Talk:Atheism

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,

questionable source

I removed this sentence from the section on "Criticism of Atheism" "This view has fallen into disfavor among most philosophers of religion." It refers to the belief that there are few or no true atheists. i read through the source and while agree the source denies the claim i didn't see where it says that "most" philosophers of religion agree with the source. in addition i didn't see where the source sited its sources. i would like you all to decide if the below source is acceptable and if the above sentence should be left in the article in its current forum.

Lowder, Jeffery Jay. "Atheism and Society". Retrieved 2006-10-21.

J.L.Main 00:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation still active?

There is a mediation request here that is still listed as "open". Is mediation still required here or can I close this case? --Ideogram 07:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, i think mediation is still required here. There are still massive issues with parts, namely definitions, that are being discussed to extreme lengths. The definiton (in the intro) is constantly undergoing changes. There seems to be little prospect of resolving any of these discussions on the definiton and coming to some conclusion. For the sake of getting an intro that is acceptible i think mediation is required as a starting point. Please dont close the case yet. Jarryd Moore 14:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

On Nov 5 2006, JimWae posted an minor essay on talk Talk:Atheism/Archive_28#Problems_with_Intro_as_of_Nov_4. There is no support thus far for any of his ideas. JimWae, rather than write a mini-essay which rambles and does not make clear any of your proposed changes, please list a few changes below for discussion, and gain consensus before completely rewriting the article. Your essay had no suggested edits that I saw at all; it seemed to be a bit of a ramble and a rant. That few responded is not surprising. the three responses all used the word "problem" or "problematic". This is far from support. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• You have misread the discussion, which you all too hastily archived. How about addressing the content of the changes - there was NO consensus for Nov4th version --JimWae 14:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• You seem to be of the opinion that there is some single correct definition that wikipedia must endorse--JimWae 14:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite by JimWae

Atheism is the opposite of theism, and thus the opposite of belief that at least one deity exists. Atheism has been defined both narrowly and broadly, and most dictionaries use the word disbelief, which has meanings ranging from "lack of belief" to "doubt", "withholding of belief", "rejection of belief", "refusal to believe", and "denial". The narrowest definition of atheism includes as atheists only those who actively deny the existence of deities, and who would be willing to assert "There are no gods at all." A wider definition, explicitly included by several encyclopedia and dictionaries, includes as atheists all those without a belief in any deity, though not all would necessarily deny every possibility of the existence of some deity. Though few would describe themselves as such, many agnostics would be included under this wider definition of atheism. Also included would be any belief system (such as some forms of Buddhism) that does not maintain a belief in some god. Some usages exclude from this wider definition, those, such as small children and people in isolated tribes, who have simply never considered the existence of deities. --JimWae 15:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Is "not stamp collecting" the opposite of "stamp collecting"? If anything is the opposite of theism, it is antitheism. It may be more workable without your first sentence, but your conclusions about agnostics are worded poorly and unsubstantiated POV. The opening paragraph in the current article is better than your rewrite. *Spark* 16:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sentence one: Inaccurate, per Spark. Sentence two: rambling and incoherent. Sentence three: poorly phrased, and leaves out the distinction of strong vs. weak atheism, positive and negative atheism, which needs to be clearly delineated. Following that, a mess of dicdefs including a highly inaccurate one from the 1911 Enc. Brit, and one from the 1907 Catholic Enc. - not that I think they might be just a weeeee tad biased on the subject of non-belief in deities, mind you! Must I go on? Rhymezone, you actually used Rhymezone for yet another dicdef. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

For the reasons stated above, I don't consider this a good alternative for the current opening paragraph. Something similar to your last sentence should be included in the article though, if not already.Tuesday42 22:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the first sentence - but we could simply remove it. Sentence two could be simlified to be less rambly, but I think it is a good thing to give the various definitions rather than jumping to conclusions about what they mean. I don't see why strong / weak definitions (or explicit / implicit, for that matter) needs to be in the introduction. In fact, I'd argue they should be left to the later section. On that note, as a result of recent edits, the current version has strong and weak defined incorrectly, since "former" now refers to disbelief, and gets labelled "strong", whilst weak is defined as "absence of belief". That's actually the definitions of explicit/implicit. I disbelieve, but I'm certainly not a strong atheist! Mdwh 22:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems the strong/weak misdefinitions were due to a broken edit - I've fixed that now. But I still say that I'm not sure we need to, or should, define strong/weak in the intro. In particular, the entire rest of the paragraph from "The former, narrower usage..." onwards seems to just repeat what's already said using different labels, making the introduction unnecessarily lengthy. I'd be much more willing to favour this version over JimWae's if we simply got rid of that. Mdwh 22:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking for support

