Talk:Atheism

Compromise on Atheism definition

While atheism can be described as the rejection of belief in a deity, it can also be described as the lack of belief in a deity. The first sentence in it's current state might send the wrong message to people looking for a quick definition. It might make people mistake atheism (without god) for antitheism(against god). By using the word "reject," readers may skip "belief" and go directly interpret atheism as being "rejection of the possibility of existence of god." I would propose that the first sentence be changed to the following:

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of or lack of belief in the existence of deities."

I believe this definition would cover a wider base of the community, as it's more general, while leaving the other definition intact. If this change would get people's undies in a bunch, then a similar change is also acceptable:

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the lack of or rejection of belief in the existence of deities." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpsousa4 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph has consumed 99% of talk page discussion for years, with every possible definition and nuance explored in the most extraordinary detail. There are basically two problems here:

1. This is an encyclopedia entry, not a dictionary definition.
2. Atheism cannot be defined as one thing. It is an umbrella term that applies to several different positions.

I have always thought it would be better to have something like:

Atheism is a term used to describe a number of non-theistic positions that include the rejection of the existence of deities, the position that there are no deities, or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Doubtless some will argue that the order is wrong, or that the language is too complicated for the average reader, but I still think that this sort of approach works best. Anyway, I've sort of given up on the quest to perfect the first paragraph these days. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've likewise given up on participating in these discussions, as when they get rolling every couple months, they consume an exorbitant amount of time and never get anywhere. That aside, I think your definition is a distinct improvement, Scjessey. The current lead is unnecessarily complex, and risks giving a reader who skims it the false impression that one or two of the definitions are accurate without considering the third. Further, the current wording is plain silly: "Atheism, in a broad sense is... In an even broader sense, it's also..." I don't doubt they'll be someone who objects to your proposal, but I think it's at least worth considering over what we have now.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Scjessey, I support your definition. Nevertheless, I would prefer the three different definitions to be listed in this order from the general to the specific: absence, rejection, and no deities. mezzaninelounge (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I Also agree with Scjessey's. While your definition is a mouthful, it accurately describes a number of positions within atheism -- and who should expect to come onto wikipedia and not do a little reading anyway? I'm rather new to wiki'ing, how does something like this get changed properly after a discussion has happened? --Jpsousa4 (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

@Danielkueh, while I support that ordering from a logical standpoint (general -> specific, as opposed to jumbled order), you'll see a huge amount of resistance to it, due to "rejection" being cited more heavily than "absence". Your best bet for arguing that point is to present a good quantity of highly reliable sources which define atheism as "absence of belief", outside of the ones we currently have.

@Jpsousa4, Given the number of times this discussion has been had, it would be prudent to wait a few days for others to comment before making a change. If this discussion doesn't see any movement at all for a day or so, then making the change to the article to draw in other editors would be ok, per WP:BRD. After others have commented and lodged support, and we have gained consensus, then the change can be made to the article and left in.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Jess. Thanks for the heads up. Here are a few sources (they include books, journal articles, a reputable atheist organization, dictionary definition, and surveys) that cite, define, or use the word "atheism/atheist" in a way to mean absence or non-belief in a deity. [1][2][3][4].[5][6][7][8][9][10] [11][12][13][14][15][16][17] I hope this helps. Let me know if you need more. mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I like Man_jess' definition also but I do not want to put the absence definition first. We've discussed this to death, and most recently I was probably to blame for that :). The absence definition is the least notable, historically and/or based on reliable sources. There are quite a few who don't even think it belongs at all in the lead, but are willing, for the sake of peace to leave it there, in the last position (yes I'm one of those people). Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure this has all been discussed to death and I'm sure my comment is going to stir up the hornet's nest, so here goes. The reason why I and I suspect a few others find the current lead definition objectionable is that it is quite exclusive and misleading. To say that someone "rejects" is to describe or assign an intention. I'm not a mind reader. I suspect that many people who describe themselves as atheists or subscribe to atheism as a position do so for a variety of reasons. But what is common about all of them is that they have an absence of belief in a deity. Whether or not they "reject these ideas" or go a step further to say that "these deities do not exist" is not necessarily a defining feature of atheism or an atheist. To say that it is would be exclude a large segment of people who describe themselves as atheists, whose intentions you and I have no access to and will probably never know unless they reveal them to us. Granted, the positive meanings of atheism may be interesting, both historically and philosophically. I am arguing that these definitions are too restrictive/exclusive, and may not capture the large pool of people who call themselves atheists or adopt atheism as a position. For purposes of NPOV and by logic, I find the negative meaning to be the most inclusive and the most general. People who "reject" or state "there isn't a deity" will still have an "absence of belief." The only difference is that they are more vocal about it. My two cents. Now I should run. I'll shut up now. :) mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And do you have any reliable sources to substantiate your claims? As far as I know the vast majority of self-proclaimed atheists do indeed "reject" religious belief. Social scientists have done studies on this. There are not many of them, but I know of no sociologist or psychologist who has studied atheism who uses the absence definition (and a great number of them are atheists/agnostics themselves). The philosophical reasons why the absence definition is problematic don't even have to into the picture because if we stick to WP:V and WP:RS we find that the absence definition is the least notable. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I gave my sources. They are listed above. There are plenty more. Even the "New Atheists" use these negative meaning. Hence, it is quite notable. I don't see how they are not notable based on WP:V and WP:RS. I'm not familiar with any sociology/psychology research that use the positive definition. If there are, I would like see the sources for those. However, I do know psychologists/neurologist who describe themselves with the negative definition (e.g., B.F. Skinner, Freud). mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

First, I'd like to suggest that editors new to the page, if you really want to pursue such changes, please read through the talk archives, starting around archive 40. First-and-a-half, please no one yell at me for saying that. It's just good advice. Second, a problem that has been raised in the past about starting with "Atheism is a term..." is that starting by discussing it as "a term" treats it as a word, rather than as a concept. Some editors then point to WP:NOTDICT, and some other editors then complain loudly about pointing to WP:NOTDICT. Whatever. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish, thank you for pointing to the archives. I looked at the previous discussions. Yikes! That is why I am taking Mann_jess's advice and I am trying accumulate WP:sources to support a change towards the negative definition, which is the most neutral, general, widely applicable, and the most widely understood definition, whether among laymen or atheists. mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Mezza, if you really want to play this game please list your sources by title and please provide quotes. Simply linking like that is messy, confusing and if people don't have full access to what you linked to unproductive. Note, for instance, that you linked the same Dawkins Youtube video twice in that list. That said, your list of sources does not prove that the absence definition is more common (which is what I object to), it simply proves that it exists. Also please note that most of these sources don't actually address the issue at all, or actually contain positive definitions of atheism only.

• Flew, Martin and Smith, all of whom are atheist philosophers, distinguish between implicit/negative and explicit/positive atheism, but do they say that most atheists simply "lack belief"?
• The OED does not contain the absence definition at all (not sure where you are getting that from).
• The Pew Forum does not define atheists through the absence of belief.
• Where does the Gallup source even address the definitional issue?
• Ditto for "More Atheists Shout It from the Rooftops," and the Dawkins video you linked twice.
• The Rowe source uses a different definition - "To be an atheist in the broad sense is to deny the existence of any sort of divine being or divine reality."
• What does Sam Harris actually say? I have the book but he has no index and really like I said you need to provide the quotes here, I shouldn't have to dig through the book for them.
• BBC defines it through absence. Cheers for that one.
• Penn Juliet, who clearly is no a reliable source for these purposes, does not define it through absence. "Not believing in God," is not equivalent to "absence of belief in God."
• Like Harris I don't want to have to find the Hitchens quote, but I note that from perusing the book it seems rather clear that he is using a negative definition of atheism - e.g. "Atheism in its negation of gods ..."
• Is Julia Gillard even an "atheist"? All she has said is that she does not believe in God. I'm not an atheist and I also "do not believe in God." What does that prove?
• Where does the Chronicle use the absence definition?

