Talk:Atheism

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)

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)

Join the club. Kevin Baas^talk 18:55, 31 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)

Yeah, "atheists" and "agnostics". Kevin Baas^talk 18:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I meant the first two definitions. The atheist who actively goes around telling everyone that theists are idiots for believing what they do and there clearly is no deity anywhere and those that deny the existence of a deity but don't deny that proof could come and do not actively try and denounce theists. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That includes only ONE of the 3. Btw, which symbolic logic notation are you using?--JimWae (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access to a symbol alphabet to put in the reverse 'E' and other specialty symbols. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

but what is the name of the notation you intend, who else uses it? Statements about necessity and possibility have special symbols in modal logic. Statements about beliefs involve doxastic logic, for which no notation is standard yet. --JimWae (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to get you up to speed on this debate with a pictoral view. consider this graphic: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/29/us/politics/20110729-debt-matrix.html?ref=politics The are in the upper left represents the 2 or 3 editors here that are forcing the first paragraph to remain as it is, while the upper right area and to a lesser extent the lower left area represents, well, everyone else. Kevin Baas^talk 19:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hehee, nice choice of graph. mezzaninelounge (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an addiction for me so I don't sign in any more and can't promise I'll be rechecking this page but be it clear that if there is another consensus vote to count my rejection of phrase 3 in that vote. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that defining atheism so as to include infants (and even ants) as atheists (and mathematics and basket-weaving as forms of atheism) is a horrible definition, contrary to the actual, non-polemical application of the word "atheist". However, it is found in some reliable sources & few reliable sources exist to demonstrate what an abomination it is. Thus, to follow WP:NPOV, it gets to be included--JimWae (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Its a "horrible" "abomination" of a definition, and thus there is no good reason other than that we must follow wp:NPOV? Is the word "non-theist", defined by the OED as "A person who is not a theist" just as unacceptable a concept for the same reasons that you have chosen to give? Certainly "non-theist" is without "polemical application" because it cannot ever have the primary connotation of rejection that "atheist" has had, nevertheless "atheist" can be synonymous with "non-theist" and, as far as I can tell, there is nothing particularly wrong with talking about non-theists.--Modocc (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I would not use "atheist" and "non-theist" as synonyms. I take "atheist" as a subset of "nontheist", but would not define atheism in terms of "nontheism" because "nontheism" is something of a neologism and nontheist can include some who believe in deities (such as deists). That deists qualify as nontheists but not as atheists speaks against synonymy of atheism with nontheism.--JimWae (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What is meant by "theist" as in "not a theist" by the OED is debatable. Deists are usually considered to be theists, and that they are sometimes not is simply a theological debate (for those that care whether or not a theist must believe in an active personal deity). In any case, "non-theist" is not a neologism and since babies are non-theists, I've always been a non-theist. --Modocc (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

First sentence misleading

Please change to "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is the lack of belief in gods."

Thanks, Dr oco (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify the distinction that you make between "gods" and "deities"? I can't think of any difference that would matter to the definition of atheism, which impartially rejects every variety of theism, regardless of classifications, labels, or names. How could using one label rather than another be misleading in this context? Ornithikos (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Or better yet, please read past talk, where this issue has already been discussed to death. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps those threads have been archived, I saw only synonymous usage, like "existence of deities (gods)". I would not want to revisit what sounds like an arduous discussion. Did it end with any consensus that you could briefly describe? Ornithikos (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you go through the archives, it's in virtually every one (one place to start: Talk:Atheism/Archive 40#"God" or "gods" in lead, continuing through many archives thereafter). Given how much it's been discussed, please forgive me if I smile at the question about any consensus that could be described briefly. I suppose the answer might be that few editors are genuinely happy with the lead, but every alternative that has been presented, and there have probably been hundreds, has been met by objections that it would be even worse. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I had only done a fast keyword search looking for "god" and "deity" found adjacently, so I missed "Compromise on Atheism definition" right at the top. Lord knows you tried! I advocate no changes and recommend no revisiting. This dialog is happening only because Dr oco wrote, and I thought on general principles that someone should reply, but seeing the history I should have left that to you. In future cases I will be more careful to check what has gone before. This isn't my area anyway. The One True Faith is obviously agnosticism! Ornithikos (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no need to be sorry! You aren't the first, nor will you be the last. Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

So, you two agree that it should be changed to "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is the lack of belief in deities." Glad we could get that cleared up so easily.

Thanks, Dr oco (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I see no such agreement. There are several of us who would like to see "lack of belief" removed from the first sentence altogether. This is the best compromise that has been found so far after many discussions. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

