User:JimWae/atheism

Tables
While I still object to the label "weak", here is a table that might help

January 2010
First use of 3 defs

MOS:BEGIN says 1>The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader, without being overly specific.... 2>The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable? 3>If its subject is amenable to definition, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the subject is a specialised term, provide the context as early as possible.

On definition
Three distinct definitions of atheism are discernible within sources. Each definition results in a variation of the scope of atheism (and of atheists).

The least inclusive definition, given in many sources, is that atheism is the position that it is false that even one deity exists. Often the word "belief" is used instead of position, often the definition is shortened to atheism is the belief that no deities exist. The scope of this definition is the smallest of the three. This variety of atheism is often referred to as "strong atheism" or as "positive atheism". It is an explicit position, i.e. those who take this position explicitly acknowledge that it is their position that deities do not exist. Some theists and some agnostics claim that to be an atheist under this definition requires that have "a belief" or "a faith", and that, since it has never been proven that there are no deities, this belief is just as much a "leap" as believing that a deity does exist.

A definition that includes more people as atheists is that "atheism is the rejection of belief in deities, with or without the assertion that 'at least one deity exists' is false".




 * (page 175 in 1967 edition)



The most inclusive definition is that "atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities". which would include as atheists anyone who does not explicitly believe that at least one deity exists. This definition includes as atheists all infants, all agnostics who do not believe in any deity, and arguably anyone who may have had so little exposure to the notion of deities that they have not formed an opinion about their existence. While "absence of belief" is a necessary condition under all three definitions of atheism, only under this definition is "absence" proposed as sufficient grounds for inclusion, and several sources do note that this definition is less rigorous than others. This type of athiesm has been classified as "implicit atheism" and as implicit weak atheism". Because this definition contains only a necessary condition for atheism and no other condition is mentioned before it would be sufficient that something be counted as "atheism", according to this definition, "mathematics" (and many other "cognitive" systems) could qualify as atheistic (and a species of atheism) because mathematics has an "absence of belief in the existence of a deity". This definition escapes the claim by many theists that atheism also requires a belief.

As presented in the first paragraph of this article, three distinct definitions of atheism can be identified within the literature. The narrowest definition, given in many sources, is "the position that no deities exist"; a definition that coincides with the group of atheists identified as explicit, strong atheists elsewhere in this article, and one that would include the least number of people. Some theists claim that to be an atheist under this definition requires that one have "a belief".

The definition that would include the most people is "absence of belief in the existence of deities", which would include anyone who does not explicitly believe that at least one deity exists, such as infants and anyone who may have had so little exposure to the notion of deities that they have not formed an opinion about their existence -- but it also includes all agnostics who do not believe in the existence of some deity anyway. While "absence of belief" is a necessary condition under all three definitions of atheism, only under this definition is "absence" proposed as sufficient grounds for inclusion, and several sources do note that this definition is less rigorous than others. This is the only definition that would include what is identified as "implicit atheism" elsewhere in this article. Because this definition contains only a necessary condition for atheism and no other condition is mentioned before it would be sufficient that something be counted as "atheism", according to this definition, "mathematics" (and many other "cognitive" systems) could qualify as atheistic (and a species of atheism) because mathematics has an "absence of belief in the existence of a deity". This definition escapes the claim by many theists that atheism also requires a belief.

A third definition appearing in the literature is "the rejection of belief that any deities exist". Atheists in this group are identified as "explicit weak" atheists elsewhere in the article - they have heard about deities and explicitly reject belief in them, even if they acknowledge that the existence of at least one deity is not a complete impossibility. Atheists in this group may maintain that there do not seem to be good enough grounds for believing in deities, or that the entire notion of a deity is incomprehensible to them, or that all talk about deities stretches all notions of credibility, and that belief in such beings would amount to foolishness. Atheists in this group are not suspending belief for later consideration (as some agnostics do), they maintain they do not believe now, and do not see any reason for considering the matter further later. Nor do they claim simply that they do not know whether any deity exists (as some agnostics do). One may not know whether something is true or not, yet believe it anyway. Strictly speaking, saying one is agnostic, leaves the question "Do you believe?" unanswered. "Rejection" atheists do not claim certainty that deities do not exist, and explicitly claim they do not believe either. This definition also escapes the claim made by many theists that atheism requires a belief.