Other than the three philosophers who promote the different forms atheism I count only one source that uses the absence definition - the BBC website, which is not a reliable source for this purpose. I also want to note, again, that these three philosophers do not claim the absence definition is more common in practice among self-identifying atheists. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, My apologies, I didn't realize you and other editors may not have access to all of the sources. My mistake. Plus, I concede the Oxford definition. With respect to those that you do, I didn't think reviewing them would be too difficult. That said, here it goes.

• GH Smith The Case against God [18] "An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god." p. 9
• M Martin Atheism: A philosophical justification [19] "Nonbelief in the existence of God is a worldwide phenomenon with a long and distinguished history." p. 1
• Flew. The Presumption of Atheism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2: 29. "I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter."
• American Atheists [20] "Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. "
• Pew Research [21] "Among the public as a whole, 85% know that an atheist is someone who does not believe in God. This includes 94% of self-described atheists and agnostics as well as similarly large numbers of white evangelical Protestants (94%). Roughly nine-in-ten Mormons (92%), Jews (91%), white mainline Protestants and white Catholics (88% each) also know what the term “atheist” means. Roughly eight-in-ten black Protestants (79%) are able to define the term “atheist.” Among Hispanic Catholics, about six-in-ten (61%) get this question right."
• Gallup Poll [22] "Interestingly, those without a religious identity, a group that includes atheists and agnostics, also appear to reap the positive wellbeing effect of religiosity."
• L Goodstein, New York Times [23] Polls show that the ranks of atheists are growing. The American Religious Identification Survey, a major study released last month, found that those who claimed “no religion” were the only demographic group that grew in all 50 states in the last 18 years.

Nationally, the “nones” in the population nearly doubled, to 15 percent in 2008 from 8 percent in 1990. In South Carolina, they more than tripled, to 10 percent from 3 percent. Not all the “nones” are necessarily committed atheists or agnostics, but they make up a pool of potential supporters."

• Richard Dawkins, CNN Interview. 0:32 "Why don't you believe in Thor? Why don't you believe in Zeus? Nobody believes in most of the things that you could believe in. You're an atheist with respect to the flying spaghetti monster." He answering a question from a CNN newswoman. I don't mean to stereotype, but I suspect she doesn't believe in the things not because she "rejected them".
• S Harris, Letter to a christian nation, "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." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."
• Rowe, [24] "To be an atheist in the broad sense is to deny the existence of any sort of divine being or divine reality."
• BBC [25] "Atheism is the absence of belief in any Gods or spiritual beings. The word Atheism comes from a, meaning without, and theism meaning belief in god or gods."
• P Jilette [26] "I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy — you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? ..."
• C Hitchens, The Portable Atheist [27] "One is continually told as an unbeliever, that it is old fashion to rail against the primitive stupidities and cruelties of religion because after all, ...." p. xiii
• Daily Mail [28] "'I don't believe in God,' says Australia's first female PM"
• Goodmand and Mueller. The Chronicle of Higher Ed [29] "According to a study by the Higher Education Research Institute, "The Spiritual Life of College Students," about 15 percent of college students have no religious preference or interest in religious and spiritual matters. National polls also demonstrate that growing numbers of Americans are indicating "nonreligious" as their religious identification, with college students and college-age Americans constituting the least-religious demographic in the country. While that is not the majority of students, it is certainly a considerable proportion. Yet little is known about such students and their views."

To summarize, I wish to make a few points. First, I cited these references to show that the word "atheism" is used in a "negative sense," i.e., lack of belief. Some of the quotes state this explicitly while others imply them. And BTW, do not = none. A non-swimmer is a person who does not swim. Second, if we are going with what's "most common," then clearly the negative definition is the most common as revealed by Pew research center poll. Third, we're talking about how the term is being used here, which not only includes scientific journals, but also the mass media (newspapers, books, TV, etc). These sources all qualify as "reliable sources," see WP:sources. Let's get real here, we are not trying to describe quantum mechanics. To do so would require peer-reviewed scientific journals. We are here to provide definition of a position, which people called atheists for whatever reason decided to adopt. Thus, a variety of sources do qualify. Finally, this is just a question of logic and taxonomy. All dogs are mammals but not all mammals are dogs. Likewise, all people who reject beliefs in deities are nonbelievers but not all nonbelievers reject beliefs in deities.

So I have given my sources and provided quotes. I've also provided a rationale. You claim that your definition is the more common one. Well, where are the sources to buttress that claim? Unless you have done a systematic count of all the print media in the world or conduct surveys asking people specifically how atheism should be defined, I doubt you will find such sources. Cheers mezzaninelounge (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You have provided quotes but your quotes do not support your point at all. I responded already to each source above. Please reread my point by point response to your sources. In fact not a single one of your sources, save the BBC source, even remotely suggests that the absence definition is more common. Only three others even make reference to it (all by atheist philosophers and all covered already in the entry). BTW, no one is arguing that we should remove the absence definition, simply that it belongs last in the list. Your sources do not provide any rationale for changing the status quo at all. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And for the record social scientists tend to distinguish between atheists and agnostics, among other things. Doing so is incompatible with the absence definition because the absence definition includes agnostics as well as so called "positive/explicit atheists." For instance, Hunsburger and Altemeyer (2006) Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of North America's Nonbelievers - "A few folks, like the authors of this book, say they honestly do not know and are called agnostics. And every now and then you come across and atheist, who positively says the negative--there is no God." I'll list a few more below if you wish.Griswaldo (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's more from peer reviewed literature in the social sciences:

• "... includes both 'atheists,' who deny the existence of God, and 'agnostics,' who hold that the existence of God is unknown and unknowable." - Veevers and Cousineau, 1980. 'The Heathen Canadians: Demographic Correlates of Nonbelief." The Pacific Sociological Review. 23(2)
• "Atheists make a definitive claim that God does not exist, while agnostics assert that such knowledge is beyond the realm of human capacity; they do not affirm or deny the existence of God." - Baker and Smith, 2009. "None Too Simple: Examining Issues of Religious Nonbelief and Nonbelonging in the United States." Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion 48(4)
• "Agnostics neither affirm nor deny the existence of God because they claim that it cannot be known or determined; inherent in this viewpoint is the possibility of God. Conversely, atheists firmly believe that God does not exist, making their views about God distinct from those of other subgroups in the ―no religion category." Hunter, 2010. "Explaining Atheism: Testing the Secondary Compensator Model and Proposing an Alternative Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 6

The belief scales used in almost all the large religion surveys I'm aware of also include differentiation between agnostics and atheists -- this includes the GSS, ARIS, Baylor religion survey, etc. I could list many more publications which do not explicitly define atheism and agnosticism but are written on the basic premise of the distinctions made above, which also correlate with the afore mentioned belief scales. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, I am not sure if you are aware of what my point was. I have read your "point by point" rebuttal and if you read my summary and quotes, you will know I have addressed them. In fact many of your points are not even rebuttals but questions or expressed confusion. Based on your responses, it is clear that you haven't read all the quotes or my sources. Again, if we are going to argue about "what's most common," then the Pew Research clearly shows that the "negative definition" is the most common (see quote above). And if we are going to go with what self-described atheists say, then let's start with the American Atheists organization. They use the negative definition (see quote above).

I have given my sources. Where are yours? How do you know that the majority of self-described atheists adopt your definition? Did you ask them? Did you text them? Did you do a survey? Where is your evidence? You keep bringing up this arbitrary criteria of "most common," which appears more and more speculative. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the "reject definition" is the most common one. After all, you are the one who made that statement. I made my statement based on logic, generality, and comprehensibility.