I am looking for support to the idea that religion should not be listed on the biographical entries for every American politician. In federal politicians. To me it's personal information that is irrelevant to our elected officials. There seem to be some users here who have taken it upon themselves to identify the religion of most federal office holders. One place this is evident is on the infoboxes, for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Congressmanelect

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Congressman

Don't know what your opinion on this might be, but looking for some support to try to take religion out of politics.--Utahredrock 21:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how doing that will have the effect you want. I think any sort of information will help voters make a more informed decision, as religious affiliation is sometimes a good label to know what policies the candidate supports, among those even Separation of Church and State itself. This is specially relevant seeing as how the U.S. seems to consistently put "family values" issues on the ballot. Some people might be willing to vote on a candidate if they find out he comes from a more moderate sect, as opposed to some evangelical fundamentalist. I'm guessing some people on this discussion page might share those sentiments. Starghost (talk | contribs) 22:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Despite separation of church and state, religious beliefs are relevant to biographical articles, including political biographies. -- Ec5618 22:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Which congress web site is it listed ? If it is a variable listed for all members of congress (though it may be optional to fill in) then the template should reflect that. Weird how just that field would be asked for and yet sexual orientation is not an option yet !. I guess one prejudice at a time for such a nation. It would obviously be a brave congressperson who wrote in secular humanist or something like that - but it would probably be the first truthful entry in that field. Ttiotsw 22:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Neoatheism

Should neoatheism (or New Atheism) be mentioned? This article[1] use the term New Atheism, I was just wondering wether this is an unexplored branch within atheism that should be mentioned? --Jambalaya 13:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a neologism to me. Are there any books on the subject? Nick Graves 15:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's just a rhetorical term used by the author of the article to describe Dawkins, Dennett, Harris etc who have recently published stuff and been generally "outspoken". It's not a "branch", it's just a word used to denote some new books. --Dannyno 16:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway it fails notability. If you search google for the term and exclude the 800 or so results that are pointing to a website called neoatheism.com you are left with 24 results, and it seems they aren't talking about the same thing or are in chinese. One article written on wired is not enough to make the term worth of mention. Starghost (talk | contribs) 03:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Precision to the positive definition

I suggest that a precision be added to the positive definition in the article.

A big problem with this definition is that it basically say "to believe in the non existence of something", which is a non sense. According to its own definition, the word "believe" can only be used in a positive sense. This means that you can "believe" or "not believe" in the existence of something, but it's simply wrong to say "believe in the non exitence of something" which is contrary to the sense of the word "believe" and is a non sense, if not an absurdity of language.

Thus, saying that atheism is "the belief that no deities exist" is a misuse of the word "believe" and a non sense. The correct formulation being "absence of belief that deities exist", which precisely get back to the negative definition which is, strictly speaking, the only good and intelligible definition between the two. The positive definition is only a trick of words based on an apparently correct sentence that doesn't respect the sense of the word "believe". --CarlJF 20:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No. This is the traditional definition of atheism. You can indeed believe in the nonexistence of something without it being "nonsense". That's assuming you use traditional meanings for atheism, god/gods, existence, etc. These are all well established in any English dictionary. Consider the statement, "Gods exist." The deist would believe the statement is true. The atheist would believe the statement is false (ie, no gods exist"). The agnostic would be the remainder who don't fall in either category (as I understand it). -- KarlHallowell 22:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, the definition in my Webster for "believe" is: "To have faith in something". Which means that, basically, you can only have faith in a god. Having faith in no god is a non sense, since it simply means to you have no faith at all and thus, cannot believe in the first place. Accepting that someone could believe in nothing is as a nonsense as saying that a believer is, in fact, an unbeliever that simply don't believe in the non existence of a deity... Actually, the classical defintion of atheism is someone that doesn't believe in god, not someone that believe in the non existence of god. Again, if I look in the webster, atheism is define as "disbilief in the existence of god" and not "belief in the non existence of god". I know it may look like a semantic discussion, but it's important since the "believe" formulation lead to the paradox that atheism means "having a belief in something" although, by definition again, atheism means the exact opposite and "cannot believe". As for the statement "God exist", the theist will believe that it is true, but the atheist will think not believe that the statement is true. Atheist don't say they get their opinion based on some dogma or surnatural knowledge, which are acts of faith. Since they don't based their position on faith, but rather on the absence of convincing evidence, it simply is a nonsense to say that atheist "believe" in the non existence of god. Or, if you prefer, by defintion, you cannot believe in something in which you have no faith. You just "don't believe".--CarlJF 00:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a distinction missing here (CarlJF) between "belief in some (non/material) entity" and "belief in the truth of a proposition". Both are reasonable uses of the concept termed "belief", the latter being perhaps more basic (and more precise) since any instance of the former, "belief(1) in X", can be translated (I would say exactly; ymmv) into an instance of the latter: "belief(2) in the truth of the proposition 'X exists'". In any case, the "positive definition" of "atheism" maps to the latter sense as "belief(2) in the truth of the proposition 'there exist no gods'". --204.97.183.31 21:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Webster, or any dictionary, can properly encompass deeper and philosophical views, as dictionaries mostly describe the common usage of a word, which is not always the most correct in an educated sense. After so much of this in the archives and countless people coming in to argue the very thing you just proposed, there should probably be a disclaimer on top of the page, perhaps along the stalled discussion one, making this clear for future editors venturing into the realm of dictionary definitions.

