Talk:Atheism

hunter frase is athiest

Objections to leading paragraph

Here's what I feel that is problematic about the leading phrase. "Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist." They both in fact imply explicit strong atheism. Neither of them means a mere implicit absence of belief, but a positive disbelief.

Also, I think that the second sentence should look more like this: "In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities, with or without conscious rejection of theism. I believe we can all agree with that.--JokerXtreme (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Do not confuse theism with a position that deities exist. Your analysis is an oversimplification. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think his point was that we should not confuse atheism with a position that deities do not exist. To which it is logically irrelevant whether or not the converse is true, or thought to be so, since the prefix a- does not necessarily mean negation. Kevin Baas^talk 15:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

From the article: "Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity.[1][2] In a more specific sense, theism refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of a God and his relationship to the universe." I frankly cannot imagine what "theism" would be if not some weird tendency of a certain species of animal to anthropomorphize themselves to explain things on account of a lack of scientific understanding and/or an inability to deal with uncertainty. What could it possibly be otherwise? If they could deal just fine with uncertainty and they could scientifically understand things, then they wouldn't need an additional explanatory thing to believe in. And if this explanatory thing were, some inanimate object such as a rock, then it would be science. Very BAD science, yes, but science nonetheless. If it were some other animal then it would still be anthropomorphic. If it's the "force" or soem other "spiritualism", then, well, that's spiritiualism which is a position often taken precisely to be distinct from theism, and a position held by some "atheists". My point being here is I really see no logical way to divorce "theism" from a diety and have it still be "theism". And our article on theism states rather specifically, with sources, that it is, precisely, belief in a deity. Kevin Baas^talk 15:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) - Yes, I fell into a bit of a logic trap there. My intention was to note the oversimplification. There are many nuanced positions with respect to atheism, and I think it is clear that a "rejection of theism" is not identical to "the position that deities do not exist." I'm confused by JokerXtreme's use of the phrase "both... imply explicit strong atheism." To be honest, I prefer the old opening paragraph that we had here a couple of years ago (after excruciatingly tedious consensus-building debate that raged for countless weeks). It was wordier, but it covered all the bases:

"Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism. Although atheism is often equated with irreligion, some religious philosophies, such as secular theology, or some varieties of Theravada Buddhism, lack belief in a personal god."

The current version seems to simplistic, but I guess consensus changed over time. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the "Atheism is the absence of belief in deities" part. (Though it reads to me rather patronizing of theists, kinda like "Lucidity is the absence of belief in the boogeyman.", it is a matter-of-fact so i guess theists will just have to take that one on the chin, so to speak.) It's clear and simple, not too broad and not too narrow. I would certainly support putting that in the lead. And i'd support that whole thing replacing what's there, actually. Kevin Baas^talk 17:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I would agree with you; however, I have had little involvement in this article for a couple of years and I am not aware of what discussions and debates have lead to the current wording. I think a specific proposal would have to be made that sought consensus for such a change. Here is an old revision of the article that used that paragraph, in case you think it will be useful. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a little confused by this debate. JokerXtreme's original complaint is that lead doesn't allow for aethism to be the "absence of belief", and that the lead implies "positive disbelief". Perhaps, Joker, this is because Aethism IS positive disbelief and not simply absence of belief. An individual who says "God may exist. I simply don't believe in him at the moment" (i.e. abscence of belief) is not an aetheist. He is better defined as an agnostic.

Scjessey - I'm a little confused by your "don't confuse theism with a position that deities exist". Theism is absolutely the belief that a deity/dieties exist (read theism). Scjessey, I'm familair with some of your previous edits/comments and have been impressed by them, so I'm sure there is some nuance here I'm not picking up on?

In conclusion, I like the current language, though frankly I don't see the difference between "rejecting thiesm" and "affirming the nonexistence of dieties". Seems redundant.

The old language Sjessey is suggesting seems wordy, and has some things I'd object to. Are Budhist really athiests? NickCT (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd clarified above (see "logic trap" comment) with respect to the confusion. I didn't really express myself properly. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For editors unfamiliar with the discussion leading to the current wording, it is in talk archive 40, number 9, through talk archive 43, number 3. An awful lot to read, and an awful lot to go through another time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I share NickCT's feelings regarding redundancy in the current version. And ya, the old version is wordy. I said i'd accept it, but i would prefer something simpler. Kevin Baas^talk 21:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And I think we need a clear understanding of the difference between "weak atheism" and "agnosticism", if there really is any, before we can go forward in that regard. Perhaps there's discussion about that in the archives? Kevin Baas^talk 21:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of discussion, but I don't think I could summarize it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well then at least what are our feelings on the matter here? I've always felt that "weak atheists" where sort of like agnostics in denial, or atheists afraid of commitment. Though i don't know how helpful that would be in determining how we treat it. As regards the redundancy thing, I would say remove "rejecting theism" because that's circular and as such doesn't really convey very much. Kevin Baas^talk 21:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) - Weak atheists include those people who haven't thought (or thought very little) about the existence of deities and those people who have chosen not to believe in deities, but do not specifically state deities do not exist. Agnostics believe the existence of deities is unknown (and/or unknowable). It takes a long, hard look to see the distinction, but it is there. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think other editors who have worked on this page will be able to answer that better than I can, when they get here. But I think that in this strict sense of the words, "weak atheism" is something quite distinct from "agnosticism". A lot of electronic ink got spilled on what weak atheism is and is not, and I'm afraid there is no shortcut to reading the archives. After another ec: Yes I think Scjessey is correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My brain is hurting now. I am pretty sure it hurts because I was thinking too hard. I'm also certain that the brain pain is a chemical response to thinking too hard, and not the result of a deity punishing me for thinking too hard. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel your pain! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" says an Atheist is someone who says that God(s) does not exist, or that God(s) are extremely unlikely to exist. "Weak atheist" sounds like a nelogism to me. I don't like it. I also don't like Scjessey's "Weak atheists include those people who haven't thought (or thought very little) about the existence of deities". You're an atheist if you say God doesn't exist.... period. It has nothing to do with how much you've thought about it. What you're suggesting Scjessey is like someone saying "a weak christian is someone who hasn't thought about the divinity of Christ". no no no no no no.... shinanigans.. NickCT (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't me suggesting it. You'll have to blame my source. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not just weak and strong atheism. There's also the implicit. Humans are born implicit atheists, until they learn about theism or they think of it on their own and either become explicit atheists or theists (or deists for that matter) or agnosticis acknowledging that there is no way to find out if deities do exist or not or prove their existence or nonexistence. Yeah, I guess the hard part is defining explicit weak atheists.--JokerXtreme (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the opening paragraph needs to encompass all possible meanings of atheism. These include:

• Implicit atheism - absence of theistic belief without rejection (examples include newborns, cultures that have no knowledge of theism).
• Explicit atheism - absence of theistic belief due to rejection of it.
• Weak atheism - includes implicit atheists, and expanded to include people who do not believe deities exist, but do not explicitly state the existence of deities is false.
• Strong atheism - belief that the existence of any deities is false.

Part of the problem here is that there is some overlap, and also none of these terms are particularly common. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"Atheism, in the broadest sense, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities, with or without conscious rejection of theism." Very minimalistic, I admit, yet very concise. Perhaps we can elaborate on that.--JokerXtreme (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Problem with that is that different people define atheism in different ways. The convoluted version I refer to above attempted to address that problem by being wordy. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure editors who felt passionately about the formulation will show up in this talk soon, but until then, I really suggest reading the archives. I tried very hard last time to get one sentence, and was shot down repeatedly. Some people felt very strongly about whether the "broadest sense" should come first or last, and there are a lot of issues surrounding rejecting theism. Something that is obvious to me, looking at this suggestion by JokerXtreme, is that there will certainly be arguments that it doesn't make clear how "without conscious rejection of theism" differs from "absence of belief", and also that "strong" atheism is not really "absence of belief" "with conscious rejection of theism", but, rather, that it is an affirmative rejection of belief itself, and not simply rejection of theism. Who has a headache yet? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• My position and evidence is captured by the sections above. Unomi (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

---

• The editors who worked on getting this article to FA status identified 3 distinct definitions in the literature. In accordance with NPOV policy, they agreed to not give preference to any one definition. The fact that at least two editors in the present discussion do not think the first paragraph presents 3 definitions is a problem that needs addressing.
• As explained in the first footnote: "Theism is used here in its most general sense, that is belief in one or more deities. This would then define atheism as the rejection of belief that any deities exist, regardless of whether the further conclusion is drawn that deities do not exist." The "rejection definition" thus includes what are colloquially called "explicit weak atheists" - they do not believe, not because they have never thought (much) about deities, but because they simply find all talk about deities unbelievable. They do not, however, wish to try to defend the negative claims 1>"no deity exists" nor 2>"nothing that would ever qualify as a deity exists". (For, how does one prove a negative like "there are no ghosts"?) (Nor are they just "suspending belief" for consideration later - they have determined that such belief is unsupported, likely even foolish.)
• The only argument I recall for keeping the word theism so early in the article was to preserve the link to it, but now it appears (from discussion above) that some people think there is a real difference between "rejection of theism" (in the general sense of theism) and "rejection of belief that any deities exist". If theism is there only to preserve the link, I think we must now determine that the link must come elsewhere, for the appearance of the term (instead of something more clearly stated) is leading to confusion about what and how many definitions are being given. If, however, theism is there to preserve a difference in meaning, then 1> the sources we use for that "rejection" definition do not use the term "theism" to make their distinction, but rather use "belief in God" (and later unpack "God") (and thus do not support such a claim for keeping theism in the first paragraph), and 2> I would be interested in seeing any source that demonstrates there is a real difference between "rejection of theism" and "rejection of belief that any deities exist" -- other than the obvious one that uses the specific meaning of theism. Anyone who rejects theism in the general sense must also reject it in the specific sense, and our sources do not restrict themselves to the rejection of a "personal, active yet transcendent, supreme deity".
• --JimWae (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

---

"An explicit atheist may eschew belief in gods (weak atheism), or further conclude that gods do not exist (strong atheism)." I still find the definition of the explicit weak atheist somewhat troublesome. How can someone negate the belief in the existence of deities, without that being translated to belief in their nonexistence? Are there any sources on this type of distinction? Maybe explicit implies strong atheism.--JokerXtreme (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

On definition

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

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

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

The ontology implicit in all three definitions is identical: a world that does not include deities among existent entities. They differ in their epistemic conditions. "Explicit strong atheists" are willing to claim some degree of knowledge and/or certainty that there are no deities. "Implicit atheists" fall into 2 main epistemic groups: those who are (mostly) unaware of the concept of deities, and those who explicitly claim they do not know (agnostics who are not theists anyway). "Explicit weak atheists" also do not count deities among existent entities, but are not inclined to claim knowledge and/or certainty that deities do not exist, and while they may be prepared to argue against the existence of deities, they do not claim to know that their existence is a complete impossibility, nor their non-existence a known certainty. Theists and explicit atheists have made an ontological decision about what to include as entities in the universe. Agnostics (those, at least, who are not also either theists or atheists) have not made a decision, putting deities in the category of "undecided" --JimWae (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Neilsen's reasons seem to me inadequate to support the claim that having the certainty that deities do not exist (strong atheism) does not require a leap of faith, but is based on solid logic. The agnostic position seems more scientific to me. Yet this kind of debate here is meaningless since verifiability and not truth policy is applied, so Nielsen's opinion is one among others.

I wanted to comment on some other stuff too but I can't remember right now...--JokerXtreme (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Now the brain pain is almost overwhelming. I might have to lie down. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Brain pain indeed. The overlaps between atheism and agnosticism do not help either.--JokerXtreme (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Strictly speaking, saying one is agnostic, leaves the question "Do you believe?" unanswered. I sincerely object to that assertion. Note what Huxley says here: I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter... This is the problem with trying to refashion Atheism into 'lack of belief', it is poorly supported in sources (apart from in the sense of innocent) and it obscures more than it reveals. In the sections above we see avowed non-theists, and experts in the matter, distance themselves from this kind of specious repositioning. Both atheism and agnosticism hold the characteristic of 'lack of belief in gods' but Atheism goes the extra mile and affirms belief of nonexistence of gods. Unomi (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This position seems reasonable to me. So, are we getting somewhere?--JokerXtreme (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I read all the discussion above , from what i see Unomi argues that atheism is a belief system ,based on sources ofc, however ,categorizing for example chemistry as a belief system implies that whatever results we obtain from experiments are biased , since the basis of chemistry would be belief not reason. Thus it should be discussed is atheism a belief system ? , are atheists a class of dogmatic people that regardless of experiments and proof to contrary , or lack of proof , still believe that deities do not exist? or is atheism a philosophical theory that states that deities do not exist for following Reasons :(insert reasons here)86.123.168.47 (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, you've raised a cogent point. So-called "positive atheism" must be more clearly distinguished from "passive" atheism, or a simple lack of belief. Huxley's comments strike me as distinctly agnostic, along the same lines as Eintein. I think it would be a disservice to all involved to equate their beliefs to, say, Dawkins', Hitchens', or for that matter, my own. In addition to the overlap with agnosticism, we have a similar overlap with nontheism. Edwards in the first note appears to be dealing with a very specific definition of atheism that does not appear to reflect common usage, or even modern atheistic philosophy. The claim that "God is meaningless" is not widely made, and certainly not by the usual suspects above. Furthermore, the arguments against theism have progressed quite a bit in the past 43 years, and I'm not sure a source from 1967 is very suitable. 86.123, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. Perhaps you'd care to rephrase?

