Talk:Atheism/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Main Picture

why is there a picture of Thomas Edison at the very top of the article? What is he... "King of the Atheists" or something? Jdw052 07:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The main article picture of "one of the first self described atheists" is an incredibly poor selection. The main image article should be symbolic and representative of the topic - the picture is more appropriate for a list of atheists. The current picture is about as appropriate as a picture of John Adams as a main picture for the "United States" article. ZG 16:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we post a picture of the American Atheist symbol? (that thing that looks like an atom)Jdw052 05:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Because American Atheists, which has only existed for a few decades and only in one country, is not even close to representative of atheism as a whole, which has existed in various forms for hundreds of years all over the world. People have made attempts at creating more universal symbols for atheism - I have created one myself even - but there are none that are universally recognised or accepted. ~Switch ^{t c g} 08:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just don't use Calvin peeing on a Christian fish, because that would be inappropriate, inaccurate, glib, offensive to some, and a copyright infringement to boot! ;-) MFNickster 03:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

questionable source

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

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

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

Mediation still active?

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

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

Rewrite

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

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

Rewrite by JimWae

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes and citations

In citation 11, Martin shows the flaw of his definition of Atheism. First, he admits that the root word is A-Theos. He then removes the A- (no, or without) prefix, adds the -Ism (belief in), suffix, then re-adds the A- prefix, to get his definition, of the word. His definition then equates to A-Theism (Without belief in God), when it should be Athe-ism (Belief in No God). Martin's definition of "weak" Atheism, is weak. No reliable dictionary supports his definition, at all.

3DJay 21:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking for support

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

Neoatheism

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

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

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

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

Precision to the positive definition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive and negative definition sections

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

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

So I would suggest either:

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

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

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

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

16 Jan 2007

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

xeno6696@cox.net

The words positive and negative are used here in the sense of logic, essentially negation and affirmation, as in a positive and negative statement. Thus, "without theism", is in this sense a negative definition:

• "I believe in God" (positive theism)
• "I believe there is no God" (positive atheism)
• "I don't believe in God" (negative atheism)

And similarly... although never used:

• "I don't believe there is no God" (negative theism)
• "I don't believe there is a God and I don't believe there is no God" (negative agnosticism)
• "I believe the truthvalue of "God exists" can't be known" (positive agnosticism)

The last ones are just my POV, and highly controversial, but the first three are accurate, except theism is never called "positive theism" just "theism". --Merzul 12:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewording of sentence

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

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

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

Pukkie 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

16 Jan 2007

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

xeno6696@cox.net

Some people erroneously believe...

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

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

Definition of atheism should use major Encyclopedias of Philosophy definitions

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

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

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

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

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

It doesn't matter how self-proclaimed Atheists have redefined the word. The root is Atheos, making the word athe-ism, not a-theism. And, they have redefined the word.

Diagoras "the first Atheist": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagoras_of_Melos

"openly declared that there was no God at all", "he having declared that the non-punishment of a certain act of iniquity proved that there were no Gods", "a friend of Diagoras tried to convince him of the existence of the gods"

Plato, who attended the trial of Socrates, clearly has Socrates asking Meletus if he's accusing him of believing in no Gods. Meletus answers, that is exactly what he's accusing him of.

Throughout history, you have to observe who is using the term, and how its being used, not who its used against. It was actually valid, for a Roman, who only believed Roman Gods existed, to use it against a Christian. The Roman had already denied the existence of all Gods, but his. Once the Christian denied the Roman Gods, that left none to believe in, from the Roman's perspective. The same goes for any other religion vs religion use of the term.

