Talk:Atheism/Archive 50

Ambiguity in first sentence
OK. To clarify my question to the IP editor in the section above, I suggested the first sentence in the article might be ambiguous. To illustrate that point, consider the following --

‘Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities’ could be interpreted to mean: a) it is the belief that is rejected, perhaps in the form of scepticism that anyone actually believes in deities as opposed to saying they do; b) it is the existence of deities (as opposed to a single one) that is rejected; c) it is professed belief in deities (but not necessarily their existence) that is rejected, perhaps as a matter of avoiding sacrilege or taboo; d) both the existence of deities, and of any belief system demanding faith in deities is rejected; and

e) that it is a personal conversion of rejecting a former belief to now not believing in deities (I think that is what the IP editor was alluding to).

It seems to me that a difficulty arises from the words ‘reject’, ‘belief’, and ‘faith’ because one cannot objectively contradict the statements ‘I reject’ or ‘I believe’, but one can doubt sincerity, and therefore the matter of actual as distinct from professed faith. Ergo, it seems to me that the opening is ambiguous and could benefit from a clearer exposition if one can be found. What about: ‘In its broadest sense, atheism is the absence of faith in the existence of deities’?

Does this treatment of ambiguity cover your concerns, IP editor?

Regards, Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   17:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Peter, some of the above options are not semantically possible. "The rejection of belief ..." is not the rejection of deities, or the rejection of the "existence of deities" it is the rejection of belief. So b and d are simply not legitimate possibilities.  c has similar problems, because it is explicitly the "belief in the existence of deities" that is being rejected.  So how does one get from this explicit rejection of belief in their existence to "but not necessarily their existence?"  One simply doesn't because it isn't semantically viable. a is extremely far-fetched because the lead doesn't say, "the rejection of the idea that others actually have beliefs in the existence of deities."  Without that kind of specificity it is understood that we're talking about this type of belief in the abstract, general sense.  That leaves e, which I'd say exactly what said about a to.  Without the specificity we are meant to assume the abstract, general principle of rejecting all such beliefs.  This is basic comprehension of the English language in context and by way of convention.  What I don't understand Peter, is how you missed the one meaning that the clause has to 99% of readers, and is meant to have.  Instead you offer 3 impossible meanings, and 2 wildly out there ones.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to interject here - These are by far the most discussed/debated/contested several lines that I have ever, ever seen in an article... I don't see why we can't just RfC this and be done with it. NickCT (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish it were that simple. It will remain an issue as long as there are atheists promoting the absence definition as a piece of convenient rhetoric, which is what it is used for. "Look we are all born atheists ... " then add whatever the particular argument they are trying to make after that.  Of course religion is a social construct, but you don't need to make ridiculous claims about babies being atheists to make that argument.  Ugh.  This will continue until the rhetorical fad that is currently ongoing dies down.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I wish. Its not even that simple. Shiver, because its not entirely a fad. The suffix of -ism can simply define a state or condition and not only simply a belief or position. I think this is why we can talk about non-theism and have an article on nontheism. Under the umbrella of non-theism, babies are non-theists. Thus, all that has to happen is for atheism to become more widely understood to mean non-theism. So when anyone says babies are atheists, its understood that ALL they are saying is that the babes are without belief, or are non-theists, nothing more and nothing less. Historically, various untenable idols, myths and even entire religions have become obscured by disbelief, and its possible that the terms theism and atheism might one day not even register on most people's radar. In the meantime, there will be an ever-present ongoing struggle on how the term can be understood. --Modocc (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * (again, after edit conflicts):That suggestion is simply a restatement of the article's third sentence, or third definition and it is contrary to the Britannica's definition, the source that is cited. I and others have discussed the weight issues of these different definitions many times over. As for the possible ambiguities, there is nothing ambiguous about not accepting a religion because you don't accept everything they espouse hook, line and sinker. There are Christian atheists, and nothing in the definition implies otherwise. You don't have to reject your own belief, so there is no ambiguity there. There is nothing special about God such that we have to denote a singular god. If this was about reindeer, we wouldn't write that we do not believe in "Rudolph" or "Rudolph or flying reindeer", unless we taught one to fly a hang-glider of course. Similarly, "that there are no unicorns" does not normally require us to write "that there is no unicorn or unicorns". BTW, you did not address this ambiguity with your suggestion and most editors have agreed before that its not significant. We are defining an -ism, so why would the reader not see the definition and its analogues as a refusal to accept a belief as their own? That has nothing to do with conversion and I think that a mistaken reading of "insincere belief" is also a considerable stretch here. --Modocc (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate all the input, but I'm seeking clarification of the IP editor's input, not everyone else's certainty about their own. On that topic, please don't misrepresent my inquiry as a concrete position on any one possible interpretation. Don't tell me that I cannot read into a sentence the meanings I can plainly read into it. Would you respond at all if there was no doubt? Is the intended end product of your response more than censorship? Prove it with wording for the article that removes ambiguity.

Regards Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   03:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to read whatever meanings you want into whatever piece of text you want, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to point out that you're wrong when you claim that your strange "reading" is in any way meaningful to this discussion. If you tell me that "my dog eats garbage" could actually be understood to mean "some dogs drink brandy" I'm going to tell you that's not possible.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation to comment. Reading through the following comments, I am left with an empty feeling that there is no desire to actually come to much of an agreement here because ulterior motives seem to be seen behind each and every edit proposal. The comment "as long as there are atheists promoting the absence definition as a piece of convenient rhetoric" surprised me in how naked this attitude has become. The topic of how people define themselves is always going to stray into areas where opinions conflict. Griswaldo and Modocc, have you considered that some people have an interest in how the definitions are used because of how they identify themselves rather than it being a mere pushing against others who identify themselves differently? In its broadest sense atheism has been used to describe the absence of belief. Many people use such a definition merely because they themselves associate with this sentiment, not because they wish to cast a net over babies. If we incorporate the concepts of usage, and recognise that this also intrinsically relates to self-identification then it is important to reflect how people understand atheism as it relates to their own positions, not merely as a comparison with others. To answer you Peter, yes I do find the wording of the definition lends itself to each of these interpretations. I think the wording has undergone a number of transitions which has lead to ambiguity, though at times ambiguity has been the point. Regardless of the ordering of the definitions, one definition must relate to the assertion that there are no deities. The current wording strays into areas which can lead to inappropriate interpretations, I see no good reason for this awkward wording. What is wrong with the sentence "Atheism is the position that deities do not exist"?137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Perfect. I have struggled with the wording but your rendition cuts all the crap while containing the essence.  I move to replace the first and all paragraphs in the introduction with that sentence.  Thank you.   Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   03:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually would have no problem with that personally. I'm not sure why so much fuss has been made over the implicit definition in that case though. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And many Christians self-identify as Christian with the concomitant understanding that Christianity is the "one true faith" and the only path to salvation. Should we add that as a definition of Christianity?  "Christianity is a monotheistic religion[1] based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings or the one true faith and the only means to human salvation."  Sound about right?  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm actually in agreement myself. mezzaninelounge (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the length and complexity of the discussion here, I'm not sure I understand what we are talking about now. So, sorry, please bear with me. Are we talking about replacing the first paragraph of the lead with the single sentence: "Atheism is the position that deities do not exist." (with the subsequent paragraphs of the lead as is)? Would we then modify the existing first paragraph to be, in effect, a new second paragraph outlining the three forms, or would we drop it entirely? I'm receptive to a short-and-sweet first sentence, so long as the lead section, as a whole, goes on to cover the three definitions of long standing. But I suspect that other editors may object. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish, my initial ambit was to try to understand the IP editor (a Macquarie University IP in Australia, I think, that that may actually have been more than one person) without the noise of interjections about semantics. On reflection, I would strongly favour the removal of all but the first paragraph from the introduction; the content in those paragraphs belongs in the main body of the article. What would be missing then is a different second paragraph outlining the approach taken in the article to discussing the topic.

I would favour wording along the lines of :


 * Broadly speaking atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities (gods), most simply expressed as the position that there are no deities, or the explicit rejection of belief in deities. Atheism contrasts with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.


 * This article explains a range of prominent philosophical and religious positions on atheism, and traces a history of thought on atheism to contemporary debates and factors, including those about morality, social dynamics, and demographics. Links are given to separate articles about specific aspects of atheism offering more detailed explanations.

It has always been my view that an article introduction should require no references because all assertions made there should be contained in the body of the article, and therefore referenced there (which is WP policy on introductions). But I know that significant disagreements about that exist, and I'm not particularly attached to my wording, except to say I prefer it to the clumsy catch-all that is the current introduction.

Tryptofish, I'm not gonna argue or bicker about the introduction too much right now because I think the main game in Wikipedia's coverage is actually on the atheism sub-pages, where some sort of covert war is being fought to legitimise conspiracy theories about atheism, opposition to atheism, and the existence of shadowy 'movements'. But I hope this addresses your question, which appears to have been ignored by everyone else.

Regards, Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   13:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Peterstrempel, I really like your suggested substitute. mezzaninelounge (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Peter please do not treat any part of Wikipedia as a "game." If people are pushing a POV on atheism related entries please help to keep those entries NPOV, but let's not play games.  I do not agree with your suggestion since it puts UNDUE emphasis on a disputed definition of "atheism," namely the absence definition.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Peter, your proposed introduction looks just fine to me, with one proviso. Please be advised that a sentence that begins "This article explains a range of . . ." is a violation of WP:SELFREF. If you're willing to modify it to read "There are a range of . . ." you would thereby eliminate that problem. Also, the second sentence of that graf should be deleted for the same reason.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that we are discussing two entirely different things here, and I have low enthusiasm for the two of them, taken together. One is to rewrite the opening paragraph of the lead, in a manner that ignores all of the previous discussion of it. The second is to change the lead into something very short, presumably moving everything else in the lead into the main text. Perhaps this second idea has promise, but I'd like to see a clearer and more completely thought out plan for where the information would go. And I would oppose simply cutting it. I also agree with Steven about the selfref problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The trouble with "Atheism is the position that deities do not exist" is that although the position that deities do not exist is atheism, so is the position that a belief that deities exist cannot be justified. --Dannyno (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the re-writing of the opening paragraph. There are some problems with the term 'rejection', to reject a claim you have to first be presented with it and be able to consider it, for example babies are atheists which would not meet this criteria, a baby doesn't reject belief but simply lacks belief. 'Absence of belief' is a better general term to use. The first sentence should probably read something like this:

'Atheism in the broad sense is the absence of belief in deities.'

The following sentence can then be removed from the opening paragraph as it doesn't make much sense anyway since the broad sense of something is surely the most inclusive.

'Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.17.155 (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Atheism is actually a 'non'-religious moment ie a belief. The initial statement should read along the lines of 'Atheism is a belief in the non-existence of deities etc' - not a 'non-belief' as it states. Non-belief in something is just denying its existence, if one were to just deny an existence of something that would be the end of it - one would not need to pursue it further eg atheists are guilty of preaching to the 'unconverted', just like many religious practioners, accusing un-unbelievers to be stupid etc. Therefore if this is the case, and atheists wish to join together under the banner of atheism (which is appears they do as a collective), then atheism is little different to many religions or clubs etc. Ergo Atheism should be defined as a non-religious religion. Chris of England — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.125.50 (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, under some definitions of the word, even people who have never considered the existence of deities -- young children, for instance -- are considered atheists. Powers T 12:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And the statement "non-belief in something is just denying its existence" is flawed, because it assumes that "something" exists to deny. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Atheism is, in a broad sense, difficult to define. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically very difficult to define but you should add lots of superfluous language when you do. 68.15.184.173 (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 68, that is, hands-down, the best version of the lead ever! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed! danielkueh (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a possibility that a two-headed definition might be able to reach consensus? Something along the lines of "Atheism, most generally the non-belief in any deities, is a difficult to define position on the truth claim of religion. While historically it has often been rendered as the definitive rejection of such truth claims, it has more recently been phrased in terms of the absence of belief."

This, and especially the use of 'truth claim' is of course open to debate, although I think it does address all sides in this debate: the etymological meaning (and the, for example, Roman use of atheism as the belief in non-Roman gods), the modern atheist and their self-description (I belong to that crowd) and those who think that a non-sentient being should not be called 'atheist'.

Optionally, one might include references to sources such as Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris who both have excellent essays on this topic, as well as an explanation for the shift in meaning (for example the 'cannot prove a negative' notion that I have first encountered in Russell).Djupp (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, a look through the talk archives will show how difficult it is for anything to reach consensus. I would have low enthusiasm for a lead sentence that talks about the subject being "difficult to define". I can also imagine objections to using the New Atheists to define something whose history goes back so much earlier. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Agnosticism vs Atheism
I heard Penn Gillette (of Penn and Teller) explain the difference between Agnosticism and Atheism on Real Time with Bill Maher last week in an interesting manner. He said they answer different questions. If I recall correctly, agnosticism is an answer to the question of whether there is a god, while atheism is an answer to the question of whether one believes there is a god. Apparently Gillette discusses this further in his new book, God, No! Signs You May Already Be An Atheist and Other Magical Tales, so it might worth covering here. I don't have it yet, so I can't do it. Just a suggestion for someone to do... --Born2cycle (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect you're misremembering slightly; the roots of the word "agnostic" refer to knowledge, not to existence, and I think Penn's smart enough to know that. Without an exact quotation, though... Powers T 21:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmiuYyQ3Xgo
 * "'But 'agnostic' answers a different question than 'atheist'; it's just two different issues. If, um, if you're asked 'Is there a god?' and you answer 'I don't know,' that's agnostic. If you're asked 'Do you believe in a god?' then you have to answer 'yes' or 'no'. And if your answer to the first is 'I don't know,' the answer to the question is pretty much 'no'.'"
 * Basically, he says that agnostics (those that don't know whether there is a god or not) are "pretty much" also atheists (that is, people who don't believe in a god). They are two different questions, but he phrased them a little awkwardly here.  Agnosticism only comes into play from the question "Is there a god?" if the answer is "I don't know"; if the answer is "yes" or "no", then that's gnosticism, and the polarity of the answer determines atheism or theism.  Powers T 21:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So, in short:
 * {| border="1"


 * Is there a god? || Do you believe? || diagnosis
 * yes || || gnostic theist
 * no || || gnostic atheist
 * don't know || yes || agnostic theist
 * don't know || no || agnostic atheist
 * }
 * But "yes" or "no" to that question need not be gnosticism:
 * {| border="1"
 * don't know || no || agnostic atheist
 * }
 * But "yes" or "no" to that question need not be gnosticism:
 * {| border="1"


 * Is there a god? || Are you sure? || Do you believe? || diagnosis
 * yes || yes || || gnostic theist
 * yes || no || || agnostic theist
 * no || yes || || gnostic atheist
 * no || no || || agnostic atheist
 * don't know || || yes || agnostic theist
 * don't know || || no || agnostic atheist
 * } ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * no || no || || agnostic atheist
 * don't know || || yes || agnostic theist
 * don't know || || no || agnostic atheist
 * } ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * don't know || || no || agnostic atheist
 * } ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:LQ ignored?
Sorry to sidetrack from the more serious discussions above, but don't these edits contravene the WP:LQ policy? Saying it's a quote in the edit summary actually undermines the change: the policy specifically applies to the format of quotes, as I read it. I suggest a RV.--Old Moonraker (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm pretty sure that the three recent edits need to be reverted. Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed by User:JimWae—thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hindu atheism
Re: "whereas Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, but difficult to follow spiritually.
 * The word "valid" is certainly in the source, but who can unpack what it means there? What does it mean to the author? What does it mean to a casual reader? Does it mean the same to both? I have no doubt there are schools of Hinduism for which theism is not a doctrine & maybe is even anathema, but here we have ONE author being used to represent ALL of Hinduism. There do seem to be schools of Hinduism that are theistic. The paragraph is about whether religiosity/spirituality and atheism can co-exist. For the purposes of this paragraph, "compatible with religiosity" expresses at least the main idea of what is meant, is the point of the paragraph, and does not use the often differently interpreted term "valid". There is no obligation that we use the same words as the sources, and the text definitely supports a reading of "compatible with".
 * In summary, there are 2 issues. 1> Not all forms of Hinduism consider atheism "valid" and 2> how is the reader to tell what "valid" means here?
 * Aside to 117.204.89.8: Does that seem "uninformed"? --JimWae (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The term "valid" implies that an atheist can achieve the ultimate goal of life as prescribed in Hinduism. Hinduism is fundamentally based on the cycle of Samsara, whose course is determined by one's Karma; with an ultimate goal of achieving Moksha and thereby attaining Nirvana. The purely theistic schools do assert that God exists; but all of them approves that ultimate objective (Moksha-Nirvana) can be attained even if the person rejects God. Therefore even in theistic schools, atheism is considered "valid" though such schools strongly believe in God. 117.201.242.203 (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a special meaning of "valid" which is not how it is generally understood in much of Western culture & it is not explained. That is why I proposed "compatible with religiosity". --JimWae (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 'compatible with religiosity' only means Hinduism can get along with atheism. doesn't serve the purpose. Why not replace with: "atheism is an accepted form of belief in Hinduism, but is considered by some schools to be difficult to follow spiritually." ?? Usintrage (talk) 10:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC) (same above ip-guy)

The previous text already mentions Hinduism
 * Moreover, atheism also figures in certain religious and spiritual belief systems, such as Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Neopagan movements[13] such as Wicca.[14] Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods,[15]...