As a complete aside, I find it odd that we have no section on modern atheist thinkers, given the recent slough of books that have been published. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Throwaway , what i'm saying is that while religions in general are based on belief , atheism as a philosophical system is based on reason.This is very hard to grasp for religious people that tend to view atheism as a sort of "religion" that believes in something else.This happens to affect for example evolutionism , in some US states its forbidden in schools or being teached as an alternate theory to the "normal " creationism. So , what i'm asking is if atheism is a belief , or gut feeling or any kind of illogical theory then it should be included in the religion's page as another religion if not it should be included on the science or philosophy page.86.123.168.47 (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Atheism is not a religion. I think that should be clear to anyone. It is however based on assumptions and axioms that cannot be proved. Agnosticism is solidly based on scientific methods, atheism on the other hand is more of Occam's razor logic. It's more empirical and practical than scientific. I believe that can be hardly challenged.--JokerXtreme (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I still find it odd that agnostics make that claim. Atheism is entirely scientific. We disbelieve in any modern theistic incarnation for the same reason we disbelieve in Zeus, Thor, Ra, or, famously, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There's nothing unscientific about this. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, it is entirely reasonable to hold a positive belief that the phenomenon does not exist. Also, I'm perplexed by how you can claim atheism is empirical but not scientific. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologise, you are correct. If "Empirical" refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment and the hypothesis "deities do not exist" is not testable using observation or experiment, therefore atheism is not based on empirical analysis. It may be reasonable to believe in the nonexistence of deities, but it is not scientific to do so. Or in any case it is not necessarily truthful. Including old archives that we should take into consideration:

Talk:Atheism/Archive_27#A_survey_of_definitions_for_atheism

Talk:Atheism/Archive_29#List_of_definitions

--JokerXtreme (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll accept the contention that atheism cannot be evaluated empirically, and submit that it is a merely rational position. I've gone ahead and removed the POV tag you put up, by the way, as I see no discourse here suggesting there is a POV issue with the article, merely some debate about various definitions. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the way I see it, the definition is mostly an atheist POV. The reason I put that there was to draw more people in this discussion, so we can finally agree on a commonly acceptable definition. Please, either put a more appropriate template or restore the POV. Perhaps this one? Template:Intro-rewrite --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Putting on a POV tag to "draw more people" to a discussion is a violation of WP:POINT. Please don't. The tags are not there to draw attention, they are there to tell the reader that there may be serious issues with the article. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree on that. How many of article sources are written by theists? An overwhelming majority are atheistic sources. POV tag is valid. --windyhead (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

POV is guided not only by WP:NPOV, but WP:DUE as well. If the article were to represent atheistic views and those of the religious in equal measure, every other sentence would be "However, Atheists are devil-worshiping scum with no morals, forever damned to walk blindly the smoldering wastelands of hell." --King Öomie 14:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The article outlines several categories of atheism in a neutral and dispassionate tone. What would you prefer to see, windy? Should theism cite Dawkins and Hitchens? As KO pointed out, NPOV is not about letting each side take their shots. Wikipedia is not Fox News or CNN. We're simply outlining the subject, nothing more. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the article as it stands does not really reflect usage which holds prevalence in sources. I agree that the article has POV issues. As I have stated in the sections above, I find it problematic that the least supported use is listed as the first one, and that there is no attempt at fleshing out how these new uses came about. Also note that the problem of prevalence holds true even within atheistic circles, as we see with Flew, Drange, Martin etc above. We are presenting readers with a gross oversimplification perhaps guided by utilitarianism, but not one supported by wikipedia principles. The hyperbole of King Öomie does not help. Unomi (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer the term 'exaggeration'. Please refer to the Conservapedia article on Atheism for an in-depth look of what this subject looks like for the (reactionary, child-like) opposition. Try to ignore the outright lies as you read it. --King Öomie 19:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good ol' Conservapedia. You know when Metapedia is more accurate (albeit brief) than you that you have serious, serious problems. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, better yet, read the archives of this talk! (wink!) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually think King Öomie made a useful point. But more importantly to me, I think that arguing about POV is really missing the point. This is not an issue of editors pushing POVs, but an issue of deciding which sources to use for the wording of a very difficult-to-negotiate lead paragraph. Historically, most editors have tried hard to be scholarly about it. It concerns me that a significant amount of the talk directly above has been forum-like discussion of what individual editors personally believe, and I would caution that we need to steer clear of that. This is not a matter of finding wording with which some of us agree, but of finding wording that reflects the various usages in reliable sources, without going too far down the road of sentence-by-committee. For all this talk, I'm still waiting to see a suggested revision that is better than what the page says now. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright then, to the dissenters: With what claims do you take issue? What is included that you would like to see excluded, and vice versa? Throwaway85 (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

On definition: part 2

The new intro could be something along the lines:

"Atheism can either be the non-endorsement of theism, or the conviction that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities, with or without a conscious rejection of theism."

Which is basically what I was saying all along. I sense however that most of the atheists will have trouble with the word conviction, however the majority of the sources as listed here are in support of that phrasing:

Talk:Atheism/Archive_27#A_survey_of_definitions_for_atheism

Talk:Atheism/Archive_29#List_of_definitions

--JokerXtreme (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for proposing something specific to which we can react. As you noted, there are all kinds of issues around conviction/position/belief etc. Personally, I lean towards "position", but I don't feel as strongly as some other editors do. Please also understand that what editors say does not necessarily have to do with their personal beliefs ("atheists will have trouble with"), but rather with what they/we feel is correct editorially, and it's best to steer clear of commenting on motivations. That said, I think "non-endorsement" is a non-starter, and I do not see what we gain by the "with or without" part at the end, which seems to repeat the beginning. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I also thank you for making the proposal. Why do you prefer the phrase "non-endorsement of theism" to "rejection of theism"? In addition to being a bit clumsy, it is less specfic. Agnosticism is also the non-endorsement of theism, the difference being that atheists reject it whereas agnostics are, well, agnostic. As far as "conviction" goes, I just don't see what's gained by it replacing "position", aside from the possible introduction of a non-neutral POV. "Conviction" lends inherent support to the position that atheism is a belief system, whereas "position" makes no claims one way or the other. If the majority of sources defined atheism as "the rational and justified rejection of theism", that language wouldn't be appropriate to include either. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I won't insist on the "non-endorsement". I just feel that rejection of theism does not include the implicit area of atheism, but implies explicit atheism and in fact strong. I later realized that was included in the second sentence. So, in that case what is the difference between the rejection of theism and the position the deities do not exist? Isn't that just a rephrasing?

Now, about the neutrality of the position word. If we also apply that logic to theism, it can be defined as the position that one or more deities exist. I believe it sounds a bit ridiculous and it is also misleading. I don't have the time to complete my thought right now, tell me what you think.--JokerXtreme (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with either wording for theism, unless there are theistic belief systems or philosophies that do not classify their position that God exists as belief. There's a subtle difference between theism, where most if not all adherents classify it as a belief system, and atheism, where most if not all classify it as a lack thereof. As far as your first point goes, I see your concern. The first sentence poses atheism in a strong/weak sense, but leaves out implicit atheism. I feel the second sentence addresses that concern, but the first could be problematic. What if we were to simply remove the "either" from the first, thereby removing the impression that it is solely a binary choice? Throwaway85 (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Note to JokerXtreme - the non-endorsement and the conviction both feel wrong. The etymology of the word conviction [1] suggests that the word has evolved to mean a belief. Consistent with say, Skepticism we're describing a position on a claim. As for endorsement, then that is to sign or mark a document or (metaphorically) a claim or argument but it would appear to not be right to say "non-endorsing theism" given that theism is not primarily defined as a claim or argument but a belief. [2] suggests Fowler says use like this is a solecism. I don't have a copy of Fowler's to confirm this but I'll hedge my bets that [3] hasn't miscopied this. To me our current WP:LEDE suffices as it adequately describes the possible states for the hobby of not collecting postage stamps. Me ?, I probably have a few postage stamps around but my position is that I don't collect beer mats. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What about the lede's apparent exclusion of implicit atheism? I agree on your other points, but I think Joker may have a case there. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement... "broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities." suffices for implicit (using the definition that this means implied, rather than expressly stated) atheism. Like not thinking about the White Bear (Tolstoy and/or Dostoevsky) - to start actually thinking about this you end up being in a position, though it may be indifference to the existence of god because not believing in something is rather hard to do and instead your positive belief is something that implicitly excludes or suggests that gods are improbable. Belief about gods is not an intrinsic belief to humans but taught. Our WP:LEDE describes reasonably the situation of those that are not taught as well as those in which the pidgeonhole that would normally be occupied by god-centric theism is occupied by another positive claim that implies no-God e.g. methodical naturalism, scepticism, secular humanism etc. This last way of describing atheism in a positive sense that implies that there is no god is what quite a few modern critics of atheists complain about. Ttiotsw (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Implicit atheism, as defined in the article, is the state shared by infants and others who have never been exposed to any kind of religious thought. I'm unsure what weight it should be given. It doesn't seem to be as central to the subject as the other forms, and so I'm okay with not mentioning it in the opening sentence. I am, however, uncomfortable with the fact that the opening sentence, in its current form, seems to actively exclude, not simply fail to mention, implicit atheism. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

But I think our current statement that,... "broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities." includes all of those that have not been exposed to teaching/culture etc on deities. So we're at an impasse. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. My only concern is that the "either/or" clause of the first sentence outright excludes implicit atheism. It is, admitedly, a very minor objection, and I shant shed too many tears if nothing changes. Speaking of which, I changed it. I simply switched the order of the first two sentences. It isn't much, and I'm open to a revert if anyone disapproves, but I feel this at least puts it in the reader's head that atheism is a simply lack of belief before constraining it to the two most recognized forms. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It is too confusing to say X IS something, then say it "can be" 2 other things -- which 2 other things may or may not be understood as "something else". Some might even think the other 2 are 2 subsets which entirely encompass X - which would mean only those other 2 are needed to define X. --JimWae (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To carry your analogy, the intent is to say that the set A consists entirely of the set B, and the sets C and D are subsets of A. I agree the either/or wording is problematic. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

JimWae, your analysis is more confusing than enlightening.

"Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1] It can be either the rejection of theism,[2] or the position that deities do not exist."

Well, this phrasing definitely excludes the implicit area. How about this?

"Atheism is a term most commonly used to describe the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities." --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer a hard and fast definition for the introduction, although I recognize the difficulty in achieving that. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds better then what we have now . Emphasizes that rejection is the most common one . --windyhead (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Throwaway85 (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

fwiw, it's a bit dictionaryish; perhaps: "Atheism most commonly describes the..." ? --Cybercobra (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Even better. WE might as well avoid the passive tense if we are able. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Broadly, I also agree with the direction this discussion is now taking, although I do so noting that we are coming close to returning to the existing language. This most recent suggested change differs from the existing language in that it changes "can be either" to "most commonly describes". First of all, I very much agree that it is best not to say "Atheism is a term...", since we shouldn't be discussing the word, dictionary-style, but rather we should discuss the topic of the article, encyclopedia-style. Continuing that line of thinking, I'm not sure about "describes". Atheism the word describes these things, but atheism the phenomenon/world view/aspect of human culture does not exist simply to describe things. Is it describing the rejection of theism, the position that deities do not exist, or both, and if both, does it describe them both mostly commonly, or one more commonly than the other? Also, "most commonly" is a little redundant, and it may be difficult, strictly speaking, to really source "most". Would "typically" or just "commonly" be better? At the end of all that, I'm not convinced that it's really an improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The points you make sound reasonable. It might not be an improvement after all. Although, the current definition: "Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist." seems to imply that the position that deities do not exist excludes the rejection of theism. So some change must be really made. And, yeah, if we can avoid the long definition and be able to replace it with a shorter and clearer one, it would be nice. Any suggestions anyone?--JokerXtreme (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

How about deleting the word "either"? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Now where have I heard that before? Throwaway85 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Aha! Lemme guess! Nothing original under the sun, huh? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not on the Internet, anyway. As an aside, I'm pretty sure the Internet is antithetical to the concept of "sun". Throwaway85 (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting the "either" word, would be too simple. No fun in that :O But, yeah, if anything else fails it's a must.--JokerXtreme (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Removing "either" makes the meaning of "or" ambiguous - making it easily interpretable as the "or" of synonymy rather than the "or" of alternatives. Previous to this version, the lede said:

"As an explicit position, atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]."

This was changed because some people thought "explicit position" was redundant. I think it is more emphatic than redundant, for under the absence def a person need not have a position (or an active brain) at all. But saying simply "As a position" is too awkward.

The sequence of the present lede paragraph makes it clear that the first 2 defs are not meant to be exhaustive, and that while the first sentence presents alternatives & does not include the 3rd, the 3rd is not to be excluded as a definition. Nevertheless, the talk page is filled with discussions of definition in the lede, yet only 31 words appear in the lede to the article. I think the best way to handle this is to say something along the lines of the following:

"Three distinct definitions of atheism are found in the literature. The narrowest gives atheism as the position that deities do not exist. A broader definition gives atheism as the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, regardless of whether the assertion is made that deities do not exist. The broadest definition in the literature gives atheism as the absence of theism."

This would finally make it abundantly clear that there are 3 definitions being covered. It takes no position on which is best, stating merely what we are allowed to say anyway: what definitions can be found in reliable sources. I am not aware of any wiki guidelines that would prevent our doing this.--JimWae (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the previous, "explicit" version. I don't want to be too verbose, nor do I want to treat atheism as a term to be defined, rather than a phenomenon to be explained. The old version seems closest to the intent of the sources, as well. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I see atheism as the absence of a phenomenon to be explained. It's theism that is much harder to explain.

And I guess that's why this is so difficult. From a purely rational perspective, we are trying to define the non-existence of something. It only the existence of theism that pushes people to try to define atheism. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

On definition: part 3

Is it just me or is the style of all those definitions too academic? Can't we just use something simple for the leading sentence and elaborate later on?--JokerXtreme (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's definitely not just you. But, that too has been tried before. See here in the archives, and scroll down to my second comment, and then see what came of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what happened. I think the word belief is to blame for the past arguments. Personally speaking, I support a simple definition. How about:

"Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of any deity, or the position that there is none."

Not as simple as the one you suggested back then, but still a simplification over our current one. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I know I sound like a pain, but I predict that "lack" will be an issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• 1> There are 3 definitions in the literature. 2>Beginning with the least rigorous & most controversial is not a good idea. 3> "lack" implies deficiency. 4>Editors have spent millions & millions of bytes arguing this - a sign that 31 words is not enough to say things clearly - nor is 19.--JimWae (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are what I see as the relevant sections of MOS:BEGIN

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

Re 3rd point: It has not been possible to arrive at a single sentence that gives a concise definition, since there are competing definitions that do not easily fit into one unambiiguous sentence. Still (acc to 1st point) the first paragraph needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader. The only way to do this & observe WP:NPOV is to present all 3 defs in the lede.