3DJay 21:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the etymological argument for defining atheism in a certain way is an exceedingly weak one, and I agree with you that atheists are trying to redefine the world (although, in fairness, they may have a perfectly legitimate motivation for doing so). However, you are incorrect in saying that the Romans denied the existence of any non-Roman deities; in fact, Romans almost without fail regarded foreign deities as genuine and, and often tried to appeal to the purported power of those non-Roman deities by incorporating aspects of their names, attributes, myths, etc. into Roman ritual and lore. The reason the Christians were treated differently can be accounted for in two ways. First, simple misunderstanding (or deliberate misrepresentation): Christianity was a poorly-understood cult at the time, and seemed to lack a pantheon of deities or a coherent, specific conception of the attributes or appearance of their one deity, something foreign to Roman religion. To many Romans, it very well seemed like the Christians didn't belive in any deities; and, in fact, if we define the word god more strictly in the way that some Greeks and Romans used it, they may very well have been correct, in that the Judeo-Christian "God" was not a deity in anything remotely like the way that the Greco-Roman gods were. This, of course, doesn't explain why Christians, but not Jews, were given the appellation "atheist". To explain this, political agendas are needed: the Christians were considered a subversive cult because of their refusal to acknowledge the Roman gods. Much like Socrates was persecuted for his against-the-grain beliefs and for stirring up trouble in general, and labeled an "atheist" mainly as a slur (in addition to as a genuine misunderstanding of what he believed), the Christians were labeled such in order to vilify them. And, in turn, the Christians went on to use the term atheist in much the same way on Pagans, etc. So, the polemical nature of atheist explains its usage in contexts where it is used even on theists, of various sorts. Another explanation is that atheist originally meant "without gods" or "denying the gods", not necessarily "without any gods" or "denying all the gods". Although Diagoras would be an exception to this rule, general usage seems to imply that atheist could originally be used to refer to someone who rejected certain gods, if not necessarily all of them; so, to the Romans, the Christians were atheists not because they were believed to reject all gods, nor because the Romans denied the existence of any non-Roman gods, but because the Christians rejected the Roman gods, making them atheists with respect to those specific deities. This interpretation may be a bit of a stretch, however; the simplest explanation is simply a mix of misunderstanding and deliberate distortion on the part of the Romans. -Silence 22:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Good discussion... Perhaps (???) I can add some clarity. Wikipedia is not, strictly speaking, a philosophical encyclopedia. Quoting only a philosophical resource instead of Websters dictionary might define atheism historically in ways that 99% of self-identified atheists would not recognize... the 'there is no God or other deities' definition is probably closer to the dicdef than 'there is no Christian God.' I submit that (1) if we are going to use a dictionary that websters (or another common dictionary) is sufficient and IMHO more desirable, and (2) See a popular essay I contributed to... WP:NOTLEX... where it is concluded that wikipedians ought not just ignore sourced definitions we don't like and make up 'our own'. Wikipedia doesn't make up the truth... we cite sources. Shalom, MPS 01:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that, obviously, many people have used religion for political reasons. Imperial Rome was vastly different from the Roman republic, however. They had a defined state religion which , at the time of the Christian persecutions, also included the Imperial cult. Eastern and Western Rome, were also quite different, for that matter. We can also see, in the history of both politics, and religion, that those in power don't really worry about those they don't think pose a threat. Christianity started to pose a threat. Its popularity was increasing, and it was, basically, a religious Anarchist (anti-Imperial, anti-material) movement. Even after the Roman Empire conquered Christianity, by making it a state religion, persecutions against perceived enemies of the state, continued. The Peacenik, Anarchistic, version of Christianity, was wiped out. Just because they may not have interfered with other religions, quite so much, doesn't really change what I was saying about the charges of Atheism. If the state only officially recognizes one religion, and you deny that religion, that doesn't leave any religion, in the state's eyes. Meaning, we can't define Atheism, based on who it was used against. We need to know the context in which the word was used. Like with Socrates, who wasn't an outright Atheist, but that's exactly what Meletus claimed he was. 3DJay 04:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Time out... I sorta think you missed my point. The talk page on wikipedia is only for discussing editorial praxis, not our comparative WP:EDIAN opinions of the history of atheism. The point I was trying to convey was that WE don't define atheism. Sources define atheism. What sources are you suggesting that we use for the WP:GRAF definition? MPS 06:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the current sources, are just being used wrong. Martin shows the exact etymological fallacy, by first pointing out the Greek root is A- theos. He debunks his own argument, making citation 11 useless as support for the a-theist etymology. Plus, he is, personally, a "strong" Atheist, if you read his writings. Makes me question his motives for pushing this "weak" Atheist definition. IMO, Martin is a weak source, for the "weak" definition.

Likewise, d'Holbach basically debunks his own baby statement. He wrote, in The System Of Nature... Atheism," according to them, "can only be the offspring of a tortured conscience, that seeks to disengage itself from the cause of its trouble. We have a right", says Derham, "to look upon an atheist as a monster among rational beings; as one of those extraordinary productions which we hardly ever meet with in the whole human species; and who, opposing himself to all other men, revolts not only against reason and human nature, but against the Divinity himself."...explaining what the term Atheist meant, to the those who were using the word. I highly doubt a baby would be against reason, human nature, and divinity himself. The System Of Nature, goes on and on, about people using the term Atheist. None of which implied it was being used in any "weak" way, whatsoever. So, was he trying to redefine Atheism, to a "weaker" definition, with his baby statement? No. Personally, he wanted to be rid of the label, altogether, as stated numerous times, in The System Of Nature. Funny, because the definition of a strong Atheist suits him, as it does Martin, just fine. d'Holbach seems like better evidence describing the historical use of the strong definition, the historical use of atheism as immorality, and evidence of a strong Atheist's beliefs.

Smith is another "strong" Atheist. Why are "strong" Atheists pushing the "weak" definition for Atheism? Do they just want to shake off any negative attachments, to the term? Do they want to instantly bolster their numbers, with a definition change? The polls, provided in this article, show that Atheists are a minority, even within the non-Thiest population. Why support some minority's, within a minority, attempts to change the definition, to cover all non-Theists? Where are the true "weak" Atheists, and their views, or are the only sources, those of "strong" Atheists trying to relabel all non-Theists?

Flew has flown, and is now a Deist. Cline is another that has no understanding of the etymology.