This could be changed to
 * Moreover, atheism also figures in certain religious and spiritual belief systems, such as Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Neopagan movements[13] such as Wicca.[14] Jainism and some forms of Buddhism and Hinduism do not advocate belief in gods.[15]

The lede is an introduction -- the details can go in the body--JimWae (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What about the following>
 * Moreover, atheism also figures in certain religious and spiritual belief systems, such as Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Neopagan movements[13] such as Wicca.[14] Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods[15]. Atheism is an accepted form of belief in Hinduism, but is considered by some schools to be difficult to follow spiritually.[16]

Your earlier version did not communicate the i talked about in the first reply. Usintrage (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That last sentence is getting into specifics & I have doubts that it even belongs in the lede anymore. Why mention Hinduism twice? Also, the text somewhat misleadingly suggests all schools of Hinduism are being represented. Also, it is disputed that atheism IS a "form of belief". --JimWae (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Last section incomplete?
The last section, titled "Dangers of religions," makes sense in an article about atheism, but only if the atheism's dangers are also addressed. (There is a link within the section for the reader to read further about "Criticism of religion;" Wikipedia also contains a "Criticism of atheism" page, so the topic is not out of bounds for a complete online encyclopedia.) I would suggest that either adding a separate "Dangers of atheism" section, or combining them into "Dangers of Religions vs. Atheism," would make the article more complete -- not to mention more neutral in its POV. DoctorEric (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * An interesting proposal. Could you give us an indication of what dangers you have in mind? I couldn't think of any (although this was with only a very brief consideration). Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The atrocities of the French and Russian Revolutions have been linked to atheism repeatedly, by well-informed observers. I think that it's only fair to mention it, if the article is going to mention the atrocities linked to belief. Better than mentioning both of them, in my opinion, would be mentioning neither, since the impact of religious belief (or lack thereof) on political activity is difficult to substantiate, and intrinsically controversial. Carinae986 (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * User:DoctorEric, I agree with your assessment. Having a section on the "Dangers of religions" within an encyclopedia article seems as if the article is being written to push a particular point of view. I would support your working on the section to make this article comply with WP:NPOV. Cheers, AnupamTalk 12:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hold on a second. It's the subsection title that is the real problem, and I do agree that it should be renamed - e.g. Viewing Religions as Dangerous. The idea that religion is dangerous is one often associated with atheism, as the section explains. It could use a rewrite though to focus more on atheism and less on atheists. Now, I do not object to a criticism of atheism section which briefly summarizes the parent entry Criticism of atheism. If the "dangers of atheism" are a prominent view amidst such criticism then by all means add it to the parent entry and reflect that in the section here.Griswaldo (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of starting with an assertion of Ravi Zacharias that violence and sensuality may be committed in the name of religion, but are contrary to many religious teachings, while (according to him) these are logical results of an atheistic worldview. Then I was going to expand on the last sentence of the article and report on the view of Dinesh D'Souza (who is mentioned in the Criticism of atheism page) and others that an atheistic worldview was/is the underpinning of brutal, totalitarian regimes like Soviet Russia. I thought that would be adequate, as the reader will have the option of reading a full article about the Criticism of atheism if he desires to know more. DoctorEric (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Zacharias indeed states "Those who, in the name of Christ, have sought to kill in order to propagate their belief were acting in serious contradiction to...the gospel", but  atheism, as propounded by Sartre and Nietzsche, directly "injunct[ed]...the demagogues...of the Third Reich" —The real face of atheism, page 65. This is only a quick and dirty paraphrase, but is the point that atheism is dangerous because it doesn't forbid violence by its adherents? If no atheists "seek to kill to propagate their belief", such admonitions are superfluous. The question of state brutality   in USSR and the Third Reich has been discussed many times on these pages. AFAICR nobody has demonstrated that the repression was in any way the result of Stalin's (cheap shot: a failed priest) being an atheist, while Hitler, not an atheist, used examples from Christianity to inspire his politics.  --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What "dangers" of atheism? Please show me a reliable source (and by reliable, I mean not something written by an apologetic of some brand of theism) describing some detail of atheism as dangerous. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Moonraker - I wasn't familiar with that quote (or source) of Zacharias, but I'll have to look into it; it might be good to consider for the article. I think the idea, that the brutality of totalitarian regimes grows out of atheism, is defended (by those who so-assert) by pointing out that some atheists reject any absolute moral law (God-given or otherwise) and view humans as random products of nature no more or less valuable than any form of life on the planet; from this worldview, clearly espoused by some leaders of officially-atheistic states, humans can be used as tools for the good of the state, discarded when their usefulness ends, and subjected to cruelty when perceived as not conforming. Sometimes, the victims of the regimes are chosen specifically because they are religious, but that is hardly the only reason. I had not mentioned Hitler on purpose (because he wasn't exactly an atheist, although he was clearly anti-religion, esp Jewish and Christian). There is an entire article devoted to his religious views for those who care to read up on him. You are correct that he utilized aspects of Christian philosophy in his public speeches an policies, but I suspect that he was being pragmatic rather than dogmatic. Still, it might be mentioned that even Viktor Frankl concluded that atheistic philosophy taught in pre-war Germany laid the foundations of the Holocaust.
 * Scjessey - Your argument, that "something written by an apologetic of some brand of theism" is unreliable, is a specious one. Using that standard, I could completely decimate sections of the Atheism article by removing all ideas put forth by Harris, Russell, Dawkins, and other apologists of atheism. Indeed, several Wikipedia articles would have to be reduced to a few historical lines using your logic. Philosophical discussions will often lack (or include bias-selected) empirical data -- I could cite examples within this very article -- but that doesn't make them "unreliable" or unworthy of inclusion. Dawkins is not the proponent of some fringe ideas of atheism, any more than Zacharias represents a fringe element of Christianity; both are accepted widely as expert spokesmen for their respective worldviews, and have places in this discussion, even though neither can "prove" his position. (Naturally, any time such ideas are put forth in Wikipedia, they ought to be done with wording that reveals that they are philosophical arguments: "Dawkins argues that..." or "Zacharias has suggested..." or "Viktor Frankl has concluded..." etc.)
 * Sorry this ran a little long, but I'd rather address concerns on this page than enter an edit war. DoctorEric (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We have a policy of undue weight. Prominent atheists like Harris, Russel etc are perfectly suitable for the subject matter of this article. It is very much a question whether Zacharias and other fringe theists are, I think they aren't. "Dangers of atheism" is also not an acceptable topic name, since it is based on personal views of critics. At best (and if notable and deemed relevant) this kind of information is suitable for the "Criticim" section. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @DoctorEric - The point I'm trying to make is that a theistic apologist isn't really qualified to offer opinions on atheism. I ask again, name one "danger" of atheism. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sensing two major objections to my proposal: the title, and the sources. Let me address each separately.
 * To those who don't like the name "Dangers of atheism," your argument may be tenable. Frankly, I'm not passionate about keeping that title, and simply chose it as the other side of a theme started in the "Dangers of religion" section. Although I'm not in agreement, I can see why some might not think the actions of some atheists and atheistic regimes constitute a specific danger of that worldview. On the other hand, those arguments could be reversed and used against the title "Dangers of religion" as well: the "authoritarianism, dogmatism, and prejudice" which Harris et al say result from religion could equally be applied to many atheistic individuals (Karl Marx was the epitome of each of those!) and regimes; and one could argue that the "Crusades, inquisitions, witch trials, and terrorist attacks" mentioned have atheistic parallels in the Cultural Revolution, The Killing Fields, and the anti-religious, anti-ethnic/cultural, and anti-human-rights policies of most (some say all) atheistic governments and dictators. Griswaldo has suggested "Viewing religions as dangerous" may be a better title, and I would agree. Still, that leaves the question of the balancing counter-point criticism of atheism -- Should it be called "Viewing atheism as dangerous," since it is an opinion (of those cited) that it is the atheistic worldview that leads to the actions of its adherents (particularly those who assume power)?
 * As to the sources of criticisms, I must acknowledge that the diverse nature of theism makes it impossible to cite just a few sources who represent all theists (or even all monotheists!). I will also acknowledge that, although I've heard Muslims and others criticize atheism, I am not as familiar with specific sources of that criticism as I am Christian sources (and I don't know of any polytheists' criticism of atheism, although I wouldn't doubt it exists); if others here would like to direct me to such sources for the sake of presenting a wider criticism of atheism, I will look into them and try to incorporate them (although I'm trying to keep the section brief, and those broader arguments may be better made within the Criticism of Atheism article). Still, given that those who identify themselves as Christian make up 1/3 of the world's population, I don't think citing Christians (Catholic and/or Protestant) who criticize atheism is unreasonable. As to the Undue Weight argument, that is simply untenable. Quoting from that policy, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." One subsection out of twenty-five sections and subsections in an article doesn't even come close! And as stated above, 1/3 of the world's population, or even a substantial percentage of that group who agree with the Pope and prominent Protestant writers, can hardly be termed a "tiny" minority! (Indeed, if we're talking about absolute numbers, even excluding nominal theists, the most passionate/fundamentalist Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, etc., far outnumber atheists in the world, but I don't think any here would say that everything in Wikipedia should ONLY reflect the majority opinion.) Finally, to argue that Harris, Russel, and other atheists are exclusively qualified to comment on atheism (while theists are not) is contradictory to the standard of nearly every Wikipedia article on contentious subjects. Indeed, if you take a look at the Religion article, you will find the views of not only religious people, but prominent atheists and their criticisms. So clearly, having views and expertise on a subject extend beyond agreeing with it. DoctorEric (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that "Dangers of Religion" is a somewhat inflammatory title. The subsection is about prominent atheists' criticisms of religion, not sociological, anthropological, etc., findings on the dangers inherent in religions (as appear at the top of the "Atheism, religion, and morality" section). If truly objective sources on the risks and benefits of religion and religious belief aren't being used then a small subsection on religious criticisms about atheism is appropriate if this subsection remains. Of course, there are as many such criticisms as there are religions, which is one reason why we have Criticism of atheism in addition to Criticism of religion. I'd suggest replacing "Dangers of Religion" with something along the lines of "Atheists' Criticism of Religion" and then appending a similarly brief subsection titled something like" Religious Response to Atheists' Criticism". These are somewhat unwieldy headings but this does seem to be what is being discussed. JJL (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @JJL - I think your suggested titles are better than any suggested so far (including what I had in mind).
 * Does anyone object to JJL's ideas? DoctorEric (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

semi-lock this page?
This page does get vandalized all too often and it was featured, so I say we need to semi-lock it. Patchiman (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

prison convicts without religious training
so we can read that "the proportion of prison convicts without religious training place the percentage at about 1/10 of 1%.".

The source is an article from Current that quote from the book "The New Criminology" by Max D. Schlapp and Edward E. Smith.

I think that it would be useful to note that this is a 1928'book.

Those are the WP sources? I'm very impressed!

Note also that in Current's article there is any reference to Muslims in prisons (but there are the 'pagans')! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.244.55.119 (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Religious training" is an unusual phrase. It is hard to know what it means. Bus stop (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * this is written in the article.. I have also found the original author of the Current'article. He is Wayne Aiken, North Carolina Director AMERICAN ATHEISTS. I do not think that this is a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.244.55.119 (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The book you mention is just one of many sources used by Aiken to write his article at Current. If you think atheists can't write reliably about atheism, please review this AfD to understand the failure of your logic. The source is fine. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If the article is almost one hundred years old, the statistics it purports may no longer be valid. The most you can say about that study is that it tells you about the "religious training" of inmates in the 1920s, which doesn't seem particularly helpful to me. If this is a topic that someone is really interested in, maybe they can find a more recent source? Carinae986 (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked into the sources that the article quotes. "The New Criminology," 1928. The Steiner and Swancara study of Canadian Prisons, 1925. Dr. Christian's study, 1917 (or thereabout.) The rest of the statistics are unsourced. Nowhere in this article does the author inform us that he is using statistics that are about 80-90 years old. In my opinion he or she is making claims that are poorly sourced, and possibly others that are not sourced at all. Also, it's not clear that this website, called "Current" exercises editorial control over it's publications, which is one of the basic ways in which the Wikipedia policy on citations qualifies magazine articles. For those reasons, I don't think this is a reliable source, and I would be in favor of removing it's claims from the Wikipedia Article, unless someone can find a more trustworthy guide to the subject. Carinae986 (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems clear that the current.com url is not an RS, lets start there and see if Aiken has published this somewhere more reliably. un☯mi 14:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * current.com is Current TV, so I don't know how you can support that statement. That being said, it does seem clear that the article is an opinion piece. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Uhm, you don't know how I can support that, really? Did you notice community.current.com? Did you notice "keithponder added this" or Source: Youtube? - I don't know what it is about this article and the suspension of rational thought but it is starting to freak me out. un</b><b style="color:#358">☯</b><b style="color:#258">m</b><b style="color:#158">i</b></i> 15:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relax. Your comment seemed to indicate you thought "current.com" (the domain) was not a reliable source. I misinterpreted your meaning there, so please accept my apologies. We appear to be in agreement that the piece is basically useless, although I think for different reasons. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I looked for some more pieces by Mr. Aiken. He doesn't appear to be any kind of scholar, and I couldn't find any other articles where he discusses these claims. Even if Current TV is, on the whole, a reliable source, I think in this one instance there are some demonstrable problems with the piece that they chose to present. Carinae986 (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Scholarly sources are preferred, but not being a scholar does not negate a person's value as a source. Aiken's piece seems like an example of non-neutral synthesis that would've been rejected if it had been written on Wikipedia itself, but it shouldn't be rejected on the basis of it not being scholarly. It is simply journalism, and I would rank it equally with any other piece of editorial journalism ("blog" sections of mainstream newspapers, for example). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should just cite it to the 1928 source, in which case we should state the year in the text to alert the reader how long ago it was, or, if we feel the information is outdated, we should delete the sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If I were reading the article for the first time, and I jumped down to a footnote that quoted a study from 1928, I would be immediately suspicious of the rest of the article. It's just bad sourcing. imo the sentence should say "in the 1920s 1/10 of 1%" or something like that, to make it clear right from the beginning that this statistic may no longer be applicable. Or it should come out in favor of a more recent study. There's got to be one somewhere. Carinae986 (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

nonanthropomorphic, extralinguistic referents and atheists vs agnostics
( Initial post is a response to request for clarification from User:RobertMfromLI, above. ) It is stated as the second sentence of the cite "Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable." - and it is developed further in a section about halfway through the article which starts: Agnosticism has a parallel development to that of atheism. An agnostic, like an atheist, asserts either that he does not know that God exists—or, more typically, that he cannot know or have sound reasons for believing that God exists—but unlike the atheist he does not think that he is justified in saying that God does not exist or, stronger still, that God cannot exist. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#985">u</b><b style="color:#884">n</b><b style="color:#784">☯</b><b style="color:#684">m</b><b style="color:#584">i</b></i> 16:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, Neilsen is talking mostly about agnosticism there, and the contrast with "the atheist" does not clearly state whether he means ALL atheists or a subgroup of atheists (or even the singular) - as such, presenting it as definitional of atheism is telling the wiki-reader to read too much into it. What is more clearly about ALL atheists is the part you removed (which, unfortunately, is not a continuous quote):
 * Atheists, by contrast, believe that it [some nonanthropomorphic, extra-linguistic referent for "God"] has not been, and indeed some of them believe that it cannot be, secured.
 * The direction you seem to be taking is to make a sharper distinction between agnosticism and atheism. I agree that that topic is not adequately handled in the wiki article. WHERE Neilsen has more clearly sharpened the distinction is in the agnostic attitude that the nonanthropmorphic extralinguistic referent might be secureable. Here he is not confining his def of agnosticism to the position of a lack of knowledge, but including a psychological aspect (belief) - they cannot decide if the word is sufficiently referential, whereas atheistS have decided it is not.--JimWae (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that Nielsen has not indicated that he uses 'an atheist' differently than 'an agnostic' and that he is clearly talking about all agnostics in using that phrasing I would say that you are probably reading too much into it, or at least bear the burden of an extraordinary claim. Please do keep in mind that he is merely repeating what is in the first paragraph of the article. We should probably open another section for how they maintain that distinction in the context of specific flavors of arguments. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#651">u</b><b style="color:#550">n</b><b style="color:#450">☯</b><b style="color:#350">m</b><b style="color:#250">i</b></i> 23:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is quite different to say "I believe UFOs do not exist", "I believe I am justified in saying UFOS do not exist", and "I believe that no referent for UFO has been secured".--JimWae (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are misreading Nielsen's development of the text here, try this:

Agnosticism has a parallel development to that of atheism. An agnostic, like an atheist, asserts either that he does not know that God exists—or, more typically, that he cannot know or have sound reasons for believing that God exists—but unlike the atheist he does not think that he is justified in saying that God does not exist or, stronger still, that God cannot exist. Similarly, while some contemporary atheists say that the concept of God in developed theism does not make sense and thus that Jewish, Christian, and Islāmic beliefs must be rejected, many contemporary agnostics believe that the concept of God is radically problematic. They maintain that they are not in a position to be able to decide whether, on the one hand, the terms and concepts of such religions are so problematic that such religious beliefs do not make sense or whether, on the other, though the talk is indeed radically paradoxical and in many ways incomprehensible, such talk has sufficient coherence to make reasonable a belief in an ultimate mystery. Such an agnostic recognizes that the puzzles about God cut deeper than perplexities concerning whether it is possible to attain adequate evidence for God’s existence. Rather, he sees the need to exhibit an adequate nonanthropomorphic, extralinguistic referent for “God.” (This need not commit him to the belief that there are any observations independent of theory.) Believers think that, though God is a mystery, such a referent has been secured, though what it is remains a mystery. Atheists, by contrast, believe that it has not been, and indeed some of them believe that it cannot be, secured. To talk about mystery, they maintain, is just an evasive way of talking about what is not understood. Contemporary agnostics (those agnostics who parallel the atheists characterized above) remain in doubt and are convinced that there is no rational way of resolving the doubt about whether talk in a halting fashion of God just barely secures such reference or whether it, after all, fails and that nothing religiously acceptable is referred to by “God.”


