likely fails): I.e. the ‘possibility of Godhead’, must be shown with accuracy and precision, with no statistical or plausible room for error, to be null.

The quality of Godhead is such that Godhead is undeniable, though one may not necessarily objectively and absolutely perceive Godhead as such or at all. It is only in this capacity and hence argument from ignorance, that Godhead can be dismissed by current understanding. Should it be proven that 'there is no Godhead', it must be done by a method in agreement to the ‘definition of Godhead’, and hence renders an introspective self-denial, thus the argument is logically flawed.

In effect, atheism in respect to all approaches of proof, is entirely flawed. However, agnosticism does still hold valid, as a respective non-directional null hypothesis and stance with no burden of proof.

i would like to make the above addition to the article. any objections? Daenumen (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Objections: see WP:UNSOURCED and WP:NOR. DVdm (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * what sort of source do i need? which parts in particular need to be sourced more? Daenumen (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to source the entire argument, for one. In addition, you'll also have to overcome the problem of your flawed premise: "should one wish to dismiss a ‘thing’, awareness of what that ‘thing’ is, is required in order to postulate a  logical absolute answer regarding the dismissal of said ‘thing’."  It seems entirely rational to me to dismiss a "thing" purely because that thing lacks sufficient definition to be proven-- the argument you're making seems to shift the burden of proof improperly onto the skeptic. siafu (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As for kinds of sources, please see WP:RS and WP:PSTS. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, we need what we call reliable sources. Also please, do not use this space to start a discussion about whether some of your premises would be flawed or not. A more suitable place for that might be your own talk page, or perhaps user Variable's talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * i agree, being currently unproveable is a premise, as is a 'belief of insufficient definition' (where primaily primary sources are available). However, both are premises that holds no grounds for dismissal except by argument from ignorance, hence the only non bias stance is descriptive of such, and holds no burden of proof.


 * it is true that the greater burden is on the skeptic. This is due to the nature of the 'thing' to be tested for dismissal. As such the burden of proof on advocates of Godhead appreciate a similar proof for Godhead, ie proof for both 'possibility of Godhead' and 'Godhead', where should proof be found that disproof is neither necessary nor applicable, given the results have accuracy and precision.


 * Skeptic is perhaps not the best word: The advocates of 'there is no Godhead' bare the greater burden as the postulation is 'beyond' or 'above' Godhead. As such, subsequently, entirely logically flawed.


 * thanks ill take a look. is there a directory with the wiki editor(?) information in like a linked dir list? Daenumen (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am confused. Because one ponders whether such a thing as godhead can exist, that means it must exist? Or is it because one must understand the definition of godhead in order to decide it does not exist, then it must really exist? That doesnt make sense to me. Please, if my understanding of your reasoning is different, please explain my error. The way it reads, because I know what a pink unicorn is, one must exist, and I cannot come to the conclusion that it does not because I understand the definition of what a pink unicorn is. I'm baffled. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 15:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User Daenumen, when you edit a page, there is a link Editing help next to the 3 buttons. There's also a number of interesting links on your talk page, on which I have added a proper welcome message. Enjoy. DVdm (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC) User RobertMfromLI, please take this to user talk space. An article's talk space is for disccusions about the article, not about the subject. See wp:TPG. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies DVdm, I was attempting to discuss the article (and perhaps my flawed understanding of the proposed addition), not the subject (except in asking for a clarification on the proposed addition). Sorry you misunderstood my intent, perhaps I worded it poorly? RobertMfromLI | User Talk 16:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, but technically the proposed addition can only be discussed when a reliable source for it is presented. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly; the proposal of such if in agreement with content policies(?), is acceptable according to citation regulations.


 * quickly; there are numerous sources defining Godhead. To 'ponder of' Godhead, you must be able to define Godhead, otherwise you can not dismiss nor concieve it.


 * Any further queries please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daenumen/atheism, all sensible and polite questions regarding this topic, welcome. Daenumen (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * For some reason, this thread is making me think of William Shatner. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Scj, that gave me the best LOL moment I've had in some time! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I even see a hint of Barbra Streisand. - DVdm (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Change of graphic/caption for Rationale section
I changed the graphic and caption for the Rationale section to a picture of an 18th century advocate of atheism with a quote that is representative of the atheist position. The previous graphic and caption represented an anecdote that presented an argument against atheism, as well as a distorted representation of the atheist viewpoint. This does not really make sense, since this section is about arguments for atheism. Isn't this kind of like putting an illustration from an old Bible with a quote from Genesis on a section of an article that discusses evidence for the theory of evolution? -PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Good call. Obscurasky (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree too. I never did understand the point of that earlier image. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All praise be to Lord Flying Spaghetti Monster for the hard work of you mortals. The graphic is much improved. PalindromeKitty (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Off Topic - State Atheism article
How can Wikipedia have such a thorough and well documented article like Atheism and yet allow an anti-atheist propaganda piece like State Atheism to take footing on Wikipedia? That article would be a featured one on Conservapedia. Look at the source for the definition, look at the removal of anything written by Sam Harris, look at the attempt to marginalize and keep Richard Dawkins out of the article. Look at some of the "reliable" sources like noted evangelical Dinesh D'Souza who has written extensively about his hatred for atheists.

The main editor there would not allow Dinesh D'Souza's clear COI be introduced in the article, meaning we have to call Richard Dawkins an "evolutionary biologist" but he would not allow anyone to note Dinesh D'Souza's was a Christian. The most active editor and the one who works the hardest to keep Harris and Dawkins out of the article has a clear COI, he is Catholic. There is no talking sense to any of the other editors, most objections or questions go unanswered. I think the article should be deleted, as is it serves as an anti-atheist propaganda piece that servers to confuse atheism with totalitarianism. This article only perpetuates the Christian myth that atheism somehow causes murder or violence or oppression. The notion "be bold" or try to improve the article is kind of absurd in this case. That article has no business existing. It should at least be renamed to "Totalitarian Regimes" but then we'd have to include the first few centuries of the Catholic church. I realize many if nor most Christians, Catholic and non-Catholic, are heavily invested in believing atheism is a gateway drug for totalism, violence and religious repression, but Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for them to perpetuate their mythology and ignorance about atheism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Had you read my comments you would have noted no one at the State Atheism article is in a listening mood. They ignore objections, they ignore requests. And you are free to ignore me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No harm meant, it's just off-topic. I think a better place would be WP:RFC or something.  Personally from looking at the article it's kind of a toss-up.  It does seem slanted, but their is some (admittedly limited) historical validity to it.  Though the inclusion of china is highly suspect - their culture has always been like 90% atheist, quite regardless of anything related to the "state".  Perhaps that's difficult for historically religious cultures to grasp, but just look at the demographics.  maybe something to bring up on the RFC.  in any case, certainly an interesting / controversial article, as written.  just too far off-topic here. Kevin Baastalk 20:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There are a number of regular atheist editors at that article who have endevored to accomplish a balance. As to Dawkins and D'Souza, they are each just popular writers spouting opinion, I'd prefer to have neither in the article. I don't think either is a particularly good source for that article - neither is a political scientist or historian (although D'Souza comes a little closer) and both are polemicists. As far as identifying them, that's fine, as long as it's done evenhandedly. As to deletion, there's a process for that, but probably futile on that article which clearly is of historical notability and encyclopedic. Mamalujo (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead: deity/deities, atheism/monotheism
"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." So by that anyone who says their is one deity is an atheist..... hmmmmm The definition is one who does not have the belief in a god, not one who rejects as you can have people who dont believe in a god, but also dont deny the possibility of one.--27.33.106.67 (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. If you take the time to review the talk page archives, you will see that your issue has been discussed at considerable length. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * He has a point. A monotheist would qualify as rejecting belief in the existence of deities. I will fix this--JimWae (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that was the historical definition of atheist, wasn't it? The Ancient Greeks and Romans believed in many gods, referring to people who believed in only 1 god (or zero gods, of course) as atheists. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"The Ancient Greeks and Romans " I believe things have changed in the last 2000 years, we are also using english which they did not.--Somepers99 (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's exactly correct. "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." -RD.  --Born2cycle (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is unclear if these comments are meant as objections to a change. The modern def does not make all monotheists atheists. The historical def would make everyone an atheist. The historical def is not what appears in the sources JimWae (talk)