For some time now, the 1st paragraph has seemed so brief as to be nearly barren. I would even like to see something added to the first paragraph (proposed above) like "It is generally agreed that one cannot be both an atheist and a theist<!-Tillich being a problem for this-->, though there is support that it is possible to be both an atheist and religious. It is disputed whether one can be both an agnostic and an atheist." This would provide a fuller context for the topic & also introduce topics dealt with in the main body. --JimWae (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of fleshing out the lede more, but I'm not sure those points, with the possible exception of atheism and religion, are notable or important enough for the lede. We have enough problems with trying to find a specific definition that balances all of the current views without adding additional ones. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we are indeed approaching this the wrong way and should try to be more descriptive, while at the same time avoiding academic phraseology. I am however the only one that suggests new definitions :( Anyway, I'll try a new one once again. Here we go:

"Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any deity, which usually takes the form of rejection of theism or goes one step further to declare that "no deities exist"."--JokerXtreme (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

1>How could "usually" ever be supported? 2>I also think it is no longer acceptable to stick theism in the rejection def - it is not the terminology our sources use - in fact Neilsen remarks that Tillich (& others) "reject theism" & still believe in God. The rejection definition has been getting short shrift by not getting a sentence of its own -- and many editors have completely overlooked it as a result. It is the definition that repeatedly gets omitted when editors come here with their "latest & greatest revision". We should not be relying on using the footnotes to disambiguate a definition - apparently not many people have been looking at the footnote before posting here. Consider the problems if we stuck theism onto the other definitions, such as "the position that theism is false", or the "absence of theism"--JimWae (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank about your constructive criticism, but please go ahead and make an actual suggestion:)

--JokerXtreme (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing "either" seems to be a good bandaid solution, but we should still brainstorm about figuring out some language that solves these problems. Thanks for going ahead and doing that, though. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's a reasonable step for the time being. I don't think I've seen anything proposed that would actually be better, so far. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

How about the replacement of theism being the next step?--JokerXtreme (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Here are some statistics on the article, using MS Word assessment of reading levels:

part	words	chars	paragraphs	sentences	sentences/ paragraph	words/ sentence	chars/ word	Passive sentences	Flesch Reading Ease	Flesch- Kincaid Grade Level
article (without end notes)	5595	31093	90	237	3.7	22.8	5.3	21%	27.5	14.7
section 6-Atheism, religion, and morality	483	2679	5	14	2.8	34.5	5.4	42%	15.1	19.1
section 5-Demographics	522	2775	3	22	7.3	23.7	5.1	13%	31.2	14.2
section 4-History	1910	10873	31	82	3.4	22.6	5.5	18%	21.7	15.7
section 3-rationale	1043	5887	18	47	3.3	21.0	5.4	19%	25.6	14.4
section 2-defs & distinctions	893	4812	8	36	4.5	24.8	5.2	25%	34.2	14.3
section 1-etymology	334	1779	4	17	4.2	19.6	5.0	17%	40.1	11.8
present lede	270	1464	4	14	3.5	19.2	5.2	21%	35.6	13.0
present lede - 4th paragraph	37	211	1	2	2.0	18.5	5.5	100%	30.2	13.6
present lede - 3rd paragraph	73	428	1	4	4.0	18.2	5.7	0%	21.4	14.8
present lede - 2nd paragraph	130	692	1	6	6.0	21.6	5.1	16%	36.4	13.5
present lede - 1st paragraph	30	133	1	2	2.0	15.0	4.3	0%	70.3	7.1
proposed para 1	67	342	1	4	4.0	16.7	5.0	50%	44.6	11.1

• The (117 words in 4 sentences) first paragraph of the theism article has a grade level of 14.6 and an ease of 41.9.
• Agnosticism's 73 word 3 sentence opening paragraph is grade 14.5 and ease of 33.7.
• Deism's has a grade level of 16.1 and ease level of 34.3.
• Soap's comes in at grade 14.8, ease level of 40.2.
• United States's at grade 14.3, ease level of 33.0
• Flesch–Kincaid readability test's at grade 12.1, ease level of 47.6. Both scales are based on the average number of words per sentence and the average number of syllables (something Word may not be accurate at) per word
• The first paragraph of the EB atheism article has 12.8 reading level, its lede grade 15, and its entire article grade 13.9

I will repeat my suggestion (from above -- slightly modified). I think the best way to handle the definition is to say something along the lines of the following:

"Three distinct definitions of atheism are found in the literature. The narrowest gives atheism as the position that deities do not exist. A broader definition gives atheism as the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, regardless of whether any assertion is made that deities do not exist. The broadest definition in the literature gives atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist."

This is very straightforward, giving each definition its own space rather than mashing them up with others in a single sentence. I know it is longer, but repeatedly shortening the lede definition has only led to one problem after another. There are 3 competing definitions, each one with proponents saying it is the single best definition. We need to give each definition its full due and neither endorse nor cripple any one of them when presenting them. Trying to be brief has not worked - it has only led to further complications for clarity, & endless debate on the talk page. We are writing an encyclopedia article, not a Readers Digest article. If it takes 67 words instead of 35 or 31 or 30 words to adequately represent the competing definitions, then so be it.

Wordiness means using too many words when fewer words will suffice - it means adding words that raise the reading level but not the information contained. Attempts at reducing the number of words have reduced the information and the clarity of the lede, as well as its reading level. --JimWae (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Wordiness means using several words or extravagant words in the place of a few, well-chosen, concise, and less ambiguous words. Wordiness is not measured by word-count but by finding unnecessary words.

If a grade 7 student thinks he understands the present 1st paragraph, he probably does not.

Currently, the definition that requires the most number of words (about 21) to be adequately presented on its own, has been allotted only three words - making it the shortest definition of all 3 given. This definition is the only one saddled with the ambiguous term theism -- forcing readers to go to the footnotes for disambiguation. No wonder people keep overlooking it and repeatedly present alternatives that just omit it.

The proposal above gives not just the intensional definition, it also begins to map out the extensional definition by noting which definition would include the least and the most people as atheists. Omitting the extensional aspects would, of course, shorten the lede, but keeping them is what distinguishes an encyclopedia from a dictionary (which also rarely admits there are competing defs [or discusses sources]). --JimWae (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

---

• Support with reservations: I admit that, while this definition is quite extensive and rather unusually styled for wikipedia standards, maybe we don't have any other choice. My minor objection would be on the phrase "gives atheism as". Is there a more elegant way to phrase that?--JokerXtreme (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree - "Found in the literature" is an awful way to word it. First, this is an encyclopedia, not a literary review. We are not giving a synopsis of the literary treatment of atheism, we are writing an encyclopedic article on the subject. Second, "the" literature implies there is a body of definitive works on the matter, which is far from the case. I believe we should open with something simple, like "Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. It can be the active rejection of theism, the position that gods do not exist, or simply the absence of theistic beliefs." Thoughts? Throwaway85 (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I agree with Throwaway's suggestion - with the first sentence replaced with "Atheism broadly means not believing ing the existence of a god or gods. More precisely...." I agree with your comment about the literature. But as someone else has already pointed out, it cannot be a lack of anything. Lack would imply a deficiency when compared with a non-atheist. HiLo48 (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Convenient section break

I'm very much impressed with JimWae's approach, which I regurgitate for convenience here:

Three distinct definitions of atheism are found in the literature. The narrowest gives atheism as the position that deities do not exist. A broader definition gives atheism as the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, regardless of whether any assertion is made that deities do not exist. The broadest definition in the literature gives atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.

I am not fond of the first sentence (as others have expressed), but I see that giving each position its proper due is essential and sensible. I think this should form the basis of the opening paragraph as we move forward. I'd like to cogitate on this for a little while, but this is definitely heading in the right direction. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And here is my take on it. I agree with the approach of starting with the narrowest first. I dislike having a first sentence that really does not say anything: just that there are three definitions in the literature, without telling the reader what any of those definitions is. I similarly agree with the criticism that we should not write about "the literature" or write what sounds like a survey of the literature. The page is about "atheism", not "the literature on atheism" or "atheism studies". Maybe a three sentence version would work better than what we have now, but I, too, need to cogitate on that, and would like to see a possible version. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The page is about atheism, and so is my proposal. How to define it has to be dealt with in terms of the competing sources. I do not see any way to eliminate preparing the reader to expect a multitude of definitions -- without endorsing one of the defs (as most counterproposals have). --JimWae (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we need not be so specific? Also, it is worth considering that we aren't trying to define the term atheism (like a dictionary), but rather we are trying to summarize current knowledge of the subject. The lede is meant to summarize the body of the article, so that should be our approach. I am going to think on this over dinner. :) -- Scjessey (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As a further thought, one form of atheism that seems to have been forgotten is the older kind where belief in a certain deity or deities is rejected in favor of another deity or deities. I am not sure if this "flavor" of the species is still in usage anywhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

JimWae, I agree with you that we should prepare the reader for multiple definitions, but I'm simply saying we need to have a way of saying it that makes the first sentence more substantive than just saying that there are multiple definitions. Scjessey, I'm surprised to hear about that other "flavor". I would have thought that, if belief in the other deity/ties remains, then it's not atheism. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the Romans (who believed in many deities) referred to Christians as "atheists", and I think there are other examples that are similar. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. That actually goes to the first sentence of the second paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

While that may be a valid historical interpretation, or one that is given credence in certain circles, it does not seem to me to be a widely-held view of what atheism is. Modern atheism, it seems, is defined by the absence of belief in any deity. Certainly there is the famous:

I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen F. Roberts

But I think he was more trying to make a point then give a definition of an atheist. It certainly belongs in the article, but I don't think it's suitable for the lede. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think we are all in agreement about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

We could try something like this:

Among three distinct definitions of atheism found in the literature, the narrowest gives atheism as the position that deities do not exist. A broader definition gives atheism as the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, regardless of whether any assertion is made that deities do not exist. The broadest definition [in the literature] gives atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.

(F Reading Ease: 37.6; F-K grade level:13.5)--JimWae (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need the nebulous "in the literature" at all. Alternate:

Among three distinct definitions of atheism identified by scholars, the narrowest describes atheism as the position that deities do not exist. A broader definition gives atheism as the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, regardless of whether any assertion is made that deities do not exist. The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Apart from using "scholars", which seems to be supported by the body of the article, I have varied the language somewhat to avoid repetition of "gives". -- Scjessey (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have similar reservations about "scholars" that I do about "literature'. Just as this is not a literary review, so too is it not an academic paper. This simply isn't about academia or literature. Let's avoid those phrases all together. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A literary review would review particular works. As an encyclopedia, we are obliged to draw info from literary & scholastic sources to form what we say. We are not writing a Readers Digest article & a certain degree of scholarliness, and writing that could stand up in academia, is appropriate. It would not be sufficient to say "Among three distinct definitions of atheism... --JimWae (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Different styles of writing are appropriate for different fora. One would not write a philosophy paper in the same style that one would write a paper on literature. A paper for a scientific journal would be different still, and an encyclopedic article is intended to be none of the three. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to consider first what is needed to present the topic in the best way possible, even if we do not love the resulting slightly/somewhat more academic style. A "that's pretty-close & pretty much covers it" populist style will not work for this article. If it turns out that this paragraph needs to make note of sources (besides footnoting them), then that is what is needed. Look at the Jesus article - the words "sources" and "scholars" appear multiple times in the lede & the article. Other wiki articles have to do the same thing. To repeat: It would not be sufficient to say "Among three distinct definitions of atheism, the narrowest..." because that would not indicate that a (virtually) exhaustive search of sources has been done first, and that the 3 are meant to be exhaustive. By making it explicit that a search of the literature has been done, we make it clear that what follows is not just the opinion of whoever ends up making the last edit. --JimWae (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is my attempt at simplifying it:

Atheism is described, most narrowly, as the position that deities do not exist. A broader definition is the rejection of belief in deities, while the broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think "describe" is too nebulous and note that the shorthand "belief in deities" is saddled only onto the rejection def & not the absence def in the above proposal. ("I don't believe in Zimmerman" does not mean "I don't believe Zimmerman exists".) I still prefer my earlier version, but I will put this here for consideration:

According to the narrowest definition, atheism is the position that deities do not exist. More broadly defined, atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, regardless of whether any assertion is made that deities do not exist. The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.

F-K Grade Level=12.8

--JimWae (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I took "describe" from your wording, actually. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that was [[Scjessey--JimWae (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Woops, sorry! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, here's another try:

Atheism is defined, most narrowly, as the position that deities do not exist. A broader definition is the rejection of belief in deities (regardless of any assertion about whether they exist), while the broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.

--Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer Jim's most recent version. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The two versions are within pretty close working distance of each other, so we've got plenty to work with here. My thinking is to (1) use the name of the page as the first word, putting the focus there, instead of on the process of defining, and (2) to generally keep it less wordy, but there's plenty of flexibility about the latter. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I think trypto's version is maybe what we need:)--JokerXtreme (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey, what in particular about Jim's version do you prefer? Are there any specific changes you'd like to see made? Jim, same q. to you. Also, I removed the nonsense beneath this discussion, hope no one minds. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of having anything in parentheses, and I like that each species of atheism is given its own sentence. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you 100% on the parentheses issue, it's a major pet peeve of mine. As far as each getting its own sentence, my overriding concern here is simply readability and flow. I've modified it slightly, does that work for everyone? Throwaway85 (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Atheism is defined, most narrowly, as the position that deities do not exist. A broader definition is the rejection of belief in deities independent of any assertion as to their existence, while the broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.

---

While I still prefer mentioning that sources have been consulted to find every distinct def, here's another try:

Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that deities do not exist.[1] More broadly defined, atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, regardless of whether any assertion is made that no deities exist.[2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

This has a F-K Reading level Grade of 11.5; the previous proposal grade 14.4. The previous proposal's using just 2 sentences is what brings the need for parentheses - and by making a longer sentence raises the reading level 3 years. There is no need to use just 2 sentences (in fact, the 4 sentence version is even easier to read).--JimWae (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see someone changed the previous proposal so there were no parentheses. I think there's a problem with "independent of any assertion as to their existence". Atheism (under any def) could NOT be independent of an assertion that they DID exist. -- "regardless of any assertion about whether they exist" has the same problem. --JimWae (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That was me who changed it. The "independent of any assertion.." covers the definition of atheism whereby they simply reject theistic beliefs, without similarly rejecting the existence of gods. Therefore such an atheist could be "Anti" religion, but neutral on the question of God's existence. And can we please drop the Flesch-Kincaid stuff? I don't think it's adding anything to the discussion. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Both also have problems with the plural pronouns ("they" and "their") which could be construed as being applied only to polytheism - which has made me change my last proposal to 52 words now.--JimWae (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think F-K is decisive, but it is informative, and a way to measure claims about "readability"--JimWae (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Reading" the article is the best way to judge readability on WP. "Their" can be either plural, or singular and gender neutral, which is the case here. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a distinction in meaning between "the position that no deities exist" and "the position that deities do not exist"? I think the former is preferable in being slightly more concise and (in my view) a bit clearer. Gabbe (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no meaningful distinction and I'm tempted to agree with your analysis. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Convenient section break 2

Yup, why use plural, which might imply reaction to polytheism, when you can use the first phrase?--JokerXtreme (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I guess the first one has to go too -- though it did include the Romans calling the Xns atheists. To avoid having the same phrase repeated, we could go with "there are no deities"

Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities.[1] More broadly defined, atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, regardless of whether any assertion is made that no deities exist.[2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

--JimWae (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me too. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not "whether any assertion is made about the existence of deities"? Still, that's just a minor objection, I agree in general terms.--JokerXtreme (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Without "regardless", you would have to say "whether or not". Perhaps it would be easier to say it like this:

Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities.^[1] More broadly defined, atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion of nonexistence.^[2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.^[3]

It's just a matter of playing around about until something sounds right to everyone. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I meant "regardless of whether any assertion is made about the existence of deities" instead of the one proposed by Jim. The one you're suggesting might work just the same. --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, mine is wrong, because an assertion about the existence is made. So make that nonexistence.--JokerXtreme (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the reasoning behind the most recent iterations is unclear to me, and the wording sounds a little clunky. Questions: In the first sentence, why "the position that there are no deities" over "the position that no deities exist"? In the second sentence, why not delete "the existence of", so that it would simply be "the rejection of belief in any deities", especially since existence is discussed right after the comma? Also, in the second sentence, as a possible alternative in between the two directly above, after the comma, how about "regardless of any assertion about the existence of deities"? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) - The more I read it, the more my brain hurts. I've never understood how it is possible to reject a belief in the existence of deities without making it clear you reject their existence. "I don't believe in gods, but I'm not asserting whether or not they exist." Sounds bloody odd to me. I vote we just pretend these fucked-up folks don't exist and we cut it out of the definition completely! </sarcasm> -- Scjessey (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I really think the rewrite offered above is overly verbose and a good example of language being perverted in an attempt to include too many opinions. The following -

atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion of nonexistence

is a text book definition for agnosticism. I stick to Richard Dawkin's definition to be atheist you must believe that gods do not exist, or at least think thier existence is extremely unlikely. I acknowledge that sometimes aethism is used among the populace to describe "agnostic-like" beliefs. I suggest the following the rewrite.