 * Agnostics parallel atheists.
 * Similar in that they both assert they don't have sound reasons for asserting that God exists.
 * Different in that atheists assert that God does not exist.
 * Development of a specific approach to contrast approaches.
 * Some atheists say that the concept of God does not make sense and must be rejected ( noncognitivism )
 * Some agnostics maintain that they don't know if the concept of God is so radically problematic that it is incoherent or whether it could possibly form a meaningful proposition.
 * These agnostics go beyond the problems of evidence and consider the problem of whether there could exist such a God.
 * Theists believe that God is a mystery but existing.
 * Atheists believe no such God exists, and some believe that no such God could exist
 * Agnostics claim that they don't know if such a God could exist
 * Intense ...
 * Let me know if the rough outline of the text development above makes sense to you. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#965">u</b><b style="color:#864">n</b><b style="color:#764">☯</b><b style="color:#664">m</b><b style="color:#564">i</b></i> 01:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I do think, that it would be helpful to add to the quote
 * Atheists... believe that it [some nonanthropomorphic, extra-linguistic referent for "God"] has not been, and indeed some of them believe that it cannot be, secured.
 * How does that strike others? --JimWae (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to say that I find your edits here somewhat perplexing. I could be more sympathetic if I had added text to the article body - but removing sourced footnote content? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#938">u</b><b style="color:#837">n</b><b style="color:#737">☯</b><b style="color:#637">m</b><b style="color:#537">i</b></i> 23:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You have said that "This is important because there seems to have been confusion regarding "rejects" which Kai Nielsen here clarifies." What is the confusion? --Modocc (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Confusion which "but unlike the atheist he does not think that he is justified in saying that God does not exist or, stronger still, that God cannot exist." and "Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not" from Nielsen clears up. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#863">u</b><b style="color:#762">n</b><b style="color:#662">☯</b><b style="color:#562">m</b><b style="color:#462">i</b></i> 01:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The latter quote defines the agnostic position of not completely rejecting theistic claims, and the first quote refines this agnosticism as not accepting specific strong atheism views. Yet, I'm not quite seeing why the first quote is referring to the atheism definition (the latter quote is a bit more relevant, but is not all that significant I think). However, Nielsen elaborates on his definition that atheists' reject theistic claims near the end of his article.   --Modocc (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what has to be understood - and if you already do then I apologize for stating the "obvious" - is that "reject" by these sources is in no way meant to disown or serve as a separate case from "the atheist does think that he is justified in saying that God does not exist or, stronger still, that God cannot exist".
 * By my reading ( but I don't intend to settle this part of the argument at this point ) it forms the 'strongest argument' that "God cannot exist" for Nielsen. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#975">u</b><b style="color:#874">n</b><b style="color:#774">☯</b><b style="color:#674">m</b><b style="color:#574">i</b></i> 04:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Throughout the EB article, Neilsen presents "definitions" of atheism, then knocks down their inadequacies. After presenting his "comprehensive definition of atheism", he turns to completion of his earlier-assigned task to make some distinction between atheism and agnosticism. He begins this paragraph with a "parallel development" for agnosticism and begins with the (non-distinguishing) absence of knowledge, then turns to existence itself to draw some contrast. This is where he says: "An agnostic, like an atheist, asserts either that he does not know that God exists—or, more typically, that he cannot know or have sound reasons for believing that God exists—but unlike the atheist he does not think that he is justified in saying that God does not exist or, stronger still, that God cannot exist." Whatever one thinks of his distinction, he does not unequivocally introduce a statement here (after having already presented his comprehensive definition of atheism) that ALL atheists think they are justified in saying that God does not exist. He does however distinguish agnosticism from at least some atheists - which is consistent and parallel to the development he did with atheism throughout the article. He continues "developing" a way of distinguishing atheism and agnosticism, by turning from questions of existence to questions of meaningfulness.

For Neilsen, "the more crucial form of atheist rejection is not the assertion that it is false that there is a God but instead the rejection of belief in God because the concept of God is said not to make sense—to be in some important way incoherent or unintelligible". (Neilsen's own position does seem to come through here.) For such atheists "God exists" does not express a meaningful proposition - thus it is neither true nor false - and neither does "God does not exist" have a truth value. A philosophically sophisticated atheistic position does not make existential claims about God at all, rather says that no adequate referent has been obtained for the word "God" (as with "Irglig") -- and Neilsen develops his distinction by considering this (fourth) issue.

Most of the paragraph in question is about distinctions based on meaningfulness and referent rather than questions about existence. Only three words ["unlike the atheist"] are about any atheist position on existence (existence appeared in his comprehensive definition of atheism only with respect to an anthropomorphic God. [For the non-anthropomorphic God, he repeatedly says its proponents have not succeeded in making a coherent factual claim]). The next 2 paragraphs discuss meaningfulness some more, and the penultimate paragraph expands on the distinction with regard to whether an adequate referent has been obtained. In sheer bulk of words, any distinction in terms of existence is the least of his concerns (3 words), and it seems clear that he does not even consider the "existence issue" to be an adequate characterization of the distinction between atheism and agnosticism. While it is clear his remark "he does not think that he is justified in saying that God does not exist" can be applied to all agnostics, it is not clear he intended the opposite for ALL atheists - indeed he earlier has presented arguments that would argue against doing so for non-cognitivist atheists (and subsequently for atheists for whom the word "God" has not obtained a referent).--JimWae (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The clearest, universally distributed statement about atheists he makes in the paragraph in question is:
 * Atheists... believe that it [some nonanthropomorphic, extra-linguistic referent for "God"] has not been, and indeed some of them believe that it cannot be, secured.

This I do consider a worthwhile addition to the ref presenting how Neilsen defines atheism--JimWae (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Your outline above does not distinguish God from "God" -- and that distinction is central to the paragraph.--JimWae (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Unomi, Nielsen shows that rejecting belief is inclusive of both strong atheism and noncognitivism which your proposed addition of his tangential discussion about agnosticism only partly addresses. JimWae, your suggestion would partly fill in the gap. However, instead of these additions, I think it would be better to substantially expand our current quote of his more adequate definition (with some judicial editing... to keep the entire quote short). Then readers should get a more complete and direct understanding of the complexity of his view. --Modocc (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Such as: for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God... because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers... because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., “God” is just another name for love, or ... a symbolic term for moral ideals.... Atheists... believe that it [some nonanthropomorphic, extra-linguistic referent for "God"] has not been... secured.--JimWae (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I swear.. what is so hard to understand about "Believers think that, though God is a mystery, such a referent has been secured, though what it is remains a mystery. Atheists, by contrast, believe that it has not been, and indeed some of them believe that it cannot be, secured." == "Believers think that there is something that is God, Atheists believe there is no such thing as God, and some believe there cannot be something that is God" - This is like trying to explain evolution to ID'ers, seriously. Look, the very first paragraph is to be taken at literal and actual face value as a concise summary of the article proper. Fucking encyclopedias, how do they work?! - these contortions are frankly painful to watch. Grow a pair. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#790">u</b><b style="color:#689">n</b><b style="color:#589">☯</b><b style="color:#489">m</b><b style="color:#389">i</b></i> 12:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize that this is getting frustrating for you, but as far as I can tell, the issue is primarily that the addition above is about agnosticism, not atheism, and is therefore a digression from the primary focus of this article. (At least, I think that's what is going on. Please correct me if I am totally off base) eldamorie (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Eldamorie, many dictionaries and encyclopedias contrast agnosticism as a matter of course, indeed that is the role of agnosticism in the EB article, they happen to have a complete article on agnosticism as well - but Nielsen seems to bring it in exactly because it is relevant to properly understanding atheism in context. There seems to be a wish leave the words "reject" and "denial" in a vacuum, where a lay reading apparently leads to the assumption that there is no knowledge claim made. A reading which is expressly denied when contrasted with agnosticism "Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not,..." and " An agnostic, like an atheist, asserts either that he does not know that God exists—or, more typically, that he cannot know or have sound reasons for believing that God exists—but unlike the atheist he does not think that he is justified in saying that God does not exist or, stronger still, that God cannot exist.", from the lead and mid of Nielsens article respectively. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#762">u</b><b style="color:#661">n</b><b style="color:#561">☯</b><b style="color:#461">m</b><b style="color:#361">i</b></i> 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but with your stated equivalence above concerning referents, you seem to end up equating A:"P does not believe x" (because no referent was secured) with B:"P believes not x" which is not true in general because although B implies A, A does not always imply B. It is incorrect then to conclude that all atheists under Nielson and Edwards' similar definitions are strong atheists, who nearly always assert "God does not exist". These authors clearly express that their definitions entail a rejection that is much more inclusive than that (noncognativism), even though you insist that the "unlike the atheist" quote, itself stripped of context, says otherwise and brings us back to a more narrow view it seems.  --Modocc (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh please, what do you think it means when you say no referent can be secured for something? Hint, where does "cannot exist" come from? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#708">u</b><b style="color:#607">n</b><b style="color:#507">☯</b><b style="color:#407">m</b><b style="color:#307">i</b></i> 18:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You stated earlier that some "believe that it [a referent] has not been... ...secured" not, in this instance, that it can't and concluded from this that "Atheists believe there is no such thing as God" which is an inductive leap. More generally, what is being discussed is that one has not secured, or cannot secure, a meaningful referent the truth value of which can be evaluated. --Modocc (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It means that "God exists" makes no meaningful claim & can be neither true nor false. It also means that "God does not exist" makes no meaningful claim & can be neither true nor false. It means that "I am justified in saying, 'God does not exist'" makes no meaningful claim & can be neither true nor false -- except for the anthropomorphic God. It means that "no adequate nonanthropomorphic extralinguistic referent for the word 'God" has been obtained" does make a meaningful claim and CAN be either true or false. Both Neilsen & Edwards cover this in some detail. The parenthetic/appositive (with unclearly distributed scope) 3-words "unlike the atheist" cannot be taken out of context to override the extensive treatment they give that is contrary to your interpretation --which does not distinguish "God" from God.--JimWae (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Close - but "God exists" is not what is being sought a referent for, God is, and reference failure isn't "can be neither true or false", that is the property that it has for not referring to anything. JimWae can "not referring to anything" exist? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#570">u</b><b style="color:#469">n</b><b style="color:#369">☯</b><b style="color:#269">m</b><b style="color:#169">i</b></i> 20:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, the referent that has not been obtained is the one for "God", not God.--JimWae (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Lots of words have no referent - the words "exist", but no referent for them has been obtained. IN casual speech we say the referent (as if there was one) does not exist - but this is different from saying "dodos do not exist". In careful speech, we say: no referent has been obtained --JimWae (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * JimWae, I was hoping here that you would be able to bring with you the context and manner in which referent is used in the source, as that is what is under discussion. Lets try this again: what do you think:
 * "an adequate nonanthropomorphic, extralinguistic referent for “God.” has not been secured" means? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#861">u</b><b style="color:#760">n</b><b style="color:#660">☯</b><b style="color:#560">m</b><b style="color:#460">i</b></i> 06:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is all getting a bit obsessive over something quite minor. I would think we can safely take "is there an adequate nonanthropomorphic, extralinguistic referent for "God"? to be more or less equivalent to "Does a God exist?"  And what Nielsen is saying, pretty obviously, is that atheists can say any of the following: 1) The concept of God is incoherent (this of course would have been more or less Nielsen's position), i.e. noncognitivism (some would deny that noncognitivism is a form of atheism!) 2. There is no evidence that warrants belief that a God exists. 3. No God exists, or probably no God exists.  Like all writers attempting to conceptualise atheism, Nielsen rather muddies the water in several places in my opinion. To say that a "referent" has "not been secured" might mean that a "referent" cannot be secured, either because it is demonstrably false/untrue, or because it is unintelligible or whatever.  Or it might mean that a "referent" has not *yet* been secured.  I could imagine people calling themselves agnostics either agreeing with the unsecured nature of the referent, or denying that whether or not the referent has been secured has been established.  But really, Nielsen is one source.  We don't get to rewrite all of Wikipedia by interpreting Nielsen one way or the other off our own bats. --Dannyno (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thus, Nielsen "An agnostic, like an atheist, asserts either that he does not know that God exists--or, more typically, that he cannot know or have sound reasons for believing that God exists--but unlike the atheist he does not think that he is justified in saying that God does not exist or, stronger still, that God cannot exist." It seems rather tendentious to insist that Nielsen here means to be taken to be saying that atheists hold either that God does not exist or that God cannot exist. You have to read the whole article, not pick out a single sentence and declare that to be the canonical abstract of the whole.  The explicit thrust of the article is that atheism is conceptualised in several different ways, not only as the position that God (probably) does not exist or that God (probably) cannot exist.  --Dannyno (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you figure it is tendentious? It is exactly what he is stating in the starting paragraph, and repeats again later - the reason for pulling in agnosticism seems to be to better explain atheism. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#821">u</b><b style="color:#720">n</b><b style="color:#620">☯</b><b style="color:#520">m</b><b style="color:#420">i</b></i> 18:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Crucial to understanding this article is this sentence from the 2nd paragraph.:
 * "This article will start with what have been some widely accepted, but still in various ways mistaken or misleading, definitions of atheism and move to more adequate formulations that better capture the full range of atheist thought and more clearly separate unbelief from belief and atheism from agnosticism."
 * That crucial sentence thus also applies to other things he has said in the very 1st paragraph, such as:
 * "Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable."
 * that crucial sentence also specifically says " and more clearly separate... atheism from agnosticism" It is also worth noting that while saying they are distinguished, he does not really yet say HOW they are distinguished - he just gives a general description of agnosticism.--JimWae (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry JimWae, but it is difficult to express just how extraordinary a claim that is without seeming insulting. The response from EB clarifies the structure, it is unfortunate that it needed be. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#877">u</b><b style="color:#776">n</b><b style="color:#676">☯</b><b style="color:#576">m</b><b style="color:#476">i</b></i> 21:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am quoting parameters given in the article itself. Nobody has agreed that the response you got from someone at EB resolves anything in your favour--JimWae (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The structure of EB articles are not different from ours, or from most encyclopedias, the opening paragraphs are to be understood as summaries and explanation of content. Any wish to interpret the opening paragraph as something else than a summary is an extraordinary claim - EB is not alone in contrasting atheism with agnosticism along the very same lines. What you are experiencing is simply apophenia, accept it and move on. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#814">u</b><b style="color:#713">n</b><b style="color:#613">☯</b><b style="color:#513">m</b><b style="color:#413">i</b></i> 22:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently you are also prepared to defend your position that the direct paraphrasing the EB's definition with "rejection of belief" (which is also supported by Edwards, as well as by Smith and backed up by numerous dictionaries because of the use of "disbelief") must also leave the question of existence closed? Why? If someone tells you they are not a theist and so they do not have any belief in a god, are they wrong to identify with atheism even if they are also an agnostic? As you have recognized, these words have had a parallel development.  --Modocc (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, it is very rare that all sources will agree or use the same wording on a subject, no matter what the subject is. Second of all, you have to understand what "rejection" actually means, if you reject an offer - does that mean you are leaving the question of accepting the offer open ( leaving out here negotiation tactics )? You may later change your mind and accept it, but that holds true of any position. Same with disbelief, which merriam-webster defines as "mental rejection of something as untrue". There are an array of positions which might result in not having any belief in a god - not all of them are concomitant with being an atheist. As Nielsen spells out, while agnosticism and atheism have had parallel developments, they are distinguished from each other by atheists not leaving the question open, while agnostics do. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#860">u</b><b style="color:#759">n</b><b style="color:#659">☯</b><b style="color:#559">m</b><b style="color:#459">i</b></i> 00:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that sources rarely are in accord with each other and it does not take much checking to find other definitions of disbelief that are broader in scope, for instance the Concise Oxford Dict. gives the 1)inability or refusal to accept something is true or real. 2)lack of faith. And of course there is a significant difference between asserting and rejecting something as false vs. not accepting something as true. Its the difference between a rejecting with a failing grade because what is wrtten is entirely incorrect verses rejecting one with merely an incomplete grade (its missing key elements to get a pass), neither of which gains acceptance and with both resulting in a rejection (but neither prevent the student from coming back and getting passing grades). There are other dictionaries to consider too and I would have to perhaps dig into the archives above to find them. --Modocc (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would hope that you do look closer at the available sources, fact remains that EB includes in its summary of atheism: "Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.". <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#879">u</b><b style="color:#778">n</b><b style="color:#678">☯</b><b style="color:#578">m</b><b style="color:#478">i</b></i> 01:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently it wouldn't matter much if I did give further evidence of the rejection definition as encompassing merely "not believing" because, like you say, the fact, or a couple of disputed facts actually, remains. That atheism and agnosticism are distinguished from each other does not require that their entire scopes and broadest senses be mutually exclusive. It late here now and have other things I need to address. But I'll return sometime later if its necessary.--Modocc (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it matters, not least to me personally. What I meant was this particular section I thought to be about the particular EB source. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#692">u</b><b style="color:#591">n</b><b style="color:#491">☯</b><b style="color:#391">m</b><b style="color:#291">i</b></i> 05:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's none of my business, but I've been watching this conversation and I've got to agree. The nature of the disagreement would probably be beyond most of the people reading this article... even alot of people who do understand it might think that it's overly technical. Carinae986 (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's very much your business, as with any other editor. { As for whether it's worth so much discussion, however,...... --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nielsen is clear in the EB and elsewhere (his book "Philosophy and atheism" for a start) that he thinks atheism is a rejection, whereas agnosticism is a suspension. However, he is also clear that atheism is (or can be) fallibilist.  So although Nielsen's atheist has made a decision to reject theism, they - to quote Nielsen - "should be a fallibilist and remain open-minded." (Philosophy and atheism, p.15). This is important because there is a tendency to construct agnosticism as fallibilist and atheism as dogmatic.  But Nielsen's view has not commanded universal acceptance. --Dannyno (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Etymology section - relevance of Sam Harris quote
What is the relevance of the Sam Harris quote in the etymology section? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#898">u</b><b style="color:#797">n</b><b style="color:#697">☯</b><b style="color:#597">m</b><b style="color:#497">i</b></i> 17:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Etymology studies the origins, history, evolution and meaning of words. Atheism used to mean something completely different to what it means today, so it is clear its meaning evolves over time. The Harris quote offers interesting commentary on that evolution, demonstrating how unusual the word is. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nod, etymology is about the origin of a word and the historical development of its meaning - Harris doesn't really seem to have much relevance here except for that he seems to self-identify as an atheist and seems to take exception with the word. Harris seems to have very little in the way of background to be granted the presumption of an informed opinion either way, he is a neuroscientist with a BA in Philosophy who seems to not know or appreciate that theism is a back-formation from atheism. Seriously. I think it is fine that he holds that view, but I think that the placement in that section is in error. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#921">u</b><b style="color:#820">n</b><b style="color:#720">☯</b><b style="color:#620">m</b><b style="color:#520">i</b></i> 18:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sam Harris seems to have staked out a quite radical position on the nature of atheism. In the interests of POV, perhaps this should be balanced out with some equally radical commentary from the other side? :) Carinae986 (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The other side of what? And what do you mean by radical? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * radical. extremist. hardcore. well outside the mainstream. He's taking a radical position in the god-no god debate (if you believe in God, you're a crank.) So if he's going to be included, it seems fair to me to include some radical stuff from the other side of the debate. I'm sure I can dig up some good examples without too much effort :) Carinae986 (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with your claim that Sam Harris is radical, extremist or any of those other designations. Sam Harris assumes an activist role, but it most certainly isn't outside the mainstream. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * lol. ok whatever. If unomi takes out the quote, I'll support that. Since I'm probably in the minority on this page (people who believe in God) I don't want to initiate any changes myself. Carinae986 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the quote should remain because it is absolutely relevant to the evolution of the term. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Setting aside what anyone thinks about Harris, I find the quote useful here (and rather innocuous), in that it simply documents one point of view within atheism, about what atheism does or does not mean. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * well, Harris clearly thinks that anyone who isn't an atheist is loony tunes. Seems like a fringe position to me..... like I said though, I'm not going to edit it out. Not my place. If anything like a consensus comes together for taking him out, though, I'd support it. Carinae986 (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We generally try to use high-quality sources to write our articles, including the quote from Harris here does not seem supported by sources, rather it introduces some wishful thinking and as presented, seems to take part in the dispute - Harris quote would be more appropriate in sections that deal with New Atheism, or perhaps new-age-atheism. When sources that deal with etymology recognize Harris' position as being of value then we can reconsider. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#574">u</b><b style="color:#473">n</b><b style="color:#373">☯</b><b style="color:#273">m</b><b style="color:#173">i</b></i> 21:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I find that analysis puzzling. Harris is a notable figure within atheism, so it's supported by the source of him saying it. But are you just saying that the quote should be moved to a different section of this page? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You really shouldn't find it puzzling it all, that you do seems to be from a failure of holding this article to the same standard that we hope to hold other articles on wikipedia to - the etymology section isn't for presenting desires of how words should be understood, it is for presenting the consensus - as indicated by quality sources as how they are understood. It should be self-evident from our rich selection of dictionary and encyclopedia sources that atheism is indeed a word - and there seems little evidence of a broader appetite for striking it from dictionaries. The quote would be more at home in our 'since 1900' section. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#504">u</b><b style="color:#403">n</b><b style="color:#303">☯</b><b style="color:#203">m</b><b style="color:#103">i</b></i> 21:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Any failures of mine notwithstanding, I'd be OK with moving the quote there, after the paragraph that mentions Harris and the other New Atheists. It would have the beneficial effect of removing recentism from the Etymology section. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. Carinae986 (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And at the risk of saying something that really ought to go without saying, Scjessey was absolutely correct to revert Unomi's deletion of the quote. There was no consensus for simply deleting it from the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's possible to establish a consensus, if Scjessey really thinks that Harris is representing a mainstream view. To my way of thinking, when you opine that the vast majority of your fellow humans are basically out of their mind, because they believe in God where you don't, you're deliberately taking up a fringe position. You might be right, and you might be wrong, but you're definitely not mainstream. That makes including his opinion unacceptable under the NPOV guidelines. But even if he's not a fringe view, I don't think anyone here would argue that the "four horsemen" of the New Atheism have succeeded in defining the term atheist for the rest of us. That makes his inclusion inappopropriate in a discussion of the etymology of the word. Carinae986 (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Offering opinions about Harris and belief in God is not the correct approach: it is better to stick to a strict discussion of the issue (whether the Harris text belongs in the etymology section). Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since we all (except scjessy?) seem to agree that his comments are out of place in a discussion of etymology, I'd support removing his comments to another part of the article. Maybe under a discussion of the "four horsemen." Although I'd of course support taking him out entirely, there doesn't seem to be a consensus for that so I'm not really trying to make a big deal out of it. Carinae986 (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The text from Harris should be removed from the etymology section as it is clearly nothing to do with an understanding of the background of the word. While Harris may well be correct, the fact is that the word does exist, and has been used with various meanings (many poorly defined). The text seems suitable for use in an article somewhere, but I cannot identify where. As Harris is well represented in this article, just removing the Harris text seems best. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Carinae986, the issue is not whether Harris' view represents the mainstream of religious as well as atheist thought, but whether he is a notable authority on a view that is within the topic of this page – and he is. And I see no need to remove it from the page. One option is to move it to the "since 1900" section as discussed above. Another is to leave it where it is. In my opinion, Bishonen's revision of the sentence introducing the quote actually makes it more appropriate to where it is now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * well I'm not actually pushing to have him removed. It does seem to me though that his comments are out of place in the etymology section. Etymology is about how the meaning of words changes over time, not about whether words express meaningful concepts. It's like if we were discussing the etymology of the word "aliens" and someone said "but aliens don't exist." Maybe so, but that's not the conversation. That's basically my point about Harris' comment. He clearly thinks that atheism is a silly word, and we should instead just talk about whose sane (atheist) and who isn't (everyone else.) Even people who agree with him should be able to see how that's an argument about religion, not about the etymology of the word atheist. Carinae986 (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see now that I worded my comment above poorly, sorry. I was addressing the first sentence to Carinae, but the second sentence (about having it removed) to Johnuniq's comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly changed the header title, as an alternative solution to this issue. It occurs to me that the Harris quote is not the only part of the text that deals with issues other than the origins of the word. In fact, there is considerable discussion of how the word has historically been used as an insult. In that context, Harris' turning of the tables, as it were, seems to fit better. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * works for me. Carinae986 (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good. Someone else simplified my version to just "usage", which is equally fine with me, too. I hesitated between "usage" and "application of the term" when I made my edit. There's certainly some value in brevity. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Asking for a second look
Recently, Jules.It removed a rather large amount of material, especially in the positive atheism section, and was partially reverted by Mann Jess. Here's a composite diff:. These edits still leave a lot of changes in place. I'm not saying that I disagree with these changes; rather, I'm just not sure. What do other editors think about it? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the stuff removed was very weasely, but I'm not sure why that last section was removed. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Sam Harris blockquote ...No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist.", etc, seems pertinent. Could this be reinstated? --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the bit I was referring to. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, thought you meant some of the "positive atheism" stuff. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the positive atheism stuff is probably okay to be restored as well, but I'm a little uncomfortable with the sourcing in that section. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, all done? I'll reinstate the passage we are agreed on. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I completely forgot about this – thanks for jogging my memory! How about the section about "Other usage of the term 'positive atheism'"? I'm not sure what the questions about sourcing were. Are we really sure it should have been deleted? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Would there be any objection to bringing it back? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I looked at it more closely, and I think it should stay deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