JimWae changed the lead, I reverted him, and he has complained at my talk page. Personally, I think this god/gods thing became navel-gazing about a zillion talk page edits ago. (A plain reading of the current language is that it means general non-belief, not just rejection of a particular monotheism or set of multiple monotheisms. One can obsess about the wording until the point where it sounds like it is saying monotheists are atheists—and throughout the history of this talk page editors have—but a common-sense reading does not support that.) But if others want to make it their hobby, let the games begin. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Common english usage suggests this is a non-issue. I don't believe in Ghosts. Any of them. I don't believe in deities. God is a deity. I don't believe in God because I don't believe in deities. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Common" English usage is often imprecise, such as not distinguishing "all bees are not alike" from "Not all bees are alike". If we can make the meaning clearer without altering the intended meaning and without really complicating the syntax, the article is improved. At the very least we should add "any" (as Nuujinn did with his 3rd sentence) to say "rejection of belief in the existence of any deities" - though that is not really a complete solution either, and "rejection of belief that there are any deities" is better. Btw, it seem to me that considering how others might interpret a sentence differently is the very opposite of navel-gazing. Btw2, "rejection of belief in the existence of deities" would be rejection of polytheism, not (as someone seems to state above) "rejection of a particular monotheism or set of multiple monotheisms"--JimWae (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * JimWae, with all due respect, you're splitting very fine hairs, and I think unnecessarily so. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Common" English usage would also say it's good enough to say "rejection of belief in deities". We are dealing with a definition here, and with definitions our language should be as unambiguous as possible. We also do get occasional objections (as recently) to this wording for this very reason, so while nothing is "necessary" here at all, there are advantages to making the language less susceptible to misinterpretation. About 95% of discussions on this talk page are about the first paragraph, and the less open to misinterpretation it is, the less confusion there will be. Here is the edit that originally removed "any".--JimWae (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed on need for an unamiguous lede. Kevin Baas (and now I) are proposing working on a new consensus for such. Any ideas on proposed wording for that? Best, RobertMfromLI User Talk/Contribs 18:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't misconstrue this as discouraging new ideas, but, as someone who has gone through a lot of prior discussions about this lead, I would strongly encourage editors who are new to the page to read the last two years or so of talk archives. Consensus is not as easy as it first appears, but wasting a lot of one's time only to end up feeling frustrated is all too easy. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not proposing that we change the meaning in any way, just that we tighten up the wording (such as by returning to an earlier wording) so that the meaning is less ambiguous. --JimWae (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * When we feel certain that a person who says they do not believe in the existence of unicorns also does not believe in the existence of one unicorn, is that sureness based on the syntax of the sentence? Or is is based on what we know about what it would be like to believe in unicorns -- that there could hardly be any reason to believe that just one unicorn existed? The sentences "I do not believe in religions", "I do not believe in religion" and "I do not believe in any religion" could mean 3 (or more) different things. We do know that there are people who assert that only one deity exists. There is no confusion caused by inserting a simple "any" in the first sentence, and there is the benefit of more explicit clarity in doing so. --JimWae (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm highly skeptical that more than one or two people find the original wording ambiguous. Having said that, I don't object to adding "any". --Dannyno (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it should be noted that atheism does not have to be the rejection of all possible (a nearly infinite number of) deities that could possibly exist (in some form, somewhere). I think a lot of Atheists are just rejecting one god (the Abrahamic god). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.10.102 (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, but the one thing you can say of all (modern) atheists is that they don't believe in any gods. That does not mean that they have considered and rejected each and every god in the literature; probably most indeed are rejecting the predominant cultural manifestation of theism and simply never think about any others. --Dannyno (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Others? As if you change the name and the clothes and all the sudden it becomes more believable?  They reject the entire concept, not the elevated cheekbones or large gait. Kevin Baastalk 15:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, perhaps. But if you look at what atheists have actually written, they have addressed a particular concept, not "the entire concept". Because, after all, what *is* "the entire concept"? There's an atheist tradition going back to the nineteenth century (Holyoake, Bradlaugh, onwards) of declining to address the abstract concept of deity, on the grounds that until you know what someone means by "God", you can hardly be expected to critique it. --Dannyno (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead of this article is very poorly written, atheism is a belief that there is no god, many atheists don't like this description because they don't want to sound like they're making a metaphysical assertion, but that does not change the fact that this is exactly what they are doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timhampson (talk • contribs) 13:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The "metaphysical assertion" you speak of is given by the second sentence, "In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities." --Modocc (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Modocc. PalindromeKitty (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The first sentence makes the same assertion in a more roundabout way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjham (talk • contribs) 14:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Tjham, welcome to the wiki. Are you Timhampson (a similar name and contributions)? The first sentence defining atheism in a broad sense, paraphrased from the current Britannica, is not an assertion of god's nonexistence. As Paul Edwards (in the first citation after the Britannica cite) points out, "People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition." In other words, an atheist can reject a belief in the propositions or beliefs of god's existence without asserting god's nonexistence. As a consequence, explicit atheism is considerably broader than strong atheism. --Modocc (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes that's me, decided to change it because my old user-name was a bit easily stalkable ;) I accept that that's the definition given in the Britannica but personally whilst studying philosophy and religion I've always seen agnosticism defined as the lack of a belief in god (which can be because you don't know, don't believe you can know, haven't even wondered or whatever) and then atheism as the belief that there definitely isn't a god. I've found this way of using the terms widely understood as the correct one as well, as well as one that seems a lot more simple and intuitive. The definition on the page seems odd to me because of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjham (talk • contribs) 23:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

A new addition to this article.
For your consideration:

There are possibly two kinds of Atheism, Selective and General.

Selective Atheism, which is the kind that involves being without A, B and C theisms whilst maintaining a belief in D theism. For example; Christians accept their God but are without the Hindu Gods or the Greek pantheon, this form of Atheism was highlighted by Richard Dawkins in his formal rebuttal to a question posed to him by a theist, to which he responded roughly with; 'Why don't you believe in Zeus or Apollo'. I submit that this should be recognised as a form of selective atheism and identified as a form of cherry picking a religious belief.

General Atheism, which is the kind that involves being without every form of theism and is basically summed up by the main article.

Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.153.79 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 1 October 2010


 * Thanks for your suggestion. Please see WP:OR. We would need sources for anything like that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The link to the video in which Dawkins brought up the foundation of the general and selective is demonstrated with this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKGtcVoBhBQ and also this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

However, for a much more concise consideration of the alteration to the article that I am proposing can be summerized by professor Dawkins in his very famous quote:

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." (Richard Dawkins)

This singular quote epitomises the distinction between General and Selective atheism in a concise way, I may be mistaken but is this adequate for your needs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.153.79 (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Typically, we don't count YouTube. Sorry. Plus, we want sources that are covered in the media. It needs to be fit for an encyclopaedia. As a well-read atheist, I had never heard of this before, and am initially skeptical that this is more than a trivial distinction.PalindromeKitty (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have come across these terms in blogs, but not in the mainstream media or scholarly content. "Selective atheism" may be considered synonymous with the historical meaning of atheism (the original meaning of atheism referred to non-belief in certain deities, much like the difference between monotheism and polytheism). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So essentially everyone in the world was atheist in one way or another? how utterly useless of a term. Kevin Baastalk 15:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. For example, Romans would call monotheists "atheists" because they didn't believe in the Roman panoply of deities. The modern definition has evolved (yet is still confusing and ugly), but I'm one of those people who argue that we are all born atheists until any indoctrination takes effect - so yeah, everyone LOL. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The general point about rejection of locally known vs universal conceptual gods is often referred to in the literature (check out adevism, for example, and note that some of the ancient Greeks dispensed with the Greek cultural gods but offered no philosophical arguments against the very concept of a creator deity), but the attempt to formulate a classification of atheism on this basis is not found in the literature. In other words, there is a distinction but its not typologically significant --Dannyno (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Definition Needs to be Corrected
The definition is terrible, it says those that reject the existance of deities are atheist, this means everyone who believes in one god is an atheist.

The A infornt of the Theist means its the opposite. (There is only 2 options and you have to be one or the other) Wiki definiton of theist is "the belief that at least one deity exists" the opposite is one who does not have a belief a deity exists.

A person who says "I dont know if there is a god" does not reject the existance of a god, so by the poor definition this means they are theists, which they are not!

A good definiton and correct would be: doesnt not have the belief that at least one deity exists. This is covered in the defintions of the refernece already used.

--Somepers99 (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Somepers99, please see the discussion directly above. Your interpretation of the statement is at odds with the consensus, as well as with normal use of such sentences. Another example (to add to the ones above) "I reject the existence of unicorns" does not mean that I believe in one unicorn, or MAY believe in one unicorn, it means I reject the existence of any quantity greater than zero. Best, RobertMfromLI User Talk/Contribs 16:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Or maybe they are saying the one unicorn that you are talking about doesnt exist, but they are not rejecting the possibility that a unicorn could ever exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.10.102 (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, RobertMfromLI, the current lead is at odds with consensus, as demonstrated again and again and again by passing readers filing complaints about it on this talk page (e.g. this and the above section) in addition to contributors here recurrently butting heads against a few obstinate hair-splitters who don't seem to understand the common sense interpretation of policy. a pattern, unfortunately, with a long history and no foreseeable end.  Kevin Baastalk 17:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I disagree. The subject of this article is, in my experience here and in real life, always an issue of contention to which people of widely varying viewpoints pour much time and effort. But if you have a better version of a possible lead, by all means post it here and we can discuss it. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Kevin, then perhaps we should re-evaluate the wording on the lede and reach a new consensus. Perhaps it has been too long since the last consensus was reached (a few weeks ago?) with so many new people coming into this discussion after earlier consensus. Would you like to write up what you believe the issue(s) in contention are so we can all reach a consensus? And thank you for politely (especially on an article in such contention) stating your position on the lack of current consensus. Your point is taken and agreed with (at least by me). Best, RobertMfromLI User Talk/Contribs 18:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * For that, I'll refer you to the archives. I'm sorry I know there are many people new to the conflict here, but I'm so very tired of it myself (i've rephrased myself so many times!).  There are many good ideas in the archives.  Most of them were shot down for reasons that I don't think there will be (or was) very broad support for.  So I recommend referring to the archives to see what issues have been brought up and how they have or have not been addressed. Kevin Baastalk 13:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * for better reference: starting at archive 43: objections to leading paragrah and going through archive 44, 45, and 46. (notice how awkward that would sound w/out a serial comma) Kevin Baastalk 14:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Silly question. Robert is correct. The statement is quite clear that atheists reject the existence of Her, or any god for that. PalindromeKitty (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell me what God is and I will tell you whether I believe in his (her) existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.55.179 (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * God is a stapler. your answer? Kevin Baastalk 13:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I do believe in staplers... so... hmmm... I dunno. ;-)
 * In all seriousness though, it seems many people would be happy with some sort of rewording of the lede. The only problem we still face is that no one has proposed any real rewording (there have been minor wording changes proposed, but I suspect that will just reopen the original can of worms). So, perhaps someone can rewrite the entire lede and submit it here for a collaborative effort to finally (or at least for a few weeks) put this to bed. I'd volunteer for that, but alas my writing skills are probably not up to such a task. Among other things, I tend to ramble. Best, RobertMfromLI User Talk/Contribs 16:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would help if we create a list of things the lede needs to actually say. Trying to actually construct a concise lede before decisions have been made on what should be included and what should be excluded is probably futile. I am assuming, for the moment, that by "lede" we are actually referring to the contentious first paragraph. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like an excellent plan. And I have no idea (and havent been that interested in finding out) why Wikipedia (and/or many editors/admins) refers to it as the lede (sp). Best, RobertMfromLI User Talk/Contribs 17:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

List for stuff that might be in the lede
Please add anything you think needs to be there, but do not delete. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
 * Atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
 * Atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
 * Atheism contrasts with theism.
 * Atheism is variously conceptualised in the literature.

