Talk:Atheism

RFC: Is this article in violation of WP:NAD?

I've raised this question before, including at the ends of the previous two sections, but want to address it clearly in this one section for an RFC.

The archives speak for themselves, but debate about the introduction to Atheism has been going on for years, and I'm becoming more and more convinced that the fundamental problem is that this article is in violation of WP:NAD. That is, it fails the tests provided there.

For example, WP:NAD says each article is supposed to be about a (singular) concept, but there are several distinct (though related) concepts to which the word atheism refers, and this article is about all of them.

The current intro sentence states not what the topic is (nor how the topic is defined), but something about the topic: "Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities." It is followed by a sentence that defines each of the several topics this article is about: "It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] A broader meaning is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]" (actually the current intro is a description followed by two of the three definitions, with the first definition implied in the description provided in the first sentence).

According to WP:NAD, an article's title also should be able to "easily take many different equivalent forms". Yet there is no title other than "Atheism" that would be acceptable here given the current content, because, again, the article is not about one topic that is named atheism, but is about all topics named atheism. That's not encyclopedic. That's dictionaric.

When I've brought this up before the consensus seems to always have been that the meanings are too closely related to have separate articles for each meaning. That's understandable, but debate about the intro continues with no end in sight. I thought some outside opinions might help.

What about naming this article something like Forms of atheism (and having atheism redirect here)?

--Born2cycle (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The definitions used of the three types of atheism seem to be subsets of each other, so they're very highly related. I don't think that having an article covering only different subsets constitutes a dictionary-like pattern, and the article intro doesn't claim to be about the term atheism.- Wolfkeeper 04:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Even dictionary definitions don't explicitly claim to be about the term; it's implied just as it is in this article. Sometimes it's not immediately obvious, but that's what the the criteria from WP:NAD is supposed to help us determine, and when I applied it here (see above), this article flunked. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

They may not claim to be about the term, but they are about the term. One formal test is that the article should be translatable into a completely foreign language (Chinese or Russian or something), and if you can do that successfully without still referring back to English in some way (particularly the title), then it's encyclopedic and the article is about ideas, not English words, and therefore not a dictionary.

I would say though that the long etymology section is somewhat problematic from that regard, ideally an article probably shouldn't have it at all, and reference Wiktionary (but I don't suggest you remove it, having some etymology seems to be considered acceptable here, provided it doesn't get ridiculous, but for example Britannica never has this). Alternatively, moving the etymology section down will give a more encyclopedic feel, I mean why is it that a fairly substantial etymology starts the article off as if it's the most important thing??? In an encyclopedia we're interested in the thing, not words.- Wolfkeeper 13:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Wolfkeeper. Theres nothing jumping out at me that would violate WP:NAD. As far as the suggestion that the title be changed to "Forms of atheism", I think this wouldn't be an improvement. It strikes me as similar to having say an article title like "Forms of conservatism" in place of "Conservatism".Chhe (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Born, Wolfkeeper is extremely strict about WP:NAD. If even they say it's compliant, then trust me, it's compliant by any sane measure. Though different people may define Atheism slightly differently, the definitions share much in common and there would need to be an overview article anyway (sects of Christianity differ widely, yet said page is not a disambiguation page but rather an article). Further, trying to split based on the supposed incoherency of the topic would be original research at best as there are not well-defined names for each of the varying descriptions. IMO, this RFC is a waste of time. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

So far everyone has completely ignored the main points I raised in the RFC. I'm not suggesting this article should be broken up, but certainly there have been no suggestions on how to resolve the never-ending discussions about the intro.

Let me try these specific questions, numbered.

1) WP:NAD states: "Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic". Please provide a good definition and description of [the] ONE topic that this article should begin with.

2) WP:NAD states: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.;". Since this article is clearly not about a person, a people, a place, an event or a thing, please succinctly identify the concept this article is about, in some way other than the name "atheism".

3) WP:NAD states: "an encyclopedia article's name can usually easily take many different equivalent forms". Please specify a few different equivalent forms that the name of this article can easily take given the current content.

--Born2cycle (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• (after ecx2) from WP:NAD: "Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics< ref>Note: they must not be largely or completely related only by the titular term</ref>)" [emphasis mine].. When quoting WP:NAD in the future, please do not omit this part of the sentence. I think we can agree the 3 "versions" of what atheism is are "highly related".
• Recent attempts to make the article "sound less like a dictionary" have had the opposite effect, so there is some merit to the claim that the *present state* of the intro resembles a dictionary entry. I am speaking of the substitution of "means" for "has been defined as" (& its related constructions). If we say "A means a3", a quick test (of the "dictionariness" of how "A means" is being used) is to see whether "the word A means a3" or "the concept A means a3" is the more apt substitute (unless A is a book or painting or such similar). I cannot presently think of any time it would not be at least strange to say "the concept A means a3" -- or that any "concept" has "a meaning(s)". When we "define a word", strictly speaking we are not defining "the word" (what could that even mean? If we were giving the boundaries of the word itself we could perhaps talk about how many letters & how many syllables it has, and how long it has been in existence [sound like things in a dictionary?]). When we give a definition FOR a word, we are giving 1>the meaning of the concept for which the word is a symbol, or 2>the usage of the word. The fix for this recent, unintended, opposite effect is to go back to an even earlier version, where the article owned up to the fact that atheism has been DEFINED in a few different and distinct (not synonymous) ways, each of which results in a different scope (extensional def).--JimWae (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a good definition and description of [the] ONE topic that this article should begin with. That's what was being collaboratively worked on before you started this RFC

Since this article is clearly not about a person, a people, a place, an event or a thing, please succinctly identify the concept this article is about, in some way other than the name "atheism". See first three sentences of the article; there's no rule that a topic has to be definable in one sentence; many things are too complex for that.

Please specify a few different equivalent forms that the name of this article can easily take given the current content "Disbelief in God", "Lack of belief in God", "Nonbelief in God", "Belief in the nonexistence of God"

As for the perpetuity of discussions: Such is Wikipedia; the problem is in no way unique to this article. New editors regularly come along, have a bugbear to nitpick regarding some article, discussion ensures, the article changes slightly; lather-rinse-repeat. So long as we remain a wiki, that cycle will go on. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

JimWae, I did not omit anything when i quoted from WP:NAD. Note that that part I quoted started with the word "Wikipedia", while you found something lower in the article that was similarly worded, but started with "Encyclopedia", and had that extra parenthetic remark. For the record, I agree the three topics are highly related; I just don't see any guidance for how to construct the intro in such an article, and, when I saw that parenthetic remark, asked for some there. I don't really think the problem was that the intro sounds or sounded like a dictionary. The problem is that the title implies one topic like a typical article, but the subject of this article is several closely related topics.

CyberCobra, I like your suggestions for equivalent forms for the name of this article, but I suspect others would disagree, arguing that each unfairly favors some form of atheism over another. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I would put it differently. The article is about one concept, but the concept is constructed, analysed and understood in very different ways. --Dannyno (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

When something is understood a different way, it is a different concept. At any rate, the natural atheism of any toddler is a different concept from the atheism of an adult cultural Jew, and both are different from an ex-Christian pro-science atheist evangelist. The implicit atheism of a Buddhist living in the remote mountains of remote China is different too. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from a very involved editor. I tend to agree with other editors who have replied that the problem is not really one of NAD. I think Dannyno's sentence immediately above mine puts it quite well. Instead, I think the problem, such as it is, is that, chronically, editors just have good-faith disagreements about how best to word the opening paragraph. Often, the conflict is between the desire to make the lead read smoothly, and the desire to have it be rigorously sourced. And I would not like to change the name of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

11d

What the article currently states:

“ Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] A broader meaning is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] ”

Latest proposal:

“ Atheism is any one of several forms of nonbelief in the existence of deities. Atheism can be the position that there are no deities,[1] the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2] or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] ”

--Born2cycle (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Now this is constructive! --Cybercobra (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Dwelling on it for a moment, how about making it one sentence?:
    "Atheism is any one of several forms of nonbelief in the existence of deities, including the position that there are no deities,[1] the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2] or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]" --Cybercobra (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you will find no sources for "is any one of several forms of ..." And once again, current lead does a better job saying that "absence" def is less agreed on. --windyhead (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to find a source for every little detail. This article is about several closely related topics all referred to by the same name. We have sources for each. A reasonable way to say that is "X is any one of several forms of ...". The sources are for each of the individual related topics. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes the sources are for each but you can't link them with "is any one of several forms of ..." --windyhead (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Why can't we? I don't understand. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It was already said before, see Break (11b) . A. is not "any one of several forms of ..." . It is either one form or another form, or one and another form, depending on what author you will refer to. --windyhead (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how version 11d addresses any of the multiple concerns that have already been directed toward the other 6 versions (of the 11th suggestion) that have been presented in the last 3 days.--JimWae (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it did. I'll have to review. It's hard to keep track. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, your concern in 11c is addressed. You dropped the discussion in 11b so not sure what else there is to say about that. Can you just restate what your concern is, please? And please don't just ignore what has been written to your stated concerns above. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what "nonbelief" means, as opposed to actual words like "disbelief" or "unbelief", but other than that this suggestion isn't dramatically offensive. It reads a little better than what is currently there, and it nearly covers my worries about synthesising the typological literature. Nearly. I wouldn't rip anyone's head off for putting this version in, but I'm not desperately enthusiastic either. Perhaps I should be bolder in advocating for "Atheism is godlessness." --Dannyno (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I'd support Cybercobra's one-sentence version, in particular. It's simple, clear, and covers everything. Honestly, I think all the complaints about the word "nonbelief" have been wrong. There is a plain meaning of the word, and it applies. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess everyone kind of knows what "nonbelief" signifies. Fine. It's just it's a neologism. It's not in the Oxford English Dictionary (online edition), for example. "Non-believer" exists. "Unbelief" and "disbelief" exist. I don't care a great deal, but I always prefer to avoid neologisms. --Dannyno (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem shared by all versions of "suggestion 11"

How about this for analogy:

A rectangle is any of several shapes that have quadrilateralnessitude. Rectangles can have all sides and angles the same, have 4 angles of 90 degrees, or simply be a quadrilateral.

All version 11s are of a form that would endorse the "simply be a quadrilateral" as being a rectangle. It does not matter if the first sentence is any of the previous variations in "suggestion 11"

• Rectangles encompass various forms of quadrilateralnessitude.
• Rectangles include various forms of quadrilateralnessitude.
• Rectangles incorporates various forms of quadrilateralnessitude.

(or even worse, as in suggestion 10)

• Rectangles are shapes that have quadrilateralnessitude.

I acknowledge that "quadrilateralnessitude" can be shortened, but I include it because "nonbelief" is also not in any known dictionary.

Obviously such a paragraph is wrong, but it is not just because only one def is a good definition -- the structure of the 2nd sentence is such that it endorses all 3 defs, and that structure would endorse all definitions in any sentence --even if some of the defs are "substandard". Those who oppose calling babies atheists (including, explicitly, both Nagel and Dawkins) find it just as incorrect to make a statement that it can be that "babies are atheists" as one that includes all quadrilaterals as rectangles.

The fix is to own up to the fact that atheism has been defined (as...) in 3 separate ways. Despite previous claims to the contrary, there is nothing in WP:NAD that advises against this approach, nor does WP:LEDE--JimWae (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's pretty amusing, in the context of this talk, to look at the leads of rectangle and quadrilateral. They both totally violate NAD! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

has been defined as is just as much in violation of WP:NAD as is refers to, for the same reason. It's worse, actually. I agree "can be" is an endorsement. It's an endorsement of definition(s) that have been endorsed in reliable sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Please point me to anything in WP:NAD that would support your assertion. I've read it several times. "A rectangle is defined as a quadrilateral with 4 right angles" is not about the word, but about the concept. "Rectangle means..." IS about the word.--JimWae (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have requested outside comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Atheism_-_in_violation_of_WP:NAD.3F --JimWae (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Let's use the analogy to consider the present version:

Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] A broader meaning is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

A rectangle is commonly described as squarish. It can also mean a shape with exactly 4 right angles and exactly 4 sides [with or without all sides equal in length]. A broader meaning is simply the absence of roundness. [or squarishness, if that is preferred]

This makes it even more apparent that 1>with regard to atheism, "described" is much more vague than the sources are 2>By using the word "meaning" we are talking about the term "atheism", not the concept. Rectangles do not "mean" anything, but the term "rectangle" does, 3>Revisions to the earlier version that closely resembled

Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.[1] It has been defined more broadly as the rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without an assertion that "a deity exists" is false).[2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief in the existence of any deities.[3]

based on personal stylistic preferences (that are not found in the WP style-guide) that it "sounds like a dictionary" have led to actual violation of the style guidelines in WP:NAD, whereas 4> the earlier version (very much like the one just above) in no way violated WP:NAD, and is, in terms of substance, more complete than the present version. Stylistic concerns (that were either personal, or were misinterpretations of WP:NAD) have downgraded the substance of the text.--JimWae (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

---

I think your analogy fails completely because there is but one definition of a rectangle. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. You need something with distinctive meanings that are closely related to compare. Try Libertarianism. or Socialism. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There is one agreed-upon definition of rectangle. The point is that when definitions are wrong (or disagreed with), the use of "can be" still endorses them. Many people think the absence def is not a good definition, and to endorse it is to take a POV.--JimWae (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Our "linguistic sense" does not object to "can be" when we agree with a definition, but when we disagree, the endorsement is more apparent. NPOV way is to say Atheism has been defined as...(3 distinct ways). --JimWae (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

We have to think a definition is wrong to see how "can be" endorses it. Prominent writers on the topic think the absence def is too inclusive, just as quadrilateral is too inclusive to define rectangle. Finding another topic with distinct definitions would not show this, if one still accepted all the defs--JimWae (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if we cannot exactly agree (like that never happens!) about "can be", I think it is easy to see that we can expect others in the future to object that "can be" expresses an endorsement. NPOV way is to say Atheism has been defined as...(3 distinct ways). We need to think about writing things that are unassailable as far as NPOV goes, if we want this article to remain stable. --JimWae (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Can be is short for Can be in reliable sources, but of course the in reliable sources is implied, as it is in most such assertions in Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

We need to think about writing things that are unassailable as far as NPOV goes--JimWae (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice how "Rectangles can have all sides and angles the same" slips through our notice. Some people do actually disagree that squares are rectangles. Notice also how "can be" makes what is proposed as a(n) (overly narrow) definition something much more slippery & vague. Notice how information is lost & the reader is quietly misled.--JimWae (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think the reason this section is failing to change any minds is that Jim is starting from the position that there are things wrong with the wording, with respect to atheism, but few other editors agree that these things are wrong; Jim then makes an analogy with different wording (geometry), and the things he sees as wrong remain obvious to him, but they are no more obvious to the rest of us than they were to begin with. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Radical suggestion

I'm totally prepared to be shot down here, but what about something like this?