New Atheism and other satellite articles
We have a number of articles which go into more depth on specific eras and movements - I would suggest that we try to pare down on duplication, increase the visibility of subarticles and spend more time on presenting concise introductions. New Atheism probably deserves its own introductory section, while others could probably stand to be pared down in deference to the articles that deal exclusively with the material. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#829">u</b><b style="color:#728">n</b><b style="color:#628">☯</b><b style="color:#528">m</b><b style="color:#428">i</b></i> 12:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary Unbelief

 * Note: This source also lists a wealth of sociological and other scholarly work. http://reason.sdsu.edu/table_of_contents.html offers reams of general reading, but tends to prefer "unbelief" as an umbrella term. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#724">u</b><b style="color:#623">n</b><b style="color:#523">☯</b><b style="color:#423">m</b><b style="color:#323">i</b></i> 05:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

juxtaposition with agnosticism as the consensus position
On the heels of the discussion of the EB article and how it explicitly contrasts and compares agnosticism and atheism, I think that our article should be capture that better. Also, this seems to capture prevalent usage: example. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#843">u</b><b style="color:#742">n</b><b style="color:#642">☯</b><b style="color:#542">m</b><b style="color:#442">i</b></i> 22:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The distinctions between agnosticism and atheism is a perennial topic discussed here and as JimWae has said on several occasions, there should be more on agnosticism. Of course, this article must meet wp:NPOV and present the different ways agnosticism and atheism are similar and contrasted. For instance, agnostics that are not theists might be more sympathetic or open to believing in a divinity when they are weak agnostics that believe knowledge of a god can be obtained, but many strong agnostics (atheist or theist) do not believe knowledge can ever be obtained. Dictionary definitions on atheism and some encyclopedias include the term disbelief, which can mean "rejection of belief". Under this rejection definition only, strong agnostics which are not theists may refuse (or reject) belief (in addition to their claim that a god's existence is unknowable) and are thus negative atheists (even though they refuse belief, they are obviously not atheists with the more narrow definition since they assert the question of existence is unknowable). Most of the complexity involving such knowledge and belief claims are covered in agnosticism and related articles, but we do have some discussion of agnosticism in the second paragraph of Positive vs. negative section of Definitions and distinctions. I think it would be appropriate to move this second paragraph, for both navigation purposes and clarity, under a subheading, like Agnosticism, or Contrasted with agnosticism or something similar, and we can put our efforts into improving on what is there (e.g. I note a wp:weasel "most agnostics" assertion in it) as we give this subject more space. --Modocc (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources? I think we should start with simply echoing EB's text stating that atheism is often contrasted with agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#997">u</b><b style="color:#896">n</b><b style="color:#796">☯</b><b style="color:#696">m</b><b style="color:#596">i</b></i> 17:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Disbelief also means doubt. If you want sources on the different meanings of some of these words try and for additional views than mine alone, the references already given in article space such as agnostic atheism. wp:NPOV would require that any summation that is added also takes in to consideration sources other than NB's treatment.  --Modocc (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As reading WP:NPOV will make clear, npov is about representing the POV of the weight of quality sources - NPOV doesn't mean that we represent fringe views on equal footing as the consensus position. Feel free to list sources that you believe to be relevant. As for agnostic atheism, it has only 3 sources, and all seem to be primary. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#666">u</b><b style="color:#565">n</b><b style="color:#465">☯</b><b style="color:#365">m</b><b style="color:#265">i</b></i> 18:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For a recent discussion on including agnosticism, see the archives here, which breaks off but continues further down here. [and I have no comment at this time on your initial additions to the list of sources below] --Modocc (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names
A Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names link. atheism Belief that god does not exist. Unlike the agnostic, who merely criticizes traditional arguments for the existence of a deity, the atheist must offer evidence (such as the problem of evil) that there is no god or propose a strong principle for denying what is not known to be true. agnosticism Belief that human beings do not have sufficient evidence to warrant either the affirmation or the denial of a proposition. The term is used especially in reference to our lack of knowledge of the existence of god. In this, the agnostic, who holds that we cannot know whether or not god exists, differs from the atheist, who denies that god exists.

The Ism Book
The Ism Book link. atheism

[A privative term derived from Greek theos: god.]

(metaphysics) Atheism is an active disbelief in the existence of gods, deities, and supernatural powers; in this respect it is similar to secularism and opposed to any variety of theism. Atheism is to be contrasted with agnosticism, which takes a skeptical attitude toward the existence of gods but does not proclaim disbelief. Popularly, atheism is often taken to imply a lack of any ideals or values whatsoever (nearly equivalent to immoralism), but this connotation rests on an assumption that religion is the only foundation for values (thus ignoring the possibility of naturalism). agnosticism

[From Greek agnostos: unknowing, unknown, unknowable.]

(epistemology) The idea that one cannot know whether or not gods exist. Agnosticism adopts a "wait-and-see" attitude toward the existence of gods (similar in this regard to skepticism) and therefore is different from atheism, which positively asserts that gods do not exist.

The Cambridge companion to atheism edited By Michael Martin
The Cambridge companion to atheism edited By Michael Martin pg 30 Thomas Huxley, for instance, was unhappy with "atheism" because it was too dogmatic; it made a definitive metaphysical claim about the nonexistance of God, for which Huxley believed there was insufficient evidence.

The Cambridge companion to atheism edited By Michael Martin pg 48 According to Bibby (2002), when asked, "Do you believe that God exists?" 6 percent of Canadians answered, "No, I definitely do not," and another 13 percent answered, "No, I don't think so," for a total of 19 percent classifiable as either atheist or agnostic."

BEYOND BELIEF: ATHEISM, AGNOSTICISM, AND THEISTIC CERTAINTY IN THE UNITED STATES 2008
BEYOND BELIEF: ATHEISM, AGNOSTICISM, AND THEISTIC CERTAINTY IN THE UNITED STATES link.

Page 440

Page 443


 * Comment: The figures (such as Figure 1 on page 445) which relay the responses are labelled "True Believer", "Doubt Sometimes", "Sometimes believe", "Higher Power", "Agnostic" and finally "Atheist". <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#877">u</b><b style="color:#776">n</b><b style="color:#676">☯</b><b style="color:#576">m</b><b style="color:#476">i</b></i> 04:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Page 445

Page 455


 * Discussion
 * To me the sociological article published in a refereed journal seems to give strong indication that scholarly studies clearly delineate atheism and agnosticism, and also use the same delineation as is found in the weight of other sources, namely that atheism is captured by a certainty regarding existence. As an aside, note that there is no mention of the neologistic "agnostic atheist" or "agnostic theist". <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#939">u</b><b style="color:#838">n</b><b style="color:#738">☯</b><b style="color:#638">m</b><b style="color:#538">i</b></i> 03:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation is not found in the article. The article says that atheists get more certain about their position as they get older (as do theists). It doesn't say that atheism is to be defined in terms of certainty.  Or, conversely, that theism should be. --Dannyno (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See the last quote where it is spelled out: "Hence, I found that belief certainty grows over time—certainty of belief in god, or certainty that gods do not exist." <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#846">u</b><b style="color:#745">n</b><b style="color:#645">☯</b><b style="color:#545">m</b><b style="color:#445">i</b></i> 22:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * All that is spelled out there is, as I have pointed out, that a researcher found that in individuals certainty grows over time. This tells us nothing about how atheism is to be defined. --Dannyno (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the text of the quote I find that a rather magical reading. It is clear that Darren Sherkat is using atheism as "certainty that gods do not exist", and doing so within a peer-reviewed sociology journal. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#878">u</b><b style="color:#777">n</b><b style="color:#677">☯</b><b style="color:#577">m</b><b style="color:#477">i</b></i> 23:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think your interpretation is supported by the article. Atheism can and has been defined specifically as dogmatic nonbelief, but there is no consensus that it should be so defined, certainly not in Sherkat's article.  Especially since atheism is actually conceptualised in Sherkat's GSS questionnaire as "I don't believe in god" (p.443). In other words, the strength of that rejection is not imposed by the definition of the word. Your claims about Sherkat's article are not found in Sherkat's article. --Dannyno (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Sherkat seems to be using "I don't believe in god" == "certainty that gods do not exist" == atheism, same as Eller in Atheism and Secularity: Volume 1: Issues, Concepts, and Definitions and, again, doing so within a peer-reviewed journal article. One RS does not necessarily capture the consensus position, but this one certainly seems to help cement that there is one. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#588">u</b><b style="color:#487">n</b><b style="color:#387">☯</b><b style="color:#287">m</b><b style="color:#187">i</b></i> 12:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sherkat doesn't seem to be doing anything of the kind, so far as I can see. You are imposing your own interpretation. --Dannyno (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Atheism and Secularity: Issues, concepts, and definitions 2010
Page 7