Finally, there is almost an implied elitism in your definition, whether it is intended or not. If people do not reject beliefs in deities, are they not atheists? By placing the negative definition as the third or last definition, are these atheists second or third class atheists then? Think about it. mezzaninelounge (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

An "implied elitism?" Huh? Many atheist organizations and atheist activists use the "negative definition" not to describe their own beliefs but to claim that there are and have been many more "atheists" in the world than is commonly believed. The reality is that very few people who merely "lack belief in god" actually call themselves atheists. The reality is also that the scholars who actually study the demographics of belief empirically (social scientists) almost always differentiate between agnostics and atheists, reserving "atheism" for those who are positive atheists (see above). Most reference works also only use the positive definitions. The negative are pretty much reserved for some philosophers and atheists who themselves have active disbelief but in order to promote their identity wish to include others who normally do not identify as such.Griswaldo (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And btw, I think you are confused about Pew, because they are not using the absence of belief definition, they are quite clearly using the active disbelief definition. The absence definition includes agnostics, because if you do not know if there is a god you are also absent belief in god. But Pew differentiates this from atheism. When they say "does not believe in God" they mean affirmative disbelief in God, not "lack of belief."Griswaldo (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, First things first. Nobody "owns" the word, position, or concept of "atheism." A sociologist's definition is no more superior to that of a philosopher, laymen, political scientists, psychologists, natural scientists, journalists, etc. Atheism is just a position. There is nothing special about it. You don't have to be smart to be an atheist. You just don't need to believe in god(s). Second, the word agnosticism is also used as an adjective (e.g., see Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God). Thus, it is possible to be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic Christian. Third, I looked at the first two studies you cited (I don't have library access to the third). I noticed that those quotes in those two studies appeared not in the results or discussion section, but in the introduction, and was not informed or formulated by the results of those two studies. In other words, it is not the data that has led these authors to define atheism and agnosticism, but their preconceived notions of what constitutes an atheist and an agnostic. Thus, their definitions are no better than that of an uninformed laymen. Since these authors did not explicitly describe themselves as atheists, I don't see how their works support your claim that their definition is the most common one among self-described atheists. Besides, why are we even appealing to the majority or to certain authorities here? If the majority of sociologists think natural scientists are assholes, should we then define natural scientists as assholes? Fourth, yes, you are right, many atheist organizations do use the negative definition, which means they are more inclusive than they would otherwise be if they adopted your definition. Fifth, does not = none. A non-swimmer does not swim, a non-scientist does not experiment, a non-football player does not play football, and a non-believer does not believe. There is nothing affirmative about it. You are just inferring more than is necessary. Unless you asked, you cannot assume intentions. Cardinal rule of research in the social and behavioral sciences. mezzaninelounge (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A considerable number of appearances of atheism above, as in PEW: "Among the public as a whole, 85% know that an atheist is someone who does not believe in God", cannot be used to show that atheism is being defined rather than described. (The questions asked were: "Is an atheist someone who does NOT believe in God, believes in God, or is unsure whether God exists?" AND "Is an agnostic someone who is unsure whether God exists, does NOT believe in God, or believes in God?") While it is true that absence (not "lack") of belief in deities is a necessary condition for atheism, it is not a sufficient condition - for "atheist" is not a term applied to anyone & everything that has such an absence. Despite what some pamphleteers and those attempting a persuasive redefinition say, infants are not regularly called atheists - nor are dogs, ants, cabbages or rocks (Nor are mathematics & shell collecting generally called atheistic pursuits). The sources that talk about "lack of belief" indicate a general lack of awareness that, while "lack" might leave out infants & rocks, most meanings given of "lack" indicate a deficiency. Atheism as absence does not describe a position. The absence def fails as a definition - because it does NOT give the limits of the actual usage of the term. It is the worst & the most contested def of the three, and is specifically opposed by Nagel (btw, also an atheist). Self-proclaimed atheists are explicit atheists & their position can be given distinctly from so-called implicit atheists. The rejection def includes every self-proclaimed atheist. To be a self-proclaimed atheist, one must be aware of that some people believe in a deity AND one must take the position "I do not believe in any deity" - which is a rejection of belief--JimWae (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

What Jim said. Speaking of atheist philosophers I believe the "absence" or "lack" definition is also rejected by Julian Baggani. Mezza, of course the definition of terms, if there is one, will be found at the beginning of a research paper. The fact that social scientists define terms in a certain way is all I was illustrating. Let's forget about what is most common in popular usage for a second and focus on WP:V and our sourcing standards. Let's say we have 3 different definitions for a term - A, B, and C. Some sources use only one definition, and others use multiple definitions. Let's say in reliable sources usage breaks down as follows - 65% use A, 50% use B, and 5% use C. Which one is least common in usage in reliable sources? Clearly C. That's what we find here. There is no need to argue about what type of scholarship is better or worse to answer this question, because at the end of the day, it is a fact that a minority of all reliable sources use the absence definition (you have only found 3). It is also a fact that no scholar uses ONLY the absence definition while many use only one of the other two options. So even the three philosophers you mention also use the explicit definitions. A survey of scholarship clearly shows that option C is the least common.Griswaldo (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I wish to clarify a few things.

• First I am not making an argument based on "what is the common usage." I'm arguing for a definition that is inclusive and fits the criteria of NPOV. Anyone who reads my posts above will know that very clearly.
• I cited the pew research because we seem to centered on how the term is understood among atheists and the general public (atheists or not). I am not saying that the term is defined that way, I am saying that the term can be understood as such.
• I did not make any claim to say which scholarship is better. This is a red herring. Griswaldo keeps bringing up sociologists and their works. I wish to dispute the notion that we can categorize a heterogeneous group of individuals in this entire planet based on a few studies by a few individuals who study only a small group of people from a small location of the world. And if sociologists are "scholars," then why not philosophers?
• Again, Griswaldo, you keep making absolute statements without providing reference. Who are these "every scholar" that you keep alluding to? And why is it that only scholars' opinions matter here? We're talking about atheism, not particle physics. Contrary to what some atheists like to believe, you are not necessarily bright if you are an atheist.
• If you are going to go by what is common, then why stop there? According to cultural anthropologist, Scott Atran, most atheists are prone to scapegoating [30]. Why not define an atheist as a person "who rejects belief and likes to scapegoat?" If we are going to appeal to majority, then why stop with atheists? Why not do the same for all other categories of people on Wikipedia. Why not just go with stereotypes and define engineers as males, basketball players as African-Americans, homemakers as women, and Republicans as White males?
• The examples of not calling babies, dogs, and cabbages an atheist is a red herring. Of course we don't do that because dogs and cabbages are not people. Plus, it is often frowned upon to call children atheists (even though it is acceptable to call a child a Muslim or a Christian). It doesn't mean that we can't.
• Finally, I suspect this is where the main contention lies. It seems we all agree that an atheist is a person that "does not believe in a deity." What we dispute is whether we can assume an intention simply because someone does not do something. This is a logical fallacy. See affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. Look at the following questions and tell me if we can deductively draw an affirmative conclusion.

• A non purple flower does not have purple color. Has it "rejected" purple colors?
• A non-swimmer does not swim. Has he or she "rejected" swimming?
• A non-police officer does not police. Has or she "rejected" policing?
• A non-seeing person (blind) does not see. Has or she "rejected" seeing?
• A non-believer does not believe? Has he or she "rejected" believing?