“ Atheism refers to an implicit or explicit belief in the non-existence of one or more deities. ”

Just throwing it out there as something that may or may not add to the discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Scj - I like the wording. I also think this is a concise and technically correct definition. I worry that it may be too academic for a laymen though. Explicit and implicit aren't simple vocabularly (especially in the terms of implicit/explicit belief). NickCT (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

We could always wikilink implicit and explicit. Alternatively, we could do this:

“ Atheism refers to an implied or clearly-expressed belief in the non-existence of one or more deities. ”

-- Scjessey (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC) (wife says "tacit" isn't a layman's term either LOL)

I approve, I also generally think that we shouldn't blur the line between en and simple too much, either form is fine by me. Unomi (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is technically correct at all. It basically makes no sense. What, please, is an "implicit" "belief in the non-existence" of deities? Where does this terminology come from? If from George H. Smith, his whole point is that "implicit" atheism is precisely not a form of belief. No, this version is not acceptable. --Dannyno (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And the second go, "implied or clearly-expressed" doesn't get to the heart of the issues about conceptualisation and typology in the literature, and will also be resisted on the ground that many prominent atheists have simply not thought of themselves as believing in the non-existence of gods. Try and put that in and you'll reap a whirlwind. --Dannyno (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You are quite correct. My goal was to try to simplify the first sentence of the introduction by making it as broad as possible (to include implicit/explicit and strong/weak atheism), but in this respect I have clearly missed key information. I would say, however, that it is important that the introduction refers to the concept of atheism, and not the beliefs/non-beliefs of atheists. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If you use the phrase 'refers to' then you're really talking about the term, because it's normally understood that it's the term that refers. The article is about atheism not the term atheism, so you need to use 'Atheism is' <something> instead. That's also what WP:NAD says, and IRC WP:LEAD also- Wolfkeeper 19:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm game for something like this. As discussed above, "refers to" is a bad idea. I think "is" can be safely substituted for it in this case. I also think it may be possible to delete "one or more". My preference would be to use this as a first sentence, followed by a sentence with the proverbial three definitions. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem quite correct, if I disbelieve in Buddha, that doesn't make me an Atheist, it just means I'm not a Buddhist. To be an atheist you have to disbelieve (or at least fail to believe) in all Gods.- Wolfkeeper 17:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A totally unhelpful tangent - Do Buddhists worship Buddha as a deity? NickCT (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, Buddha cannot be defined as a deity by the criteria of "supernatural" or "immortal" on deity. As well, it is my understanding that Buddhists do not worship him as such a being. John Shandy` • talk 18:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this issue goes away if we delete "one or more", thereby making it about disbelief in deities as a whole. However, overall, I tend to prefer the Cybercobra version in the section just above this one. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, but that's not my point. If I don't believe in 'Thor' I'm still not an atheist if I believe in the Christian God, or vice versa. It's not enough to disbelieve in one supernatural being.- Wolfkeeper 19:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it would be accurate to say you were an atheist with respect to Thor. Christians were persecuted for being atheist in Roman times; they didn't believe in the Greco-Roman pantheon. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How about a first sentence that just says, "Atheism is unbelief or disbelief in the existence of gods." Then you can expand on the three main typological traditions. Mind you, this approach only works because of the inbuilt ambiguity of words like "unbelief or disbelief". But they would at least give you a manageable first sentence which we can then gloss. --Dannyno (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Support. This works in a creative way. Because of its ambiguity, it raises questions... questions that the rest of the intro, and the article, should answer. Very good. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this radical-B? I, too, like the use of "unbelief or disbelief". But "gods" at the end of the sentence brings up another perennial gripe (singular or plural, aagh), so I'd change it to "deities". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about gods vs deities. --Dannyno (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

So, I believe we're starting to build consensus on Radical-b:

Atheism is unbelief or disbelief in the existence of deities. Atheism can be the position that there are no deities,[1] the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2] or the absence of belief that any deities exist.

--Born2cycle (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Re "can be" please see Talk:Atheism#Problem_shared_by_all_versions_of_.22suggestion_11.22. --JimWae (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess a lot of people would find that extraordinarily pedantic. However, I too am an extraordinary pedant, and history has demonstrated how much care we have to take to reach any kind of consensus here. So I would happy to take that into account. How about this:

Atheism is unbelief or disbelief in the existence of deities. Atheism has been conceptualised in different ways: [1]the position that there are no deities, [2] the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[3] or the absence of belief that any deities exist.

--Dannyno (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

11e

What does everything think of this version, especially in comparision to 11d?

Atheism is any one of:

• the position that there are no deities,[1]
• the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2] or
• the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

--Born2cycle (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a fan of the use of bullet points in this situation --Cybercobra (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"Ik" re: bullet points. Also, I think it best to find a clearish first sentence and put the tripartite classification strategies in subsequent sentences for clarity. --Dannyno (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please reconsider. Remember, the intro is supposed to clearly specify in a summary fashion what the article is about.

This is an unusual situation in that it is not about one topic, but about a number of closely related but distinctive topics. I suggest that laying it out, in bullets, makes what this article about exactly clear better than trying to jumble it all together in one standard sentence, as if there is only one distinct topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the bullet points either. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That can be addressed. 11e(1).

Atheism is any one of the position that there are no deities,[1] the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2] or the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

Or, 11e(2).

Atheism is any one of: (1) the position that there are no deities,[1] (2) the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2] or (3) the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

--Born2cycle (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

11f

I'm not seeing the difference between the three definitions that are being aired here. Good dictionaries such as the OED commonly have multiple entries when there are significantly different meanings for a word but the OED does not do this in this case as it has:

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).

In other words, atheism is disbelief in god(s), as expressed in thought, words and deeds. Atheists don't believe in God; they say that they don't believe in God and they act like they don't believe in God.

Colonel Warden (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you wouldn't expect the OED to reflect the philosophical literature in detail. However, yes, the OED doesn't have multiple sub-entries, but it is clear that different conceptualisations are involved. Disbelief OR denial OR disregard./.godlessness. That's at least three meanings. "Disbelief" if you look it up in OED, says "The action or an act of disbelieving; mental rejection of a statement or assertion; positive unbelief." "Denial" is defined with several sub-entries as (I've left out 1b which is self-denial):

1. a. The act of saying ‘no’ to a request or to a person who makes a request; refusal of anything asked for or desired.

2. The asserting (of anything) to be untrue or untenable; contradiction of a statement or allegation as untrue or invalid; also, the denying of the existence or reality of a thing.

3. Refusal to acknowledge a person or thing as having a certain character or certain claims; a disowning, disavowal.

etc.

"Unbelief", meanwhile, as included in the "disbelief" entry says: "Absence or lack of belief; disbelief, incredulity."

"Incredulity" is defined as: "1. A disbelieving frame of mind; unreadiness or unwillingness to believe (statements, etc.); disbelief." and there is also "2. Want of religious faith; unbelief. Obs."

So there you go, you've got our three atheo-typologies right there.

--Dannyno (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

To emphasise, the OED is only a dictionary. Our job of course is to reflect the *literature*. And the literature has problematised the conceptualisation of godlessness in ways that go beyond what the OED is able to reflect in detail (though it clearly does so anyway). --Dannyno (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Colonel, i've been trying to tell them that for months now. They just don't get it. This is one of those weird things where -- I don't know how to describe it without making personal attacks. It's weird. But yeah, I totally agree with you. Most people do. As in like everyone in the world. Except by some strange coincidence a few people who happen to be working on this article and whose brains are like hyper-dissociative or something. (i hope that wasn't too offensive). I've tried reason, it's like talking to a brick wall. I don't know what to do it seems hopeless. Kevin Baas^talk 13:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately, it is not about our personalities at all, but about what reliable sources have to say.--JimWae (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Please feel free to visit my talk page and say exactly what you mean without fear of WP:NPA issues (just reference this comment) because I want to understand your position clearly. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Me too. Just spell it out on your page or something, and let us know when we can look at it. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Months, eh? I can believe that. There's just one more thing to say: Splitters!. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Please stay away from my talk page, all of you. :-)
2. Although I'm not horribly bothered by the present version on the page now, my first choice among all the sundry proposals is the single-sentence version, part way down section 11d, by Cybercobra. In case anyone missed it amid all the other talk, do please give it a serious look. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I liked it too but Windyhead objected to "one of several forms" and Jim felt the reference to nonbelief did not address previous concerns (though he never elaborated on that). I believe 11e (2) addresses those concerns, plus the objection to 11e (bullets). --Born2cycle (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

11g

First I got to say I'm happy to see this discussion starting to form some sort of census. And I agree with the notion

               "Atheism is unbelief or disbelief in the existence of deities."

But I believe it can be said better.

              "Atheism is the lack of a belief in the supernatural" 

It is in essence a "default" position towards beliefs. If you don't have a belief, one cannot claim your actively perusing it now can we? So rejecting other beliefs is a different step on that ladder. But the basic definition must be that you don't hold a belief in the first place. You can then expand and grow the definition more in debt with subsections.

--Muthsera (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2010 (GMT+1)

Can I suggest you read back over some of the discussion? Whether atheism is a "default" position or not is disputed in the literature, and that's why we cannot use "lack" as the lead definition. Secondly, atheism is only about deities/gods; atheists may or may not have other supernatural beliefs. So your "better" definition is unfortunately misleading and inaccurate in equal measure. --Dannyno (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have re-read the discussion. And I maintain my original position. I see no justification to leave out "lack". But I see no objections to use the word "absence" if wanted. As far as I can tell there has not been given a convincing reason to implement a opposition to theism as definition for atheism. So I suggest we disregard that point in the definition. And scrap the breaking up of the definition entirely.

I would like to point out a problem with the notion that one is only to use established "literature" towards the definition here. One reason is that this discussion could very well be considered a well founded base for citation on it's own, as it's well sourced and well conducted. The second is that earlier literature have defined "Atheism" in regards to a theist understanding. Which isn't only wrong, it's highly inaccurate. An understanding and implication of what an atheist is have change over time. As noted above. Hume and Kant had an entirely different understanding of what "Atheism" meant than say Sam Harris have today. That leaves us with a problem. Using a wide variety of literature towards this definition have the potential to be highly inaccurate. Hence this debate.

I also strongly object to the use of "reject" in regards to the definition. That would entail that "atheism" is defined as an opposition to theism. Which is false and inaccurate. And opposition to theism would be "anti theism". If one is not changed by the validity of a theist claim one has not really rejected it, one is simply only not convinced. There is a distinction there.

Which brings me to the absence of belief. That one is unaware of the belief in Bunjil does not mean one have rejected it. Or are defined by it. You simply have no awareness of it. That understanding reinforced the claim that "atheism" is a passive definition.

That brings me to Non-belief. Which is a very bad word. You don't say non-olympian or non-athlete. You are defined by what you do, not what you don't do. One could very well claim that atheism is a non secular to begin with. But thats another discussion.

In the same regard we have changed the wording from "God/Gods" to "Deity" I would like to change "Deity" to "Supernatural". An example is that atheism don't hold a belief in astrology. That is a non-deity supernatural phenomenon. So can we agree to change the wording on that as it's not strictly limited to deities? I would give you other examples as well, but I believe my point has been made. --Muthsera (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit- I see that I haven't really addressed your position on supernatural Dannyno. I simply just made an assertion. And in fear of seeming arrogant I'll try to clarify. A belief in the supernatural makes no sense as a concept for atheism. Then you might as well say that Hindus are atheist because they sometimes have no belief in a deity but rather a spirit or a life-force. I disagree with that notion. You are then a spiritualist or similar. Because having an understanding of an over natural viewpoint makes no sense in regards to having no "faith". How can you then have a non-belief of something which you have no evidence for? Do you see the contradiction?

