Talk:Atheism/Archive 45

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rejection of belief

This has come up a few times both in the archives and more recently. I suggest that we attack this head on by examining the sources which support this use.


This is what we seem to have at the moment:

Nielsen, Kai (2010). "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2010-02-01. "Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.... Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived)...".

Edwards, Paul (2005) [1967]. "Atheism". in Donald M. Borchert. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). MacMillan Reference USA (Gale). p. 359. ISBN 0028657802. "On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion.".(page 175 in 1967 edition)

Now at first blush this seems to be clearcut, we have 2 established encyclopedias stating clearly and unequivocally that Atheism is, or should be, understood as rejection of belief. The problem is that when you read the source articles (at least the freely available versions) their phrasing is a bit more guarded and circuitous: Routledge opens with: Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistance of god. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief. It does go on to describe positive atheism and negative atheism, but uses what is now known as Theological noncognitivism as its example. I would like to ask anyone who has access to the full text of this or a newer version to make it available for review.

Kai Nielsens article for Atheism in EB is no less guarded, a previous discussion on it can be found in the bowels of this. Here is what I believe is are representative quotes from that article which illustrate why confusion necessarily surrounds rejection as a meaningful, stand-alone definition:


Indeed, Nielsen does not seem to offer Rejection of belief as a stand-alone soundbite definition rather he states

Emphasis mine. Note that he has chosen to roll-up the common definition for atheism with Theological noncognitivism and poor debaters. I have great respect for EB and for Kai Nielsen in general, but this strikes me as a poor foundation for a 1 sentence definition, and should probably be saved for a fuller discussion in the article proper. Should we come to the conclusion that this deserves a place in the lede then I believe it needs to be couched as Kai Nielsen argues that .. Thank you for your thoughts on this matter. Unomi (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that very interesting analysis. In the last, lengthy quote from Nielsen, where he talks about "meaningless, unintelligible...", I remember very clearly from an earlier go-through of revising the lead that we considered for a while having a list similar to that as a way of clarifying the meaning of the "second" definition. In other words, these seem to me to be characteristics of, or reasons for, rejection of belief, rather than for positive assertions of nonexistence. I think, then, that there is still a case for the "second" definition in the lead here. On the other hand, your analysis actually makes me more inclined to want to delete the part about "with or without an assertion that deities do not exist". I say that because, not only is it wordy, but also it is unconvincing (at least to me, and even after all of the talk here) that someone who rejects belief while not taking a position as to nonexistence really fits with the definitions you have quoted here. It's more like, some atheists start by rejecting belief and go on to conclude that nonexistence is true or probable, whereas agnostics start by rejecting belief and go on to conclude that they have no position as to nonexistence. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I am an atheist and my reasoning went the other way around: I started from concluding that existence is false or highly improbable (or not meaningful), and went on to reject belief. (well, i didn't "start", there of course; the conclusion was quite near the end of the whole process.) I imagine this is the same for most atheists, whatever their specific lines of reasoning: i.e. - to put it in terms of a common expression - rejection of belief is the "cart", which necessarily comes after the horse. Kevin Baastalk 18:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Point taken. Actually, the chronological order was not really the point of what I said, and I think either chronological order remains consistent with the conclusion that I drew with respect to what the page should or should not say. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I am fine with removing 'with or without'. Unomi (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I'd have any objections to that either. Kevin Baastalk 19:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I will remove it and we can see if that inspires more input on the matter. Unomi (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We are now down to : Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

I am going to await the comments the edit on the page will doubtlessly inspire. I think though, before we make too many changes to the lede from this, that we attack the article proper and try to capture what these definitions actually mean :) Unomi (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree. It would be a good thing to move on from discussing the lead. There comes a point of diminishing returns. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
...Bursts out of high warp with running lights ablaze, enters standard orbit. - What did I miss? Oh dear. I think this is going to upset somebody. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I've come to peace with the "rejection of belief" language. Allow me to amuse myself with the following passage (this is more of a regurgitation of thought than any point I'm trying to make).
  • The Atheist 1 says - "There are no Gods"
  • The Atheist 2 says - "There is no reason to believe in Gods, whether or not they exist"
  • The Atheist 3 says - "Never really thought about it. No opinion on Gods"
  • The Agnostic says - "No way to know for certain if there are Gods, but believing or not believing is ok"
Ok. I'm on-board with the content. I still have a vague impression that minor rewording could add clarity. But I won't pursue this, as I agree it's probably time to move on. NickCT (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the person who says 'I don't believe in any god, but I know they exist' an atheist? Grassynoel (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No, but they are a liar. They might think, feel, or will them to exist, but without being able to cite any specific examples they cannot be said to "know" they exist, even in the most liberal use of the term. For example, if i put a pen in a bucket, i "know" that there is at least one pen in it. but if i do not, nor have i seen one, at best i "guess" or "feel" that there is one. if there is absolutely no casual connection, no chain of logic or events, that leads to a demonstrable fact, then by definition one does not "know". Kevin Baastalk 19:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary or encyclopedia?

Dictionaries define terms. That is, for a given term, one or more definitions are provided.

Encyclopedia have articles about topics. Topics have names. If multiple topics have the same name, then the names are disambiguated.

What is the topic of this article? The current lede,

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

reads like a dictionary definition camouflaged in paragraph form. Each definition of atheism is a separate topic and deserves its own article. Among those there may very well be a primary topic, and that is the one that should be at Atheism. Or, if there is no primary topic, then Atheism should be a dab page.

But combining all topics that happen to share the name "Atheism" into one article is very unencyclopedic. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The definitions are broadly similar and the larger problem is that the term is in practice often used ambiguously. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think having three separate articles would get unwieldy and confusing. A large proportion of the material would be appropriate for all three and would have to repeated, making maintenance difficult. More importantly, although atheism can be said to contain those three different 'flavours', I think in general and academic useage it's usually treated as a single topic with potential sub-topics, rather than three different topics. Splitting it would therefore violate the least surprise principle. Finally, when we read sources which mention atheism but don't explicitly say which of our definitions they mean, which of the three pages would we put them in? Olaf Davis (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
It has been a perennial problem with this lead (among many other perennial problems!) that it does, indeed, read like dictionary definitions. However, I also don't think the solution is to split the article. The lead, as a whole, and not just the first paragraph, is an attempt to do what a lead section should, to introduce the reader to the concepts that are explored in the remainder of the page. Unfortunately, I've seen no alternative to using the first paragraph of the lead to define the term. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Part of the problem is that the meaning of the term has evolved over time, and it now means different things to different people. The article attempts to explore all aspects of atheism, and the only way to adequately summarize this in the introduction of the article is by having the definitions as part of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As Scjessey correctly points out, the term has evolved over time, further, adoption of acceptance of such changed definitions are not universal. The problem with trying to come up with a succinct synopsis is that it makes it difficult to cover historical, niche and common definitions without giving undue weight. This is further made problematic as one of the niche definitions of Atheism 'Rejection of theism' is largely supported by Theological noncognitivism which is related but separate. Unomi (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

succinct synopsis, please

This might help move towards a less dictionary-like lead. Without using the term "atheism", let's see who can describe the topic of this article as succinctly as possible. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm 50/50 on changing the lede. Yes it certainly could be more succinct, but at the same time, it took copious debate to get this point. If we do change, might I suggest -
Think this covers all the three definitions currently offered. Whether you don't believe in dieties because 1) You don't think dieties exist or 2) You don't think evidence exists to believe or 3) You haven't really thought about it. NickCT (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


how's that for succinct? Kevin Baastalk 17:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I endorse Kevin's version, but we would have to have a 10,000-word footnote after it, discussing the meanings of "do" and "it". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget "just". I think that one is a little vague. NickCT (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Come to think of it, the sourcing for "just" is very flimsy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like "just" is going to be a source of contraversy. Can we drop it, to give ourselves "Atheism. Do it."? NickCT (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

a suggestion

I still think we should be able to come up with an umbrella statement that does not look like an amalgamation of disparate definitions. Expanding on Nick's suggestion above, how about something like this?

Atheism can be any doctrine, philosophy, belief system or position which lacks or rejects belief in deities, or holds that deities do not exist.

--Born2cycle (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, after all the joking above, I have to say: that strikes me as a very promising basis to work from. I think it may well be an improvement. Good! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Just kicking this around, how about boiling it down to:
Atheism is any position which rejects or does not include belief in deities, or holds that deities do not exist.
--Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not "any position which rejects or ... or ... " because some sources hold that the position which only lacks belief could be something different than atheism. --windyhead (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe Tiger Woods exists, but I do not believe in him.
Monotheism is a position that does not include belief in deities.
Anarchism is a position that does not include belief in the existence of deities. So is Darwinism, aestheticism, empiricism, pragmatism, and many other -isms. Capitalism and liberal legalism also do not include such belief, unless we mess around with what "include" means --JimWae (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, let's drop it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Double agreed. B2C's wording could be misconstrued. However, he is still right in saying we need something more concise. NickCT (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes what you want and what is possible are not the same thing. Atheism is a slippery term and I think we'll be hard pressed to boil it down any further than it currently is. --Dannyno (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Anything can be summed up in a single sentence. Sometimes you lose accuracy because you fail to note exceptions and nuances, but you gain concision. See for instance the opening of Chrstianity - "Christianity is a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament". Of course, this definition misses allot and probably doesn't cover ALL religous beliefs typically thought of as "Christianity", but in general it holds true. That is what a good opening sentence should be. NickCT (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
But this is an encyclopedia; therefore, we are looking to expose detail and be as accurate as possible. We should never sacrifice detail in favor of concision unless we are trying to address WP:WEIGHT concerns. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, we're not Twitterpedia; accuracy is the primary consideration, not length (although conciseness and avoiding verbosity are important secondary concerns). --Cybercobra (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

suggestion 2

I agree with the point that "belief in deities" is problematic. But does the following sacrifice detail or accuracy as compared to the current multi-sentence "definitiony" lead?

Atheism is any paradigm of the universe that does not include the existence of deities, or a position which rejects belief in the existence of deities, or holds that deities do not exist.

Current lead:

Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities

--Born2cycle (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I see two problems right away: science is a paradigm that does not include the existence of dieties, but it it not atheism. i'm sure there are other examples. in fact pretty much all paradigms probably fit that category. dieties don't make for very effective thinking tools. secondly, what, pray tell, is the difference between "rejects belief in the existence of x", and "holds that x does not exist"? 'cause the only difference i see, besides being two different ways to form a sentence, is that one usese the word "hold", and the other uses the word "belief". Kevin Baastalk 13:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Kevin, and particularly dislike the "paradigm" part. This really seems to me to be a step backward. Sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
@ Scj - "therefore, we are looking to expose detail and be as accurate as possible... never sacrifice detail for concision" - Dude, you are way off base. If we wanted to we could make an "Atheism" article 10 pages long with all sorts of notable details, but that is not what we should do. Wiki/Encyclopedic articles exist to offer brief, readable summaries of different topics without going into excrutiating detail. They do not exist to contain all information known to man.
Anyway, this discussion is about the lead, and the point is more this - As in any good essay/paper/article the first sentence should give a basic and general idea about what the rest of the article is about. At the moment, our first sentences read like somekind of legal document. I'd agree that these definitions should be in the article. I just don't think they should be here.
While I'd agree that B2C's suggested rewrite is a little off-the-mark, I still think the idea of coming up with a concise single sentence is a good one (as in Christianity). NickCT (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Even I agree the specific suggestion is off the mark, but I was hoping to inspire more suggestions for improvement than dead-end criticisms. I agree the goal of the lead should be a "concise single sentence" that gives "a basic and general idea about what the rest of the article is about". --Born2cycle (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
B2C, I think we are in agreement. To be frank though, I've battled here for so long, I'm losing motivation.... NickCT (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Have faith in the process. LOL. One big problem with the current wording is the "commonly defined" phrasing which suggest the article is about the word rather than what it means. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
After the change of paradigm to position, i like this best of the 5 suggestions. only thing thou is i would eliminate the second sentence as it is completely redundant. you already said that atheism rejects the idea of deities as real things. Kevin Baastalk 00:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 3

If you have an objections to this wording, please suggest an alternative to improve it rather than just criticizing it. Thanks.

Atheism is any view of all that exists that does not include the existence of deities, a position which rejects belief in the existence of deities, or holds that deities do not exist.

--Born2cycle (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that an appositive or a list of 3 alternatives? --Cybercobra (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
It's a list of alternatives, but now that you mention it, how about this?
Atheism is any view of all that exists that does not include deities. It includes the position which rejects belief in the existence of deities, and that which holds that deities do not exist.
--Born2cycle (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
"view of all that exists" - i.e. worldview? --Cybercobra (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes in the most general sense, but the term worldview may have too many connotations that do not apply. On the other hand, I think I'm okay with this:
Atheism is any worldview that does not include the existence of deities. It includes the position which rejects belief in the existence of deities, and that which holds that deities do not exist.
--Born2cycle (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
As noted earlier, there are all kinds of worldviews that do not include the existence. Very awkward: "does not include... It includes". My suggestion of something better: what we have now. There are a great many other pages that could also be improved. I really don't mean to be disrespectful, but this seems like a waste of effort. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/ Trypto regarding "awkward". Don't agree w/ "waste of effort". If we discontinue debate now, it will only resume in a couple weeks! How about,

This of course excludes the "3rd" potential meaning of atheism (i.e. "I don't believe in God, b/c I've never really thought about it"), but otherwise I think it's good. NickCT (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to try to capture that definition too. See below. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Tryptofish - The problem with the current version is that there is no single all-encompassing sentence, and the whole thing reads like a dictionary definition.

When you said, "there are all kinds of worldviews that do not include the existence", did you mean "there are all kinds of worldviews that do not include the existence of deities"? What worldview does not include the existence of deities that is not atheism? Anyway, "worldview" was not my idea... what about the original suggestion in this section? --Born2cycle (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What I was referring to in respect to "not including" was the previous talk (just scroll up) about how science etc etc etc are also worldviews-or-whatever that do not include religious belief. As previously noted, there are all kinds of things that "do not include" religious belief that are not atheism. As for worldview-versus-other word choices, I don't see anything offered so far as being better than just "position". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So if i say to Thor, "Thor, I think you're a failure.", that makes me an atheist? If not, what is it precisely about Thor that I don't believe? Kevin Baastalk 00:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 4

This latest suggestion tries to address all previously mentioned objections and reflects the fact that atheist redirects to this page.

Atheism is any view of all that exists which does not have actual deities. An atheist may reject belief in the existence of deities, hold that deities do not exist, or may simply not believe that deities exist.

--Born2cycle (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"view of all" just sounds unprofessional. I agree with Tryptofish that this is a fool's errand. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 5

Atheism is commonly used to denote a position which holds a particular belief system to be false.

Unomi (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Extremely vague. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, that is the short version :) But I don't think it is vague at all tbh, isn't that exactly what atheism is? Unomi (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Which belief system? Christians hold Buddhism to be false and Buddhism doesn't take a position on theism. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, good point how about this:

Atheism is used to denote a position which is incompatible with a particular religious doctrine. Unomi (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Which "particular religious doctrine"? Transubstantiation? We can keep playing whack-a-mole all week and I betcha we'll end up with nothing more than the currently used phrasing. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is certainly true that the Atheism label is purely subjective, historically it was used to denote people who didn't worship the Greek Gods. There isn't a devout whatever who isn't an atheist in some other devouts eyes. Historically it was just a label to put on someone who you felt acted improperly. I am actually not bothered about the current wording too much, but since people were putting suggestions out there, I felt I might as well join in. Unomi (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Observation 6

As I think about this thread, I am starting to (or maybe just remembering again to) realize that maybe the problem is the way the lead paragraph uses the word "definition". That does, I agree, make the lead sound more like a dictionary than an encyclopedia. So, I wonder whether, if we can fix that, does what remains actually work pretty well? In other words, I think having the opening three sentences discuss the three meanings of the concept of atheism, as opposed to the three definitions of the word atheism, might be what we really want. Could we, then, change "defined" in the first sentence, and "definition" in the third sentence, to another verb and noun, respectively (perhaps with some other accompanying word changes for syntax), to shift the emphasis from definition to meaning? Maybe "regarded" (or "understood"), and "meaning", respectively? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There are two issues, and you nailed one of them. Yes, the lead should discuss the three meanings of the concept of atheism, as opposed to the three definitions of the word. The second issue is with having the opening sentence introduce the concept of atheism in a manner which encompasses all meanings. --66.27.72.134 (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! As for the second issue you raised, doesn't the word "commonly" put that in context? And for the first sentence, which is better: "regarded" or "understood"? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The drawback of going with "meanings" is that the sentences then become about 3 meanings of the term rather than about the concept. WP:Lede advises that we define the topic. I do not see that such a change makes the 1st paragraph appear any less as (what some think of as - tho I disagree) a dictionary. Rather the opposite in my estimation: Dictionaries are about the usage of terms, whereas encyclopedias are about topics. While there is no agreed-upon single definition of atheism, the three are all related. "Bear" also has several meanings, but there is still a bear article on a single topic. Atheism does not need a disambiguation page for each "meaning" of the term. --JimWae (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Let's note that we are comparing "definition" with "meaning". To me, they are both about meanings: "definition" is how a dictionary presents a meaning, while "meaning" is an attribute of a concept. To me, they both pretty much mean the same thing, but getting away from "definition" makes the lead less dictionary-like. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Bear actually uses the verb "classify". Thankfully, it does not use "define", which I don't think I could bear. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
For reasons expressed above (including WP:Lede), I think it makes the lede less encyclopedic - especially (but not limited to) the use of "regarded". Nor does such a change advance the hope expressed by several (tho again , I disagree)): to reduce the number of "meanings". --JimWae (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I changed "regarded" to "described". I'm not trying to reduce the number. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
If we were talking about "the meaning of atheism" the article might resemble talk about "the meaning of The Scream". The new edit makes the paragraph more like the meaning of the term, rather than about "atheism" (which just happens to have 3 competing defs, [which result in 3 classifications of atheists]).--JimWae (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A definition defines one meaning of a term. This article is, or should be, about the concept of not believing in the existence of deities, most commonly referred to as atheism, which is why Atheism is the title of this article. In fact, how about this for the lead?

Atheism is not believing in the existence of deities. An atheist may reject belief in the existence of deities, hold that deities do not exist, or may simply not believe that deities exist.

This provides an all-encompassing general lead sentence, following by clarification presented in terms of "atheist". --Born2cycle (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

seriously folks

Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist.

Whether they "reject" the opposite belief, "hold" the belief, simply "have" the belief, or if we use the active voice and say simply "believe"... maybe they "sustain" the belief or "maintain" it?

Atheism is can mean one of a number of things: a) the rejection of belief in dieties, b) holding the belief that dieties do not exist, c) it can be used to describe those who have the belief that dieties do not exist, d) another definition says atheists maintain the belief that dieties do not exist, e) a broader definition is that atheists do not believe that dieties exist.

Seriously folks, enough w/the synonyms! Kevin Baastalk 13:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

??? Do you mean replacing the current lead paragraph with the sentence you have first? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I mean enough w/the synonyms, please. Kevin Baastalk 00:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Though not always apparent, there is a distinct logical difference between saying, for example, "I don't believe in Thor" and "I believe Thor doesn't exist". The latter represents a deeper conviction on the part of the speaker. --King Öomie 19:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
by a trick of semantics only. the former could mean "I don't believe in Thor's existence." or "I don't believe in what Thor has to say.", or their capabilities, or what-have-you. as one would say "i believe in you.", one is not commented on one's existence. but unless you mean to suggest that that is the sense meant in the phrase "i don't believe in god." as it pertains to atheism, then it is merely a truncation of "I don't believe in god's existence.", which is, of course, logically identical to "i don't believe that god exists." Kevin Baastalk 00:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
It's more than just a semantic difference. The statement "I don't believe in god's existence" equates to "I am not a theist." There are, of course, different types of nontheists. Weak atheists (and most agnostics) are neither theists or strong atheists. Weak atheists "don't believe in god's existence" and they don't assert god's nonexistence, as in "I believe god doesn't exist." Having absolutely no faith in theists' claims and thus not believing in their claims does not equate with strong atheism. --Modocc (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
that's all fine and dandy, but I wasn't comparing asserting non-existence with not asserting existence. Kevin Baastalk 12:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Glad you are fine with all that. I suppose you concur with Kings main point then which was that, semantics aside, his statements about Thor are logically different. Oh, and I can't follow up on this further right now, cause I am taking a break for a few days. Later... --Modocc (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

full-development

In the 'Anthropocentric arguments' section the phrase 'full-development' links to the article on Nietzsche's Übermensch. The sentence it is in only refers to Marx, Freud, and Sartre. It would be a good idea to link to a more appropriate article on 'full-development'. It isn't a phrase I've seen in Nietzsche studies, and I'm assuming it is relevant to one of the other thinkers mentioned. It isn't appropriate to Nietzsche because of his emphasis on continual self-transcendence, which precludes the possibility of becoming 'fully developed' - that implies a final form. (I don't think he went much for a 'higher absolute' either, unless you think of the will to power that way.) Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

interesting. I think Nietzsche predates all of them. And I'm pretty sure Sartre read him, would fathom that freud did (a lot of his ideas seem stolen from him), and i'd fathom a guess that marx did. so that might very well be the original. though we'd probably be better off w/a source that could verify that or more academic and to the point of what was said in the sentence. Kevin Baastalk 17:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I've unlinked it.
Freud commented on Nietzsche's impressive self-knowledge after attending a public reading, but Marx and Nietzsche didn't show much interest in each other's work, IIRC. Don't know about Sartre, but you're probably right. In any case, I don't think the Ubermensch idea fits very well with constructive atheism as discussed in that para, and I couldn't find an article on 'full-development' to link to instead. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

I'm surprised this article isn't "Semi-Protected" like Islam and Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.104.191 (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

We atheists are better at assembling an array of different ideas together in a way in which they don't come into conflict with each other. ;-) Kevin Baastalk 17:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I recognize that the reply was said facetiously, I am concerned that a meme is settling in that editors who work on this page are atheists, while editors who work on pages about various religions are members of those respective religions. That is untrue, and contrary to how the editing process works. I have recently seen attempts at canvassing that were based upon this false assumption, and it is time to put it to rest. (And the real reason this page is not currently semi-protected is that there has not been much vandalism by unregistered editors recently.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I can affirm that I am not an atheist. Unomi (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
But still, people edit based on their interests. This often manifests in people editing articles relevant in their own lives. That's not going to change. --King Öomie 19:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It is true, as a believer in the unknown and unknowable, I am here to spread the message of humility and agnosticism to the brutish atheists. Unomi (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, certainly. But I'm just saying that it should not be assumed, nor should anyone regard it as an inclusionary/exclusionary requirement. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
And I'm not here to spread anything to anybody! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh i believe there are things that are unknown and unknowable. It is a fact that I am quite content with. ;-) But yeah, I didn't mean to promulgate a meme, just making a joke. sorry. Kevin Baastalk 00:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Believing there are things that are unknown and unknowable does not preclude one from being an atheist. For example, I suspect we'll never know for sure exactly how and when life started on Earth, or what existed prior to the Big Bang, but acknowledging either doesn't warrant jumping to the conclusion that some deity was involved. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, any interest in pursuing what I raised under #Observation 6? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit burnt out at the moment, but I see no problem with replacing definition with any of those that you have suggested. Unomi (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Poll time?