Jacques Maritain's descriptions of positive and negative Atheism, aren't weak. He equates negative Athiesm to the immoral Libertines, and positive Atheism to anti-Theism (actively trying to rid the world of God belief). And then, after these brief definitions, he goes off totally on positive Atheism. Again, this is better historical evidence of Atheism being used in a strong context (very strong, anti-, definition here) and Atheism as immorality.

How does this negative definition history mesh with Wiki's own http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism#History ? Which states that it became prominent, in the 90s. I don't see the etymology, or enough history, to bother with this "weak" definition. I think it's just confusing Atheism with Agnosticism, whos definition has been screwed with enough. Basically, it all comes down to etymology, anyway. If the "weak" Atheist advocates fail the etymology test, they have no legs to stand on. If A-Theism passes the etymology test, then you can ditch the "strong" definition. I don't see how it does, though. This article states the etymology is Athe-ism, not A-Theism. Even the Romans hadn't added the -ism, yet. They used the term Atheoi. This Wiki article, supports that the -ism wasn't added, until the 16th century, and, that the word Atheism came in use, before the word Theism. Does it stand by that etymology, or not?

Every dictionary there is, supports the Athe-ism etymology...including the online etymology dictionary. They debunk any proposed "lack of belief" definition. An -ism, can, in no way, be defined as "lack of belief", it means "belief in", or a "system of belief". Instead of using Martin, trying to redefine Atheism, to support the weak definition...use Martin's personal beliefs, his arguments against the existence of God, as evidence of a strong Atheist. Likewise with Smith, d'Holbach, or any other strong Atheists. I see here, no "weak" Atheists, laying out their philosophy, and how it differs from Agnosticism, only strong Atheists, trying to redefine a word. Non-Theist would equate to the A-theist word, they are trying to fabricate. Why not just use non-Theist? Instead of helping to blur terminologies, Wiki can help inform, and make clear the different terminologies. 3DJay 19:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it comes from "atheos", but that means godless. Atheism means literally being godless or without god - I think you are making the assumption that "without god" is the same as "no god", and then assuming that "-ism" means "belief in". They do not "debunk" it. Most dictionaries support both disbelief, and belief that no Gods exist (though implicit atheism is less common in the dictionary - be careful not to confuse that with weak atheism). I presume people don't use nontheism because it isn't an accepted word, and it's redundant to invent a new one just because some people want to quibble between "doesn't believe" and "believes not". I think the current article informs people well on the different meanings on atheism.

"Which states that it became prominent, in the 90s. I don't see the etymology, or enough history, to bother with this "weak" definition." - You've misunderstood - it's the names which have only appeared recently - and that applies to strong as well as weak. By your logic, strong atheist advocates "fail the etymology test, they have no legs to stand on". But this doesn't mean that the usage of atheism for "weak atheism" only existed since then 90s (anymore than it would mean atheism meaning "belief in no gods" has been around since the 90s). Mdwh 01:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The prefix a- means without, or not. Not: negative particle, c.1250, unstressed variant of noht, naht "in no way" (see naught). naught: "nothing," lit "no whit," from na "no" (from PIE base *ne- "no, not;" see un- (1)). - online etymology dictionary. It is perfectly acceptable to say "belief in no Gods" instead of "belief in not Gods", or it can be said, "a belief system without Gods". Example of a belief system without Gods, from Brights: "A bright is an individual whose worldview is naturalistic (free from supernatural and mystical elements)". They have wiped the possible existence of Gods out of their belief system. What kind of definition of -ism, are you using? What is Theism, if it's not "belief in Gods", or a "belief system with Gods"? I don't think you're understanding the way dictionaries are using the word disbelief (Disbelief, Unbelief. Unbelief is a mere failure to admit; disbelief is a positive rejection. - Webster's dictionary). Disbelieving the existence of Gods and Believing no Gods exist, are the same thing. You might as well argue that a lie is different than an untruth.

I understood just fine. I specifically refered to Maritain's use of the different terms. However, he also gave them different meanings, and shouldn't be used as an example. His definitions equated to immoral, on one hand, and anti-Theist, on the other. I also mentioned the other source, Smith, a "strong" Atheist himself, who specifically states that his interpretation, isn't the common definition. And, he argues a change in the etymology from athe-ism, to a-theism. Again, I have seen neither any "weak" Atheists, nor "implicit" Atheists, defining their philosophy and how it differs from Agnosticism. All I've seen is "strong" Atheists advocating a definition change. In other words...a minority of people, within a minority, trying to attach their label to others. Where are the "weak" or "imlpicit" philosophers, if there are any? 3DJay 19:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you disagree that "atheos" means "Godless"? If you can point to a notable reference that argues that this somehow means that atheism must mean belief in no Gods, then by all means put it in, but this isn't the place for original research.