• Unless you can say that the answers to the above questions are "100% yes" without qualifications, then you have no case. mezzaninelounge (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the issue is not intention. The disagreement is whether "not believing in a deity" is a sufficient condition for being an atheist. Ordinary usage says it is not. It is not even sufficient for Smith. --JimWae (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

1) Scott Atran is not a "cultural" anthropologist. He is a cognitive/linguistic anthropologist who might also be described as an evolutionary psychologist. 2) I allude to every scholar because every scholar quoted on this page has affirmed at least one of the explicit definitions, even those who also hold to the implicit one. I can only speak from my own knowledge base, and to date no scholarly work presented here has argued that atheism is only defined as implicit. Most, however, define it only as explicit. What do you not understand about that? 3) It is not a "logical fallacy." When someone, a living thinking human being, says, "I do not believe in God/gods" they are affirming something, they are taking a stance about God/gods. However, if you describe a baby as a being that "does not believe in God," while you are correct in your description the baby has taken no such stance. Indeed the baby cannot do so. If you asked someone who can answer the question but who truly has no concept of God/gods if they believed in God/gods they would not say "no." They would say, "Huh? What are gods? Please let me know so I can answer your question." People understand that words have referents and that when asked questions about words with referents they are unsure of they cannot actually provide answers. In other words the philosophical premise behind the absence definition makes little to no sense cognitively when you deal with actual human beings. It is no surprise at all that sociologists, psychologists and other social scientists have little to no utility for it.Griswaldo (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, on the question of babies being atheists, there are empirical studies that do in fact suggest that most atheists do not consider their children "atheists" until the children are old enough to understand what an atheist is and to have chosen that for themselves. See Hunsberger and Altemeyer for instance. The absence definition is not compatible, in other words, with how most atheists conceptualize their children's beliefs vis-à-vis religion and atheism.Griswaldo (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, the main point that I made about Atran, which you missed is that you are making a statement based on the views of only a small group. In this case, some sociologists. It is like saying that "all apples in the universe are red" because a sample of them in North America are red and that a small group from North America who studied apples said so. And if we are going to follow your approach to its logical extreme, we should not just stop at "reject," we should also define atheists by other demographic criteria, such as a tendency to scapegoat, which Atran brought up. Moreover, we should not stop with atheism, we should do this for all other categories of humans, such as drivers, swimmers, and scientists on Wikipedia. In fact, we can even develop a codified Wikipedia policy based on this approach and then refer to frequently on Talk pages like this.

No one is arguing that humans have thoughts and intentions. That is not even the main point of contention here. It is a red herring, so please stick to the issues. The main contention is that you 1) assume some form of intention among ALL atheists and 2) you have a unique and mysterious ability to clearly identify those intentions as "rejection". If you know behavioral research, you would know that it is inappropriate to make such "mentalistic assumptions," (not my favorite word) about people's intentions, which you are clearly doing. And you have no basis for it.

With respect to that example about asking someone a question that they do not know, why don't you do a thought experiment. Imagine if you were in China and met a Chinese atheist. You then asked that person if he or she believes in Zeus. If he or she says, "huh? What's that?" Does that mean that this individual is not an atheist with respect to Zeus? Of course not. How a person responds and for how long is irrelevant and unnecessary. And what people do or call their children is also irrelevant. It does not make it any more true or false. If I have a son who is lazy but I labeled him the most hardworking person in the world, it still won't change the fact that he is lazy.

It seems to me that this issue could be resolved if "rejection of belief" is replaced by "does not believe." We both agree on this phrase but differ in our interpretation of it. That is fine since no one else would know or care anyway. Cheers. mezzaninelounge (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I never said anything about "ALL" atheists, and what on earth does this have to do with "intentions?" I wrote a longer reply but it is pointless. Two things here. 1) The sourcing is against your wishes. Almost all social scientists (sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, etc,.) and not "not some sociologists," consider atheists those who are of the explicit variety. Unless you can provide sourcing that negates this claim, the 4 sources I have provided are "all" the sources we've seen from social scientists and they are all in agreement with my claim. By and large the only sources that accept the implicit def. are atheist philosophers, but not even all of them do. As Jim and I have pointed out, at least 2 other atheist philosophers refute their positions. Non-atheist philosophers and theologians pretty much completely dismiss the implicit definition. Historians don't use it either. This has been discussed and agreed upon many times in the past so the onus is on you to prove it wrong. The sources you provided failed in doing so. 2) You appear to be much more interested in WP:TRUTH than in WP:V. We are never going to change the lead based on your reasoning alone. You need to support it with sources. Now I will no longer respond to you because I do not think you are actually engaging my points, or perhaps you're not understanding them. Either way this is pointless. This entire discussion should be collapsed or moved to a subpage.Griswaldo (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, I'm assuming that your definition is suppose to describe "all" atheists? If not, then you have proved my point that your definition is narrow, prescriptive, exclusive, and represents only one POV. As for the point on intentions, sigh... You've obviously never heard of "intentional idioms" such as "want, desire, hate, motivated, or rejected?" If you don't understand the point that I made, then I guess there's no need for me go on about it.

As for your standard appeal to social scientists. Well, atheism belongs to everyone and anyone. It is not some peculiar concept that only social scientists are able to understand and define. It is not like particle physics where only physicist are in the best position to provide explanations on how it works. Plus, the sociological POV is not the gold standard in Wikipedia. So I don't see why this discussion ends with just a "few" papers by a "few" sociologists whom you think support your POV. I repeat "few" here because I don't think you have ESP that you can claim to know what " almost all" social scientists think.

As for my sources, you just decided to ignore most of them AND misunderstood their purpose in this discussion. Besides, I wasn't aware that you were appointed as the arbiter of what constitutes acceptable sources on this page. Last I checked at WP:Sources, newspaper articles and other non-peer reviewed sources are just as acceptable. For a non-specialized and intellectually trivial position such as atheism, I really don't know what the big deal is.

I have already addressed your points. You just didn't bother to read or respond to any of mine. No reciprocity.

You can ignore me if you want. But at the end of the day, it is clear that you do not play by the same rules of logic or be willing to consider different vantage points. Indeed, your main purpose from the beginning was to maintain the status quo by stonewalling this discussion. Which is why, this discussion has indeed become meaningless.

Finally, my goal was not WP:Truth. It was about NPOV, which supersedes all other WP policies and especially your POV. Cheers. mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the cosy familiarity of the entirety of the preceeding argument. The problem for me is that trying to find a nice, neutral, definition of atheism is OR, because, in fact, no nice, neutral, please-everyone definition of atheism exists as a consensus in the literature. What we have, in fact, in a wide range of different conceptualisations of atheism. That's the reality, and that's what we have to reflect. The "absence" definition probably is the most universal catch-all definition, but that doesn't make it right for Wikipedia. --Dannyno (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, what is all this? "...people mistake atheism (without god) for antitheism(against god)." This happens. A lot. Shouldn't stopping semantic ignorance/confusion be what matters? Furoar (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Subpage?