Look. I hate to say this. But I think it's time to poll. My suggestion is collect all the proposals we have, make a big list, then ask people which ones they think are acceptable. The proposal that the most editors find acceptable will win. Would anyone second my idea? NickCT (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. WP:POLLS. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Typtop - The alternative to me seems to be endless debate. In my experience, a poll w/ and RfC can be a good cure for this kind of thing. And by the way, as FDR says "It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something". This is what I want to try to break the deadlock. What do you want to try? Simply saying "no" ain't helpful. NickCT (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:POLLS. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Well Trypt. Don't let anyone tell you you're not concise. NickCT (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, now that I've had my chuckle, let me say, more seriously, that I really don't think what we have here is any worse in terms of "endless debate" than is Wikipedia as a whole. I don't think the lead is all that bad as it is, or that the situation is urgent. The existing system of WP:CONSENSUS really works pretty well. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
3x(edit conflict) I concur with Tryptofish and anti-second the idea. The discussion has yet to become intractable/hopeless/pointless. And a vote would be premature; new options (phrasings) are still being pondered. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Fine. I yield the point. However, I would point out that this debate has taken place over the course of MONTHs. How long must it go before we describe it as "intractable/hopeless/pointless"? NickCT (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it's been YEARs. But it's never been hopeless. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
(blinking in disbelief) Still think a poll/RfC would be helpful. NickCT (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I too see no reason for a poll. Though I've made half-a-dozen suggestions, I'm not sure even my last one is the one I would definitely push to be in a poll versus the current lead. I do think the current lead is sufficiently bad to definitely need a change; the lead should introduce the topic (the concept), and it currently does not do that. Instead, it describes the term that happens to comprise the title. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow. Poll idea shot down :-(
While I'd agree that "Polling is not a substitute for discussion", we have had discussion! But whatever, I ain't going to poll unless I recieve at least a little support for the idea. NickCT (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Polls and their choices create divisions and seem to foster intractable positions, and so should be avoided whenever possible. In general, finding consensus for one considered evolutionary change at a time seems to be much more effective. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 7

A is absence

I think this version manages to broadly summarize the topic of the article in one simple all-encompassing sentence, which is followed with the variants described in terms of atheist:

Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. An atheist may reject assertions of the existence of deities, hold that deities do not exist, or may simply not believe that deities exist.

I believe this is much better than the current version which is more about the term than the concept. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Note the google results, FWIW:
Results 1 - 10 of about 9,410 for "Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities".
--Born2cycle (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
My qualms are: the first sentence includes agnosticism. The second sentence says the same exact thing in three different ways, which is totally redundant. I think "Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." or "Atheism is the belief that deities are not real." without repeating it again and again would be better. I suppose "...is a man-made construct." or things like that might also work, but then that's probably getting too specific/in-depth for an intro. (then again there seems to be some people here that are all for splitting hairs in the intro.) I do think the wording is simpler, and i do like that about it. Kevin Baastalk 12:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You may be onto something here. The wording is a little awkward, but the format is right. Having a primary "definition" sentence followed by an expanding follow-up sentence feels good. My only objection to that wording is that the "absense of belief" is not the primary definition.

7a A is position, doctrine, or belief...

May I suggest 7a -
NickCT (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I broadly support this suggestion, my only qualm is with the last part as it goes against the first sentence. I would suggest changing the last sentence to read : "or may simply not be aware of the position that deities exist". My reasoning here is the position of the innocents and insulated cultures. Unomi (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
(blank stare) - "the innocents and insulated cultures"???? I think the whole "god idea" has reached pretty much everyone on the plant.
One could be in a position where you are aware of the position, but simply haven't thought about whether you agree or disagree with the position. NickCT (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
My qualm with that is that lumping those together with "atheists" is controversial, at best. Kevin Baastalk 12:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Kevin - Aren't these "lumped together" in our current lede? NickCT (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Well, our article and the sources do just that. See As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[28] Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist.". Unomi (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I take your point but
1) I don't see how changing the last part fixes your initial complaint that the "last part as it goes against the first sentence"
2) Aren't your so called "innocents" already included under "have no position on the existence of deities"? NickCT (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
1) I agree that there is still some tension there, that could be resolved by 7b
2) erm, its not my innocents, it is what strikes me as being precisely what our article and the sources say on the matter. The wording I propose makes a clearer delineation between the implicit atheism of the innocent. Unomi (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The oxford reference we have now simply says "the lack of belief in a god". I think this applies whether or not you "aware of the position that deities exist"? Your wording seems to be more, and I think unecessarily, exclusive. And I realize they aren't your innocents. NickCT (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I am concerned with the overlap between agnosticism and atheism which will take place if it is not delineated. I think that we have a number of sources which indicate that such a delineation is proper. Our only sources in the article which supports implicit atheism is regarding what I consider innocents. Btw, we seem to have lost a picture in the article :(. While Martin does argue that such an overlap is justified, we have a number of scholars, such as Theodore Drange, and indeed Thomas Henry Huxley who argue against such a conflation. Shrug, as an agnostic I am in a poor position to argue that I have absolute knowledge on the matter :) All I can say is that this was my impression when I read the sources surrounding this. I won't stand against consensus on the matter, to be honest, as you know NickCT, I think there are more pressing matters. Unomi (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Unomi, the clear delineation between agnosticism and atheism you wish to create does not exist. Many agnostics are weak atheists, by definition... See Agnostic atheism. Delineation from agnosticism should not be a concern here, certainly not in the lead, where the focus needs to be on accurately framing the topic of this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

With some reluctance because the opening sentence excludes weak atheism which is covered in this article, I never-the-less support the immediate replacement of the current intro with Nick's much-improved suggestion above, copied here (7bb):

I also prefer this version to Nick's more recent revision which has the somewhat awkward "have also been considered" wording.

But even here please note that the first sentence would be no less accurate if we inserted the word "strong" in front of it. I understand the concern with using the more general phrasing I suggested at the top of this section because it arguably describes weak atheism, but that is the sentence that more accurately describes the topic of this article, which should be the priority for the opening sentence of all articles, not which concept is the primary definition in ordinary usage. That's why I prefer the more general wording to this one, but I still much prefer this one to the current wording. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the general approach of having a succinct opening sentence, followed by a second sentence covering the three "meanings". I think we need to cogitate a bit more on the exact wording though. One thing that stands out to me is that there is little accomplished by "position, doctrine or belief" in the first sentence; just "position" would be enough. In the second sentence, it may be better to start with "Atheists" instead of "An atheist", and I'm not sure about the wording of the third clause. I'm also not sure how to reconcile the first sentence with the fact that it really only describes one of the three meanings in the second. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
@Tyrpt - Re "how to reconcile the first sentence" I not sure either. But I think they need not be reconciled. As I see it, the first sentence give the basic, most common definition, the second gives additionaly "secondary" definitions.
Re "position, doctrine or belief" - I think this language will quiet dissent. We have RS that offers all 3 wordings.
"Atheists" instead of "An atheist" - Can you expand on this. Maybe on my user talk page?
"I like the general approach" - Me too! This almost feels like consensus! NickCT (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The reasons the encyclopedias these definitions were taken from were worded differently from each other is because if they were the same that would be plagiarism. Kevin Baastalk 17:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I'll answer here. About position etc., I remember dissent about using the word "belief" to describe non-belief, but I don't remember any dissent about "position" by itself. Plural or single, I don't really feel very strongly, but just felt like it read more smoothly. More broadly, I feel like I still need to think about the overall approach. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

7c A is absence

I've taken the liberty to label Nick's two suggestions as 7a and 7b respectively so I can ask you which one you're referring to.
Nick, you say the first sentence in 7a gives "the basic, most common definition". I agree, but is that an appropriate function for the first sentence of an encyclopedia article? Isn't that the role of a dictionary (to give the primary definition first)? Shouldn't the intro sentence in an encyclopedia article simply frame the topic of the article it is introducing? In a manner that does not exclude anything that is within the scope of the article? I think so, and, so, to that end, and to address Trypto's concerns, I give you 7c:


--Born2cycle (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
"but is that an appropriate function for the first sentence of an encyclopedia article"
Yes. See Christianity, Buddhism, Islam. Not trying to imply atheism is another religon, but bare with me here.
All these examples start with one overarching definition. Obviously there are "sects" within each one of these religions that vary slightly from each other, but the first sentence of each article explains what makes them all the same. I really feel nervous about "the absence of belif" in the first sentence. NickCT (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
To B2c, I was referring to 7bb. I like the way 7c reads, but I also think Nick makes a very valid criticism of the first sentence. Would a solution be to change "the absence of belief" to "non-belief"? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
No, wait, non-belief includes agnostics. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
T, I know non-belief (and "absence of belief") includes agnostics; so does the topic covered in this article. That's the point. Why would we want to obscure that?
N, the articles Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam each start with an opening sentence that describes the topic of each article in general terms; they don't pick one meaning of the term and describe that in a way that excludes other meanings. Why do you think we should do that in this article? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Consider what other encyclopedias write:[1]

  • Atheism is denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia® Copyright © 2007
  • Atheism is Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1994-2008

Unomi (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Something like that i'd be happy with! Kevin Baastalk 18:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think we are onto something here. One issue that has been elusive for a long time has been that the lead here has not done a good job of explaining the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Perhaps the approach we can follow is to use a paraphrase of the Columbia version as our first sentence, with the goal being to make an introductory statement about atheism that distinguishes it from agnosticism instead of trying to define it, and then, have a second sentence along the lines of the second sentence of 7c, in which we present our longstanding three meanings. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The Columbia and Britannica definitions don't sound neutral to me; they seem to be written from the perspective of a theist. In fact, I don't know anyone who calls himself an atheist who would agree with those definitions, not even Richard Dawkins!. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I call myself an Atheist and I consider both definitions to be WAY better than ours! In fact I think not only MOST atheists, but most PEOPLE would! Kevin Baastalk 12:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
and lets be clear here: the theist agenda pov is that atheists "haven't found jesus" and hence they want to conflate "atheism" with "not knowing" i.e. "innocents" or "agnostics" or so-called "weak atheism", as if "strong" atheism wasn't a valid or common position, when in fact it is by far the most common form. Kevin Baastalk 16:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 8

In that spirit, here is my shot at it. The idea is that the first sentence would be sourced to both encyclopedias just above, and the second sentence is derived from, and sourced according to, our existing lead paragraph:

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree in the strongest terms possible with the implication here that atheism is based on the holding that existence/non-existence can be proved (I reject the notion that holding that existence cannot be proved distinguishes agnosticism from atheism), but I still think this is much better than the current version. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I see your point, and I'd be happy to accept as a friendly amendment, changing "cannot be proved" to "is unknowable", which I take from the lead of agnosticism. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Really, agnosticism is a shade of atheism. I don't think there is a significant (if any) distinction between agnosticism and weak atheism. The problem is that in many contexts the term "atheism" is used as a synonym for the strongest conceivable type of atheism, but there are actually very few adherents of that shade of it.
Atheism is inherently defined in terms of theism. If someone took the time to create a Venn diagram, there would be a circle representing all belief about the existence of god, some portion representing "theism", and the remainder shaded as "atheism" (not theism). Nothing would be left unshaded in that circle. If atheism is further subdivided into weak and strong, then "agnosticism" would be coincident with "weak atheism", but it would be entirely in the "atheism" area. That is, theism/atheism is a true dichotomy with no middle ground. Theism holds that at least one deity exists, while atheism rejects that holding.
Say someone tosses a fair coin and, without looking, declares he knows it's heads. When you ask him, "how do you know?", he responds, "I just do... it's faith". Do you believe him? The truth is of course he does not know (assuming no tricks), though he may still be right (he has a 50/50 chance). When you tell him you reject his belief that the coin is heads, that doesn't mean you reject the possibility that the coin is heads! What you're rejecting is the possibility that the believer-in-heads really knows it's heads! This is what rejection of belief in deities is for an atheist; atheism only has meaning in the context of a claim that some deity exists - and rejects that claim as being baseless. This is the point atheists try to explain over and over with stories about Russell's teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but so many (including the editors of the encyclopedias cited above, apparently) just don't get it. All deities are man-made concepts, theism is the assertion that at least one of them corresponds to an actual deity, and atheism is the rejection of any such assertion.
But there is nothing in atheism that says the existence of deities is "knowable". Atheists acknowledge that that is unknowable in the same sense that the existence of Russell's teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is unknowable. These concepts were invented to make this point. It's only theists who claim deity existence is knowable, and, they "know" at least one of the deities exists to boot! In fact, the theistic claim of deity existence being knowable is why atheists reject theism, and why they are called atheists. - --Born2cycle (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know that we should put faith in your OR. Theodore Drange explicitly rejects the appeal to etymology as being specious, so I don't know why you continue to write atheist, it was never a greek word, and in the form that it was it was 'without god', not 'without belief'. Unomi (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out; I didn't know that atheism comes from the Greek atheos meaning "without God".
The main point about Russell's teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster stands; acknowledging that no one can know for sure whether they, or any particular concept of a deity, actually exists, does not preclude one from being an atheist. A clear distinction between agnosticism and the topic of this article (particularly weak atheism) is simply not there. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Dawkins does a better job explaining this point than I can:
Link: Agnosticism#Atheist criticism
--Born2cycle (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to drop in and say that 1) As to trypto's suggestion, while elequent and poetic it seems slightly wordy and verbose (e.g. "metaphysical", "supernatural existence"). Suggest we stick to the K.I.S.S principle. 2 Skimming the comments above, it appears as though we're moving into a philosohpical debate rather than a discussion on how to improve the aritcle. I might suggest moving some of this discussion to individual user pages. NickCT (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with both of Nick's points. My initial stab at the first sentence was a sort of hybrid of the two encylopedias', but I agree that it can be edited down. I also am concerned that the arguments about the lines between atheism and agnosticism are getting to be OR. So long as we cite the sources, in this case the two encyclopedias plus citation number 1 at agnosticism, then I think that should be good enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I too agree with Nick's first point, but it has been argued here that the intro should exclude agnosticism. Whether doing so improves the article is a fair topic here, not on user talk pages. Perhaps if you guys would read my comments rather than just skim them you would see they are, ultimately, about improving the article.
How does it make sense to cite sources for a description of extreme strong atheism (referred to as just atheism there) as justification for an introductory sentence of an article that encompasses weak as well as strong atheism? Don't you agree that it's more important for the intro to be in sync with the article topic than with possibly irrelevant sources? Just because another encyclopedia has an article entitled "atheism" doesn't mean the topic of that article is the same. Don't you agree that all sources should be considered in context, and what's salient with respect to "atheism" is to understand which meaning is intended (strong, weak or both) in each cited source, and how that compares and contrasts to the topic of this article? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Changing first paragraph

I'm changing the first paragraph to be more accurate. It insenuates that we firmly say there are no deities, whereas Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity. RPGfanatic (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't, without discussing it here first. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Ditto'ed, I have undone the change, please skim through our conversation and join in, preferably with source based arguments and stuff like that. :) Unomi (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Unless you have an objection to a change, you shouldn't revert it. That is, you shouldn't revert something simply because it wasn't discussed here first, or even because we're in the midst of a discussion. So, do you object? If you revert, you should explain your objection, and, if there is consensus, the revert can stand.
I agree with Kiminatheguardian's change because it more accurately reflects what this article is about.
What we have now:
Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities
Kiminatheguardia's version 9a:
Atheism is commonly described as the lack of belief in a deity or deities
What I suggest 9b:
Atheism is the lack of belief in deities.
--Born2cycle (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the preponderance of sources be they dictionaries, encyclopedias or scholarly works do not seem to support it. There are 3 types of sources which do support it, 1. Regarding default position of innocents, 2. Regarding Theological noncognitivism and 3. Popular Science writers. In the archives we have lists and lists of RS and the overwhelming majority list atheism as a belief in the nonexistence of deities. In light of that it seems improper for us to declare something else. Unomi (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, as long as 3 competing definitions (each with different extensional results) have currency and are reliably sourced, we cannot say simply "atheism is X", no matter what that single X may be. That is why we cannot give a definition, but must give 3 - even if it "sounds like a dictionary" (with which sentiment I do not agree) --JimWae (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, I would also say that a case could be made for giving the most commonly given definition primacy. At the moment we do not list only 1: Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] A broader meaning is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Unomi (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, but we repeatedly see repeated proposals that we state what atheism really is. Btw, I do see "rejection of belief" being adopted by more people (above) - even by those who have favored "absence".--JimWae (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) You guys are still thinking and talking as if this is a dictionary. We are not defining "atheism" here, so references for what "atheism" means is irrelevant. We are describing the topic of this article, which is about the lack of belief in deities, so that's what the intro should say. Either that, or we need to change the article content to match the intro, and make it be only about strong atheism. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
We have to choose between "sounding like a dictionary" (horrors!) and being unencyclopedic. One way to sound less like a dictionary is to be less like a laundry list. 1> One way of being less like a shopping list is to include the scope of each def within the context of definition - something we still do somewhat, but did better in the past. 2>Another way is to distinguish atheism from related concepts, such as agnosticism. This would make our 1st paragraph's sound somewhat resemble an advanced thesaurus --JimWae (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Bears are described as brown quadrupeds with snouts. Though I disagree that the "position that there are no deities" is the best definition, the sources cited are not merely describing atheism. --JimWae (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The thing is that the sourcing for weak atheism is particularly weak and deals almost exclusively with innocents, our article and hence our lead should reflect the weight of the sources. I also want to point out that I have earlier argued for a more verbose and explanatory introductory paragraph, but it seems, perhaps in a lapse of AGF, that some people kept wanting to make it shorter in the hope that their favorite wording would win out. Unomi (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Were I writing my own encyclopedia, I'd write extensively about how terribly inadequate the "absence" def is. I have even found additional reliable sources that oppose that as a def - but they give very little rationale. Btw, the absence def scope includes, besides infants, agnostics (except for the theistic ones), and mathematics. Agnosticism is distinguished from atheism by being about knowledge rather than about belief. Atheism is distinguished from agnosticism by being about belief rather than about knowledge. (maybe we could use that somewhere.)--JimWae (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Jim, let me try this. In this last comment you used the term "atheism". Now, please consider the meaning of that term that you had in mind in each use of it here (especially when you wrote, "Agnosticism is distinguished from atheism..."), and compare that meaning to the topic of this article. Are they the same? I just want the intro of this article to say what this article is about - what relevance does that have to how anyone defines "atheism"? Is that really asking for too much?
To wit, the topic of this article is not distinguished from agnosticism by being about belief rather than knowledge. Most self-proclaimed atheists are atheists precisely because of knowledge (and lack thereof). That some precise strong-leaning definition of atheism somewhere else is distinguished from agnosticism by being about belief rather than knowledge has no relevance to what the topic of this article is, or what the intro should say. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Unomi, do not limit sourcing of "weak atheism" to specific references to "weak atheism". That term was invented precisely because so many references to "atheism" (unqualified) meant lack of belief in deities rather than denial of existence in deities. Arguably the best-known atheist living today, Richard Dawkins, is a "weak atheist" (and, technically, an "agnostic"), but I don't think he refers to his "atheism" as "weak atheism" or as "agnosticism". --Born2cycle (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
All 3 defs of atheism we give are about belief. Though we describe one as a "position", the sources use the term "belief" and a "position" is just a more neutral and less-committal way of saying "belief". Nobody I know of defines atheism as "knowledge that deities do not exist", though absence of knowledge might lead to rejection of belief.--JimWae (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
When one says 2 things can be distinguished, that does not mean they cannot overlap (tho' too many people think it does). Blind people can also be deaf people--JimWae (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that what has happened is that people get too hung up on perceived etymological connotations, Huxley coined the word agnostic precisely because he wasn't comfortable with the knowledge that both atheists and theists thought they had. Just because it contains the root gnosis doesn't automagically mean we get to redefine agnostic away from its original intent. I will admit that there are sources that do so, but none of particular heft or demonstrated broad acceptance within the field. Unomi (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) It would, tho, be misleading to say ONLY: "atheism is distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence of deities cannot be known" because all atheists agree that the existence of deities is not known, and many agree the "non-existence cannot be known"--JimWae (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) "the knowledge that both atheists and theists thought they had". This statement is an outstanding example of usage of the term atheists that is substantially different from the topic of this article. Please reread the article, understand the topic of this article, and especially how it it distinguished from "denial of the existence of God, especially based on knowledge that one has", then refer to that as "atheism", not whatever preconceived notions you might have. Otherwise, it gets very confusing.
Huxley may well have wanted to distinguish from those atheists who thought they had knowledge of God's non-existence, but that hardly serves as basis for the notion that all or even most atheists think they have such knowledge, or that that is what is the topic of this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Huxley coined a term for ideas that had been raised to the forefront by Kant (and Hume, and had been around for millenia). Further, Kant was a theist. Huxley used the term to distinguish himself from hos (mostly theistic) colleagues. It was also a way to not get himself marked as the "village atheist" --JimWae (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and I suspect the meanings of the terms atheism and atheist as used in society have shifted significantly since then. But, again, none of this is relevant to what the intro of this article should say. Only the content of this article is relevant to that. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