How would a Godless -ism (belief system) be any different from a belief system without Gods? Which I gave an example of, above. 3DJay 23:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it would differ. If you think that those who have no belief in God are the same as those who have belief in no God, then it's true that atheism covers anyone who has no belief in God. Mdwh 23:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"A bright is an individual whose worldview is naturalistic (free from supernatural and mystical elements)" You can't both believe that only the natural exists and also believe the supernatural might exist. They have wiped the possible existence of Deity, from their belief system. 74.110.137.76 00:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, disbelief is a positive rejection. That's what the article says. This is known as explicit atheism - it's covered by "The second tradition understands atheism more narrowly, as the conscious rejection of theism". However, dictionaries do not claim that disbelieving and positive belief are the same thing - in fact, often they explicitly list both definitions separately. I think what you are actually trying to say is that it's implicit atheism which you disagree with as being included, i.e., the bit where we say "The first tradition understands atheism very broadly, as including both those who believe that no god or gods exist (strong atheism) and those who are simply not theists". Yes this isn't covered by many dictionaries, however, the article lists notable philosopers who used this definition. That you disagree with their reasoning or question their intent is up to you - I don't see where the article claims that they are right. Which parts of the Wikipedia article do you think need changing? Mdwh 16:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Without the word A-theist, all their arguments make no sense. They have to prove their etymology first. This Wiki article, itself, states that the words Atheist and Atheism came into use, some 50 years, before the words Theist and Theism. How can you be an A- to a word that doesn't exist yet? 3DJay 23:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Atheist does not come from the English word "theism", it comes from the Greek word "atheos", meaning "godless". Mdwh 23:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The root word is Atheos, to which the -ism was attached, making it a doctrine, or belief system. Just like Amoral-ism and Agnostic-ism. The root word was not Theism. Thank you. 74.110.137.76 00:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Atheism is a doctrine, just like autism, or baptism, or journalism, or Impressionism. Right? ~Switch ^{t c g} 01:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, a doctrine (a belief or set of beliefs, especially political or religious, taught and accepted by a particular group), not a lack of a doctrine/belief. If you're going to try and equate it to an action, then you're making up an even totally new definition, which is just nonsense. Even the A-theism advocates are equating the -ism to belief...lack of belief. 3DJay 04:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What? No. Impressionism is not an action. Nor are autism or journalism. -ism only means the word is a noun. In this case, the noun is a state; a state of lack of belief. Lak of belief is not belief... I would exptrapolate, but it's not really possible. ~Switch ^{t c g} 08:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

-ism \-ism\ [F. -isme, or L. -ismus, Gr. ?.] A suffix indicating an act, a process, the result of an act or a process, a state; also, a characteristic (as a theory, doctrine, idiom, etc.); as, baptism, galvanism, organism, hypnotism, socialism, sensualism, Anglicism.

You're absolutely making up a totally new definition, out of thin air. Where did you get the word belief from, for your definition, if you're defining -ism as a state? All you'd be left with is a state of No Gods. The -ism (belief) is where even the A-(No)theism (God belief) advocates are getting the word belief from. You're inventing an even new definition. 3DJay 17:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

neologism n. [F. néologisme, from ne- + log- + -isme -ism, 1 : a new word, usage, or expression; 2 : a meaningless word coined by a psychotic [6] MFNickster 18:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You're the one inventing a new definition, 3DJay, by trying to define it with etymology rather than use. Even ignoring that though, let's look at your definition of -ism:

-ism \-ism\ [F. -isme, or L. -ismus, Gr. ?.] A suffix indicating an act, a process, the result of an act or a process, a state; also, a characteristic (as a theory, doctrine, idiom, etc.); as, baptism, galvanism, organism, hypnotism, socialism, sensualism, Anglicism. (Emphasis mine)

Your obtuse doctrine meaning is relegated to an "also" use, while the definition of indicating an act, process or state, which you refuted, is the primary meaning. Way to support your arguments. You've just proven that etymologically, atheism means the act, process or state of being with no god, without god, godless. Subsequently, lacking belief in god. Only as a secondary meaning is -ism indicative of a doctrine (the examples of which do not include atheism). You would have to use the secondary meaning to label atheism as a doctrine, rather than the appropriate, primary meaning, whih rightly implies that it is merely the at or state of not believing in god. In short, your argument was not only faulty logically, it worked against you. ~Switch ^{t c g} 04:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Doctrine is certainly not obtuse when you are talking about philosophical isms. --24.57.157.81 06:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Changing -ism to mean something other than doctrine, or belief, is a totally new attempt to redefine the word, that isn't even compatible with the lack of belief/doctrine definition. 74.110.137.76 05:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• there are numerous reference works that give "absence of belief" as A meaning (many of which I provided back in November). The article would be much improved if some were at least mentioned in the intro - instead of having such definition presented only as being the one "preferred" by many self-described atheists --JimWae 08:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• and it is not just such self-described atheists that would include agnostics as atheists. One meaning of disbelief that is included in many many dictionaries would also include them --JimWae 08:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• I see the QuickStudy guide is still being used to support the "strong" atheism def --JimWae 09:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Weird sentence under "reasons for atheism

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

GA on hold

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

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

what is the difference between GA and FA these days? GA was intended to be an uncomplicated way of tagging, well, good articles in terms of content without haggling over nonsense like full stop ." it should be inside ".. I am happy to see this article has shaped up over the months, and it is easily GA material in my book. dab (𒁳) 13:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

URL spelling?