Can we create a subpage for these arguments? Again, I admit that the last time around I provoked most of the discussion. I'm sorry about that. But I now understand how frustrating this becomes. I suggest we create a permanent subpage for these debates and direct all discussion to the subpage so that it doesn't clutter the main talk page every 6 months. Anyone else think this is a good idea?Griswaldo (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral. I guess a case can be made that, instead, keeping the whole thing right here serves as a kind of warning, a kind of object lesson, as well as making it easier to refer people back to earlier discussions when, inevitably, they are not aware of that object lesson. There's something to be said for not fragmenting the record of discussion. (Hey Daniel, you can't say I didn't warn you!) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  But if the point is to make it easier to keep track of this particular discussion every time it rears its ugly head a subpage would do that. And I actually think it would be less fragmented, since no intervening discussions about other things would be on the subpage.Griswaldo (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  Well, if you want to create a compendium of that sort, you would also have to go back and collect all the previous discussion threads dealing with the first lead paragraph. If you really want to, more power to you! (Me, I'm just trying not to get into any long discussions about this to begin with, since I pretty much know that nothing new is going to get consensus.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  You're probably right. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Eek! No! It would be like our very own circle of hell. --Dannyno (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Opening Sentence proposal (not definition ordering)

Above, the original proposal was a wording change, which didn't seem to elicit any outright objections. However, the discussion quickly transformed into the definition ordering dispute. I think we need to keep these two discussions separate, as they are entirely separate proposals. As such, I've included the original wording change below, and provided room for other proposals to be listed.   — Jess· Δ ♥ 18:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

ScJessey's Proposal

“ Atheism is a term used to describe a number of non-theistic positions that include the rejection of the existence of deities, the position that there are no deities, or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. ”

• Support I believe this is a distinct improvement over the current wording. Are there any objections to it? If so, is there another (similar) proposal which can be made which addresses those objections? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support I think this one is surely better and more accurate than the rest. -Abhishikt 21:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support (with or without reordering). mezzaninelounge (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, per my comment somewhere above that we should treat it as a concept, not as a "term". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't find WP:NOTDICT compelling, personally, in part due to it preventing us from making forward progress away from a controversial and largely jumbled lead. I'm not one to quote IAR, but it seems perfectly applicable in this case; We have a bad lead, and this is the best proposal we have to fix it which hasn't seen opposition on grounds other than NOTDICT. I fully respect your right to oppose the proposal on that ground, but I don't think it's productive. To be clear, do you also object to the proposal for any other reason, or is it acceptable to you aside from the wording "is a term"?   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I restructured the proposals, and included a new one which bypasses NOTDICT below. I'd support either of these proposals equally.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, for me, I'm fine with letting IAR trump NOTDICT. My problem isn't with whether we are or aren't strictly adhering to principle. It's that I don't like the writing, when it's done that way. Atheism simply isn't just a term or a word. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. What is atheism about? "Atheism is a term used to describe a number of non-theistic positions..." Too vague. Not an improvement. — Robin Lionheart (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Atheism is not always regarded as a 'position' at all. --Dannyno (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Clearer and more concise than current lead. NickCT (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Jess's Proposal

“ Atheism is a nontheistic philisophical position which includes the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, the position that there are no deities, or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. ”

• Support, but would welcome suggestions for improvement of the wording. This suggestion bypasses WP:NOTDICT, as well as the current jumbled mess of 3 individual sentences in the lead defining broadness, and is more concise and better summarizes the three views than the present wording.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support But I suggest we keep it simple by deleting "nontheistic philosophical." Plus, I recommend changing "which" to "that," as it is that which is defining. mezzaninelounge (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. 1> As mentioned several times long ago & recently, absence of belief is not even a position - and certainly not a philosophical one. 2>This article should not depend upon the mess that is nontheism 3>There are 3 distinct defs with distinctly different scopes of application. It is not a "jumbled mess" to treat each separately 4>Rejection def is not rejection of existence but rejection of belief 5>... --JimWae (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about "philisophical". I was considering removing it, myself, right after I posted the proposal, but the two of you voted before I could. I don't necessarily agree that "position" cannot refer to "absence of belief", though I understand your argument. For the sake of discussion, assuming we remove the adjective, and find an acceptable replacement for "position" which properly describes "absence", would you support this change?   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The statement overly makes reference to deities, which need not be a part of a belief system - aka Buddhism which rejects the notion of a supreme God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.91.203 (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a separate issue, since the current lead uses this wording as well. That part is a copy/paste job. You'd have to open a new section to discuss that wording.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not always regarded as a philosophical position. --Dannyno (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Danielkueh's Proposal

Jess, might I suggest something even simple? mezzaninelounge (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

“ Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, the position that there are no deities, or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. ”

• Oppose 1> 1st & 2nd do not differ 2> reader cannot be sure if "or" is the "or" of synonymy or of alternatives 3> commas also are used to set off appositives, making it unclear how to treat 2nd (so far indistinct) def 4>..--JimWae (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, how about this then. mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

“ Atheism may refer to the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, the position that there are no deities, or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. ”

Please reread my comments today & trypts--JimWae (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Jess, looks like a nonstarter. One opposes due to WP:NOTDICT and the other opposes due to POV. I suspect more to come. mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I remember proposing almost exactly the same thing as this a long time ago. You can, of course, infer how successful my proposal was then. Just so you don't think I'm being a wet blanket. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh well. I'm testing the waters. :) mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not conclusive yet. It'll take a while for everyone to voice their opinions. I'm also hoping that someone who objects to each of the current proposals might bring up a new one which is more agreeable. No need to rush things. However, I have to agree with JimWae's objections on this one... The first part suffers from a grammar issue, and the second is in the same boat as ScJessey's proposal. I like the direction, but I don't see any way to fix those points.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you then. When it gets close, let me know. I'll vote. :D mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Conceptualises atheism as (x, y or z), whereas what we actually have is something like ((x, y or z) or (x or y) or (z) or (some other thing)). I prefer solutions which explicitly acknowledge that atheism is conceptualised in very different ways. --Dannyno (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Clearer and more concise than current lead. NickCT (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Jess's 2nd Proposal

“ Atheism is a form of nontheism which includes the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, the position that there are no deities, and the absence of belief that any deities exist. ”

• Support I've been others some time to comment, and having read over the concerns presented above, I think something like this might be appropriate. I view it as a combination of the 3 proposals, but 1) avoiding WP:NOTDICT, 2) avoiding "philisophical" and "position", and 3) avoiding an ambiguous "or". If there are any concerns which I've missed, or this suffers from a new problem, please let me know. (I'm also comfortable substituting that last "and" for the original "or simply")   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• What's nontheism?
• 1st & 2nd "definitions" still not distinct
• While it is generally agreed the absence def is included in nontheism, it is disputed that atheism includes ALL 3. The concept is understood in 3 different ways, with 3 different scopes. Why hide that? Only those who advocate the absence redefinition hold that atheism includes all 3. --JimWae (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your objections. 1) Nontheism has an article. 2) The first two definitions are copy/pasted from what we're using now. Rejection of belief and position of nonexistence are indeed different, and even if they weren't and that were a problem, our current lead would suffer from the same oversight. 3) We're not talking about the absence definition. We're listing the 3 ways in which atheism can be understood, by saying it 'includes' (not is) each of the 3. By stating them in separate sentences we're saying exactly the same thing, just in a more complex way. This is intended to be a restatement (and improvement) of the current lead.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

1> I do not see "rejection of belief" in any recent proposal 2> 3> 4> 5> --JimWae (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. That was an oversight on my part. I've fixed it. This correction applies to my initial proposal as well... both of which were intended to be a copy/paste of the current wording. Points 2, 3, 4, and 5 you've left blank, so I can't respond to them... obviously.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I am disappointed that people could have decided they had adequately examined those proposals for merit and still have supported them, despite my previous points directly regarding this oversight. I am discouraged that the format has so quickly become one of support/oppose before previous objections have been addressed.