The ontology implicit in all three definitions is identical: a world that does not include deities among existent entities. They differ in their epistemic conditions. "Explicit strong atheists" are willing to claim some degree of knowledge and/or certainty that there are no deities. "Implicit atheists" fall into 2 main epistemic groups: those who are (mostly) unaware of the concept of deities, and those who explicitly claim they do not know (agnostics who are not theists anyway). "Explicit weak atheists" also do not count deities among existent entities, but are not inclined to claim knowledge and/or certainty that deities do not exist, and while they may be prepared to argue against the existence of deities, they do not claim to know that their existence is a complete impossibility, nor their non-existence a known certainty. Theists and explicit atheists have made an ontological decision about what to include as entities in the universe. Agnostics (those, at least, who are not also either theists or atheists) have not made a decision, putting deities in the category of "undecided"

Atheism can be either the rejection of belief that any deities exist,[1] or the more emphatic position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]

"rejection of theistic belief".

atheism: rejection of belief in God or gods Collins Discovery Encyclopedia, 1st edition © HarperCollins Publishers 2005

atheism: Disbelief in the existence of God. The Pocket Oxford Dictionary (Fowler & Fowler, 1942)

http://atheisme.ca/main/principes_en.html#atheism http://www.zazzle.ca/atheism_is_not_a_claim_its_rejection_of_a_claim_bumper_sticker-128725060633588475

George H. Smith: Atheism may be divided into two broad categories: implicit and explicit. (a) Implicit atheism is the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it. (b) Explicit atheism is the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it. http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smith.htm Smith also quotes from Edwards, so he must consider Edwards def has currency

Nagel, Ernest
Although Ernest Nagel rejects Smith's definition of atheism as merely "absence of theism", acknowledging only explicit atheism as true "atheism", his tripartite classification of rejectionist atheism—commonly found in the philosophical literature—is identical to Smith's critical atheism typology.

One atheist writer who explicitly disagrees with such a broad definition is Ernest Nagel (1965):


 * title=Philosophical Concepts of Atheism |first=Ernest |last=Nagel |year=1959 |book=Basic Beliefs: The Religious Philosophies of Mankind |publisher=Sheridan House |reprinted in Critiques of God, edited by Peter A. Angeles, Prometheus Books, 1997

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/atheism/types-and-typologies-of-atheism.html http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/s1990c23.htm "Philosophical Concepts of Atheism" 1976 "Critiques of God" ed peter Angeles Buffalo, NY Prometheus Books

Ernest Nagel, "The Case for Atheism," in Philosophy: An Introduction to the Labor of Reason, ed. Gary Percesepe (N.Y.: MacMillan,  1991),  pp. 508-518, pp. 511-512.  The selection originally appeared in Nagel's "Philosophical Concepts of Atheism," in Basic Beliefs, ed. J.E. Fairchild (N.Y.: Sheridan House, 1959).

In the chapter Philosophical Concepts of Atheism, atheist philosopher Ernest Nagel had this to say about the meaning of the word "atheism":


 * 1965, Philosophical Concepts of Atheism, in Basic Beliefs: The Religious Philosophies of Mankind, Ernest Nagel, reprinted 1997 in Critiques of God, edited by Peter A. Angeles, Prometheus Books, 1997
 * I shall understand by "atheism" a critique and a denial of the major claims of ALL varieties of theism. (p4)
 * ...atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief, or with disbelief in some particular creed of a religious group. Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist - for he is not denying any theistic claims. Similarly in the case of an adult who, if he has withdrawn from the faith of his father without reflection or because of frank indifference to any theological issue, is also not an atheist - for such an adult is not challenging theism and not professing any views on the subject. (pp.4-5)
 * As I see it, atheistic philosophies fall into two major groups; (1) Those which hold that theistic doctrine is meaningful, but reject it either on the grounds that (a) the positive evidence for it is insufficient, or (b) the negative evidence is quite overwhelming; and (2) those that hold that the theistic thesis is not even meaningful, and reject it (a) as just nonsense, or (b) as literally meaningless, but interpreting it as a symbolic rendering of human ideals... It will not be possible in the limited space at my disposal to discuss the second category of atheist critiques; and in any event, most of the traditional atheistic critiques of theism belong to the first group.(p. 6)

So, in philosophy (Flew and Martin notwithstanding), atheism is commonly defined along the lines of "rejection of theistic belief". This is often misunderstood to mean only the view that there is no God, but it is conventional to distinguish between two or three main sub-types of atheism in this sense. However, writers differ in their characterization of this distinction, and in the labels they use for these positions.