The way your dictionary clumps up atheists in one group fails to properly demonstrate the subtleties and variety in this form of world view. Starghost (talk | contribs) 01:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

CarlJF, I see no problem in believing or having faith in the nonexistence of a concept or entity. At the very least, the belief is in something, the logical statement, "Gods don't exist" rather than "nothing". Whether the belief-holder claims to found their beliefs on rational or dogmatic methods isn't relevant. So IMHO, strong atheism is a well-defined concept. I don't see any further point to arguing the nature of belief as it refers to this.

Starghost, I think the common dictionary versions should be mentioned first since it is absurd to ignore it. The more inclusive philosophical definition is notable if merely because for historical reasons and its current following. This strikes me merely as a not very deep semantics issue, but I recognize that I can be mistaken here. I see no problem with being comprehensive since that will fulfill NPOV goals. I just don't want the article sacrificed to dubious motives. -- KarlHallowell 05:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If people are looking for dictionary definitions they should go to Wiktionary. Not all dictionary definitions are as poorly stated as the one from his dictionary either, and for the lack of uniformity, and for the fact that this is an encyclopedia, I think an encyclopedic view is the most appropriate. It is not merely a shallow semantics issue, if you saw the repeated discussion banner on the top of the page and the tons of people who come here giving the most absurd definitions of atheism in the archives of this discussion you would understand. The most obvious problem with these definitions is that it clumps weak, strong, and all sorts of atheists into a single type. I doubt Sunnis and Shiites would enjoy being clumped toghether, as Catholics, Protestants and Mormons wouldn't either. As far as I know NPOV goals are being fullfilled and everything is being comprehensive. I don't want the article sacrificed because of people trying to distort poor dictionary definitions. Starghost (talk | contribs) 17:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Positive and negative definition sections

I think the intro is great now, but I've been looking at the sections: "Positive definition: the belief that no deities exist" and "Negative definition: the absence of belief in deities", but I'm wondering - what about the (common) definition of "a conscious rejection of belief"? This is covered in the negative section (which makes sense - it's still a "negative" definition), however, in that case the heading shouldn't just be "the absence of belief in deities".

Also, several places in these two sections suggest that the positive definition is what dictionaries / public majority use, and the negative is rarely used, but, as we have stated in the intro, the "conscious rejection" definition is commonly used (i.e., explicit weak).

So I would suggest either:

• Change the negative heading to "Negative definitions", and then change the claims about how common definitions are to make it clear that it's only a simple absence of belief which is not common.
• Have three sections, so we can clearly cover each in its own right.

Thoughts? Mdwh 17:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the word, "negative" may carry some perceptual baggage? 69.6.162.160 01:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Please remove the bottom half from the article explaining that Atheism leads to poor morality and that generally Atheism is unproven. In theory, Atheism is unproving the existance of God therfore I find it thoroughly out of place that "Unproven" would be used against the principle of Atheism. I believe that the section is a universal, broad principle that can apply to any and all religions and shouldn't be used against atheism, taking into consideration that Atheism is merely disproving God's existance. In my opinion, whoever wrote this is thoroughly misguided by what Atheism stands for and very basic human physcology. I advise that the next time someone wishes to take stance against Atheism's principles they should get their theories right or look into Atheism literature before making accusations.