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

Atheism and intelligence

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

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

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

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

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

Titanium, the original idea of an IQ test was to test natural intellectual ability, which is only a portion of our intellectual abilities. The claim is that we have certain natural intellectual abilities that remain the same throughout our adult life (your point about malnourishment in childhood etc. are quite correct) , with minimal effect from education etc. (see IQ) This is what IQ tests attempt to measure. Thus they do not attempt to measure, for example, our arguing skills - even though it may be seen as a mark of intelligence it is clearly something a university education could enhance. Dast 19:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joseph Stalin, the prominent atheist

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

According to Stalin's bodyguard (quoted on a TV series) Stalin had something of a relapse from atheism during the war and used to pray in the Kremlin chapel. Perhaps even Stalin ceased to be an atheist when in a foxhole! Remember he trained for the priesthood. Hitler never publically renounced his Christianity. He may have been a private atheist - but then so may be the Pope. We do not have access to peoples' innermost thoughts.

Exile 11:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As an atheist, I think one reason is that religion is silly - silly in the same sense that belief in a moon made of green cheese is silly, or silly in the sense of believing in the easter bunny. (this does not contradict that many intelligent people do both good and bad because of religious beliefs).Cinnamon colbert 01:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence in this section reads "However, because of the relative uncommonness of atheism, a majority of atheists were not brought up in atheist households or communities". This is not a valid assumption (if it IS an assumption; I'm also not aware of any actual studies). If one generation has 5% atheists, and the next generation has 8%, you can't conclude a majority of those 8% weren't raised in atheist households. Even if the percentage had grown to e.g. 12%, you can't definitely conclude that without some data on family size and immigration/emigration. I think the last sentence should just be dropped unless there is a valid cite for "households".Brian Westley 23:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Protect this page

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

Congratulations! You stumbled across this article during the single minute it was in its vandalized state. :) Take a look at the edit history, here: [7]. The version you saw was put in by an anonymous editor at 17:14, 9 January 2007, and was reverted by Persian Poet Gal at 17:15, 9 January 2007. So it's no biggie, this is how things work around here. Next time you come across an article in such an obviously flawed state take a look at the article's edit history and you may find that the most recent edit vandalized it. Bryan 04:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a sad state of affairs that insecure, narrow-minded Christians feel the need to vandalize this page on a near-daily basis. Take a look at the history. You'll see edits like these every couple days. The current protected status is long overdue, but unfortunately it is not a long-term solution.Ceran 17:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the page was protected, I assumed it was the edit-war, and nothing to do with the one-off vandalism. Agreed protection isn't anything other than short-term (by that I mean on the scale of hours), it just leaves us with an article no one can work on. Mdwh 18:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Pac-Man?

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

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

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

AfD of interest

Editors of this page may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by atheism. Your comments are welcome.-Andrew c 16:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow!

I am amazed at the amount of vandalism here by self-deluded and intemperate religionists! (Can't even spell "Christ!") I guess those who think freely have to be constantly vigilant. Jeff dean 04:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, completely deny the divinity and historicity of Jesus Chirst. There is no evidence of such a man. :) MFNickster 05:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

True. And the same goes for Jesus "Christ." Jeff dean 14:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Still, some atheists also vandalize with "atheists are teh roxors," or something like that.Tuesday42 03:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I get a chuckle when editors spell it 'athiest.' As in, "I'm athy; you're athier; he's athiest." MFNickster 03:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

are you assuming that only atheists can think freely? Letuce 08:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Incoherent sentence right at the start

I'm speaking, of course, of this one: "It is commonly defined as the denial of theism, amounting to the positive assertion that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism."

This statement is logically nonsense. First of all, it's ambigious. "denial of theism" could be read as either "denying having any theism" OR "denying the claims of theists." The former is, clearly, weak atheism, not any positive assertion. But even the latter interpretation is still flawed insofar as it supposedly "amounts to" a positive assertion. The denial of a claim or system of claims is not same thing as, and does not "amount to" the affirmation of the negation of their conclusions: this is basic confusion between belief claims and their object conclusions, and the idea that denial of the warrant of claims equals the reverse of their conclusions. If you claim that a certain box contains a spoon, and I see no sufficient reason to believe you have any idea of the contents of the box, then I can deny your claim. But the logic of the sentence in question insists that to deny the validity of your "spoonism," I MUST be simultaneously asserting that there is no spoon in the box: something that is likewise unwarranted and silly. Clearly, denying theism is not necessarily the same thing as asserting any position on the existence of gods: it is a position on the CLAIMS made about the existence of gods.

In conclusion: the rejection, deliberate or not, of theism or the denial of theism does not "amount" to any positive statement at all, much less a specific positive statement about the lack of gods. I have deleted the supposed "logic" so that the definition simply reads "It is commonly defined as the positive assertion that deities do not exist." This is far less ambigiuous, confusing, and original researchy, in my opinion.