Scriven
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/scccweb/etexts/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_4_ARGUMENTS_REASON/Overview.htm “The Presumption of Atheism” by Michael Scriven

Summary by Meghan Ramsay (QCC, 2004)

Scriven asserts that normally, the word faith is interchangeable with the word confidence, and that confidence and reason must go hand in hand. For instance, we have faith in a person because we have reason to be confident. Normally, if we have faith (confidence) in something without reason to, the results can lead to calamity. However, he points out that when it comes to religious beliefs, faith is looked upon as a substitute for reason rather than something that should have its foundation in reason. Scriven argues that faith alone is not an adequate way to prove the truth of beliefs. Doing so, he asserts, is like saying that you won a game just by playing and by referring to playing as “winning.” Simply because you call it winning doesn’t mean that you won. He goes on to say that in order to prove something that one has faith in, s/he must provide evidence that justifies the belief. In doing so, one would no longer need to believe based upon faith, as s/he would have solid proof. Scriven also argues that the mere possibility that a person with faith in religious beliefs might turn out to be correct does not mean that the beliefs are automatically true. He also points out that mere agreement is not enough to prove that a belief is true, as the agreement of either religious persons or atheists could very well be a shared mistake. Unlike scientific beliefs which are constantly verified by our daily experiences, religious beliefs are not repeatedly verified by constant, common religious experiences. In fact, he argues, many fundamental religious beliefs vary widely between various denominations and are open to much criticism by others. Scriven points out that the criteria for religious truth must be connected with our everyday truths, or else these religious criteria for truths do not have any connection with our lives. Therefore, they would prove completely useless as a method for explanation of our world or guidance for our lives.

Scriven argues that if there are no arguments that point to even a slight chance of the existence of God, the only alternative is atheism. Scriven uses the analogy of the belief in Santa Clause to illustrate his point. When we are children, we find it plausible to believe in Santa Clause. However, as we grow older we realize that there is not the least bit of evidence in favor of the possibility of his existence. We do not, however, attempt to prove the inexistence of Santa. Instead we simply come to realize that there is not the slightest reason to believe in his existence. In fact, belief in his supernatural powers goes directly against the evidence. Thus, the proper alternative to belief in Santa is disbelief rather than deferment of belief.

Scriven maintains that beliefs are either well founded (“there is evidence which is best explained by this claim), provable (“the evidence is indubitable and the claim is very clearly required), wholly unfounded or unsupported (“there is no evidence for it and no general considerations in its favor”), or disprovable (“it implies that something would be the case that definitely is not the case”). He asserts that it is ridiculous to believe in either a disproved belief or a wholly unfounded one. Additionally, he argues that it is irrational to treat such a wholly unfounded belief as one that merits serious consideration. Although a claim for which there is some support cannot be dismissed, but without undoubted evidence such a claim cannot be wholly believed either. In order for one to maintain agnosticism, the belief must not be provable or disprovable. However, since there is not even a slight bit of evidence to prove the existence of a supernatural being, one cannot accept agnosticism. Scriven argues that regardless of how many supposed proofs for the existence of a God exists, if they are all defective, they are worthless. Additionally, Scriven points out that although the various proofs for the existence of God attempt to support each other, one must take a closer look. He argues that in reality, these varied proofs are often referring to many different entities who seemingly share the same name. In order for these supposedly connected proofs to work, there must also be proof that they each refer to the same entity, which monotheism does not provide.

Scriven, Michael. Primary Philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.

Flew
In 1984 philosopher Antony Flew in The Presumption of Atheism concurred, but he, at least, to his credit, explicitly acknowledges this as a "new" definition:

Antony G.N. Flew, "God, Freedom and Immortality: A Critical Analysis" The Presumption of Atheism, Prometheus Books, (1984), Page 14

to his credit, explicitly acknowledges this as a "new" definition:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flew01.htm

My presumption of atheism is closely analogous to the presumption of innocence in the English law; a comparison which I shall develop in Section 2. What I want to examine is the contention that the debate about the existence of God should properly begin from the presumption of atheism, that the onus of proof must lie upon the theist. The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter. The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism,going arbitrarily against established common usage.'

more at http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm ...we need to give a new and much more comprehensive meaning to the term "atheist." Whereas it is currently construed as referring to a person who positively disbelieves that there is an object corresponding to what is thus tacitly taken to be a or the legitimate concept of God, I would now urge that the word be hereafter understood not positively but negatively. Let the originally Greek prefix "a" be read in the same way in "atheist" as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as "amoral," atypical," and "asymmetrical." In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the nonexistence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist.

Martin
Michael Martin, "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification," Temple University Press, (1992), Page 463 Michael Martin:

"...an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist." http://www.andrsib.com/martin/defined.htm

The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, edited by Michael Martin, 2007, Cambridge University Press

If you look up “atheism” in a dictionary, you will find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly, many people understand “atheism” in this way. Yet this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek “a” means “without” or “not,” and “theos” means “god.”1 From this standpoint, an atheist is someone without a belief in God; he or she need not be someone who believes that God does not exist.2 Still, there is a popular dictionary meaning of “atheism” according to which an atheist is not simply one who holds no belief in the existence of a God or gods but is one who believes that there is no God or gods. This dictionary use of the term should not be overlooked. To avoid confusion, let us call it positive atheism and let us call the type of atheism derived from the original Greek roots.negative atheism.(p 1, General Introduction by Martin)