16 Jan 2007

I think that I would say that atheism is neither a positive or a negative, it's an original state of mind... a baby isn't born with belief nor disbelief, but qualifies as atheist as the prefix "a" simply means "without." To follow this to its logical conclusion, atheism simply means "without theism." This definition applies to agnostics as well, and covers ground spread by the concept of "strong" and "weak" atheism. (Strong atheists claiming god does not exist and weak atheists perhaps not taking a position.)

xeno6696@cox.net

Rewording of sentence

The last sentence of "Types and typologies of atheism" is "This definition is used by some atheists, however; philosopher and atheist Theodore Drange uses the narrow definition."

Maybe this would be better and shorter if reworded to: "This definition is used by some atheists for example philosopher Theodore Drange."

As non-native Englisch speaker I would like to have someone else's opinion before changing it.

Pukkie 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The current wording is clumsy, yes. I would suggest a change to "However, this definition is used by some atheists, such as philosopher Theodore Drange". -Switch ^t 11:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

a bit slow but: done. Used wording of Switch. Pukkie 06:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

16 Jan 2007

I think that I would say that atheism is neither a positive or a negative, it's an original state of mind... a baby isn't born with belief nor disbelief, but qualifies as atheist as the prefix "a" simply means "without." To follow this to its logical conclusion, atheism simply means "without theism." This definition applies to agnostics as well, and covers ground spread by the concept of "strong" and "weak" atheism.

xeno6696@cox.net

Some people erroneously believe...

I deleted the word "erroneously". If some people actually believe this, then I don't think it is up to Wikipedia to say they are wrong. Of course, the whole sentence is unreferenced - if someone wants to resolve the point by deleting the sentence in its entirely on the basis that it is original research or fails to describe a significant viewpoint, then I'm fine with that. Metamagician3000 07:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think this is a simple factual question, and I don't have a problem with the article stating that atheism does not, in fact, imply anti-theism or anti-religion. Unfortunately, if it's stated without context or a reference, the choice to include this fact could be considered POV. MFNickster 18:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition of atheism should use major Encyclopedias of Philosophy definitions

The definition of atheism should use major Encyclopedias of Philosophy definitions. Here is what I suggest having as opening to the article and it will give it some historical perspective as well:

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy atheism "means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." [2] Similarly, according to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, probably the preeminent reference tool for philosophy, "Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief." [3] In addition, recently there have been a number of attempts by atheists to redefine the meaning of atheism in order to shift the burden of proof in relation to the question of the existence of God. [4] Atheism is derived from the Greek word "atheos" - "a" meaning no or without and "theos" meaning God.[5] 128.205.191.50 19:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Both definitions describe atheism as the denying the existence of 'God' with a capital 'G' - usually a reference to the Christian God, making the definitions too narrow. The current 'deity or deities' is better. The Routledge entry describes it as 'positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief'. This has been much debated on this talk page and while I initially disagreed, I have been convinced that a certain sort of suspension of disbelief is a legitimate secondary definition of atheism. This definition is given the appropriate second-place in the opening paragraph and is sufficiently backed up with references. So, ultimately, Wikipedia is actually doing better than either encyclopaedia - not surprisingly, such encyclopaedias are rarely word-for-word fantastic sources (have you ever seen the editorial chaos that goes into making them?!); each entry is usually written by one authority (or semi-authority) and no editor is under the illusion that other equally eminent authorities might disagree with its content. Dast 19:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia should not simply replicate information from other encyclopaediae. Nor is it a dictionary. Second, the assertion that "Atheism ... proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief" is contended by many, and is neither the original definition nor the definition according to most atheists and atheist organisations, which tend to go with the "lack of belief" definition. Third, the statement that "recently there have been a number of attempts by atheists to redefine the meaning of atheism in order to shift the burden of proof in relation to the question of the existence of God" is absurd, biased and unnecessarily verbose. -Switch ^t 04:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Both encyclopaedia definitions quoted by 128.205.191.50 appear to be simply wrong or outdated. This suggestion appears to be a back door approach to elevating the status of God ("theos" means god rather than God), and can probably be safely ignored. -- Scjessey 15:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Weird sentence under "reasons for atheism

What does this sentence mean, specifically the last clause?- "Similarly, the transcendental argument for the non-existence of God (TANG) is a rebuttal to the transcendental argument for the existence of God, which argues that logic, science and morality can only be justified by appealing to the theistic worldview, that argues that the reverse is true." johnpseudo 19:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