Page 26


 * These quotes come from Jack David Eller's chapter "What is Atheism?" in Zuckerman's volume. They are ripped out of context, unfortunately. He also says:

In other words, Eller is actually a proponent of the "atheism = lack" definitional tradition. He even says that children are atheists, distinguishing between anthropological and argumentative atheism (p.5)! Nor does he accept a sharp distinction between agnosticism and atheism. --Dannyno (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The atheism of the innocents ( such as children ) is not particularly controversial. You are presenting a false dichotomy. I am assuming that you have now read the chapter?
 * You state that I ripped it out of context, but the context seems to offer little support to the notion that atheist is not captured by the position "that there is no such thing as god(s)". What he actually seems to say is that negative and positive atheists hold the same position ( "that there is no such thing as god(s)" ) but employ different tactics in defending it. page 7


 * Where he talks about agnosticism he seems a bit 'rushed' in embracing the language of 19th century christian apologetics, page 9:


 * In order to understand the authors position in both these cases - why he would at once say that atheism is a lack of belief, yet explicitly say that it is the position "that there is no such thing as god(s)" you have to read the section that comes before where he looks at negative / weak vs positive/strong atheism, you referenced that section earlier - so it is somewhat perplexing that you need me to spell it out. page 5-6:


 * The author, like Kai Nielsen, is an avowed atheist and he affirms "that there is no such thing as god(s)" and embraces that as being exactly what captures atheism. The position of Eller is that "lack of belief" = "there is no such thing as god(s)" = atheism. Not as possible branches or a trajectory but as them being different ways of saying the exact same thing. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#743">u</b><b style="color:#642">n</b><b style="color:#542">☯</b><b style="color:#442">m</b><b style="color:#342">i</b></i> 11:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly, Eller is presenting yet another conceptualisation of atheism, another attempt to define atheism. Add it to the pile. My point being, Eller is *obviously* not presenting a consensus position, but arguing for his own. Furthermore, although he holds that "lack" is equivalent to "rejection", there are sources - which he acknowledges - that dispute that equation on logical grounds. Finally, even to say "there is no such thing as god" doesn't tell you anything about certitude. You are rather oddly trying to put forward what are different conceptualisations of atheism (Nielsen, Eller) as though they are a united consensus.  Well, they simply are not, and I submit that a fair minded reader would conclude that they are not.  Eller, indeed, explicitly opposes his particular construction against other constructions.  This is so clear and obvious from the text that it is difficult to understand why anyone would find it problematic. --Dannyno (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are points of departure between their conceptualizations, sure, but they are in agreement on the point that I have been trying to make clearer; Eller: "that there is no such thing as god(s)", Nielsen: "justified in saying that God does not exist or, stronger still, that God cannot exist.". The devil may be in the details, but the big picture here is that god(s) do not exist. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#922">u</b><b style="color:#821">n</b><b style="color:#721">☯</b><b style="color:#621">m</b><b style="color:#521">i</b></i> 00:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica Concise

 * Discussion
 * Which puts Encyclopædia Britannica Concise at odds with the Encyclopædia Britannica that you were quoting on December 4, which goes on to say:


 * But perhaps you already knew that, hence your switch to Concise. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They are not at odds, and EB states the exact same delineation between agnosticism and atheism, the problem is that you are misreading "rejects" - and failing to account for noncognitivism which is the basis for preferring rejects over "false" - but they ( as Nielsen makes clear in contrasting agnosticism and atheism ) reduce to the same thing by different routes. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#679">u</b><b style="color:#578">n</b><b style="color:#478">☯</b><b style="color:#378">m</b><b style="color:#278">i</b></i> 22:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If atheism is a rejection, and agnosticism is a suspension (and certainly this is not an uncommon way of constructing them), it is worth recognising a) that this tells you nothing about the dogmatism of the respective atheists and agnostics, and b) that many atheists, including those who were atheists before the term agnostic was coined, were clear that they were not making an existential claim that involved certainty. In the early to mid-19th century, many atheists were proto-noncognitivists in their stated positions. I can't see that this article is the place to resolve issues which remain unresolved in the literature. Instead, it is the place to reflect the various ways in which atheism has been conceptualised in the literature. --Dannyno (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would urge you to point to specific sources that support your position, at this point I have no way of knowing to what degree you are presenting the sources as intended, or the quality of the sources to begin with. Currently there are listed a wealth of sources which seem to support that atheism is indeed dogmatic - no matter if some people may have called themselves atheists without understanding what the word actually meant. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#995">u</b><b style="color:#894">n</b><b style="color:#794">☯</b><b style="color:#694">m</b><b style="color:#594">i</b></i> 23:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Or, indeed, "no matter" if some people may have called other people atheists without understanding what the word actually meant. For most of its history, the word "atheist" was applied to people who were theists. Again, you seem to have already decided for yourself what you think atheism is.  But the literature reflects a variety of views on the conceptualisation of atheism. This article cannot resolve that variety, only reflect it. --Dannyno (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "This article cannot resolve that variety, only reflect it." Yes, ofcourse - but it should reflect it in a manner that emphasizes the consensus position, same as with our other articles, we should not give WP:UNDUE weight to fringe positions, and we should not present them as if they held more currency than the sources available to us indicate.
 * "you seem to have already decided for yourself what you think atheism is" - I would say that my understanding of atheism seems wholly supported by the majority of sources presented, I would have to ask why it is that your understanding is different. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#750">u</b><b style="color:#649">n</b><b style="color:#549">☯</b><b style="color:#449">m</b><b style="color:#349">i</b></i> 11:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I've read the sources. They don't say what you claim they say. --Dannyno (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that EBC does not state: "atheism is a positive denial"? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#570">u</b><b style="color:#469">n</b><b style="color:#369">☯</b><b style="color:#269">m</b><b style="color:#169">i</b></i> 23:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * EB says what it says. I'm saying that you are interpreting "positive denial" to a) mean something it need not mean, and b) a a consensus posiiton which it is not actually claimed to be in the text.  Nielsen is *arguing* for a particular conceptualisation of atheism, not merely reporting an existing consensus. --Dannyno (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think would be adequate / reasonable interpretations of "positive denial"? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#940">u</b><b style="color:#839">n</b><b style="color:#739">☯</b><b style="color:#639">m</b><b style="color:#539">i</b></i> 00:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Denial" is a very difficult word with not necessarily helpful legal and theological overtones, but I think "positive denial" is equivalent to "rejection", more or less. --Dannyno (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A little clarity
The quotes from the Cambridge companion to atheism are not by Martin and the first one is taken out of context...

...furthermore...

Context is important. The weight of the sources and the consensus of the very patient editors on this page does not support "that atheism is captured by a certainty regarding existence." —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input, I have corrected the section above to clarify that the volume had Martin as editor - not as sole contributor. However, I don't see how you can reasonably argue that the weight of sources do not support "that atheism is captured by a certainty regarding existance." - that certainly seems to be the contemporary scholarly usage as demonstrated by the article in Sociological Spectrum. I agree that some authors do opine otherwise - but every field has its fringe. I hope that you will continue to provide more sources that support your position, currently I see only Stein listed here, the context you sought to provide regarding agnosticism and Huxley merely seeks to show why the position might have had an advantage "in polite circles". It doesn't detract from the delineation that I drilled down to. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#710">u</b><b style="color:#609">n</b><b style="color:#509">☯</b><b style="color:#409">m</b><b style="color:#309">i</b></i> 05:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Further on Gordon Stein and An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism see Martins review here where he notes ( emphasis mine )

Martin reuses many of those examples in his later work, but is careful to explicitly state that they are not in common currency - and that the redefinition is coveted mainly by people self-identifying as atheists. This is of course later eviscerated by Drange - to which there seems to have been little answer, but loads of IDHT. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#807">u</b><b style="color:#706">n</b><b style="color:#606">☯</b><b style="color:#506">m</b><b style="color:#406">i</b></i> 05:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I must have missed the "evisceration" by Drange. Could I have a link please? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but lets not distract ourselves, for the moment - do you agree that you haven't offered a counter to the claim that the contemporary consensus position on atheism is "that atheism is captured by a certainty regarding existence." ? Could you also please clarify what the "missing context" for Huxleys agnosticism added to the matter at hand? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#659">u</b><b style="color:#558">n</b><b style="color:#458">☯</b><b style="color:#358">m</b><b style="color:#258">i</b></i> 06:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) No, I don't agree.
 * 2) Maybe I'm confused about the "matter at hand".
 * That being said, it would be much simpler if you would propose (or just be bold and make) the changes you have in mind. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Which source do you believe adequately counters the claim that the modern consensus is "that atheism is captured by a certainty regarding existence."?
 * 2) The matter at hand is whether the consensus position is "that atheism is captured by a certainty regarding existence."
 * I would prefer that we start with reviewing sourcing - as changes to the article should flow from them. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#679">u</b><b style="color:#578">n</b><b style="color:#478">☯</b><b style="color:#378">m</b><b style="color:#278">i</b></i> 08:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus, contemporary or otherwise, that atheism requires certainty. None whatsoever. Certainly Unomi has not posted any, including the Sociology journal article, which merely talks about what happens to people's attitudes as they get older, and not how best to define those attitudes. --Dannyno (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The sociological article is quite clear in establishing a usage that is the same as the other sources I have posted above, namely "that atheism is captured by a certainty regarding existence.", feel free to offer sources that you feel support your claim that there is not a consensus established about this by quality sources.<i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#601">u</b><b style="color:#500">n</b><b style="color:#400">☯</b><b style="color:#300">m</b><b style="color:#200">i</b></i> 15:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There are lots of counterexamples, and the text of the current article cites some of them. This has been repeatedly discussed over the years, we surely don't need a year zero approach. There is indeed a usage that interprets atheism as an index of certainty or dogmatism, an interpretation that is challenged by the work of many atheists who do not claim certainty. The sociological article cited is about changes in belief/unbelief-certainty over time in individuals, it is not about how atheism as a concept in the philosophy of religion is to be constructed. --Dannyno (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I could provide counterexamples, like the Encyclopedia of Philosophy:


 * Some other counterexamples are cited in Wiktionary:Citations:atheist and Wiktionary:Citations:atheism, which chronicle each sense of those words being used for centuries.


 * What phenomenon is this article about, anyway: academic conceptions of atheism, or atheism as actually practiced? If the latter, certainty has never been a significant part of it. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia strives to be a high quality encyclopedia - for articles such as this we would generally rely on sources such as those mentioned at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I should also note that "rejects" is increasingly, it seems, becoming a term of art where the usage in scholarly works on philosophy is not the same as the lay reading allows - certainly if the lay reading entertains the notion that it is not expressing a certainty about a proposition. Would it be possible for you to present the complete article on atheism from Encyclopedia of Philosophy?
 * If there are other specific citations that you think would be appropriate for consideration here, could you please list them?
 * That said, I think that we should probably include mention of the tendency to desire a redefinition of atheism that seems to make it overlap that of agnosticism. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#825">u</b><b style="color:#724">n</b><b style="color:#624">☯</b><b style="color:#524">m</b><b style="color:#424">i</b></i> 21:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Atheists were defining atheism in non-certain terms before the word agnosticism was coined. --Dannyno (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how Atheists were defining atheism - let me make that absolutely clear. What matters is what the consensus position on the what the word means, if that consensus definition and that which you argue is preferred by atheists is one and the same then there is no issue. Unfortunately, you seem to argue that this is not the case. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#972">u</b><b style="color:#871">n</b><b style="color:#771">☯</b><b style="color:#671">m</b><b style="color:#571">i</b></i> 23:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If "the" "consensus definition" does not include the actual position of those who it purports to describe, then it's a worthless false consensus. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't purport to describe people who call themselves atheists, it describes people who are atheists. Your argument is like saying that if a group of ~100 IQ people go around calling themselves geniuses that we should rush to embrace a definition of genius == 100 IQ. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#880">u</b><b style="color:#779">n</b><b style="color:#679">☯</b><b style="color:#579">m</b><b style="color:#479">i</b></i> 12:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously, Unomi, it does matter how atheists have defined atheism. This article is about atheism, and how atheists have defined it is clearly relevant and interesting, and I find it extraordinary that you seem to think otherwise. The literature and scholarship of atheism, after all, includes the thoughts of atheists. Our reviews of the literature over the years have demonstrated time and time again that atheism has no single simple definition. Your own posts of the usual texts (and how familiar they all are to some of us old hands by now) demonstrate this once again.  There is no consensus in the literature (sociological or philosophical).  --Dannyno (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relevant and interesting, yes - impacting how we present the consensus definition of atheism, no. Consensus doesn't mean that everyone has to agree, it simply means that the majority of quality sources do.
 * Let me clear up what I meant above, I certainly don't mean that we should exclude RS material just because it was written by atheists, not at all - what I meant to address was the notion that just because someone calls themselves atheist that they somehow have the ability to redefine what it means. I agree that there is diversity of opinion demonstrated in RS, but we should absolutely give primacy to the consensus position, and such a position does indeed exist as is made clear by EB and the majority of dictionaries and encyclopaedias. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#880">u</b><b style="color:#779">n</b><b style="color:#679">☯</b><b style="color:#579">m</b><b style="color:#479">i</b></i> 12:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Redefine" is question begging. You have also failed to establish that the EB article represents a "consensus" view as opposed to the particular conceptualisation of one particular writer.  "Majority" of dictionaries and encyclopedias is also not in fact demonstrated by the sources provided. If you want to say that a particular view is the "consensus", then you need sources that demonstrate that it is the consensus.   I haven't seen any. --Dannyno (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't prove a the majority of an unbounded set, but I can state that for the set currently available to us the case seems made that the majority of them do support the usage in EBC: "atheism is a positive denial". If you wish to argue that EB does not reflect the consensus position then I would have to say that you are making an extraordinary claim that you need to make a case for. How many sources have you presented for discussion? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#797">u</b><b style="color:#696">n</b><b style="color:#596">☯</b><b style="color:#496">m</b><b style="color:#396">i</b></i> 23:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You can't maintain that atheism is consensually "a positive denial" when Eller, for one, says it isn't a positive denial. Nor have you shown that "positive denial" bears the weight placed upon it. EB does not claim to represent a consensus position. It is explicitly Nielsen arguing for a particular position which he regards as a more adequate one. And furthermore, that this is so is self-evident from reading the text. --Dannyno (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Read Eller again, he is in fact saying that it is positive denial and that negative denial in fact reduces to positive denial. EB doesn't have to claim to be the consensus position, we present the material according to the weight in RS, such as EB. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#848">u</b><b style="color:#747">n</b><b style="color:#647">☯</b><b style="color:#547">m</b><b style="color:#447">i</b></i> 01:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's obvious to me that this is essentially an (a)theological debate about a subject which, like the existence of God, is incapable of objective proof. I don't see how this can possibly end in anything constructive. Carinae986 (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong definition of atheism.
In the opening sentence its says that atheism is the rejection of the belief in a god, when in fact, all atheism is the LACK of belief not the rejection of one. Would you say that not collecting stamps is a hobby? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.99.83 (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia content is shaped by the weight of the sources - the sections just above show a range of sources which reject the "lack of belief" definition. If you have quality sources that support what you believe to be a more correct definition then please present them. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#919">u</b><b style="color:#818">n</b><b style="color:#718">☯</b><b style="color:#618">m</b><b style="color:#518">i</b></i> 09:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep reading, 190. You will find the broad “absence of belief” sense addressed in the third sentence. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether not collecting stamps is a hobby or not is not a question Wikipedia can adjudicate on its own. Wikipedia can, however, report what the literature says about whether or not not-collecting stamps is a hobby. --Dannyno (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Modern Freethinkers

 * Modern freethinkers do distinguish atheism from agnosticism, but do not consider them mutually exclusive. Hence agnostic atheist and agnostic theist. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources, please, people say all kinds of things - see Christian atheism, that doesn't mean that our articles should serve as promotional vehicles for fringe positions. Agnostic atheism currently has 2 sources, both are christian apologetics contemporary to Huxley who equate agnosticism with atheism. Agnostic theism also currently is only supported by 2 sources and again they seem to be christian apologetics. Unless you hold that modern freethinkers == christian apologetics I would suggest that you present sources. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#567">u</b><b style="color:#466">n</b><b style="color:#366">☯</b><b style="color:#266">m</b><b style="color:#166">i</b></i> 12:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So, you contend that Alexander Harrison “equates agnosticism with atheism” in his quote “Let Agnostic Theism stand for that kind of Agnosticism which admits a Divine existence”? Or in Unomian: “Let Atheistic Theism stand for that kind of Atheism which admits a Divine existence”. How absurd!
 * If you’d like more sources, Google Books has lots. As for “agnostic atheism” being a “fringe position”, thousands and thousands of agnostic atheists would probably disagree with you. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you got me on the second Christian apologetic, I suppose that you will now also allow that source to inform our presentation of the definition of atheism? As for the google searches, please see WP:GSNR and GOOGLE. As for fringe, please refer to FRINGE and note "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents." <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#760">u</b><b style="color:#659">n</b><b style="color:#559">☯</b><b style="color:#459">m</b><b style="color:#359">i</b></i> 00:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All right, you asked for it (thrice). Let me Google that for you. Here's an even ten for starters:
 * If those do not suffice, there's more where those came from. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If those do not suffice, there's more where those came from. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If those do not suffice, there's more where those came from. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If those do not suffice, there's more where those came from. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If those do not suffice, there's more where those came from. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If those do not suffice, there's more where those came from. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If those do not suffice, there's more where those came from. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If those do not suffice, there's more where those came from. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If those do not suffice, there's more where those came from. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If those do not suffice, there's more where those came from. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If those do not suffice, there's more where those came from. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point, you need to evaluate them and bring the ones that you feel are the most convincing here - you also need to be prepared to present enough context so that a reasonable reading of what the source was intending can be done. See for example the last one starting on page 148-149, where he states that there is 'dogmatic atheism' and then there is 'agnostic atheism' - seemingly trying to argue that humanists are more rational than (a) the rejection of belief in God(s) without rational foundation, a form of dogmatic atheism.. You also indicated that you wanted to discuss 'modern freethinkers' yet the most recent one is the one above from 2001 and only 3 are from after 1904 - I must say that I am impressed that you have them in chronological order as well, what tools do you use? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#793">u</b><b style="color:#692">n</b><b style="color:#592">☯</b><b style="color:#492">m</b><b style="color:#392">i</b></i> 03:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No fancy tools, just gedit with WikiMedia syntax highlighting, and a blank template snippet to paste in and fill in. Sorted by hand.
 * For specifically modern sources, I've not even begun to mine the blogosphere and Usenet. But I think I've made my point, so I'll forego spending more hours chasing your goalpost. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats fair, I honestly don't think that I am up for this area of discussion at the moment, and I probably should have realized and made that clear earlier. I don't doubt that we could find a number of perhaps even 'solid' sources for agnosticism as an adjective position, I do however believe that in surveying the field of philosophy we would find that it is not a position supported by the weight of sources.
 * While this obviously could be interpreted as self-serving, who wants to find themselves in the wrong.. - I do think that looking at tertiary sources, such as encyclopedias, do in fact support my belief.
 * My current focus will be on what the 'mainstream tertiary', and 'scholarly' sources will let us distill into a plain English definition of atheism that is worded and presented in accord to the weight that they give. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#645">u</b><b style="color:#544">n</b><b style="color:#444">☯</b><b style="color:#344">m</b><b style="color:#244">i</b></i> 04:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Moving forwards
At this point it seems that discussion is not really moving forwards, we are spending an inordinate amount of time on this and seem to have reached an impasse regarding how to interpret not only sources, but also policies.