Provide an accessible overview
The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for the topic being noteworthy should be established early on in the lead. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.) This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, because the reader will know that greater detail is saved for the body of the article.

In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction. Mathematical equations and formulas should not be used except in mathematics articles. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar. For example, rather than giving the latitude and longitude of a town, it is better to state that it is the suburb of some city, or perhaps that it provides services for the farm country of xyz county. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it.

Opening paragraph
The first paragraph should define the topic without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example List of environmental issues is only about the effects of human activity.

First sentence

 * The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject.
 * If its subject is amenable to definition, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the subject is a specialised term, provide the context as early as possible.
 * Redundancy should be avoided. For example, avoid leading sentences like 'the Oxford English Dictionary is a dictionary'.


 * I've added the three sections above form WP:LEDE, as it seems to me there are still unresolved issues with the lede in regard to them. Kevin Baastalk 18:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

other notes
Fewer than 15,000 characters One or two paragraphs
 * If mentioned in the lede, it should be expounded upon in the article, with appropriate citations
 * The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.
 * It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies.
 * The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences.
 * The lede should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important fact(s)
 * General GUIDELINES on Lede length are:

15,000–30,000 characters Two or three paragraphs

More than 30,000 characters Three or four paragraphs


 * I've entered this here as a guideline, since I suspect much of the controversy that remains is still based on how to write a lede or based on inferring a POV in the wording. Pretty sure though, that everyone here, can separate their religious or non-religious/atheistic beliefs from the wording of the lede, which should not include any bias imposed by our beliefs. I only bring that up because in earlier discussions (a WHILE back), some of the wording debate was based on personal beliefs of a deity/deities or lack thereof. RobertMfromLI User Talk/Contribs 18:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of list
i think this idea is flawed in principle. it assumes a conclusion that many editors have already stated their rejection of; namely, that good ledes are formed by adding without subtracting. (a notion that seems at best ironic to me.) Kevin Baastalk 17:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point, I'm afraid. It's intended to be a complete list of all possible things that can be included so that they can be debated in this section. If it were up to me, the lede would probably say "God is @#!*%, so there." -- Scjessey (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay then, so it's sort of like brainstorming. In that respect i think it would be more beneficial to have a more general/philosophical discussion, i.e. more like "what types of things should be in an intro?".  for which i would argue that people should simply refer to LEDE (and a common sense comprehension and interpretation thereof).  it seems to me that there, precisely, lies the problem: that the intro is not up to par with those standards, in part because some things that some people insist on are mutually exclusive with them. (and having them written down, as we do, seems to have no effect.)  Kevin Baastalk 17:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really saying anything particularly insightful here, but clearly that list is a brief summary of the current first paragraph. The first three items are, I think, not so much ends in themselves as expressions of the three "definitions" (for lack of a better word) that long-standing "consensus" (for lack of a better word, smile) has held that the sources have given us. I think some of the ongoing dissatisfaction comes from wanting to change what's on the list, but much more of it comes from wanting to say the same things in different words. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be surprised if this gets anywhere. Fundamentally, atheism is very difficult to define, simply because there is no single widely accepted definition in the literature. Instead, there are several. So long as the introduction conveys that fact accurately, I'm reasonably happy.  Anything else I will resist. --Dannyno (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the problem with the current lede? It seems like this conversation began with issues about the 'definition' of atheism. I don't want to demean the constant brainstorming here on ways to describe disbelief in Her Majestic Lord Stapler, but it seems good as is. Surely, there are other atheism-related articles that could use more attention. PalindromeKitty (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to know the concerns, you can refer to the archives i listed above, or for a brief overview of guidelines that some feel the intro is not up to par with, see the first few section of "notes from wp:lede", above. Kevin Baastalk 14:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, take for example: "If its subject is amenable to definition, then the first sentence should give a concise definition:" Is atheism "amenable to definition" in a way that permits a "concise" definition. Well, no, it's not. --Dannyno (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By your rhetorical question it seems to me that you didn't even read the sentence correctly. And if you want to debate the prudence of that policy, this is not the place to do it. Kevin Baastalk 20:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean. I think the policy is great. I think we can follow it without being trapped into POV. --Dannyno (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay then, do you believe that the subject, "atheism", is amenable to definition? Kevin Baastalk 14:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not concisely :-) --Dannyno (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not part of the question. So your answer is yes.  The policy states "IF its subject is amenable to definition THEN...".  You agree that the condition in this *IF condition THEN action* statement is true.  Thus, according to said policy, and your agreement that the condition in that policy is true, "the first sentence should give a concise definition". Kevin Baastalk 16:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees... The logic there, though, expects that something amenable to definition will have a single concise definition. This is manifestly not the case with atheism, which is plurally amenable to definitions. --Dannyno (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Different people will have different ideas of what represents a "concise definition" and whether something can be defined "concisely". The policy states, however, that if a subject is amenable to definition, the first sentence must define it concisely, quite irrespective of how "possible" or "impossible" this may seem to some people.  Note that this is only the first sentence.  There are many more, even within the first paragraph, for the definition to be refined, ammended, expanded upon, narrowed, what have you.  I'm sure we will all agree that a one sentence definition ---concise or not--- does not do justice for an encyclopedia.  It is not "precise" or "exact" enough, it is cannot be "complete", and certainly not "perfect".   nothing is perfect.  But that's why the article, even the intro, has more than just one sentence. And that is why the policy states what it does. Kevin Baastalk 17:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

" atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist" Should be the first definition as it covers all atheists, Not all atheists deny the existance of a god or reject the belief in a deity.