• References in the middle of the sentence in the lead.
• At the end of the sentence the quotation mark is after the full stop ." it should be inside ".
• Lead has too many references, it should have none or very little. Remember that it is a summary where information will be referenced in the body (if you want to get this featured)
• Atheism has received much criticism from theists. Reference needed and remove 'much'
• Personal, social, and ethical reasons section has no references
• Too many external links
• empirical evidence for Crossed out, it shouldn't be and why?
• don't wikilink solo years
• Other prominent atheists in recent times, wikipedia might be read in 50 years, it wont be 'recent' then. Put early twenty first century or something
• The broader, negative has become increasingly popular in recent decades, per above
• Reasons for atheism, first paragraph is one sentence, expand
• However, because of the relative, remove however
• Additionally, some, remove both of them
• There is more then one space between sections leaving a big white space
• # Arab Infidels Forum [3]
• # Arab Atheists Network [4] remove these two
• V.T.V Atheists, remove red link
• Brackets are overused to explain thingsTony1's redundancy exercises to help improve the quality of the article and make changes where necessary. Good luck M3tal H3ad 02:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Time is up, some issues were addressed but not all, failed. M3tal H3ad 06:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

URL spelling?

Any particular reason why the URL of the full article is spelled 'Athiesm' rather than 'Atheism', as appears for this page? 86.129.166.128 20:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC) EDIT: Sorry! Just noted it was a redirect from 'Athiest'!

Atheism and intelligence

This section is totally one-sided. In addition, intelligence cannot be directly quantified, using IQ as a measure is inaccurate, since there are many different aspects to intelligence. People can have a high IQ and lack common sense, and vice versa. Check the Bible: Psalms 10:4; 14:1 and 1 Corinthians 3:19; can I have that view incorporated in this section? If not, then either the section needs to go or some countermanding evidence needs to be added. --Frank Lofaro Jr. 18:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the problems in defining intelligence are really appropriately addressed here in this article, although I don't disagree. But I'm curious what, exactly, kind of scholarly "countermanding evidence" you would suggest could go here? Are there studies that show correlation between higher education and religious faith? Information shouldn't be excluded just because there's not equal information in opposition. --lquilter 18:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Using the Bible as a source is likely to get you ignored by other editors, especially in an article such as this. The Bible is not a RS on intelligence (or most things, for that matter). As for IQ not being a good measure - yes and no. IQ correlates very well with expected measures of intelligence; people with high IQ are more successful, do better in school, are more educated, are more likely to read, have more money, ect. Moreover, countries with populations with higher average IQs are more successful than countries with lower average IQs. It is not a perfect measure of intelligence, but it is certainly a strong indicator of it, and there's nothing wrong with using it so long as it is noted that it is being used. Titanium Dragon 20:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Titanium, are you suggesting that the fact that IQ correlates with better educated, richer, people who come, on average, from more prosperous societies shows it is a good indicator of intelligence? Surely this could be said to show quite the opposite. I.e. that it mistakes for natural intelligence factors arising from having a good education, being articulate, and au fait with western standards. On Frank's point, I think the section should mention, rather than intelligence, the precise measure the study used (e.g. IQ tests, level of education or whatever. That will let people draw their own conclusions. Dast 23:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am, because it does. It is well known that intelligence can increase or decrease depending on your actions; educating someone actually makes them more intelligent, and demonstrably so - they do better on intellectual activities. This doesn't mean that all college graduates are more intelligent than all high school graduates, but what it does mean is that the median college graduate is more intelligent than the median high school graduate. Likewise, increased resources also increases intelligence to a point - chronic malnourishment, particularly as a young child, stunts intelligence. If the study says that atheists are more intelligent than others, then it should be reported that way - if it says atheists have higher IQs, it should be reported that way. The conclusions should be reported accurately, NOT politicized, and remember that Wikipedia is not politically correct or censored. Titanium Dragon 23:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the section cites the author of the study as drawing the conclusion that the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind., so I don't think it is unfair to use the word intelligence to describe the study. But I haven't seen the study, and I suspect this has been taken from Dawkins's God Delusion, page 103. For balance, one could add some other study, and the Religiosity and intelligence contains some information. However, in the end, there probably just simply is a correlation, and this isn't necessarily just an atheist POV. As Jesus said, "I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them unto babes." (Matthew 11:25) I think most religions would agree that at least intellectual "arrogance" prevents you from seeing spiritual truth. --Merzul 18:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The EU study (that gave us the religious belief map beside discussed section) correlates lack of religious belief with education (Page 10 of http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf): 65% of people who left school by 15 'believe there is a God' as compared with only 45% who were educated 20+. I'll add the reference to the article when I get a moment. The study has plenty of other interesting statistics. Dast 14:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, I'm thinking that making controversial and offensive claims are maybe not good for the credibility of the article, and controversial issues just diverts focus from more important parts of the article. The practical concern is that drawing conclusions from statistical data is difficult (and maybe constitutes original research), so are you sure the facts you are using (that can be sourced) do support the conclusion that there is a correlation (which is probably not in the original source)? --Merzul 15:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The controversial doesn't bother me, but I'm beginning to think that this is undue weight -- having the whole section in there does, in fact, create a POV. (One I'm in agreement with, but still ....) I think the education/atheism correlation is interesting but I think it's about one sentence in the "personal, social and ethical reasons" category. Something like, "At least one study has shown that lack of religious faith, and, correspondeningly, atheism, increases as level of education increases." An accurate & useful point in the right place, but without the distraction of an entire section. --lquilter 18:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is certainly notable. Atheists use this argument all the time as a reason why disbelief is superior; Dawkins has used it, and I've heard numerous other atheists use it as well, both famous and normal (myself included). I don't think it should be given undue weight, though - it is a minor point, and should have no more than a paragraph, if that, given to it, and probably more like a sentence or two at most. Titanium Dragon 23:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how what you said is in disagreement with what I said. I never said it was not-notable. I said it was interesting, accurate & useful, and it deserved a sentence.  ?? --lquilter 00:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether claims are offensive or not is subjective to the reader. I don't think any of those claims are offensive. Some people might believe questioning god is inherently offensive and therefore find the whole article offensive. "Political correctness" will get you nowhere. Facts, if properly presented as such, are not points of view. If in fact atheists tend to have higher IQs than the faithful, people can draw their own conclusions, but it's nevertheless a factual and neutral assertion if it's backed up by reliable studies (as opposed to someone's opinions). Starghost (talk | contribs) 20:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I dropped out the section head and consolidated the information into one paragraph. I haven't touched the description of the research, because I haven't read those particular papers. --lquilter 00:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin, the prominent atheist