With respect, if atheists self-identify as something other than the commonly understood definition of an atheist, could it be possible that they are not actually atheists? Unomi (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Only if you want to play semantics. Again, the focus here should be on what is the topic of this article, and that the introduction describes that. It should have nothing to do with how others define the term that happens to be the title of this article, what is commonly understood to be the definition of that term, or what anyone who self-identifies with the term thinks it means. Though all of that is arguably content for the article, it's not relevant to decide what the intro should say.
The only thing we should be looking at to decide what the intro to this article should say is this article. (I submit this is a true statement for any article anywhere). --Born2cycle (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you completely. Unomi (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Great! So can we all agree to stop referring to anything external in discussions about what the intro should say, and refer only to article content? Obviously, we can't repeat the whole article in the intro. The intro paragraph should be a summary outline of the article, and the introductory sentence in that paragraph should be a really high level statement about the topic of the article... it should not be a definition (or collection of definitions) of the term that happens to be the title of this article. Can we agree on this too? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
MOS:BEGIN says: The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader. It is not ambiguous to give 3 competing defs - but characterizing any of those defs as "descriptions" *is* being ambiguous.--JimWae (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
In an ideal world, "unambiguously defining the topic" and "concisely summarizing the body of the article" should amount to the same thing, which is why there shouldn't really be a need for references in the introduction of an article. Atheism is a complex and ambiguous topic, so concision is always going to be difficult to achieve. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Jim, "unambiguously define the topic [of the article]" does not mean "provide all definitions used in reliable sources for the term that happens to be used as the title of the article". That would be the purpose of a dab page.
I agree with Scjessey that there should be no need for references in an introduction. I think we need to fix the introduction to this article in that regard. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
We do not live in an ideal world and English is not a technical language. WP:LEADCITE supports using citations in lede - especially for controversial topics containing statements likely to be challenged. Of course, "nobody" would ever challenge any definition of atheism, would they? ;)
Okay, if a statement in the intro is declaring something about how the term "atheism" is used externally, that should be cited. But if the statement simply summarizes what the article is about, what is there to cite? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Without citations, who's to say what's a summary and what is a POV synthesis. The 1st sentence is presented as a definition of atheism. Where's the source?--JimWae (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 10

Taking into account the above discussion, I hereby propose the following introductory paragraph WITH NO CITATIONS, PURPOSEFULLY, as an accurate summary of, and introduction to, this article.


Any objections based on usage of the term that happens to be the title of this article are not pertinent here.

I also propose (10a) to add the following paragraph to the end of the current introduction:


--Born2cycle (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My, how busy this talk page is. To comment quickly since my last log-in, I think that, in general, there's nothing wrong with WP:BOLD edits, indeed quite the contrary. But I think that the lead here is such a matter of debate that it was quite reasonable to ask that editor to come to talk, especially since, as already noted, the edit went against sourcing.
As for 10a, I can see a lot of value in dealing with the distinction-from-agnosticism in that way, as opposed to other ways we have discussed. In other words, to deal with it, briefly, in the lead, but at the end of the lead instead of in the opening, and to focus it on the way Dawkins and others have discussed it, rather than to try to synth a paraphrase. My main suggestion for a revision to B2c's version would be to lose the unverifiable "many" at the beginning. Maybe something more like "Prominent atheist Richard Dawkins considers...". Similarly, it might be better to replace the second sentence with a direct quote as well.
As for the opening, I continue to like the idea of some kind of overall brief introductory sentence, followed by a second sentence that sticks to our longstanding three definitions. So I'll modify 10 with 10b, as follows:
What I did was replace the second sentence of 10 with the second sentence of 8, which simply stays closer to our current lead, and would be sourced as it currently is. I also deleted "actual" (just before "existence") from the first sentence, because I don't think it added anything. Finally, I changed "the absence of belief" to "non-belief" in the first sentence, both to avoid redundancy with the next sentence, and to try to make it more general to all three meanings, but maybe there's a better wording for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I like this suggestion. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok.... So we have the following
(10) Dislike "absence of belief". Thought we'd discussed this earlier.
(10b) Me likey! Slightly worried by "non-belief" as it is a slightly awkward (i.e. not common use) word. But that concern is minor. I would still go for this choice.
(10c) I'd humbly resubmit my previous suggestion. I think by saying "position, doctrine or belief" we basicly cover all our bases. No matter which word you use, there are going to be people who say "Wait a sec, atheism isn't a belief/non-belief/doctrine/position etc etc". If we say it could be any of these possibilities, we silence possible future dissent. As I mentioned before there is RS for all three words.
Additionally, I think I prefer An atheist to the plural Atheists. This is b/c Atheists could be misinterpretted to mean all atheists, which is not what we are trying to say. NickCT (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind that I labeled these three for ease in referring to them. About yours, 10c, I would suggest avoiding the singular/plural atheist/atheists issue completely, per 10b. I still don't get "position, doctrine or belief". In the past, there have been objections to calling atheism (ie, a non-belief) a belief, although admittedly that gets kind of picky. About 10b, I do agree with you about the non-commonality of "non-belief". Can anyone think of a better choice of word? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Would "disbelief" be better? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Non-belief is slightly unusual, but I think it works. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I find the transition from "Atheism" to "Atheist" inelegant personally. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm good with 10b, except ditch the hyphen in non-belief to have nonbelief for consistency with Argument from nonbelief and Dinesh_D'Souza#Atheism and Nonbelief, if nothing else. I agree nonbelief is good because it arguably encompasses the full spectrum of atheism. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, you are quite right that "nonbelief" is better than "non-belief". Is "nonbelief" also better than "disbelief" (I'm not sure)? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Nonbelief is better, because disbelief implies intention to not believe that nonbelief does not (while not precluding intent either); so nonbelief more accurately summarizes the broader meaning covered in this article. I'm going to go ahead and put this in the article - it's time for a new "baseline", and maybe, hopefully this one will prove to be more stable and less controversial. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)  Done
Definitely think this was a good switch as a "new" baseline. My chief concern at the moment is that we go from saying "Atheism is..." to "Atheism can be". Seems like awkward, like saying "A rose is red....A rose can be pink, reddish or orange". I suggest either 1) We switch to the "an atheist" language, or 2) We change "Atheism can be" to "Atheism can include" or "Atheism includes". NickCT (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks all. I added back the blue links and moved the sources to within the second sentence. With respect to Jim's reverted reversion, I also had a moment of wondering about "too soon" when I first saw B2C's comment, but I think think I, B2C, Nick, and Cybercobra have all indicated support for this change, and we can of course tweak it further. And it's really not that big a change. As for Nick's comment just above, my take is that the first sentence says something like "this is what it is" while the second sentence says "more specifically, it can take the form of...", so it doesn't really bother me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


How are we to signal to the reader that the first sentence is NOT a definition, when it is standard practice on wikipedia that articles begin with a definition? Unless we do that, we are endorsing the absence def as THE definition of atheism. How are we to signal to the reader that wikipedia does not ENDORSE all three definitions as equally valid? (saying it "can be X, Y, or Z" says any of the three is an adequate def.) Where is the ref for the first sentence? What does "nonbelief" mean - it does not appear in any of the 80 dictionaries at onelook.com. Surely, many people besides myself will want to see one, o/w we are treading on WP:SYNTH. The following might meet some for these objections, though it would not be my choice and is still inferior to previous versions:

Atheism is about not believing deities exist. Atheism has been defined as the position that there are no deities,[1] as the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2] and as the simple absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

Also, Btw, see Wp:BRD--JimWae (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the new opening sentence (well, assuming Jim's latest revert is undone, again) exemplifies Wikipedia brilliance at its best.


This is the definition - it is the definition of the topic of this article. The title of this article could be Nonbelief in the existence of deities, except that WP:TITLE prefers shorter, more succinct titles that employ most common names. In this case that is clearly Atheism. Atheism is the title of this article, "nonbelief in the existence of deities" is the topic of this article (which is clear if you read it). This introductory sentence makes that clear. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: I'm perfectly happy to temporarily go back to what we had while we talk this out, but I'm pretty sure we will conclude that Jim is totally wrong in this instance. I don't buy the argument that the purpose of the first sentence of a lead is to be a dictionary definition. And if, just for the sake of a hypothetical, it were, then the existing lead uses only one definition out of three for the first sentence. I think that Jim, chronically, focuses on one sentence from WP:LEAD: "The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader", and over-emphasizes its importance relative to what the rest of the guideline says. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
To repeat myself: How are we to signal to the reader that the first sentence is NOT the definition of atheism? (and all I just said too)--JimWae (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
For a start, they can look at the top left of the page, and notice that it does not say "the Dictionary that anyone can edit". Then, they can read the second sentence of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
To repeat myself, "nonbelief in the existence of deities" IS the topic of this article, and "atheism" IS the the most commonly used name for that topic.
We need to go back to the version where Tryptofish fixed the links. Here is what happened:
  1. B2C makes change to "nonbelief" consensus 10b version (see above)
  2. Jim reverts B2C without explanation except "too early" (though later provided here)
  3. B2C reverts Jim (back to 10b)
  4. Tryptofish makes non-revert edits
  5. Jim (essentially) reverts again, with no comment.
As soon as Tryptofish made his non-revert edits, we were out of the WP:BRD cycle. I urge someone to take us back to that version. That's our new baseline. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
@B2C: You were the boldee & it was improper for you to revert my revert without proper discussion--JimWae (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
At the time I reverted your revert, the only reason you had provided was "too early". You provided nothing to discuss, so I reverted. Next time, explain your reasons on the talk page or in the edit comment BEFORE you revert. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
reverting others reverts to your own version just 5 minutes later is not part of BRD --JimWae (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


@Trypto See:Wikipedia:NAD#Good_definitions & much else in same article - it repeatedly says that encyclopedias do give definitions. Saying WP is not a dictionary means it is not limited to that. Circulatory system begins with a def - as does nearly every article on wp. The problem is more acute here because there is no def that all agree on - that does not mean we do not address the issue of definition. --JimWae (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I basically agree with that account, but, rather than worry about the exact protocols for BRD, let's focus on what's best for the page. There's no hurry, but I'm confident that the correct answer is to go to our new version. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that Jim's concerns really have been addressed to his satisfaction, so I strongly urge all involved not to edit war. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Jim - it is a definition. But it's not supposed to be a dictionary definition - it's supposed to be the definition of the topic of this article, which is presumably one of the meanings of the word that happens to be used as the title of the article. That we don't agree on the definition of the term "atheism" is a moot point. The only issue is whether "nonbelief in the existence of deities" is a good definition for the topic of this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Jim, I have seen that. Yes, encyclopedias do include definitions. No, they do not slavishly do so in the first sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

At this point, both B2C and Jim are at 2 reverts each. I suggest taking it calmly. And at this point, I'm logging out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, "nonbelief" is "now" presented as THE def of atheism - whether one calls it a "dictionary def" (as though non-dictionary defs were a priori better) or not. And of course, the word "nonbelief" does not appear in any of 80 dictionaries. --JimWae (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I have already offered an alternate that meets several of my objections
Atheism is about not believing deities exist. Atheism has been defined as the position that there are no deities,[1] as the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2] and as the simple absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]--JimWae (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
When my suggestions are ignored (see above for more than a few examples), I assume it's due to lack of agreement that they would be an improvement. I move on. Only when others latched on to, and improved, one of my suggestions did I try to incorporate it into the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
How about: "In its most general form, atheism is nonbelief in the existence of deities." etc. ? The suggestion of "about" sounds odd to my ears. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
(ecx3) The current lede presents the absence def as THE def on atheism. I doubt I will long remain the only one opposed to that. "About" is odd - but it at least conveys that what follows is not intended as a def--JimWae (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Cybercobra, I agree with your statement, but disagree it's appropriate as an introductory statement to this article. That wording makes it sound like the article is etymological; that it's about the word. It's not. This article is about the nonbelief in deities.
Jim, all the lede does is present the definition of the topic of the article. Do you not agree that "nonbelief in the existence of deities" is the topic of this article? If not, what do you think is the topic? And please don't say "atheism", because that's too ambiguous. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The topic is, of course, atheism -- in ALL the ways it is defined--JimWae (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Jim's objections. How about beginning with something like "Atheism can encompass different kinds of nonbelief in the existence of deities."?--Modocc (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Perhaps... Atheism can refer to different kinds of nonbelief in the existence of deities."? Followed by the details. --Modocc (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Or just stick with the details as we have now with the new edits.--Modocc (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the current lede wouldn't be a bad stopping point. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to integrate parts of last lead we have consensus on [2] into the new lead, for the reason the consensus lead does a better job in telling that "no deities" and "rejection" are more widely agreed on than "absence" definition. --windyhead (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, please do not. The purpose of the intro is not to indicate what meanings of the term that happens to be the title of the article are widely agreed on, but to introduce the topic of the article! I strongly disagree with the removal of the "is nonbelief" introductory statement. The lead is already back to having the intro being concerned with what the word atheism means in the "real world" (and all its meanings, in order of popularity), rather than introducing the article by stating succinctly what the topic of this article is. There is no consensus for this.
How about adding a, "This article is about ..., for other uses ..." header comment? Maybe that will help? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 Done This is the About comment header I added:
This article is about general nonbelief in the existence of deities. For specifically denial of existence of deities, see Strong atheism.
Does that help? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Your edits start to become disruptive. Your intro rules has not reached consensus. WP:LEAD : The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The consensus lead was there for more than 2 weeks. This article is about atheism not about general nonbelief. --windyhead (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
"Nonbelief in the existence of deities" comprises all aspects of atheism that are covered in this article, from weak to strong, implicit as well as explicit. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
B2c really is correct about that. It's unfortunate that other editors parse the meanings of words to the point where they have no meaning. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Even though I suggested the recent change, there is nothing urgent about making the change, and there has been way too much emotional editing about it. I have just requested temporary full protection of the page. I suggest editors take a break, work on other articles for a day or two, and then come back and work this through at talk, not through competing edits to the page. Reason will out, one way or the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

And you know what? This edit [3] changed the dash within the file name for the image that is supposed to be in the Rationale part of the article, rendering the image unreadable, and none of us (including me) realized it amid all the talk about the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
This being the weekend, I'd rather have discussion on unresolved issues sooner rather than later. The problem I see with placing the unbelief definition first is that it does not adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy as it gives the least used definition undue weight. --Modocc (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but I'm trying to find a way to have a simple opening sentence that works. It seems to me that, to a general reader, one who has not been joining us in this perpetual discussion, nonbelief, or some word like it (I'm very open to suggestions), simply means the opposite of believing in a religion, believing in deities, and does not refer to any one of the scholarly distinctions that we go on to make in what would be the next sentence. In the talk above, you started to raise the idea of wording indicating that there are multiple forms that this nonbelief can take. Perhaps we can work further with that, with the goal of having a first sentence that we can agree is not undue, followed by a second sentence that elaborates the three definitions. By the way, I think the "about" hatnote was a bad idea, an excuse for not getting the actual text to consensus. We should not need such a hatnote when we get this right. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
We and other editors have attempted to fix the first sentence so it describes the topic of atheism accurately and in accordance with policies for years and this recent discussion is no different. I understand that nonbelief is used in specific contexts and has currency, but it lacks any rigor when context is absent, since most theists would not consider their toddlers to be atheists. "Nonbelief" works for the third definition only. "disbelief" is more verifiable, but excludes the "absence" definition. It seems too that rehashing a new first sentence such that we end up with even more redundancy than we have does not seem productive. Instead, I'd go with "Atheism can be the position that there are no deities,[1]the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2]or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." because it is concise. Windyhead and a few other editors favor the current lede which gives the first definition more weight, but I not sure that the disparity in weights are so great that this is necessary. --Modocc (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
More precisely, because it gives "absence" definition less weight --windyhead (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
If that's the case, why not go back to the recent version, with three sentences? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The current consensus three sentence version is OK.--Modocc (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Windyhead, the "nonbelief in the existence of deities" statement succinctly covers all meanings covered in this article without giving any definition undue weight. See my recent post to Jim below for more on this. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
What about the point that the purpose of the intro to any Wikipedia article is not to provide all definitions used for the term that happens to be the title of the article, but to introduce the topic of the article? That the purpose of the introductory paragraph is to provide an outline of the article content, and the purpose of the introductory sentence is to provide a succinct overview? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Please have a look at WP:LEAD. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. and so on. --windyhead (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how this comment or anything in WP:LEAD answers my question. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Modocc... "Most theists would not consider their toddlers to be atheists". That might be true given the meaning of the word "atheists" most theists probably have in mind, but what does that have to do with this article? With respect to the topic of this article, the toddlers of theists are "atheists", by definition. Do you agree that that is not a matter of opinion; that it's simply true given the way this article is written? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Trypto... "We should not need such a hatnote when we get this right." The hatnote simply clarified the fact that the topic of this article is not the definition of atheism that necessarily means active denial of the existence of God. Isn't this precisely the kind of thing that About hatnotes are for? In the case to avoid confusing anyone (editors as well as readers) who gets to this page expecting it to be about some specific meaning of atheism when this article is about the general? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The topic of this article is the same as the title: atheism -- in all (three) ways it is defined. People do not come here to find out what is known about "nonbelief in the existence of deities". (Btw, the rejection def also is not the same as "active denial that deities exist".) The absence def is the most controversial and the one that is most marked as "non-rigorous" (or even plainly wrong) by sources. A NPOV article cannot declare that (what amounts to) the absence def is THE def of atheism, nor even appear to do so. Strictly speaking we should not even suggest (with a "can be...") that it is just as valid as the other 2, no matter what persuasive definition Michael Martin came up with, nor what deHolbach might have said that makes babies & all nontheistic agnostics atheists (&, ridiculously, mathematics atheism). Dawkins himself says, just as there are no Christian babies, "it would also be an abuse to talk about an atheist child"[4][5]. We must note that atheism "has been defined" as "absence of belief" and discuss that def & its implications, but it is NOT our task on any WP article to endorse any definition at all when "reliable sources" disagree on the def. The absence def was presented to counteract the claim that "atheism is the belief that deities do not exist" - but there is another (more adequate) def that also avoids that claim. --JimWae (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Jim, I think what you mean by "the absence def", since you say it is "the most controversial and the one that is most marked as 'non-rigorous'" is the implicit def (i.e., "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it"; e.g., toddlers). Then you conflate that with Trypto's nonbelief statement.
So, unless I misunderstand, you are conflating implicit atheism with nonbelief. "Nonbelief in the existence of deities" includes, but is not limited to, implicit atheism; the statement encompasses ALL definitions of atheism covered in this article, succinctly. That's why it's perfect for the introductory sentence to this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I am saying that despite what editors here may intend by "Atheism is nonbelief in the existence of deities" there is no way the words themselves are clearly distinguishable from "Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities". Though "nonbelief" does not appear in any dictionary I have yet found (or perhaps especially BECAUSE it has not) it can be expected that people will interpret "nonbelief" as "absence of belief". There is also no way to tell this is not being presented as THE defintion of atheism. Nearly every article on WP begins with a def. Whether editors intend it merely as summary or not, that sentence is indistinguishable from one presenting a def. (Nor is the absence def a definition of implicit atheism - it is the definition that INCLUDES implicit atheism, it too being an attempt to ENCOMPASS all varieties of atheism [but being too broad, also includes mathematics].) A NPOV WP can neither give, nor appear to give, preference to one definition over other reliably sourced ones. --JimWae (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
With regard to the potential problem of people not knowing this is presentation of THE definition of atheism, that's exactly why I introduced the About hatnote saying that This article is about all forms of nonbelief in the existence of deities, for specific denial of existence in deities see Positive atheism. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
ALL the hatnotes in the world will not make it NPOV to have WP present "nonbelief (i.e. absence of belief) in the existence of deities" as THE definition of atheism, thereby classifying mathematics (& much else) as atheism.--JimWae (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree 100%. How about the following hatnote: "This article is about atheism, or rejection of belief in deities. To read about agnosticism, which is merely lack of belief in deities, see the agosticism article." Or better yet, how about we put that IN THE LEDE? Kevin Baastalk 14:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, hatnotes are not the solution. Getting the lead right is. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The three sentence version is OK with me, and not worth arguing about. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The three sentence version is not OK with me. See the above lengthy discussion for details, but the gist of it is it's not an introduction to the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm not too bothered about it. But I think a very logical case can be made that it is actually SYNTH for us to say that there are three definitions, as opposed to one or two or four. And it's SYNTH to say that the word "nonbelief" only refers to one definition, as opposed to encompassing all of them, however many there may be. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 11