I agree that "denial" is ambiguous, but note that "deliberate rejection" wasn't being referred to as positive (it's meant to be the "explicit weak atheist" position), only "denial" was. Though perhaps the sentence could be read that way, I don't know if the wording can be made clearer. Mdwh 00:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the weak atheist position is introduced as an alternative later. The fact that a clumsy version of it that most would take to be a strong atheist was already introduced only adds to the confusion.Plunge 22:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

View of Theists

I removed the following section from the introduction because I feel that the introduction should describe atheism as a whole, and in particular not wander into such subjective ideas as how atheists view others, especially seeing how the section did not cite any sources. It seems rather unneutral POV, too.

"Many atheists feel that religious believers indulge in self-delusion and superstition. This can result from parental and religious indoctrination that begins during a child's earliest years, well before a child has the capability to think critically and independently regarding his or her belief system."

AliaGemma 06:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I confess I added the above paragraph, perhaps inartfully. I think it would be worthwhile to discuss the why of how people come to believe in a god or gods — that is, the psychology of religious belief. Clearly, early indoctrination is one, perhaps the most common, way god-believers are developed. Some psychological incident might be another. Is this article the wrong place for this? Jeff dean 21:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I agree this is a very interesting question (my answer is that we humans are gullible suckers for a false promise) but I don't think it belongs in this article. Perhaps a separate article on the psychology of religion?Poujeaux 17:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The "why" of religous belief is covered by the God, theism and religion articles rather exstenstively. This article is about Athiesm. nuff said VanTucky 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just while we're on the subject - and this is a little incongruous - does anyone else think a link to Tolstoy syndrome is appropriate in a relevant section? ~Switch ^{t c g} 18:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what I think

THIs page is written ok but I dont' think that it is doing a public good that, is to say TALKING ABOUT THE DANGEROS OF BEING a ATHEST. my grandson was an atheist but the family sat him down to talk and how he goes to chuch with us weekend. If anyone feelt he same way talk about it to me I am worrieying that this page could be used to make atheist out of those w in doub tof their faith. please let me know what you think! thankyou, Phil —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phillip1951 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC). how can I make it stop writing those words after what I wrote??

Please give your grandson my condolences. Jeff dean 22:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

BELEVE ME! i havent given up tehe ghost jugst yet! I DONT PLAN ON IT! phill —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phillip1951 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes! And we should remove all articles on bears as they might cause folks to defecate in the woods. --SpartanCanuck 02:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Give me twenty minutes to talk with your son, I'll make sure he doesn't believe in any crazy nonsense once we're done. You can stop the text being added after your posts by signing them with four tildes (~). (By the way, is this a troll or what?) ~Switch ^{t c g} 09:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand! we a already took care of hibs believe in nonsense and i don't think he will be doin that again! Phillip1951 03:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I can't really escape the feeling that Phillip is actually lampooning Christianity by pretending to be a certain sort of crude stereotypical fundamentalist. If you ARE serious, Phil, I have some good news and some bad news. The GOOD news is that the purpose of this page is not to espouse atheism. See Wikipedia's policies on NPOV (READ IT!). The bad news is that it means that Wikipedia isn't beholding to the agendas of any particular fundamentalist faiths either, so the Atheism page and its child pages are unlikely to go away (no moreso than pages on Judaism, Islam, Christianity, etc). This is a subject where the end result will be considered a success if it can provide information about creeds/philosophies/religion without declaring any one particular point of view as RIGHT. That said, your suggestion of a 'dangers of atheism' section doesn't really belong. There aren't really any verifiable dangers per se. I DO however refer you to section 8 of this article (ie Criticism of Atheism) and its child article Criticism of Atheism, as atheism is not at all immune to criticism. There have certainly been many eloquently written criticisms of it in the past. And if you can muster the intellect and the eloquence to expand on what is already written there, you can certainly venture a contribution. Just bear in mind that brevity is wit, and any scriptural arguments that you would care to present are aptly summarized by the statement, "The most direct arguments against atheism are those in favor of the existence of a higher power, usually that of a god or gods. If one or more of these theistic beliefs were to be proven they would discredit atheism." --SpartanCanuck 07:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

ok. so how can I makE It better. Phillip1951 ~

I couldn't agree more with Phillip. It's nice to see someone finally "thinking of the children". This whole "wikipedia" thing in general contains a dangerous amount of information that could lead to disasterous effects such as (but not limited to) independent thought, exposure to new ideas, education, and general well-roundedness. This article, and all like it, should be thrown into a rocket and shot into the sun, where none but the Sun-God Dies Natalis Invicti Solis will ever see it.Ceran 17:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"certainty" nav box?