Michael Martin, "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification," Temple University Press, (1992), Page 463 Michael Martin: "...an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist." 8

Definitions
entry by Louis P Pojman

Dictionary of Philosophy - Peter A Angeles, 1981: 1. the belief that gods do not, or God does not, exist; 2. The disbelief in any kind of supernatural existence that is supposed to affect the universe; 3. the lack of belief in a particular God

Dictionary of Philosophy - Dagobert D. Runes, 1962 edition: (a) the belief that there is no God; (b) Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic". The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term though widely current in the history of thought - entry by Vergilius Ferm

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Atheism 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica ATHEISM: literally a system of belief which denies the existence of God. The term as generally used, however, is highly ambiguous... dogmatic atheism is rare compared with the sceptical type, which is identical with agnosticism in so far as it denies the capacity of the mind of man to form any conception of God, but is different from it in so far as the agnostic merely holds his judgment in suspense, though, in practice, agnosticism is apt to result in an attitude towards religion which is hardly distinguishable from a passive and unaggressive atheism.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia Volume II, 1907 ...Thus, defined as a doctrine, or theory, or philosophy formally opposed to theism, atheism can only signify the teaching of those schools, whether cosmological or moral, which do not include God either as a principle or as a conclusion of their reasoning.

http://www.ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/index.html?action=define&ignoreaccents=on&wholewords=on&searchtype=stemming&text=atheism&service=english2english atheism: 1. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. 2. The doctrine or belief that there is no God

http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?Word=atheism atheism: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods; the doctrine or belief that there is no God

The Masonic Dictionary: "One who does not believe in God."

Dan Barker, "Losing Faith in Faith: From preacher to Atheist," Freedom From Religion Foundation, (1992), Page 99 Dan Barker: "There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god -- both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter..."

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html

Rejection (noun form from verb reject) has etymological roots of "throwing back" - a reaction to an action. This etymological root is very much retained in its present usage (repel, rebuff, resist, reject with contempt - even refuse suggests more than a simple choice not to accept). One can have a philosophical position on theism without necessarily throwing anything back or attacking theism. A more pro-active rather than reactive definition could use the word eschewal. If one eschews something, one is aware of it and makes a decision to avoid it - without attacking it or reacting against it. This eschewal could then be seen as a "philosophical view". (An atheistic Buddhist [whom Wikipedia cannot deny has some kind of a philosophical view], might even have the view that it does not matter much if sometimes one does not completely "steer around" theism.)

If we are defining "atheism", I guess we must speak primarily about the a philosophical view (an ISM). However, since people were called atheists before they were held as holding to a philosophical view, and because being an atheist does not necessarily imply having any belief at all, (nor anything [or very little] more than not counting the word deity as having any referent, I do not think the article should unnecessarily endeavor to stick to the ISM rather than the ISTs and the ISTICs when discussing the definition.

While it makes sense to point out which definitions imply a philosophical view, I do not thinke such needs to be done in the lede. This could properly be dealt with in the main body of the article. The "distinctions" section talks about categories, but still does not overtly refer back to the 3 various definitions. We likely would not STILL so extensively be discussing the definition if the article ever took then up again after the lede. --JimWae 20:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

-ISMs: Which have an absence of theism?
• agnosticism

• anarchism

• animism

• behaviourism

• Buddhism

• capitalism

• communism

• Darwinism

• deism

• democracy

• economics

• empiricism

• ethics

• falsificationism

• feminism

• idealism

• impressionism

• Kantianism

• libertarianism

• linguistics

• logic

• logical positivism

• Maoism

• Marxism

• materialism

• mathematics

• naturalism

• nihilism

• pantheism

• philosophy

• positivism

• pragmatism

• rationalism

• republicanism

• science

• scientific method

• socialism

• vegetarianism

• verificationism

• vitalism

More
Atheism implies, minimally, the absence of belief in the existence of some deity. It is contrasted with theism, the belief in a God or gods. Some definitions of atheism mention as a condition of its usage a positive belief or assertion that deities do not exist. A third definition does not require any explicit denial of the existence of a deity, but does require explicit rejection of belief in a deity.

Considerable debate exists regarding how distinct atheism is from agnosticism. The first and third definitions above would include as atheists those agnostics who do not believe in any deity, whereas the second definition above would exclude agnostics, since agnostics do not make any assertions about whether any deity exist. The first definition would also include as atheists those people who have had so little exposure to theism that they have not formed an opinion on it.

Atheism is an (note: "an" not "any") ontological viewpoint that does not include any deities among existent entities. Contrasted with theism, three distinct definitions appear in reference books (though not all three in all reference books. Each of the three definitions classifies different groups of people as atheists, and different views of the world as atheistic.