Making another try at this, please let me suggest:

This differs from the version that was recently tried, and reverted, in that it incorporates the suggestion made by Modocc to indicate more clearly in the first sentence that the sentence is not talking about just one meaning. Note: "the position that there are no deities" is a form of nonbelief in the existence of deities; "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities" is a form of nonbelief in the existence of deities; and "the absence of belief that any deities exist" is a form of nonbelief in the existence of deities. Any claim to the contrary is simply playing with words. I'm not sure if it's the best possible way of saying it, but I think that some sort of expression that there are multiple forms, or aspects, or something like that, could be a way of making a short first sentence work, and I think it would be better to have a short first sentence followed by a second sentence with the three meanings, rather than the three-sentence version we have now. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Only if we add this to clarify some of the different forms of atheism:
Kevin Baastalk 16:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
On first quick read, I thought you were serious and I was about to respond indignantly, but then I saw the "not not not". :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Another brilliant suggestion from Tryptofish incorporating comments made by others. I concur. You really deserve a

Born2cycle has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--Born2cycle (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Aw, thanks. I'm waiting for the trout that will inevitably follow. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
And, seriously, let's please take it slow before deciding whether to add anything to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I think Trypt's proposal is an improvement over the current version that has become watered-down by misinterpretation of "wikipedia is not a dictionary". I do have remaining concerns about saying "atheism can be...simply the absence of belief that any deities exist" because this endorses that def (and the other 2) -- each as adequate as another. Also, by just listing the defs rather than presenting them in a context, it actually makes the paragraph MORE like a dictionary. I know stating that there actually are multiple "definitions" has become unpopular here recently, but saying "Atheism has been defined as... the simple absence of belief that any deities exist" would remove any endorsement from any of the defs. (Btw, such would not state that there are no other defs.) Still the Modocc/Trypt proposal is better than a euphemistic opening that says competing defs are merely "describing" atheism. I do foresee future editors wanting to substitute "is" for "encompasses various forms of", and even attempts to merge nontheism and atheism, and I do hope others will also be prepared to resist any such proposals. I expect we will also have to contend with: "nonbelief is a neologism", and "the 1st sentence is not sourced". -- JimWae (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, and I think these are points we can, and should, work with. Let me try to take them point by point:
  1. Treating the three definitions as each as adequate as another, and also listing them without contexts. My hope would be that the context would come further down on the page. And I think that trying to establish priority between them in the lead is a recipe for more argument here.
  2. Has been defined as. I guess that, as a rebuttal to the arguments against using the word "defined", the case can be made that it has a distancing effect, one of indicating that WP does not necessarily endorse a particular definition. However, I'm not convinced that the wording discussed really endorses anything, as opposed to just reporting and citing it.
  3. The risk of future attempts to substitute "is". Yes, I agree that's a very valid concern. At present, it's pretty clear that pretty much any attempt to change anything gets a pretty aggressive examination, so I would be hopeful that there would indeed be resistance. And I'll offer resistance from me, for what that's worth. But that leads to a closely-related point, that I would really like to discuss more. I myself, as I said above, am not convinced that "encompasses various forms of" is the best choice of words. Is it a bit clunky? Is it, in fact, vulnerable to future efforts to modify it? Is there a better way of saying it? I'd like us all to think about that carefully before changing the page.
  4. Nonbelief as unsourced neologism. Similarly, can we do better?
--Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I was actually being seriously sarcastic in my example on have, hold, reject, don't have, doesn't exist, is not existing, etc. The three definitions aren't any different and please let's not go into this again. The are worded differently in those three encyclopedias because if they had worded them the same that would be plaigarism. Not one of those three encyclopedia's have "all three definitions" in them and that's no accident. Them being worded slightly differently from each other, however, is. Kevin Baastalk 12:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The active verb of the first sentence should really simply be "is", though I'm not too put-off by the current "is described as", nor would "is defined as" be horrible. "Encompasses" is really getting too vague. johnpseudo 14:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not just "encompasses"... the key phrase is "encompasses various forms of nonbelief". I don't think you're suggesting we say, "is various forms of nonbelief", or even "is described as various forms of nonbelief", are you? When objecting to a suggestion, please try to be clear on exactly what would make the suggestion acceptable to you. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The reason I didn't give any suggestion as to how the proposal could be made acceptable is because I don't think the proposal is in any way an improvement over the current article. I suppose it could be made acceptable by changing the proposal to match what is already in the article. johnpseudo 12:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand. In what way does it not match? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Man...... I disappear for a couple days and come back to pages of chat. I just skimmed over all the material above and I want to ask 1 question. Does anyone besides Wae object to previous consensus language on the basis that Wikipedia "is not a dictionary"? If not I suggest we revert to previous consensus language and allow Wae to offer proposals for change. Wae is being a little agressive here in trying to maintain the old wording. We had some sort of consensus above, I don't see any discussion about moving back to the old version. NickCT (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

@Nick: Why is the focus on me (3x) again? Why should I need to be "allow"ed to do something? Please stick to the topic, not the personalities. I think more than "just skimmed" might be helpful for addressing the discussion.--JimWae (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Wae - You've repeatidly come in and shattered or worked to undermine previously existing consensus. You've also demonstrated a total lack of both intraspection and restraint in editting.
I ask again, did any editors agree with Wae that the previous language was innappropriate on the basis that WP "is not a dictionary"? NickCT (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
@Nick: I don't think you have followed the discussion. I said the proposal was an improvement over the present mealy-mouthed intro & raised some questions. Trypt agreed the questions should be considered before making changes. If my asking questions "shatters a consensus" (did it?) it must not have been a very strong consensus. As for "total lack of both intraspection and restraint in editting" again you are not focusing on issues & are misreading the history of the article. This is not a club where you get to decide who is allowed to ask questions. Cease & desist.--JimWae (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
@Wae - You edit warred Born2Cycle's change to what most agreed (including Trypt) was an improvement. The only person who objected to the language was you. Now if you are really concerned with seeking consensus, learn to explain before you revert widely agreed upon language. NickCT (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I made 2 reverts against someone who made 2 or 3 or more that day & who was skipping parts of WP:BRD. My first revert was reverted in 5 minutes, as I preparing to respond on talk. Then, I did explain before my 2nd revert, which was quickly reverted again without addressing my points. Don't just skim through the talk & think you have found an opportunity to turn others against everything I say. Even if I had not explained before my 2nd revert, I am not the only one objecting to that version's language. WP:NAD does not mean wikipedia does not give definitions, so it is OK to present something that appears to be a definition, because it really isn't. WP:NAD is being sorely misinterpreted here. Among other things, it means WP is not just a dictionary, and that not every word gets an entry. It most definitely does not mean we do not define our topic. This topic is special, because there are competing defs. There is absolutely nothing in WP:NAD that says we cannot say we are actually giving a def. AND again:[WP:NAD]] certainly does not mean wikipedia does not give definitions, so it is OK to present something that appears to be a definition, because it really isn't.--JimWae (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Even had I been blocked for edit warring (I've never been blocked for anything in the 6 years I have been on WP.), it would be unproductive for anyone to return here & immediately focus on me instead of the topics at hand.--JimWae (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I've dipped in and out of "atheism" over the years. I'm aware of previous history. I've lost track of this discussion. Please: what was the "previous language" which was thought to be inappropriate. What are the different positions of the active editors at this point? Can they be quickly summarised?

I oppose Suggestion 11:

I oppose this because atheism does not "encompass" all three forms unless you agree with George H. Smith's typology. If you follow the Nagel/Edwards line, then it doesn't: it only "encompasses" the first two forms. Therefore suggestion 11 inadequately reflects the literature. --Dannyno (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

@Dannyno - See this. By-the-by, if you disagree proposed wording, please offer an alternative. The issue with the current wording is that it is too verbose and contorted. Feel free to put forward suggestions for fixes! NickCT (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Easier said than done, as ought to be evident by now. So if I have this straight:

Current wording:

Previous wording:

My view is that the current version is inelegant and convoluted, but broadly accurate if incomplete. The previous version does not respect the typological variety in the literature in the second sentence, and "Atheism is nonbelief" is uninformative - what is "nonbelief"? To me it looks like it privileges Smith. --Dannyno (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you define what you mean by "typological variety "? NickCT (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure he means that it does not, in his opinion (not mine), reflect all three definitions. Nick, since you were not following the talk, I feel that I need to say that your characterization of Jim is inaccurate and unfair. Now, I agree with Nick and a lot of other editors that the current version is inelegant and convoluted to the point that it would benefit from having a succinct first sentence, followed by a sentence with the three "definitions". As I said above, "the position that there are no deities" is a form of nonbelief in the existence of deities; "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities" is a form of nonbelief in the existence of deities; and "the absence of belief that any deities exist" is a form of nonbelief in the existence of deities. Any claim to the contrary is simply playing with words. And neither Dannyno nor anyone else has meaningfully refuted that. "Is" has been adequately rejected in this talk as an alternative to "encompasses". Is there another, better, verb? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, to me it looks like it says "Atheism can be any of these three things". But not all typologies agree that it can be any of those three things. That's the point that doesn't come through. --Dannyno (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
There's a fallacy in what you are saying. So some sources say it can be two of those things, and other sources say it can be, instead, a third. According to those sources, taken as a whole, it can be any of those things. In fact, the long-standing premise of this page has been that there are these three "definitions", and any of them, all of them, are proper subjects of the page. If we are going to take the position that we cannot say anything unless every known source agrees with it, then we might as well blank this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The fallacy, in fact, lies in taking those sources as a whole. By what right do we take those sources "as a whole"? I'm not saying that unless all sources agree we should say nothing: I'm saying the opposite. What we should say is that different typological traditions exist. I agree with you entirely that it is proper for this article to treat of all the different typological traditions. What we should not do is synthesise different typological traditions which exist in the literature into a single "nonbelief" definition. We could say "when atheism is referred to, it might mean any of those things", but we can't legitimately say "atheism means all of these things", unless we make it clear that it doesn't mean all those things to everyone. --Dannyno (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Danny, if the references to Nagel, Smith and Edwards refer to implicit vs. explicit or strong vs. weak, please use those terms rather than names. I don't even see a reference to Nagel in the article. If they mean something else, please explain.
Nagel was in this article many moons ago - because I put him in, but that section was shunted into Implicit and explicit atheism some time ago. I would treat Nagel and Edwards as largely originating the idea that atheism=rejection of belief, including noncognitivism. I don't think Nagel or Edwards used the weak/strong or implicit/explicit terminology. --Dannyno (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
In any case, nonbelief is "not belief", which means the belief is not there for one reason or another (without specifying the reason), thus encompassing all definitions of atheism. I'm perplexed as to how this favors one definition over another. You seem to be objecting to generalizing in definitions. Just because some rectangles are squares does not mean we have to explicitly include them in the definition of a rectangle. Strong, weak, implicit and explicit atheism are all particular kinds of "nonbelief in the existence of deities"; the phrase encompasses all of them without preferring one over the other. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
You're right. If that's what "nonbelief" means, then you have encompassed pretty much all definitions of atheism. Well done. But that means wikipedia has taken a view on which typological tradition is correct. Because encompassing all definitions of atheism is basically Smith's implicit/explicit categorisation. The literature, to emphasise the point, is actually not agreed that atheism is nonbelief. You've synthesised that position by finding a form of words that is inclusive. Unfortunately by being inclusive of all forms of atheism identified in the literature, you are not being inclusive of more exclusive understandings of the scope of atheism. --Dannyno (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but if we are rejecting "is" on the basis that "WP is not a dictionary" this debate is seriously convoluted. I could could point to a million articles that would contravene this (i.e. WP:Christianity). Objecting on this basis doesn't seem to demonstrate a firm grasp of how wikipedia articles are written. Now, is there any objection beyond the "is" issue?
This is beginning to feel like the Bill Clinton impeachment.... NickCT (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the objections to "is" were not based on the not-dictionary issue. Not-dictionary was raised by me and others as an objection to the three-sentence version. Just read above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
@Danny - So I understand your POV, are you basicly saying the three definitions are mutually exclusive? NickCT (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
No, no, i'm not saying that, because it depends on your viewpoint. From the perspective of one typological tradition they are mutually exclusive. On the one hand you have the George Smith/Michael Martin atheism=absence of belief line, and on the other the Nagel/Edwards atheism=rejection of belief line. The former include the latter, but not vice versa. --Dannyno (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
As I said, that's a fallacy. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
What fallacy is it? Name it. I've responded to your original claim of fallacy above. There is no fallacy. --Dannyno (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
You responded after I posted this here. And I'm going to respond to your response. And please learn how to indent correctly. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Good analogy. If we began a rectangle article as "rectangles are shapes with 4 straight sides", we would appear to be defining rectangle, but our statement is too inclusive to be a definition.--JimWae (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
@ Dan, I'm a little confused. When you say "The former include the latter, but not vice versa", you seem to be saying "one excludes the other", and yet you're not saying they are mutaully exclusive? NickCT (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Nagel quote:

Nagel, Ernest (1959). "Philosophical Concepts of Atheism". Basic Beliefs: The Religious Philosophies of Mankind. Sheridan House. I shall understand by "atheism" a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism... atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist - for he is not denying any theistic claims. Similarly in the case of an adult who, if he has withdrawn from the faith of his father without reflection or because of frank indifference to any theological issue, is also not an atheist - for such an adult is not challenging theism and not professing any views on the subject. {{cite book}}: Text "reprinted in Critiques of God, edited by Peter A. Angeles, Prometheus Books, 1997" ignored (help)
reprinted in Critiques of God, edited by Peter A. Angeles, Prometheus Books, 1997--JimWae (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


I acknowledge your confusion. See, if I had carte blanche I would start by saying something like "Atheism is a state of godlessness.", which I would then gloss somewhat. That's probably too radical a position to be accepted here, but I happen to personally believe that's the best and most accurate definition, which also captures its historical meanings. I have my favourites, but wikipedia isn't about my favourites, it's about what the literature says. Clearly, rejectionism excludes absenceism(implicit/explicit). That's pretty obvious. However, they are not *mutually* exclusive because the latter includes the former. It depends on your standpoint. Perhaps the best way to understand where I'm coming from on the lead is that I want the lead to acknowledge different typologies, but the lead at the moment synthesises all the forms of atheism identified in the literature, without explaining that the literature is not agreed that they are all in fact forms of atheism. Thus, defining atheism as "nonbelief in" is the implicit/explicit terminology. So while you can say that you are acknowleding differing forms of atheism, you are failing to acknowledge the significant fact that there is disagreement about whether all of those things should be called atheism or not. To please me, you'd need to say that "atheism is either a) the rejection of belief in gods/God, etc. - inc weak/strong b) the absence of belief in god, including its rejection, whether weak or strong, but also implicit/explicit c)only strong atheism." And maybe another option for pejorative uses of "godless". Am I understood yet? I'm talking in terms of typologies of forms; you're talking in terms of forms. --Dannyno (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Dannyno nailed my concerns with proposed change perfectly. --windyhead (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


Break (11b)

OK, after all this, I think I understand the concern raised by Dannyno (and perhaps, by extension, by Johnpseudo). The problem appears to reside in the word "encompasses", and whether that word implies meaning all meanings simultaneously, as opposed to as three alternative meanings, depending upon the source. That being the case, I offer 11b:

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If we say A includes (or encompasses) "various forms" & then say "A can be 1 or 2 or 3", we are saying (or at least VERY strongly implying) A does indeed include 3. If we said "A has been defined as 1 and as 2 and as 3", we would not have the same problem--JimWae (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
problems: (1) current def does a better job saying that "absence" def is less agreed on; (2) little of none of authors use "nonbelief"; (3) "atheism" is not something that "includes" various forms, its one or another author who define atheism as being one or another (not "various"!) or one and another form of kind of "nonbelief". So current def is way better. --windyhead (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I feel understood, at least. Hurrah. As JimWae and Windyhead observe, I'm not sure the solution quite works. It's a bit like the nurture/nature debate, where actually it's a (nature and nurture) vs (nature or nurture) debate. Alright, it's not much like that. But let's say you have the three main traditions: atheism as rejectionism (including weak/strong and noncognitivism, usually) - let's call that R; atheism as absence (rejectionism plus privative lack) - let's call that A; and atheism as strong atheism only - let's call that S. What you need to be able to convey is that Atheism = R or A or S. --Dannyno (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


Jim, you might want to sign your Nagel quote above. Well, I've tried to suggest ways to make it less clunky. But I think this shows why it was a good reason for me to advise going slow before putting #11 on the page. As I've said repeatedly, I'm not that bothered by the current version. Anyway, I don't think anymore that this approach is going to work. I'm going to let it drop, and work on Christianity and violence, which needs it, instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Quitter!!! So close!!! Don't give up... just take your advice... and take it slow!  :-)
Now, I've said it before and I'll say it again. One of the problems with this article is that the term that is its title has multiple related but distinct meanings. There is something to be said for giving each meaning its own article, and, since none of the meanings is clearly primary for the term, putting a dab page at Atheism. But no one else seems to agree, so we're left with the awkward and problematic task of writing an encyclopedia article that has no single well-defined overall topic, unless...
.. we make it clear that this encyclopedia article is, uncharacteristically, not about any particular specific topic, but (awkwardly) about a word, and all of the (related but distinct) topics to which that word can refer. If that's what we're doing, then the intro should say that, clearly. Is there any other article in Wikipedia that does this? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
:-) I'm not quitting this page, just this particular approach to revising the lead. I'd be happy to hear a better idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Even "A means 2" (per current intro) is about the word "A" - unless A is a work of art. There is no policy nor guideline that advises against saying "A has been defined as 1... and as 2... and as 3" - nor is that how a dictionary "sounds". If one says "Rectangles are defined as..." we are not talking about the word "rectangle". Ordinarily "defined as" can be omitted because, since there is only one def, the words are not needed. But that is not the case for the topic of atheism.--JimWae (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Normally, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the (singular) article topic and the term used to refer to that topic, so we can say, "topic-name is topic described in detail". Of course, the "is" is understood to be shorthand for "is defined as", and that's fine, because of the one-to-one correspondence.
For example, "Life Savers is an American brand of ring-shaped mints and artificially fruit-flavored hard candy." Note that the answer to, "what is the topic of the article?" is answered by either side of the "is". We can say "Life Savers" is the topic for short, but what we mean by that is that "Life Savers" is the name of the topic. The actual topic is, "an American brand of ring-shaped mints and artificially fruit-flavored hard candy."
The current intro sentence in this article, on the other hand, does not do that. It states, "Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities." Well, that doesn't tell us what the topic is! That's like saying the topic of the George W. Bush article is "the President commonly described as 'W'". Both statements tell us something about the topic, but neither states what the topic is. The introductory statement to an article should clearly state what the topic is, and the intro statement to this article currently does not do that. The problem here is that there is no one-to-one correspondence between the name (atheism) and one particular topic that this article is about.
That's the fundamental problem with this article. It has no topic (and, no "atheism" is not the topic; "atheism" would be the name of the topic, if it had one). That's why there is so much debate about the intro. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

11c

How's this?


--Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm still here. I'm sure there will soon be complaints about "nonbelief", but not from me. I want to stay away from making the lead sentence about the word, as opposed to about the concept. Maybe: "Atheism refers to any of several forms of..."? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Using "refers to" is one of the things WP:NAD specifically says not to do. Using "refers to" makes an article about the "word". When we give a definition, we are not talking about the word itself, but either about the concept being defined or the usage of a word. Definitions are not about the word, they are "about" the concept that the word is used to convey. Nowhere in WP:NAD are we advised not to define concepts.--JimWae (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. I forgot. Sigh. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
If we can't pick one topic for this article -- like "nonbelief in the existence of deities" OR "rejection of belief in the existence of deities" -- then it IS about the word (and the several topics to which it refers). You can't have it both ways, guys. Trying to obscure that fact by avoiding "refers to" doesn't change anything. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
This is the key applicable point of WP:NAD (my emphasis): "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary article is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history."
What is the "a concept" (singular) that this article is about? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm getting caught up in-real-life so apologies if I'm not able to add meaningfully to this conversation or if I'm simply repeating old stuff. I wanted to ask whether we've considered the "incorporates", i.e.

offering 11c-2

or potentially,

offering 11c-3

or further

offering 11c-4

Thoughts?
P.S. I've read the thoughts of Mordocc above (w/ the help of Trypto's patient and valuable guidence), and I'm really happy with the second sentence as it stands. Does anyone have issue w/ the second sentence or can we say consensus has been reached focus solely on the first? NickCT (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps replace with incorporate w/ "encapsulate" (though this is basicly a synonym for encompass). NickCT (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
All of these suggestions, as well as the current wording, are about the word. For example, if we say "atheism incorporates ..." that is a statement about atheism, but it does not tell us what atheism is, nor what atheism defines; it tell us something about what atheism defines.
Consider this statement from WP:NAD: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about .. a concept ..; whereas a dictionary article is primarily about a word ... and its meanings, usage and history." This article sure seems to not be about any particular concept, and is about the word atheism" and "its meanings, usage and history".
Also, note this: "One test is that an encyclopedia article's name can usually easily take many different equivalent forms, whereas a dictionary as a linguistic work is about the words in the title, and cannot usually be easily translated". So, can anyone suggest an alternative title to this article as currently written? You can't, because this article is about the word atheism. You can't, because there is no concept that this article is about that can be described in a short introductory sentence we all agree on, much less as an alternative reasonable title for this article. I'm becoming more and more convinced that this article is in violation of WP:NAD. Not just the intro, the entire content. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Which is why my "godlessness" preference would work better. Leaving that aside, it's not true that there is no concept involved here. It's just that there is more than one way to conceptualise "atheism". --Dannyno (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Objection!

I object strongly to the way editing has been going on here in the last several hours. Let's take a look at this edit summary: [6]. Aside from trivializing B2c's comments, it has the effect of declaring me to be "no one". I have made it clear to anyone who has been reading that I dislike the use of define in the lead. I also have the right to be logged out for a little while without becoming disenfranchised from the editing process. About a week ago, I requested that the page be full-protected, and I am sorely tempted to do so again. I understand the value of bold editing in general, but it doesn't take a lot of intelligence to realize that any change to this particular lead is going to be discussed and most like objected to. Frankly, it's childish of some of you to feel that you have to rush to edit the lead so quickly, without giving other editors a chance to voice an opinion. Holding a "poll" for an hour or two is no way to achieve consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ready to hold a poll yet Trypt? NickCT (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Huh? No disrespect intended, but I don't get the point of that question. I'm ready to hold a discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm just saying, polls have a nice way of bringing things to neat conclusions. No more edit wars, no more anxiety. NickCT (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I know a better way to avoid edit wars: don't edit war. And with that, I'm leaving this page until tomorrow. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"Definition"

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

Note the word "meaning". A definition does not describe a term but the meaning of a term. The meanings of/for the term "atheism" are the group of highly related defined concepts that are opposites of or incompatible with theism. --JimWae (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Someday, perhaps, the absence def will lose currency, writers trying to define this -ism will not have to try to include "having an unconscious absence of awareness (for which brain-dead people can qualify) of a belief in something incomprehensibly mysterious" and a simple, easy, single def might be foreseeable.--JimWae (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's only 240 years since D'Holbach launched modern atheism in Europe, so anything could happen. --Dannyno (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Good point, Jim. But a point made by WP:NAD (though not the point of NAD) is that cumbersome wordings should be replaced with simply is:


the above edit was made about 18 hours after the above editor altered WP:NOTDIC to include "is defined as", which does not violate WP:NOTDIC--JimWae (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no place for cumbersome wordings like "is commonly described as" either. We need to say what the meaning (or meanings) of the term is, and we do that by saying, "Atheism is ...".
Regarding your view that the absence def includes "having an unconscious absence of awareness (for which brain-dead people can qualify) of a belief in something incomprehensibly mysterious", it's not "something incomprehensibly mysterious". That's way too broad. The makeup of the universe prior to the big bang is "something incomprehensibly mysterious", but having an unconscious absence of awareness of a belief in that is not atheism by any definition. What the absence def does include is "absence of belief in any deities due to having an unconscious absence of awareness (for which brain-dead people can qualify) of any belief in any particular deity". The absence def is specific to nonbelief in deities, not to anything that is "incomprehensibly mysterious". --Born2cycle (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I was not (with that formulation) attempting to present a definition of the "absence" def, nor proposing that we might include it in the article. I was describing it - big difference. By merely describing it, I did not give a complete account of the boundaries of the usage of the term. (Sound familiar?) The absence def has the same logical problem as it would be to define rectangles as quadrilaterals. It gives a necessary condition (of atheism or rectangles), but does not give the sufficient conditions. Thus mathematics gets classified as atheism and so to would trapezoids be classified as rectangles. Thus babies and corpses (and yes, even ants) get classified as atheists. The defintion would be so much easier if we could eliminate the absence def - but since it is "reliably" sourced, we cannot do that. The result is that we cannot construct a simple sentence that defines atheism. So we will have to do what we can with the 3 defs - without setting any local stylistic sentiments as an a priori requirement. Btw, I am liking "positions incompatible with belief in the existence of any deities" (which even covers the Xns for not believing in Jupiter)- but that does not seem to sufficiently cover the absence def.--JimWae (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Jim, I understood you were describing an aspect of the absence def, and not defining it. I explained that in that description you assumed a much too broad definition of absence. I understand that you tried to show that the absence def has the same problem as one would have in defining rectangles as quadrilaterals, but you did not show that. The absence def does not include anything that is not part of the absence def, by definition! Anyway, your example was, "includes having an unconscious absence of awareness ... of a belief in something incomprehensibly mysterious". But that is not included in the absence def, as I explained above.
As to whether mathematics is included in the absence def, yes, I agree, mathematics is atheistic in that sense. So is science. That is, one needs not to assume the existence of any deity in order to accomplish anything in mathematics or science. By the same token, Christianity is atheistic with respect to the Greek god, Thor. And yes, babies, corpses and ants are also atheists in this sense. By definition. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Oddly then, So in a way we all survive death -- atheists are still atheists after they die, and theists become atheists when they die. Agnostics cannot determine a truth value for what they become, so they suspend judgement until after they die;)--JimWae (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the body of a theist (even before he dies) is atheist - only the human mind is theist. The dirt all around the remains is also atheist, as well as the worms crawling through the dirt and remains, and the birds that eat the worms, the trees the birds land upon, and the sun that shines on those trees. Indeed, the entire universe is atheist, except for the humans who are theists (usually indoctrinated before the age of reasoning). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree w/ B2C re JimWae's pushing of the WP:NAD policy. Wae seems to be avoiding simple/concise language for fear of violating WP:NAD. Frankly, if any policy contravenes clarity and concision, I think WP:IAR needs to be quoted.
I'm not entirely sure I understand the second point regarding abscence. I think we are over thinking this one a little. Something similar to the current wording seems fine. NickCT (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I am superindenting this becomes it comes AFTER so many comments below. Actually my argument is that WP:NAD does NOT advise against clearly saying "A has been defined as...". It is saying "A means..." that actually violates WP:NAD. "Means" was substituted for "defined as" on April 6 after someone expressed a concern that "is defined as" sounds like a dictionary. The result of that change was to make the lede become more like a dictionary--JimWae (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
There are two issues. Both are discussed at WP:NAD, but only one is problematic because it is like a dictionary. The first problem is avoiding being like a dictionary. The second problem is avoiding being cumbersome. Please don't conflate the two just because they're both discussed at WP:NAD. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
the above edit was made about 41 hours after the above editor altered WP:NOTDIC to include "is defined as", which is not itself a WP:NOTDIC issue--JimWae (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The cumbersomeness issue is the same as the unnecessary wordiness issue. A sentence is not unnecessarily wordy if by dropping words one subtracts from the meaning--JimWae (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Changing words and/or rearranging the presentation of ideas can make it possible to drop out words without losing the most important information. Also, there is a natural limit, like 5 ideas per sentence, that maximizes how well the brain can take in information. Beyond that limit the sentence can be split or otherwise broken down, even if that means subtracting from the meaning, to reduce cumbersomeness and therefore enhance comprehension. I think what you mean to say is that if one can drop words without subtracting meaning then the sentence is unnecessarily wordy. But the converse of this does not logically follow from it. Kevin Baastalk 19:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to broadly agree with B2c and Nick. And, to my personal dismay, I'm going to get into this particular WP:BIKESHED: what is the definition of definition? (Aaagh!) "Definition" (and no, I did not look this up in any dictionary) can refer to how a dictionary defines the specific meaning of a word, and it can also refer to how scholars of a concept categorize that concept. In fact, Jim is correctly applying the word "define" in that second (scholarly) sense, but what some of us are reacting to is that most readers, on seeing the word in the opening sentence of the page, will naturally construe it to be used in the first (dictionary) meaning. So it ends up that the proper application of NAD to this discussion is that, while it is a good thing to introduce the reader to the three "definitions" (however we end up doing it), most of us want to avoid making the lead read as though it were a dictionary definition. (I have no position as to what the meaning of "is" is.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think any dictionary ever says "X is defined as...". It is generally assumed that (other than other well defined aspects such as syllabification, origin, and parts of speech) just about everything in the dictionary strives to be a definition. Encyclopedias go beyond dictionaries by giving definitions and more. As I am sure we all know, unlike dictionaries, encyclopedia are about topics, not words, and do not strive to give a definition for every word in the language --JimWae (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
That is true, but not really relevant. Dictionaries do not need to tell their readers that they are dictionaries. And putting a "defined" wording lower on this page would simply indicate an encyclopedic discussion of how various sources have characterized the term. But putting it in the opening sentence has the effect, even if unintended, of implying that this encyclopedia article is trying to define a word. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
some people "might" think that -- but why would they care? Encyclopediae use "defined as" repeatedly. We as editors know it is not about the word, hence not a NOTDIC problem--JimWae (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem with "is defined as" (and "is widely described as", for that matter) is not that it's like a dictionary, but that it's unnecessarily cumbersome in a situation when simply "is" should do. See the quote from WP:NAD above. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
the above edit was made about 41 hours after the above editor altered WP:NOTDIC to include "is defined as", which is not itself a WP:NOTDIC issue--JimWae (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
It is unnecessarily cumbersome when there is only one undisputed definition. We have the uncommon situation of there being conflicting definitions in reliable sources, and so the controversy of definition itself becomes a topic that needs to be covered, and cannot be hidden from the reader.--JimWae (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not quite as simple as a situation where there is only one clear definition, but these closely related definitions can be handled with ors, and do not justify cumbersome qualifications (e.g., "widely described as") up front, as countless examples have shown. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Further, an encyclopedia intro should provide the definition(s) in a manner that avoids cumbersome wording as explained in the cite from WP:NAD I just quoted above, which it clearly states is not a "being like a dictionary" problem. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
the above edit was made about 40 hours after the above editor altered WP:NOTDIC to include "is defined as", which is not itself a WP:NOTDIC issue--JimWae (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Described as is needlessly vague (even weasel-like) when we are talking about definitions. There is no policy nor styleguide issue with "A has been defined as..."(a1 and as a2 and as a3) -- in fact, it sets the article further apart from endorsing any def. Dropping "has been defined as" subtracts from the meaning of the statement--JimWae (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
An intro should not be referring to the sources upon which a description, or list of description, is based. That it is based on such sources is already implied. Saying "has been defined as" or "has been described as" is an unnecessary and cumbersome references to the sources upon which the definition(s)/description(s) are based.
Yes, listing the absence def is an endorsement of it. But what does a WP endorsement mean? It means it's a def used in reliable sources, like the other defs listed. So we should endorse it. Why the hesitation to endorse any def used in reliable sources? The cumbersome qualifiers are completely unnecessary. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not endorse anything. It attributes to reliable sources - especially when sources disagree.--JimWae (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm just using your terminology, Jim, to avoid semantic arguments. You introduced the term "endorse", and I rolled with it. Describing the absence def here is no more nor less of an "endorsement" than that of any other def described in any other article.
When sources disagree, all defs are listed. That sources don't all agree is what listing several defs instead of one means. Extra verbiage to explain that is unnecessary and cumbersome. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The issue with "disbelief" and "unbelief" is that the meaning of both those words is pretty vague, giving only a rough neighborhood for the topic, and doing that is pretty unforthright. How to link such terms is also a problem - especially when reliable sources say atheism is not sheer unbelief. We should go back to the version before the bold edits of April 6 (though the easter eggs are still an issue there), and work from there.--JimWae (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I can come up with numerous simple sentences (such as "atheism is any position incompatible with belief that there are any deities"), but that seems to leave out the one that includes corpses as atheists, and I doubt that would fly far. As long as we have to incorporate a position with the (overly broad) "absence of a position" we are going to have trouble doing so in a simple sentence--JimWae (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not think our goal should be to try to avoid presenting the difficulty of defining atheism (not that anyone has directly advocated that). Definition is widely discussed in the literature (most extensively by those who advocate the absence def), and is practically all we discuss here. It would be misleading to not cover it in the article -- as it would be to unforthrightly hide it from the lede. --JimWae (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggest this: Atheism is the circumstance of being without any deities. To test this definition, you might plug it into this sentence: Some clergy admit to atheism. PYRRHON  talk   22:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that's awful, sorry! It's also inaccurate, because not all the reliable sources think that atheism is any such thing. --Dannyno (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
@JimWae: As a supporter of the "disbelief or unbelief" formulation, I think it is OK that they give only a rough neighborhood, because atheism clearly is a rough neighborhood. Interestingly you think of unbelief as "sheer unbelief", but unbelief doesn't mean only that. Either word can mean any number of things, which is why I like them if I can't have "atheism is godlessness", which everyone *would* understand regardless of their point of view. I don't know where the "corpses as atheists" line comes from, since I'm not aware of any reliable source that says any such thing. "Atheistic", as an adjective has been used about science (as has the fine old obsolete word "atheous" - bring it back!). Atheism-as-a-state has been attributed to children and the innocent/ignorant; but atheism-as-a-point-of-view has not verifiably been attributed to corpses. We can have fun following lines of thought to their supposedly logical conclusion, but the literature is concerned with people and what they believe or do not believe, not with how to characterise their corpses. Dicto simpliciter, actually. George H Smith is the canonical "absensist". He doesn't mention corpses. --Dannyno (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Atheism has been commonly defined as the position that there are no deities,[1] more broadly as the rejection of belief that any deities exist, and most inclusively, as the absence of belief in the existence of any deities.[3]
Atheism is distinguished from theism, which in its most general sense is the belief that at least one deity exists. It is contested whether atheism and agnosticism are incompatible.
Unnecessarily cumbersome, in violation of guidance provided on WP:NAD and elsewhere. Also violates NPOV by favoring one of the definitions ("is commonly defined") over others. Or do you have a reliable source to support your view that positive atheism is the more common definition? (if so, please cite it). Hence this:
the above edit was made about 60 hours after the above editor altered WP:NOTDIC to include "is defined as", which is not itself a WP:NOTDIC issue--JimWae (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
"Atheism is the position that there are no deities,[1] more broadly as the rejection of belief that any deities exist, and most inclusively, as the absence of belief in the existence of any deities.[3]
There is no loss in meaning (except for dropping the NPOV violation) , since when an encyclopedia article says "X is A" (or "X is A, B or C)", that means "X has been defined in reliable sources as X" (or "X has been defined in reliable sources as A, B, or C"). --Born2cycle (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
But but but but but... The situation we have is that "X has been defined in reliable sources as A, A or B, or A or B or C." --Dannyno (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
@B2C: That's not even a sentence. I am prepared to drop "commonly" until that is worked out. The toughest external advocates of WP:NAD have no problem with "has been defined as". The "recommendation" to replace with "is" uses the case of a single def. There was, in fact, PLENTY of meaning lost by dropping "has been defined as" - so much so that it is no longer proper syntax also. This is a great example to show it is not "unnecessarily cumbersome" - meaning has been lost and the entire syntax of the sentence has been wrecked. An ambiguous "or" does not recapture the meaning. --JimWae (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Cryptic reference

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

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

It's not loading on my computer, and it's not because my .pdf viewer isn't functioning.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Download works for me. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Dammit! I'm on a work computer so I'll try again when I get home.--Heyitspeter (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The theoretical atheism section

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

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

Change of topic back to "defined as"

Again, the issue is not "not a dictionary" (though it's discussed on that page); the issue is cumbersome wording. If "is defined as" is acceptable because it's about the concept and not the term, then so is "refers to".
But "refers to" is not acceptable. And it's not acceptable not because it's about the term (thank you for convincing me of that), but because it's cumbersome. It adds nothing. Neither does "is defined as", or "is commonly defined as", or "is commonly described as", no matter how many times you assert that they are, because they are all implied by the mere fact of a subject being covered in Wikipedia - it's notable and therefore is "defined", "commonly defined" and "commonly described" as what it is. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"refers to" has 2 problems. In this case, "is defined as" has neither. Though ordinarily it can be dropped on the grounds of "wordiness" with no loss of meaning (actually there can be some loss of meaning depending on context - but that is another matter), in this case (esp. because of the multiple defs) it conveys meaning that has not been conveyed in any alternative way--JimWae (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI1(plural Y): (minor) there is an ongoing proposal to demote NOTDIC from being a policy to being a guideline

FYI2(plural Y): (not minor) there are many articles that use "refers to" in violation of NOTDIC. However, it is demonstrably false that simply replacing "refers to" with "is" would be an improvement. In many case, doing so would radically alter the meaning of the text. Two good examples are human and rectangle. --JimWae (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we can transport some of our talk over to the editors of the human article and suggest that lede should say:

  1. "Humans are featherless bipeds, members of the species Homo sapiens, or any member of the genus Homo."
  2. "Humans are featherless bipeds or any member of the genus Homo, including the species Homo sapiens, any member of the genus Homo, plucked chickens, or bipeds with an absence of feathers."</humour> --JimWae (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Dicto simpliciter. </humourless> --Dannyno (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Forgive what might be a foolish question, but what exactly is the difference between "is commonly defined as" and simply "is". As always I support the simpliest most concise language (even if that means losing out on nuance). NickCT (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The former does sound more natural when followed by a list-of-alternatives type of definition. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Great question, Nick. More specifically, what is the difference between these constructs:
  1. term is definition-of-term
  2. term refers to definition-of-term
  3. term is defined as definition-of-term
  4. term is commonly defined as definition-of-term
  5. term is commonly described as definition-of-term
I don't see how Jim's two problems with "refers to" explains why 3, 4, or 5 would ever be acceptable in a situation where 2 should be changed to 1.--Born2cycle (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
@B2C - To be perfectly clear here, you have no problem with just "is"? @JW - Do you have an issue with it. If so please elaborate. You lead me to believe B2C was raising some objection based on WP:NAD. NickCT (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have no problem with "is". --Born2cycle (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

B2C has been using NOTDIC as an argument against using "is defined as". At first he convinced 1 other person that the April 5 lede (which used the word "defined") "sounded like a dictionary" and on April 6 the phrase was removed from the lede. Soon, his arguments against restoring "defined as" began to reference NOTDIC, which he soon altered to suit his argument here (despite all talk at NOTDIC opposing his viewpoint). That removal of "defined as" on April 6 had actually made the lede become more like a dictionary, per NOTDIC.

My objection to "is" has nothing to do with NOTDIC. It has to do with endorsement of all that follows. I also have problems with "or" (see humour above) for its vagueness. When "is" and "or" are combined, the endorsement of all that follows is very strong. An additional issue with "or" is its "weaselhood". Statements such as "The Civil War was started by the North or the South (or even Mexico [for not allowing slavery])" give equal weight to all views & remain true even if one of the alternatives is suspect or even false. Here's another example where "defined as" is the solution. Present lede of rectangle:

In Euclidean geometry, the term rectangle normally refers to a quadrilateral with four right angles. This is a simple rectangle. A rectangle that is not simple is complex, but more clearly described as self-intersecting or crossed. It is defined as a self-intersecting quadrilateral with the same vertex arrangement as a simple rectangle.

Fixed with "commonly defined as" (which cannot simply be changed to "is")

In Euclidean geometry, a rectangle is commonly defined as any quadrilateral with four right angles. Mathematicians often categorize such rectangles as simple rectangles, and extend the common meaning of "rectangle" to include shapes they classify as complex rectangles. Complex rectangles are self-intersecting (or crossed) quadrilaterals with four equal angles. Both types of rectangles can be defined as equiangular quadrilaterals.