This has been discussed many, many times on this very page. I also think that before plunging into deep intellectual questions, your priority should be to get the spelling of words like existence right. "Atheism is the disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God." As such, atheism is the rejection of theism. Sorry to sound elitist, but I doubt you can  do very much better than OED. --dab (𒁳) 08:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When plunging into deep intellectual questions, of which this is not, I don't think spelling should be very high on the list of priorities. There are things that are far more important.  Kevin Baastalk 13:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If anyone is going to plunge into a deep intellectual question, let's first make sure it's the right intellectual question. Somepers99 is of course putting the cart before the horse since we can hardly begin to identify "all atheists" until we have characterised "atheism". And the point, which bears repetition, is that atheism is characterised in different ways in the literature.  That's what the lede should say. --Dannyno (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So would you be happy with putting the sentence "Atheism is characterized in different ways in the literature." in the intro paragraph? Kevin Baastalk 14:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be delirious with joy if such a formulation were used. --Dannyno (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To make a special case for atheism seems quaint and ever so introspective and ignores the externalities of (I think) every other "ISM" - how many other "isms" are there that wish to rely on a "lack of belief" that, at a drop of a hat can masquerade as an assertion as a binary opposition. The only logical definition would be: "Atheism is the belief that there are no deities". Otherwise, you have the problem where people DON'T believe there is a god/gods (usually citing lack of evidence) - which﻿ is a fundamentally different meaning. It conveniently side steps the burden of proof that they often demand unilaterally of their theist adversaries - and when they can't come up with it the discussion becomes needlessly hostile ? Yoga Mat (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are implying that atheists become needlessly hostile when asked to provide proof for their lack-of-claim. Then I implore you to consider that perhaps what you see as "hostility" is seen as such precisely and solely because it conflicts with (or does not support) certain held beliefs.  And that in fact their responses are consistently logical ones of the form either a) to provide proof for what claim?  the demand doesn't even make sense.  b) the issue of "burden of proof" is precisely the issue of who holds it: Philosophic_burden_of_proof, c) that demanding an claim-refuter to supply proof is "Argument_from_ignorance", d) Occam's_razor, or any combination of them.  (and at bottom they're different aspects of the same thing).  This is all spelled out in the article, i believe.  though perhaps not sufficiently so?  in any case the response is consistent and logically sound, not purely emotive and avoidant as you seem to suggest. But this is far off topic. Kevin Baastalk 15:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also a scientific claim that "atheists are hotile"; and the evidence suggests it's the other-way-around. PalindromeKitty (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the evidence suggests that atheists are generally less aggressive (hostile) than theists. Kevin Baastalk 16:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In the lede the "narrow sense" of atheism is stated as: "specifically the position that there are no deities". This is making a specific claim no less extraordinary that those that assert the (binary)/opposite view. That which can be asserted but which is based on a lack of evidence can also be dismissed for the same reason. Wheras, the lede backslides into "a broad sense": "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities" which is a very different position. After all, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. We also have this supposed "superset" of "floating atheists" Eg. the statement: "children are all born atheists" which is saying more about the nature and scope of believing than it does about the subject/object of it - or a lack of a subject/object? My point about hostility is an entirely subjective one and not relevant to how atheism should be defined, and so are the responses to it I think but duly noted. The burden of proof is only relevant "In a narrower sense" where atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities - as is your comment about "argument of ignorance". Occams razor suggests that the lede is constructed with the fewest new assumptions and leads us towards broadening the definition to an atheism that states: "in some ways deities might be / are indescribable (ie. imaginary)", or are "meaningless", (in the sense that "deities do not matter"). This is the position of very many people I have discussed this issue with - and they call themselves atheists also. Are atheists simply degenerate theists in this regard ? in that the deities of others simpy do not mean anything to them ? - indeed - why should they ? "Most inclusively", then the lede might say: atheism is simply the absence of belief that deities matter - or perhaps (more positively and avoiding the awkward negative syntax) "a belief that deities do not matter" the corollary of which is tantamount to agnosticism ? Yoga Mat (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For the most inclusive sense given, an absence of belief is not necessarily a belief. Also, "a belief that deities do not matter" says nothing about whether or not someone rejects belief in the existence of deities. Moreover, wp:NPOV policy trumps a misapplication of Occam's razor, because we aren't talking about choosing theories, but the proper presentation of  verifiable content. The definitions cited are closely related, yet they are distinct and have different   relative notability. For instance, the current Britannica defines atheism foremost as "the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs..." and not as "the absence of metaphysical beliefs...".    --Modocc (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we have enough trouble with what the literature says re: definition, without contributing our own efforts! I should also note that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is itself not without challenges in the literature. Consider, for example, the atheistic position of Michael Scriven, in his 1966 book "Primary Philosophy". --Dannyno (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * @Dannyno: That doesn't make sense to me. If we are having trouble with something, is it not precisely effort that will get us out?  Certainly it's inverse, lack of effort, will not! Kevin Baastalk 14:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * @Modocc: "a belief that deities do not matter" may not be perse rejection of existence, but it is a "critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs", the critique being that "they do not matter", and the denial being the same. Kevin Baastalk 14:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The critique as stated does not define atheism though. For instance, someone stating that both gods and aliens "do not matter" does not tell us whether or not that person has a belief that any exist. I believe Dannyno is alluding to wp: no original research. --Modocc (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I know but it seems like he thinks that the only acceptable form of an article and esp. an intro is to be a juxtaposition of plagiarism, and that's just not the principle. We need to make an effort and that does require using our higher-level thinking and making our own sentences and phrasings and the like. Kevin Baastalk 18:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what "juxtaposition of plagiarism" mean. But yes, I'm against trying to synthesise a new definition or introducing original research. My position is simply that the lede should reflect the typological diversity in the literature, that's all. --Dannyno (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As I've asserted before, there is no policy or guideline to support the assertion that "the lede should reflect the typological diversity in the literature", as you put it, and, in fact, that stands in opposition to goals and the like mentioned on the wikipedia policies and guidelines for the introduction. (e.g. see "Notes on writing the lede" and the following sections, above) i have been more explicit about this above. Kevin Baastalk 19:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As to "belief that any exist", as worded, perhaps. but the main idea of "do not matter", really, is they mean zero cross-entropy or mutual information with the knowable universe, w/anything that will ever effect anything. so the statement is much stronger.  and it's different than saying "aliens" don't matter.  'cause you see that statement is an empirical claim that's falsifiable.  it's more like saying "sfasgjkhw" don't matter.  "sfasgjkhw" isn't even meaningful.  and by extension to say whether it exists or not isn't even a meaningful.  so you see it's actually going a step further than saying "sfasgjkhw" doesn't exist.  but this argument is probably too nuanced to get in a short sentence and that's why it seems to fail in that analogy. Kevin Baastalk 18:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Kevin - I am not sure that everyone would agree with you in that you seem to imply that deities either must or must not constitute part of the "knowable universe" ? This is perhaps (at best) a false dilemma where most theistic arguments come undone and I am not going to get into that one. The postion that "deities do not matter" lies outside of Dawkins Spectrum_of_theistic_probability. You also say "sfasgjkhw isn't even meaningful" but to a sfasgjkhw-ist it certainly would be - so how do best we employ wp:NPOV when, on page 167 of "Religion and family links: neofunctionalist reflections" by Don Swenson he states: "...in some cases, deities do not matter much at all as in the case of folk religion and Theravada Buddhism.". Also, we have "A truely religious man cannot be a Hindu, a Muslim, a Jain... he cannot feel demarcated from anyone. Religiousness is the inner virtue that we must inculcate" in "Our beloved Osho" By Arvind Swami Chaitanya - so Atheism might also be considered as being "truly religious". This type of nuance is lost in the lede and (at the very least) I think that Dawkins Spectrum_of_theistic_probability is more helpful than philosophically divergent "definitions" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoga Mat (talk • contribs) 08:47, 14 October 2010(UTC)


 * well if you use the conventional definition of the word "exist" then, far from being a false dilemna, it is the very definition; i.e. it is an absolute necessity so there is nothing "false" about the "dilemna". i suppose that's where empiricism comes along.  but then again, not everyone is an empiricist.  so i concur with your main point there that some people start from/require/don't require different premises, however self-consistent or not (most people aren't very good at logic/mathematics anyways).  i also agree that some of these things (such as the aforementioned information theoretic argument against god) are too nuanced to be covered in the lede with sufficient clarity.  and i'm not arguing for it's inclusion i'm just saying that it doesn't neccesarily stand outside Britannica's definition of atheism as "the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs".  i.e. that even considering that example, Britannica's definition is still sufficient. (and also on a side-note that the analogy w/"aliens do not matter" was a false analogy.) Kevin Baastalk 16:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If what was meant was the view that both deities or aliens "are meaningless" nonsense, then there would be no grounds for a belief in the existence of either thereby giving a deity or alien some sort of meaning contrary to the claim. So the analogy actually holds on that basis, because one can assert that such a person is an atheist and an a-alienist. But that was not what was said. The phrase "does not matter" says only that something is unimportant or irrelevant. Given that perspective, inserting or substituting alien forms a valid counterexample to the claim that the statement says something about atheism, because although gods might be too unimportant to have meaning, the concept of aliens usually has enough relevance to have meaning, thus beliefs in their existence perhaps, even if they also do not matter... much. In any case, I'll add too, the obvious, that even if this was reworded though, its only one critique of many, and we agree that the Britannica definition does what's needed here anyway. --Modocc (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, i agree with all that and the analogy was for the most part a good one. but though the chance is small, an alien civilization could have sent us a radio-wave message 40 or so years ago and tommorow it might interfere with a radio broadcast from rush limbaugh and millions of people won't hear and be swayed by his argument of racial intolerance.  so in a very real sense it could matter.  the chance is small, yes, like 1 in a septillion. but that's still infinitely larger than the chance of a so-called "noncorporeal entity" ever having any effect whatsoever on the physical world, and thus makes an infinitely larger difference, than a noncorporeal entity ever could.  that, and merely discovering extraterrestrial life or artifacts thereof (such as on mars) could lead to important scientific advances, whereas discovering "god" isn't even possible, and even if it were it wouldn't help us at all with the physical world.  so aliems can be important and relevant whereas it is, by definition, logically impossible for god to be either.   in sum, very very small is infinitely larger than zero.  and that's where the comparison runs into a crucial discontinuity. Kevin Baastalk 14:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think as far as atheism goes per se the lede is not so far off the mark then. I would like to re-state that a prominent reference to Dawkins Spectrum_of_theistic_probability should follow these definitions. I think that would be very helpful. I would also like to suggest a reference to Apatheism (and also possibly Agnosticism Humanism Skepticism - perhaps even Egalitarianism) since all do seem to be part of an "umbrella" of worldviews that emphasise a broader, naturalistic, (non-mystical / anti-supernatural) position that are compatible with atheism - although it would not make sense to included these links in the lede. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoga Mat (talk • contribs) 00:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Unstable lede - RfC time?
Hey all,

I'm sporadicly checking in on this article and I'm most amused to see that the lede here is still subject to so much debate. I want to gloat a little by pointing out that I said months back that using such a contorted lede would cause endless headache and strife. Apparently I was right.

I'm going to propose again that we simply RfC this issue in the following format -

RfC - There has been a great deal of debate surrounding the first couple sentences of the Atheism article. This is a list of potential introduction.


 * a. Atheism is......
 * b. Atheism can......
 * c. Atheism could....
 * d. ....
 * e. .....
 * f. .....
 * g. .....

Indicate which versions you find acceptable and why.


 * Support a,b,f,h - Simple and concise is always best. User:JoeBlowsallot 13th Sept 2015