The most inclusive definition defines an atheist as anyone who does not believe in a deity. Under this definition atheists would include agnostics who do not believe in a deity (but not those who have doubts but still believe in a deity), those who have heard little or nothing about deities (such as small children or members of some isolated cultures), and those who have never given theism much consideration. It would also include (as atheistic) certain religions that do not advocate belief in a deity (such as some forms of Buddhism) Atheists under this most inclusive definition are often specified as "weak", "soft", "negative", or "neutral". They may be either explicit or implicit.

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

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

Atheism is often defined in terms of who atheists are or what position atheists hold. Only under the narrowest definition can atheism be described as being a specific doctrine, (beliving that something does not exist). As a result, the definition comes to depend on descriptions of the psychological state.

Whichever definition is chosen will affect which of the following groups of people are included There may be no correct answer regarding which definition is best, it may depend on the context & the audience. The only guideline we have is that the definition one chooses should be in accord with usage, and take into account all the ways in which the word is used meaningfully and conveys a meaning. If a definition says that users of the word are not making sense, when they are in fact able to convey a message by their words, that definition needs to be carefully examined for bias.
 * agnostics (some included by widest definition, nearly all by middle definition)
 * children who have never considered the idea (widest includes)
 * adults who have given little or no consideration to the idea (widest includes)
 * adherents of religions that are not theistic

What all 3 definitions share is a world-view without a god - an ontological position in which the word "god" is without referent, without denotation.

Atheism is the opposite of theism, and thus the opposite of belief that at least one deity exists. At issue is what is the opposite of belief.

The narrowest definition of atheism includes as atheists only those who believe no deities exist, and who would be willing to assert "There are no gods at all." Wider definitions, explicitly included by several encyclopedia and dictionaries,

include people who have heard that others believe in some deity, but hold no such belief themselves, and so would be ready to explicitly state "I do not believe in any gods", but would not necessarily deny every possibility of the existence of some deity. Though few would describe themselves as atheists, many agnostics would be included under this definition. Even wider definitions would also include as atheism any belief system (such as some forms of Buddhism) that does not maintain a belief in some god, and as atheist all those who just have never heard of gods, such as small children and people in isolated tribes.


 * 1) I believe the proposition is true.
 * 2) I believe the proposition is false.
 * 3) I have never encountered the proposition, so I 'lack belief' in it. This is the sort of lack of belief in the above examples of one's lack of belief about 'zorgs' or the common man's about phlogiston and would apply to people in a culture (if one ever existed) that simply never considered the question of a God or his existence.
 * 4) I have encountered the proposition, but think it is meaningless. This is being a 'non-cognitivist' about the proposition and covers the position of philosophers such as A. J. Ayer and the example given of Buddhists who consider the question nonsensical. Such people (I think) could also be described as 'lacking belief' in God, insofar as they think formulating such a belief is impossible (since it includes a nonsensical claim).
 * 5) I have encountered the proposition, but take the stance that the article defines as 'weak atheism': 'the absence of belief in the existence of deities without the positive assertion that deities do not exist'.
 * 6) I am 'agnostic' about the proposition in the first sense (in WP agnosticism): I think the truth or falsity of the claim is 'unknown or unknowable' (the article adds 'or incoherent' (i.e. 4.) but I think this is questionable)
 * 7) I am 'agnostic' about the proposition in the second sense (in WP): those 'who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion'.

More refs

 * http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia
 * Atheism is that system of thought which is formally opposed to theism. Since its first coming into use the term atheism has been very vaguely employed, generally as an epithet of accusation against any system that called in question the popular gods of the day. Thus while Socrates was accused of atheism (Plato, Apol., 26,c.) and Diagoras called an atheist by Cicero (Nat. Deor., I, 23), Democritus and Epicurus were styled in the same sense impious (without respect for the gods) on account of their trend of their new atomistic philosophy. In this sense too, the early Christians were known to the pagans as atheists, because they denied the heathen gods; while, from time to time, various religious and philosophical systems have, for similar reasons, been deemed atheistic.
 * Though atheism, historically considered, has meant no more in the past critical or sceptical denial of the theology of those who have employed the term as one of reproach, and has consequently no one strict philisophical meaning; though there is no one consistent system in the exposition of which it has a definite place; yet, if we consider it in its broad meaning as merely the opposite of theism, we will be able to frame such divisions as will make possible a grouping of definite systems under this head. And in so doing so we shall at once be adopting both the historical and the philosophical view. For the common basis of all systems of theism as well as the cardinal tenet of all popular religion at the present day is indubitably a belief in the existence of a personal God, and to deny this tenet is to invite the popular reproach of atheism. The need of some such definition as this was felt by Mr. Gladstone when he wrote (Contemporary Review, June 1876):
 * "By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole unseen, or to the existence of God."
 * Moreover, the breadth of comprehension in such a use of the term admits of divisions and cross-divisions being framed under it; and at the same time limits the number of systems of thought to which, with any propriety, it might otherwise be extended. Also, if the term is thus taken, in strict contradistinction to theism, and a plan of its possible modes of acceptance made, these systems of thought will naturally appear in clearer proportion and relationship.
 * Thus, defined as a doctrine, or theory, or philosophy formally opposed to theism, atheism can only signify the teaching of those schools, whether cosmological or moral, which do not include God either as a principle or as a conclusion of their reasoning.
 * The most trenchant form which atheism could take would be the positive and dogmatic denial existence of any spiritual and extra-mundane First Cause. This is sometimes known as dogmatic, or positive theoretic, atheism; though it may be doubted whether such a system has ever been, or could ever possibly be seriously maintained.