--JimWae (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

  1. "A rectangle is commonly defined as any quadrilateral with four right angles" is not one iota improved over, "A rectangle normally refers to any quadrilateral with four right angles". They are equally poor for the same reason: overly cumbersome.
  2. What's wrong with, "A rectangle is any quadrilateral with four right angles."?
--Born2cycle (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
@JW I really have difficulty understanding your "is" point. Tell me, would you consider the following an incorrect statement "Poultry is duck, chicken, or goose."? I don't think your "civil war" example really holds here, as it involves describing history (something which ultimately has an objective truth) rather than defining an abstract term.
Anyways, would you be ammenable to replacing "is" w/ "can be"? That still seems concise, and I think it should address some of your concerns. NickCT (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you ever read NOTDIC? "refers to" clearly has a problem with NOTDIC. The rectangle def you propose does not account for all defs of a rectangle (sorta like defining atheism as "the explicit rejection of belief in the existence of deities" does not include the extended meaning of "implicit atheism", no?) - Read the rectangle article. Mathematicians include "bowties" as rectangles. Surprised me too. Please stop misapplying NOTDIC --JimWae (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

@Nick: The definition of atheism is a controversy & should be openly stated in the lede --not be swept under the carpet.--JimWae (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think "contraversy" is a bit off a strong word no? Do you think the definition of "Christain" is a controversy because of the Catholic Protestant divide? No. It's more true to say that what we call an Atheist, like what we call a Christain encompasses a series of different POV.
Anyway, you didn't really answer my question. I'm just going to say that "Atheism is either" or "Atheism can be either" are appropriate wordings. Forget the "has be defined as shinanigans. NickCT (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

@Nick: 1>Shenaningans, eh? where's the turkey? 2> that's not a definition of poultry (indicating "is" does not mean "here comes a definition") 3>There is a controversy about whether non-Trinitarians are Xn. Ask around.--JimWae (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

2>It's not meant to be a definition of poultry, it's meant a description of poultry. 3>Sure, there may be groups where you argue about whether someone is or is not Christain, and yet you can still say "A Christain is someone who believes in the divinity of JC" without telling a falsehood. We should be able to do the same here. NickCT (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I keep hearing we "should be able to come up with a short yet clear def", but in months of debate I've not seen any. There are no implicit atheists that self-identify as atheists - it is other people (both atheists & theists) that want to do it for them. Btw, Unitarians (among others) do not think Jesus was divine, and many of them identify as Xn. (Ask around.) The definition of atheism is a controversy & should be openly stated in the lede --not be swept under the carpet. Some think "Atheism has been defined in various ways" postpones giving any def. That is why "Atheism has commonly been defined as..." works - it gives A def AND gives the expectation that more defs will follow---JimWae (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have seen clear definitions. I haven't seen "perfect" definitions, but I don't think that's what we should be aiming for here.
Re Unitarian's - I think this is exactly the point. If I say "A Christain is someone who believes in the divinity of JC", you may be able to counter "Well, that's not always the case, you see there is this one group who..... etc etc". Though your counter may be valid, it doesn't take away from the truth of my definition. I guess what I'm trying to say is that exceptions prove rules. Note that Christianity doesn't use "has been commonly defined" language.
I resubmit -

NickCT (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

How is that an improvement over the present lede?--JimWae (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Shorter. Clearer. NickCT (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I already commented on that, several times. --windyhead (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No, not clearer, and shorter<>better. It has many problems of its own (one being giving equal weight, another there with no comparative "map", another appearing like the editors just cannot make up their mind so they strung a bunch of phrases together with an "or", another...)--JimWae (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so some editors are not satisfied with "described", and some would not be satisfied with "defined" or "is". I think that's an accurate summary, yes? Maybe, instead of getting nowhere with discussions were we really will not convince one another, we should look at some alternative verbs. I'll toss out these: "regarded as", "considered to be". I'm sure there are others, if we think about them. Perhaps we can find a better wording in that way? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There are no policy or styleguide arguments against "defined as", despite repeated claims that there are. There are some local stylistic preferences that "defined as" "sounds like a dictionary". Those local preferences (against "sounds like a dictionary") resulted in the lede 'becoming more like a dictionary. (i.e.: "means" has NOTDIC problems). I am not saying consensus might not decide to ignore all rules - but I do not think such a decision can be based on misinterpretation of a rule. --JimWae (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

depending on the context

It's not productive to repeatedly refute arguments that have not been made in days if not over a week (I'm referring to your reference to "sounds like a dictionary").
There are certainly policy/style arguments against "defined as" (the same ones that apply to "refers to"). If there are exceptions, they would apply to "refers to" as well as "defined as". But all these constructs should be avoided in preference of the simpler "is".
How about...
Depending on context and intent, atheism is one of: (1) the position that there are no deities,[1] (2) the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2] or (3) the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]
--Born2cycle (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you about not rehashing the same old arguments. As a general comment directed to everyone, and to no one in particular, there are certain things in this talk where we are unlikely to persuade one another, and so it would be better to find alternative ways, in which we can actually agree. But about the 1,2,3 formulation, it's pretty much like the bullet-point suggestion (I've lost track of the number) that was poorly received earlier. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was the bullets that were poorly received. If it's the numbers, remove them:
Depending on context and intent, atheism is one of the following: the position that there are no deities,[1] the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2] or the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]
If only one person objects, I think we need to call that close enough to consensus. --Born2cycle (talk)
That's a step in the right direction, although I'm not wild about the colon, list format. However, I think the opening phrase, "Depending on context and intent", is weak. I'm not sure what to change to improve it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


I think the colon might be necessary. Consider the following.

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

v.s.:

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

There is also the two-sentence version.

Depending on context, atheism is any one of the following. It is the position that there are no deities,[1] the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2] or the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

--Born2cycle (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm still not convinced that framing it around "context" is going to work. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Changing the topic back a bit, again, can we take a closer look at what I suggested a bit above: simply changing "described as" to something along the lines of "regarded as" or "considered to be" or something else along those lines? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think using anything besides "is" is unnecessarily cumbersome for the reasons explained at Wikipedia:NAD#Fixing_bad_articles.2Fstubs. "Refers to", "defined as", "described as", "regarded as", etc., are all equally bad for the same reason: too cumbersome. The intro of an encyclopedia article should say what the subject is, and we do that by saying, "Subject-name is subject-description", period. If the subject is several related subjects, then that's the subject-description, but that should not affect the "Subject-name is ..." part. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I see what you mean, and as someone who also would like to see us use "is", I share your concerns about cumbersomeness. However, there is no getting around the fact that there are logical problems with "is" that have already been made clear by other editors. Instead of prolonging an unfruitful logjam, I'm suggesting we explore a "third way". (And, frankly, as I've said before, the page is pretty good as it is.) Oh, and you are incorrect about equating "refers to" with the others, in that it does make it about the word. As I've said, we are not all going to agree on "is" or "defined as", and it's probably a waste of time to keep trying unless one enjoys the endless talk. There is some dissatisfaction with the current "described as", so perhaps a small tweak to that would be helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Everyone keeps saying that as if it's blatantly obvious, but I just don't see it.
If "X refers to Y" is unacceptable because it is about the word, why is "X is defined as Y" not also unacceptable because it is about the word?
If "X is defined as Y" is acceptable because it is not about the word but about the concept, then why is not "X refers to Y" also acceptable because it is not about the word but about the concept?
I honestly don't see the distinction, and, since no one can explain, can't help but wonder if others just assume it's there, but don't actually see it either. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


You don't get it and "getting it" would not favor your proposed changes to this article. That does not justify your going to policy & guideline pages to insert your opinion as a rule -- without prior discussion on those pages & despite many later objections to your so-called "rule". This has become disruptive to 3 pages so far.--JimWae (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I made a simple change to WP:NAD per WP:BOLD that probably would have never been objected to much less reverted because it changes nothing fundamentally, if it were not for its implications on this discussion. No one but you and Windyhead, both involved in this discussion, have objected to it. That's disruptive. The impetus for that change (now a proposal) obviously stems from the discussion here, but ultimately it is a separate issue, and I suggest that you discuss that over there rather than here. Thanks.
NOTE: No one has yet explained the distinction. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

1>Others at NOTDIC have clearly disagreed with you 2>reverting bold edits on policy pages that have no consensus and all talk was against them is not disruptive. Dragging that topic all around WP, then quoting from policy & guideline pages text that you invented & inserted (without acknowledging here) is disruptive. 3>read Use–mention distinction as a start.4> I am done responding to you for a while. We need at least a short break from getting 3 or 4 newly recycled "latest & greatest" lede versions from you daily. --JimWae (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Re If only one person objects, I think we need to call that close enough to consensus. -- - Agreed and seconded. Anyone else take issue with "is"? NickCT (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
To my mind the conversation got weird a while ago, I don't see an immediate problem with the existing lead. Shrug. Unomi (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Fourthed. Existing lead is okay. (Though I'm still not convinced the second two definitions given are notable.) EDIT: by current definition I mean the one given at this diff. I'm not sure how fast the article is changing.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Fifthed? I tend to agree with that shrug, and have no objection to the current lead. I think changing it to "defined as" (or "refers to") is not going to happen, and is not worth continuing to discuss endlessly. If the people who are unhappy with the present lead don't want to go with a small change like "regarded as" or "considered to be", it's no big deal for me, so we can just leave things as they are. Personally, I'm still friendly to the idea of a construction based on "is", but it would have to be well-discussed here and have to satisfy any concerns that would arise. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Sixthed. The current lede is entirely adequate; let's stop trying to tweak it in ways that end up being either cosmetic or highly contentious. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Seventhed. Improvements are possible, but look at what we're doing to ourselves. Leave it for a while. --Dannyno (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Negativity?

I am unsure as to whether this is worthy of a separate section of discussion. I would suggest that distinguishing between types of atheism as soon as possible is more dictionary (as to get it out of the way and move on to the next word) and that starting an article about a word such as "Atheism" (This might suggests this article shouldn't exist) would call for as simple an introduction as possible. With such controversy, I will say that I've used the word atheist for myself before so that you can possibly recognize I am exercising a great deal of restraint. My suggestion would be that only one negative word begin the sentence of this elaborate article. In a search for a single negative word that all would be okay with, we need to satisfy conditions in the current world's condition. The majority of people are theists, and thus we cannot suggest that atheism is default. However, this is the internet. Everyone here is pretty progressive when it comes to not offending everyone; for some reason that is beyond me, they don't like the word lack. Additionally, I feel everyone can pretty much agree that the current introduction is disagreeable. My position is that atheism is the negative of theism. The fact is that it comes from the word atheos which comes from the word theos. If we can agree with that, we can proceed to my idea. We can possibly proceed even if we do not agree.

My idea is to use only one negative word in the beginning sentence; that word is "no". My reasoning is that no is a word which is so commonly used in everyday speech that we can feel safer that we've not used a negative word which carries a connotation we do not wish to convey in an opening sentence. What we want to do is give people an brief sentence that welcomes people to read the article and learn a bit from the information within it (such as who said they were an atheist in history, etc).

"No" is a word that I feel theists and atheists alike can see as something we can use to begin the article with; the dispute seems to always be in the negative with this article. As I've seen in some posts before, theists will not feel as though one is considered default over the other. Specifically the idea that atheism is the default is absurd, as is the idea of theism is. It's not like it's default in any way to be a telemarketer or not a telemarketer. I agree we should avoid that. It is not a word that carries the connotation that atheism is somehow inferior, as I've seen a few people here express lack does. An obvious question arises; how do we use the word "no" as the only negative word in the beginning sentence for this article? As you might guess, I strongly recommend against favoring strong or weak atheism. Therefore I strongly recommend against "Atheism is the belief that there is/are no God(s)." Did I do this right? -- Tricit (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2010 (CST)

That's a very flawed analogy. No one is born a telemarketer, so there indeed is a default, namely not being a telemarketer. --Cybercobra (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
suggestion redacted
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


I'm proposing a variation on Danny's example above.

Atheism is disbelief in deities in different ways. Three meanings are: 1) Atheism is the position that no deities exist; 2) Atheism is the rejection of belief in deities; 3: Atheism is the absence of belief in deities.

--Born2cycle (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

@B2C - I don't mean to be discouraging here, but I think some of the previous suggestions were gaining momentum. Continually offering new suggestions rather than concentrating on making old ones acceptable serves to extend debates.
I'm still for polling by the way. NickCT (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
@b2C:Wasn't a list your proposal 5.30167b3? At least a list does not use an ambiguous "or", and is more like an "and" or 3 separate sentences. But this list also removes the "map" that compares the 3 defs. Then we still have issues of how to word any intro to the intro -- especially watching out for the use of "is" to endorse all that follows. That's why "has been defined in various ways" is NPOV.--JimWae (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Some will object that "Atheism has been defined in various ways" postpones giving any def. That is why "Atheism has commonly been defined as..." works - it gives A def AND gives the expectation that more defs will follow--JimWae (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Ick; just terrible. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, withdrawn. So which proposal(s) are we considering? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Meaning & etymology - why I should revert

Tryp changes 2nd paragraph to begin:

The term atheism may appear to mean the opposite of theism (antitheism or nontheism), but it actually originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without gods", which was applied with a negative connotation to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society.

Aside from the unclear "but" (and the unclear reference back within the parentheses), this would seem to be sanctioning etymology as a way to defeat claims of meaning. Better would be to add to the 1st paragraph:

Atheism is distinguished from theism, which in its most general form is belief that at least one deity exists.

Something very similar to this was removed on grounds that it needed sourcing. It seems so obvious I doubt anyone would contend it, but I have found this at the start of the EB article

ATHEISM: in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence.

Admittedly the "as such" spoils it a bit. . I can see that for "incompatible" we might need a source, but do others think we need a stronger source than the EB one for such an obvious "distinguished from"?--JimWae (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/Naturalism.htm is a source - but not as scholarly --JimWae (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

same site sources "incompatible"--JimWae (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This appears to support "incompatible" - anyone able to get the whole document? JimWae (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, someone will say "absence of a claim is not incompatible with a claim" - so we will have to settle for "distinguished from"--JimWae (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not strongly attached to the edits I made, just trying to help with some approaches that weren't working. I'm fine with "distinguished from" with the sourcing you have in hand. I agree with you that that is really pretty obvious. In contrast, I think "incompatibility" raises all kinds of issues even if some sourcing were to exist, so let's drop that one, rather than waste time belaboring the point. We can also dispense with the links I put in parentheses. By the way, I wasn't even thinking about "defeating claims of meaning". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with "distinguished from" too. --Modocc (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert it, but I want to observe that the phrase is remarkably uninformative. Clearly atheism is distinguished from theism, but ought we not to say precisely what distinguishes it from theism? --Dannyno (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

absence and babies

Collapsed per WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In The Case Against God, Smith introduces his persuasive definition of atheism with an etymological approach:

"The prefix “a” means “without,” so the term “a-theism” literally means “without theism,” or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist.
Atheism is sometimes defined as “the belief that there is no God of any kind,”9 or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism—and they are somewhat misleading with respect to the basic nature of atheism. Atheism,in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god.
[note1: Above, Smith is contrasting with only one form of explicit atheism.]
[note2: Removing "sometimes defined as" from the beginning of preceding paragraph would alter & defeat Smith's entire argument.]
As here defined, the term “atheism” has a wider scope than the meanings usually attached to it. The two most common usages are described by Paul Edwards as follows:
“First, there is the familiar sense in which a person is an atheist if he maintains that there is no God, where this is taken to mean that “God exists” expresses a false proposition. Secondly, there is also a broader sense in which a person is an atheist if he rejects belief in God, regardless of whether his rejection is based on the view that belief in God is false.”10
[note3: now we have 2 forms of explicit atheism introduced]
Both of these meanings are important kinds of atheism, but neither does justice to atheism in its widest sense. “Atheism” is a privative term, a term of negation, indicating the opposite of theism. If we use the phrase “belief-in-god” as a substitute for theism, we see that its negation is “no-belief in-god”—or, in other words, “a-theism.” This is simply another way of stating “without theism” or the absence of belief in god.
9 John Hick, Philosophy of Religion (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963), p. 4.
10 Paul Edwards, “Some Notes on Anthropomorphic Theology,” Religious Experience and Truth, edited by Sidney Hook (New York: New York University Press, 1961), pp. 241-242.

Implicit vs. explicit section of article quotes from page 14, which (more fully) says:

As defined in this chapter, the man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist. Since these instances of non-belief are not the result of conscious rejection, they are best designated as implicit atheism.

Smith seems here to be doing some fancy stepping around newborns. Is there anywhere he is clearer on what it is that the "absence" is to be from? Would not any such qualification have implications for his "simple" definition of atheism?--JimWae (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not fancy steps, it's being true to the terminology. Either way, I would claim this issue is also related to the burden of proof argument. -- Muthsera (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to d'Holbach, Smith seems to be going to great pains to not include newborn babies - else why all the verbiage?--JimWae (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I worded my last comment badly. To me it would seem he's trying to square the common use and trying to be true to the terminology at the same time, but that is my speculation. For me it would have sufficed that he simply didn't try to make the breech. But there seems to be some quote mining going around, or leaving out crucial quotation.-- User:Muthsera 23:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I am asking if Smith elaborates anywhere on what it is that can have the "absence". Can it be anything? only humans? only humans at least 5 years old? only those with an IQ of 50 or better? Can other positions be forms of atheism (like agnosticism, Marxism, feminism)? Why are Marxism and materialism classified as atheism, but democracy is not? --JimWae (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for that derailment, had a slight eureka moment there. But I believe the core of your question can be answered with this:
"The atheist qua atheist, whether implicit or explicit, does not assert the existence of anything; he makes no positive statement. If the absence of belief is the result of unfamiliarity, this non-belief is implicit. If the absence of belief is the result of critical deliberation, this non-belief is explicit. In either case, the lack of theistic belief is the core of atheism. The various atheistic positions differ only with respect to their different causes of non-belief." Smith, same book, p.15
In his argument the absence is simply the lack of a positive claim. I cannot say conclusively that he doesn't specify, but why would he if he holds this definition? -- Muthsera (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That does not answer my question at all. It does not even touch on it. I am not asking for a restatement of the absence def. I want further indication from him of 1>which humans that have an absence of belief are atheists and which are not (apparently newborns are not atheists acc to him) 2>what else besides a human can qualify as "having an absence".--JimWae (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

He says "it would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved", but he does not say if it does or does not also include newborns--JimWae (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I answered it. Those who have absence of belief are those without a positive claim of theism. There are no if's and but's about it according to Smith. He only derives it further into those who don't have believe and towards those who oppose belief. That is at least how I understand him. Explained more fully here:
"At this point, objections may be raised in protest against using the word “atheism” so that it includes uninformed children. Some religionists will undoubtedly charge that this is a cheap victory for atheism accomplished by means of an arbitrary definition. In response to this, we must note that the definition of atheism as the absence of belief in a god or gods is not arbitrary. Although this is a broader meaning than is usually accepted, it has a justification in the meaning of “theism” and the prefix “a.” Also, as previously argued, this definition of atheism has the virtue of representing the antithesis of theism, so that “theism” and “atheism” describe all possibilities of belief and nonbelief. Upon close examination, it is likely that the objections to calling the uninformed child an atheist will stem from the assumption that atheism entails some degree of moral degeneracy. How dare I call innocent children atheists! Surely it is unfair to degrade them in this manner. If the religionist is bothered by the moral implications of calling the uninformed child an atheist, the fault lies with these moral implications, not with the definition of atheism. Recognizing this child as an atheist is a major step in removing the moral stigma attached to atheism, because it forces the theist to either abandon his stereotypes of atheism or to extend them where they are patently absurd. If he refuses to discard his favorite myths, if he continues to condemn nonbelievers per se as immoral, consistency demands that he condemn the innocent child as well. And, unless this theist happens to be an ardent follower of Calvin, he will recognize his sweeping moral disapproval of atheism for what it is: nonsense. The category of implicit atheism also applies to the person who is familiar with theistic beliefs and does not assent to them, but who has not explicitly rejected belief in a god. By refusing to commit himself, this person may be undecided or indifferent, but the fact remains that he does not believe in a god. Therefore, he is also an implicit atheist. Implicit atheism is conveniently ignored by those theists who represent atheism as a positive belief rather than the absence of belief. While this may appear to be a subtle distinction, it has important consequences." p 13-14.
Now, I don't understand what you mean at all if that doesn't answer it to you. Because as far as I can tell, he never claims any specifics about it. It is only when a child holds a positive belief that it is no further an atheist. -- Muthsera (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


Sorry, but that in no way answers my specific question. "it would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved" does NOT include infants - neither necessarily does "uninformed child" include infants. I think Smith is likely being evasive here. If newborns are atheists, then why not fetuses, the brain-dead, human eggs, worms -- and even corpses & perhaps rocks.--JimWae (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This part is not a forum, it is a request for info from anyone who might have it:

Is there anywhere Smith is clearer on whether "absence of belief" includes newborn or not?--JimWae (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In The Case Against God, he never uses the words "baby", "babies", nor "newborn" -- and "infant" appears only in a different context. He does use "child" and "children" to refer to them as atheists, but he one time qualifies child as "the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved". --JimWae (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not clear how this relates to improving this article?--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The mainpage very clearly answers your question:
Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."
If you're asking whether babies have 'the conceptual capacity' to grasp theism, you are looking in the wrong book. Peruse the article on child development.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Commentary on this book by Smith frequently states that Smith includes babies as atheists - that he agrees with d'Holbach that we are all born as atheists. From the text, however, we cannot conclude that he includes newborn babies, nor can we conclude he excludes them. We know only that he includes "children" of a certain conceptual capacity. We do not know from this work if he includes children without that capacity or not. We can only presume he does not, because o/w why would he bother with the qualification (that one time)? I am asking if anyone can cite any other work of Smith's where we do not have to read between the lines. A cite in which we do not have to read between the lines would be a clearer source. --JimWae (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

note: the closed section that was here was closed per WP:FORUM and moved to the top of this thread.
Bit confused to find all this discussion here...! I think I get what you've done now though. Anyway, so far as I know (having checking Atheism: the case against God, Atheism, Ayn Rand and other heresies and Why Atheism?, Smith nowhere spells out precisely when a being can be said to be sufficiently capable to qualify as an implicit atheist through lack of information about theism. Since he nowhere spells it out, it seems to be reasonable to note that he mentioned "conceptual capacity". Thus, a newborn baby would not be an atheist. Nor would a worm. Or a plant. I think that is tolerably clear. Interestingly, d'Holbach is only cited because his note that children who have no idea of God are atheists is only possible if atheism is not only rejectionism. d'Holbach, though, was concerned there with defending atheists from legal persecution: you don't lock up children for not believing in God, he's saying, so why grown ups? Mind you, Catholicism for many years did not regard unbaptised children as "saved" if they died young. Is there a point to this? --Dannyno (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

change of topic back to antitheism again

"Atheism is not necessarily the end product of a chain of reasoning. The term “atheist” tells us that one does not believe in a god, but it does not specify why. Regardless of the cause of one’s nonbelief, if one does not believe in a god, one is atheistic. Theism must be learned and accepted. If it is never learned, it cannot be accepted—and man will remain implicitly atheistic. If theism is learned but rejected anyway, man will be explicitly atheistic—which brings us to the second kind of atheism. (b) An explicit atheist is one who rejects belief in a god. This deliberate rejection of theism presupposes familiarity with theistic beliefs and is sometimes characterized as anti-theism." George Smith, Atheism - the case against god, 1979 p.14 . -- Muthsera (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"Antitheism" suffers the same fate as "godlessness". Both words are too ambiguous to be used here. They both have broader meanings which can confuse rather than enlighten the reader. We want to avoid any such ambiguity. For example, with "atheism is godlessness" or when applied to an individual that someone is godless, it is often meant that god's "righteousness" or divine presence is absent with the individual that is characterized as such and whether or not the person is actually an unbeliever or not is irrelevant when the word is used that way. Such unintended meanings detract and tend to create narrow or unintended POV problems even when we do not intend to do so. Furthermore, regardless of what specific primary sources may say that you have quoted here and above, its preferable that we refer to secondary and tertiary sources. --Modocc (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
George Smith is not a primary source in the sense that is meant by our policies, or all sources are primary sources for their own writing ;) Unomi (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
@Modocc, no I don't think it's to ambiguous, it's just that the understanding of it is in conflict with the rest of the article so it's left out. And that your slowly starting to realize where this term comes into play. And I think it's starting to dawn on you here that it is indeed been left out of this article and that it has a valid place here. -- Muthsera (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
@Unomi, OK, I think I understand what your saying, and I'd add that whether or not a work (or any portion of it) is primary or secondary with regards to the material advanced depends on factors such as who,what,where and why and the result can be sometimes subjective and even if its pretty clear what the sourced material is in fact is, from what I've read even tertiary sources can introduce primary and secondary material. ;( --Modocc (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
What is Muthsera's point in quoting Smith here? He's right that that particular form of atheism is sometimes called anti-theism. And sometimes it isn't. Smith doesn't call it that in his typology, for example. So what's the point? --Dannyno (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism&diff=prev&oldid=358107852 & previous diff. What with all the subsequent closings & moving arounds, this got extracted. He agreed it was a "derailment" of the topic --JimWae (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My quote was also to show JimWae that what Smith said about "Implicit Atheism" was directly related to his request. Secondly it was to highlight a detail on the above argument from JimWae's request which was about "Anti-Theism" vs "Explicit Atheism". That part was a derailment and shouldn't been highlighted. It confused the point I tried to make for JimWae. -- Muthsera (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Closing via WP:FORUM

I don't understand why the above discussion was closed and collapsed, and citing WP:FORUM does not answer that question. It seems like a legitimate discussion that ultimately is about the content of this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit that my eyes glazed over a long time ago. I guess it's a matter of how far "ultimately" extends. Editors might perhaps wish to indicate what edits, exactly, they are proposing to make to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Much of this talkpage is being used unproductively and collapses allow editors to find serious discussions more easily. The discussion was not about the content of the article. The questions posed concerned child development. The rest of that section should be included in the collapse on identical grounds, but an editor has decided to continue on in tension with WP policy. I don't mean to offend, but figure I shouldn't waste anyone's time with pleasantries.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Some of us are certainly learning more about otherwise quite arcane features of wikipedia! --Dannyno (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Hahaha. That's pretty much the only trick thing I've come across. Oh except I can make Jimbo's face pop up! (command placed between the hyphens - - and only visible when you click edit).--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Please remove it. It comes up whenever the talk page is viewed--JimWae (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah it's really annoying. I was expecting someone to remove it pretty quick but hadn't thought of the '<!' function. Thanks!--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The question was about other sources from the same author, not about child development. Smith has been widely interpreted to say children are born as atheists. Apparently Smith does find "absence of belief" a somewhat incomplete condition for defining atheism, but we cannot say that with 100% certainty. Had Smith been clearer somewhere else, that different quote might have been clearer on his overall position.--JimWae (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we agree on this lede?

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

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

In conclusion, I propose

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

I'm going to be astoundingly picky here, but only because I don't violently object to this formulation - sad to lose "disbelief or unbelief", and despairing of ever getting support for "godlessness", but I could live with this form of words for a bit. My picky point is just that "any belief concerning" sounds strange and paradoxical. Clearly, "absence of any" is supposed to encompass people who have not encountered the idea of gods. However, as stated it seems that, logically, "absence of any belief" would also include "absence of atheist views", so that someone would NOT be counted an atheist if they believed there was no god. My point is that this seems to be a bit mixed up and has perhaps lost contact with the pro-absence definitional literature, which is best stated as "absence of theistic or deistic beliefs". Also it kind of feels watered down: instead of being concerned with beliefs that there are gods, it becomes concerned with beliefs about whether there are gods. So although you say "Clearer wording", I'm getting a crawly scalp over it. --Dannyno (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Let me put it another way. The "absence" typology, if you look at the sources, is intended to be inclusive. People are to counted as atheists if they have heard of theism and rejected it, or if they have never heard of theism and don't know what gods are. But "absence of any beliefs etc" is exclusive. In this typology - which is not to be found in the cited sources - people are to be counted as atheists only if they have never heard of theism and don't know what gods are. Someone who has heard of theism and doesn't believe a word of it is not an atheist - if we adopt NickCT's wording. An unintentional error! --Dannyno (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Dannyno, re "so that someone would be counted an atheist if they weren't an atheist" - I think you're touching on the difference between explicit and implicit atheists (i.e. someone might be counted as an implicit atheist if they weren't a explicit atheist). I think you may be over thinking this one a little.
On your other point; I'm not too sad to lose "disbelief or unbelief". These words strike me as slightly obscure. NickCT (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly it. For George H Smith, "atheism" was defined as absence, and included both what he called implicit (i.e.unaware, to paraphrase) and explicit (aware) atheism. What you've done, as you're worded it, is reduced his binary typology of atheism to just implicit atheism. And that's wrong, not "overthinking" on my part: what you've said here is that the "absence" typology excludes people who reject belief in god from being considered atheists. That's not what George H Smith said, and it's not what any other supporter of the absence formulation has said. --Dannyno (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
"Disbelief or unbelief" are commonly found in dictionary entries about atheism, so they're not that obscure. But they are ambiguous which is perhaps their strength and their weakness. --Dannyno (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Another quick point, you can't say "either" when you have more than two alternatives. --Dannyno (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC) I take it back, checking usage you can do it if it's done like you've done it. --Dannyno (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


I don't understand this obsession with insisting on keeping the rejection of belief in there. Why is that important? Is it literature sources? I've addressed this before, but I'll repeat. A rejection only makes sense in regards to an objection to a said theism. If you have an objection to a theism. You are by definition "anti". It is therefor "Anti Theism". Which is different from Atheism. -- Muthsera (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Muthsera - This topic has been extensively discussed. I'll talk about with you on your talk page if you like, but I think the "rejection of belief" has become consensus among those who have follow this debate. NickCT (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
"Rejection of theism" is an important conceptualisation of atheism in the literature. That some people prefer other formulations is neither here nor there: we just need to record that some people prefer other formulations. There's no point, Muthsera, in trying to have the debate here on whether or not "rejection" is adequate. Whether "antitheism" is different from atheism is also, in fact, a matter of opinion. Some would see them as synonymous. --Dannyno (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I object strongly to that. It is not a matter of opinion. It's a question of logic. And as far as I can tell. Non of you have made a good logical argument for why rejection is part of Atheism. Just because historically Atheism have been understood in terms as opposition to Theism. Does not make it a logical argument. It is in fact a bias argument on the part of theism. -- Muthsera (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
We don't have to make an argument, we just have to summarise the literature. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the literature or not. And the fact that atheism has been understood as "opposition to Theism" is something wikipedia has to reflect. There's no actual logical content to your opinions, which are rather simply assertions, and your opinions are not what wikipedia is made of. Find us a published reliable source which takes your line and maybe we can find room for it. --Dannyno (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree that my assertions shouldn't make up the content of wikipedia. You'll have no enemy of me there. But I gather you understand the problem? And I explained to you earlier. "Opposition to Theism" could very well be covered in the historical section of the article. As well as an sub article of the debate over burden of proof. The question I'm raising is. Is this not a theist bias towards an atheistic position? Am I to be defined by what someone else does? I reject to that. And I don't think sources are justified to view it like that. And I certainly don't think it's a neutral position wikipedia takes on that. I think it shows a continues bias towards theism. So I think we should focus on the views of later atheists. If you want I'll dig up the sources on that. Give me a day and I'll have the page number. -- Muthsera (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


No, to define atheism as "rejection" is not theistic bias, because rejection can be for lots of different reasons. Nor is defining it as "opposition to theism", which we don't anyway. --Dannyno (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how it can be. One cannot have a rejection if one is not opposed to it. What you can say is that you are unconvinced. But that is not the same as saying you reject it. A rejection only makes sense if atheism is right to hold the burden of evidence. Then you have to actively object to a theist position. It is in essence siding with the theist bias. -- Muthsera (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by "opposed"? There is a sense where "reject" and "oppose" are more or less synonymous, but oppose usually has connotations of resistance or acting against. I might reject religion without opposing religion, if I am favourably disposed towards religion while thinking it mistaken. I can reject charity without being opposed to charity. What you're saying is therefore ambiguous. Again, if I say I am unconvinced by something, I might actually mean that I reject it (why am I unconvinced...?), the distinction is not as clear as you suggest. Much of what you are trying to say is lost amid all these undefined terms. The rest of what you are trying to say is POV irrelevance which Wikipedia doesn't care about. I think you're talking nonsense, but what I think is irrelevant too. --Dannyno (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Because if you are unconvinced, but you think religion is a value, then your not really in rejection of it. You are simply just unconvinced. What you may do is reject the argument for religion that is different than outright rejecting the concept religion. -- Muthsera (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


I propose:

Kevin Baastalk 16:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion is appreciated Baas. I was wondering however if there were any objection to my minor rewording of the current lede. NickCT (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I object to the second part of the sentence on the grounds that it simply repeats what the first part says, and the third part because absence of any belief concerning the existence of deities is the very definition of agnosticism, which is not atheism. Kevin Baastalk 16:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
But atheism is not only the position that there are no deities. And the literature includes plenty of examples of writers who consider agnosticism, or some forms of agnosticism, to be atheistic. Thirdly, your definition of agnosticism contradicts wikipedia's entry on the subject, which supplies a typology. --Dannyno (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree to that. agnosticism must be understood in the context of "undecided" or "God is unknowable". -- Muthsera (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Ther's no "must" about it. The fact is that agnosticism is understood in different ways by different people. --Dannyno (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised by the logical inconsistency of "different people". (phun also intended) -- Muthsera (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
What logical inconsistency? --Dannyno (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
That they have different understanding of one concept. It must be failure to accurately portray the concept. -- Muthsera (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
That's not a logical inconsistency. It's just a fact of life that agnosticism has had a variety of meanings. --Dannyno (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
wikipedia defines agnosticism: "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable." in other words, agnosticism is absence of any belief concerning the existence of deities. I don't see any inconsistency there. a = a. reflection. Kevin Baastalk 18:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem is not so much the definition of "agnosticism" but the definition of "atheism". To many atheists, outright denial -- that is, the assertion of non-existence -- is not the only definition of atheism; rather, they also incorporate so-called "weak atheism" into their definition. While you may discount that is merely agnosticism, countless sources disagree. The lede must incorporate both the expansive and the more restrictive definitions of atheism. Powers T 18:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Kevin Baas: as a simple logical observation, "the view that the truth value of certain claims... is unknown or unknowable" is not quite the same thing as "absence of any belief concerning the existence of deities". A belief that the existence of deities cannot be established is a belief concerning the existence of deities. I would have thought that was obvious. Agnosticism *is* an absence of belief in gods, but then so is a rejection of belief in gods. The wording of this point is critical. --Dannyno (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Your penultimate sentence is not quite correct, I think. An agnostic acknowledges that the question of whether a deity exists is unknowable, but he may or may not maintain a belief despite recognizing the uncertainty. Thus there are both agnostic atheists (quite common) and agnostic theists (rare but extant). Powers T 14:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure, there are those who believe in an unknowable (or unprovable) God. My point about the problem of the wording remains. --Dannyno (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Any theist who says he believes in God but doesn't know if God really exists because God is unknowable is technically an agnostic. I think that applies to many if not most theists. Similarly, even Dawkins admits to a tiny probability of being wrong, thus technically making even that atheist an agnostic. In short, agnosticism applies to almost every honest thinking person, and so is not very useful, except to differentiate from "those believers that claim they know their particular personal conception of a deity exists". --Born2cycle (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Thats just not logical cohesive? How can you say that knowing God is impossible and still believe in him? It's one of those squaring of the mind. Aren't you just basically a theist or deist who don't want to produce positive evidence? -- Muthsera (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't ask me how one can say that knowing God is impossible but still believe in his existence... ask any one of the countless who hold that position, the vast majority of "believers" as far as I can tell.
To their credit, when you get on a plane to fly somewhere, you don't know that it won't fall out of the sky during the trip, but you probably never-the-less believe it won't. However, even that is ultimately Dawkins' argument - the reason you believe the plane won't fall out of the sky is because you've approximately calculated the likelihood to be very low. Similarly, since we have no knowledge of God's existence, belief in that existence must be based on probability. And Dawkins argues that that probability, though not absolutely zero, is vanishingly small, much smaller than the probability of a plane falling out of the sky. Therefore it's more rational to believe there are no deities than to believe a given plane that we're boarding won't fall out of the sky, which we all do. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
What you are talking about are two different concepts. Flying is a positive experience because we have evidence that it actually happens. That it falls down is the natural consequence of losing lift. Which also happens. Your then left with assessing the risk of two positive experiences, flight versus losing lift. That isn't the theist vs atheist argument at all. It is right that Dawkins argue the position that there where no evidence for the existence of god so there was no basis to believe in a deity. However you take it out of context. It is a defense against disbelief of the deity. In no way does that discount the position that Atheism is a passive understanding. Which I know from other lectures Dawkins have held, that he is in favor of. (I'll try to get hold of a transcript of those). The belief vs disbelief argument is essentially how to position the different hypothesis. What that essentially boils down to is an argument about who has the burden of proof. Atheist say that the theist position is a positive claim and thus require evidence to support that hypothesis. Theist however claim that atheist need to disprove the deist. That however proposes a problem as it is impossible to disprove a negative. Which is also Dawkins argument. It is only when he tries to describe how unlikely this belief is that you take up the thread on his argument. And you haven't really understood the context in which he argues what position. I don't blame you however, it is a very complicated issue and very hard to have a clear grasp of what makes up the different arguments. Thats why we have this lengthy discussion. -- Muthsera (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. No Dawkins use the Russel's teapot argument to show the disconnect.

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

(ec)@Dannyo: that is not logic, that is semantics. Namely, it is an unconventional interpretation of the meaning of the word "concerning" in this context. Conventionally it is interpreted here to mean "...as to whether they do or do not...". Furthermore in the respect that you interpret that word, it is not even relevant, because most atheists believe existence is as "unknowable" e.g. unfalsifiable as the boogey-man, and for the same reason they don't believe in the boogeyman or russell's teapot, they don't believe in the existence of deities. so that really leaves only 1 meaningfull interpretation: the one you didn't use in that argument.
@Powers: a) "countless sources disagree": i believe you are refering to "innocents" (weak atheism is just de facto rather than de jure, which still fits the definition) in which case a few, very questionable, anti-atheist agenda driven sources disagree. b) "The lede must incorporate both the expansive and the more restrictive definitions of atheism.": this is an unfounded assertion and, arguably, false. Kevin Baastalk 14:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not referring only to innocents. I also refer to atheists who do not believe in the existence of gods, but also do not positively assert their nonexistence. It is those of us who say "I don't think that gods exist, but I cannot conclusively say there are no gods." To your second point, I can't imagine why we wouldn't include both aspects. Powers T 15:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
so logically they believe that x is false, but they do not believe that x is not true? Is this some kind of quantumn decoherence phenomena that i'm not aware of? It should not be in the intro because frankly, it is idiotic. I have been avoiding that frankness for a long time now but I am really getting sick of this, so there it is. There is no difference. and you are to use the argument that encyclopedias word their intros differently? that's because they are different encyclopedias! as to "can't imagine": if you are really that uninspired try reading wikipedia policies and guidelines with respect o the intro. or more generally speaking take a class on writing. Kevin Baastalk 16:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Kevin, I believe the assertion, the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists is false. That means I believe the assertion, the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, is true. It says nothing about what I believe about the existence of undefined entities.
Similarly, the Pope and I believe the assertion, The Greek god Thor exists is false. That means we believe the assertion, The Greek god Thor does not exist, is true. It says nothing about what we believe about the existence of any other deities. I presume he believes in the existence of the Catholic God, while I don't, but that's a different question.
An atheist is anyone who does not believe in the existence of any deities, regardless of why he or she doesn't hold any such belief. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand first-order logic just fine - there's no need to explain it to me. My spatial reasoning skills are - well - not something you'll have to worry about. In that you did I'm not sure you understand what I was saying. I think you summed it up well in that last sentence. That is exactly what I am saying. Kevin Baastalk 18:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Powers writes, "It is those of us who say 'I don't think that gods exist, but I cannot conclusively say there are no gods.' ". I think that applies to almost all atheists, for I don't know any who have claimed that they can conclusively say there are no gods. Do you have a source for such a claim? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/whatisatheism.htm Powers T 17:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't come here to be insulted. Powers T 17:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Born2cycle has a good point which I think gets to the core of the matter. Nobody states that they can conclusively claim there are no gods. Nor can they honestly state that they can conclusively demonstrate the existence of a god or gods. deities are by their very nature that way. that is where everyone starts from, theist, agnostic, or atheist. the question is where they go from there. for all i can tell a theist says "we don't know whether or not it exists so it exists! fabulous!" , while an agnostic says "so we don't know either way, great.", and an atheist says something more like "i don't know whether my neighbor hasn't invented a death ray that he's going to use on me tomorrow, either, but I'm sure as hell not going to lose any sleep over it." ultimately they all start from the same premise. it's how they reason about it that tells them apart. Kevin Baastalk 18:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Then the question is. Is the position of atheism a rejection of the hypothesis? Or is it simply a position of irrelevancy until the positive proof has been supplied? That seems to me the debate we're having now is about. -- Muthsera (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Put abstractly I think it might be fair to generally say that atheist start from where agnostics leave off and go one intellectual step further. Perhaps agnostics don't feel safe / justified enough with that step but atheists consider it necessary / practical. E.g. lying awake every night in fear of my neighbor's hypothetical death ray would take quite the toll on my health. And so the same reasoning applies to everything in the same metaphysical context. Whereas an agnostic would be: yea, but what if he/she actually DOES have a death ray? Atheists taking an additional intellectual step that agnostics are not willing to take. Kevin Baastalk 19:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's a question of taking a step further. I'd rather ask if it was my position as an Atheist to do anything. That is the implication of Russel's Teapot. That is what Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc are arguing when they use the Teapot argument. -- Muthsera (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Is not russel's teapot an intellectual step? Kevin Baastalk 12:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't fully know what you mean by that. I'm under the understanding that the implication it rises is not just an intellectual step, it is an implication of how to define atheism. Are one the passive observer as an atheist or are one an objectionist to theism. It's kinda either or. The teapot is only there to illustrate the burden of proof towards that teapot. There might be, we don't know. But it's irrelevant until it has an implication to our lives. In other terms. One might say that it is a question of disproving the negative vs proving the positive and how one is to relate to that. The answer to that debate is the final endorsement of what defines atheism. You can do an sub article of that debate, but you cannot include both in one definition. I can't see how we can get away from that problem with just saying that we are only siting sources and different views. -- Muthsera (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought I was pretty clear. russel's teapot is the kind of thing i'm talking about when i say "intellectual step". another example of an "intellectual step" might be, as you mention, "burden of proof". another example might be, also as you mention "irrelevant until it has an implication to our lives" (which russell's teapot does, btw. it is the reason i don't lie awake every night in fear of my neighbor's hypothetical death ray). one does not need to pick any particular "answer to the debate". one simply needs to recognize whether atheism can be reached by "adding" an idea to agnosticism, "subtracting" an idea, or both. if both, then we are back to square one. but if one or the other, then we have definitely made some progress. Kevin Baastalk 17:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I think your wrong in the last argument. Your basically saying that Atheism is defined by what Agnosticism does or does not do. I do not agree with that. There are many of us who only understand Agnosticism as the "correct" stance as you cannot ever have full overview of the universe at all times or in other words, disprove the negative. But in reality. That turns over into another question. How am I to live under that understanding? And it's here the teapot argument comes in. Who have the burden of showing the positive claim. That is absolutely key to understanding Atheism. -- Muthsera (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