At this point I would suggest moving up the ladder of dispute resolution, starting with WP:DRN. To this end I have opened Dispute_resolution_noticeboard <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#662">u</b><b style="color:#561">n</b><b style="color:#461">☯</b><b style="color:#361">m</b><b style="color:#261">i</b></i> 02:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Source Review - Definitions.
Hiyas - I know the problem of capturing definitions is an eggshell dance that few of us find much pleasure in, however, I was recently moved to look into the problem area (again) and I think that we owe it to the project to revisit some sources.

Kai Nielsen in EB
I have started with expanding the quote from Kai Nielsen in EB |with this edit. I trust that we can agree that it has relevance? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#836">u</b><b style="color:#735">n</b><b style="color:#635">☯</b><b style="color:#535">m</b><b style="color:#435">i</b></i> 20:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That paragraph is primarily about agnosticism, though it also is about distinguishing atheists from agnostics. I have added more from the paragraph that is about atheists: belief that non-anthropomorphic referent for "God" has not been secured.--JimWae (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you find that adds? Also, the quote is now somewhat imperfect "They [agnostics]" should more properly be: "They [many contemporary agnostics]" and it also seems to change the voice of the rest of the passage such as "though the talk is indeed radically paradoxical and in many ways incomprehensible" which in the excerpt seems to be of EB rather than the agnostics themselves ( see the line immediately before you started your addition to the quote ) "...many contemporary agnostics believe that the concept of God is radically problematic. They maintain that they are..". This may or may not have been Kai's intention, as he is after all a strong proponent of noncognitivism, but it strikes me that he managed to phrase it as attributed to the agnostics in question to a higher degree than the partial quote does. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#622">u</b><b style="color:#521">n</b><b style="color:#421">☯</b><b style="color:#321">m</b><b style="color:#221">i</b></i> 23:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Jim, I am going to go ahead and remove your addition - we could add an expanded version as a second footnote if you want, just not quite seeing the need for involving noncognitivism in that one, btw what is your reading there? Isn't he referencing noncognitivism? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#691">u</b><b style="color:#590">n</b><b style="color:#490">☯</b><b style="color:#390">m</b><b style="color:#290">i</b></i> 07:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems what you added was more about agnosticism than about atheism. The most we can be sure Neilsen intended is that at least *some* atheists think they are justified in saying that God does not exist (or, stronger still, that God cannot exist). This sounds almost (but not absolutely) like a reversal of: atheists need not maintain that "God exists" is false. I have to ask what you think your addition adds.--JimWae (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It removes an element of confusion regarding what is referred to with "atheists need not maintain that "God exists" is false" - we can expand on that in the talk section on extralinguistic referents if you see the need. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#888">u</b><b style="color:#787">n</b><b style="color:#687">☯</b><b style="color:#587">m</b><b style="color:#487">i</b></i> 02:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain why I should not remove your addition as you did with mine (while we were still discussing it.....)? --JimWae (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD would be why - but that would probably equally apply to Unomi's addition that should have waited through the pending discussion before being made. ;-) R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  01:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your addition is mostly about agnosticism, not about defining atheism - and where it does talk about atheism we cannot conclude much from it. While what I added does include non-cognitivism regarding the agnostic, it also says something more explicit: that atheists believe they are justified in saying that no adequate nonanthropomorphic, extralinguistic referent for “God” has been secured, whereas some agnostics cannot decide if the word is sufficiently referential. Not having a referent is different from the concept not making any sense. (There is no referent for circle, but a square circle is contradictory.) Perhaps it is best to omit both yours and my additions.--JimWae (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, my addition is exactly about defining atheism - it very clearly states:

but unlike the atheist he does not think that he is justified in saying that God does not exist or, stronger still, that God cannot exist
 * This is important because there seems to have been confusion regarding "rejects" which Kai Nielsen here clarifies.
 * Your addition seems to go into the details of arguments behind various rationales, certainly valuable information, but I find it adds little value to that particular footnote - I have no objection to you adding a second footnote that addresses details of the underlying rationales or arguments. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#811">u</b><b style="color:#710">n</b><b style="color:#610">☯</b><b style="color:#510">m</b><b style="color:#410">i</b></i> 23:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why can't I find that at the cite in question? Just curious. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  02:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is stated as the second sentence of the cite "Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable." - and it is developed further in a section about halfway through the article which starts: Agnosticism has a parallel development to that of atheism. An agnostic, like an atheist, asserts either that he does not know that God exists—or, more typically, that he cannot know or have sound reasons for believing that God exists—but unlike the atheist he does not think that he is justified in saying that God does not exist or, stronger still, that God cannot exist.
 * <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#985">u</b><b style="color:#884">n</b><b style="color:#784">☯</b><b style="color:#684">m</b><b style="color:#584">i</b></i> 16:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your email.
 * I wrote an email to EB asking for clarification, this is what I got back:

The first paragraph of the atheism article is a very general description of what atheism is and how it contrasts with theism and agnosticism. You also queried the sentence: An agnostic, like an atheist, asserts either that he does not know that God exists or, more typically, that he cannot know or have sound reasons for believing that God exists but unlike the atheist he does not think that he is justified in saying that God does not exist or, stronger still, that God cannot exist.

This sentence implies that the atheist believes that he is justified in saying that God does not exist or cannot exist. The implication is true. It is not put forward as a thesis to be qualified or refuted later.

We hope this clears any confusion. We appreciate your interest in Britannica. Is an authentication process required here? If so, what could it be? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#571">u</b><b style="color:#470">n</b><b style="color:#370">☯</b><b style="color:#270">m</b><b style="color:#170">i</b></i> 05:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you search you will see that I am listed as a contributor to the EB article, though in a very minor way. The people who answer those e-mails do not contact the author before responding if they think they can handle it. Anyway, there is nothing to object to in the reply. But there is still everything else that has already been repeatedly mentioned with regard to this passage. Yes, indeed, there are atheists who believe they are justified in saying that God does not exist. AND Nielsen himself thinks he is justified in saying the ANTHROPOMORPHIC God does not exist. There are also other atheists who do not make an existential claim, particularly not about the metaphysical God. THREE words cannot be taken out of one context and used to override paragraph after paragraph presenting another position. I am not alone here in thinking that you are making too much of those 3 words. --JimWae (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't think Encyclopedia Britannica customer services should be considered to be a reliable source in relation to the intentions of the author of one of their articles.  Secondly, I agree with JimWae that too much is being constructed on flimsy foundations, given the weight of the sources we have. --Dannyno (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I find it funny that people still state an Atheist can be "someone that does not make an existential claim". I sometimes wonder if people don't try to shape the definition to match their own position toward God. Atheism is not to have doubts of the existence of God. Atheist is the refusal in the belief of the existence of God. Now if you refuse the claim that God does exist you are not a doubter, you are stating that the existence of God is incorrect. If this isn't a claim then what is it? People seem to confuse doubt with disbelief. It's impossible to believe and doubt at the same time and is also impossible to doubt and disbelief at the same time. If i doubt i question (it's possible that God exists and is also possible God doesn't exist), if i disbelief i refuse a claim (God doesn't exist). Doubt is the middle ground and is not part of Theism or Atheism. Just like Theist claim God exists, Atheist claim God doesn't exist. I mean just look at the words A + Theism. Enough said. Tacv (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Disbelief can mean doubt, for instance from the Princeton University's WordNet database as shown on Onelook here:
 * Quick definitions from WordNet (disbelief)
 * ▸ noun: doubt about the truth of something
 * ▸ noun: a rejection of belief
 * --Modocc (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

My friend that's not correct. If you refuse something you are not doubting it. Doubt is uncertainty, is "Tend to disbelief" not Disbelief. Using your source and from the first link (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language) we see:
 * VERB:
 * doubt·ed, doubt·ing, doubts
 * VERB:
 * To be undecided or skeptical about: began to doubt some accepted doctrines.
 * To tend to disbelieve; distrust: doubts politicians when they make sweeping statements.
 * NOUN:
 * A lack of certainty that often leads to irresolution. See Synonyms at uncertainty.
 * A lack of trust.
 * A point about which one is uncertain or skeptical: reassured me by answering my doubts.
 * The condition of being unsettled or unresolved: an outcome still in doubt.

Now Atheism is not the doubt about the existence of God. It's the disbelief (refusal, rejection) of God - "There is no God". A doubter is someone that do not refuse the existence of God, but rather claim not to be certain that God exist. This means that:
 * Theist - God exist (out of believing not of knowing). I do not know if God exist, but i hold as truth he does (belief). - Claim of truth and not a claim of knowledge
 * Atheist - God doesn't exist (out of disbelief in God not of knowing). I don't know if God exist, but i hold as truth that he doesn't (disbelief). - Claim of truth and not a claim of knowledge
 * Doubter - God may or may not exist. I don't know if God exist and so i'm uncertain of his existence (doubt). - Not a claim of truth nor a claim of knowledge.

Note: that both in Atheism and in Theism also exist people that claim knowledge (related to Fundamentalism), but since the existence of God is not known, a claim of knowledge is an unfounded claim - which make it a belief, even though they personally don't understand it as such

If you refuse to hold as truth that God exist then you hold as truth it's opposite, that God doesn't exist. A doubter in the other hand do not refuse it, but rather question it (uncertainty). It's a contradiction to claim you're an Atheist and a Doubter 'cause they are not the same thing. An Agnostic in the other hand is a natural doubter. And that is one of the difference between Agnosticism and Atheism. Tacv (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "It's a contradiction to claim you're an Atheist and a Doubter" This contradiction you find is only a result of your definition for atheism. But there is more than one definition of atheism, as there are more than one definition of disbelief. If a dictionary defines atheism as "the disbelief in the existence of a God or gods" then, this can mean either "the rejection of belief in the existence of a God or gods" OR "the doubt about the truth in the existence of a God or gods" per the Princeton source for disbelief. Thus there are different definitions for these words that people can choose and the disbelief definition in particular can be broad enough such that it includes agnostics that are not theists (people can also view disbelief even broader than that by taking disbelief to also mean lack of faith and synonymous with non-belief). In addition, given that there are different definitions for agnosticism (see the article for details), there are also agnostics that are theists without contradiction, see the article agnostic theism. --Modocc (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Modocc, the lack of contradiction really only holds true if you focus on the semi-fringe, the consensus of the weight of the sources is that there is in fact exactly this contradiction - which is why you see atheism and agnosticism contrasted again and again - such as in reputable 'mainstream' sources as EB, and other nontheist scholars like Drange. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#843">u</b><b style="color:#742">n</b><b style="color:#642">☯</b><b style="color:#542">m</b><b style="color:#442">i</b></i> 17:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, Neilsen is talking mostly about agnosticism there, and the contrast with "the atheist" does not clearly state whether he means ALL atheists or a subgroup of atheists (or even the singular) - as such, presenting it as definitional of atheism is telling the wiki-reader to read too much into it. What is more clearly about ALL atheists is the part you removed (which, unfortunately, is not a continuous quote):
 * Atheists, by contrast, believe that it [some nonanththropomorphic, extra-linguistic referent for "God"] has not been, and indeed some of them believe that it cannot be, secured.
 * The direction you seem to be taking is to make a sharper distinction between agnosticism and atheism. I agree that that topic is not adequately handled in the wiki article. WHERE Neilsen has more clearly sharpened the distinction is in the agnostic attitude that the nonanthropmorphic extralinguistic referent might be secureable. Here he is not confining his def of agnosticism to the position of a lack of knowledge, but including a psychological aspect (belief) - they cannot decide if the word is sufficiently referential, whereas atheistS have decided it is not.--JimWae (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that Nielsen has not indicated that he uses 'an atheist' differently than 'an agnostic' and that he is clearly talking about all agnostics in using that phrasing I would say that you are probably reading too much into it, or at least bear the burden of an extraordinary claim. Please do keep in mind that he is merely repeating what is in the first paragraph of the article. We should probably open another section for how they maintain that distinction in the context of specific flavors of arguments. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#651">u</b><b style="color:#550">n</b><b style="color:#450">☯</b><b style="color:#350">m</b><b style="color:#250">i</b></i> 23:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is quite different to say "I believe UFOs do not exist", "I believe I am justified in saying UFOS do not exist", and "I believe that no referent for UFO has been secured".--JimWae (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I do think, that it would be helpful to add to the quote
 * Atheists... believe that it [some nonanththropomorphic, extra-linguistic referent for "God"] has not been, and indeed some of them believe that it cannot be, secured.
 * How does that strike others? --JimWae (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I find your edits here somewhat perplexing. I could be more sympathetic if I had added text to the article body - but removing sourced footnote content? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#938">u</b><b style="color:#837">n</b><b style="color:#737">☯</b><b style="color:#637">m</b><b style="color:#537">i</b></i> 23:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Unomi has been changing the quote in the citation from EB for the rejection def. He wrote in an edit summary: This is for the summary form of the definition - feel free to write up another footnote for the comprehensive one, please do so with out too many instances of "...") However, the text he is quoting does NOT support the rejection def AND is not from the section of the article where Nielsen states he is giving the most comprehensive definiton of atheism. Citation quotes are there to support the text of the article, not to promote someone's idiosyncratic view of what the article is about. The EB article is structured VERY differently from a WP article - 1> Every section of the EB article is about defining atheism 2> No section of the EB article is significantly about anything else 3> The article starts with a general view AND then EXPLICITLY states it will start with unsatisfactory definitions and work toward a more adequate one. 4> Nielsen presents his most comprehensive def of atheism in the LAST section of the article. 5>His 3-word mention of a contrast with agnosticism in the final section does not override everything else he has said in the article. Unomi's view has been opposed by 5 or 6 editors and supported by none. The burden is on him to gain support for his view before making any further changes the article. Please join me in not condoning this obstructive editing. --JimWae (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you don't simply create a footnote that encapsulates what you find to be the 'crucial' information from the EB article which can the co-exist with the summary of the EB article. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#822">u</b><b style="color:#721">n</b><b style="color:#621">☯</b><b style="color:#521">m</b><b style="color:#421">i</b></i> 18:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your footnote does not support the text. The one that has been there since April 2007 does.--JimWae (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the entire relevant sentence:
 * Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived): for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God (the God of Luther and Calvin, Aquinas, and Maimonides), he rejects belief in God because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers, he rejects belief in God because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., “God” is just another name for love, or “God” is simply a symbolic term for moral ideals.

Here is the entire sentence 5 paragraphs later, in the same section:
 * Atheists, by contrast, believe that it [an adequate nonanthropomorphic, extralinguistic referent for “God”] has not been, and indeed some of them believe that it cannot be, secured.