Atheism is the position, doctrine or belief that a deity or deities do not exist. Atheism is sometimes used popularly to describe agnostic beliefs, or a simple absence of any belief regarding deities.

This proposal contains the same general idea, but is less wordy, and more clearly states that main definition for Atheism is "no God". NickCT (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we have to go for all THREE definitions that are found in the literature - for all the reasons stated above.--JimWae (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with JimWae that we should (in some manner) spell out the three definitions, and I dislike "position, doctrine or belief". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why "the position that there are no deities" over "the position that no deities exist", etc.

@Trypto: In brief, to avoid using the same exact phrase twice in two consecutive sentences. I do not see any diff in meaning, do you?--JimWae (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I missed that before. Although, if we follow what I raised about the second sentence, that might change. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

@Trypto: Why not just "the rejection of belief in any deities" - because "I don't believe in Zimmerman" does not mean "I don't believe Zimmerman exists"--JimWae (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That argument, I don't buy. Since, here, we are talking about definition "2", the plain meaning of "I don't believe in (whatever)" is what applies. "I don't believe (whatever) exists" is what definition "1" is about, and is what definition "2" is independent (or whatever) of. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

@Trypto: Why not "regardless of any assertion about the existence of deities"? Because an assertion that deities DID exist would be an "assertion about the existence of deities"... "assertion about the non-existence of deities" might work, but why?--JimWae (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, not buying it. Seems to be arguing about how many non-existent angels can dance on the head of a non-existent pin. Assertions about the existence of deities end up also being assertions about their non-existence. Overly slavish attention to unnatural meanings of the sentence, at the expense of being readable for the general reader. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please consider my response again, then tell me why "any assertion about the existence of deities" is better than my last proposal. F-K says the change would actually raise the readability grade--JimWae (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's actually not a huge issue with me. But "regardless of whether any assertion is made that no deities exist" strikes me as convoluted and wordy. Scjessey's "with or without an assertion of nonexistence" struck me as somewhat better in that regard, and I thought "regardless of any assertion about the existence of deities" was maybe better still as well as being a compromise between those two. I could live with changing "existence" to "nonexistence", although it still strikes me as pedantic. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Why not "with or without an assertion of nonexistence". Not completely a problem, but 1>though most people would "get it", whose nonexistence?, and 2> "assertion of nonexistence" just seems convoluted, and was removed from the narrowest def a while back for that reason, I think.--JimWae (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I just came across your interesting conversation (by serendipity rather than divine intervention) and thought I'd butt in. The evasive "satisfactory" definition seems to be snagged on an inaccurate use of terms; that's surely a problem of language rather than logic. Belief is belief - it doesn't require a burden of evidence, whether positive (in support) or negative (in denial). Likewise, we may think of ideas as ideas, not objects but in some cultures and belief systems, deity is intrinsic to its cult-object - be that a stone, tree, volcano, horse or whatever. In such a case, deity has form - its "existence" as deity is demonstrable and incontrovertible to one who believes it to be a deity. To many ancient, non-Christian Romans, Christians were simultaneously superstitious (irrational, obsessive and awestruck) and atheistic (they did not acknowledge the gods of Rome, who resided in cities, temples and statues - an "inner and personal" deity who was somehow "other" than oneself would have seemed preposterous).

"Belief in" always has an object of attachment. You cannot rationalise ideas out of existence, you can only contend with them. So perhaps the subject here is really a stubbornly Judaeo-Christian mindset in modern disguise - belief vs non-belief, real vs unreal; for which reason, terms like existence and non-existence keep popping up in a framework of logic. It ain't logic, it's a form of theology and Dawkins, admirable though he be, is no more a theologist than I am.

"Why not just "the rejection of belief in any deities" - because "I don't believe in Zimmerman" does not mean "I don't believe Zimmerman exists"" JimWae has it right here, I think. Anyway, I'll stop wittering and bugger off now. Regards Haploidavey (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

@Jimwae- Re I think we have to go for all THREE definitions that are found in the literature - for all the reasons stated above. I think that by far the predominate definition for athiesm is the position, doctrine or belief that a deity or deities do not exist. I thought the rewrite I offered made it clear that this was the case, while pointing out that other definitions existed. I think taking the time to spell out each definition in detail (as in Scjessey 13:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)) gives the minor definitions undue weight, and simply confuses the lead. As I said ealier, we are going to sacrifice readability and clarity in an attempt to be overly-inclusiveness. We're over-thinking this one.NickCT (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, perhaps it is worth reiterating that we shouldn't be defining the term atheism so much as summarizing the body of the article. Strict definitions are for the Wiktionary, where the different flavors of atheism can be defined in order of importance. In fact, perhaps we should be thinking in terms of something ambiguous like "Atheism encompasses positions and philosophies generally opposed or indifferent to the existence of deities," and let the body of the article get into the nitty gritty. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

@Scjessey - I think that the first couple lines of most wikipedia articles (or any encyclopedic article) are usually de facto definitions (as currently is true for this article). I think you're right about having to go ambiguous to reach consensus. I'd accept "Atheism encompasses positions, philosophies and doctrines generally opposed to the existence of a deity or deities". I still think "indifference to the existence..." better defines agnosticism. NickCT (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a pattern that these discussions circle back on themselves. As we consider shorter and simpler leads (which I like, by the way), please scroll back up to the top of #On definition: part 3 and note the discussion between me and JokerXtreme about now-archived talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) - I think atheism and agnosticism have a fair amount of overlap. Before we think about specific language (I just threw that idea into my last comment without giving it much thought) it might be a good idea to see if the other participants in this discussion are in favor of this ambiguous approach. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

@Scj - Agreed on both accounts. Agnosticism and atheism do overlap somewhat, but I think from a simple look through dictionaries that athiesm is a rejection of the idea of god, while agnosticism is a rejection of the belief in the idea of god.

What do other editors think about this language? "Atheism encompasses positions, philosophies and doctrines generally opposed to the existence of a deity or deities".

@Trypt - Agreed. This is circular. Frankly at this point I think we just have to generate several options and sea which one can gain enough support to be called "consensus". NickCT (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I beleive "the position that no deities exist" uses the "passive voice", whereas ""the position that there are no deities" uses the "active voice". The active voice is generally preferred. Unless you are trying to draw attention / place burden on the subject. In this case said subject would be "deities", the implication being that it is they who are responsible for "not existing" - and this doesn't seem to accurately portray the typical atheist position. The position is more accurately that it is our minds that are responsible for imagining them. (well, not all of our minds do this.) I.e. i believe the active voice should be used. Kevin Baas^talk 20:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

---

There are many problems with the Nick's proposal & I am busy with other thing for a little while, but will be back soon. In brief, the consensus for 2 or 3 years has been to present all 3 defs in the first paragraph & it is in that manner that the article achieved FA status. This discussion is the very reason I still prefer something along the lines of:

Atheism, according to the narrowest of three definitions in the literature, is the position that there are no deities.[1] More broadly defined, atheism is rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist.[2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

I also happen to think that one def is clearly the best, and that one is clearly "out to lunch", but personal opinions do not matter here. This is wikipedia & talk page history demonstrates that consensus will never allow endorsement of one single def -- nor even that one is indeed "most common".

I'd rather avoid a lengthy discussion of agnosticism, as it really does not matter to the lede if the definitions overlap. However, I will say that the rejection def is most definitely NOT a text-book definition of agnosticism. Text book defs of agnosticism focus on statements about knowledge, NOT about belief. What does distinguish agnosticism from rejection atheism, however, (and there are numerous sources to support this) is that agnostics (under a 2nd def of agnosticism) do not reject belief - they suspend it (unless of course they happen to be agnostic theists)..--JimWae (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Princeton definition for agnostic - a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist). Saying one "cannot have true knowledge" equates to saying "anyone who believes to have true knowledge of God is incorrect" which equates to a rejection of belief. Is this definition wrong in your mind Jim? NickCT (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

1: The definition is fine - but your interpretation has problems. "Believing something exists" does not EQUATE to "believing one knows something exists".

2: Also: That def does not mean that agnostics reject belief that deities exist. One can reject belief without denying that it might be true. I reject belief in UFOs, but I do not deny there might be UFOs. --JimWae (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

3: However, this discussion is best left to the agnosticism article - it does not matter to the lede if the defs overlap - but putting agnosticism (a topic upon which there is also no agreed SINGLE def, and perhaps even greater confusion) at the top of the article would be a disservice to the reader--JimWae (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

4:PS: note that the word "belief" appears nowhere in the Princeton def.--JimWae (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Break within a break

Suggestion, trying as best I can to digest all the above:

Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities.[1] A broader definition is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that deities do not exist,[2] while the broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Our 2 proposals are remarkably similar, the major (but not only) difference being the number of sentences. Can you tall me why using 2 sentences is better than three? I think I have already expressed above at least one reason why I think 3 is better than 2.--JimWae (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm glad you see them as so similar, because I'm trying to move in that direction. My reasoning for 2 sentences is taking into consideration what some of the other editors have said: that a shorter, simpler lead sounds less academic and less verbose. I'm trying to craft consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities.[1] More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist.[2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

has an even lower word count, has simpler sentence construction (without any simple sentences), and has a much easier readability score. The point about being "too academic" (horrors!) was, I think, applied to any overt mention that we had actually consulted the literature, but would also apply to readability levels ;) I think we are both trying to craft consensus, yes? --JimWae (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities.[1] More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist[2], while the broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

How about a compromise? :P I composed this out of both of your suggestions to include what I think each suggestions has to offer. Trypto, by saying that "A broader definition is the rejection", it's like trying to find a definition of the "definition" word, not the definition of atheism.--JokerXtreme (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Throw in a comma after the [2] and you've got yourself a deal. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed--JokerXtreme (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ewww, yuck. Jim's version is much better than the commafest. Three sentences for three definitions. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

@JimWae - 1. "Believing something exists" does not EQUATE to "believing one knows something exists". This seems to me to be somekind of doublethink. How are "The X exists" and "I know the X exists" different statements? 2. I reject belief in UFOs, but I do not deny there might be UFOs This is exactly my point. That is classic agnosticism, and that is what your atheism lead is defining atheism as! 3. As to there being no clear definition to agnosticism, I think what is clear is how agnosticism differs from atheism. The proposed lead muddies that difference.

@everyone - More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist. This is still a textbook definition for agnosticism (see my post NickCT (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC) ), and I would strongly suggest it either be excluded or marginalized. NickCT (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced on the "textbook agnosticism" statement, because there are many different versions of agnosticism. As I read it, the second definition supports a statement like: "I don't know or I don't care about the existence of deities, but I choose not to believe in them anyway." In contrast, an agnostic is more likely to say something like: "I don't have any proof of the existence or nonexistence of deities, so the question of belief seems moot." -- Scjessey (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

@Scjessey - Interesting read. Always nice to hear your interpretations. I think I read it slightly different. I see "rejection of belief" as meaning someone thinks "believing in dieties is wrong", which is similar to the textbook agnosticism which claims that people "cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God ".

If I could offer three examples of potential beliefs 1. There is no God (I think we all agree this is atheism)2. I don't know/don't care whether there is a God so I don't believe(I don't know what you call this... weak atheism?) 3. People can't know if there is a God, but I acknowledge the possibility (this is definitely agnosticism). It seems to me "More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist." falls under the third definition, and hence I call again for its exclusion. NickCT (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. It would be so much easier to call for the exclusion of religion! I'm just not interpreting these in the same way as you. I do see three distinct flavors of atheism:

1. "I don't believe in the existence of deities." - Atheism with an actual conviction (explicit, strong).
2. "I don't believe in deities, whether or not they exist." - Again, an actual conviction, despite no assertion of existence/nonexistence (explicit, weak, agnostic atheism).
3. "Deities? Never 'eard of 'em." - No conviction, no knowledge or no opinion of existence/nonexistence (implicit, weak).

In contrast, agnostics have heard of deities (like "1" or "2"), but they have no belief conviction because they have no proof of existence/nonexistence. The exception (as noted in "2") is "agnostic atheism". -- Scjessey (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

1. "I don't believe in deities, whether or not they exist." I guess you could call this "agnostic atheism", but agnosticism more says "Believing in deities is wrong, because it is impossible to have insight in deities, whether or not they exist". Do you see how those are different?

Now, tell me, under which definition does "A broader definition is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that deities do not exist" fit? NickCT (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand your question. Under what definition does that definition fit? Eh? Huh? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather than repeat what I said yesterday, I will confine myself to these comments:

1. No "text-book definition" of agnosticism as "rejection of belief" has yet been offered, only someone's personal interpretation.
2. Even if one were found, it would not affect the lede, as the rejection def is a current, well-sourced def of atheism.
3. English is not a technical language in which every word has a distinct meaning.
4. There is nothing in the logic of the language that would make it "semantically odd" to be both an atheist and an agnostic, nor both a theist and an agnostic.
5. "wrong" is being used nebulously.
6. Most of this discussion belongs at Talk:Agnosticism.--JimWae (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I support the last version of the text that you came up with. I suggest you go ahead and boldly stick it in. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A big "No!" to being bold in this particular case. Why are there italics in that version? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, are we converging in a definition? Personally, I'm more inclined towards a 2 sentence definition. The flow is better.--JokerXtreme (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with JokerXtreme, both on the flow, and on the convergence towards agreement. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this desire to bundle two definitions together into one sentence. It makes much more sense to break them out into separate sentences, and it also makes it tidier when you add the references in. There is nothing I hate more than a mid-sentence reference (except maybe the Dallas Cowboys). -- Scjessey (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I think we are getting very close to an agreed-upon version. In the 3 sentence version, the 1st sentence is 12 words, the 2nd 24, and the 3rd 14. All 3 sentences are complex sentences, the 2nd being the most complex. By combining the 2 longest sentences (one of them also being the most complex) together, we

1> need to add a word to the paragraph,

2> form a double complex-compound sentence,

3> decrease the readability ease by 3 to 6 grade levels, and

4> require that footnotes break up sentences.