Dear wikipedians, what is this? I mean, doesn't this make you sad? Could you imagine any serious encyclopedia listing Stalin as a prominent atheist. Could you even imagine reasonable theists like Swinburne or Plantinga refer to Stalin as a prominent atheist. So how can such a thing be left in here? Was Stalin an atheist? YES! Should his acts in the name of atheism be discussed? YES! But does naming him in a list of prominent atheist among Russell and Hepburn prove anything other than Larry Sanger's point? I say, let's prove him wrong, let's behave maturely! In more formal terms, I'm going to remove Stalin on the grounds of WP:SYNT -- I demand a source that would identify Stalin as a "prominent atheist" AND list him together with people like Bertrand Russell. Just citing that Stalin was an atheist is not enough to make this kind of a value judgment! --Merzul 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Merzul, you are overreacting and misinterpreting the significance and purpose of the list. It is more POVed of us to refuse to list or mention atheists just because we disapprove of them than for us to mention a "bad" one alongside a "good" one. If we were presenting a "list of prominent vegetarians" (as opposed to important thinkers who contributed to the vegetarianism movement, a much more limited list) from as many different walks of life as possible, I'd argue for listing Hitler as one of them for the same reason that I'd argue for listing Stalin here (though obviously Stalin's atheism is much better-known, and much more politically and historically significant, than Hitler's vegetarianism).

If there is a point that this list is trying to make, then if anything that point is to show how many diverse walks of life atheists can come from: they can be actresses like Hepburn, or dictators like Stalin; their atheism can be a central aspect of their writings, as in Dawkins, or it can be little more than a recurring in-joke in their writings, as in Allen; they can be paragons of rationality, as in Russell, or they can be paragons of imagination, as in Adams. If the list has an "agenda", it is nothing more insidious than to clear up the misconceptions of people who think that all prominent atheists belong in one stereotyped category (e.g., the stereotype that atheists are all scientists, or all communists, or all humorless hatemongers, or anything of the sort) or other.