--Muthsera (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's in the article, but I wouldn't oppose using the lead to note theological understandings of atheism too. It is not wikipedia's job to say that the theology of atheism is definitionally inaccurate. It is to reflect what reliable sources say aobut atheism. It so happens that reliable sources differ, and specifically differ on whether "unawareness" of theism is to count as conceptually atheistic. And no, wikipedia talk pages do not count as "literature". And I know atheists who believe in astrology. Most atheists would probably reject astrology, but to define atheism beyond the god issue as anti-supernaturalism is again something that is not a consensus position in the literature. Whether you personally happen to agree or disagree with it is neither here nor there, because you are not a reliable source (unless you are!) --Dannyno (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm under the clear understanding that you have to use one of those understandings, one cannot have both definitions. Not because I believe it's right. But because they contradict each other. So one is forced to pick. That said. When it comes to atheism and astrology. That can be perfectly explained that these people have an understanding that it's a "natural" phenomenon. Not that it's a supernatural phenomenon. I think that position is wrong, because you have faith in something which you have no evidence for. Which would be contradictory to disbelief. Either way though, one can justify it for oneself that position. I just find it logically inconsistent. -- Muthsera (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As individuals we may or may not pick what we prefer. Wikipedia, however, does not need to do so, and nor should it. Where there is disagreement in the literature, Wikipedia's job is to report it. --Dannyno (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

12

OK, time to start a new number! Trying to take into account the talk above, and being a glutton for punishment, I offer version 12. What I've tried to do is to take into account what people did and did not like about 11d and radical-b, and combine them:

“ Atheism is unbelief or disbelief in the existence of deities, including the position that there are no deities,[1] the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2] or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] ”

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: "Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in..." --Cybercobra (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Bravo! --Born2cycle (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

1> As I have commented many times before: "lack" implies a deficiency 2>This construction has wikipedia take a position that the absence definition is a good "definition" of atheism. Doing so would violate WP:NPOV. Accordingly, per WP:BRD, I will be reverting your edit to the earlier one that I also dislike.--JimWae (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

By implication, you're saying the absence definition is a bad "definition" of atheism, which is equally POV. At any rate, these threads have gotten so convoluted that I'll admit I've lost track of exactly what beefs people had with the original lede. There seems to be quite a lot of bikeshedding going on. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, right, the "dictionary-ness". The point of this new draft is to try and summarize the three definitions in a pithy way, succinctly, and in a single sentence; and then present the 3 more detailed definitions directly thereafter. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not just my opinion that the absence def is deficient as a def. Nagel explicitly opposes it, and Dawkins implicitly - even the source we use says it is less rigorous (there are other reasons why that source was used - so don't change the source). Numerous other sources also oppose the absence def. I am not advocating that we say it is substandard, but the construction you reverted to endorses it. WP:BRD advises against the revert you made before further discussion has taken place - and when the issue is the WP:NPOV policy, lots of discussion is needed. The fix is to say "Atheism has been defined as..." (a1 & a2 & a3). --JimWae (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not gonna fly. The "that sounds like a dictionary" contingent won't have it. (Not that I'm part of said contingent). --Cybercobra (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

According to all responses to the RFC I started at the talk page for WP:NAD, there is no problem in saying "A has been defined as..."(a1 and a2 and a3). So the concern about "sounds like a dictionary" is just a local style sentiment (or just a misinterpretation of WP:NAD) - not a style guideline issue. Policy issues - especially NPOV policy - override local style sentiments (and even style guideline issues).--JimWae (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It is also POV to say "Atheism is the position that there are no deities" as there are 3 defs and no agreement that any one of them is what atheism "really is". --JimWae (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree, feel free to revert to consensus lead --windyhead (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather you used one of your reverts for that. I've already reverted today, 1.7 times)--JimWae (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I missed it, but I see no objection above to this version (thanks to CyberCobra for wordsmithing this one):

Atheism is disbelief or absence of belief in the existence of deities, including the position that there are no deities,[1] the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2] or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

However, it was reverted twice, once without explanation, and a second time with the "no consensus" non-objection. In fact, this is a wording that has addressed all stated concerns on this talk page, which is quite the feat. So, I've restored it. Please, if you have an objection to any wording, make it specific on the talk page. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And I understand that there are objections to the "absence of belief" definition, however, it is a definition used in reliable sources, and is clearly qualified with or, making clear it is not the only definition used in reliable sources. Disbelief is listed first, making clear that is no way is the absence being endorsed as the definition (a much more valid objection made earlier to saying simply "Atheism is nonbelief in ..."). --Born2cycle (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think "disbelief or absence of belief" is good, and arguably better than "unbelief or disbelief", although I don't think there's a big difference. I think "lack of" is a problem. And I think edit warring instead of discussing here is a bigger problem. Shall I, once again, request full protection? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, deity is now blue-linked three times in the one sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

T, I agree with your comments about content.

Wikipedia is not improved by tolerance for reverts made without explanation, include reverts made with pseudo objections like "insufficient discussion" or "no consensus". Especially considering all the work going into this, people should at least have the decency to clearly explain their actual objection (if any) to a given version before reverting it, if they revert it at all. Anything but reverting such a revert amounts to tolerance of such behavior, and is not good for Wikipedia.

Please fix the links! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Overlinkage fixed. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but: Gripes about the links: it used to be useful, and consensus, to have links to God and gods somewhere in the lead. And the theism thing, although well-intentioned, has the effect of seeming to say that theism is an example of existence of God. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And while I'm at it (griping), I think the claim that the lead is POV is nonsense. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is nonsense, what I don't see is an explanation from Jim (who marked it as violation NPOV) or anyone else about why he or anyone else believes it to be a violation of NPOV. Without such explanation, the tag needs to be removed. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

When I suggested "disbelief or unbelief", I thought the form of words had the advantage of being ambiguous, so that the next sentence could set out our three main typological traditions and we didn't need to get bogged down in POV issues with the very first sentence. It is not clear to me that "absence of belief" is not tolerably contained in the dictionary definitions of either "disbelief" or "unbelief". The proposal mentions "absence" in the next sentence, so to mention it in the very first sentence seems to give it more weight as compared with anything else. I would be interested in reading why people think "absence" ought to appear up front. --Dannyno (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You make some good points there. Putting "absence" up front makes it a repetition of what comes so soon after in "definition 3". What you refer to as ambiguity can also be regarded as generality and inclusiveness. And, on a separate point, I want to observe that there has been insufficient discussion of the changes to the blue links in the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

alternatives to POV

The current lede begins:

Atheism is disbelief or absence of belief in the existence of deities,[neutrality is disputed] including the position that there are no deities,[1] the rejection of belief in the existence of deities (i.e. theism),[2] or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

1. Sentence construction: A is G or H, including J, K, or H. Despite two unclear "or"s, it is pretty clear this would have wikipedia endorse "A is H", despite many sources (including both theist and atheist sources) who find it "substandard" to identify atheism with sheer unbelief.
2. Nor does this construction really go very far towards the purported aim (not necessarily mine, but that of others) of beginning the article with a short sentence that summarizes all the meanings.
3. All replies to the RFC at WT:NOTDIC have supported there not being WP:NAD concerns in saying "A has been defined as..." (a1 & a2 & a3)

In light of this, there appear to be neither policy nor styleguide concerns with a intro such as:

Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.[1] It has been defined more broadly as the rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without an assertion that "a deity exists" is false).[2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief in the existence of any deities.[3]

Notice how the defs are not merely listed and the scope of each is also introduced. People may not "like" the style, but it conforms to MOS:BEGIN's guideline to begin with unambiguous definition, is accurate, hides neither the definitions nor the "controversy", & preserves NPOV. A shorter & more list-type alternative might be:

Atheism has been variously defined as the position that there are no deities,[1] as the rejection of belief that any deities exist, and as the absence of belief in the existence of any deities.[3]

If an intro to the intro is still deemed necessary, then something like this could work:

Atheism has been variously defined to include different ways of not believing in the existence of deities. Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.[1] It has been defined more broadly as the rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without an assertion that "a deity exists" is false).[2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief in the existence of any deities.[3]

Objections that a lede such as this "sounds like a dictionary" have actually led us from a version that had no issue with WP:NAD to the version of the last month or so that very clearly did run foul of WP:NAD (using "meaning" and "means") - and that disguised one definition as a mere descriptions ("describes"). Style issues do not override policy issues - particularly style issues that are entirely local sentiment and not backed by any styleguide --JimWae (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, all of those complaints appear to be matters of style, rather than of POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

A is G or H, including J, K, or H. Whatever the "or"s may mean, this does not give the appearance of NPOV with respect to "A is H", especially (but not limited to) the repetition of H.--JimWae (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Minus the parenthetical, I would have no problem with either of your first 2 suggested rephrasings. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Jim, in this case J and K are forms of G, so J, K is repetition of G, in concept though not literally, as well. IMHO it's very nit picky to make an issue of that, especially under the guise that others may object in the future (an argument you made previously).

The ors seem quite clear to me:

1. A is G or A is H (both are supported in reliable sources).
2. (G or H) includes (J, K, or H).

I see no substantive objection to the wording cited above being contrary to NPOV. The tag needs to go, promptly.

I continue to maintain that "is defined", "is commonly defined" and "is variously defined" are all problematic for being about the word rather than the concept. I explained this at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary today. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be alone in having that opinion. Wolfkeeper is the most partisan WP:NAD enforcer I know and even they don't agree with you. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically it's more of a WP:REFERS issue than a WP:NAD problem, but it is covered there:

“ Its introduction will say something such as "Dog is a term for an animal with the binomial name Canis lupus." or "Dog is a word that refers to a domesticated canine.". Such articles are not dictionary articles. They are badly written encyclopedia articles, that should be cleaned up in accordance with our Guide to writing better articles. Simply replace the cumbersome phrasings such as "is a term for", "is a word that means", or "refers to" with the very simple "is": "A dog is an animal with the binomial name Canis lupus." "A dog is a domesticated canine. ”

By identical logic and reasoning, "is defined as", or "is commonly defined as" should be replaced with the very simple "is". --Born2cycle (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

poll about lead violating WP:NPOV

Okay, since the tag remains, let's settle this with a poll to see if there is a consensus that agrees we have an NPOV issue with the current wording.

Does the following statement violate WP:NPOV because it implies a Wikipedia endorsement of the view that atheism is absence of belief?

Atheism is disbelief or absence of belief in the existence of deities, including the position that there are no deities,[1] the rejection of belief in the existence of deities (i.e. theism),[2] or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

Please leave your opinion in the form of Yes or No, followed by your sig.

NOTE: This is not a question of whether you disapprove of the statement for any other reason; only whether you believe it violates WP:NPOV.

• No --Born2cycle (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Yes Unomi (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Mu WP:Voting is evil --Cybercobra (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Yes -- Muthsera (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Yup -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Yes ----Dannyno (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• No -- TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comments. Yes, voting is evil, as is editing before anything like a vote or a discussion has taken place. No, it is not POV. It's ridiculous to call it POV. No one is intentionally trying to push a POV here. It's just a case of whether the wording is accurate and clear, not of intent to push one possible form of atheism over another one. That said, there is a case that the "absence" wording in the first clause was an UNDUE emphasis on the "third definition" that could have perhaps been avoided with other wording, possibly "unbelief". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

My "yes" vote, for one, should not be taken as presuming that anyone was intentionally pushing a POV agenda, just that the effect of the wording was POV. --Dannyno (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am truly astonished by this. I honestly thought Jim was the only one who thought there was a POV issue with that wording, but just wanted to make sure. I simply cannot comprehend how anyone, least of all so many of you, think the wording above violates WP:NPOV. It's a fair summarization of what reliable sources say on the subject. This is indisputable. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It is disputable, because here we are disputing it. Whether it is a fair summarization of the sources is precisely the point at issue. --Dannyno (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What about the present lede is POV

1>the absence def is given preferential treatment by being given twice in one sentence.

2>Numerous sources tag the absence def as less rigorous or downright wrong, yet it is being presented not only as being just as adequate as any other, but is given preferential treatment by being presented twice in one sentence.

2a>MOS:BEGIN says of the lede "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies". The controversy regarding the absence definition was previously done very gently by remarking that it was the "broadest". By removing any indication that the presented definitions have comparative aspects, nothing remains in the lede that acknowledges any controversy of definition (not even the confusion of "or"s does that). The reader is left with apparently now four separate definitions and no map to navigate the sentence other than preferential repetition of one of them.