This is really the only way we can establish a lede that has some credibility and demonstrated consensus behind it. Now, I know a lot of editors here like to think that thier debating over this issue makes them look smart and important, but I think its finnaly time to put this one to sleep. Who's with me? NickCT (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Trypto - I know you belong to the group that likes seeing thier thoughts splashed across a computer screen, and hence will probably be against a conclusive RfC, but please don't quote WP:VOTE. NickCT (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There have been relatively few editors that have said that the lede is contorted and a number of editors are satisfied with the lede. Of note, Kevin Baas says above that a lede's first sentence need not be perfect and a lede may even need more sentences to do an article justice... I'm just saying, because that is what we have now, a fairly concise first sentence defining the topic, albeit not perfect, followed by other sourced views. Occasionally editors want atheism to be defined primarily, or firstly, by the broadest definition. Of course, anyone can start an RfC and have such issues vetted by more editors. However, that any such discussions happen is not necessarily instability, but is par for the course for stable yet contentious leads, and is a poor argument to do anything different. All suggestions are going to be vetted with or without an RfC and constructing a lede or a list of ledes will always require reasonable readings of the reliable sources, especially those already cited and of the relevant content policies, especially wp:verifiability and wp:NPOV.  --Modocc (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nick, I have no idea why you'd think my opinion is so important. Have a good time with your RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @Modocc - Can you see the recent comments by User:Somepers99 & User:27.33.106.67? These kinds of disparaging comments about the lead have plagued this talk page for quite a while now.  Frankly, I don't think I seen a lede that gets as much talk as this one, and I watch quite a few controversial pages. Agree with you re "list of ledes will always require reasonable readings of the [[reliable sources]".
 * @Tryptofish - Just saying that every single time I've suggested this in the past, your immediate response is WP:VOTE. I just wanted to preempt that. NickCT (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to preempt WP:VOTE and WP:CIVIL, that's your decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahhhhh.... Don't be like that Trypto. You know I value your opinoin. I was just a little tired with hearing WP:VOTE cited. NickCT (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ummmm. Isn't it the case that in Wikipedia, the first sentence is really supposed to be giving the scope of the article, not necessarily what atheism 'really' is?Planetscared (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That would normally push you towards the very broadest definition.Planetscared (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In the ever-growing archives, there has been past discussion about applying WP:NOTDICTIONARY to the lead, although it didn't really shed much light or generate any useful progress. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The WP:NOTDICTIONARY argument has never made sense and could be lodged against any number of articles on WP. See Christianity's first sentence "Christianity (from the Greek word Xριστός, Khristos, "Christ", literally "anointed one") is a monotheistic religion[1] based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament.[2] ". Is that a definition? NickCT (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify what I meant to say, my point was that arguing that we should not "define" atheism has not been a successful argument in the past. I understood the question to be whether we should cover the scope rather than the definition. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * what should and should not be in the first sentence is covered in WP:LEDE, and in particular i copied some of (what i feel to be) the most relevant points in the above section "Talk:Atheism". Kevin Baastalk 15:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks to me like that is a definition of Christianity, and that that article is about that. Do you really think that that isn't? All I'm saying is that you need to start with the broadest definition, because that's what the article is really about, it covers everything within that definition, including the more specific definitions. I'm not saying that's the only definition you should give, and you can follow it immediately with the narrower/more popular definitions like agnosticism etc. The point is that this gives you an unambiguous first definition to use.Planetscared (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem i see in using the "broadest definition" is that some people are pushing the broadest definition to include agnosticism proper as well as "theological noncognitivism". These assertions are controversial (not only among editors, but in the actual literature) and based on some questionable sources.  And perhaps more importantly, WP:LEDE says that the opening paragraph "should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example List of environmental issues is only about the effects of human activity."  The claimed and controversial "broader definition" stands in direct opposition to this goal. Kevin Baastalk 16:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine, if they are controversial, then there is controversy about it, and in that case it definitely should be covered here under NPOV. And I note that the article does already cover theological noncognitivism in subarticle style. So there's no problem. Only if there's no controversy or coverage in reliable sources should it be excluded. That's how NPOV works.Planetscared (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * i totally agree. i was refering just to the lede; the first paragraph. in fact, the existence of all that other space is why we don't need to try to fit everything in the first paragraph. Kevin Baastalk 13:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The lede is embarrassingly poor. Moving from 'broad' to 'narrower' then to 'most inclusively' is verging on nonsensical. Obscurasky (talk) 06:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur that the ordering (and only the ordering) could be made more sensible. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The scope of this article happens to include the ancient Christian atheists, but no current definitions accommodate them, but by the logic that we must be inclusive foremost, we should strive to include those Christians in the very first sentence also. Right, that is not going to happen and here is why. The content policy given in wp:undue weight applies to this matter in spades. This is a core policy. Promoting the minority view which holds that Christian children are born atheists to the top of the article as if it were the primary view of what atheism entails directly contravenes wp:NPOV. --Modocc (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I TOTALLY agree with Obscurasky and Cybercobra as to the ordering - the logical ordering should go from broadest to narrowest definitions (or visa versa) to make it easier to read. I would like to re-state that a prominent reference to Dawkins Spectrum_of_theistic_probability should follow these definitions. I think that would be very helpful. I would also like to suggest a reference to Apatheism (and also possibly Agnosticism Humanism Skepticism - perhaps even Egalitarianism) since all do seem to be part of an "umbrella" worldview that emphasise a broader, naturalistic, (non-mystical / anti-supernatural) position that are compatible with atheism - although it would not make sense to include these links in the lede. Yoga Mat (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Except for Egalitarianism, there are currently links to all those articles (e.g. Skepticism is in the See also section). Anything added pertaining to egalitarianism would need sourcing and it is a tangential subject.  Dawkins' scale must be attributed to him and a condensed version of it without enough context in this summary would likely steer the reader away from this article to learn more. It would also probably (perhaps a 6 on a scale of 7) run afoul of wp:undue, giving it too much weight (i.e. prominence), not necessarily of the probabilistic nature of disbelief/belief, but to the scale itself. The presentation and placement of the lede's definitions is also subject to the policy. --Modocc (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Atheism vs. Atheist - defining boundaries
I've been trying to do a bit of background reading to find inspiration for how to handle the introduction of this article, but I have been dismayed at the lack of clarity in what I've found. For example, a theist will define atheism differently to how an atheist will. We must not fall into the trap of trying to explain atheism by explaining what an atheist is. We need to describe the concept of atheism, not the word. Not only will this help to define boundaries for the introduction, but also for the article as a whole.

That being said, "atheism" is always going to be a broad topic because it is far more inclusive than "atheist". There are several, often competing, definitions of "atheist"; however, they all fall under the umbrella of atheism. Atheism is the big tent that covers the broad spectrum that ranges from antitheist to agnostic, from disbelief to lack of belief. I have no doubt this will upset some editors who want an unambiguous definition that fits their perception of what it is to be an atheist.