Such a list should neither ignore the fact that most people consider Stalin (whether deservedly or not) one of the most prominent atheists in the history of the world, nor should it ignore the fact that most atheists are entirely unlike Stalin. To argue against including Stalin simply because you think he doesn't deserve to be named alongside the likes of Russell is essentially to argue for changing Wikipedia in order to advocate a specific POV, which is not the way we do things around here. Because Stalin is the only really "infamous" atheist in the list, your claim that Russell or Hepburn are being somehow implicitly maligned by being mentioned in the same breath as Stalin is completely baseless. The list treats Stalin as the exception, not the rule; he listed because he is an important and, if you will, exceptional exception, not because he is typical. The whole point of the list, other than to namedrop a few random high-profile atheists from the last century, is to hammer home the fact that there is no "typical" atheist, so trying to censor certain atheists who have views we disagree with, or trying to insert atheists just because we like them, is pointless, as it really says little or nothing about atheism as a whole. The list makes clear the fact that Stalin no more defines atheism than Hepburn does. -Silence 19:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why should a list of prominent atheists appear at all? It is no more valid than a list of prominent Catholics, or even a list of prominent Star Trek fans. An atheistic point of view is not why these people are prominent (with the possible exception of Richard Daekins, who deliberately brings his atheism into prominence). The "diversity of atheists" should be completely obvious - just as the diversity of Catholics and Star Trek fans is obvious. In my opinion, the list adds nothing to the article. It should be removed. -- Scjessey 19:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is probably the root of the confusion. We all have our definition of prominence. For me, a prominent atheist is somebody who has contributed to atheist thinking, lifestyle and identity. In this sense people like Adams, Hepburn, Carlin, Dawkins, etc. can be seen as prominent atheists. Just as Swinburne is a prominent theist and Bush or Bin Ladin are not. I probably did overreact, but those were my true feelings. Where I live, there is still first hand experience and memory of Stalin's persecution and so on. But the key point is that I don't think any serious theist or encyclopedia would compose a list like that, so I don't think we should either. Or do we have any good source that can support this synthesized list of prominent atheists? Simply stacking a list of words after each can sometimes be very powerful, Salman Rushdie uses this very effectively in his writing, and listing people after each other is no different, it has an immensely powerful effect, so it is far from neutral. --Merzul 20:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the simple solution is to improve the introduction to something that better reflects the intentions of Silence. Something saying "modern history has seen atheists from many different walks of life", but not so badly worded. :) --Merzul 21:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lists like this ("prominent people who are atheists") are inherently subject to bias in selection, because they are potentially infinite in length and completely arbitrary as to inclusion. I'd delete the list entirely to avoid arguments over including good or bad, or who represents goodness or badness. We mention individual prominent atheists throughout the article as appropriate; and by appropriate, I mean people who make prominent / notable contributions to atheism (a la Russell and Dawkins). --lquilter 21:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I would obviously prefer this solution. Even Stalin can be mentioned where communism is discussed. --Merzul 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I see no problem whatsoever with a list of prominent atheists as long as it is kept short. All the problems that ensue from such a list (bias, bloat, accumulation of trivia, endless arguments about who to add and remove, etc.) are a direct result of the list being allowed to grow too large; as long as we keep the list to a manageable 5-10 people, this is a nonissue.
• The diversity of atheists should be obvious. That doesn't mean that it is obvious. This article makes many explicit statements throughout about atheism that should be obvious, but we assume that our readers don't know them; I don't see anything worse here, especially since we're non-explicit here, and thus purely factual. We should assume ignorance on the part of our readers, and be willing to correct misconceptions in simple ways when it does not require us to go far out of our way to do so (as is the case for a simple one-sentence line listing a handful of atheists). I see no downside to a list like this as long as it is kept very small, and the benefit of giving such a brief look at the diversity of well-known atheist is worthwhile.
• If you can think of a suitable phrase to replace "prominent atheists" with (would "famous atheists" or "noteworthy atheists" be better?), feel free to try. I apologize for any confusion that was caused by our different understandings of "prominent" in this context; for me, it simply meant "a well-known person who is an atheist", not "a person who contributed positively to atheistic culture" or anything of the sort. The fact that listing people can have a "powerful effect" does not make this list non-neutral, as long as the list doesn't give any false impressions about atheists (as would be the case if all the atheists had something misleading in common, as opposed to only one of the atheists, like Stalin, being unusual; if all the atheists were communists, for example, you'd have plenty of reason to object). Images can also have a "powerful effect", yet that doesn't make including images in an article inherently non-neutral.
• Besides, the line just works well in the context of the article. It provides a very simple, easy, concise package of useful information to broaden people's ideas about what constitutes being an "atheist" (for example, I expect that quite a few people will rethink their assumptions about atheists upon learning that Woody Allen is one), without going to the trouble of trying to explicitly tell people what to think or not think; we present a random sampling of well-known people who happen to be atheists, and let people interpret the facts as they will. Moreover, the passage fits very smoothly into the overall structure of the article (serving as a sort of transition between the "History" section and the "Groups and organizations" section), and provides the best possible way to smoothly and unobtrusively link to the List of atheists article (which was a large part of my motivation for the paragraph in question; the only other feasible options were to either create a whole section for such a list and have it as the "Main article", which would obviously cause problems with people warring over who would be included, or to create a "See also" section purely for that one link, which seemed catastrophically wasteful and inefficient). So, it just works easiest, providing a simple compromise between the people who wanted a whole section to list random atheists, and the people who don't want the list creepingly taking over this page; a super-short snippet of assorted atheists satisfies both parties' wishes, and gives us a simple way to smoothly and efficiently link to List of atheists within the overall context of the article's prose. -Silence 22:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience and in-depth explanation. This doesn't mean that I agree with you, but I'm grateful for respecting my concern. If a better intro or maybe slight re-ordering comes to mind, I will suggest it here. --Merzul 23:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. Thanks for taking the time to consider my explanation and to reconsider the passage even though you were initially offended. I think we can avoid any future ambiguity by working together to improve that small passage. -Silence 00:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