These are objective measures. "Flow" is an objective measure only in the sense that topics "flow" together with less pauses -- 2 sentences "flowing" to become 1. Whether this makes the flow "better" or not is not objective. Yes, I understand the 2 sentence proposed lede perfectly well, but will a college freshman or high school senior understand it the first time through? (As I recall, it was opinions about flow & readability that gave us the 2 sentences of the present lede & why "theism" has survived so long in it.) The only objective measure we have for this are the readability scores. The F-K reading level of the 2 separate sentences is grade 12.4 and 11.7, of the combined sentence grade 19.2. The lede is supposed to be the most accessible part of the article (though grade 7.1 for the current lede paragraph is an example of misleading readability ease). If the above 4 reasons for having 3 sentences are not decisive enough, here's another concern:

5> What will happen to the clarity of a 2 sentence lede as it gets modified in the next few months? Having 3 sentences safeguards the clarity of the lede more than having 2 sentences does.

If all these 5 reasons were presented BEFORE anyone saw the 2 paragraphs, which would appear to be ahead?--JimWae (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

---

So it appears that if we were to have to decide which version based on a vote, it would be 3 to 2 for one version over the other. However, I have tried my best above to persuade people that the 3 sentence version has numerous advantages, but have received no reply yet. I do not know how to interpret this. Are we going to have to vote, or are there more reasons to be discussed, or are people willing to accept the 3 sentence version & prepared to let me go ahead and make the edit? --JimWae (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I think that the stats that Word generates are not very reliable. I don't think that a machine, lacking any real intelligence, can produce results of any real significance, solely by running some simple algorithms. The one extra word is really negligible, I don't think it really is that big of a deal. I don't think that it adds to the complexity either. They are still two distinct definitions but they are just connected with a word that actually makes the whole lede "sound" better. I don't know how to put this in terms of linguistics, but I'm quite sure that there is some sort of academic definition for this "flow". Maybe something measurable as well. The footnotes breaking up the sentence, is something I don't like either, but it's quite common in wikipedia and published papers.

Other than that, I don't really mind all that much about which version will be used, as long as we finally reach to a consensus.--JokerXtreme (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that we have total agreement on the substance of what next to change the lede to, and the only sticking point is over style. Btw, I did a human calculation of the F-K grade levels & the outcome is even more telling against the double complex-compound sentence, bringing the grade level up to 20.8 - way beyond the Harvard Law Review. Word can count the # of sentences & # words fine, but it does not count syllables as we do. Apparently it counted a-the-is-m as just 2 syllables, and de-it-ies also as only 2. You can see more details at: User:JimWae/2or3sentences. If there is no objection raised within the next day, I plan to go ahead and make the edit. --JimWae (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, go ahead. Maybe put something there to warn people to discuss changes first. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The 3-sentence version is the only one that makes any sense to me. I would fully support that change. Either change is an improvement on what we have though. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've stayed out of this for a while, because I also think we agree on the substance, and it's coming down to style. Personally, I think all this stuff about calculating grade level is utter nonsense, and I continue to prefer the flow of two sentences. Our readers are human beings, not computers. But, it's not worth arguing about. I also support the change, with three sentences, albeit with a preference for two sentences. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made the change to the 1st paragraph. I want to express my appreciation to all who participated in the discussion for the very congenial & collegial manner in which the discussion was carried out. If anyone can think of a better way to format the footnotes for the absence def, please express it. Cheers - JimW --JimWae (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's just hope now that someone won't change it unilaterally :)--JokerXtreme (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This entire section will get archived as one chunk, so it will be easy to point to in any future disputes. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks good! (In fact, looking at it on the page, I no longer think there is any flow problem at all!) Thanks all. I added back the same blue links that were there before, so I hope that's OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Agnosticism issues

@Scjessey-Isn't there value in succinctness?

@ JimWae - Please see the following -

agnosticism - the view that absolute truth or ultimate certainty is unattainable en.wiktionary.org/wiki/agnosticism

a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Someone who claims that they do not know or are unable to know whether God exists www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml

The mental attitude denying the possibility of the real knowledge of truth and hence of the ultimate or fundamental nature of the universe www.theosociety.org/pasadena/etgloss/adi-ag.htm

agnosticism - [from Greek a not + gnostos known] The mental attitude denying the possibility of the real knowledge of truth and hence of the ultimate or fundamental nature of the universe. www.theosociety.org/pasadena/etgloss/adi-ag.htm

Now after this. Are you going to argue that agnostics don't reject belief in deities because they think the idea is unprovable?

More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist. Nobody has explained to me how this does not meet the definition of agnosticism. I'm still against it's inclusion. NickCT (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Still not a single mention of belief anywhere in these refs. Just because one part of the definition matches somewhat does not mean it all does -- and please see my 6 points above again, none of which you responded to--JimWae (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude... Quit hiding behind semantics.. To know or think god exists is to believe in god. NickCT (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, when we are discussing the meaning of words, we better pay attention to semantics. Maybe you meant I shouldn't hide behind logic, as in: "A implies B" does not mean "not A implies not B". However, using know and think and believe and believe you know all as (near?) synonyms appears to be the main source of your confusion.--JimWae (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

To paraphrase what I believe JimWae is saying, an agnostic would be equivocable to a "weak atheist" if everyone always abided by rational thought's principle of parsimony and scientific thought's falsifiability clause. Personally, I immediately equate the two. My logic goes: "If one cannot have knowledge (not to be confused with "belief" or what have you) about it, then, by definition, it does not exist." But I can recognize that not everyone thinks like this, and I would venture that no ("cannot-know") agnostic does. For any ("cannot-know") agnostic who did would ipso-facto be an aetheist. Kevin Baas^talk 16:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Point is that some people believe that the mental distinction between "(not) being able to know of a thing" and "a thing (not) existing" is not purely cognitive, but actually exists naturally as well. Whereas some people equate the two ("A thing that is unknowable is, for all practical purposes, simply not there."). And regardless ofhow we feel about either position, we should strive to accurately portray both.

@Baas - Thanks for a well put point. If I could try and paraphrase your point, you're saying that "weak atheism" might encapsulate agnosticism, but that we should differentiate the two? So, would you be against the More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist. language? NickCT (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the last part (the "with or without...") I think it is unneccesary and confusing (and debatable). Difficult nuances are better left to be fleshed out in the body. As it stands, without that part the sentence is still correct no matter which side of the fence you're on. I think the last part should be omitted. Kevin Baas^talk 16:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Btw, I do not think anyone disputes that the broadest def includes ALL agnostics - yet I see no objection from you about it. Aside from that, you still have not responded to a single point I made--JimWae (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wae - I think the problem I have is specificly with the "rejection of belief" langage, as that seems to me to be too close a definition of agnosticism. For the sake of simplicity/readability, and for the sake of not being over encompassing, cannot we not pare down your proposal?

As to the points you've made, when you start saying things like "believing in something is not the same as having belief in something" my brain starts to throb a little. Apologies. NickCT (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

One is the passive voice, the other is the active voice. And in french, "I'm hungry." is instead "I have hunger." (something like "J'ai faime.") Kevin Baas^talk 16:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ummm ok. But if you read above Wae is insisting that there is sort of logical disparity between "having hunger" and "being hungry". Active or passive, they essentially mean the same thing. NickCT (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Before this section gets archived, I want to make it clear that nowhere on this page (nor anywhere else) did I ever "start saying things like 'believing in something is not the same as having belief in something' ". A search of this page will show that "having belief in" appears only when signed by Nick or when someone else quotes him. At first, I thought this remark might be some kind of joke, but I see others took it seriously. Btw, the grammatical term Kevin seems to be looking for is intransitive verb, not passive voice.--JimWae (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

---

• (After edit conflict) Nevertheless, I will try to un-mire this discussion a bit: Many people are confused about the relationships between proof, knowledge & belief.

  1> Some people claim that unless something can be proven, it cannot be known. This is not how humans use these words. It is a perfectly acceptable usage of "know" to say "I know I drove on the highway today" without being able to prove it.

  2>Some people claim that unless we know something, we are not "rationally permitted" (whatever that may mean) to believe it. Again, it is perfectly acceptable to say "I believe I will be able to climb to the top of this mountain", without knowing that one will not die before it could happen. Furthermore, if we claim to know something, it would be an understatement to say we believe it. If we think we know something (like "2+2=4" or "my name is Jim"), there is no need to claim it as a belief.--JimWae (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps later I will try to deal with some of the confusion above regarding "I know X" and "I believe I know X"--JimWae (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• I just did a search for "believing in something" on this page. There are only 2 instances - yours & some other guy that is not me, so I am unable to relieve your headache regarding that. --JimWae (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• "having belief in" is only yours, btw ;) --JimWae (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jim. I think I get your point. But let me ask you this; if you meet someone who says to you "I believe in God", does the word "believe" have the same meaning as in the sentence "I believe I can climb this mountain". The former seems to be an "assertion" about the nature of the universe, the latter a "guess-timate" of one's ability. One does "believe" in God in the same way that one "believes" one can climb a mountain!

Anyway Jim, I do appreciate your point, and I think it has some value; however, if we have to have arguements this extensive about something's meaning, do you think the average reader is going to have much chance of interpretting the wording correctly? I'm really leaning towards much more simple, and perhaps slightly more vague wording. NickCT (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• All the more reason to have 3 sentences instead of 2, and to italicize belief. As for your other points, see the earliest points in the above 6 points, & mention of the 2 to 3 year consensus & FA status & MOS:BEGIN. --JimWae (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• If I say "I reject belief in X", one should not assume that I am rejecting it for everyone. I am clearly rejecting it for myself, but beyond that, one should not presume more. Perhaps someone has actually been on flying saucer - for that person it is not irrational to believe in UFOs. But when I consider it, all I see is charlatanry. I reject a lot of conspiracy theories (some as more ridiculous than others), but I cannot reject them for the (perhaps marginally not insane) person who might someday present strong evidence to have actually been the one to shoot JFK or set up explosives at the World Trade Center. --JimWae (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• No reliably-sourced definition has yet been found of "agnosticism" that includes "rejection of belief". The only articles I have found that came close to (but did not) include the word "belief" in the def used the phrase "suspension of belief". When one suspends belief, one leaves it for further consideration later. Rejection atheists see no point in considering it further - though they might still be willing to discuss it with others.--JimWae (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• My point about belief, knowledge & proof does not hang on whether or not there are different "categories of belief". I simply am pointing out that the words "knowledge" & "belief" have different meanings -- & that a definition of agnosticism in terms of lack of knowledge cannot be turned into a definition that equates "no knowledge" with "no belief" & tells us what we are "not allowed to" believe--JimWae (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

New lede

I just want to register my complaint with the new lede. I'm not going to bother rehashing the same old points, but needless to say I think the new wording is hopelessly complex, verbose, and over-inclusive. I'm not going to suggest a rewrite as I feel consensus moving against me on this matter, and I don't want to be stick-in-the-mud; however, I think this lede is a good example of something that could be explained in a relatively concise manner being distorted and perverted by somewhat pointless philosophical debates among editors who aren't qualified to offer opinions of this nature. Let's remember, Wikipedia should be written to inform the naive reader. I can't imagine a naive reader would be anything but confused when presented with this lede. Poor showing ladies. Poor show. NickCT (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I see three easy-to-read sentences that neatly encapsulate the three main definitions of atheism. In that respect, I am completely happy with the result. My only concern is that the lede is meant to be a summary of the body, and right now there is something of a disconnect with what is actually said in the article. That's partly inevitable because atheism is an extraordinarily nuanced and complex topic that is hard to summarize succinctly. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Rejection of belief in dieties. As a popular webcomic once said: "Maybe you just suck at wording things." Kevin Baas^talk 15:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we may have to agree to disagree Scjessey. I don't understand how one could see this lede as clear and concise. It reads like the worst kind of technical jargon. NickCT (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with your agreement to disagree on the basis that agreement founded in disagreement is rarely agreeable and mostly disagreeable to the point of being agreeably disagreeable. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I see..... Well... It's my opinion that when two people look at something and one says "it's an apple" and the other "it's an orange", you're rarely going to arrive at a consensus opinion through didactic debate. You're saying the lede is clear, I'm saying it's anything but.

Anyway Scj, I've been fairly impressed by most of your other posts. I think however you might be well advised to study the kiss maxim. NickCT (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I'm totally on board with your opinion that the first paragraph must be as succinct and unambiguous as possible. It's just that I've been involved in the crafting of those definitions for years (off and on) and this is the first time I've seen it in such a form that seems to be all things to all people. Granted it has come at the expense of a little verbosity, but I think it is a price worth paying. Anyway, I'm sorry my agreeable/disagreeable joke fell like the proverbial lead balloon. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Just for shits and giggles, but primarily as a conversation starter, the lede from simple.wp reads as follows:

Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities (God or gods).[1][2] It is the opposite of theism, which is the belief that there is at least one deity. A person who rejects the belief in deities is called an atheist. Atheism is not the same as agnosticism. Agnostics say that there is no way to know whether gods exist or not, but they may (or may not) still believe in one or more gods.[3]

Is there something we can work from here? Throwaway85 (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that is SO much better than our lede! Can we just use that? Kevin Baas^talk 15:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced that version is even accurate. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The question is not whether it's accurate, but whether it's verifiable. Kevin Baas^talk 15:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The definition provided by Throwaway85 illustrates nicely the point I've been trying to drive away at. I think it is both accurate and verifiable, and I think it deliniates agnosticism and athiesm, wheareas the current lead confuses them. With that said, I'd like to say I would be moderately opposesd at using this wording verbatum in the lede. I think it would be equivelent to the Christanity lede reading "Christanity is the belief in the divinity of Christ. It is different than Juadism, which believes much the same stuff but doesn't acknowledge the divinity of Christ."