Another thing I have noticed, and we touch on it in an earlier discussion, is that "atheist" as a term has evolved from the time of antiquity to what it means today. "Atheism" encompasses both the historical atheist and the modern atheist; however, in seeking to describe "atheism" in the modern sense, we must give more weight to recent scholarly works on the subject than to the popular texts from somewhat earlier. Perhaps we should start by compiling a list of references in a subpage of this talk page. We should include information on the date and type of publication, as well as wikilinks to authors (where possible). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how one's concept of atheism can be any broader than one's concept of atheists. As I am sure you are aware, for d'Holbach, babies fall outside the current encyclopedic definitions for atheism (see the recent archives for the many encyclopedic cites). For Smith, it is young children with no conception of deities that fall outside these narrower definitions. Wrongly or rightly, atheism is hardly an umbrella term for any "atheists" such as agnostics and babies given these sources. Therefore, any additional sources provided have the burden of showing (wp:verifiability) that the broadest view on atheism, or the umbrella concept that you refer to, is in fact widely accepted by scholarly sources as the primary view, for it to be given any more weight under wp:NPOV. --Modocc (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * About the only place in the Wikipedia where you can synthesise stuff is the scope- the scope of any article is an editorial decision made by consensus, and is often synthesised from the many different overlapping and possibly contrasting definitions that there are in the literature.Planetscared (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest to you that the workable scope for this article is the inverse of theism; the state of not having an active belief in at least one God. I'm not saying that that is atheism, because actually, on the contrary, there's a huge number of different valid definitions. But I'm saying that that's very probably the only plausible scope for this article under which we can discuss and cover the many different definitions and views and boundaries between atheism/agnosticism including whether in the view of the reliable sources babies have atheism or not.Planetscared (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There are different definitions to consider, but that does not unencumbered us from writing neutrally, which is why I have brought policy up repeated because its particularly germane. We have from the top of wp:NPOV: "...encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. This means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." This means the unambiguous inclusion of the  significant distinct sourced definitions we are presented with, even if they are minor. From wp:NPOV:"If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" We have d'Holbach with a minority view and Martin and others acknowledging the view as significant (difs to be added). From wp:NPOV: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". Encyclopedias and scholars introduce and define atheism primarily with one of the narrower definitions include:(to be filled in). From wp:NPOV: "...undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."  At issue with this article, there are several views as to what atheism actually is and there order, prominence of placement and presentation matters, specifically (again from wp:NPOV):  "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view"   Placing the disputed small minority absence only view as the first view in the lede makes it more prominent than either of the more accepted views and this is precisely what the policy explicitly forbids.  --Modocc (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Those policies are concerned with the overall emphasis given, not minutia of which order we give things. So far as I can tell it gives no useful guidance on that at all. In my view ordering should be concerned with writing a good encyclopedia article, rather than simply on popularity grounds. But I do completely agree that overall emphasis is a very important consideration in any article, including and especially this one, and that's why the popularity of the different definitions must be made clear, rather than guessed at from some interpretation that may be made of the ordering by the reader.Rememberway (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Minutia? The article's first sentence is not minutia and "...undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Ordering is currently based on the sources and not popularity. --Modocc (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for an FAQ
Given that there are a great many atheists that would take issue with some of the definition of an atheist, perhaps some of the editors of this article would be willing to place an FAQ template and use it to include some of the rationale for the article as it stands? Hopefully that way we will have less users making edits without considering the amount of prior debate that has gone into getting to the current revision. I ask for this because as an atheist I myself take issue with the definition given, so it would also put my mind at ease.--Topperfalkon (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also add that as it would be a summary of prior discussion it would also make it easier for editors that are newer to the article to contribute, rather than force them to trawl the archives first.--Topperfalkon (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea, so thank you for suggesting it. (That said, I have a bit of trepidation that the editors of this article will find reason to argue ad infinitum about what the FAQ should say.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suspect that will probably happen. Which is why I'd request that it be established editors of this page who understand its history (if such people exist) that be the ones to make the FAQ. It's not about stopping discussion, it's about making it easier to understand the discussion that has gone before. If someone thinks something in the FAQ is wrong they just have to discuss it, and then hopefully come to a new consensus over it. --Topperfalkon (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A FAQ would help as it actually has with other even more contentious pages than this and a subpage should be created for drafting it. There are enough regular editors that can contribute to the effort to make it an effective FAQ. It should only be used though as a pointer of how disputes have been resolved (or not) so that new editors can quickly familiarize themselves with them. I hope to contribute, but real life events are making it difficult for me at this time, and I'll be curtailing my participation as it is. --Modocc (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added it to the 'to-do' list for this article.--Topperfalkon (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you can use "Qualia Soup"....it's a YouTube account that did an amazing disambiguation piece on atheism. PalindromeKitty (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For the FAQ? No. I'd much rather the FAQ be based on prior discussion on this page.--Topperfalkon (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Would anyone like to suggest the specific questions for the FAQ? Myself, I'm not sure what they should be. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally the way I would do it would be to start a new section on the Talk page (for planning) and have each established editor of this page scan the article for points which could cause contention and/or edit-warring. When said point is reached, note those down in the talk section (providing enough context to make it simple to relocate). Then the editors that originally worked on that case can help describe what discussion lead to that consensus being reached. It'd be lengthy and a bit of a pain in the arse, but it's the best way to cover all the points that people might argue about. I mean there's probably room for 3-4 FAQ points in the first paragraph alone. Ultimately though, whoever writes the FAQ should decide the format. I'm relatively new to this article, so I can't really help much here.--Topperfalkon (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the way to go would be to have a talk section listing the suggested questions. But it seems to me that they would all be about the first paragraph of the lead. I'm just not aware of anything else that creates heat. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, it probably will revolve mostly around the lead. However, that doesn't mean that putting these concerns up in an FAQ would be a wasted effort, because it still highlights the prior discussion on particular nuances of the lead and it'll give new editors a better understanding of how consensus was reached (and why) originally. --Topperfalkon (talk • contribs) 23:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously.
Why is change in this article being so fiercely resisted? It seems to me as though any proposed correction of the hotly disputed lead is dismissed immediately with a "Hello and welcome! Please review the archives and notice that this issue has been casually dismissed many times before. Lurkmoar." Even simple reordering of the oddly ordered definitions is resisted and dismissed. I've given up discussing this article, as any mention of the widely hated and arguably biased lead is met with sanctimony and talk about consensus. I daresay this very attempt at cooling the hot heads of those watching this article will be met with the same dismissive sanctimony. I understand that there are repeats of the same discussions, but it doesn't look like anyone is even trying at all to improve the article; just preserve the status quo and prevent any changes. It truly makes me doubt the reliability of this article, and WP in general. --Ninjasaves (talk.stalk) 02:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "It doesn't look like anyone is even trying at all to improve the article." Why thank you! PalindromeKitty (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you somewhat there NS, the state of the article is poor. This is why I've requested the previous editors make an FAQ to make it far easier to discuss potential changes before carrying them out.--Topperfalkon (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * With respect to the "order of definitions", I think that it is logical for them to be in order of weight, rather than scope. The most significant (most evident in a preponderance of reliable sources) first, with the least significant at the end. The edit warring that is taking place over the lede is troubling to me, and I want no part of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously, it isn't fierce resistance to change when editors point out that changes being proposed have been discussed before and rejected. If anyone wants to propose something, no one is stopping you. But if anyone makes changes to the page that go against past discussions, they shouldn't be surprised if they are reverted and asked to bring it to talk. And if you propose something in talk, and others provide good faith reasons why they disagree with it, don't cry that you are being treated unfairly just because you failed to convince others of your superior understanding. It's very easy to complain about the lead not measuring up to one's personal standards. It's very difficult to get other editors interested in this page to agree with one's personal standards. Consequently, the lead reflects compromise. That means it reads like it was written by a committee—because it was written by a committee! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is a sense of "ownership" exhibited by a handful of editors. My perception is that the article is biased towards the "pure" philosophical aspect of atheism, and gives short-shrift to to other aspects of the topic.  --Noleander (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For example? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Examples: People who use the word "atheism" do so with a broad range of meanings, including:
 * A term in the field of philosophy
 * A rejection of the notion of a personal God (kinda like pantheism)
 * A rejection of the notion of spirituality (kinda like materialism)
 * A rejection of religions as foolish/wrong (anti-religion)
 * A rejection of the notion of the supernatural (kinda like skepticism)
 * A statement that the existence of God is unknowable, etc (kinda like agnosticism)
 * A rejection of religions as necessary for ethics: an embrace of humanism
 * etc, etc etc
 * My point is that this article, as written now, is heavily focusing on the first of the above meanings: a term in the field of philosophy.  I can understand how this article got that way:  there is some elegance to treating agnosticism, atheism, pantheism, materialism, secularism, humanism, as non-overlapping terms.  Yes, that approach is elegant, but it is not the real world.  People use the word "athiesm" in many, many ways, and  I think this article should not focus so heavily on that one meaning, but include more material on the other usages. --Noleander (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong in principle with adding material about non-philosophical aspects. I also don't recollect anyone proposing such material, or anyone objecting to such a proposal, although of course you may be thinking of something that I don't think of in those terms. It seems to me that almost all of the talk about this page is about the first paragraph of the lead. A huge number of complaints about it get rejected in the course of discussion, but that emphatically is not ownership. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right about that ownership issue: I'll strike it.  The reason it popped into my head is a couple of supercilious  comments I saw in the Atheism project page (about how athesim could not possibly have anything to do with criticism of religion) but that is not relevant to this article.  My apologies. --Noleander (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're splitting hairs. If you really want to split hairs, leave that for the article body.  Definitely not something to do in the lede.  You don't start off explaining what a tokamak is to a layman by enumerating all of its minor variations or discussing peculiarities of high-energy plasma physics. Kevin Baastalk 14:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the lede really only reflects compromise in the broader definition of the word.   It does not reflect the narrower definition of mutual satisfaction / consensus.  (as is demonstrated by recurring criticisms of it.) Kevin Baastalk 14:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you are addressing your comments to me, or not. But my comments were not discussing the lead paragraph, but rather the article as a whole.  The article (and lead) focuses primarily on atheism as a concept in the field of philosophy, and the  article provides very little information on other aspects of atheism.  Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the body of the article were enhanced to cover all the various aspects, then the WP:Lead guideline suggests that the lead paragraph should summarize that, and hence the lead would not limit itself just to the field of philosophy.  The article is very, very narrow in its present form. --Noleander (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article must reflect the description of atheism per the preponderance of reliable sources. Simply put, atheism is rarely used as a term to describe the other things on your list. If it can be demonstrated that a significant number of reliable sources refer to atheism with respect to these other things, we can look to incorporate those into the article. With respect to "anti-religion", this is antitheism; a completely separate thing from atheism. One can be both an atheist and an antitheist. In fact, the same applies to most of the list. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources do not focus on just the field of philosophy. The editors that are primarily responsible for this article have (apparently) restricted their sources to the field of philosophy.   The other aspects of atheism are - more or less - just as commonly used.   --Noleander (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to wager that very few reliable sources exist that discuss "atheism" in terms not related to how it is described in this article. I'm also astounded with your assertion that the other "flavors" are "commonly used". If this is true, by all means show us some reliable sources. Sorry if I'm coming across as a little dickish but I'm having a hard time seeing your point of view in this particular case. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How much are you willing to bet? :-)  If you look at many notable proponents of atheism (Holyoake, Russell, Hitchens, etc) and read their works, you'll notice an odd thing:  that many of their key arguments/points/ideas are missing from this article.  That is very peculiar.   I don't have time to improve this article now, but I might be able to get back to it at some point in the future.  --Noleander (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * i guess it depends on your interpretation? i think "atheism" is usually all or most of the factors listed above, and that the article reflects that pretty well as it is. Kevin Baastalk 16:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * oh, and i guess my comment wasn't really directed at you. it was more of a general comment. (rv. after ec.) Partly in allusion to the fact that the lede, in it's current form, seems to be, by way of analogy, "enumerating all the minor variations of a tokamak" (in this case, atheism).  Kevin Baastalk 16:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (after ed) - Although these are notable atheists, you are referring to their antitheism, not their atheism. Key arguments/points/ideas for antitheism belong in antitheism. We cannot include everything in a single article, so we instead have a topic that includes many articles and categories. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. On the one hand, we have dozens of notable proponents of atheism and their writings, and on the other hand we have a handful of WP editors. Which should we use to determine the scope of this article? I'll go with the notable proponents. Your statement that their beliefs are "antitheism, not atheism" is your personal opinion, but not relevant to this article. If the proponents describe their beliefs as a key component of their atheism, this article should reflect that. You seem to be trying to establish a set of non-overlapping terms: compartmentalizing everything. The sources do not treat it in such a compartmentalized manner. Atheism is very messy. --Noleander (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * for the record, there are four very cleanly non-overlapping terms:
 * theological noncognitivism
 * theist
 * agnostic
 * atheist
 * and notwithstanding some rare, usually agenda-driven instances, they are used as such in the literature. Kevin Baastalk
 * Sorry, most sources do not describe those as non-overlapping.  Heck, there is an entire article on Agnostic atheism.   Grabbing a philosophy textbook and repeating its  taxonomy of belief systems is not the best way to create an article.  Atheism is very broad and very messy (look at the Atheism category, and its sidebar, read the books of its proponents).    I get the feeling that we are repeating ourselves at this point, so I'll bow out and return when I have some time to actually add material into the article. There is a lot missing. --Noleander (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agnostic atheism is a form of agnosticism, and the default one, at that. that list above is not from some taxonomy in a philosophy textbook, it's just basic common sense.  and while i'm sure people have discussed the terms variously and discursively in relation to one another in the literature, i don't imagine there was ever much confusion by the author or their writtings between atheism or theism or theism and agnosticism, etc., except in some extreme cases or where the author was just ignorant of the differences or deliberately convoluting the terms (e.g. convoluting atheism and noncognitivism to put theism on a pedestal.  i could just as easily convolute theism w/"scientific noncognitivism" and i'd be far more justified in doing so.  but it would still be just that: a convolution, and an improprietous one at that.  certainly not deserving any kind of authoritive merit in the article.). Kevin Baastalk 15:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's just wrong, I'm afraid. We deliberately have separate articles for each of these "isms" (pantheism, agnosticism, materialism, skepticism, etc.) because they can exist independently of one another. While I agree there is overlap, I think that is addressed in the article; however, the article must remain about (and only about) atheism in order to prevent scope creep. You seem to be insisting that these other "flavors" are somehow subsets of atheism, rather than independent concepts in their own right. This is not (and cannot) be the "mother article" for all these "isms". This can only be one of a series of articles on these connected issues. We have categories, portals, templates and (of course) bluelinks to handle the overlapping aspects. I also have an issue with what you said earlier about "going with the notable proponents". These are proponents of antitheism, not atheism. I have several books from people like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris that basically argue the case for no theism at all. They specifically state that religion is harmful and has no place in modern society. They go out of their way to argue that the foundations for the various religions are flawed, and that tolerance of these religions is doing more harm than good. These are categorically views of antitheism, not atheism. This is supported by reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to make a suggestion about how to handle this issue in a way that may lead to a positive outcome. It seems unlikely that we will have a consensus to significantly alter the scope of this page. However, there is nothing wrong with having multiple pages reflecting the many "isms", as to a large extent we already do. It's better to cover all of this complexity by way of many articles, rather than trying to fit it all into this one. But we should be very receptive to linking and see-also-ing wherever applicable. Perhaps there may be a few places where some summary-style sentences could be added to this page to facilitate that linking. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside the labels, a stance that holds that religion/theism is socially harmful is indeed distinct from a stance that holds that religion/theism is mistaken (for various values of "mistaken"). I wouldn't have thought it sensible to say that the two stances are completely unrelated, but they are distinct. As always with typological issues, though, the language in which this distinction is expressed does not enjoy wide acceptance in the literature: there is no consensus on what label should be used for what position.  While Hitchens uses "antitheism" for the former position, others use "militant atheism". Some use "antitheism" is a synonym for atheism, or to describe the philosophical exercise of imagining an evil God. Others simply do not bother to make or discuss such a distinction.  It would seem to me fair enough for an article on atheism to contain some treatment of atheist attitudes towards religion - favourable, unfavourable and neutral or however you want to cast that particular typology.  We don't need lots of detail here though, because we can link to the other pages, which can provide the extra detail and information on the various ways those words are employed. --Dannyno (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You say: It seems unlikely that we will have a consensus to significantly alter the scope of this page.. Well, fine, but what exactly is the scope and how are we communicating it to the users and the other editors?Rememberway (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the scope of the article is the broadest one. i.e. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.. That's the encyclopedic definition, as it encompasses the others. (FWIW the BBC define atheism in practically the same way). And I think more or less everyone agrees with this scope, the only point of contention is whether we should say what the scope is by putting it first, and dealing the relative emphasis (the fact that other definitions are more common) some other way, or leave it to the users to guess what the scope is.Rememberway (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In terms of scope, I think you are right. However, I think you are wrong that somehow the most inclusive definition is "encyclopedic" because it encompasses the others. Everyone who is an atheist in the narrow senses is of course an atheist in the broad sense, so if that's what you mean then obviously that's true.  However if we're talking typologies, clearly the most inclusive typology does not include narrower typologies, because that's not how typologies work.  --Dannyno (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, the wording has to be such that we don't imply that.Rememberway (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I mean there's only one primary atheism article in the Wikipedia, and only one Wikipedia, so the scope of this article should be wide. Not making the scope wide would probably be non neutral, other definitions would have to be on different pages.Rememberway (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Dear everyone above: Thank you for rekindling my faith in/hope for Wikipedia by immediately and eventlessly engaging in civil, meaningful, logical discussion. I wrote this section in frustration. My frustration was misplaced. Thank you for reminding me of that. Yay Wikipedia. Hip hip huzzah, etc. --Ninjasaves (talk.stalk) 03:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As a final note to Ninja, hopefully if/when the FAQ is completed, it will form the basis for more civilised discussion about proposed changes.--Topperfalkon (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Rehash again, per BRD edit
We seem to have a lot of editors who support the new lead proposal. In addition to talk page comments, the recent bold edit lasted quite a while before being reverted by JimWae, and seemed to be largely supported. As a result, I'd like to get a feel for 1) how many editors support the most recent proposal, and 2) what objections there are to it. The proposal in question is: "Atheism, defined most inclusively, is the absence of belief in the existence of any deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] In its narrowest sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]" I, for one, support the new proposal. I've never found the objections particularly convincing. On the other hand, the sheer number of established editors who object to the current wording alone is overwhelming, in addition to coherency and scope arguments which I find to be very compelling. I'd like to propose this wording is reintroduced, and I'd like to see if, or to what degree, I'm alone in that view. Thanks. <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:4px">Jess</b> talk&#124;edits 19:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And just to explain why I think this discussion is necessary, I reviewed the conversation above regarding an RfC about the lead, and it appears there are 7 editors in support of a reordering, and 1 opposed. Another 2 appear in support per edits after the bold change, and then another 1 opposed. In addition to myself (in support), this is a substantial margin. and I think it's time that anyone with an opinion about this weighed in, so we can get an idea of the full scope of support or opposition to the proposal. Thanks, <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:4px">Jess</b> talk&#124;edits 19:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jess, for raising this very appropriate discussion. (I say that partially because it also relates to the concerns raised temporarily in an earlier thread about whether there is resistance to making changes to this page.) Here is my individual opinion.