>>The preferential redundancy, besides being an undue weight concern, is also one of several serious stylistic concerns about this remarkably strained sentence construction -- but I will leave that for now.--JimWae (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As a negative

“ Atheism is an absence of theism. ”

Perhaps the article should start with that simple negative? I've always been uncomfortable with any introduction which states that atheism is some kind of position, doctrine or belief. In point of fact, atheism can be none of these things. It's not an ideology or philosophy because there is no atheist doctrine or guiding principles. Atheism is really just a convenient moniker for theists to use. To many atheists (including myself) the position that there are no deities is no more significant than the position that there are no pixies, fairies or ghosts. I would describe myself as an atheist only to set myself apart from people who are theists. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't an absence of theism. It's an absence of faith or any belief. One can limit that to a said god, say Thor. Ie, you have a no belief towards Thor. A better word there is supernatural. You cannot say that atheism have "faith" in something you cannot prove. That leaves out any over natural phenomenon you have no evidence for but have requires "faith" in. I've stated this before but there seem to be an effort to ignore that.

That said. I like how short and concise it is. And I have no problem at all with using a simple passive understanding. -- Muthsera (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we cannot start the article with that "simple" negative. It's not as simple as that: the meaning of atheism is a very complex thing, which we must try to reflect. Scjessey is correct that some atheists feel that their atheism is not a belief or a doctrine. Wikipedia should acknowledge that. However, wikipedia is not here to reflect our particular personal preferences, and there is no clear consensus in the literature on how atheism should be conceptualised. Specifically, plenty of reliable sources, including atheists, would not count "mere absence" as a form of atheism at all. That's why although your particular preference can be acknowledged, it cannot be treated as though it were, excuse me, gospel. --Dannyno (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Scj - I admire your creativity and thinking out-of-the-box, and I think your proposal is certainly consice and accurate. However, I wonder if in searching for a concise opening sentence, you may have gone a little too far here? It doesn't appear as though your proposal would offer much to the niave reader. NickCT (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

To Muthsera: atheism is 'not the absence of "faith or any belief". Reliable sources out there say that it is possible to be religious and an atheist. You may not like that, but wikipedia doesn't care. Wikipedia only cares about verifiability. You can repeat your particular POV about the supernatural as much as you like, but it's just your opinion. That's why it gets ignored. --Dannyno (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I feared that was the case. So fair enough. Sam Harris "A letter to a Christian Nation", takes up some of the problem. But Sam Harris have described the issue better in later lectures. As well as in Christopher Hitchens "God is not Great". The issue for me to is that they seem to have a zeitgeist on the concept. And have moved a little after their books. That comes especially well forward in "The Four Horsemen" Video. I doubt you'll take internet clips of lectures as sources for this concept as it's so widely discussed. So I try to do this objectively with a logical debate. As I stated below. The concept is very narrow if you don't allow a opposition to theism. I have a clear understanding that that must be understood historically, that a theist understanding that Atheism had the "burden of proof" to disprove theism. And thus was defined as an opposition to "clear" evidence of existence. So the concept we're having now is actually a debate on where the burden of proof lies. That atheism have to counter evidence or that theism has not supplied sufficient evidence to overturn a negative. Have I portrayed this objectively enough to give you an understanding where this issue lies or am I continuing to preach "gospel"?-- Muthsera (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are not familiar enough with what reliable sources say about the conceptualisation of atheism, which is what we're interested in. --Dannyno (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No I'm familiar with it, I just don't think it's relevant in light of historical context. Mostly because it has been to often been misrepresented. And the fact that zeitgeist changes the historical position on it. I said to you earlier that you can understand Atheism in a view of Plat, but one can equally valid use the current view of Harris and Hitchens. It's a question of logic and definition. A debate which seem to have been ignored or neglected by the understanding that one must reflect the literature sources. So your left with a continued definition where the burden of proof lies on disbelief. -- Muthsera (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You're not providing any helpful citations to Harris or Hitchens. If they have something useful to say, show us. As a matter of logic, on which you say you are keen, it is false to say that defining atheism as a "rejection" of theism implies a bias on where the burden of proof lies; one might reject theism because theists have failed to prove their case. There is plenty of literature to that effect, as I presume you know. --Dannyno (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You fail to understand the implications of your own words. If one is not convinced by a theist claim. You cannot claim they are in rejection when the burden of proof lies on the theist. It is only by shifting the burden of proof to the atheistic, that one rejects it. Do you understand this argument? -- Muthsera (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your argument; I'm interested in reliable sources. This is not a discussion board. For the record, though, I think you're quite obviously simply wrong on the logic of what rejection requires. There are plenty of atheist discussion boards, if you would like to take your ideas somewhere else. --Dannyno (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats more than fair. It is something I should have done before coming here. My apologies. I'll get back to you. -- Muthsera (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Under this text I've included some sources which supports the view that atheism is a passive claim. That a rejection to theism is defined in another definition. I have also included a source which put agnosticism in the (slightly) same cohesive understanding. To use other words. That atheism is defined as a default (unconvinced/unknowing about a claim) position to an unproven supernatural positive claim, that rejection/opposition is considered "anti" to said definition, that agnosticism is undecided position or a position that the supernatural is unknowable.

“ The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy: it is not even a view of the world; is is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist". ”

Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, 2006, USA, page 51

“ An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles - except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don't yet understand. ”

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2006, USA, page 14

“ You seem to have guessed, from some remarks I have already made in passing, that I am not a religious believer. In order to be absolutely honest, I should not leave you with the impression that I am part of the generalized agnosticism of our culture. I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful ”

Christopher Hitchens [1]

“ Agnosticism, the position of neither believing nor disbelieving that God exists, is often contrasted with atheism. However, this common opposition of agnosticism to atheism is misleading. Agnosticism and positive atheism are indeed incompatible: if atheism is true, agnosticism is false and conversely. ”

Michael Martin, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, 2007, England, page 2

I want to make clear here that I have quote mined this passage, because it goes on to put agnosticism in context with negative atheism, which I would consider atheism. Martins stance to use positive Atheism as a historical presidence, I would consider "Anti Theism". I used Christopher Hitchens to support me there.

With that said. I want to point out an inherent contradiction with using both a negative understanding of atheism that is a passive position alongside the positive claim that it's a reaction to theism, in one and the same definitions. It would lead to a contradiction in terms. In light of the "burden of proof" argument which is the basis for a passive vs reactionary understanding of atheism. You cannot say that theism has the burden of proof and then in the same definition claim atheism have the burden of proof. One of them has to be excluded. -- Muthsera (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The way Wikipedia works is that we don't give undue weight to any one source. For every quotation you have mined here to support your preference, we could mine others supporting other preferences. Wikipedia doesn't decide between them, its job is to reflect all the legitimate points of view in an unbiased way. That is why you won't get your way. In any case, your first Harris quote doesn't support your argument; Dawkins implicitly recognises other senses, and "philosophical naturalism" is not a passive claim anyway but a sophisticated world view; Hitchens doesn't support you either because what he means by atheism, as distinct from antitheism, is that it holds religion to be untrue, which is not a passive position. Your point of view is therefore not supported by any of your mined quotes, and I therefore gently suggest it is incoherent.--Dannyno (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have thought this fully though. What Hitchens said was that he wasn't so much an atheist as he was an anti theist. What Sam Harris said was that you don't have to hold any belief or be anything to be an atheist. The reason I included the Dawkins quote was to show that Atheism also should reject non natural phenomenons. Have I been unreasonable in my quotation? Or is it simply that you disagree with my position at any cost. Let me ask you this. What would it take to change the notion that Atheism is also an opposition to theism? What evidence or source would suffice to overturn that?. I would appreciate it however if you at least gave me the decent cutesy of viewing me as a honest addition to this debate. It is not about opposing me so I "Don't have my way" or stopping me so that I don't change wikipedia's honest position with mined quotations. I'm here to show you the source of this problem. That you and other editors with you. Know and understand what is the core debate of this definition. It all boil down to a question if Atheism is to be defined as something opposed to theism. Which those who hold that position are disagreeing with. Like Sam Harris. Who said quite clearly that why does he as a non believer having to define himself as a non-theist. Which is actually what he said if you bothered to actually understand the quotation. Now, I explained to you this problem before. It essentially boils down to who has the burden of proof. And you continue to maintain that thats an irrelevant discussion because wikipedia is here to represent sourced literacy. Unable to take into account that there is a zeitgeist on this issue. That people who define themselves as atheist or have a position of atheism have no further interest in being defined by what someone else do. Have I portrayed the argument objectively for you? Have I illustrated this argument properly for you? If so, do you understand that wikipedia then cannot have it both ways? It either has to chose to use a definition which is historical and greatly supported by literacy, namely that atheism is a rejection of another belief (even if you just add it as part). Or it has to discard that and use only latter sources to support an argument of passivity. If you include both, you have an inherent contradiction in the definition. You only square that by saying people have different understanding of this issue. Well, people have a lot of understanding what atheism is by their own bias. Are you then going to include all? The definition cannot be what all believe them to be but instead it has to be based on the notion that they are objectively correct. -- Muthsera (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Basically you're wrong about everything, including the meaning of the quotations you supplied, but more importantly you're wrong about what Wikipedia should be doing. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a discussion board. There are lots of other places to have the discussion you seem to want to have, but this is not it. Since I'm currently the only editor engaging with you, and this seems to be a big mistake, I'm going to stop doing so. --Dannyno (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Now who is simply asserting? I'm not here to have a discussion with you about the validity of either theism or atheism. I'm here to discuss the validity of the definition that wikipedia made on Atheism, and I would like to point out that I'm not the only one. I've supplied you with quotation both here and in other places here for that position. I've explained to you in debt the argument of where the problem lies. I continue to claim that I've been objective in this discussion, I've only been assertive. But you have simply rejected without argument, asserted that this is heavily foundation in previous sources. I find that dishonest in light of the fact that wikipedia's definition of atheism have changed many times here at wikipedia. And that view of dishonesty is further enforced with you rejecting to have supply justification for your stance. Not to mention that your now not even willing to interact with me, and have simply opt to ignore me. But that is your prerogative. I'm sorry you feel that way. Fact is, this is an ongoing discussion. It is not established dogma even if you claim it to be. It is an evolving process and my only crime has been to justify my position. Yet, I'm the one who is wrong by decree.... I find that strange. Be that as it may though, I'm still willing to have a proper debate over the definition with you at any time. -- Muthsera (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I merely asserted you were wrong. That's because I don't want to have the debate, which was the actual point I made in what I posted. I also dislike not having the last word, but that isn't your problem. You haven't supplied any quotations at all that verify whatever the point is that you think you're making. None whatsoever. I explained why. And again, here you are saying you want to "debate" the definition. Why? It's not our job to debate the definition as though whatever conclusions we came to would thereby become wikipedia's definition. Our job is to debate how best to reflect what reliable sources say, without being POV. That is why we cannot go in the direction you want us to go. --Dannyno (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

How else am I to change the definition if one is not able to lay out a case for it? In other words, a debate? I've supplied you with quotation and sources. I've structured an argument why this was the case. And you have simply just cut it down by assertion and decree. I got to say I dislike that. I claimed that wikipedia and the participants of this discussion, have not really understood the implication of what some of these prominent authors have argued in their books. I argued how the Teapot argument really is an argument of passive atheism. I've laid out sources of authors who assert that. And still you decree it away. Is then not just a failure on your part to take account of my argument? I've not argued my POV at all. I've argued that of others. You've just been unwilling to accept that it was a valid argument and not worth your time to argue against. Now, you may maintain that wikipedia is a neutral site. And that it doesn't take position and do not endorse. In this regard it has to. It either has to chose an older definition of opposition or it has to chose a position of passivity. You cannot have it both ways. So if you decide to rely on older an more historical sources like Kant, Hume, Plato or Encyclopedia definitions, then fine. But that is an endorsement to. I also fail to understand how one is able to square as in your argument that it has different understandings to different people. You may describe how the concept has changed over time. But you cannot have to different concepts in one. -- Muthsera (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Read this: WP:NOR, and especially WP:SYN. --Dannyno (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought I've done that. Where they not proper sources? -- Muthsera (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I finally see the objection your having. That since I don't use one original source, I've taken bits and pieces to construct one complete argument. I did that to show the mutually supported scope of the argument for passive atheism. Not to derive a complete new argument. What ties all these quotes together is their use of Russell's teapot. Which derive the burden of proof argument. Which I've continuously tried to explain to you. It is however my obligation to supply the linking quotation. I didn't do that until later further down. For that I apologist. -- Muthsera (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we agree on this lede?

I have to say, I actually like Wae's new lede sentence. We've whittled everything into one sentence. It's concise, and expansive at the same time. I have 2 minor suggestions -

• 1) Replace "has been variously defined as " with "is either" or possibly "can be". The "variously defined" langauge is extraneous, self-evident, and unecessarily passive.
• 2) Replace "of belief that any deities exist" with "of any belief concerning the existence of deities". Clearer wording. Better English.