An IP editor added a {{certainty}} nav box to the top of the article, without explanation. Possibly as some sort of commentary on atheism being a state of certainty, as opposed to doubt? Anyway, it was ambiguous and didn't add anything so far as I could tell, so I reverted. I invite discussion here if useful. --lquilter 00:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's off-topic, so good revert. --Yath 01:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I made the same revert only a couple of days ago, yet the template was re-added without any discussion. That's rather trouble editor conduct. -Silence 01:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Me too. The only certainty here is that it is annoying when such things aren't given the appropriate discussion. -- Scjessey 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Einstein

theres a picture of einstein as a well known atheist, but im fairly certain he claimed not to be an atheist. he neared pantheism somewhat but he was, in fact, what is now called an agnostic, though that term wasnt in use at that time. now, the deffinition of the word atheist is quite ambiguous, but i would think you at least need to consider the existence of deities as unlikely, or that theres no readon for there to be any, and im also pretty certain that he does believe in some kind of higher power, but is uncertain of what that is exactly. hmm...im a bit in doubt wether or not he could count as an atheist. and i think it may depend on at what age as well. can anyone make this clear?· Lygophile has spoken 20:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I very much doubt he was "one of the 20th century's most well-known atheists" either. There are people who actually identified as atheists in all sorts of fields; other scientists like Marie Curie, politicians like Stalin, philosophers of all kinds, comedians like George Carlin and Woody Allen, authors, sportspeople... Just look at the list of atheists: There are plenty of people there, outspoken and well-known. Einstein (like Edison, as far as I know) never identified as an atheist. Those images have to go. ~Switch ^{t c g} 22:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

He said "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - though I don't know if he actually self-identified as an atheist, and there is the issue of what he actually meant by "personal God" vs "God"; perhaps it might be better to use a famous person who did self-identify as an atheist. Mdwh 23:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it", aka pantheism· Lygophile has spoken 02:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things."

from wikiquote:einstein· Lygophile has spoken 02:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• It sounds to me like Einstein was what some would consider an explicit weak atheist, or a nontheist by virtue of his lack of strong beliefs one way or the other. I suspect that the main reason Einstein said "I am not a pantheist" even though he said "if there is anything religious in me it's my admiration for nature", it's because there isn't anything "religious" in him, but the closest thing to religion for him was his admiration for nature, which he didn't take to the level of actual, literal anthropomorphization (as many pantheists do), but rather views with a pseudo-religious awe. (Many atheists I know echo this sentiment precisely, especially ones involved in certain scientific fields.) It seems to me, thus, that the main reason Einstein said "I'm not an atheist" is because he was using the word atheist differently than many modern thinkers do: he, like many laypeople nowadays do, viewed atheism as the positive denial of the existence of God, a "leap of faith" in the opposite direction from theism. In that sence, then, Einstein could probably be called an "agnostic" in the colloquial use of the word without doing discredit to his views (though one would have at least as much basis for calling him a "weak atheist", since he used neither terms). But he could also be called an "atheist" under the broader definition that many atheists advocate today; see atheism. However, this is speculative, because he never specified this himself; we should include him on this list, but with references affirming that he was atheistic (otherwise it's original research for us to try to interpret his quotations ourselves) and disclaimers noting that different groups dispute whether he was a theist, atheist, agnostic, etc., because of different quotes on him (and especially some more ambiguous quotes which seem, superficially, theistic). Incidentally, Einstein is one of the many "borderline" cases, like Russell, who still make me think that the List of atheists and List of agnostics pages would be much more useful if they were merged, simply because there are so many ambiguous entries in each list that redundancies and inconsistencies are sure to arise if we keep them separate. (At the very least it would be helpful to have them on one page, with the first section listing people who unambiguously called themselves atheists, the second section listing people who unambiguously called themselves agnostics, and the third section listing people whose views were more ambiguous.) -Silence 12:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I misread this discussion as being on the List of atheists page. I've removed the undiscussed, erroneous material that was recently added, so that we can discuss whether such changes have any merit. I see no reason to mention Einstein as a prominent atheist on atheism; this is either biased original research, or simply a lie. Discussions of whether he was an atheist or not may well be appropriate to List of atheists or other daughter articles, but they clearly do not belong here, and only misinformation and/or desire to push a crude pro-atheist agenda ("Marx was bad, but Einstein is good! So let's replace the Marx picture with an Einstein one!") would incline one to think otherwise. Many of the recent changes are in direct violation of Wikipedia policy, and many more are in direct violation of strongly-established Wikipedia conventions and guidelines, such as the convention not to include arbitrary lists of quotations in Wikipedia articles (that's exactly what the Wikiquote page on atheism is for, after all!). -Silence 14:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Fine, Einstein and Edison should go. I do think that Edison still qualifies as an atheist, and that Einstein was more an atheist than anything else. Even reading his "pantheism" quote, and then following up by reading the pantheism article, only makes me more convinced that Einstein was a brow-beaten atheist. But, I concede that there is too much confusion to leave his picture.

I do feel that the Baron picture belongs in the "history" section rather than as the first photo. It's ugly for one, and if, according the caption, he was one of the first atheists, then he belongs in the history section. The first photo needs something more interesting, something to draw the reader further. I actually searched for a "list of atheists" on wiki and did not find one, I must have spelt it wrong, but I think that it should be linked more predominately in this article. Perhaps a photo of someone more recognizable or controversial than the Baron would be better.