 * I can see some valid arguments for each of these two versions. The arguments in favor of the new version, shown just above, is that it reads/flows better to have the lead progress from broadest to narrowest, and also, that there is some logic to starting with the broadest and then explaining the narrower forms. The arguments in favor of what is now on the page (the version to which Jim reverted) are that the scholarly sourcing is relatively weak for the broadest definition, and that WP:UNDUE therefore tells us that we should avoid putting it first. Consequently, that version puts the forms that are the most supported by the sources first.


 * I find all of those arguments to be reasonable, and valid in their own ways. We cannot (as far as I can tell) do the ordering both ways. If I had to choose, I would mildly prefer "Jim's version" (the one now on the page), on the theory that it is more important to adhere to UNDUE than to be guided by the readability of the sentences, but I really don't feel strongly about that. I am OK with either of these versions. And, I must add that I find it rather bizarre that any editors would feel strongly that it makes a lot of difference which version we use. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My concern is to ensure that the typological disagreement is properly acknowledged. I'd prefer that this be done by stating it explicitly in the lede. I am less interested in which definitional tradition should be mentioned first. The absence tradition is longstanding and influential, but in the literature is not as widely accepted as narrower definitions. I have some sympathy with the undue weight concern, but I don't feel it is a deal breaker so long as otherwise my concerns are met. Some here are saying that it makes sense to move from broad to narrow.  Perhaps so.  But it makes just as much sense to move from narrow to broad. --Dannyno (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As the BRD editor, I'd be fine with narrow->broad instead, if that would qualm undue weight concerns. Presenting them in the zigzag order is just plain confusing and harder to read though. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support this proposal but also support Cybercobra's alternative solution if necessary to stick to WP:UNDUE. In my opinion (and I say opinion because I am not nearly knowledgeable in etymology to claim it as fact) the broadest definition is far closer to the etymological definition of 'atheism' and therefore the more technically accurate one. It's also important to acknowledge that gap is covered by atheism because in many debates I have encountered with theists they attempt to manoeuvre agnosticism there. Where agnosticism is a relatively specific viewpoint, if taken from an etymological viewpoint. I know this comment is straying on original research (which is why I've been hesitant to push it before), but it is something that I believe is worth considering.--Topperfalkon (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Narrow --> broad would be fine with me too. Whatever. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Likewise, it is just as "logical" to give the "medium" position first, then stating that there are both narrower and wider defs. Much of the confusion people have had has stemmed from characterizing the medium position as "in A broad sense", where that has been interpreted as "in THE broad sense". A way around this would be to say something like "One sense of atheism is the rejection..." though "One definition of atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist" would have less issues with WP:NOTDIC. The medium position includes all self-identified atheists, whereas the narrower [strong atheism] (not narrowest, btw) does not.--JimWae (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's trying to put too much on the opening sentences, whether somebody has self described atheism or whether somebody else is ascribing it to them shouldn't determine which order sentences go in. With the lead paragraph we're more trying to put a ring around atheism, and say it's everything inside, not so much to say it's 'usually this or that'.Rememberway (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But atheism is not everything inside, at least not according to some prominent sources. --Modocc (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources are always going to be contradictory. But the scope of the article shouldn't be contradictory, and that's why a broad definition works for the scope.Rememberway (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The indefinite "one definition of atheism..." does not work very well though. As a practical matter, the majority of the "most inclusive definition" first advocates amongst the various editors here and in the future are not going to support (i.e. contest) the suggestion of putting the narrowest first (and perhaps not even the medium definition first because its not thought broad enough or is somehow POV for whatever reasons), even though its a slightly better option regarding content policy. Therefore, if the absence definition is going to be given any more weight than currently, then the sourcing for it must be beefed up, such as including the BCC link and Martin's Encarta piece. I'd also not make the broad definition an overly simplistic bare thread one, but include the concepts nevertheless as follows: "Atheism, defined broadly, is the rejection, or the absence, of belief in the existence of deities. More narrowly, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities." Martin's Encarta definition is key to supporting this broadening (to avoid any appearance of synthesis).  It would  make the lead more concise and less redundant, and because there is a fine line between rejection and mere absence, I think its appropriate and actually helps to delineate the concept of rejection of belief from the narrower definition. It should also resolve this dispute by broadening the introduction without trampling all over wp:undue weight.  --Modocc (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, we have 3 editors who've said narrow --> broad would be fine. Where are the "broad must come first" advocates? --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes there are editors that are fine with narrow to broad order and would even prefer that. But, the most vocal editors of recent months have wanted to make the first sentence of the lede broader though, including Mann Jess who wanted to do so in earlier threads, but compromised and who has now started this thread with the suggestion. In fact, most of the recent suggestions and arguments have been to broaden the first sentence, and not make it narrower. --Modocc (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Also, the narrow --> broad suggestion is proverbially "easier said than done" though. The common narrow definition is not the only common definition nor is it the narrowest. For instance, if we went with "Atheism, defined narrowly, is..." would be too vague. Narrow with respect to what? Another possible version, "Atheism is commonly defined to be the position..." can be sourced, but is weasel-worded. Who is it so defined and understood? Of course these concerns of how to word it are secondary to arguments about scope, readability and weight. Nevertheless, since there appears to be no unencumbered way of implementing narrow->broad, and in the end, it would effectively entail too narrow of an introductory sentence anyway, keeps me from supporting it. We are dealing with multiple, conflicting, sources here, and from the BBC link and Martin's work it is evident that the broadest definition has support and, of course, we have included it in the lead per NPOV and other sources, so it would seem that a revision seems inevitable, simply because it has the broader scope. I would support, "Atheism, defined broadly, is the rejection, or the absence, of belief in the existence of deities. More narrowly, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."   --Modocc (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesing, but I think the combining of "rejection" and "absence" encompasses too much. Imagine a 3-tiered circle; Atheism. The outermost tier is the absence of asserted belief. This encompasses both of the inner tiers, the second of which is the "rejection" (dismissal as inadequate) of belief. The innermost circle, within both other tiers, is the specific belief that there are no gods. It seems only logical to define a 3-tiered circle thus: The entire circle is THIS. Within that is a contingent of thought that says THIS. Still more narrowly is the school of thought that says THIS. I support the most recent broad -> narrow as block-quoted above. --Ninjasaves (talk.stalk) 03:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that that's much better than the current article lead. The second sentence seems to imply that it's 'really' that, rather than being a different definition though. But overall I quite like it.Rememberway (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! --Modocc (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @Ninjasaves. Yes, the memberships of the definitions nest, but otherwise the definitions are mutually exclusive concepts. As Dannyno posted |earlier "...the most inclusive typology does not include narrower typologies, because that's not how typologies work." In addition to these definitions being different typologies, they are also distinct views or traditions. For example, the view that infants and undecided agnostics are atheists does not include the opposing view that they are not atheists. In this regard, the view that they are atheists is not inclusive of the much narrower views that they are not atheists. These then are distinct views that can be, and often are, mutually exclusive. When writing neutrally, and presented with choices for a broad encyclopedic view or scope, we can put the primary view first as we do now (that the rejection view is primary can be reliably sourced, for instance Martin says "Atheism is primarily a reaction to, or a rejection of, religious belief, and thus does not determine other philosophical beliefs.") or use the conjunctive "or" as Martin does to indicate that there is an alternative view even though its not a primary view of what atheism entails. --Modocc (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally agree w/Modocc. I've brought up the issue before that the lede as it stands violates NPOV via undue weight (and got little reply), but I think Modocc has described the issue much more clearly here. Kevin Baastalk 16:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I still think that we need to give the scope of the article though, not the definitions of atheism. Those can come later (including those that may imply that our scope is too wide... but that's fine too.) Trying to define what 'atheism really is' is essentially impossible due to the mutual contradictions of the definitions. No, what we're really mostly trying to do is to explain to the reader how we are taking the term for the purposes of writing an article, and that inherently needs to be wide to cover the topic fully. And that's also what the policy seems to say in WP:LEAD:


 * The first paragraph should define the topic without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example, the lead for the article List of environmental issues states succinctly the limits of that list.


 * Note it says 'topic'. A topic is something you cover. It doesn't say 'define the thing'.Rememberway (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry this is totally out of order now. I've been away for a while.  that is what policy says about the first paragraph.  this is what it says about the first sentence: . Kevin Baastalk 13:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * And I thought we had made some progress above. :( Oh well. The absence of belief in deities is a definition of atheism, thus using it in the lede is to define the 'thing'. Also, the other(?) definitions should not "come later" because they supposedly undermine this definition(or mere scope as you seem to be arguing). We don't write for just one viewpoint, but write on the significant view or views (those that feature most prominently in the sources). --Modocc (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you claiming that some forms of atheism do not involve an absence of belief in deities? Because that's the only way I can see that it would undermine the scope. There's no problem with having more specific definitions in an article as well as less specific ones at all. That happens all the time.Rememberway (talk)
 * No, I was simply disagreeing with your suggestion: "Those can come later (including those that may imply that our scope is too wide... but that's fine too." --Modocc (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Scope isn't supposed to be about a viewpoint, it's only about excluding off-topic material and pushing it into other articles. That's why scope should nearly always be quite wide, to minimise bias.Rememberway (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The scope of the topic is defined by the first paragraph (and not just by the first sentence) per the guideline you quoted. --Modocc (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I mean frankly, the broadest definition isn't my favourite definition, but it does seem to be the encyclopedic one.Rememberway (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you probably must think that the Britannica and perhaps the Encarte, as well as a number of other encyclopedias are also unencyclopedic too. Not that this matters. --Modocc (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And the other encyclopedic and unbiased sources like the BBC do seem to use it.Rememberway (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Show me any encyclopedia that starts with only the absence definition. There are plenty quoted in the archives that do not and I'll drag them to this discussion if it will help. --Modocc (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The other thing is, there is no policy that says that we should order definitions by popularity. None. Not in NPOV, not in LEAD. Nupedia had that. Wikipedia doesn't. At least I can't find it, after looking.Rememberway (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as one of the core Wikipedia pillars, wp:NPOV is a general policy. It does not nor should it prescribe such a rule or rules about ordering the definitions per se (it does have something to say about giving views undue weight though). But that such a rule is absent is not actually relevant at all. There are too many instances where the policy is applied and complex ones at that, for policy and guidelines to micromanage this policy with a zillion specific rules for the millions of content issues that the general policy applies toward (this is a very large project). That it does not do so does not in anyway invalidate any reasonable application of NPOV towards a content decision, otherwise if everyone demanded specific rules other than the general policy, it would be just all bark with no bite. --Modocc (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * But you're claiming it's a principle to be followed; but there's no such principle of the Wikipedia at all. But there is a principle that says that the scope of the article should be clear and at the beginning of the article, and you're claiming that this non existent principle is more important.Planetscared (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ever hear of invalid straw-man arguments? Because I did not make up or come up with a principle, such as an ad hoc rule here. But perhaps you can tell me what you think the nondescript and nonexistent principle is that I've supposedly needlessly insist on applying to the lede, so I can respond more fully. Clarity, scope and source-based wp:NPOV are all important considerations. --Modocc (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Straw man is when you say somebody said something when they didn't. But you said and I quote: Placing the disputed small minority absence only view as the first view in the lede makes it more prominent than either of the more accepted views and this is precisely what the policy explicitly forbids.. You are explicitly saying you want that definition first because it's the most common. But that swapping sentences over is considered to make it more prominent is not supported anywhere at all in the policies, and it makes the paragraph read oddly, and it messes up the article scoping for the reader. I mean this is your favourite definition isn't it, and so you want it first? But we're not playing favourites, we're trying to introduce the article. And the article covers the most inclusive type of atheism (because everyone that meets this definition of atheism also meets all the others).Rememberway (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding definitions, what is most supported by the academic sources (the essence of my favoritism if you will) is not necessarily what has the most common usage or the widest scope. "You are explicitly saying you want that definition first because it's the most common." No, that is an imprecise characterization of my position, at best. Regarding your quote, although I have reiterated my position numerous times, that particular sentence could have been made more precise: Placing the disputed small minority absence only view as the first view in the lede makes it more prominent than either of the more accepted views and this [giving a minority view wp:undue weight] is precisely what the policy explicitly forbids. In addition, placing the absence definition first such that I observe that it is more prominent there in that position is not asserting a principle. You may disagree that it is more prominent or to the extent it is, and whether or not it is wp:NPOV compliant, but please understand my position and do not continue to distort it as a statement of principle (the straw man) or as a nonexistent rule to knock down dismissively.  --Modocc (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead needs to also contrast atheism with agnosticism. Kevin Baastalk 15:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be a whole different animal. Belief versus knowledge can get complicated when one begins to speak about weak vs strong, positive atheism and agnostic- qualifiers on various different beliefs (agnostic-christian, agnostic-theist, agnostic-atheist). Sounds like an idea that is large enough get its own section in the article rather than a spot in the lead. It sort of already does, but it could, perhaps be consolidated ("Agnosticism and Atheism" or "Belief and Knowledge" or the like). --Ninjasaves (talk.stalk) 03:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I'm talking about a simple sentence about what agnosticism is and how it differs from atheism.  The agnosticism article says this in its first line: "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.".  so a simple sentence like "Atheism is distinct from agnosticism, which holds that the exist or non-existence of deities and/or similiar claims is unknown or unknowable." Kevin Baastalk 16:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agnosticism is defined in different ways, and many of them amount to what is often called 'weak atheism'. It's generally considered to be an atheist position, but in some cases it can be a theist one. On the whole saying it's 'distinct' is very much oversimplifying it.Rememberway (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Martin in the Encarte'a atheism article managed to make a reasonable mention, but it took a fairly large amount of space for him to do so. Perhaps something could work, but only if its not too long, not too vague and covers enough ground... and that is a pretty tall order. --Modocc (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being rude, as they say:
 * "The first paragraph should define the topic without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example, the lead for the article List of environmental issues states succinctly the limits of that list."
 * Kevin Baastalk 13:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)