My point is that a lede should not define something by defining what it's not (if that makes sense). NickCT (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's not too important to me either way, but just to note: comparing and contrasting can be a very effective way of defining something. Arguably more sensible than trying to say what it is without making any external references. (i.e. what is orange? the color between red and yellow.) Kevin Baas^talk 16:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was about to post some snarky reply about how sarcasm hurts people's feelings, but I can't do that now, can I Nick? Anyways, to all of the fanatical devotees of the simple version, I offered it as a counterpoint, something of a foil to help cut down on verbosity while maintaining content. I'm truly ecstatic it was so well received ;) Throwaway85 (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The simple version (using "simple" in multiple meanings of the word!) is dreadful, and much inferior to what we recently worked out on the page. As noted already, it's more of a comparison than an introduction. Also, calling it the opposite of theism raises all kinds of problems (see the origins of the word). And need I point out that other wikis are not reliable sources? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

need I point out that's a straw man - nobody has even remotely implied that other wikis were. Kevin Baas^talk 16:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I guess you needed to point it out to me, my bad! :-) Anyway, let's focus on discussing actual editing to the page (WP:NOTFORUM). --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I do see the issues with calling it the opposite of theism. I see how that part could "strain accuracy". I would argue that that part be the most open to revision. But the rest of it seems fine. And as I mentioned above, I don't really see a problem with definition by comparison, and it certainly has its practical/pedagogical merits. Particularly in this case, it clears up any confusion between atheism and agnosticism, which helps greatly to refine the definition. Kevin Baas^talk 16:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm still a little skeptical about "definition by comparison". I don't think it's encyclopedic; however, given how much I dislike the current lede, I mostly support Baas's sentiments. NickCT (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I said it's definitely not a deal-stopper to me. Part of my concern (that i hadn't mentioned) is that without those last two sentences, it would seem a bit short. Kevin Baas^talk 17:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh and here's a better way of explaining the advantage: i think it covers' JimWae's concerns about the broadness of the definition, without making it overly verbose and complex. Sometimes its easier and more effective to define by subtracting one thing than it is to define by adding a whole bunch of things. Kevin Baas^talk 17:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If, then, it is the case that we are actually considering this for the page, then I oppose it for the reasons I stated before. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a support-oppose thing or an all-or-nothing thing for that matter. I think the question is what can we take from it to make our lede better? Kevin Baas^talk 18:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to resubmit a slightly altered version of my previous submission

Atheism is the position, doctrine or belief that a deity or deities do not exist. Atheism may also refer to the lack of any position or belief regarding the existence of deities

It's pretty simple, and is inline with Webster/Oxfrod English/Princeton definitions.... I don't mind if other editors want to shoot this down, but please produce counter proposals that try to address the growing concern regarding the excessive complexity of the current lede. NickCT (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any "growing concern". I see repeated attempts by the same 1 or 2 people with a non-standard definition of agnosticism to dump one of the definitions in order to disallow by wiki-fiat the explicit overlap inherent in agnostic atheism, (yet, curiously, retaining the implicit overlap within the absence def). The lede has presented all 3 defs for nearly 3 years, and it is in that form that it achieved FA status. If we are going to start dumping defs the lede will never be stable, as every dump will attract its proponents to present their latest & greatest "true" definition of atheism. That said, I would not be opposed to adding the following to the current lede paragraph:

Atheism is distinguished from theism, which is the belief that at least one deity exists. Atheism and agnosticism are also often distinguished, though there are opposing views regarding whether it is possible to be an agnostic atheist.--JimWae (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any "growing concern" either. We are talking about three simple sentences, none of which are complex. All flavors of atheism supported by reliable sources should be present in that first paragraph of the lede, or none of them. We should certainly not exclude a branch of atheism simply because it overlaps with agnosticism. A significant number of people fall into this category. I would, however, suggest that atheism can actually be expressed as a single sentence by referring to the common element: Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. All versions of atheism have this common element, so it could (in theory) be used in place of the current first paragraph; however, I prefer to see the current version that elaborates upon this somewhat. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

@NickCT: the last sentence should go. whether atheism and not agnosticism is the "default position" or even if its conceptually accurate to categorize the "default position" is a point which there is not agreement on, as pointed out in the body of the article. For wikipedia to pick a side would be, well, we're not supposed to do that.

@Scjessey: Complexity is not an innate property of individual things, it's what you get sometimes when you put those things together. In this case, the three sentences together create complexity. Now you might think otherwise, but the fact that multiple people find it overly complex proves de facto that multiple people find it overly complex. Which is, of course, and as you yourself tacitly acknowledge, problematic.

Now if we are to present your "flavors" of aetheism, i.e. the different sentences you found in different sources describing atheism, well if you really consider all these definitions distinct (and they are not), then it is proper to attribute them in the text. e.g. "britannica online says atheism is ...., whereas compton's encyclopedia says atheism is ...." Secondly, the "more broadly" and "broadest" are original research and the whole thing is synthesis. Who says that this definition is "broader" than the other? What source? And how can you say that the definitions are related in such a way? Kevin Baas^talk 15:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

For the very good reasons expressed by JimWae and Scjessey, I see no reason for the over-simplified change. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

tryptofish - what are said reasons, and how can reasons make one not see other reasons (or make other reasons disappear)? i'm not sure I'm understanding you. I see JimWae's argument that applies just as well to every word of every article on wikipedia, basically saying that we shouldn't edit any article ever. I see scjessey saying he prefers the current version, but i don't see him pointing out anything wrong with the current proposals. and many reasons have been given and repeated why the current version can be improved upon. It's hard for me to believe that you can't "see" them. "Overly complex." <- do you see that? What about the reasons I stated just above (e.g. WP:OR)? Kevin Baas^talk

What I'm trying to say is to have three scholarly statements, supported by scholarly sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

All statements on wikipedia are "scholarly statements, supported by scholarly sources". That goes without saying. So what you're trying to say is that the lede should have three sentences? I'm fine with that. Kevin Baas^talk 17:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm and playing with words are not helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't playing with words, I was using their straightforward definitions. But forgive me if I offended. What I mean to say is that I still don't see what you are trying to say. If you mean they should all be from encyclopedias or all from things published by prestiguous universities or something like that, then I really see no reason why we should so arbitrarily limit ourselves only to end up with a lede that's not as good as it could be had we more sources to choose from. And I can't think of any argument to support that and see none being made. So my best guess fails me here. Hence I'm left with "three sentences". Kevin Baas^talk 18:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

@Baas & Scj ", the three sentences together create complexity." Hear hear!! Scj - Respectfully, I think your " three simple sentences" position is indefensible.

@Baas Re "the last sentence should go" - Yeah, I think you're right. I thought this would be sorta a compromise between what exists now and what we were proposing. NickCT (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I am simply not seeing where the complexity is, but I am happy to accept that some of you are seeing it. Ultimately, complexity always arises when simple things are combined so I don't see that as a problem. Anyway, if it's such a big deal, why not go with my other suggestion?

Atheism is a lack of belief in deities.

This can be elaborated upon by pushing a variation of the three sentences into a separate paragraph immediately after. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. It just needs a few more sentences to make a paragraph. So we've got to come to some sort of agreement on what they should be. But I still think there are innate OR, SYNTH, NPOV, and presentation/attribution problems with the other three sentences to be pushed to another paragraph, as I elaborated on above. Kevin Baas^talk 17:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And come to think of it, your proposed definition might be too inclusive. It can be construed to include agnosticism and "flavors" of atheism of which there is not general agreement whether they constitute atheism. Note the first paragraph of the section "Definitions and distinctions":

Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism,[26] contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. A variety of categories have been proposed to try to distinguish the different forms of atheism.

Kevin Baas^talk 18:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) - I think synth concerns arise from the need for brevity. This need is effectively nullified if these three sentences are not going to be the opening paragraph. Bear in mind, however, that synthesis of a sort is common in the WP:LEDE of most Wikipedia articles because it is meant to be a summary of the body. Wikipedians must be careful to make sure the lede doesn't contain anything that isn't explicitly substantiated in the body, but a certain amount of "patchwork" is more or less expected for the sake of brevity. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern about being too inclusive; however, I wrote it that way to explicitly avoid this problem. All atheists lack a belief in deities, but not all people without a belief in deities are atheists. Consider the difference between these two:

• Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. (proposed)
• Atheism is the lack of belief in deities.

As you can see, the latter example is more inclusive because it would contain all positions (including agnosticism). By saying "a lack" instead of "the lack", I hoped to make it clear that this was merely a particular subset of the latter. I am willing to concede that this distinction might be too subtle, but it may be possible to qualify it with additional text. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya but you're using the word "is" which is like saying "equal to", and equivalence is bijective. Kevin Baas^talk 18:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm at a loss then. One version is "too complex" and the other is "too inclusive", yet I feel the other options proffered recently are too exclusive. I'm thinking of running a hot bath and opening my veins. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

breaky-break

I'm not sure we're ever going to get something that's perfect in regard exclusivity/inclusivity/complexity. But perhaps at this point, at least, we can take a step back and see what we got so far and the pros/cons of each. Feel free, ofcourse, to fix up your position below (or add one), and i'm sorry if i misrepresented it. Just if you do keep it very brief like a phrase, please. and if i missed any proposals feel free to add them, ofcourse.:

1. Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities.[1] More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist.[2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] - current lede
   • nickCT - too complex
   • kevin baas - same
2. Atheism is distinguished from theism, which is the belief that at least one deity exists. Atheism and agnosticism are also often distinguished, though there are opposing views regarding whether it is possible to be an agnostic atheist. --JimWae (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC) duplicate (my bad) Kevin Baas^talk 20:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities (God or gods).[1][2] It is the opposite of theism, which is the belief that there is at least one deity. A person who rejects the belief in deities is called an atheist. Atheism is not the same as agnosticism. Agnostics say that there is no way to know whether gods exist or not, but they may (or may not) still believe in one or more gods.[3] -wikipedia simple english version
   • scjessey - concerned about accuracy, most notably "opposite of theism"
   • kevin baas - same
   • nickCT - too much definition by comparison
   • typtofish - same
4. Atheism is the position, doctrine or belief that a deity or deities do not exist. Atheism may also refer to the lack of any position or belief regarding the existence of deities -NickCT
   • jimwae- not sure i understand his position here
   • kevin baas - last sentence is controversial
   • scjessey - too exclusive
5. append to the current lead: Atheism is distinguished from theism, which is the belief that at least one deity exists. Atheism and agnosticism are also often distinguished, though there are opposing views regarding whether it is possible to be an agnostic atheist. -jimwae
6. Atheism is a lack of belief in dieties. -Scjessey
   • kevin baas - too inclusive
7. Atheism is too awesome to be defined by mere mortals. Only a deity could perform such a feat. Oh wait...

Kevin Baas^talk 19:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with option 4 (obviously), and the first 2 (maybe 3) sentences of option 3. Regarding option 1, I think it is too complex and to inclusive.NickCT (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be good with 3 if the opposite thing were fixed up. I think just changing "the opposite of" to "distinct from" would do fine in that regard. Option 4 if the last sentence were maybe attributed or something like "Some writers consider ..." it could work. Kevin Baas^talk 20:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Re option 4; I agree Baas. How about "The term atheism is sometimes used to refer to"? That way we acknowledge the common usage, without taking a position on whether it is accurate? NickCT (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That would work for me. Kevin Baas^talk 20:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Atheism is the position, doctrine or belief that a deity or deities do not exist. Atheism is also sometimes used to describe a lack of any position or belief regarding the existence of deities

Slight rewording. Is the second sentence tentative and neutral enough for you to support Baas? NickCT (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

yep. Kevin Baas^talk 14:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sjcessey what do you say? Its got the "lack of...belief..." wording in there. And I think the "Sometimes used to describe a" solves the is/a/the problem we discussed earlier. Kevin Baas^talk 14:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not happy with it, personally. I especially dislike the second sentence with its use of "sometimes" and I'm not sure the demographics support the primacy of the first sentence. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to ask the editors proposing these changes a question about sourcing: where, exactly, would you place the inline citations, and what are the references to which they would lead? I think that answering that question would be helpful in evaluating the ideas here. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Trypto. You're right. Let me take a look at that when I get a second. I don't think we're introducing new ideas here, so, I'm guessing the same sources should provide adequate cover. NickCT (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) I don't think that's a problem for any of the proposals. Nobody is saying anything radical here, it's all common knowledge and as such it's commonly written down, and therefore there will be plenty of sources. And in fact I'm sure the sources in the current lede would do just fine for any proposed here. We can worry about the details after we settle on a wording. Right now, as you can see, it's difficult enough. There's no need and nothing to be gained by unnecessarily burdening the process. But I think you're right in that looking at how other resources have addressed the issues we are facing can help provide inspiration. Kevin Baas^talk 15:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

With respect to sourcing, I think it would nice to move away from references in the lede. As long as the lede is fully backed up by referenced material in the body, references in the lede can be omitted. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/ Baas and Scjessey. It would seem the statements in the lede are so fundemental and basic that sourcing is less of an issue. NickCT (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ouchy-ouch! Seriously? Discussing having an unsourced lead? No way will that ever get consensus that will last more than a few days. I raised the question because I had a strong feeling that the editors are engaging in OR and had not really come to terms with sourcing the language. The response: first saying the existing sources could be made to work just fine, which is not true and suggests the sources weren't even read, and then saying let's just not bother with that pesky verifiability stuff, confirms my fears. Do some research, or expect to be shot down. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as Scjessey alluded to, it's pretty standard -- see WP:LEAD#Citations. Kevin Baas^talk 20:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. See WP:LEADCITE. It depends on the subject matter. And this subject matter will require more than just the personal opinions and syntheses of a few editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) I assure you nobody is injecting their personal opinions into the lede. In fact our penchant for nit-picking the lead until it hasn't even a hint of opinion is what's proving the greater obstacle. And if our number seems too few, well, you're welcome to join us. Now if you want to challenge any specific aspect of any given proposal, jump right in (that's what we've been doing this whole time.) And if you don't believe what someone has to say i'm sure they'll either back it up or stand down. But like I said that's not how one writes. One reads, comprehends, writes, refines. It's in that last step that all the facts are double-checked. If you reverse the order you introduce all sorts of procedural problems. And sorry, that's not going to happen. But if you have a little faith and patience you'll see how it all works out and I think you'll be satisfied with the results. And if not, hey, that's why it's the last step! Kevin Baas^talk 20:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And keep in mind we're not changing the meaning of anything (except perchance by mistake, in which case we correct each other), we are trying to settle on the best wording of information that's already fully cited in the article. And unless you want this article to be just a big mosaic of copyright violations, that's what we have to do, regardless. Kevin Baas^talk 21:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, how about just a few modifications to the current lede:

Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities. More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist. A broader The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist, with or without an explicit rejection of theism.

At this point another sentence or two could be added. But I think those changes make it simpler without changing the meaning. Kevin Baas^talk 18:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Baas - I like my first line better. Seems to say the same thing in clearer language. Can I propose

Atheism is the position, doctrine or belief that a deity or deities do not exist. A broader definition of atheism may include the absence of a belief or position regarding the existence of dieties, with or without explicit rejection of theism.

NickCT (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't responded. I'm curious what scjessey and/or others have to say here. I'm guessing he'd say something to the effect that it give the first definition unwarranted primacy. (In which case, I'd put my support behind that.) And I think it might be better at this point to start simpler w/fewer changes and see if we can get some kind of agreement there. Kevin Baas^talk 21:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Another break

Less than a week ago we had 5 people agree to the change to the current lede, with 2 other people expressing concerns. One of the reasons for changing to the current lede was to discontinue saddling one of the definitions with the ambiguous term "theism". Though Nick initially said on Feb 1 that he would not suggest a rewrite, we now have seen several proposals. The first proposal asked us to dump the definition given by such respected sources as Encyclopedia Britannica, and The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (accompanied by some strange comments about Being and Time and other things) in favour of an original synthesis with no refs. Now we are instead being asked again to mash two defs up against each other into one original synthesis in which the rejection def is unrecognizable & is again saddled with the term "theism" -- all the while being asked to trust that "the refs will be found".

Earlier, we have heard from the proposer of the latest version that the simple-wiki definition, which included only the rejection def, was better than the current lede. Now he is proposing a statement that buries that definition in an oversimplification.

Both Kevin & Nick seem to be primarily concerned that the rejection definition sounds too close to agnosticism. I must point out again that if a person has a very unusual definition of agnosticism (and knowledge & belief) and argues that "saying one cannot have true knowledge equates to... rejection of belief", it is no wonder that one tends to conflate the rejection def with agnosticism. But that is not the normal meaning of these words.