As anyone can see, there is parenthetic and other less important text that were removed in the interest of brevity. If the consensus is to not have ellipses, that is fine with me. --JimWae (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As OrangeMarlin indicated, we do run a risk of OR / Synth - especially since you seem to interpret the text as somehow being incompatible with atheists not leaving the question open - which EB ( and other sources ) repeatedly state. Still, I think that the footnote that you propose could at the very least be used to support our section on forms of atheism further, so I have no objection to you adding such a footnote ( preferably without ellipsis ). <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#538">u</b><b style="color:#437">n</b><b style="color:#337">☯</b><b style="color:#237">m</b><b style="color:#137">i</b></i> 19:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Absent Orangemarlin's own comments, despite repeated invitations to him to join in, please do not presume to interpret his actions. To repeat, the quote you give does not support the rejection def, so it does not belong there. --JimWae (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with JimWae regarding which quote belongs in the footnote. It is there to support our article's text (along with the Edwards quote). Nielson does give a broad general definition to start the article that is consistent with our text, but the definition he gives later directly supports our choice of the word rejection. This detail given with Nielson's comprehensive definition is important with respect to our policy of wp: verify, especially since words have different meanings and usages, and its not always enough for readers to accept a paraphrase of a different text as being supported, which might be unsatisfactory and therefore construed as wp:OR. Hence, the quote we have now is best, either in truncated form or fully expanded. --Modocc (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, no references are there to support article text - article text is there because it is supported by sources. The distinction might seem small, but it is unfortunately exactly what is wasting our time here. Second of all, "the definition he gives later" is exactly the same definition that he gives initially - it is delusional to think otherwise. If you have to dig deep into a discussion on noncognitivism to snatch a sentence which includes the word rejection - then chances are that you are in fact engaging in quote-mining, that wouldn't be so bad, except that you seem wholly ignorant of how the word that you have snatched out is used. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#932">u</b><b style="color:#831">n</b><b style="color:#731">☯</b><b style="color:#631">m</b><b style="color:#531">i</b></i> 23:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The sourced quotes are supporting the text. Nielson gives us not just a sentence that includes the word rejection, he SAYS that the sentence we quote is his more adequate definition of atheism. --Modocc (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You aren't paying attention. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#576">u</b><b style="color:#475">n</b><b style="color:#375">☯</b><b style="color:#275">m</b><b style="color:#175">i</b></i> 00:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The source materials define atheism different than how the wiki page defines atheism. Why cite a source if your definition is going to be different than the sources definiton? Either find a different source that affirms what the definition is or change the current wiki definition to match that of the source.


 * wiki: "In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"[2]


 * [2]: "in the narrow sense of the term an atheist is anyone who disbelieves in the existence of this being"


 * [2] is more general about the narrow sense of atheism whereas the wiki states the narrow definition is specifc.

Wiki: Broad- Rejection of belief Narrow - specific position no deities

[1]:Encyclopedia Britanica, "atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings".

[2]:  Broad - Denies existence Narrow - anyone who disbelieves


 * Both sources [1] and [2] say the broad term for atheism is the denial of a God. Not only does the [2] source use the term denial instead of rejection(i tried to edit the definition to say denial and instead of rejection and i was told the source says rejection) which reinforces [1]'s definition. Furthermore, [2] actually switches the narrow and broad definitions around. The definitions on the wiki page do not match the source material definitions. Therefore it would seem the article as it stands violates Wikipedia's guidelines, "Sources must support the material clearly and directly". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Original_research.

Mastermike14 (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Mastermike14. These sources are actually making more than one kind of broad/narrow distinction, but you are perhaps focusing on the God vs. divinity distinction only? Its somewhat difficult to decipher though what you are writing about such as with this:[2]:Broad - Denies existence Narrow - anyone who disbelieves which does not seem to follow from the source, and this: "in the narrow sense of the term an atheist is anyone who disbelieves in the existence of this being", because that is not an exact quote from the source, nor does the source imply the equality with "anyone who disbelieves" you are making here because atheism which "affirms the nonexistence of God" is a narrow subset of a more general disbelief. Of course, rejection and denial are nearly synonymous, especially when either term is paired with the term belief as in a denial of belief and rejection of belief, which can mean disbelief. But denial (or rejection) of belief in existence is not equivalent to a denial of existence. To clarify, as Edwards (cited immediately after Nielsen) points out, a nontheist that is without belief can reject a belief for reasons other than asserting nonexistence (or, in other words, reasons other than denying existence, thus only denying having a belief in existence). It should be apparent that, Edwards' definition, which is used by Nielsen, is a broader conception of atheism than positive atheism by its inclusion of explicit negative atheism and our atheism article does discuss such various conceptions of atheism in detail. Again, its hard to follow your reading of the citations, but from your recent attempted edits to the article, you did address the traditions of God and divinity as being more narrow/broad which is correct, but the current lede simply does not, since the Abraham God is a deity. --Modocc (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. First off, "'in the narrow sense of the term an atheist is anyone who disbelieves in the existence of this being''", because that is not an exact quote from the source", this is an exact quote from the Routledge source. "As used in this entry, in the narrow sense of the term an atheist is anyone who disbelieves in the existence of this being, while in the broader sense an atheist is someone who denies the existence of any sort of divine reality"[sic].


 * "Since many different gods have been objects of belief, one might be an atheist with respect one god while believing in the existence of some other god", so to state that atheism rejects all deities would be false. What Routledge is saying is that in a narrow sense of atheism one only denies God in the classical sense of God. But in the broader term, an atheist is someone who disbelieves in the existence of ALL deities, not just the one of "traditional Western theology". So to say that the narrowest term of atheism is "specifically the position that there are not deities" is not supported by Routledge. Routledge gives an example illustrating broad and narrow terms, "In the narrow sense, the Protestant theologian Paul Tillich was an atheist, for he disbelieved in the existence of the God of traditional theism. But in the broader sense he was a theist, since he believed that there is a divine reality". This is why i disagree with how atheism is currently defined in the wiki article, because according to wiki's definition for narrow, "specifically the position that there are no deities", Paul Tillich could not be defined as an atheist under this definition because he did not specifically take the position that there are no deities, he just took the position that the classical god was false but he did hold a belief in a deity, "But in the broader sense he was a theist, since he believed that there is a divine reality, being-itself (the God beyond the traditionalistic theistic God)"[sic].


 * In the broadest sense atheism is specifcally the position that there are no deities. This is supported by Routledge and Britannica. In the narrowest sense, one rejects the traditional idea of a God.

Mastermike14 (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I struck my mistaken concern about your quote. You are correct about the God/deity distinction, but there are still other distinctions made. For instance, the Routledge acknowledges there is the broadest sense of "nonbelief", although it says that "as used in this entry" it does not use it that way. The Routledge is being used only to source that atheism is "the position that there are no deities" as such, and is not being used in this regards to compare the different definitions that are given by us from the different sources (these sources are not in full agreement with each other). Routledge's own broad sense is simply to include any divinity, but it may not be the best source for "no deities" since not all deities might be considered divine? In any case, as has been pointed out, there are other distinctions that are made by the different sources which you have not yet addressed though. --Modocc (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Routledge
We are currently using a quote from the 1998 Routledge Encyclopedia - however, the link doesn't seem correct any more. Atheism. Atheism is disbelief in the existence of God, or, more strongly, affrming God’s non-existence. Within Western philosophy this has taken the form of criticizing the traditional arguments for the existence of God and providing further reasons for supposing that God does not exist — for example, that the concept of God is a logically inconsistent one, or that the existence of evil in the world is incompatible with the existence of the traditionally conceived omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent Christian God (see THEODICY). See AGNOSTICISM (and Smart’s article listed there). ATHEISM Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief. Since many different gods have been objects of belief one might be an atheist with respect to one god while believing in the existence of some other god. In the religions of the west - Judaism. Christianity and Islam - the dominant idea of God is of a purely spiritual. supernatural being who is the perfectly good. all-powerful. all-knowing creator of everything other than himself. As used in this entry, in the narrow sense of the term an atheist is anyone who disbelieves in the existence of this being, while in the broader sense an atheist is someone who denies the existence of any sort of divine reality. The justification of atheism in the narrow sense requires showing that the traditional arguments for the existence of God are inadequate as well as providing some positive reasons for thinking that there is no such being. Atheists have criticized the traditional arguments for belief and have tried to justify positive disbelief by arguing that the properties ascribed to this being are incoherent and that the amount and severity of evils in the world make it quite likely that there is no such all-powerful, perfectly good being in control.
 * The Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy 2010.
 * Concise Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy 2000.

Atheism comes in different forms, the strongest denying any kind of deity. But the term is also commonly used to mean denial of the God of theism specifically, thereby relativizing atheism to standard theism. By virtue of his acceptance of a weak form of deism, Hume is no atheist in the strongest sense of the term. Thus it would be false and misleading to call him an atheist, plain and simple. But neither is that the last word on the subject ... ( further comes a not uninteresting read, but one not necessarily relevant here )
 * Routledge philosophy guidebook to Hume on religion

Oxford
atheism Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none. Sometimes thought itself to be more dogmatic than mere agnosticism, although atheists retort that everyone is an atheist about most gods, so they merely advance one step further.
 * The Oxford dictionary of philosophy 2005
 * Note: The previous text quoting the definition did not match what is in the 2005 edition, it is possible that the newer 2008 edition holds different text - if so, please make a scan available. I made changes to reflect the easily verifiable edition in this edit. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#593">u</b><b style="color:#492">n</b><b style="color:#392">☯</b><b style="color:#292">m</b><b style="color:#192">i</b></i> 22:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that the wording is unchanged in the '08 edition. Link . --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

About the main article image
I think it's a bit biased to use the only instance in which the word is used in The Bible as the main image on the article. Atheism is much broader than just not believing in the Abrahamic god. I want to propose that we change the image to something more universal. Also, the same image is used in the first section, Etymology and usage, juxtaposed with a paragraph talking about early ancient Greek. The image is from the 3rd century AD and does not correspond to the topic discussed. The only relation is that the word is in Greek. It could just as easily be written in a modern font. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Religious Diversity among Atheists
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life conducts the US Religious Landscape Survey. The second report in this survey tells us that: Among atheists, 21% believe in God; 12% believe that God is an impersonal force; and 6% believe that God is personal. Among atheists, 12% believe in heaven while 10% believe in hell. Among atheists, 10% pray at least weekly while 18% meditate at least weekly. The atheist community appears to have considerable religious diversity. http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers/2011/12/28/religious-diversity-among-atheists/.

Could this have place in the article? The Pew Forum made his survey among USA’s self-identified “Atheists”. If we say (as I read in many comments) that those are not 'real atheists' we should question all the surveys on demographics.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.247.63.47 (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My reaction, in principle, is that this may be worth including, but I note that the source to which you link is a commentary that may be cherry-picking data to make a point. The source, in turn, links to the original study, which is much longer, and we should instead base any edits on that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the original study, it seems to actually suggest that the correlation between what people taking part in surveys mean by 'atheism' and the formal definitions this article has attempted to find is less than straightforward. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You've got to be frickin kidding me. The title of the article is a frickin' oxymoron! "diversity of color among things that do not have color."  are you people going insane or are you already insane?  don't answer that.  a person who does ANY of the following things is obviously NOT an atheist in any way, shape or form:
 * believe in God -  this is a big fricking DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 * believe that God is an impersonal force - see above
 * believe that God is personal - see above
 * believe in heaven - see above
 * believe in hell - see above
 * pray at least weekly - see above
 * finally, meditation is an activity some people do for psychological health. like eating and drinking is for physical health.   yes, some religions include meditation.  some also include eating and drinking, but that doesn't make eating and drinking religious activities.


 * In sum, this has to be the stupidest thing i have ever read, and i have read some god awful stupid things in my life! i can't believe you guys are even acknowledging it, nonetheless having a discussion about it!  what part of "atheists do not believe in god" do you not understand? jesus h. christ!  Kevin Baastalk 17:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You appear to be complaining about the (alleged) stupidity of the people who took part in the survey, or possibly in those who conducted it. The results may not seem logical, but they are nevertheless results. Whether they are of any particular relevance to this article is another matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I Think you have to doubt the reliability of a source that can produce such figures.IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Why? The figures are entirely plausible, if you assume (a) that not everyone who answers opinion-poll questions necessarily attaches the same meaning to them, and (b) not everyone who answers opinion-poll questions necessarily gives a true answer. In short, the problem isn't the (original) source as such, but with trying to get simplistic answers to complex questions through polling. It might also be a reflection on the U.S. educational system, but I'd perhaps best avoid going too far down that path... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * On that point, i recall reading a study that showed that a large fraction of people who self-identify as conservatives actually lean far to the left on political spectrum test (e.g. http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html). so does that imply that we should make changes to the articles on conservative and liberal political orientation so at to make them indistinguishable from each other?  maybe we should just have one redirect to the other?


 * obviously i'm being facetious. the people answered that way on the survey because they didn't understand the definitions of "conservative" and "liberal".  it is not surprising that not everyone did, what was surprising was the extent of confusion.  and that is also surprising about this survey that we are discussing.  esp. in that the poll conductors seem to be extremely confused, as well.  maybe we shouldn't find these things all that surprising.  maybe we should be used to it by now, and accept the fact that it might be a reflection on the U.S. educational system, but I'd perhaps best avoid going too far down that path... Kevin Baastalk 18:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) possibly both, i suppose. they are results, no doubt, but the results of what? the people conducting the survey should have known that none of the people who they interviewed where atheists. that's plain as day. so this is a survey, yes. is it a survey of atheists? No. So how is it relevant to this article, which IS about atheism? I see no way in which it could be considered remotely relevant. Had they interviewed atheists, maybe. Had they asked them questions that could have possibly produced the slightest variation in answers among athiests, maybe. Did they have the slightest clue what the hell they were talking about, maybe. Could they tell an atheist from a hole in the wall, maybe. They did none of these things. If you want to use this article as wikipedia content, i recommend bringing it up on the mental illness page. There, it is certainly relevant.


 * The reference User:Tryptofish provided is a reliable source and is indeed grounds for inclusion in the article as it details the demongraphics of atheism. If we are going to report the percentage of individuals who report themselves as atheists, we must also present the relevant characteristics of this demographic. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And if you do that, then logically you must also report the large number of people who don't describe themselves as atheists, but nevertheless state that they don't believe in god. The poll doesn't just indicate a disparity amongst one group - it reflects a larger trend. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear User:AndyTheGrump, sure I agree with your statement that "logically you must also report the large number of people who don't describe themselves as atheists, but nevertheless state that they don't believe in God." However, the addition of that information would be most appropriate on the articles concerning the specific group in question, e.g. Mainline churches, Muslim, Hindu, etc. In addition, to contradict another user's statement, atheists can be religious, as delineated by the following study. If there is still objection to the inclusion of the study, I may start an RfC soon. I look forward to your comments. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you proposing to include? The data merely demonstrates a general point - that there isn't always a direct correlation between describing yourself as an atheist, and not believing in god. There appear to be significantly more people who don't describe themselves as atheists, but that state that they don't believe in god (see below), than there are people who describe themselves as atheists in total. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am proposing to include the following sentence: "One-in-five Americans who identify themselves as atheists express belief in God or a universal spirit." This assertion is supported by a direct quote in the study, which states: " Nearly all adults (92%) say they believe in God or a universal spirit, including seven-in-ten of the unaffiliated. Indeed, one-in-five people who identify themselves as atheist (21%) and a majority of those who identify themselves as agnostic (55%) express a belief in God or a universal spirit." I look forward to your reply. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And exclude the larger number of people who according to the survey, didn't describe themselves as atheists, but stated that they had no belief in a god? That would be cherry-picking the data. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I do not think the data should be excluded. I stated before that one could add that data to the appropriate articles, e.g. Mainline Protestantism, in which the beliefs of adherents of that faith are detailed. Do you understand what I'm saying? With regards, AnupamTalk 23:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that: I disagree with it. You are cherry-picking data for this article, which is what we are discussing here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

@Anupam, the authors of the study are taking note only of results they have obtained within the context of their specific study/finding. To be framed properly, one would have to write "According to a Pew Research Study..." but even then this is not being reliably sourced to a quality secondary source. Without such sourcing, it runs afoul of wp:NOR by giving this primary source result, with dubious significance, wp:undue weight and inadequate context. --Modocc (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Look at the Whole Survey
You need to go back to the main web page and look at the whole survey (done in 2007) details. They say "atheists and agnostics are defined here as all respondents who described themselves as being atheistic or agnostic, even though some of them may believe in some notion of God." The survey seems to me basically OK and gives some insight into religious beliefs in the USA. Unfortunately it is not possible to verify the claim that of "(those calling themselves) atheists 21% believe in God" because the data tables only have atheists under the general heading "unaffiliated". Of the total of 35,556 respondents, they say that 1.6% were atheist, which is about 570 people, which is a small number. It is not impossible to suppose that this included 120 (21%) who were unsure or confused during the questionnaire, or who had an answer wrongly recorded. Thus, while I think the survey does give some valid patterns for the larger groups, it cannot be considered a reliable estimate for US atheists. A different analysis of the same survey says that 5% definitely do not believe in God, of whom 24% call themselves atheists, 35% nothing in particular, 15% agnostic, 24% follow some religion.Chemical Engineer (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * so in the USA the atheists are 1.6% but the 'not believing in God' are 5%.
 * Do you believe in God is a much easier question. If you get people mistaking paediatrician for paedophile, well what should one expect? I'm surprised the figure is as low as 5% for belief in God. My understanding is that in America being an atheist is viewed as something worse than being a communist and one answers questions like this based on group identity rather than anything to do with personal belief. Dmcq (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dmcq. This study shows more about the lack of understanding of the word "atheist" among Americans than it does about the demographics of beliefs in the USA. If it will be included in the article, it should be mentioned as such. Attributing this lack of semantic understanding to an intrinsic characteristic of atheism is dishonest. And if one is to say that all beliefs, philosophies, economic ideas, etc. suffer from the same misunderstanding, then it is a tautology and saying it is meaningless. It adds nothing to the article. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, very odd source. Hmmm....Did anybody check related pages, like agnosticism? I'll bet they've been carpet bombed with this by an editor with a very anti-atheist POV. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Entry is about "atheism" not "atheists"
The proposed addition above is of peripheral interest to this article, which isn't about people who self-identify as atheists. A better place for both sets of information, that some people who claim to be "atheists" actually believe in god and that some who don't claim to be atheists don't believe in god might be relevant at Demographics of atheism. As to the quality of the source, it is of very high quality. Pew is an extremely well respected research institution and scholars of religion, and of irreligion, refer to the findings of Religious Landscape Survey all the time.Griswaldo (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

determining how many atheists exist in the world today is difficult ....
And yet you undertook to do so. My first suggestion would be to just pull that ¶ rather than begin a process. I believe 90% of the population of China (or better) should be included and substantial portions of the population of Japan, Korea, Southeast Asia, and some parts of Europe would result in a far larger number. This appears to be glaring POV pushing, purposeful distortion of the facts, but opening this thread for resolution. I am sorry if it's inconvenient for you but any definition of Atheism is going to fit these populations and the ludicrous figure of 2.3% needs a numerical opposite POV partner to balance the obvious POV pushing I have little doubt looking at the source will reveal if it stays. 72.228.177.92 (talk)