In conclusion, I propose

“ Atheism is either the position that there are no deities,[1] the rejection of belief in the existence of deities (i.e. theism),[2] or simply the absence of any belief concerning the existence of deities.[3] ”

If no one objects, I'm going to bold and make this change. After this, I think I can lend my full support to the lede. Finnally! Glory glory! NickCT (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be astoundingly picky here, but only because I don't violently object to this formulation - sad to lose "disbelief or unbelief", and despairing of ever getting support for "godlessness", but I could live with this form of words for a bit. My picky point is just that "any belief concerning" sounds strange and paradoxical. Clearly, "absence of any" is supposed to encompass people who have not encountered the idea of gods. However, as stated it seems that, logically, "absence of any belief" would also include "absence of atheist views", so that someone would NOT be counted an atheist if they believed there was no god. My point is that this seems to be a bit mixed up and has perhaps lost contact with the pro-absence definitional literature, which is best stated as "absence of theistic or deistic beliefs". Also it kind of feels watered down: instead of being concerned with beliefs that there are gods, it becomes concerned with beliefs about whether there are gods. So although you say "Clearer wording", I'm getting a crawly scalp over it. --Dannyno (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it another way. The "absence" typology, if you look at the sources, is intended to be inclusive. People are to counted as atheists if they have heard of theism and rejected it, or if they have never heard of theism and don't know what gods are. But "absence of any beliefs etc" is exclusive. In this typology - which is not to be found in the cited sources - people are to be counted as atheists only if they have never heard of theism and don't know what gods are. Someone who has heard of theism and doesn't believe a word of it is not an atheist - if we adopt NickCT's wording. An unintentional error! --Dannyno (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Dannyno, re "so that someone would be counted an atheist if they weren't an atheist" - I think you're touching on the difference between explicit and implicit atheists (i.e. someone might be counted as an implicit atheist if they weren't a explicit atheist). I think you may be over thinking this one a little.

On your other point; I'm not too sad to lose "disbelief or unbelief". These words strike me as slightly obscure. NickCT (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly it. For George H Smith, "atheism" was defined as absence, and included both what he called implicit (i.e.unaware, to paraphrase) and explicit (aware) atheism. What you've done, as you're worded it, is reduced his binary typology of atheism to just implicit atheism. And that's wrong, not "overthinking" on my part: what you've said here is that the "absence" typology excludes people who reject belief in god from being considered atheists. That's not what George H Smith said, and it's not what any other supporter of the absence formulation has said. --Dannyno (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"Disbelief or unbelief" are commonly found in dictionary entries about atheism, so they're not that obscure. But they are ambiguous which is perhaps their strength and their weakness. --Dannyno (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Another quick point, you can't say "either" when you have more than two alternatives. --Dannyno (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC) I take it back, checking usage you can do it if it's done like you've done it. --Dannyno (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this obsession with insisting on keeping the rejection of belief in there. Why is that important? Is it literature sources? I've addressed this before, but I'll repeat. A rejection only makes sense in regards to an objection to a said theism. If you have an objection to a theism. You are by definition "anti". It is therefor "Anti Theism". Which is different from Atheism. -- Muthsera (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Muthsera - This topic has been extensively discussed. I'll talk about with you on your talk page if you like, but I think the "rejection of belief" has become consensus among those who have follow this debate. NickCT (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"Rejection of theism" is an important conceptualisation of atheism in the literature. That some people prefer other formulations is neither here nor there: we just need to record that some people prefer other formulations. There's no point, Muthsera, in trying to have the debate here on whether or not "rejection" is adequate. Whether "antitheism" is different from atheism is also, in fact, a matter of opinion. Some would see them as synonymous. --Dannyno (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I object strongly to that. It is not a matter of opinion. It's a question of logic. And as far as I can tell. Non of you have made a good logical argument for why rejection is part of Atheism. Just because historically Atheism have been understood in terms as opposition to Theism. Does not make it a logical argument. It is in fact a bias argument on the part of theism. -- Muthsera (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to make an argument, we just have to summarise the literature. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the literature or not. And the fact that atheism has been understood as "opposition to Theism" is something wikipedia has to reflect. There's no actual logical content to your opinions, which are rather simply assertions, and your opinions are not what wikipedia is made of. Find us a published reliable source which takes your line and maybe we can find room for it. --Dannyno (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree that my assertions shouldn't make up the content of wikipedia. You'll have no enemy of me there. But I gather you understand the problem? And I explained to you earlier. "Opposition to Theism" could very well be covered in the historical section of the article. As well as an sub article of the debate over burden of proof. The question I'm raising is. Is this not a theist bias towards an atheistic position? Am I to be defined by what someone else does? I reject to that. And I don't think sources are justified to view it like that. And I certainly don't think it's a neutral position wikipedia takes on that. I think it shows a continues bias towards theism. So I think we should focus on the views of later atheists. If you want I'll dig up the sources on that. Give me a day and I'll have the page number. -- Muthsera (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No, to define atheism as "rejection" is not theistic bias, because rejection can be for lots of different reasons. Nor is defining it as "opposition to theism", which we don't anyway. --Dannyno (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be. One cannot have a rejection if one is not opposed to it. What you can say is that you are unconvinced. But that is not the same as saying you reject it. A rejection only makes sense if atheism is right to hold the burden of evidence. Then you have to actively object to a theist position. It is in essence siding with the theist bias. -- Muthsera (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "opposed"? There is a sense where "reject" and "oppose" are more or less synonymous, but oppose usually has connotations of resistance or acting against. I might reject religion without opposing religion, if I am favourably disposed towards religion while thinking it mistaken. I can reject charity without being opposed to charity. What you're saying is therefore ambiguous. Again, if I say I am unconvinced by something, I might actually mean that I reject it (why am I unconvinced...?), the distinction is not as clear as you suggest. Much of what you are trying to say is lost amid all these undefined terms. The rest of what you are trying to say is POV irrelevance which Wikipedia doesn't care about. I think you're talking nonsense, but what I think is irrelevant too. --Dannyno (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Because if you are unconvinced, but you think religion is a value, then your not really in rejection of it. You are simply just unconvinced. What you may do is reject the argument for religion that is different than outright rejecting the concept religion. -- Muthsera (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

---

I propose:

“ Atheism is the position that there are no deities. It is distinct in this respect from agnosticism, which is simply the absence of any belief concerning the existence of deities. ”

Kevin Baas^talk 16:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion is appreciated Baas. I was wondering however if there were any objection to my minor rewording of the current lede. NickCT (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I object to the second part of the sentence on the grounds that it simply repeats what the first part says, and the third part because absence of any belief concerning the existence of deities is the very definition of agnosticism, which is not atheism. Kevin Baas^talk 16:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

But atheism is not only the position that there are no deities. And the literature includes plenty of examples of writers who consider agnosticism, or some forms of agnosticism, to be atheistic. Thirdly, your definition of agnosticism contradicts wikipedia's entry on the subject, which supplies a typology. --Dannyno (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree to that. agnosticism must be understood in the context of "undecided" or "God is unknowable". -- Muthsera (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ther's no "must" about it. The fact is that agnosticism is understood in different ways by different people. --Dannyno (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised by the logical inconsistency of "different people". (phun also intended) -- Muthsera (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What logical inconsistency? --Dannyno (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That they have different understanding of one concept. It must be failure to accurately portray the concept. -- Muthsera (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not a logical inconsistency. It's just a fact of life that agnosticism has had a variety of meanings. --Dannyno (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia defines agnosticism: "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable." in other words, agnosticism is absence of any belief concerning the existence of deities. I don't see any inconsistency there. a = a. reflection. Kevin Baas^talk 18:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not so much the definition of "agnosticism" but the definition of "atheism". To many atheists, outright denial -- that is, the assertion of non-existence -- is not the only definition of atheism; rather, they also incorporate so-called "weak atheism" into their definition. While you may discount that is merely agnosticism, countless sources disagree. The lede must incorporate both the expansive and the more restrictive definitions of atheism. Powers ^T 18:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Baas: as a simple logical observation, "the view that the truth value of certain claims... is unknown or unknowable" is not quite the same thing as "absence of any belief concerning the existence of deities". A belief that the existence of deities cannot be established is a belief concerning the existence of deities. I would have thought that was obvious. Agnosticism *is* an absence of belief in gods, but then so is a rejection of belief in gods. The wording of this point is critical. --Dannyno (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Your penultimate sentence is not quite correct, I think. An agnostic acknowledges that the question of whether a deity exists is unknowable, but he may or may not maintain a belief despite recognizing the uncertainty. Thus there are both agnostic atheists (quite common) and agnostic theists (rare but extant). Powers ^T 14:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, there are those who believe in an unknowable (or unprovable) God. My point about the problem of the wording remains. --Dannyno (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Any theist who says he believes in God but doesn't know if God really exists because God is unknowable is technically an agnostic. I think that applies to many if not most theists. Similarly, even Dawkins admits to a tiny probability of being wrong, thus technically making even that atheist an agnostic. In short, agnosticism applies to almost every honest thinking person, and so is not very useful, except to differentiate from "those believers that claim they know their particular personal conception of a deity exists". --Born2cycle (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats just not logical cohesive? How can you say that knowing Gos is impossible and still believe in him? It's one of those squaring of the mind. Aren't you just basically a theist or deist who don't want to produce positive evidence? -- Muthsera (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't ask me how one can say that knowing God is impossible but still believe in his existence... ask any one of the countless who hold that position, the vast majority of "believers" as far as I can tell.

To their credit, when you get on a plane to fly somewhere, you don't know that it won't fall out of the sky during the trip, but you probably never-the-less believe it won't. However, even that is ultimately Dawkins' argument - the reason you believe the plane won't fall out of the sky is because you've approximately calculated the likelihood to be very low. Similarly, since we have no knowledge of God's existence, belief in that existence must be based on probability. And Dawkins argues that that probability, though not absolutely zero, is vanishingly small, much smaller than the probability of a plane falling out of the sky. Therefore it's more rational to believe there are no deities than to believe a given plane that we're boarding won't fall out of the sky, which we all do. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What you are talking about are two different concepts. Flying is a positive experience because we have evidence that it actually happens. That it falls down is the natural consequence of losing lift. Which also happens. Your then left with assessing the risk of two positive experiences, flight versus losing lift. That isn't the theist vs atheist argument at all. It is right that Dawkins argue the position that there where no evidence for the existence of god so there was no basis to believe in a deity. However you take it out of context. It is a defense against disbelief of the deity. In no way does that discount the position that Atheism is a passive understanding. Which I know from other lectures Dawkins have held, that he is in favor of. (I'll try to get hold of a transcript of those). The belief vs disbelief argument is essentially how to position the different hypothesis. What that essentially boils down to is an argument about who has the burden of proof. Atheist say that the theist position is a positive claim and thus require evidence to support that hypothesis. Theist however claim that atheist need to disprove the deist. That however proposes a problem as it is impossible to disprove a negative. Which is also Dawkins argument. It is only when he tries to describe how unlikely this belief is that you take up the thread on his argument. And you haven't really understood the context in which he argues what position. I don't blame you however, it is a very complicated issue and very hard to have a clear grasp of what makes up the different arguments. Thats why we have this lengthy discussion. -- Muthsera (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. No Dawkins use the Russel's teapot argument to show the disconnect.

“ Another way to express that error is in terms of the burden of proof, and in this form it is pleasingly demonstrated by Bertrand Russell's parable of the celestial teapot. We would not waste time saying so because nobody, so far as I know, worships teapots;* but, if pressed, we would not hesitate to declare our strong belief that there is positively no orbiting teapot. Yet strictly we should all be teapot agnostics: we cannot prove, for sure, that there is no celestial teapot. In practice, we move away from teapot agnosticism towards a-teapotisin. ”

Richard Dawkins, God Delusion, 2006, USA, Page 51-52 -- Muthsera (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)@Dannyo: that is not logic, that is semantics. Namely, it is an unconventional interpretation of the meaning of the word "concerning" in this context. Conventionally it is interpreted here to mean "...as to whether they do or do not...". Furthermore in the respect that you interpret that word, it is not even relevant, because most atheists believe existence is as "unknowable" e.g. unfalsifiable as the boogey-man, and for the same reason they don't believe in the boogeyman or russell's teapot, they don't believe in the existence of deities. so that really leaves only 1 meaningfull interpretation: the one you didn't use in that argument.

@Powers: a) "countless sources disagree": i believe you are refering to "innocents" (weak atheism is just de facto rather than de jure, which still fits the definition) in which case a few, very questionable, anti-atheist agenda driven sources disagree. b) "The lede must incorporate both the expansive and the more restrictive definitions of atheism.": this is an unfounded assertion and, arguably, false. Kevin Baas^talk 14:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not referring only to innocents. I also refer to atheists who do not believe in the existence of gods, but also do not positively assert their nonexistence. It is those of us who say "I don't think that gods exist, but I cannot conclusively say there are no gods." To your second point, I can't imagine why we wouldn't include both aspects. Powers ^T 15:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

so logically they believe that x is false, but they do not believe that x is not true? Is this some kind of quantumn decoherence phenomena that i'm not aware of? It should not be in the intro because frankly, it is idiotic. I have been avoiding that frankness for a long time now but I am really getting sick of this, so there it is. There is no difference. and you are to use the argument that encyclopedias word their intros differently? that's because they are different encyclopedias! as to "can't imagine": if you are really that uninspired try reading wikipedia policies and guidelines with respect o the intro. or more generally speaking take a class on writing. Kevin Baas^talk 16:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Kevin, I believe the assertion, the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists is false. That means I believe the assertion, the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, is true. It says nothing about what I believe about the existence of undefined entities.