And after all this, methinks I see someone under the bridge. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean Dr oco. It looks like the same thing that comes up every few months to me. There are plenty of atheist organizations who promote the lack definition outright. It should not be a surprise that new editors show up here wanting to see the Wikipedia page reflect this POV.Griswaldo (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You assume correctly. Nuff said. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, you seem to be confused. "Lack of belief" doesn't appear in the first sentence.Dr oco (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the synonymous phrase "absences of belief" does.Griswaldo (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Which I think is perfectly acceptable to convey the same meaning. In actuality (though personally I couldn't care less about such), using the word "absence(s)" as opposed to "lack" may be preferable, as some may deem that "lack" implies a negative connotation, in a similar fashion as the word "lacking" is often used to denote. Either way, I'd say it's covered with the current wording. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we disagree on the meaning of the word "sentence" as neither of the phrases under discussion appear in the first one. I agree that "absence of belief" is suitable. However, as it is, "rejection of belief" is the first definition that the reader is treated to. And for some reason "rejection of belief" is qualified as "in a broad sense" even though it is a rather narrow sense. I care not about the distinction between god and deity of lack vs. absence, but the issue is that the first sentence is poorly worded and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr oco (talk • contribs) 20:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. The first paragraph. The first sentence is not misleading, but you are welcome to that opinion. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A narrow definition be referred to as a broad one is quite misleading.Dr oco (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, but the problem isn't the sentence, per se. The "problem" (if there is one) is that is exactly what the source says. We cannot simply change the sentence, unless we find another suitable source that says something different (ie: we can't mischaracterize what the source is saying by changing the sentence to say something unsupported). But, with everyone's edit history who's involved in this discussion, I'm sure everyone knows that. Thus, the point is, it's different sources that need to be found before changing the sentence is considered. Then we must determine the validity of the sources (both as accepted belief, properly "reviewed" material, from someone acknowledged as an expert in the required fields, etc). Not the other way around. Changing the sentence and finding a source creates a POV issue where we create a POV with our chosen/desired wording, and then try to find a source to fit that POV. In all actuality, there may not be an equal quality or better quality source that support a different sentence - though I for one am open to suggestions. But lacking the ability to find an equal or better source, then there is no problem, and the sentence should stand as written, regardless of your/my/anyone else's opinions on the matter. Hopefully that clarifies the true problem here. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

And I quote (to show what I am saying): "a more adequate characterization of atheism... (snip) is to be someone who rejects belief in God". We cannot WP:SYNTH either. The cites say what they do, not necessarily what we want - thus, so must the article, sans equal/better sources that say differently (in which case, each should be given appropriate weight - other equally valid sources saying something different is still not license for simply removing a sentence that's not liked, otherwise we end up inserting BIAS, POV, etc, etc. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing can ever resolve debates like this, because they aren't debates about facts but about the definitions of terms. The term Atheism, like most terms outside math and science, has a family of related definitions that cannot be coalesced. The article does its best not to prefer any one definition to the disparagement of the others, and to give each definition a fair hearing expressed from that definition's viewpoint. No other approach can achieve NPOV. Can we not settle for that? How many atheists belong on the point of a pin? Ornithikos (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It depends on who you ask. From a social science perspective all atheists "reject" belief in religion. You will not find a self-identifying atheist who does not reject belief in religion him/herself even if they believe others are "weaker" atheists than they are. From some atheist perspectives anyone who doesn't affirmatively hold a theistic position in an atheist (i.e. "lacks" belief in gods). So who do you want to do the counting? IMO, for our purposes I'd rather have a sociologist do the counting, but clearly some here don't agree. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"How many atheists belong on the point of a pin?" meant "Let us avoid emulating the fruitless disputations of medieval philosophers." Obviously that technique didn't work. I will hereafter avoid asking rhetorical questions. Ornithikos (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ornithikos, the problem is, there shouldn't be a debate. It does not matter who here is atheist or not, or how they identify or not. All that matters is what the reliable sources say, which is accurately portrayed in the lede. So, I really am not sure why anyone is debating anything. I am sure no one is suggestiong we introduce our own WP:OR or WP:SYNTH or wp:POV - and any attempt to change that sentence without both (a) finding a suitable source, and (b) giving due weight to the current "perspective" and the new one would be just that. I really am not sure why this conversation is even occurring. The source says one thing. The article says the same thing with no mischaracterization... and most of what I see above is "I think this" and "I don't like this term" with not one attempt at finding a source to support their feelings - to which I say (no offense to anyone), I don't care - and neither should anyone else. Using such as a reason is not valid here.

This discussion is entirely pointless until someone finds a disputing source and has the willingness to give both proper weight. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think every such "I dont like..."/"I believe..." should be able to be responded to with a template that basically says "Sorry, your opinion is irrelevant. Please find a reliable source and get back to us". ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you read what I actually wrote? Its point was, as you say, "there shouldn't be a debate." I wrote: "Nothing can ever resolve debates like this" ... "The article does its best" ... "to give each definition a fair hearing" ... "Can we not settle for that?" followed by an allusion that meant, to use your words, "This discussion is entirely pointless". I thought the backhanded reference to angels dancing on the head of a pin would be obvious, and might even get a chuckle while yet making its point. I didn't say "I dont like..." or "I believe..." anything, yet you seem to present your statements as a rejoinder to me. Please let me off the hook! Can't you tell an ally when you see one? Ornithikos (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't directed at you. I understood what you were saying. It was directed at those who keep bringing this up, over and over again, etc, etc, etc... guess you can consider it an agreement through venting with an addendum to those who keep bringing it up what my response will be each time in the future. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

An interesting article on atheist studies

"One problem of atheism research is that we simply can't agree on a unified terminology," notes Kosmin. "Every researcher thinks he is Linnaeus and invents his own labels." Couldn't this source be used to add the concept to the lead sentence that the definition of atheism has flexibility and disagreements over usage and scope even amongst researchers? It would satisfy the various POV's here and maybe quell some of this debate if we state clearly that some aspects of the definition are not agreed upon. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Only a small portion of secularists are as radical as the "strong atheists" championed by British evolutionary biologist and author Richard Dawkins. The majority are more likely to be indifferent to religion or mildly agnostic, according to Kosmin's analysis. There are also secular humanists, free thinkers and many other factions. "One problem of atheism research is that we simply can't agree on a unified terminology," notes Kosmin. "Every researcher thinks he is Linnaeus and invents his own labels."

Then he tells of a meeting of secular groups last year in Washington. They were planning a big demonstration. "But they couldn't even agree on a motto," he says. "It was like herding cats, straight out of a Monty Python sketch." In the end, the march was called off. (I especially liked this last paragraph.)

Secularists make up some 15 percent of the global population, or about 1 billion people. As a group, this puts them third in size behind Christians (2.3 billion) and Muslims (1.6 billion). An interesting factoid. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)