 * So if bean counting is to remain, should be as easy to source something like "By some other estimates, the number would be as high as 20% or more". 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If you are proposing a particular figure it should be based on reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Atheism definition incorrect
Why is the atheism definition incorrect. Who decided to change the definition of a word??? Colloquial misuse does not define a word. It needs to be fixed and add a caveat which is perfectly acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evictor480 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved from User Talk:JimWae on 2011-NOV-16 by --JimWae (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you looked at the sources given? Did you provide a source for yours? Your definition even suggested that atheism was incorrect--JimWae (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Atheism is the belief that an invisible man isn't looking down on us. They believe this because no one has ever seen this man, there is no proof that this man exists and most of all they are just not stupid. Come on, an invisible man? A talking snake and a virgin birth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShmoreSchnops (talk • contribs) 22:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We're not here to discuss why it's rational to be an atheist. Talk pages are not a forum. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 07:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Because atheism is not a statement of the validity of the claim "I know god exists" Atheism is the default position one takes when we reject all current evidence of existing god claims. Atheism is not a claim that there are no gods, the only atheists who say that are misusing the term. If you don't get the distinction then get the hell off of wikipedia.

I have checked more sources than you ever will I have been debating atheism with theologens, theists, fellow skeptics and atheist's for 10+ years.

No my definition in no way suggests atheism is incorrect. Atheism is neither correct nor incorrect, it is a position of rejecting a positive claim.

Your confusing agnosticism with atheism. It has to do with the difference between what you believe and what you think you can prove. For any particular god that you can imagine, a “theist” is one who has a belief in that god. An “atheist” is one who does not have a belief in the god. A “gnostic” is one who believes that the god can be proved to exist, and an “agnostic” is one who believes that the god cannot be proved to exist.

Notice that the terms “atheist” and “agnostic”, by these definitions, are not mutually exclusive. You could be an agnostic atheist, meaning you don’t think one can prove the existence or nonexistence of gods, but you don’t choose to believe in one without further proof. Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn’t strictly true and there is no word to describe this. You could call such a person an “untheist”, perhaps. Or, you could just call such a person a “gnostic atheist”, one who doesn’t believe in a god and thinks that his non-belief can be proved.

So there are four possible ways one could be.

Agnostic-Theist: believes god exists, but it can’t be proved Gnostic-Theist: believes it can be proved that gods exist Agnostic-Atheist: does not believe god exists, but it can’t be proved Gnostic-Atheist: believes it can be proved that god does not exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evictor480 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Longer reply
You replaced:
 * Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.<ref-name=ref1/> In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.<ref-name=RoweRoutledge/> Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.<ref-name=religioustolerance/>

with
 * "Atheism" Is [sic] the postition [sic] of rejecting current [sic] available evidence for the existence of deities. Some use the atheism label to describe the personal opinion that there are no deities.

You removed 3 definitions (all of which have been accepted for almost 5 years in the edit history and each with a highly-reliable source) and substituted your own definition without providing a single source. Now you are saying that you are smarter than me, thus I (and all other editors of the page) should yield to your wishes. You know nothing about my qualifications, nor the history of the page. If you took some time to look at those, you might discover how to present your "arguments" with a little more humility. Before you lecture me again about agnosticism and atheism, etc, you might consult the edit history of those articles to see how long others have been debating these very issues within the context of writing an encyclopedia (to say nothing of other contexts). You are in for a lot of disappointment if you think those with other viewpoints should "get the hell off of wikipedia".

My preferred definition of the 3 is "rejection of belief" - but neither I nor anyone else gets to choose their own definition as the one to be endorsed by wikipedia. If you make atheism to be "rejecting current available evidence for the existence of deities" you are accepting that there IS currently available evidence. Rejecting belief in the existence of X is not the same as rejecting the existence of X - as you seem already to agree. Furthermore, if one rejects belief in the existence of X, one need not accept there is any evidence at all for X -- or one may say that one does not find the reasons people give FOR believing to be sufficiently persuasive. One might even reject belief because the whole idea of such an X is not in accord with what one sees in the world - or even does not make sense.

Rejecting evidence is a fool's game. Rejecting the claim that any evidence demonstrates the conclusion is a path that the agnostic atheist might take. However, he need not accept there is any evidence at all. Even numerous metaphysical theists argue that evidence (in the sense of "physical evidence") is not there.

That's just a start on why your substitution is weak. But, it is not up to me to "disprove" your version. The burden is on you to find support (in terms of sources and other editors) for any version such as yours. I refer you to WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and, again, to the top of Talk:Atheism-- --JimWae (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The atheist position boils down to an affirmative belief that no such thing as God exists. This talk about non-belief being a default position is, and always has been, an exercise in hair-splitting. The real point of it, as everyone involved in the debate knows, is to shift the burden of proof from one party to another, when in fact neither side is capable of proving its position to the satisfaction of everyone. I think the current definition is fine the way it is - it mentions the orthodox atheist line on this subject without excluding other views. Carinae986 (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The first part truly confuses me as (1) a generalization, and (2) an odd comparison. Do you believe in green and purple striped two horned unicorns? Did you have an affirmative belief against such before I brought it up? I doubt you did. As for proofs, I don't recall proofs being submitted by atheists against the existence of a god or gods. The rest, I can agree with - even if in reality, there are many "definitions" people use to describe why they are atheists. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  01:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I aquired a positive belief that no such thing existed the moment you brought it up. By your analogy, an atheist would have to have never heard of God in order to have a mere absence of belief. Since atheists have, in fact, heard of such a thing as God, they do, in fact, have a positive belief that no such thing exists. I don't recall any proofs being submitted by atheists against the existence of god or gods either. Which makes one wonder how they can be so confident. Carinae986 (talk) 04:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, and not on the opinions of individual contributors. Your comments are therefore irrelevant (and incidentally, illogical, but that is beside the point - this isn't a forum for discussing 'atheism' in the abstract). AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose you didn't noticed that the original definition of atheism, which I was defending, is in fact sourced...? Or that your opinion is not? Please take a moment to review the etiquitte guidelines. You may find them informative. Carinae986 (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless of philosophers' motives for conceptualising atheism negatively as opposed to positively, and regardless of whether or not it is legitimate to conceptualise atheism so that theism bears the "burden of proof", the fact remains that atheism has been conceptualised in that way by philosophers, in published, verifiable, reliable sources. For Wikipedia, that's what matters.  Wikipedia is not the forum for resolving once and for all how atheism is to be conceptualised. It is a place where people can come to find out how atheism has been conceptualised. --Dannyno (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems that people have settled on the broad spectrum of atheism is rejecting religion and the narrow spectrum of atheism as rejecting religion. Makes sense... you know, not having any difference in broad or narrow. Also, Wikipedia seems to not be the place to get information on how it's actually conceptualized in modern times without bias either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.39.62 (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

need for revision & source problems in atheism/agnosticism distinction in 1st paragraph
As it stands:

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, 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][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[5][6] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists,[6][7] and with agnosticism, which leaves the matter of existence open.[8]"

Atheism and agnosticism are, of course, diametrically opposed; atheism and agnosticism can coexist. I'm not sure what the intent was, but it reads as though agnosticism is being positioned as rejection of both atheism and theism.

I would suggest something like "Atheism is directly contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists. It is also distinguished from but not incompatible with agnosticism, the view that the existence of a deity is unknown or unknowable." It would be worthwhile to make it clearly compatible with the agnosticism page it links to.

The sources for [8] also need to be cleaned up.

The Atheism and secularity source, first of all, mentions 'agnosticism' only in passing and offers nothing to support the claim it's offered as a source for.

The Encyclopædia Britannica Concise entry is different from the 2011 Encyclopædia Britannica entry only in that some detail has been removed; it should not be presented as though it is a distinct source offering additional support for the position.

I am mystified by the use of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica entry. Calling on an outdated version of an encyclopedia for non-historical purposes is just not good scholarship, especially when the topic is something like agnosticism: more that twice as much time has passed between the writing of the entry and today than between the original coining of the word and the writing of the entry.

Basically... it should be cut to only the 2011 Encyclopædia Britannica entry. Warm Worm (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't been hugely active in the discussions of late, but I was surprised to find that excerpt in the lead. Skimming the page (but admittedly not reading every word), I see healthy opposition to its proposal due to content, wording, and sources. If I've missed somewhere that consensus was clearly established for the addition, please point me to it. Absent that consensus, I've removed the wording temporarily pending discussion. I'd like to reiterate the concerns of other editors that, even if the content is appropriate given our sources, the current wording is not, since it very directly leads the reader to conclude that "rejection of belief" and "absence of belief" do not "leave the matter of existence open". This proposed definition of agnosticism is quite clearly only contrasted with "strong/explicit atheism", so we can not make general statements such as this, particularly in the lead while detailing our other definitions with which it isn't contrasted. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Though your sentences contrasting atheism with theism and agnosticism seem lucid and clear, I opine we should lead this article with what atheism is, not with what atheism isn't. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change to banner.
Wikipedia has no policy on respecting other's views. This phrasing in the banner is inane and false (I would direct you to Talk:Muhammad/images. I suggest a change to. "...supported by a reliable source and adheres to a neutral point of view."

Thoughts?--Adam in MO Talk 02:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Problem of Evil" As a Rationale For Atheism
I don't believe the problem of evil is a rationale for atheism (as stated in paragraph 3), let alone the most fundamental one (it is mentioned first). It is obvious that atheism is being defined on Wiki from an Abrahamic perspective, where God is perfectly good. Evil may exist in the world, and there may still be gods or creators of the universe. Rsokhi (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We define rationale for atheism by what is mentioned in reliable sources. As an aside; the problem of evil represents a major issue for a class of Gods including the Abrahamic god, it is one of many rationales so I don't think it's a major issue to include it. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

should there be something about the people who help to spread atheist ideas
There is some information on the page about the people who write the books and about the social impact but what about the people who transmit these ideas. What about the acts and entertainers who stick their necks out to transmit these ideas to the public. They risk more than just being unpopular and I think they deserve some recognition for making a stand. I am preparing a page about pop group Foxy Freedom when I can find all the information. Have you heard of Penn and Teller the magicians? What about Derren Brown the magician and hypnotist? There is a filmed interview with Dawkins. Brown also did a tv show exposing psychics and another one when he visited the US to expose the tricks that faith healers use to fool people. He showed how to fool a crowd into thinking that a blind person had been cured. I know people who became atheists after seeing that on TV. So I feel that people who are risking so much should be recognised. Nevertheless, keep up the good work.Spread knowledge not ignorance (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There is this: List of atheists. Sky Machine   ( ++ ) 07:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is not meant to be a propaganda tool for atheism. Notable atheist thinkers, and the reception of them, should of course be mentioned, but your personal experiences about entertainers and magicians are not sufficient rationale for them to be included in the article. There are among other things issues of notability, undue weight and prevalence of reliable secondary sources to be taken into consideration. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Reference to "Religion for Atheists" gives it unsupported importance
The phrase "de Botton returns to the idea in his seminal work Religion for Atheists (2012)" seems to make a judgment on the importance of a work that was just published. How can it be a seminal work when it was just published?

38.98.192.82 (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)helpy helperton Feb. 9, 2012


 * Agreed. I cut the offending adjective. eldamorie (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Atheism 3.0
Atheism 3.0 is surely just a branding exercise. There is little evidence/support that is a 'movement'. And the 3.0 label implies it is better than previous versions. The idea that religion can be used for positive social ends is hardly new, it is at least as old as Plato.

By all means if there is a current debate amongst atheists about using the positive elements of organised religion then it should be mentioned. Calling it Atheism 3.0 though a) gives it more credence than its support would indicate b) implies an ordinal improvement other forms of atheism and c) is in effect brand advertising on its behalf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.224.17 (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to be based on two dead links. One of the quoted texts doesn't seem to mention Atheism 3.0 and the other seems a relatively minor mention. Perhaps it is undue weight? I can't check them fully as they are dead links IRWolfie- (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * IIRC, the article was deleted because (as far as we had sourcing) the term was coined by one not-really-notable guy and not really covered elsewhere. I did a quick search on google scholar and only came up with these two:, . Both are essentially Christian evangelism. I think we should absolutely cover the term if we have sources for it, but I don't really see any. I'll boldly remove the content until we can dredge up proper sources. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sentence Restructuring to First Paragraph for Accurate Conveyance
The last sentence in the first opening paragraph reads: "Atheism is contrasted with theism,[5][6] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists."

The sentence structure seems to convey the idea that theism itself asserts the existence of one deity while allowing for the possibility of more.

I recommend it be changed to "Atheism is contrasted with theism,[5][6] which (in its most general form) entails belief in the existence of one or more deities." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synaptic Elucidation (talk • contribs) 08:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why "entails" rather than "is"? How about "belief that a deity or deities exist", to not unduly emphasize an irrelevant matter of quantity? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * On a note vaguely related to this (since it has to do with the opener) - it might be helpful to reframe the line about the first people who described themselves as "atheists", so that it's clear that the terminology emerged then, rather than the idea. The information about classical India and so on later in the text makes it clear that this line refers only to the term itself, but only in retrospect for those who continue reading.  So, perhaps a better phrasing would be "the first people to identify themselves by the term 'atheist' lived in the 18th Century." ````  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massivereptile (talk • contribs) 02:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. To some degree, I had thought that was clear from the quotation marks around the word "atheist", but I made an edit similar to what you suggested, which I hope will remove any lack of clarity. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Definition includes rejection of a soul
Atheism is not just the rejection of a belief in a deity, atheism is the rejection in the belief of any religious claims, including a soul. For instance, Buddhists are not atheists because they believe in the existence of a soul. This article seems to be saying that atheism is only the belief that God does not exist, which is only part of what atheism is. The first sentence should read "Atheism is the rejection of all theistic claims, including but not limited to the existence of a deity and soul." --Schicagos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC).


 * We'd talked about this a couple months back. Our sources say quite clearly that atheism is simply the rejection of theism, and that theism deals only with the god claim. We'd need strong reliable sources to change that definition. Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Defining "atheist"
I see that an editor has concerns about my having deleted the definition of "atheist" from the lead. If I understand correctly, the reason for those concerns is that Atheist redirects to this page. The relevant considerations here are, I think, those given at WP:R. We already have a hatnote stating that Atheist redirects here, so I think that fulfills the principle of least astonishment. Beyond that, we really don't need to define the word; see also WP:NOTDICT. On one level, it's obvious to anyone that "atheist" is to "person" as "atheism" is to "concept" (or something like concept, let's not argue that, please). It's not difficult to understand, and we don't have to explain it. On the other hand, once we start going down the road of providing a more precise definition, we'll be looking at the same never-ending talk page ride that the definition of atheism has yielded. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I tried to find something in the contribution that could survive - because 1> it was "OK" 2> I do not think this article is yet complete, and 3> we should try to overcome the opinion that established editors make it impossible to add anything to this article. ALSO, the sentence
 * Whether this non-belief needs to be explicit in order to qualify one as an atheist depends on which definition of atheism is used./ref name= Nagel1959/
 * made some reference back to the three definitions, at least suggests that different people "choose" different definitions, and does not just leave the (probably unexpected) 3 definitions hanging in the air. We have spent many, many hours days on the definitions & the only one in the body that gets extensive treatment is the absence one. The section on definitions has more of a focus on categorizations. Btw, the section "Definition as impossible or impermanent" is not about definition at all but about "actualization" (for want of a better term).--JimWae (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I wasn't in any way finding fault with your edits, trying to make the definition more encyclopedic after the definition was first added by the editor whom I addressed above. I'm sorry if you thought that I was. And it has nothing to do with "established" editors. I would still have reverted it no matter who the editor was, and I would not have reverted it if I thought it was improving the article, no matter who the editor was. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)