Similarly, the Pope and I believe the assertion, The Greek god Thor exists is false. That means we believe the assertion, The Greek god Thor does not exist, is true. It says nothing about what we believe about the existence of any other deities. I presume he believes in the existence of the Catholic God, while I don't, but that's a different question.

An atheist is anyone who does not believe in the existence of any deities, regardless of why he or she doesn't hold any such belief. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand first-order logic just fine - there's no need to explain it to me. My spatial reasoning skills are - well - not something you'll have to worry about. In that you did I'm not sure you understand what I was saying. I think you summed it up well in that last sentence. That is exactly what I am saying. Kevin Baas^talk 18:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Powers writes, "It is those of us who say 'I don't think that gods exist, but I cannot conclusively say there are no gods.' ". I think that applies to almost all atheists, for I don't know any who have claimed that they can conclusively say there are no gods. Do you have a source for such a claim? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/whatisatheism.htm Powers ^T 17:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't come here to be insulted. Powers ^T 17:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle has a good point which I think gets to the core of the matter. Nobody states that they can conclusively claim there are no gods. Nor can they honestly state that they can conclusively demonstrate the existence of a god or gods. deities are by their very nature that way. that is where everyone starts from, theist, agnostic, or atheist. the question is where they go from there. for all i can tell a theist says "we don't know whether or not it exists so it exists! fabulous!" , while an agnostic says "so we don't know either way, great.", and an atheist says something more like "i don't know whether my neighbor hasn't invented a death ray that he's going to use on me tomorrow, either, but I'm sure as hell not going to lose any sleep over it." ultimately they all start from the same premise. it's how they reason about it that tells them apart. Kevin Baas^talk 18:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Then the question is. Is the position of atheism a rejection of the hypothesis? Or is it simply a position of irrelevancy until the positive proof has been supplied? That seems to me the debate we're having now is about. -- Muthsera (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Put abstractly I think it might be fair to generally say that atheist start from where agnostics leave off and go one intellectual step further. Perhaps agnostics don't feel safe / justified enough with that step but atheists consider it necessary / practical. E.g. lying awake every night in fear of my neighbor's hypothetical death ray would take quite the toll on my health. And so the same reasoning applies to everything in the same metaphysical context. Whereas an agnostic would be: yea, but what if he/she actually DOES have a death ray? Atheists taking an additional intellectual step that agnostics are not willing to take. Kevin Baas^talk 19:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a question of taking a step further. I'd rather ask if it was my position as an Atheist to do anything. That is the implication of Russel's Teapot. That is what Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc are arguing when they use the Teapot argument. -- Muthsera (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Is not russel's teapot an intellectual step? Kevin Baas^talk 12:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't fully know what you mean by that. I'm under the understanding that the implication it rises is not just an intellectual step, it is an implication of how to define atheism. Are one the passive observer as an atheist or are one an objectionist to theism. It's kinda either or. The teapot is only there to illustrate the burden of proof towards that teapot. There might be, we don't know. But it's irrelevant until it has an implication to our lives. In other terms. One might say that it is a question of disproving the negative vs proving the positive and how one is to relate to that. The answer to that debate is the final endorsement of what defines atheism. You can do an sub article of that debate, but you cannot include both in one definition. I can't see how we can get away from that problem with just saying that we are only siting sources and different views. -- Muthsera (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was pretty clear. russel's teapot is the kind of thing i'm talking about when i say "intellectual step". another example of an "intellectual step" might be, as you mention, "burden of proof". another example might be, also as you mention "irrelevant until it has an implication to our lives" (which russell's teapot does, btw. it is the reason i don't lie awake every night in fear of my neighbor's hypothetical death ray). one does not need to pick any particular "answer to the debate". one simply needs to recognize whether atheism can be reached by "adding" an idea to agnosticism, "subtracting" an idea, or both. if both, then we are back to square one. but if one or the other, then we have definitely made some progress. Kevin Baas^talk 17:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

@Kevin Baas: I wouldn't distinguish quite so rigidly between logic and semantics, but whatever. I still think the wording suggested was confusing for the reason stated, as amended to allow for "agnostic theists". --Dannyno (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps a better phrasing than "...concerning the existence of..."? Something less ambiguous but ideally just as concise. Do you have any ideas? Kevin Baas^talk 12:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

There are lots of confident but untrue statements being made, above. And lots of words flung about with no sign of any appreciation of what they might be taken to mean.

Firstly, Kevin_Baas was sarcastic "so logically they believe that x is false, but they do not believe that x is not true?... It should not be in the intro because frankly, it is idiotic." But what do you think it means to say that something is "false"? Do you think it means that it is inductively or deductively disproved? Or do you think it means that it is unsupported by evidence or argument? It's perfectly possible to reject belief that something exists without taking a position on whether it exists. Or, to put it another way, it is a perfectly plausible position to say that belief in the Loch Ness Monster is unreasonable, without being committed to the view that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist; you might concede that the Loch Ness Monster is possible. Or, to put it yet another way, something might exist, but we might lack good warrant for believing that it exists. I'm sure we can all think of scientific hypotheses which turned out to be correct but which it was reasonable to reject at the time they were originally proposed.

Secondly, if something is, in your opinion, "idiotic", that doesn't mean that reliable sources have not nevertheless upheld it. Your opinion that it is idiotic is not, thus far, verifiable. Whereas that the position exists is verifiable.

Thirdly, Born2Cycle states, and Kevin_Baas agrees, "An atheist is anyone who does not believe in the existence of any deities, regardless of why he or she doesn't hold any such belief." Reliable sources say this. Some of us may think this one of the best conceptualisations of atheism. But not everyone does, and other reliable sources would be more restrictive than that, while yet other would be broader. That is our problem. For all the stamping of feet, the FACT is that there is no single verifiable understanding of what atheism involves. We cannot invent one, or synthesise one. So we have to say, in effect, precisely that what atheism involves is complex and disputed. That is the only honest course. There are even reliable sources saying that. We need to stop the POV wars about what atheism really is, and concentrate on what is verifiable.

Fourthly, Born2cycle stated that, "I don't know any who have claimed that they can conclusively say there are no gods." Take care. Someone like William Chilton would have claimed just that. Bradlaugh would have claimed of it of most concepts, while acknowledging his inability to deal with undefined "gods" in the abstract. The literature includes confident attempts at deductive disproofs of the existence of god. The literature also includes dispute over whether the existence of god is in principle liable to disproof-type arguments at all. Victor Stenger, for example, in the April/May 2010 issue of Free Inquiry magazine, says (p.6):

"I would argue that in fact, there is scientific evidence against the God claim - absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I think we can make positive statements beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist - not all conceivable gods, mind you, but the God that most people believe in."

Fifthly, Kevin_Baas says: "Nobody states that they can conclusively claim there are no gods. Nor can they honestly state that they can conclusively demonstrate the existence of a god or gods." Well, "no gods" is a bit too far because most people disregard a whole bunch of gods and just ignore them - they don't supply arguments against them. However, there are claims in reliable sources that the existence of the Abrahamic monotheistic deity has been conclusively proved. And indeed that such a being has been conclusively proved. And they can all do this honestly. You know, what does Plantinga or Swinburne think they're doing, but writing inductive or deductive arguments for the existence of God, which they honestly think are conclusive?

Sixthly, Muthsera tried to draw us into a debate. We shoudn't be debating, we should be trying to build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources.

Seventhly, Kevin_Baas said: "Atheists taking an additional intellectual step that agnostics are not willing to take." Again, this is your opinion. Why should we care. What do reliable sources say? Some of them, at least, say you're wrong.

--Dannyno (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I seem to have struck a nerve. It will take me some time to respond to all of this. A good way to fill some free time at work. :) Kevin Baas^talk 12:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me throw out a brief response to the last two points right away:

6: We were discussing things pertinent to how material is presented in the lede. Sometimes that involves debate. And if anything of recent discussion constititues debate, esp. tangential to developing agreement on how to represent things in the lede, it is that long list of rebuttles in which you write "we shouldn't be debating".

7:you should care because you have your own and i presume you think and therefore are interested in others, as well, as they all help to provide insight on a matter, eslp. when they are built on solid foundations of facts and logic. In this case, if you have followed the discussion up to there, the matter is how atheism, agnosticism, and theism differ, and what they have in common. This, of course, is constructive for writing a good lede on atheism. Kevin Baas^talk 12:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Your preamble "There are lots of confident but untrue statements being made, above. And lots of words flung about with no sign of any appreciation of what they might be taken to mean." is very presumptuous, self-righteous, and offensive. not the kind of interaction that belongs on wikipedia, or anywhere, for that matter.

1:I don't see how that was sarcastic. I was just showing the structural form of what was literally written. "what do you think it means to say that something is "false"?" oh please! let's not talk absurdities! this is logic: true, false. 1,0. "what do you mean by a=a?" tell me you understand algebra, at least. "or put another way..." you see that's just the thing, that is not "put another way", that is something entirely different. and scientific hypothesis are completely uncomparable: scientific hypothesi are falsifiable. completely different. in fact, it can be said that that difference is what constitutes the entire issue.

2:that my opinion exists is verifiable. i don't dispute that some people actually believe that (how, i don't know), but i do dispute a) the reliability of the sources, b) their noteworthiness, and c) how, if at all, they should be presented in wikipedia, and namely that they should be as an opinion and not a fact (and probably a fringe one, at that)

3: The "FACT is that there" are MANY "single verifiable [sources] of what atheism involves". Wikipedia is not, after all, the ONLY encyclopedia.

4: what you are quoting is a strongly worded statement that existence of god should be dismissed on the grounds that it is not falsifiable. that is altogether different than on the ground that it is false. he alludes to parsimony as well. and asserts the proper placement of the burden of proof. all-in-all he is making the same basic argument that most atheists make. nothing new there. "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". i.e. innocent until proven guilty. clearly he's asserting no "positive" evidence.

5: no, they are not being intellectually honest. plantinga and swinburne clearly are very confused. i concede that there are crazies out there who believe just about anything you can imagine, no matter how absurd. but i contend that such things are minority views that qualify as "fringe". and plantinga and swinburne clearly fit that category.

Okay, and then there's 6 and 7 above, and that covers everything. That consumed far less time than I had hoped. Kevin Baas^talk 14:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Powers was right, as well as Dannyno, and practically all the other editors preceding them too, for this is a Featured Article that has undergone considerable scrutiny, and yet this is the umpteenth time that the distinction between strong/weak atheism (in older texts it is dogmatic/skepticalcritical atheism) has been pointed out, but to no avail because you still insist on concluding: "so logically they believe that x is false, but they do not believe that x is not true?" which is an absurd contradiction (believing and not believing the same thing) that is simply wrong. I'll attempt to correct it by first assuming what you meant by x is the statement that "there is a god", Striking the inaccuracy and filling in the details gives "...they believe that x is false[unwarranted (as in an unwarranted belief and they might be open to persuasion and they simply don't care enough to assert the statement as being in fact false)], but they do not believe that x is not true...". --Modocc (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If your sources are old texts that refer to any form of atheism as "dogmatic" then I strongly question their neutrality. my logical thing there was just stripping what someone wrote down to its bare bones. the changes you made to it sound a lot more reasonable, but see that's the point, you made changes to it. (and good for you!) it no longer reflects the logical structure of what was originally written. if you want to write something that reflects the logical structure that you offered, well i would certainly endorse that version over the other. though then the obvious issue comes up of categorizing people who are undecided as atheists. In that case -- unless you intend to classify agnosticism as a form of atheism -- what the hell is an agnostic? Kevin Baas^talk 16:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, before you start judging who's right and who's wrong based on past article ratings/classifications, keep in mind that "consensus can change". And that "truth" is just a matter of what seems most reasonable at the time, to the most amount of people involved at that time. Kevin Baas^talk 17:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

@Kevin_Baas. I think there is a difference between debating what our sources say, and what the best way to summarise that is, and debating a new synthesis, a Wikipedian typology of atheism, which itself does not appear in the literature. I'm in favour of the former, and I'm grumbling about the latter.

On point 1, are you not aware of, for instance logical positivism? Paul Edwards' typology specifically counts logical positivism as a noncognitivism form of atheism, characterising it as rejecting theism for a reason other than that theism is false. Therefore, some reliable sources say that true and false are not the only options, and it is possible to reject theism on grounds other than that you think it is false - you might hold that it is all meaningless.

You dispute the reliability of the sources. You do realise you are disputing most of the key works of atheist typology? Paul Edwards in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy - unreliable? By what possible measure? Not noteworthy? The first attempt to provide an objective characterisation of atheism in a serious philosophical reference work? Incredible! Fringe? How so? Opinion not fact? Well here I agree, since there's hardly going to be some kind of "fact" about how best to conceptualise godlessness! That's one of our problems!

You say: "The "FACT is that there" are MANY "single verifiable [sources] of what atheism involves". Wikipedia is not, after all, the ONLY encyclopedia." I was all set for criticising this, but then I realised I didn't know what you meant.