Look at the syntactic structure of the current proposals: A is a subcategory of X which includes r, d, and a. The structure is the same as Mammals are a subcategory of chordates which includes humans with arms, dogs with injured legs, bats with wings, and whales with an absence of legs AND/OR Mammals are a subcategory of chordates which include carnivores, primates, and, most inclusively, placentals. The expectation that what follows is to be understood as a definition is weakened by the use of "which includes", making nontheism/irreligion the only clearly definitional part of the sentence. Those articles are not themselves featured articles and do not themselves contain clear definitions - indeed contain definitions that I think we would shudder at if applied to atheism. We currently have 3 distinct definitions with 3 distinct scopes, and the wording more clearly indicates that the 3 sentences are to be understood as definitional. Putting everything into one sentence reduces the information presented to the reader - the relative scopes are hidden as well as the fact that these are competing, not complementary (nor completely accepted), definitions. I can easily give my preferred definition in one sentence, but if three sentences is what it takes to give a clear NPOV exposition of the definitions, then so be it.--JimWae (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The nontheism bit is a little wordy for my taste but not a big deal. mezzaninelounge (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yes, "nontheism" has an article, but have you read it? Any clearer about what it means? Thought not. The literature, as distinct to wikipedia's confused approach to this terminology, lacks consensus on whether "nontheism" and atheism are synonymous, or in some kind of hierarchical relationship, or what. Definition as a whole recognises diversity of typological approaches even less clearly than is currently the case. --Dannyno (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish's proposal

I have always liked the idea of getting this "thing" down to a single sentence, and, well, I guess I'm a glutton for punishment. I think Jess' approach has promise, so here is my attempt to start the process of writing by committee tweak it, taking into account the inevitable scwabbling concerns that I know suspect are likely to come up:

“ Atheism is a form of irreligion that includes rejection of belief in the existence of deities, the specific position that there are no deities, and most inclusively, the absence of belief that any deities exist. ”

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support I took the "specifically" and "inclusive" bits out just to be concise, but now reading yours, I slightly prefer it to mine. However, I don't think Irreligion applies here, since Buddhists can be atheists yet still religious. If we change that term, I'm comfortable with this proposal.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

How about changing it to "non-belief"? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The proposed revision is evidently becoming more repetitous and contorted than what is on the article. Also, the way the latest revisions are worded they are unintentionally dubiuous. They are all asserting that "Atheism is a form of non-belief [in..?] that includes... ...absense[in the...]. It may not be all that obvious when buried within the list, but this is an assertion made by some soures whereas other sources contradict it by writing that atheism does not include that particular form. And simply tweaking to "that can include" makes the tabled verse here even more unappealing. --Modocc (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. More convoluted and tendentious that current definition. Atheism is not necessarily "irreligious", in the literature. Also, presents typological elements as complementary or rather constructive of a single classification structure, whereas the typologies of atheism are actually exclusive. Some people think all these things are atheism. Some people think some of these things are atheism. Some people think that atheism is only one of these things. To try to reconcile all of this into a broader definition is plainly OR. --Dannyno (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious? Really? Anyway, this whole thing is no big deal to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Why this talk had died down? This time I'm really hoping that we would be able to update the opening sentence. I strongly feel that any of the above is much better than the current one in the article. I suggest even if we don't reach consensus, we should vote and just select the one with most votes. -Abhishikt 02:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, WP:Consensus, and WP:NOTVOTE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"Militant atheism" article in need of backup

Greetings. I thought I'd let you know that a recent article called "militant atheism" is seriously in need of some backup. It violates WP:NOTDICT and WP:NPOV. The meaning of the term is obviously way too broad, and it has become a WP:COATRACK and a WP:CFORK for anti-atheist slurs and propaganda. Obhave (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Opening line = awkward and wrong.

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities"- Firstly this is not the broad sense, it is in fact more narrow than the absence of belief. I can't believe the wording has remained the same for so long, after so much discussion. The next point is one of semantics, and I have raised it before. You can not reject a belief unless the belief exists in the first place. What is stated here is that the belief exists and is rejected (either deemed false or declined for other reasons). This by definition relates to knowledge of other people's conceptions of a god. Accordingly it is not a rejection of one's own belief, but rather a rejection of someone else's. Doesn't anyone else think this is somewhat problematic?137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm with you and I wish you the best of luck with this. mezzaninelounge (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please expand on this. Do you mean that belief is a misplaced word? Should it be the word faith instead?

An atheist can believe that a religious person believes in God, and that as soon as there is one such person, the concept of God has a reality, even if the atheist does not subscribe to that concept.

In that vein, I have no religious faith, and certainly no faith that any deities exist, but I acknowledge as a matter of belief (because I can never be absolutely certain about other people's faiths or sincerity) that other people do have such faiths rather than just saying so. To restate the original problem, I can reject a faith without ever subscribing to it. I can do this just by being aware of it and dismissing its validity as a personal choice. And that is a narrow choice, dealing with each individual faith separately rather than dismissing out of hand the validity of any and all faiths.

Is that what you're trying to get at, or am I off on a tangent here? Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 09:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The original comment fails to point out that the absence definition is stated in the first sentence and it is preceded by, "most inclusively ..." Is the issue that it is stated third? The reasons for that have been thoroughly discussed here already. The absence definition is not common, except for among some Atheist evangelists and those who have latched onto their arguments. Among most scholars it is never used, and among philosophers it is controversial. That is why we put it third. Being most broad, in its internal logic, does not grant it priority seating. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the second point the poster is simply wrong. You can reject a belief as long as the belief exists, and you are aware of this. There is not a single self-proclaiming atheist in the world who does not fit that bill - who does not know that others believe in God/god(s) while rejecting those beliefs.Griswaldo (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again. "Absence" definition not common? Clearly false. And who are these "scholars" again? Sociologists who published in obscure journals? mezzaninelounge (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Not so. Most of your sources basically showed that a number of people say they do not believe, are absent belief, or the like and so you then wp:SYN that into supporting your contention here that because this is consistent with the absence definition, that this somehow makes the definition more common. But that inference is completely wrong for these informed people have rejected faith and they have not done so blindly. If we ignore your wp:SYN and compare the reliable sources which actually define atheism, the absence definition is not at all common. --Modocc (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a good amount of options presented for opening line at Talk:Atheism#Opening_Sentence_proposal_.28not_definition_ordering.29. There is lots of discussion happened there. I suggest we should expand on there and try to reach consensus. -Abhishikt 01:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

See wp:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT concerning the objections to those proposals. --Modocc (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No, Griswaldo, rejecting belief in deities and rejecting the existence of deities are two concretely different positions. The wording as it stands is grammatically ambiguous. Moreover, I reject the concatenation of atheism with evangelism as a tautology made possible only by presupposing atheism must be defined exclusively in opposition to religious faith. It is the logical fallacy of defining atheism as deviance from religion, and zealous advocacy of counter-religion as necessarily atheist. I would like to hear back from the IP editor regardless of your dismissive comments. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 01:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Neither is in the entry. The entry states "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." The wording is not "grammatically ambiguous" or at least no more so than the statement that "I reject the use of torture." Sure I could qualify that statement a hundred times over with all kinds of conditions, but as it stands it is understood to mean that I always reject the use of all torture. Meaning is not simply a function of grammar. Atheism is, de facto, defined in relation to religion. It only exists as a concept at all because theistic beliefs exist. That is not a "logical fallacy" but a social fact. If there was no religion, no belief in gods, and no knowledge of "belief in gods" even in the abstract there wouldn't be any atheism. There wouldn't be any "-theism" of any kind. I never said that all zelous advocacy of "counter-religion" (what is that anyway?) is necessarily atheism. I simply pointed out that those who promote the absence definition tend to evangelize atheism. That is again, an observable social fact. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether wrong or right, the cited sources we give for the first definition are unambiguous regarding the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. --Modocc (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Modocc, No. 1, I am puzzled by your contention that I engaged in WP: original research. You need to provide a more specific example before making such a claim. No. 2, it seems to me you are the one engaging in original research by saying that "these informed people have rejected faith and they have not done so blindly." Did you ask them? How do you know they are informed? Do you have ESP? Are you a mind reader? No. 3, which definition are these reliable sources stating to be the most common one? Did they conduct a survey to ask? Except for the two in the lead, what or where are these reliable sources? Obscure no name journals that only 3 people read? mezzaninelounge (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You would not be suggesting that the atheists you quoted do not know what they are talking about would you? No I don't think ESP is needed to infer that they actually do. In any case, you simply have not made a convincing source-based case for the absence definition. You have not done better than the sources cited that actually define atheism, one of which is the Britannica and there are plenty more similar sources that define atheism even narrower. That's what we have to deal with. --Modocc (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