 * http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/books/concise/WORDS-A.html
 * http://www.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/concise/WORDS-A.html
 * ATHEISM: originally used in Greece of all those who, whether they believed in a GOD or not, disbelieved in the official GODS of the State: SOCRATES was the classic instance. In the Roman Empire the term was applied to CHRISTIANS but sometimes Christians, like POLYCARP, would turn the term against their persecutors. Until the expression "AGNOSTICISM" came into general use in the nineteenth century, the term "ATHEISM" was popularly used to describe those who thought the EXISTENCE of GOD an unprovable thesis. -- from Irving Hexham's Concise Dictionary of Religion
 * AGNOSTICISM: the doctrine that all knowledge of such entities as a divine BEING, IMMORTALITY, and a supernatural world is impossible. The word is attributed to the nineteenth century SKEPTIC, T. H. HUXLEY and is used by people who wish to avoid professing dogmatic ATHEISM.

Some definitions of disbelief

then let the reader decide
 * agnostics - who typically either do not characterize themselves as atheistic and/or object to being included
 * children who have never heard of deities
 * adults who have never heard of deities
 * religions that are non-theistic
 * those who disbelieve in some deities (& are accused of atheism)

--JimWae 05:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Atheism, in its broadest sense, is any world-view that does not include the presence of gods.

While agnosticism, focusing on what can be known, is an epistemological position (dealing with the nature and limits of human knowledge); both atheism and theism are ontological positions (a branch of metaphysics that deals with what types of entities exist). Atheists do not hold the word "God" to have a referent or denotation. Some atheists also hold, pointing to inconsistencies in concepts of deities, that the term has no clear connotation.

Although atheists often share common concerns regarding empirical evidence and the scientific method of investigation and a large number are skeptics, there is no single ideology that all atheists share. Additionally, there are certain individuals whose religious or spiritual beliefs some might describe as atheistic, though those holding such beliefs do not normally describe themselves as atheists.

Atheism includes, but is not equivalent to, the position of antitheism, the active opposition to theism.

Atheism

 * It is commonly defined as the explicit (i.e., conscious and deliberate), positive rejection and denial of theism;
 * It is not our task to weigh in on which definition is most common - unless there is some evidence to support it. This selection of quotes raises POV issues. Britannica does not specify what is being denied - God or belief in God.
 * I suppose it is not impossible that Lyngzeidetson's summary for a one-page QuickStudy guide to religion may one day be regarded as a highly regarded authority on the matter, but a search for his name+atheism reveals all but 2 references are mirrors of wikipedia. Can you imnagine any other encyclopedia using QuickStudy as a reference?
 * rejection AND denial or rejection OR denial?
 * rejection is a loaded word - many people are in disbelief not because they have decided to reject belief, but just because they find they just do not believe any more


 * however, others&mdash;including most atheistic philosophers and groups&mdash;define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities  (cf. nontheism),
 * here is where the personalization of definition begins. The "preferred" view does not identify the sources as personally involved, but here we are presented with a suggestion that these are people with an agenda. Inclusion of remarks that this definition also appears in dictionaries & encyclopedia, have been repeatedly removed


 * thereby designating many agnostics
 * designating works HERE because it is harping on people doing the designating, instead of definitions which "include" certain groups
 * agnostics are already INCLUDED by the very first sentence. It is NOT just atheists who ever include agnostics. Obviously agnostics self-identify as agnostics & not as atheists, but that does not mean that any defintion that includes them as atheists is agenda driven or completely wrong


 * and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well.
 * Nor is it obviously wrong to include this group. Not discussed are 2 other groups: adults who have never heard of gods, and members of non-theistic branches of Eastern religions


 * The former, narrower usage defines atheism positively, as the belief that no gods exist; the latter, broader usage, however, defines atheism negatively, as the absence of belief in gods.
 * While I like this sort of distinction, it no longer applies to the discussion above it. The former narrower usage in the text above is actually broader than stated here