4. I disagree with your assessment of Stenger. I think he's clearly saying that at least some god-hypotheses are indeed falsifiable, and that they have, according to him, been falsified.

5: Plantinga and Swinburne may may be confused - I certainly think they are mistaken - but I've seen nothing suggesting that they are being hypocritical, or that they secretly know where there mistakes are and are fingers crossed hoping nobody spots them, or that they are being dishonest in their belief that their arguments genuinely support the existence of god. I'm just plain baffled by this, since again it's just your opinion. If this was Kevin_Baasipedia then fine, we could characterise Swinburne and Plantinga and their atheist equivalents as dishonest, but it isn't, and all we have to go on is the evident fact that, contrary to your assertion, there is no shortage of people out there who are supplying what they honestly think are proofs, or contributions to proofs, of the existence or nonexistence of god(s).

--Dannyno (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

On point 1, you completely missed the point again. i am not saying that true and false are the only options. quite to the contrary, I am the one who introduced the concept of "falsifiability" into this discussion! I already stated what i was doing (i believe more than once), and that was showing the logical form of what was being said. maybe you didn't word it exactly how you wanted to. who knows. but so far it look like you haven't even considered that possibility!

Paul Edwards: frankly, i don't know who that is. doesn't really matter, though. i don't "realize i'm disputing" him and i'm not convinced i am. it is entirely possible that you're misinterpreting him. and in any case i don't think we should be using the opinion of a philosopher -- however long or "serious" -- as an introduction to the subject. i believe that violates mutiple wikipedia policies, not the least of which is the non-negotiable NPOV.

"single verifiable [sources] of what atheism involves" - what i meant is that that's what you are attempting to do with the lead (and correct me if i'm wrong), and you should look at where you're trying to do it: in a wikipedia article. and what is wikipedia? an encyclopedia! and why are you trying to do it? because it's an encyclopedia! so don't you think that other authors of other encyclopedias were attempting to do the same thing? and wouldn't you concede that well-regarded encyclopedias such as compton's and brittanica are generally considered successful at precisely that?

re: "I disagree with your assessment of Stenger. I think he's clearly saying that at least some god-hypotheses are indeed falsifiable, and that they have, according to him, been falsified." that is different from what i am saying. they are not incompatible. god is by definition not scientific. as we have seen again and again when ever the church says something testable and it's tested and shown to be false they just say "oh, that's not what we meant." or something like that. in the theist's mind logic and reason don't really matter (possibly a consequence of being indoctrinated before the age of reason?), so the main idea of god existing or not has to be addressed separately from any hypotheses. I see him doing both in the quoted passage. it's not disagreement because showing some hypothesis to be false doesn't disprove god. "oh, that was just god tricking you into thinking it was false." - see? god still isn't disproven. that kind of idiocy is why stenger still is forced to assert the burden of proof argument: "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Kevin Baas^talk 18:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"...nothing suggesting that they are being hypocritical, or that they secretly know where there mistakes..." that's not what i mean by intellectually dishonest. intellectually dishonesty is *inward* dishonesty. (it is, so to speak, a symptom of poor intellectual (self-)discipline.) what i mean is that i don't think they're even being honest with themselves. (that or they really have no idea what they're talking about) i think intellectual dishonesty does a better job of explaining it than i could. that aside, matters of notability and fringe and all that really are pertinent to wikipedia policies. we treat minority views differently and that clearly is a minority view. Kevin Baas^talk 18:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

@Kevin_Baas.Powers did not state anything that amounted to a contradiction when he wrote:"..I also refer to atheists who do not believe in the existence of gods, but also do not positively assert their nonexistence. It is those of us who say 'I don't think that gods exist, but I cannot conclusively say there are no gods.'" In other words, the statements are "I don't believe that gods exist" and "I cannot say there are no gods" Since there is no contradiction, the error of contradiction was inexplicably yours in your rendering of it. Oh I misspoke above, I meant to say dogmatic/critical atheism. Agnosticism is skeptical atheism,the terminology can be found here. --Modocc (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No, i rendered it faithfully. it is your rendering, even right there above, that is unfaithful. I think I understand now what he meant to say. but that's not what he said. It's important to make the distinction because we can't make the same kind of mistake in the intro. Kevin Baas^talk 18:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

He meant exactly what he said and said exactly what he meant and he has left this discussion. Perhaps you can tell me, what is it he said that is wrong or contrary to what it is he meant? --Modocc (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I can. In fact, I did, above. If it is not utterly obvious from what I've already said then it is futile for me to continue trying to explain it. Kevin Baas^talk 20:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What is obvious is that you deny making any sort of leap and quibble with my very minor translation: dropping the word "but" to parse into two sentences and turning ""don't think" into "don't believe". I don't think I am turning the obvious on its head so as to admit no wrong. But then again asking open-ended questions of others is not exactly the same as questioning one's own reasoning. I know of your conclusion which is a contradiction, but you can enlighten me further as to exactly how you arrived at your rendering of what Powers said. --Modocc (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

by making as few changes as possible to get it into a purely logical form. for instance, not interjecting anything that isn't in the original. this feels old and tired to me and i don't feel like spelling it out for you right now. (and i've done that kind of thing before and it takes up a lot more space than you would think! (certainly a lot more than i thought)) and i'm off for the day pretty soon anyways. maybe later. for now consider it "an exercise". Kevin Baas^talk 20:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And agnosticism is atheism without enough skepticism. Clearly, the atheist is the more skeptical of the two. Kevin Baas^talk 19:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Dogmatic" does not necessarily have a pejorative meaning, please note. Hence McTaggart's atheistic "Some dogmas of religion" used "dogmas" entirely neutrally and not as a criticism. --Dannyno (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

pejorative or not, "dogmatic atheism" is an oxymoron. and one does not arrive at oxymorons through by way of an unbiased course. Kevin Baas^talk 18:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

@Kevin_Baas said: "what the hell is an agnostic?" A very good question! And one that is not so easy to answer since agnosticism is afflicted with some of the same typological problems as atheism. Fortunately it isn't wikipedia's remit to decide, it's our remit to summarise the reliable sources. --Dannyno (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

that completely side-steps my very pertinent rhetorical question. Kevin Baas^talk 18:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Objection!

I object strongly to the way editing has been going on here in the last several hours. Let's take a look at this edit summary: [2]. Aside from trivializing B2c's comments, it has the effect of declaring me to be "no one". I have made it clear to anyone who has been reading that I dislike the use of define in the lead. I also have the right to be logged out for a little while without becoming disenfranchised from the editing process. About a week ago, I requested that the page be full-protected, and I am sorely tempted to do so again. I understand the value of bold editing in general, but it doesn't take a lot of intelligence to realize that any change to this particular lead is going to be discussed and most like objected to. Frankly, it's childish of some of you to feel that you have to rush to edit the lead so quickly, without giving other editors a chance to voice an opinion. Holding a "poll" for an hour or two is no way to achieve consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ready to hold a poll yet Trypt? NickCT (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh? No disrespect intended, but I don't get the point of that question. I'm ready to hold a discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm just saying, polls have a nice way of bringing things to neat conclusions. No more edit wars, no more anxiety. NickCT (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I know a better way to avoid edit wars: don't edit war. And with that, I'm leaving this page until tomorrow. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"Definition"

Definition is clear about what defining is: "A definition is a passage describing the meaning of a term (a word or phrase or other set of symbols)." And saying "is described as", or "is widely described as" is semantically no different, and just as problematic. Encyclopedia articles should begin with, "Subject is ...", period. If you can't state what the subject is, that's not a good article. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Note the word "meaning". A definition does not describe a term but the meaning of a term. The meanings of/for the term "atheism" are the group of highly related defined concepts that are opposites of or incompatible with theism. --JimWae (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Someday, perhaps, the absence def will lose currency, writers trying to define this -ism will not have to try to include "having an unconscious absence of awareness (for which brain-dead people can qualify) of a belief in something incomprehensibly mysterious" and a simple, easy, single def might be foreseeable.--JimWae (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's only 240 years since D'Holbach launched modern atheism in Europe, so anything could happen. --Dannyno (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Jim. But a point made by WP:NAD (though not the point of NAD) is that cumbersome wordings should be replaced with simply is:

“ However, sometimes, a Wikipedia article (particularly stubs) will be badly written. Its introduction will say something such as "Dog is a term for an animal with the binomial name Canis lupus." or "Dog is a word that refers to a domesticated canine.". Such articles are not dictionary articles. They are badly written encyclopedia articles, that should be cleaned up in accordance with our Guide to writing better articles. Simply replace the cumbersome phrasings such as "is a term for", "is a word that means", "refers to", "is defined as", with the very simple "is": "A dog is an animal with the binomial name Canis lupus." "A dog is a domesticated canine." ”

There is no place for cumbersome wordings like "is commonly described as" either. We need to say what the meaning (or meanings) of the term is, and we do that by saying, "Atheism is ...".

Regarding your view that the absence def includes "having an unconscious absence of awareness (for which brain-dead people can qualify) of a belief in something incomprehensibly mysterious", it's not "something incomprehensibly mysterious". That's way too broad. The makeup of the universe prior to the big bang is "something incomprehensibly mysterious", but having an unconscious absence of awareness of a belief in that is not atheism by any definition. What the absence def does include is "absence of belief in any deities due to having an unconscious absence of awareness (for which brain-dead people can qualify) of any belief in any particular deity". The absence def is specific to nonbelief in deities, not to anything that is "incomprehensibly mysterious". --Born2cycle (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I was not (with that formulation) attempting to present a definition of the "absence" def, nor proposing that we might include it in the article. I was describing it - big difference. By merely describing it, I did not give a complete account of the boundaries of the usage of the term. (Sound familiar?) The absence def has the same logical problem as it would be to define rectangles as quadrilaterals. It gives a necessary condition (of atheism or rectangles), but does not give the sufficient conditions. Thus mathematics gets classified as atheism and so to would trapezoids be classified as rectangles. Thus babies and corpses (and yes, even ants) get classified as atheists. The defintion would be so much easier if we could eliminate the absence def - but since it is "reliably" sourced, we cannot do that. The result is that we cannot construct a simple sentence that defines atheism. So we will have to do what we can with the 3 defs - without setting any local stylistic sentiments as an a priori requirement. Btw, I am liking "positions incompatible with belief in the existence of any deities" (which even covers the Xns for not believing in Jupiter)- but that does not seem to sufficiently cover the absence def.--JimWae (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Jim, I understood you were describing an aspect of the absence def, and not defining it. I explained that in that description you assumed a much too broad definition of absence. I understand that you tried to show that the absence def has the same problem as one would have in defining rectangles as quadrilaterals, but you did not show that. The absence def does not include anything that is not part of the absence def, by definition! Anyway, your example was, "includes having an unconscious absence of awareness ... of a belief in something incomprehensibly mysterious". But that is not included in the absence def, as I explained above.