@Kevin Baas: I wouldn't distinguish quite so rigidly between logic and semantics, but whatever. I still think the wording suggested was confusing for the reason stated, as amended to allow for "agnostic theists". --Dannyno (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Then perhaps a better phrasing than "...concerning the existence of..."? Something less ambiguous but ideally just as concise. Do you have any ideas? Kevin Baastalk 12:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


arbitrary break

There are lots of confident but untrue statements being made, above. And lots of words flung about with no sign of any appreciation of what they might be taken to mean.
Firstly, Kevin_Baas was sarcastic "so logically they believe that x is false, but they do not believe that x is not true?... It should not be in the intro because frankly, it is idiotic." But what do you think it means to say that something is "false"? Do you think it means that it is inductively or deductively disproved? Or do you think it means that it is unsupported by evidence or argument? It's perfectly possible to reject belief that something exists without taking a position on whether it exists. Or, to put it another way, it is a perfectly plausible position to say that belief in the Loch Ness Monster is unreasonable, without being committed to the view that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist; you might concede that the Loch Ness Monster is possible. Or, to put it yet another way, something might exist, but we might lack good warrant for believing that it exists. I'm sure we can all think of scientific hypotheses which turned out to be correct but which it was reasonable to reject at the time they were originally proposed.
Secondly, if something is, in your opinion, "idiotic", that doesn't mean that reliable sources have not nevertheless upheld it. Your opinion that it is idiotic is not, thus far, verifiable. Whereas that the position exists is verifiable.
Thirdly, Born2Cycle states, and Kevin_Baas agrees, "An atheist is anyone who does not believe in the existence of any deities, regardless of why he or she doesn't hold any such belief." Reliable sources say this. Some of us may think this one of the best conceptualisations of atheism. But not everyone does, and other reliable sources would be more restrictive than that, while yet other would be broader. That is our problem. For all the stamping of feet, the FACT is that there is no single verifiable understanding of what atheism involves. We cannot invent one, or synthesise one. So we have to say, in effect, precisely that what atheism involves is complex and disputed. That is the only honest course. There are even reliable sources saying that. We need to stop the POV wars about what atheism really is, and concentrate on what is verifiable.
Fourthly, Born2cycle stated that, "I don't know any who have claimed that they can conclusively say there are no gods." Take care. Someone like William Chilton would have claimed just that. Bradlaugh would have claimed of it of most concepts, while acknowledging his inability to deal with undefined "gods" in the abstract. The literature includes confident attempts at deductive disproofs of the existence of god. The literature also includes dispute over whether the existence of god is in principle liable to disproof-type arguments at all. Victor Stenger, for example, in the April/May 2010 issue of Free Inquiry magazine, says (p.6):

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

Fifthly, Kevin_Baas says: "Nobody states that they can conclusively claim there are no gods. Nor can they honestly state that they can conclusively demonstrate the existence of a god or gods." Well, "no gods" is a bit too far because most people disregard a whole bunch of gods and just ignore them - they don't supply arguments against them. However, there are claims in reliable sources that the existence of the Abrahamic monotheistic deity has been conclusively proved. And indeed that such a being has been conclusively proved. And they can all do this honestly. You know, what does Plantinga or Swinburne think they're doing, but writing inductive or deductive arguments for the existence of God, which they honestly think are conclusive?
Sixthly, Muthsera tried to draw us into a debate. We shoudn't be debating, we should be trying to build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources.
Seventhly, Kevin_Baas said: "Atheists taking an additional intellectual step that agnostics are not willing to take." Again, this is your opinion. Why should we care. What do reliable sources say? Some of them, at least, say you're wrong.
--Dannyno (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I seem to have struck a nerve. It will take me some time to respond to all of this. A good way to fill some free time at work. :) Kevin Baastalk 12:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Let me throw out a brief response to the last two points right away:
6: We were discussing things pertinent to how material is presented in the lede. Sometimes that involves debate. And if anything of recent discussion constititues debate, esp. tangential to developing agreement on how to represent things in the lede, it is that long list of rebuttles in which you write "we shouldn't be debating".
7:you should care because you have your own and i presume you think and therefore are interested in others, as well, as they all help to provide insight on a matter, eslp. when they are built on solid foundations of facts and logic. In this case, if you have followed the discussion up to there, the matter is how atheism, agnosticism, and theism differ, and what they have in common. This, of course, is constructive for writing a good lede on atheism. Kevin Baastalk 12:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Your preamble "There are lots of confident but untrue statements being made, above. And lots of words flung about with no sign of any appreciation of what they might be taken to mean." is very presumptuous, self-righteous, and offensive. not the kind of interaction that belongs on wikipedia, or anywhere, for that matter.
1:I don't see how that was sarcastic. I was just showing the structural form of what was literally written. "what do you think it means to say that something is "false"?" oh please! let's not talk absurdities! this is logic: true, false. 1,0. "what do you mean by a=a?" tell me you understand algebra, at least. "or put another way..." you see that's just the thing, that is not "put another way", that is something entirely different. and scientific hypothesis are completely uncomparable: scientific hypothesi are falsifiable. completely different. in fact, it can be said that that difference is what constitutes the entire issue.
2:that my opinion exists is verifiable. i don't dispute that some people actually believe that (how, i don't know), but i do dispute a) the reliability of the sources, b) their noteworthiness, and c) how, if at all, they should be presented in wikipedia, and namely that they should be as an opinion and not a fact (and probably a fringe one, at that)
3: The "FACT is that there" are MANY "single verifiable [sources] of what atheism involves". Wikipedia is not, after all, the ONLY encyclopedia.
4: what you are quoting is a strongly worded statement that existence of god should be dismissed on the grounds that it is not falsifiable. that is altogether different than on the ground that it is false. he alludes to parsimony as well. and asserts the proper placement of the burden of proof. all-in-all he is making the same basic argument that most atheists make. nothing new there. "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". i.e. innocent until proven guilty. clearly he's asserting no "positive" evidence.
5: no, they are not being intellectually honest. plantinga and swinburne clearly are very confused. i concede that there are crazies out there who believe just about anything you can imagine, no matter how absurd. but i contend that such things are minority views that qualify as "fringe". and plantinga and swinburne clearly fit that category.
Okay, and then there's 6 and 7 above, and that covers everything. That consumed far less time than I had hoped. Kevin Baastalk 14:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Powers was right, as well as Dannyno, and practically all the other editors preceding them too, for this is a Featured Article that has undergone considerable scrutiny, and yet this is the umpteenth time that the distinction between strong/weak atheism (in older texts it is dogmatic/skepticalcritical atheism [are distinguished]) has been pointed out, but to no avail because you still insist on concluding: "so logically they believe that x is false, but they do not believe that x is not true?" which is an absurd contradiction (believing and not believing the same thing) that is simply wrong. I'll attempt to correct it by first assuming what you meant by x is the statement that "there is a god", Striking the inaccuracy and filling in the details gives "...they believe that x is false[unwarranted (as in an unwarranted belief and they might be open to persuasion and they simply don't care enough to assert the statement as being in fact false)], but they do not believe that x is not true...". --Modocc (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
If your sources are old texts that refer to any form of atheism as "dogmatic" then I strongly question their neutrality. my logical thing there was just stripping what someone wrote down to its bare bones. the changes you made to it sound a lot more reasonable, but see that's the point, you made changes to it. (and good for you!) it no longer reflects the logical structure of what was originally written. if you want to write something that reflects the logical structure that you offered, well i would certainly endorse that version over the other. though then the obvious issue comes up of categorizing people who are undecided as atheists. In that case -- unless you intend to classify agnosticism as a form of atheism -- what the hell is an agnostic? Kevin Baastalk 16:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, before you start judging who's right and who's wrong based on past article ratings/classifications, keep in mind that "consensus can change". And that "truth" is just a matter of what seems most reasonable at the time, to the most amount of people involved at that time. Kevin Baastalk 17:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
@Kevin_Baas. I think there is a difference between debating what our sources say, and what the best way to summarise that is, and debating a new synthesis, a Wikipedian typology of atheism, which itself does not appear in the literature. I'm in favour of the former, and I'm grumbling about the latter.
On point 1, are you not aware of, for instance logical positivism? Paul Edwards' typology specifically counts logical positivism as a noncognitivism form of atheism, characterising it as rejecting theism for a reason other than that theism is false. Therefore, some reliable sources say that true and false are not the only options, and it is possible to reject theism on grounds other than that you think it is false - you might hold that it is all meaningless.
You dispute the reliability of the sources. You do realise you are disputing most of the key works of atheist typology? Paul Edwards in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy - unreliable? By what possible measure? Not noteworthy? The first attempt to provide an objective characterisation of atheism in a serious philosophical reference work? Incredible! Fringe? How so? Opinion not fact? Well here I agree, since there's hardly going to be some kind of "fact" about how best to conceptualise godlessness! That's one of our problems!
You say: "The "FACT is that there" are MANY "single verifiable [sources] of what atheism involves". Wikipedia is not, after all, the ONLY encyclopedia." I was all set for criticising this, but then I realised I didn't know what you meant.
4. I disagree with your assessment of Stenger. I think he's clearly saying that at least some god-hypotheses are indeed falsifiable, and that they have, according to him, been falsified.
5: Plantinga and Swinburne may may be confused - I certainly think they are mistaken - but I've seen nothing suggesting that they are being hypocritical, or that they secretly know where there mistakes are and are fingers crossed hoping nobody spots them, or that they are being dishonest in their belief that their arguments genuinely support the existence of god. I'm just plain baffled by this, since again it's just your opinion. If this was Kevin_Baasipedia then fine, we could characterise Swinburne and Plantinga and their atheist equivalents as dishonest, but it isn't, and all we have to go on is the evident fact that, contrary to your assertion, there is no shortage of people out there who are supplying what they honestly think are proofs, or contributions to proofs, of the existence or nonexistence of god(s).
--Dannyno (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
On point 1, you completely missed the point again. i am not saying that true and false are the only options. quite to the contrary, I am the one who introduced the concept of "falsifiability" into this discussion! I already stated what i was doing (i believe more than once), and that was showing the logical form of what was being said. maybe you didn't word it exactly how you wanted to. who knows. but so far it look like you haven't even considered that possibility!
Paul Edwards: frankly, i don't know who that is. doesn't really matter, though. i don't "realize i'm disputing" him and i'm not convinced i am. it is entirely possible that you're misinterpreting him. and in any case i don't think we should be using the opinion of a philosopher -- however long or "serious" -- as an introduction to the subject. i believe that violates mutiple wikipedia policies, not the least of which is the non-negotiable NPOV.
"single verifiable [sources] of what atheism involves" - what i meant is that that's what you are attempting to do with the lead (and correct me if i'm wrong), and you should look at where you're trying to do it: in a wikipedia article. and what is wikipedia? an encyclopedia! and why are you trying to do it? because it's an encyclopedia! so don't you think that other authors of other encyclopedias were attempting to do the same thing? and wouldn't you concede that well-regarded encyclopedias such as compton's and brittanica are generally considered successful at precisely that?
re: "I disagree with your assessment of Stenger. I think he's clearly saying that at least some god-hypotheses are indeed falsifiable, and that they have, according to him, been falsified." that is different from what i am saying. they are not incompatible. god is by definition not scientific. as we have seen again and again when ever the church says something testable and it's tested and shown to be false they just say "oh, that's not what we meant." or something like that. in the theist's mind logic and reason don't really matter (possibly a consequence of being indoctrinated before the age of reason?), so the main idea of god existing or not has to be addressed separately from any hypotheses. I see him doing both in the quoted passage. it's not disagreement because showing some hypothesis to be false doesn't disprove god. "oh, that was just god tricking you into thinking it was false." - see? god still isn't disproven. that kind of idiocy is why stenger still is forced to assert the burden of proof argument: "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Kevin Baastalk 18:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
"...nothing suggesting that they are being hypocritical, or that they secretly know where there mistakes..." that's not what i mean by intellectually dishonest. intellectually dishonesty is *inward* dishonesty. (it is, so to speak, a symptom of poor intellectual (self-)discipline.) what i mean is that i don't think they're even being honest with themselves. (that or they really have no idea what they're talking about) i think intellectual dishonesty does a better job of explaining it than i could. that aside, matters of notability and fringe and all that really are pertinent to wikipedia policies. we treat minority views differently and that clearly is a minority view. Kevin Baastalk 18:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
@Kevin_Baas.Powers did not state anything that amounted to a contradiction when he wrote:"..I also refer to atheists who do not believe in the existence of gods, but also do not positively assert their nonexistence. It is those of us who say 'I don't think that gods exist, but I cannot conclusively say there are no gods.'" In other words, the statements are "I don't believe that gods exist" and "I cannot say there are no gods" Since there is no contradiction, the error of contradiction was inexplicably yours in your rendering of it. Oh I misspoke above, I meant to say dogmatic/critical atheism. Agnosticism is skeptical atheism,the terminology can be found here. --Modocc (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
No, i rendered it faithfully. it is your rendering, even right there above, that is unfaithful. I think I understand now what he meant to say. but that's not what he said. It's important to make the distinction because we can't make the same kind of mistake in the intro. Kevin Baastalk 18:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
He meant exactly what he said and said exactly what he meant and he has left this discussion. Perhaps you can tell me, what is it he said that is wrong or contrary to what it is he meant? --Modocc (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes I can. In fact, I did, above. If it is not utterly obvious from what I've already said then it is futile for me to continue trying to explain it. Kevin Baastalk 20:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
What is obvious is that you deny making any sort of leap and quibble with my very minor translation: dropping the word "but" to parse into two sentences and turning ""don't think" into "don't believe". I don't think I am turning the obvious on its head so as to admit no wrong. But then again asking open-ended questions of others is not exactly the same as questioning one's own reasoning. I know of your conclusion which is a contradiction, but you can enlighten me further as to exactly how you arrived at your rendering of what Powers said. --Modocc (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
by making as few changes as possible to get it into a purely logical form. for instance, not interjecting anything that isn't in the original. this feels old and tired to me and i don't feel like spelling it out for you right now. (and i've done that kind of thing before and it takes up a lot more space than you would think! (certainly a lot more than i thought)) and i'm off for the day pretty soon anyways. maybe later. for now consider it "an exercise". Kevin Baastalk 20:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
And agnosticism is atheism without enough skepticism. Clearly, the atheist is the more skeptical of the two. Kevin Baastalk 19:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
"Dogmatic" does not necessarily have a pejorative meaning, please note. Hence McTaggart's atheistic "Some dogmas of religion" used "dogmas" entirely neutrally and not as a criticism. --Dannyno (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
pejorative or not, "dogmatic atheism" is an oxymoron. and one does not arrive at oxymorons through by way of an unbiased course. Kevin Baastalk 18:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I can understand why from your point of view it would look like that, but it is only your point of view. It has been used simply to signify either strong atheism or conscious rejections of theism generally. --Dannyno (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
If you can understand the why of it then clearly it is more than "only [my] point of view". "It has been used simply to signify either strong atheism or conscious rejections of theism generally" is "only your point of view" and i have already provided evidence against it. Also "strong atheism" IS "conscious rejection of theism generally". Look it up in the article. Kevin Baastalk 16:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
"conscious rejection of theism generally" is explicit atheism, and not strong atheism. Also, I shouldn't have implied above that the dogmatic and critical forms had a direct correspondence with the strong/weak distinction. My point was that strong atheism, as well as dogmatic atheism, are subsets of what authors consider to be atheism, that in its more general form it involves "critique and denial" (i.e. rejection} of belief, as oppose to asserting the falsehood of the unfalsifiable of the gods of the gaps. --Modocc (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
"conscious rejection of theism generally" is strong atheism, which is a form of explicit atheism. Also, contrary to what one very confused author might think, if there are a few "dogmatic atheist"s they are certainly too few in number to be worth mentioning. at that point we might as well start talking about "chocolatey atheist"s and "cat-hating atheist"s i'm sure there are just as many "cat-hating theists", in proportion. but the proportion of "dogmatic theists" in comparision to the few, if any, "dogmatic atheists", is ginormous. so like i said, not even worth mentioning. which then begs the question: why mention it? but i digress: we are getting pretty far off-topic. Kevin Baastalk 15:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I follow Hitchens understanding and deviding it into "anti theism" vs "atheism". As it is more argumently correct. -- Muthsera (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the strong atheism article distinguishes the difference between strong and explicit atheism as I have said. I also have explained why I mentioned dogmatic atheism, and its part of the literature that shows that here have been similar typologies and disagreements that go back further than the most recent, and as someone who likes cats, I am still waiting for the crow. --Modocc (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a different in how we interpret the word "generally" in this context. I don't at all doubt that there have been disagreements among people throughout the decades on how to categories different religious beliefs or lack there of. But if that was the point you were trying to make, I fail to see its relevance. Kevin Baastalk 17:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)You are right that strong atheism is a form of explicit atheism and that the notion of "generally" has nothing to do with this. But the notion that "..."conscious rejection of theism generally" is strong atheism" is incorrect, because strong agnostics fall under that definition. --Modocc (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so now you distinguish between atheism and agnosticism! How convenient! in any case, you are wrong here: agnosticism might reject the possibility of a few specific gods, but does not consciously reject the possibility of a god or gods existence in total ("generally"). conscious rejection of theism generally is unique to strong atheism. it is what defines it. Kevin Baastalk 12:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but strong agnostic atheists reject belief, ie theism, generally, and it is not the strong atheism of asserting that no deity exists, for if they were to make such an assertion of knowledge or belief they would no longer be strong agnostic atheists. In any case, we've come full circle on this again. Oh well. --Modocc (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
No need to apologize, except maybe for the non-sequitor you now just made. I said "conscious rejection of theism generally" is strong atheism" . "is" is generally understood to mean "implies". e.g. A "is" B means everything that "is" A is also B. however, this does not mean that the converse neccessarily holds, and by the same token the converse not holding does not mean that this does not hold. the non-sequitor i mentioned is that you just discussed the converse. creating an example where the converse does not hold -- which is what you just did -- does not present any logical implications to what i said. and this does not create a circle. (i.e. we have not "come full circle") since it's a non-sequitor i'd say a "side-step" would be a more fitting term. Kevin Baastalk 20:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I have actually been to the point, just about each and every time in my posts. Odd though, that you understand the logic, but fail to apply it when you say "conscious rejection of theism generally", which is actually what A is above, for it includes both explict weak atheism as well as strong agnostic atheism, neither of which, especially the former, should be confused with strong atheism, and neither of which imply strong atheism, and therefore everything that is in A is not in the B of strong atheism. So there is no equality nor implication as you would like. In addition, you have "side-stepped" many times, most recently by manufacturing a nonexistent contratadiction and of course contradictions should never be assumed as this leads to invalid proofs. --Modocc (talk)15:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
@Kevin_Baas said: "what the hell is an agnostic?" A very good question! And one that is not so easy to answer since agnosticism is afflicted with some of the same typological problems as atheism. Fortunately it isn't wikipedia's remit to decide, it's our remit to summarise the reliable sources. --Dannyno (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
that completely side-steps my very pertinent rhetorical question. Kevin Baastalk 18:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, as it was rhetorical sidestepping it seemed appropriate. --Dannyno (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
sidestepping is always wrong. it's a form of intellectual dishonesty and that is never good. it's a way to fool yourself into believing that you haven't lost an argument when you see no way to win. in this the very act fails doubly: it makes you less intelligent while simultaneously destroying any chance of solving the problem. so clearly, never appropriate. Kevin Baastalk 16:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Merry Christmas to you, too. --Dannyno (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry. that was harsh. I was probably getting out some of my anger w/republicans on t.v. their methods of "argument" are full of dishonesty, not the least of which is of the obfuscation and non-sequitor variety. while i would love to see someone that blunt with them on t.v. (besides john stewart and david letterman), you didn't deserve it. i was projecting. sorry.
i do however feel this is relevant for improving the lead and that you are taking WP:V too far (to the point of putting the cart before the horse, even) and i could cite policy about consistency between/among articles in support of my view. and the basic principle that if we're just going to ignore basic questions about consistency then we might as well not do any thinking and just copy and paste everything, and i don't think that would make for a very good article and i don't think that's what we're supposed to be doing. Kevin Baastalk 12:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism/Archive_45&oldid=1064465574"