I agree that the lede and the article could do more to distinguish atheism from agnosticism. That is a hot topic indeed. At the least we could say, that there are opposing views regarding whether one can be an agnostic atheist or not. WP:NPOV probably requires that we say it. I think working on how to say this will be more productive than removing 3 clear and well-sourced definitions from the lede.

The classifications of atheism into "explicit strong", "explicit weak", and "implicit weak atheism" are a solid part of the article and rest on the 3 separate definitions of atheism. There is no consensus that there is anything wrong with the first 3 sentences of the present lede. The latest proposal is an unsourced original oversimplification - its first contentious & unsourced definition is endorsed by the style of its second sentence, which also buries the 2 other defs in a mass of unpacked words. Since Jan 15 there have been nearly 500 edits to this page, nearly all dealing with the first paragraph. Probably over 85% of all edits ever made to the talk page deal with the first paragraph. If the article is going to use 3 defs for atheism (and there really is just no alternative to doing so), it should give each def its separate statement in the lede as clearly as possible, initially neither hampering nor endorsing any one. The latest proposals, while trying to settle on a single def of atheism, tend towards greater obscurity on all 3 defs, not greater clarity. --JimWae (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the long thought out response. I do have to say firstly that you seem to have miconstrued my opinion (and NickCT's a well) - or maybe simply mistyped? - we have not said that rejection can be confused with agnoticim. we have said that certain wordings that include non-rejection (weak atheism) can be contrued as also including agnosticism proper. You said "less than a week ago we had..." well now's our chance to improve those numbers. Now the problem with the current lead - which has been stated ad nasuem by the way - i that it is confusing. I've come to the conclusion that it's jsut the second sentence that is causing the confusion. it reads like an exact replica of the first with only a few minor grammatical differences (such as passive vs active voice) (that's what the reference to being and time was all about) yet the WP:OR / WP:SYNTH in the paragraph (another objection that has been clearly stated btw) is calling it a "broader" definition. Now a simpler solution especially given that we have an even "broader" def. is to remove that sentence and just have the narrowest and broadest. The whole spectrum inbetween is implied. And on another note I've already mentioned how I feel about turning this article into a compendium of quotes from other encyclopedias. but to say it more broadly (and less politely - forgive me) I strongly feel that it way over-reaching/over-extending to the point of perversion and dysfunction. As to the last sentiment you expressed I fail to see how simplification can obfuscate. And finally - like it or not - we are trying to work together on improving the article. if you would like to join us with some constructive comments you are more than welcome to. For instance If you don't like "thesim" suggest changing it to something else or simply say "i don't like the use of "theism" in the sentence there." (I specifically made that variation to see how people felt about that possibility - but was not expecting such an aggressive response.) Kevin Baas^talk 15:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Re "Though Nick initially said on Feb 1 that he would not suggest a rewrite" - As I explained on Fed 1, I said that because I seemed to be alone in my concerns. I did not want to press my point because no one else seemed to agree me. Since then, that's changed, and hence my call the fix the lede is renewed.

Re "The latest proposal is an unsourced original oversimplification" - I'm amazed that you'd say this as 1) Wording is taken nearly verbatum from either the previous lede, or dictionaries, and 2) We're simply rehashing the same information offered in the current lede, while making the definition slightly less inclusive.

Re "removing 3 clear and well-sourced definitions " - Whether they are clear or not is POV.

Re "trying to work together on improving the article" - Hear hear. Seriously Wae. You seem solely concerned with preserving your wording. If you like, please offer proposals that address our concern regarding the second line of the current lede; otherwise don't stonewall. NickCT (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it stonewalling, to insist on WP:V. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The current version is not the only possible combination of words that doesn't violate WP:V. And as by now has been reiterated on numerous occasions by numerous editors, there is no WP:V issue here. Kevin Baas^talk 15:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the suggested removal of the second definition, the first two definitions are not the same because rejection of belief does not have to be negation of that belief. For instance, in the literature, atheism can include pragmatic atheists, those that treat theism (and the arguments for and against it) as unimportant or irrelevant. They might also be agnostics that are rejecting theists, perhaps in perpetuity, unless some savior shows up at their doorsteps. On the other side, many theists claim to know their personal God through personal revelations that can make external debate of the matter mute. In any case, many dictionaries define atheism with the term "disbelief" which, because of its ambiguity, happens to be more inclusive than the more explicit denial definition, and yet even it's use is not nearly as broad as the highly notable absence of belief definition.--Modocc (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"pragmatic atheists" are either "secular"s or parsimonious atheists by a different name (perchance they think it might be more convincing to theists). i could go on about all the different subtleties brought up by your response (for instance, an atheist would not be turned by a "savior" showing up at their door, and as you said "they might also be agnostics ..." (ahem), and "knowing their personal God through personal revelations" does not can make external debate of the matter mute, and nobody is entitled (as far as the weight of an argument in a rational debate is concerned) to such a solipsistic abomination of logic) - but that's kind of the point: that I could go on, that anyone could go on. and there would be much dispute and wrangling over all the different subtleties, because, as it says in the definition section, there is not agreement on them.

But back to the proposed wording - (and thanks for the feedback) - Whether or not the second sentence is a distinct idea from the first, or even if it makes any sense (esp. given the second part of it in relation to the first), is "moot" since it is included in the third, broader definition. And thus the first and the last definitions combined make the proposal no less inclusive and no more exclusive than the original. And certainly, less confusing. And I don't to see any reason why that middle definition in particular deserves mention in the lead paragraph on its own merits. That's kind of my reasoning for the revision. I know some people might not like it as much as the original, but I think we can get a larger consensus with this version. Kevin Baas^talk 21:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

My point about the theist was that there is typically no debate with the believer that has privileged knowledge or experiences (which is not necessarily solipsistic either since actual nonspiritual experiences can also be very unique to an individual too). All three definitions are notable and none can be meaningfully combined. To follow you on this, if the narrower definition is actually included in the broadest definition somehow (which I doubt), then perhaps the narrowest definition is included in it too. So we eliminate it also for being "included" and only state the broadest. And I end up being sarcastic. ;( The second definition stands alone and it is less inclusive than the last which includes babies and less exclusive than the first which includes only strong atheism. --Modocc (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to contest that the second sentence's definition is wrong. Yes it could technically be true; yes, technically there could be overlap between agnosticism and atheism; yes, it may be reliably sourced. But frankly, the lede should be a short definition, that encapsulates as percisely possible the meaning of article's subject for a niave reader. Fundementally, atheism means you don't believe in God. The lede should state as much, and naunces (such as "not all atheists necessarily say God does not exist") should be left till later in the article. @ Modocc - I fear your understanding of this subject is too great, and your argument too esoterric to be useful in making the lede. NickCT (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What he said. Kevin Baas^talk 19:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

breakdown - venn diagram - of theism / agnosticism / aetheism

since i can't actually draw a venn diagram here:

• undefined
  • no knowledge of diety concept - it is improper to categorize this further because all categories are equally valid and invalid
  • does not worship a diety/dieties

• agnostic
  • knowledge of diety concept
  • "on the fence" with regards diety concept
    • "i do not know / have not decided" (existential)
      • "it cannot be known / determined" (universal)
  • does not worship a diety/dieties

• atheist
  • knowledge of diety concept
  • rejection of diety concept (existential IS universal)
    • "dieties do not exist" (universal)
      • parsimony
        • "it cannot be known / determined, therefore it does not exist" (universal - parsimonious)
        • "agnostic atheism"
      • falsifiability
      • empirical
      • etc.
      • any combination of the above
  • does not worship a diety/dieties

• theist
  • knowledge of diety concept
    • belief in diety concept (existential IS universal)
      • "dieties do exist" (universal)
        • does not worship a diety/dieties
        • worships a diety/dieties
        • "agnostic theism" - a diety exists i just don't know about it.
    • theism by deference "i do not know / have not decided, therefore take the "safe" route" (existential)
      • worships a diety/dieties (with questionable sincerity)

neccessary axioms (constraints):

• position of belief / lack thereof requires knowledge of the concept
• worship requires belief in diety concept
• agnosticism cannot accept or reject deity concept
• theism must accept diety concept
• atheism must not be theism or agnosticism (ergo must reject diety concept)
• universal statements must subsume existential ones (basic first-order logic)

give me a "subtlety" and i'll categorize it. or show me why my system is wrong and i'll defend it.

Kevin Baas^talk 16:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Kevin. I agree w/ 90% of this, but I fail to see the point. Are you supporting or critizing the lede?

The 10% I'd disagree with is your so called existential vs. universal agnostic. I think traditional "agnosticism" refers only to what you are calling universal agnostics. NickCT (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the lede should be made simpler. Specifically, we should do away with the Being and Time stuff. But my point here is that before we figure out how to represent the scope of atheism we should first come to some kind of formally rigorous understanding of what that is. And this is an attempt to do so. (and your 10% i have no qualm with - that might more properly go in an "undecided" category.) Kevin Baas^talk 18:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is not for us to decide what atheism is with respect to this article. We cannot go down the path of synthesis and original research just because reconciling the differences between definitions from reliable sources is difficult. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that we do that. I am simply suggesting we get our head on straight before writing. Lest we write something like "2+2=4. And 2+2=5". Striving to use grammar properly and write a logically consistent article is not synthesis or original research, it is due diligence. Now if we would write something in the article that could not be attributed to a source, or take a side in a conflict rather than presenting both sides, attributed (e.g. so-and-so says such-and-such, whereas him-and-her say this-and-that") that would be synth/or. Now it is in the nature of writing that we organize and present ideas related to a subject matter. whether we do so deliberately or haphazardly is the only real choice here. Kevin Baas^talk 19:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

@Kevin - Agree with "away with the Being and Time stuff"

@Scj - Re "all things to all people". I think it is too many things too many people. Some of the things are a little dubious, and some of the people a little more so. NickCT (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The diagram above is confusing at best, contradictory at worse, and it is definitely incomplete. It excludes the broadest definition of atheism, which happens to include the "undefined" portion too. In addition, the outline includes agnostic atheism and agnostic theism, yet concludes that agnosticism actually does not entail either, while assuming that the agnostic's default position is nonbelief. All that said, I do think the agnostic position is best left addressed on the agnosticism page and there are already appropriate references to it in the body of this article.--Modocc (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I'm sure it is incomplete. (i would never expect any logical set description to be anywhere near complete. that would be - illogical.) you say it is "contradictory" at worst - could you give any specifics on this? The broadest definition of agnosticism, and i imagine as well, atheism, includes "undefined", so i can't very well put it in any without thereby making the diagram "contradictory". also notice, that the "agnostic theism" and "atheism" are in the "theism" and "atheism" categories, respectively, so whether "agnosticism" has any quality or not is irrelevant w/respect to them; they are not part of that category. (their names might be a little deceptive, but notice "reddish brown" is brown, not red. likewise "agnostic theism" is theism.) It does not characterize an agnostic's default position as nonbelief. it simply says that an agnostic does not worship a diety. worshiping a diety is uniquely a theistic. The reason that agnosticism and theism are included in the diagram is that in order to clearly and accurately define it, we must be congnizant and accurate about what distinguishes it from - and where it is distinct from - theism and agnosticism. And this, ofcourse, requires that we include a detailed portrait of those categories in our diagram. Ofcourse we shouldn't expect to define them nearly as well as their respective pages, but hopefully well enough to better understand where atheism ends and another begins. Kevin Baas^talk 21:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

---

someone once asked me what the point of this section was - in different words - I think Modocc's comment helps to illustrate it: we all have slightly different ideas on what atheism is and how to define and categorize it. This was kind of meant as a conversation starter to help bring those ideas into focus and refine them while getting us working on more-or-less the same page (even if the words on that page are different to each of us). It's a complex topics and it's helpful to be able to talk bout it's particulars without talking past each other. Kevin Baas^talk 21:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Conversation on this matter seems to have petered out. Can repropose the text below in the hopes that the previous opponents out there are no longer listening?

Atheism is the position, doctrine or belief that a deity or deities do not exist. Atheism is also sometimes used to describe a lack of any position or belief regarding the existence of deities

Any objections? NickCT (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong objections for all the reasons already covered --JimWae (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Me too, I'm afraid. Jim's arguments and proposals have seemed consistently appropriate to me. I prefer the more inclusive and nuanced descriptors we have discussed. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok well.... The current lede is poorly written, and overly inclusive. Apparently the couple editors concerned with this article don't support rectifying the issue. The more I navigate wikipedia, the more the lack of English majors involved in editing disturbs me. NickCT (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with JimWae and Scjessey. And my academic credentials are probably better than those of editors who are incivil. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I lack any meaningful academic credentials to bring to bear on this problem, but I remain convinced that my general awesomeness more than makes up for this lack. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

@Trypt - I guarentee I've met people with academic credentials that far outstrip yours who can't write for buttkiss.

@Scj - You are generally awesome. Your sense of concision excluded..... NickCT (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who is quite lacking in awesomeness, I at least know how to spell "guarantee". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

-sob- Touche.... NickCT (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: tag added by NickCT

You are entitled to your opinion, Nick, but your reasons for objecting to the rejection def have been remarkably confused and unsupported. Despite your claims otherwise, you have yet to supply a definition of agnosticism that even includes the word "belief" - no less "rejection of belief". The tag you added to the first paragraph is very non-specific - both with regard to the reason and the target. Is your problem with the last sentence? The other sentences are in as full compliance as possible with WP:MOS and MOS:BEGIN (as previously discussed) for a term about which there is no agreed definition. If your problem is simply with the last sentence (which was never my first choice), there is a simple solution with minimal change. (I must note, however, that your proposed way to include "lack" of belief, using describe would easily merit the tag you have applied.) --JimWae (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are what I see as the relevant sections of MOS:BEGIN

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

--JimWae (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jim - As you're aware my debate is more with the 2nd sentence than the last (though ultimately I think the whole thing could use rewording). I moved the tag to clarify.

Regarding - (supply a definition of agnosticism that even includes the word "belief") - The free dictionary def of agnostism "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God". Frankly, if you don't understnad how "it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist" my be construed to incorporate the definition of agnosticism I think you are simply closing your eyes to the obvious.

Regarding - (relevant sections of MOS:BEGIN) - Thanks for pointing this out. Frankly I think this lede contrevenes ALL THREE of those guidelines!

As to where to go from here, I really don't think we're going to find consensus. I suggest the lede stay as it is with the def tag until we get some opinions from fresh eyes. If a couple of editors who haven't weighed in on this discussion yet tell me to do so, I will remove the tag. If on the other hand they say my point has merit, let's consider removing the second sentence. Agreed?