 * In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism for the former and latter, respectively, to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief or of negative unbelief.
 * again with the personalization. THere are academic books and articles that use these terms - some of which are put out by religious groups - not just atheists

Where to from here? I think we need to go back to presenting both the narrowest (easily sourced) definition (belief that there are no deities) and the widest definition (easily sourced) (absence of belief in deities). Then we discuss in the intro how each defintion affects disputed groups in the middle


 * agnostics
 * children who have never heard of deities
 * adults who have never heard of deities
 * religions that are non-theistic
 * those who disbelieve in some deities

then let the reader decide

Atheism is the opposite of theism, and thus the opposite of belief that at least one god exists. Atheism has been defined both narrowly and broadly, depending in part on whether the opposition is to belief in any gods or to the existence of any gods. The narrow definition includes as atheists only those who believe no deities exist, and who would be willing to assert "There is no god". A wider definition includes people who hold no belief in any deities, who would be willing to state "I do not believe in God/gods".

Whichever definition is chosen affects who gets included as an atheist. Many agnostics express doubt and disbelief about deities, but since their position is one about uncertainty and absence of knowledge about whether or not any deities exist, few if any would assert "There are no gods at all". Some atheists would readily assert "there are no gods at all", but many people who identify themselves as atheists would not so assert, while still being prepared to assert they do not believe in any god at all

Those that DO include absence of belief
Dictionary of Philosophy - Peter A Angeles, 1981 1. the belief that gods do not, or God does not, exist 2.The disbeleif in any kind of supernatural existence that is supposed to affect the universe 3. the lack of belief in a particular God

Dictionary of Philosophy - Dagobert D. Runes, 1962 edition Two uses of the term: (a) the belief that there is no God (b)Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic". The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term though widely current in the history of thought - entry by Vergilius Ferm

Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd edition), 1999, Robert Audi editor: "the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism..." entry by Louis P Pojman

Thus, defined as a doctrine, or theory, or philosophy formally opposed to theism, atheism can only signify the teaching of those schools, whether cosmological or moral, which do not include God either as a principle or as a conclusion of their reasoning." -- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Atheism atheism Disbelief in or denial of the existence of deities. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or a supreme being. The doctrine or belief that no deities exist. The absence of belief in deities. Godlessness; ungodliness; immorality.

http://www.ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/index.html?action=define&ignoreaccents=on&wholewords=on&searchtype=stemming&text=atheism&service=english2english atheism 1. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. 2. The doctrine or belief that there is no God

atheist One who denies the existence of any deity. atheistic Rejecting any belief in gods;

http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?Word=atheism a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods the doctrine or belief that there is no God

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Atheism ATHEISM (from Gr. a-, privative, and O€6, God), literally a system of belief which denies the existence of God. The term as generally used, however, is highly ambiguous ... But dogmatic atheism is rare compared with the sceptical type, which is identical with agnosticism in so far as it denies the capacity of the mind of man to form any conception of God, but is different from it in so far as the agnostic merely holds his judgment in suspense, though, in practice, agnosticism is apt to result in an attitude towards religion which is hardly distinguishable from a passive and unaggressive atheism. The third or critical type may be illustrated by A CandidExamination of Theism by"Physicus" (G. J. Romanes), in which the writer endeavours to establish the weakness of the proofs for the existence of God, and to substitute for theism Spencer's physical explanation of the universe, and yet admits how unsatisfying to himself the new position is. "

http://poets.notredame.ac.jp/cgi-bin/wn?cmd=wn&word=atheism Kyoto Notre Dame University English Vocabulary Assistant

The noun atheism has 2 senses (no senses from tagged texts) 1. atheism, godlessness -- (the doctrine or belief that there is no God) 2. atheism -- (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods) Synonyms/Hypernyms (Ordered by Estimated Frequency) of noun atheism 2 senses of atheism Sense 1 atheism, godlessness -- (the doctrine or belief that there is no God) religious orientation -- (an attitude toward religion or religious practices) Sense 2 atheism -- (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods) unbelief, disbelief -- (a rejection of belief)

http://lookwayup.com/lwu.exe/lwu/d?s=f&w=atheism http://lookwayup.com/lwu.exe/lwu/d;w=atheism/n/4586639 LookWayUp

1. [n] a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. More... 2. [n] the doctrine or belief that there is no God. More...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia

Atheism is that system of thought which is formally opposed to theism. Since its first coming into use the term atheism has been very vaguely employed, generally as an epithet of accusation against any system that called in question the popular gods of the day. Thus while Socrates was accused of atheism (Plato, Apol., 26,c.) and Diagoras called an atheist by Cicero (Nat. Deor., I, 23), Democritus and Epicurus were styled in the same sense impious (without respect for the gods) on account of their trend of their new atomistic philosophy. In this sense too, the early Christians were known to the pagans as atheists, because they denied the heathen gods; while, from time to time, various religious and philisophical systems have, for similar reasons, been deemed atheistic.