After a week of thinking, a simple "notable" instead of "prominent" would take care of most of my concerns. What remains is just the subjective feeling that this is the result of somebody inserting Stalin in there, the sort of "only on wikipedia" feeling. This is essentially a non-issue, unless other people also get this impression. --Merzul 00:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal, social, ethical, and other uncited reasons for belief

I think the above discussion about Stalin can easily be postponed until the "personal reasons" section is improved. I'm not sure though what can be exactly done about it. I really need to take a short wikibreak, so I will just brainstorm here, about each paragraph of the current article:

1. Some people believe atheism is more conducive to a good life, and so on, while religion is based on fear...
   • One possible citation might be the statistical approach taken by Zuckerman in the Cambridge companion, where he with some reservations argues that countries with prevalent atheism are also countries with higher rates of happiness (I don't have it here, but there was something like that in it... I hope!)
   • Russell's ending of his Why I'm Not speech might even be quoted, the point about atheism being the brave facing of the world as it is and trying to improve it.
   • The latter part of the paragraph talks about "threats of punishment" and this also draws on Russell's criticism of religion basing morality on fear, so Russell's speech might be a good source for the first paragraph.
2. Then some people object to limitations to personal freedom, religion is immoral and leads to war, etc
   • Sound like Dawkins & Co, basically the 2006 attack on religion
3. Some people don't like that faith is more important than good deeds, then about hell as cruel and unusual punishment.
   • This is hard to support, especially cruel and unusual punishment, this phrase is more used by theists when writing Hell theodicies than actual (academic) atheists.
   • Maybe this should be phrased as the "proportionality objection to hell", I think it dates back to at least Nikolai Berdyaev's "The Destiny of Man", for a more modern treatment, see Himma's evaluation of the infinite-sin response, the abstract might be enough for what we need here.
4. Lack of religious experience...
   • This is essentially the personal aspects of divine hiddenness. I have read a very good account of this, the argument went by citing many historical figures, who have received religious experiences more or less without deserving it. Very loaded question: why aren't people who do not persecute the church blessed with religious experiences? It is highly likely that it is from one of Drange's online articles, but I was not able to find it :(
5. Some people grew up atheist. Other people didn't.
   • Maybe a brief list of atheist who grew up in a religious households would be more interesting...

I know this is very lazy of me, but I hope this will at least start the process of substantiating the personal reasons section. --Merzul 02:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let me put it another way, would anybody object if I would add sources and slightly rewrite as need this section according to the above plan? But surely, there are better sources, if anybody can post some URLs or refs to important material, please do so here. --Merzul 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Protect this page

why the hell does it say "jesus is god?" f-ing christians trying to re write history —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.243.156.120 (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Congratulations! You stumbled across this article during the single minute it was in its vandalized state. :) Take a look at the edit history, here: [6]. The version you saw was put in by an anonymous editor at 17:14, 9 January 2007, and was reverted by Persian Poet Gal at 17:15, 9 January 2007. So it's no biggie, this is how things work around here. Next time you come across an article in such an obviously flawed state take a look at the article's edit history and you may find that the most recent edit vandalized it. Bryan 04:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Pac-Man?

What's with that Pac-Man-piture? Does that picture have any link to atheism or the sentence below the picture?

I have removed the picture. As a note, since Wikipedia is written collaboratively, you can boldly edit articles yourself. Dave Runger^(t)⁄_(c) 04:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

(Looking at the older edit) I gotta admit, that was a cool picture though. Kinda reminded me of Buddy Christ from the movie Dogma. That analogy may have been the intent of the person who posted the Pac-Man picture. =Axlq 22:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)