Re (remarkably confused and unsupported). Yo momma is remarkable confused on unsupported.NickCT (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Your tag makes no sense at all there. The definition is right there. More later--JimWae (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The tag is meant to imply that this wording has to be revised for MoS guidelines. Is there a tag out there that read (clarity) rather than (when defined as)? NickCT (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the "complicated jargon" label. It seems clear to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Scj. You're well aware of how I feel about your ability to judge concision. But regardless, can we not agree that if several editors have commented on it being wordy the tag is admissable? NickCT (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really, no. And respectfully, if you are saying I have an inability to judge concision, I could retort by saying you have an ability to read plain language. I would prefer that we don't go down that road. I see no difficulty with the wording, and I think tagging it as you have is just a teeny bit inflammatory. You are trying to advocate your less inclusive description by attacking the language of the more inclusive description. Play fair, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe his point was that there clearly isn't consensus that the current wording is clear and concise. A fact which you are aware of. In fact, there is substantive concern. And in the midst of such concern it is helpful and appropriate to draw an audience to help resolve it. And that is exactly what tags are for. Hence, the use of a tag in this instance is perfectly appropriate and suited to the occasion. Kevin Baas^talk 17:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Scj, let me clarify by saying that I think your inability to judge concision arises from the great amount of thought you've put towards this matter and your great learnedness in general (the same might said for Trypt and Jim). In this sense, please take my earlier comment as a complement (all be it backhanded), and not an insult.

I think the word I'm searching for is "esoterric". The average reader who has not put allot of thought into this matter, and who is not generally learned will find the tagged material confusing. This is my sincere belief. Yes perhaps the tagging was "a teeny bit inflammatory", but if you think my earlier statement has any merit, the tag is justified. Additionally, as the matter was an issue of much debate, I think the tag is further justified to indicate some contention surrounding the sentence.

On the otherhand, I recognize and respect the will of majority. If you remove the tag, I will not edit war. NickCT (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What I'm about to say is no big deal, but I'd just like to clarify where I'm coming from. I'm motivated not so much from any kind of immersion in scholarly literature (unless you consider neuroscience), but from immersion in this talk page and its many, many archives. I myself started out in this talk proposing one sentence for the lead, on exactly the basis of wanting to use lucid, reader-friendly language. But what followed was a lot of talk from other editors that persuaded me that the "3 part" approach that has had consensus was in fact more intellectually rigorous. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Trypto, thanks for clarification. I think that it helpfully points to the crux of the arguement. Let me say this in response. I feel a concise decent lede is preferable to a verbose "intellectually rigorous" one. I think my POV would be supported by Wikipedia:MoS. NickCT (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

onward!

Ok, I'm not satisfied with the amount of feedback I've gotten on this proposal:

Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities. More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist. A broader The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist, with or without an explicit rejection of theism belief in deities.

I think just nick and jim chimed n. and jim appears to have since retracted his objection that for some reason there must be three sentences/definitions in the lead. ("If your problem is simply with the last sentence (which was never my first choice), there is a simple solution with minimal change.") Kevin Baas^talk 14:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

once again, Kevin is jumping to a false conclusion. What part of "minimal change" suggests deletion of a sentence?--JimWae (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"once again"?! oh please, drop the theatrics! dropping the disputed sentence is THE simplest solution, and the change is minimal because it doesn't alter any of the meaning, definition, etc. That is THE occams razor solution. And it's rather direct in that sentence. If that's not what you meant to say, then you should have picked a phrasing that's not so popularly known to mean exactly that. And also then it is clearly non-obvious what said "simple solution with minimal change", ergo you shouldn't have been so implicit about it in the first place. Kevin Baas^talk 20:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

And furthermore, I haven't concluded anything. I deliberately said "...appears to have..." for no other reason than to not state conclusively. Kevin Baas^talk

Baas, your proposal has my unreserved support. NickCT (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, the "Rejection of belief" is a notable and referenced definition which is not addressed at all by your rewrite. The rejection definition is commonly used as an expansion of the first definition. The first definition of the current lede is sometimes given emphasis within the second definition. For instance, disbelief and denial are used separately in definitions, but are occasionally together as in "Disbelief, or denial, in the existence of a supreme being or beings". Disbelief, as I alluded to earlier, can have different connotations, meaning either to believe something is false, to doubt something is true, or to reject belief (for any number of reasons without necessarily believing the expert's jargon to be false). As JimWae pointed out sometime ago, disbelief rarely, if ever, means the absence of belief of an innocent. Thus, both the first and second definitions are notable and are usually separate from the absence definition. I also don't see that there is a particular need to bloat the less common broadest definition with these particulars, when it should be clear that all atheists have an absence of belief in deities. --Modocc (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: "Again, the "Rejection of belief" is a notable and referenced definition which is not addressed at all by your rewrite." "Rejection of belief" is explicitly addressed in the second sentence, where it says " A broader definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist, with or without an explicit rejection of belief in deities."

RE: bla bla bla. : great.

RE: "As JimWae pointed out sometime ago, disbelief rarely, if ever, means the absence of belief of an innocent." firstly, i don't know what an "innocent" is in his context and frankly, i don't want to. it's obvious that something like that doesn't belong in the lead so it's not relevant. secondly, disbelief logically implies absence of belief, quire regardless of what anybody has to say on the subject. and thirdly, i can't recall where jimwae has ever said anything like that, and frankly i don't really care. as before, it's not relevant: both the current lead and the proposed lead cover that whole spectrum as it applies to atheism.

RE: "Thus, both the first and second definitions are notable" -- WHOAA there! there is no axiom in logic that takes you from what came before the "Thus," to what came after. That was totally out of-the-blue.

RE: "I also don't see that there is a particular need to bloat the less common broadest definition" - BLOAT? we just removed a whole sentence, and you're crying "bloat"? You don't see the need? Please refer to your point #1: regarding addressing "rejecting of belief" and your point #2 regarding the difference between absence and rejection. That is the need. Notice with the removal of sentence two, those aspects are missing, unless the clause at the end of sentence two -- which is no less "bloat"ing of the second sentence as it would be on the third, shorter sentence -- is retained, presumably by moving it to the end of sentence three. Which, i repeat, is less of a "bloat" on the sentence than it was on the second sentence. Kevin Baas^talk 18:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Your second sentence is the broadest definition, not just "broader" and it does nothing to inform the reader that there is an explicit rejection definition. --Modocc (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is the broadest then it is therefore also broader than the first. If you prefer the wording "broadest" then I am fine with that. (though that's more of an absolute statement and thus has a higher burden of proof, which means it's treading further into OR/SYNTH territory, which is why i went with the weaker "broader")

taking a position is an explicit act. taking a "position that there are no deities." is an explicit rejection of the "position that there are deities". Thus, the first sentence "informs the reader that there is an explicit rejection definition". The second sentence also "informs the reader that there is an explicit rejection definition", by saying that it is a broader definition than the first in part because it does not require "an explicit rejection of belief in deities". And this further reinforces the meaning of the first sentence - the narrowest definition - as an explicit rejection. that's how you read plain english. Kevin Baas^talk 18:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Kudos to Baas for continued scholarly debate. NickCT (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I was not referring to the first definition, thus your very first sentence does not address my concern about dropping the second definition along with its references. That alone should be very obvious. Your second sentence alludes to the second broader definition while reinforcing the first, ignoring the actual context of aforementioned references and going off the deep end too. --Modocc (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You were referring to any definition that constitues an "explicit rejection" of sorts. I understand that you are concerned with dropping the second definition along with it's references. But you see the only solution to that is NOT dropping it, and we've already established that the paragraph is too confusing and needs to be more clear and concise. This neccessarily involves subtraction.

Now there are many, many definitions of atheism, not just three. and there isn't agreement in the literature which ones are really "applicable" or "valid" definitions. We can't include them all in the intro, and it's fairly obvious that we shouldn't. Fortunately we have a main body and, in this particular case, a definition section to go over all the nuances and different definitions.

Having said that, and given the many different definitions and the much high criteria of notability for the lead and the high priority put on simplicity given the purpose of the lead. It has yet to be demonstrated that any one definition is so much more notable than any others as to override the high priority on simplicity, and to be given an inordinate amount of weight as compared to any other (by being in the lead). Or as I have put it more succinctly before, "deserves mention in the lede on its own merits" -- that is, quite irrespective of anything that is discussed or not discussed in the lead.

Having said that there's no reason why we can't express common concepts / aspects of all the different definitions in respect of the summary style policy, and perhaps a few of their differences. Kevin Baas^talk 19:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nick, please look up "jargon" in some dictionary. While you are there look up "belief", "knowledge", and "agnosticism". Come back with a definitions that conflate knowledge with belief, or a def of agnosticism as rejection of belief & I might start to take your objections seriously. The only support I see for your objection is your own confusion. In this case I suggest that a proper response to "cognitive dissonance" is to re-evaluate your conceptual framework, not to say that there is no such thing as explicit weak atheism & that the way atheism is defined in some of the best reference works is "wrong". English is not a technical language & there can be an overlap between atheism & agnosticism (though one is not a subset of the other). --JimWae (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

He need not go through the trouble, he has used the terms correctly. If you have any doubt of this, I suggest you look them up to verify. But we should probably refrain from getting in the habit of bossing each other around. I believe simply supplying the definition from an online dictionary would be both more informative and more civil. As to "Come back with a definitions that conflate knowledge with belief, or a def of agnosticism as rejection of belief & I might start to take your objections seriously." : you need not look far for this, and if that all it takes, I'm sure he'd be willing to take you up on that. But, of course, I can't speak for him. As regard the "proper response" to cognitive dissonance, there is no "proper" response - as with most things, the best course of action depends on the particular circumstances. Kevin Baas^talk 19:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You two have been going on for over a month now about the rejection def being the same as the def of agnosticism, yet neither of you has produced any such def to support your claim. Yes, the 2nd def includes some agnostics (who are also atheists) who are not included by the 1st def. So what? English is not a technical language--JimWae (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

after edit conflict:That the 2nd def does NOT include ALL agnostics is enough indication that it is NOT the same as a def of agnosticism. ---JimWae (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how a) this is relevant, or b), the second part logically follows from the first. Kevin Baas^talk 20:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

-

(revised after ec) We are claiming that the lede paragraph is difficult to read. Or more precisely that some people find it too difficult to read. Our proof is that we find it difficult to read. That constitutes "some people". Q.E.D. This has already been acknolwedged, discussed, and accepted on more than one occasion as is obvious from the record. And if later on you come up with a similiarly specious argument it will provoke the same response. So please let's remain focused on improving the readability of the intro paragraph. Kevin Baas^talk 20:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You both have given several reasons why you oppose the rejection def, but mostly your comments here indicate it confuses you because you are misusing words like "knowledge" & "belief" & "agnosticism". --JimWae (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Jim - Your holier-than-thou tone is not constructive. I suggest you look for places we can agree, rather them simply rabbiting on about how "confused" we are. I think you might be a little 'confused' about the amount of respect that your view point deserves. Frankly Wae, if your arguement depends on the average reader appreciating the subtle differences between the phrases "I know God exists" and "I believe God exists", I think you are way way off-base. Please remember, not all wiki-readers (or editors for the matter) have advanced degrees in Philosophy. NickCT (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You guys are the ones who introduced your confusion as grounds for altering the article. Just because people sometimes use "I know X" to mean "I believe X so strongly that it must be true" does not mean the words have the same meaning in that or any another context. It does not follow from such a stretched usage of language that "rejection of claims that we can know that X exists" & "rejection of belief that X exists" are equatable.--JimWae (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Why yes, because of the "we can know" part: the former includes agnosticism, the latter does not. What's your point? And how does it relate to our concern (i.e. how is it not a non-sequitor?) Kevin Baas^talk 14:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't even recall stating any opposition to "the rejection def", nonetheless giving any reasons for doing so. Clearly there is a failure in communication here. And I completely agree with NickCT that you should watch your tone/attitude. Kevin Baas^talk 20:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

after 4 ecs: All I see are efforts to remove or marginalize the well-sourced rejection def. Where are your efforts to reword the 2nd def in its own sentence?--JimWae (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you need to look harder and drop the bad faith assumption. The only dropping of the 2nd def is from the latest proposal. All other proposals were attempts at rewording the existing content. Furthermore bear in mind that being well-sourced is not the only criteria something has to meet to be in the intro. There are TONS of things I could put in the intro that would be well-sourced. Kevin Baas^talk 20:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

JimWae, look. I'm not saying your reasoning is necessarily wrong, so I'm not going to argue the point. What I'm saying is that your reasoning is esoterric, and as it stands the average wikipedia reader might easily interpret that second sentence to include people who aren't really atheists in the classic sense. I don't know how to continue this debate, as we don't even seem to be inching towards consensus. It seems like it's either Jim's Wae or the highway....(waiting for laughs)....(no?).... ahhh well... I amuse myself. NickCT (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if the editors agreed among themselves who the "real atheists" are, and which is the "real definition" (which they have never), it's not up to wikipedia editors to decide which definition of atheism is "the real one" or who are "really atheists" (which would violate WP:NPOV). It is up to us to report what definitions exist among reliable sources (WP:RS), without synthesizing our own new one (WP:SYNTH). There are 3 distinct definitions found among reliable sources. To hide that fact by trying to synthesize two of the defs is not serving the reading public. If one (or more) of the defs requires some thought to be understood, well then we are providing what people turn to encyclopedias for - to have presented to them a comprehensive collection of what reliable, educated people are thinking on the topic at hand -- instead of simply confirming whatever preconceptions people might have.--JimWae (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Furthermore, encyclopedias are often somewhat verbose. A concise definition is nice to have it is available, but in this case it simply doesn't do the subject justice. If someone wants a concise definition, they can consult a dictionary. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is, yet again, that in an encyclopedia that kind of esoteric info goes in the body, not the first few sentences. You don't try to compress an entire article into 3 sentences. That's why you have the entire article. No encyclopedia is written like you are suggesting. If you can find one, show me. If not, then you clearly don't have a valid point. "If one (or more) of the defs requires some thought to be understood, well then we are providing what people turn to encyclopedias for" -yes, in the body of the article. That's how these things are written. That's how every wikipedia article - every encyclopedia article - is written. Kevin Baas^talk 13:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

And as I have already said, Jim, there are much more than 3 distinct definitions of aetheism, as the "definitions" section in the body of the article clearly shows. Kevin Baas^talk 13:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The worst thing you can do have an article on atheism with a first paragraph that effectively ignores an entire branch of atheism for the sake of concision. If we are having difficulty concisely expressing the three definitions, then we'll just have to use a few more words to do it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing an intro that does that. And there are much worse thing to do. But hyperbolic straw man argument noted. Kevin Baas^talk 14:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, the three definitions? Did you hear anything I just said? Why are we limiting ourselves to just these particular three? If the only reasonable solution to you is to add more words until it's clear, then how about we start it out like this?:

Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism, contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. A variety of categories have been proposed to try to distinguish the different forms of atheism.

Kevin Baas^talk 14:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

@Sjc - re "effectively ignores an entire branch of atheism for " - Christanity has many branches. Should they all be included in Christanity's lede? No, of course not. The lede for Christanity defines what makes all the branchs similar. The same ought to be true here. NickCT (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)