Though atheism, historically considered, has meant no more in the past critical or sceptical denial of the theology of those who have employed the term as one of reproach, and has consquently no one strict philisophical meaning; though there is no one consistent system in the exposition of which it has a definite place; yet, if we consider it in its broad meaning as merely the opposite of theism, we will be able to frame such divisions as will make possible a grouping of definite systems under this head. And in so doing so we shall at once be adopting both the historical and the philosophical view. For the common basis of all systems of theism as well as the cardinal tenet of all popular religion at the present day is indubitably a belief in the existence of a personal God, and to deny this tenet is to invite the popular reproach of atheism. The need of some such definition as this was felt by Mr. Gladstone when he wrote (Contemporary Review, June 1876):

By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole unseen, or to the existence of God. Moreover, the breadth of comprehension in such a use of the term admits of divisions and cross-divisions being framed under it; and at the same time limits the number of systems of thought to which, with any propriety, it might otherwise be extended. Also, if the term is thus taken, in strict contradistinction to theism, and a plan of its possible modes of acceptance made, these systems of thought will naturally appear in clearer proportion and relationship. Thus, defined as a doctrine, or theory, or philosophy formally opposed to theism, atheism can only signify the teaching of those schools, whether cosmological or moral, which do not include God either as a principle or as a conclusion of their reasoning.

The most trenchant form which atheism could take would be the positive and dogmatic denial existence of any spiritual and extra-mundane First Cause. This is sometimes known as dogmatic, or positive theoretic, atheism; though it may be doubted whether such a system has ever been, or could ever possibly be seriously maintained.

http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/books/concise/WORDS-A.html ATHEISM: originally used in Greece of all those who, whether they believed in a GOD or not, disbelieved in the official GODS of the State: SOCRATES was the classic instance. In the Roman Empire the term was applied to CHRISTIANS but sometimes Christians, like POLYCARP, would turn the term against their persecutors. Until the expression "AGNOSTICISM" came into general use in the nineteenth century, the term "ATHEISM" was popularly used to describe those who thought the EXISTENCE of GOD an unprovable thesis. -- from Irivng Hexham's Concise Dictionary of Religion

Those that are non-committal about including absence of belief or include by implication
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861587465 atheism - unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheism atheism 1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

http://www.bartleby.com/61/52/A0495200.html atheism 1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 1b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism&r=66 http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/atheism 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Atheism Atheism Godlessness. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=atheism 1913 Webster 1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. Atheism is a ferocious system, that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us to awaken tenderness. R. Hall. Atheism and pantheism are often wrongly confounded. Shipley. 2. Godlessness

http://adsl-65-66-134-201.dsl.kscymo.swbell.net/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=atheism 1828 Webster ATHEISM, n. The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being. Atheism is a ferocious system that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us, to awaken tenderness.

ATHEISTICAL 1. Pertaining to atheism. 2. Disbelieving the existence of a God; impious, applied to persons; as, an atheistic writer. 3. Implying or containing atheism; applied to things, as, atheistic doctrines or opinions.

http://www.ismbook.com/atheism.html [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 towards 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).

Those that do NOT include absence of belief
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk atheism - the belief that God does not exist.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=4607&dict=CALD atheist - someone who believes that God or gods do not exist

http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=atheism&matchtype=exact atheism - the belief that there is no God.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=atheist*1+0&dict=A atheist someone who believes that God does not exist atheism the belief that God does not exist

http://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=3&Keyword=atheism&goquery=Find+it%21&Language=ENG atheism 1. The belief that there is no god. Thesaurus: heathenism, impiety, paganism, rationalism, freethinking, non-belief, skepticism, godlessness. Derivative: atheist A person who believes that there is no god Thesaurus: nonbeliever, heathen, infidel, pagan, freethinker, agnostic

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a9.htm#athe 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.

Denial of existence
http://www.bartleby.com/59/5/atheism.html The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002. Denial that there is a God. (Compare agnosticism.)

http://www.bartleby.com/65/at/atheism.html Columbia Encyclopedia denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved. The term atheism has been used as an accusation against all who attack established orthodoxy, as in the trial of Socrates. There were few avowed atheists from classical times until the 19th cent., when popular belief in a conflict between religion and science brought forth preachers of the gospel of atheism, such as Robert G. Ingersoll. There are today many individuals and groups professing atheism. The 20th cent. has seen many individuals and groups professing atheism, including Bertrand Russell and Madalyn Murry O’Hair.

 atheism

though not all defintions would agree that anyone without belief in a deity is to be counted as an atheist.