As to whether mathematics is included in the absence def, yes, I agree, mathematics is atheistic in that sense. So is science. That is, one needs not to assume the existence of any deity in order to accomplish anything in mathematics or science. By the same token, Christianity is atheistic with respect to the Greek god, Thor. And yes, babies, corpses and ants are also atheists in this sense. By definition. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Oddly then, So in a way we all survive death -- atheists are still atheists after they die, and theists become atheists when they die. Agnostics cannot determine a truth value for what they become, so they suspend judgement until after they die;)--JimWae (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the body of a theist (even before he dies) is atheist - only the human mind is theist. The dirt all around the remains is also atheist, as well as the worms crawling through the dirt and remains, and the birds that eat the worms, the trees the birds land upon, and the sun that shines on those trees. Indeed, the entire universe is atheist, except for the humans who are theists (usually indoctrinated before the age of reasoning). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree w/ B2C re JimWae's pushing of the WP:NAD policy. Wae seems to be avoiding simple/concise language for fear of violating WP:NAD. Frankly, if any policy contravenes clarity and concision, I think WP:IAR needs to be quoted.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the second point regarding abscence. I think we are over thinking this one a little. Something similar to the current wording seems fine. NickCT (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am superindenting this becomes it comes AFTER so many comments below. Actually my argument is that WP:NAD does NOT advise against clearly saying "A has been defined as...". It is saying "A means..." that actually violates WP:NAD. "Means" was substituted for "defined as" on April 6 after someone expressed a concern that "is defined as" sounds like a dictionary. The result of that change was to make the lede become more like a dictionary--JimWae (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There are two issues. Both are discussed at WP:NAD, but only one is problematic because it is like a dictionary. The first problem is avoiding being like a dictionary. The second problem is avoiding being cumbersome. Please don't conflate the two just because they're both discussed at WP:NAD. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The cumbersomeness issue is the same as the unnecessary wordiness issue. A sentence is not unnecessarily wordy if by dropping words one subtracts from the meaning--JimWae (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Changing words and/or rearranging the presentation of ideas can make it possible to drop out words without losing the most important information. Also, there is a natural limit, like 5 ideas per sentence, that maximizes how well the brain can take in information. Beyond that limit the sentence can be split or otherwise broken down, even if that means subtracting from the meaning, to reduce cumbersomeness and therefore enhance comprehension. I think what you mean to say is that if one can drop words without subtracting meaning then the sentence is unnecessarily wordy. But the converse of this does not logically follow from it. Kevin Baas^talk 19:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to broadly agree with B2c and Nick. And, to my personal dismay, I'm going to get into this particular WP:BIKESHED: what is the definition of definition? (Aaagh!) "Definition" (and no, I did not look this up in any dictionary) can refer to how a dictionary defines the specific meaning of a word, and it can also refer to how scholars of a concept categorize that concept. In fact, Jim is correctly applying the word "define" in that second (scholarly) sense, but what some of us are reacting to is that most readers, on seeing the word in the opening sentence of the page, will naturally construe it to be used in the first (dictionary) meaning. So it ends up that the proper application of NAD to this discussion is that, while it is a good thing to introduce the reader to the three "definitions" (however we end up doing it), most of us want to avoid making the lead read as though it were a dictionary definition. (I have no position as to what the meaning of "is" is.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any dictionary ever says "X is defined as...". It is generally assumed that (other than other well defined aspects such as syllabification, origin, and parts of speech) just about everything in the dictionary strives to be a definition. Encyclopedias go beyond dictionaries by giving definitions and more. As I am sure we all know, unlike dictionaries, encyclopedia are about topics, not words, and do not strive to give a definition for every word in the language --JimWae (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with "is defined as" (and "is widely described as", for that matter) is not that it's like a dictionary, but that it's unnecessarily cumbersome in a situation when simply "is" should do. See the quote from WP:NAD above. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It is unnecessarily cumbersome when there is only one undisputed definition. We have the uncommon situation of there being conflicting definitions in reliable sources, and so the controversy of definition itself becomes a topic that needs to be covered, and cannot be hidden from the reader.--JimWae (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not quite as simple as a situation where there is only one clear definition, but these closely related definitions can be handled with ors, and do not justify cumbersome qualifications (e.g., "widely described as") up front, as countless examples have shown. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Further, an encyclopedia intro should provide the definition(s) in a manner that avoids cumbersome wording as explained in the cite from WP:NAD I just quoted above, which it clearly states is not a "being like a dictionary" problem. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Described as is needlessly vague (even weasel-like) when we are talking about definitions. There is no policy nor styleguide issue with "A has been defined as..."(a1 and as a2 and as a3) -- in fact, it sets the article further apart from endorsing any def. Dropping "has been defined as" subtracts from the meaning of the statement--JimWae (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

An intro should not be referring to the sources upon which a description, or list of description, is based. That it is based on such sources is already implied. Saying "has been defined as" or "has been described as" is an unnecessary and cumbersome references to the sources upon which the definition(s)/description(s) are based.

Yes, listing the absence def is an endorsement of it. But what does a WP endorsement mean? It means it's a def used in reliable sources, like the other defs listed. So we should endorse it. Why the hesitation to endorse any def used in reliable sources? The cumbersome qualifiers are completely unnecessary. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not endorse anything. It attributes to reliable sources - especially when sources disagree.--JimWae (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm just using your terminology, Jim, to avoid semantic arguments. You introduced the term "endorse", and I rolled with it. Describing the absence def here is no more nor less of an "endorsement" than that of any other def described in any other article.

When sources disagree, all defs are listed. That sources don't all agree is what listing several defs instead of one means. Extra verbiage to explain that is unnecessary and cumbersome. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There have already been arguments against "is", and I'd rather not revisit them, unless we go back to something like the shorter "disbelief or unbelief" formulation. At some point in the swamp of recent edits, it said "regarded as" instead of "described as". My recollection is that Jim preferred that, although not as a top choice. It would be fine with me, and better than "defined as". But if we can work with some variation along the lines of "Atheism is disbelief or unbelief in the existence of deities, including...", we might be able to avoid the issue altogether. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue with "disbelief" and "unbelief" is that the meaning of both those words is pretty vague, giving only a rough neighborhood for the topic, and doing that is pretty unforthright. How to link such terms is also a problem - especially when reliable sources say atheism is not sheer unbelief. We should go back to the version before the bold edits of April 6 (though the easter eggs are still an issue there), and work from there.--JimWae (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I can come up with numerous simple sentences (such as "atheism is any position incompatible with belief that there are any deities"), but that seems to leave out the one that includes corpses as atheists, and I doubt that would fly far. As long as we have to incorporate a position with the (overly broad) "absence of a position" we are going to have trouble doing so in a simple sentence--JimWae (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not think our goal should be to try to avoid presenting the difficulty of defining atheism (not that anyone has directly advocated that). Definition is widely discussed in the literature (most extensively by those who advocate the absence def), and is practically all we discuss here. It would be misleading to not cover it in the article -- as it would be to unforthrightly hide it from the lede. --JimWae (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest this: Atheism is the circumstance of being without any deities. To test this definition, you might plug it into this sentence: Some clergy admit to atheism. PYRRHON  talk   22:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that's awful, sorry! It's also inaccurate, because not all the reliable sources think that atheism is any such thing. --Dannyno (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

@JimWae: As a supporter of the "disbelief or unbelief" formulation, I think it is OK that they give only a rough neighborhood, because atheism clearly is a rough neighborhood. Interestingly you think of unbelief as "sheer unbelief", but unbelief doesn't mean only that. Either word can mean any number of things, which is why I like them if I can't have "atheism is godlessness", which everyone *would* understand regardless of their point of view. I don't know where the "corpses as atheists" line comes from, since I'm not aware of any reliable source that says any such thing. "Atheistic", as an adjective has been used about science (as has the fine old obsolete word "atheous" - bring it back!). Atheism-as-a-state has been attributed to children and the innocent/ignorant; but atheism-as-a-point-of-view has not verifiably been attributed to corpses. We can have fun following lines of thought to their supposedly logical conclusion, but the literature is concerned with people and what they believe or do not believe, not with how to characterise their corpses. Dicto simpliciter, actually. George H Smith is the canonical "absensist". He doesn't mention corpses. --Dannyno (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's something that is direct, comprehensive, clear, & to the point. It has no issues with WP:NAD nor any style guideline nor any policy that I can find. It even only uses the word "define" once:--JimWae (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Atheism has been commonly defined as the position that there are no deities,[1] more broadly as the rejection of belief that any deities exist, and most inclusively, as the absence of belief in the existence of any deities.[3]

Atheism is distinguished from theism, which in its most general sense is the belief that at least one deity exists. It is contested whether atheism and agnosticism are incompatible.

Unnecessarily cumbersome, in violation of guidance provided on WP:NAD and elsewhere. Also violates NPOV by favoring one of the definitions ("is commonly defined") over others. Or do you have a reliable source to support your view that positive atheism is the more common definition? (if so, please cite it). Hence this:

"Atheism is the position that there are no deities,[1] more broadly as the rejection of belief that any deities exist, and most inclusively, as the absence of belief in the existence of any deities.[3]

There is no loss in meaning (except for dropping the NPOV violation) , since when an encyclopedia article says "X is A" (or "X is A, B or C)", that means "X has been defined in reliable sources as X" (or "X has been defined in reliable sources as A, B, or C"). --Born2cycle (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

But but but but but... The situation we have is that "X has been defined in reliable sources as A, A or B, or A or B or C." --Dannyno (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

@B2C: That's not even a sentence. I am prepared to drop "commonly" until that is worked out. The toughest external advocates of WP:NAD have no problem with "has been defined as". The "recommendation" to replace with "is" uses the case of a single def. There was, in fact, PLENTY of meaning lost by dropping "has been defined as" - so much so that it is no longer proper syntax also. This is a great example to show it is not "unnecessarily cumbersome" - meaning has been lost and the entire syntax of the sentence has been wrecked. An ambiguous "or" does not recapture the meaning. --JimWae (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Cryptic reference

Reference 50 and 53 are to a certain 'Zdybicka 2005'. That isn't descriptive enough, as demonstrated by the fact that I get no hits for it with a simple Google search. If someone could flesh out the reference that'd be great. (I'd like to be able to double check the book's representation of the argument from Metaphysical monism. It's a puzzling move given the common idea that God is all that there is, a metaphysical monism that is decidedly theistic...)--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/19960101-re_/http://www.ptta.pl/pef/angielski/hasla/a/atheism.pdf --JimWae (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not loading on my computer, and it's not because my .pdf viewer isn't functioning.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Download works for me. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Dammit! I'm on a work computer so I'll try again when I get home.--Heyitspeter (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The theoretical atheism section

The lead says that "Theoretical (or theoric) atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods." However, none of the positions laid out in the subsections "Psychological, sociological, and economical arguments" or "Anthropocentric arguments" are arguments against the existence of gods. If these are to be included at all they need to be moved elsewhere or given their own section. I'll hazard something myself, but I wanted to make my reasoning clear on the talkpage and create a space where people can give their own suggestions.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I've tried some stuff. Let me know what you think.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Favoring one of three definitions violates NPOV

The current lead states:

Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] A broader meaning is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

After reviewing NPOV, which states:

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

I submit the wording above does not fairly or proportionately represent all significant views about the meaning of the subject of this article, because it disproportionately favors one of the definitions ("the position that there are no deities") over the other two. In order to fix this violation of NPOV, and, as a bonus, in order to improve the article by removing cumbersome wording per guidance provided at WP:NAD#Fixing_bad_articles.2Fstubs, I submit the wording must change to:

Atheism is the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] A broader meaning is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

Or, even better:

Atheism is the position that there are no deities[1], the rejection of belief in the existence of deities [2], or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

Quoting WP:NPOV again:

This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

--Born2cycle (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Prefer the second to the first as the first entrenches the disproportionality rather than reduces it. Is "simply" not a hostage to fortune, though? I'm still not comfortable though, because what we're actually faced with in reliable sources is not a tripartite definition, but several different typologies. I mean that although all three elements are called atheism in the literature by somebody, only one group of writers would call *all* of them atheism, and that's those following the absence typology of George H Smith. Thus, although Born2cycle is right in wanting to eliminate the bias towards definition 1, what he's done is given the bias to definition 3, or rather typological tradition 3.

I mean that this suggestion says "Atheism is (1 or 2 or 3)", but to be fair to the literature we ought to be saying "Atheism is ((1) or (1 or 2) or (1 or 2 or 3)). Does that make my position clearer? --Dannyno (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

B2C. I'd suggest the following similar wording, but I think the wording you provide in the second offering is fine.

“ Atheism is either the position that there are no deities,[1] the rejection of belief in the existence of deities (i.e. theism),[2] or simply the absence of any belief concerning the existence of deities.[3] ”

I might suggest you BE BOLD here and simply change the wording. We've had several people agree & accept this wording now. NickCT (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear what "or" mean here. It is not clear that the 3 "characterizations" are not intended to be synonymous with one another. This is not a case of "cafeteria atheism", nor indecision on the part of the editors about how to word each def. The toughest external (not also involved here) advocates of WP:NAD have no problem with "has been defined as". Thus, in accord with recent trend to "be bold" here after very little input, I have also been bold -- and also removed Easter eggss. Incidentally, WP:NPOV does not require that all versions receive equal treatment -- and it is neither endorsing nor favoring any def to say that it is "common". WP:NPOV endorses making note of which viewpoint is in the majority - though "common" does not even make the claim of majority. One def appears in nearly every source - however, I have removed "common" for now. Revert me too if you wish - but to which version?--JimWae (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

@JW - "is not clear that the 3 "characterizations" are not intended to be synonymous with one another" - Hmmmm... Don't see your point here. If I saw "Poultry is chicken, duck, or goose" is it not clear those three aren't synomous.

I still don't understand your obsession with WP:NAD. I think you are the only one pushing this line. "is" is simply more concise than "has been defined as". If WP:NAD prevents concision we should ignore WP:NAD.

What are Easter eggss?

@B2C - I continue to suggest you be bold and make the revision. As I see it, we have the wording that has the most consensus. NickCT (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD advises further discussion - not further reverting --JimWae (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

the "," (especially with "or") suggests appositive - reader has to get very far into sentence to figure out its structure (and even then cannot be sure) - meaning is lost by not saying "and". A sentence is "too wordy" if you can drop words & retain all the meaning. It is not too wordy if dropping words loses meaning (aside from splitting into more than 1 sentence)

Sorry, WP:EASTEREGG --JimWae (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

B2C is pushing WP:NAD as a reason to not say "has been defined as" - None of its regular contributors agree with him.--JimWae (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm pushing a section of NAD that has nothing to do with the main "not a dictionary" aspect of that page, WP:NAD#Fixing_bad_articles.2Fstubs, so the regular contributors, when asked, were not asked the right question.

At any rate, the main issue here is violation of NPOV - to favor one definition over the other. Please stop reverting to a version that violates NPOV. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's also incorrect to say that none of its regular contributors agree. Here is a statement from User:WhatamIdoing from the NAD talk page:

“ It should also (ideally) be well-written. "___ is defined as..." or "___ refers to..." is usually a lousy, unnecessarily verbose writing style, even if the subject itself is a perfectly valid, encyclopedic article." ”

--Born2cycle (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that was Born2cycle who changed WP:NAD#Fixing_bad_articles.2Fstubs --windyhead (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)