First, I would not be making inferences what people do or do not know. To do so would be WP:original research. A policy that you brought up. Second, I am not arguing for a change to the current definition, which I suspect is a lost cause. I am arguing against the rationale that is being used here to justify the status quo or to make statements such as "that is the most common definition." For example, the journal articles that were cited to make the case that the positive atheism definition is the most common one ARE NO BETTER than newspaper articles, surveys, books, etc. Why? Because the definition in those journal articles did not come about as a result of careful research and data collection. If you read those articles, the definition was stated at the beginning. A couple of them didn't even bother to cite! Thus, they are just opinions of individuals, and are therefore no better than a non-peer reviewed source. That is why I am puzzled that they should be given more weight than the definition from a source such as the American Atheist organization (one of the sources I gave). Besides, atheism is not an intellectually sophisticated position, philosophy, or whatever. You don't have to be literate to be an atheist. It helps, but it's not a prerequisite. Which is why I don't understand this slavish adherence to a few "scholars" who didn't even do the work to provide a definitive definition. So I did give plenty of sources. For the above reasons, they were just ignored. mezzaninelounge (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You quoted atheists saying they do not believe, even though strong atheists do not believe. For the most part, your cites were not evidence. Certainly some sources are more reliable than others. We do not need journals, for what we have now suffices, and there are a number of other encyclopedic definitions (buried in the archives) that only give the narrowest definition. --Modocc (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Modocc, this is detracting from the discussions below. I was originally questioning the comment by Griswaldo about the views of scholars on this matter as I feel it is often used as a tactic to close or stop discussions. Anyway, your last statement (or dismissive comment) does not even make sense, so I won't even respond to it. mezzaninelounge (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Danielkueh, its unclear which comment you do not understand, but I'll assume that you don't understand my comment about strong atheism. A strong atheist will agree with the position that they do not think gods exist. They also can and very often say too that they are absent belief in any god. Either way they say it they are explicit atheists. If you were to ask people if they also think agnostics, babies or the uninformed are atheists too, it will depend on whether or not they see atheism as being synonymous with non-theism. Simply citing atheists saying they do not believe is hardly the kind of sourcing we need. --Modocc (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid I just don't follow your logic and I don't see the relevance it has with respect to which definition is the most common, which was the main point of contention in the previous discussion, which was closed. If you want to discuss it, then discuss it there or on my talk page. mezzaninelounge (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The relevance here is that you overstate in this thread that the mere absence definition is more common and deserves more weight in the lede and that your arguments regarding this were ignored. They were not. Negative atheism is certainly much more common, as you and everyone else no doubt understands, for negative atheism is disbelief, but negative atheism does not imply or necessarily include implicit atheism, the mere absence of belief. Atheism is a class-name for atheists, which usually does not include babies, even if they are cute little atheists. Since these little atheists are usually not considered atheists, negative atheism is typically not defined as mere absence, but instead as a negative atheism that is due to nonacceptance. Compared with definitions of disbelief and/or denial, very few sources define atheism as mere absence. --Modocc (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I overstated nothing. And that gobbledegook about negative not being implicit, etc is muddled and just red herring. Maybe I'm not making myself clear to you or maybe you, like many pedantic atheists, like to have the last word. If you want to have this discussion on my sources, then do it in the above discussion section or on my talk page. Because the main point of contention in this section is the anonymous IP's concern about the phrase "broadest sense." I was merely questioning Griswaldo's statements in response to anonymous IP. And you out of nowhere decided to discuss the sources that I provided in the previous discussion. Quite frankly, I don't just care to discuss it. It's over. mezzaninelounge (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

@Peterstrempel- yes I think this is where my thoughts are. The wording as it is relates to the faith/belief of others is centred on a response to other people's beliefs. I believe the wording at the moment is there to allow semantic links to be made to atheism being a belief, although this is not what the wording actual means. At first read the rejection of belief appears to be about the individual rejecting their own beliefs, as if holding a belief is the default position. This is where a more specific wording gets tricky, and verbose. I actually think the word "faith" circumvents many of these problems, as it is not loaded with the semantic problems that "belief" has (although it does share some of them). I actually think "faith" is a better word to describe the active positions relating to deities, and a rejection of this faith in an atheist. @Griswaldo- I said that "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities" is simply wrong, since it is not a broad sense- "broad sense" relates to the sense of the wording, not how widespread the use is. I don't know how to make the point clearer that a rejection of belief is not more broad than an absence of belief, it is a matter of logic. I am not commenting on the ordering of the definitions. On the second point I think you missed my point- I stated explicitly that the belief has to exist before it is rejected, which means the rejection is of other people's beliefs. And so logically, if a hindu thinks a christian's god does not exist, but believes in their own god then what are we to say about that? They reject the belief in the christian god, so are we then to conclude that they are an atheist? Of course not, because they believe in their own deity. This is where it doesn't make sense to use rejection of a deity as a definition, since what differentiates the hindu from an atheist is the fact that they believe in their own god, not merely that they don't reject one of the many gods others believe in.137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It is, indeed "a broad sense." Your objection appears to be that it isn't the broadest sense, but the current language never makes that claim anyway (again it already identifies the absence definition as broadest by calling it most inclusive). I did not equate the broadness with commonality in use so I have no clue where you got that from. I said that the ordering of the definitions relates to commonality. I think you misunderstand the meaning of "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." If I said, "I reject the cruel treatment of dogs," what is the primary way to understand what I meant? That I reject the cruel treatment of my dog, but not the cruel treatment of yours? NO. It is understood that I mean this universally - that I reject the cruel treatment of all dogs or all of the cruel treatments of dogs. Could it possibly mean that I reject only the cruel treatment of some dogs? OK sure grammatically that possibility is left open, but no one would make that leap, and no one would start a discussion about it either.Griswaldo (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have mistaken my objection. I am not assuming that "broad sense" means "broadest sense", which perhaps explains why you don't agree. However, you yourself state that it is made clear that the more inclusive definition is the absence of belief. This is why "broad sense" doesn't work here, because this more inclusive definition of absence of belief is the logical comparison to the first definition, and quite obviously this comparison shows that the rejection of etc is not the broad sense here, but is in fact the more limited sense. As for your analogy to cruelty to dogs, again I think you may have missed the point. Rejecting a belief by definition can only happen when a belief exists. Rejecting cruelty to animals doesn't by definition mean you can not be cruel to your animal. This is precisely the point, the use of the word "belief" has implications that other words do not.137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Look, you keep on saying that I'm wrong but then you illustrate exactly what I say. There are three definitions. The rejection definition is broader than the positive belief definition, but not as broad the absence definition. The relative breadth of each is made clear in the sentence, abundantly clear. This is a non-issue entirely and I'm unsure why you keep harping on it. Yes it is not as broad as the absence def. but it is broader than the other, and in that sense it is "broad." Case closed. Rejecting a belief can only happen when a belief exists. Yes clearly. But the belief does exist, and every single self-proclaiming atheist in the world knows that others believe in the existence of god(s), and all these atheists don't believe despite this knowledge. From a sociological or psychological perspective you simply cannot be an atheist without rejecting belief in the existence of deities. Indeed given a basic social science understanding of human inter-subjectivity and cognition you cannot logically be an atheist without rejecting belief in the existence of deities. This belief does not, in any way, have to be held by the person doing the rejection. Not at all. It is indeed the same as the example I gave though perhaps you simply don't understand the similarity. With that I am done. At some point one just has to stop saying the same things over and over again. Good luck.Griswaldo (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(posting after edit conflict) Whether or not a definition of atheim is a broad depends on the source one cites. In this case, we are citing the Britannica which writes that "Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings" Instead of "in general" we write "in a broad sense". That there is an even broader understanding is important, but its not a primary understanding of what atheism is nor is it predominant in the wp:reliable sources, and we give the most wp:weight to views which are predominant in the sources (see wp:NPOV). Also, the word "belief" is used by the source here and rejecting "faith" is rejecting belief, but rejecting faith could imply that one simply thinks that they believe in and actually know God and thus do not need faith. --Modocc (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not about the source here, since this is not a matter of usage. "Broad sense" here doesn't logically fit because this part is about definitions not about how widespread the uses are. "Broad sense" here relates to how encompassing the definitions are, not what that the majority of people define atheism as. The problem is that if you remove the "broad sense" you are left to make stronger justifications for the ordering of the definitions. To use "in general" then means you have to source the frequencies of usage of definitions, whereas the ambiguity created by "broad sense" allows the assertion to be made about usage without being explicit. I am not in favour of creating logical inconsistencies for the sake of ambiguously making subtle points. As for "belief" there is no belief without others, and so rejecting belief necessitates others. If a person forms their own conception of god independent of others, they have rejected everyone's beliefs and yet are not an atheist. This is because the difference between an atheist and a theist (or deist) is not a matter of what is rejected, but what is accepted. I grant that "faith" muddies the waters, upon reflection of your logic. 137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A problem with your analysis is that there is more than one broad sense. Just because a definition is broader does not mean the Britannica's definition is not also broad. Thus, there is no inconsistency stating that there is a sense that is broad (the Britannica's) and that there is another broad sense that is broadest. The Britannica is a highly regarded encyclopedia, so this definition is wp:VERIFIABLE (that is a very important policy here). Every theist forms their own conception of god and are therefore not rejecting belief, so it doesn't matter if they reject other conceptions of god. The Britannica rejects the broadest definition of atheism, but it accepts a broad definition which happens to be commonly understood (dictionaries frequently say that atheism is a "disbelief", which has a primary sense of nonacceptance). Your understanding of atheism differs from the Britannica entry, but that does not necessarily make its understanding of atheism wrong, just different. Which means that we have different definitions to consider with regards to wp:verifiability and wp:weight. --Modocc (talk) 04:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguity in first sentence

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

‘Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities’ could be interpreted to mean:

a) it is the belief that is rejected, perhaps in the form of scepticism that anyone actually believes in deities as opposed to saying they do;

b) it is the existence of deities (as opposed to a single one) that is rejected;

c) it is professed belief in deities (but not necessarily their existence) that is rejected, perhaps as a matter of avoiding sacrilege or taboo;

d) both the existence of deities, and of any belief system demanding faith in deities is rejected; and

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

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

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

Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 17:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter, some of the above options are not semantically possible. "The rejection of belief ..." is not the rejection of deities, or the rejection of the "existence of deities" it is the rejection of belief. So b and d are simply not legitimate possibilities. c has similar problems, because it is explicitly the "belief in the existence of deities" that is being rejected. So how does one get from this explicit rejection of belief in their existence to "but not necessarily their existence?" One simply doesn't because it isn't semantically viable. a is extremely far-fetched because the lead doesn't say, "the rejection of the idea that others actually have beliefs in the existence of deities." Without that kind of specificity it is understood that we're talking about this type of belief in the abstract, general sense. That leaves e, which I'd say exactly what said about a to. Without the specificity we are meant to assume the abstract, general principle of rejecting all such beliefs. This is basic comprehension of the English language in context and by way of convention. What I don't understand Peter, is how you missed the one meaning that the clause has to 99% of readers, and is meant to have. Instead you offer 3 impossible meanings, and 2 wildly out there ones. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to interject here - These are by far the most discussed/debated/contested several lines that I have ever, ever seen in an article... I don't see why we can't just RfC this and be done with it. NickCT (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I wish it were that simple. It will remain an issue as long as there are atheists promoting the absence definition as a piece of convenient rhetoric, which is what it is used for. "Look we are all born atheists ... " then add whatever the particular argument they are trying to make after that. Of course religion is a social construct, but you don't need to make ridiculous claims about babies being atheists to make that argument. Ugh. This will continue until the rhetorical fad that is currently ongoing dies down. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh I wish. Its not even that simple. Shiver, because its not entirely a fad. The suffix of -ism can simply define a state or condition and not only simply a belief or position. I think this is why we can talk about non-theism and have an article on nontheism. Under the umbrella of non-theism, babies are non-theists. Thus, all that has to happen is for atheism to become more widely understood to mean non-theism. So when anyone says babies are atheists, its understood that ALL they are saying is that the babes are without belief, or are non-theists, nothing more and nothing less. Historically, various untenable idols, myths and even entire religions have become obscured by disbelief, and its possible that the terms theism and atheism might one day not even register on most people's radar. In the meantime, there will be an ever-present ongoing struggle on how the term can be understood. --Modocc (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 03:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

And many Christians self-identify as Christian with the concomitant understanding that Christianity is the "one true faith" and the only path to salvation. Should we add that as a definition of Christianity? "Christianity is a monotheistic religion[1] based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings or the one true faith and the only means to human salvation." Sound about right? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually in agreement myself. mezzaninelounge (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the length and complexity of the discussion here, I'm not sure I understand what we are talking about now. So, sorry, please bear with me. Are we talking about replacing the first paragraph of the lead with the single sentence: "Atheism is the position that deities do not exist." (with the subsequent paragraphs of the lead as is)? Would we then modify the existing first paragraph to be, in effect, a new second paragraph outlining the three forms, or would we drop it entirely? I'm receptive to a short-and-sweet first sentence, so long as the lead section, as a whole, goes on to cover the three definitions of long standing. But I suspect that other editors may object. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

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

I would favour wording along the lines of :

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

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

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

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

Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 13:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Peterstrempel, I really like your suggested substitute. mezzaninelounge (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter please do not treat any part of Wikipedia as a "game." If people are pushing a POV on atheism related entries please help to keep those entries NPOV, but let's not play games. I do not agree with your suggestion since it puts UNDUE emphasis on a disputed definition of "atheism," namely the absence definition. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter, your proposed introduction looks just fine to me, with one proviso. Please be advised that a sentence that begins "This article explains a range of . . ." is a violation of WP:SELFREF. If you're willing to modify it to read "There are a range of . . ." you would thereby eliminate that problem. Also, the second sentence of that graf should be deleted for the same reason.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that we are discussing two entirely different things here, and I have low enthusiasm for the two of them, taken together. One is to rewrite the opening paragraph of the lead, in a manner that ignores all of the previous discussion of it. The second is to change the lead into something very short, presumably moving everything else in the lead into the main text. Perhaps this second idea has promise, but I'd like to see a clearer and more completely thought out plan for where the information would go. And I would oppose simply cutting it. I also agree with Steven about the selfref problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Breaking down the first sentence along symbolic logic

• Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. --> A = not(belief) of Exist (objects)

That is not the same as A = not Exist (objects) or Atheism is the rejection of deities existence

There are plenty of people out there that believe in the existence of deities and I do not reject that they believe in their gods. I would change the first sentence to One definition of atheism is to reject a personal belief in a deity's existence.

• In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. This is wider than the first instance, not narrower. This here is A = not Exist (objects) for All while the first assertion is A = not Exist (objects) for individual

And we don't have information on how widely the two assertions are held amongst the populace we can't use narrow in a demographic way so how about a reword as such. Another that includes the first definition is atheism is a rejection of any assertion that deities exist.

• Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

This statement includes agnostics who don't concern themselves with the debate and thus also have an absence of belief. Why are we including those that are A >?< Exist (objects)? Since this definition necessarily wrongly includes agnostics I don't support it. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Are there different names for these two types of atheists? Activist atheist and private atheist? 97.85.163.245 (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)