As for Marx, I feel that it was much better to have his picture in the "pejorative" section, and with the caption I added to his photo. But not "to push a crude pro-atheist agenda ("Marx was bad, but Einstein is good! So let's replace the Marx picture with an Einstein one!")," as the long-winded one says. I was trying to balance things. Reading the article and these discussion pages makes it clear that people identify Marx and his followers (Stalin) with atheism, and that this is a pejorative association. The picture of Marx is a highly charged image, and his placement in the "History" section seems to be biased against atheists, at least that was my reaction when I first read the article last week. Also he is the first recognizable person on the page, and there is no one with a positive association show elsewhere. Besides, my goal by placing him in the pejorative section was to give the reader pause; to think whether or not its fair to associate Marx (or Stalin's crimes for that matter) with atheism. My hope is to make people question that association, but I do not wish to push people either way. Putting Marx in the negative section simply acknowledges his unfortunate reputation. At the very least the Baron's photo is better in the history section, and someone not associated with as much suffering as Marx should be included elsewhere in the article for balance and perspective.

I have decided to take my marbles and play elsewhere because I do not wish to engage in debate of the nature found on this page. While it is civil, I feel it is boring, long-winded and pretentious. But before I go I will say what I feel this article needs to improve:

• It needs to be shortened in almost every section. I am a well-read atheist and I can barely trudge through the volume here. I can imagine the semi-interested reader's reaction. More concision is needed.
• There is a great deal of redundancy and repetition.
• There is little flow from one section to the next.
• Simple language will help, and nothing more than that is needed.
• More than half the page is about the definition or definitions. Enough already. There is the interesting "reasons" section, but I doubt most readers make it that far. There are already sub-articles on most sections, rely on them more.
• The Etymology section is too long by half.

In a nutshell, shorten, interconnect, and simplify. Alas, I recognize that articles with as many squatters as this one has makes change difficult to incorporate. Moomot 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• "I do feel that the Baron picture belongs in the "history" section rather than as the first photo." - I can see why some would think so, but there are three main reasons for not doing so. First, there are too many other atheists who have had more important and lasting contributions to the history of atheism than the Baron; he is more of a footnote than a major figure, and if we put him in the "history" section it would be tough to fit other, more major images there. Second, the Baron is possibly the least controversial person we could ever pick to put at the top of the atheism article; he may even be the most uncontroversial image period, since, unlike using a symbol of some sort, no one could object to the image being irrelevant or POVed. Third, he works perfectly well in the lead section and causes no major problems there, and makes up for the fact that the lead section doesn't go into an explanation of the history or social context of atheism. It is thus an eloquent solution to three or more major problems in this article's past.
• "It's ugly for one," - What compelling reasoning. :P
• "and if, according the caption, he was one of the first atheists, then he belongs in the history section." - By that logic, we should also remove the statue of Buddha from the "atheism, religion amd morality" section because it's relevant to history too. Just because an entry is relevant to history doesn't make it irrelevant to everything else, or inappropriate for any inclusion elsewhere.
• "The first photo needs something more interesting, something to draw the reader further." - For years, this article had no image whatsoever at the top of the article. My suspicion is that if not for the Baron, it never would have received an image at its top at all, and never will in the future. All other proposed images are simply too contestable or controversial, ranging from the American Atheists atom to your photograph of Edison.
• "I actually searched for a "list of atheists" on wiki and did not find one, I must have spelt it wrong, but I think that it should be linked more predominately in this article." - It is linked at the end of Atheism#History. You should have read the article more carefully before doing such a major revamp to the page; you clearly only skimmed major sections of it, else you'd have noticed that there is already a short, concise list of atheists there, and an accompanying link to List of atheists. The list does not, however, merit a more prominent placement, because it is more important to this article to explain to readers what atheism is than to barrage them with a trivial list of random atheists. That's why examples of atheists should be kept to a centralized, simplified location, rather than peppering the entire article with their photographs, descriptions, quotations, etc. That is not the focus of this article, any more than the focus of the capitalism article is providing lists of capitalists.
• "Perhaps a photo of someone more recognizable or controversial than the Baron would be better." - If we use a controversial photo, it will be removed and edit-warred over, leading to less productivity in improving this article. History tells us this much. There is no purpose in being deliberately provocative here; our job is only to inform.
• "As for Marx, I feel that it was much better to have his picture in the "pejorative" section," - Then you were mistaken. Marx never used a pejorative definition of atheism, the pejorative definitions predate Marx by millennia, and neither Marx nor communism are discussed in the "pejorative definitions" section. They are only discussed in the "History" section, which is where the photo of Marx belongs because it serves the most use and value for our readers there (by highlighting the importance of Marx's influence in understanding the social and historical context of how atheism is perceived in the modern world).
• "as the long-winded one says." - This is uncivil; you should be respectful in discussions with other editors. It is also ironic; your above comment was about as long as mine. (Though this comment is much longer than both. :))
• "Reading the article and these discussion pages makes it clear that people identify Marx and his followers (Stalin) with atheism, and that this is a pejorative association." - Yes, but this is not so much a pejorative definition of atheism as a pejorative cultural association. Read the article itself; it discusses theological maldefinitions of atheism, not anti-communistic ones. You yourself said that we should put images in sections that coincide with what's being discussed.
• "and his placement in the "History" section seems to be biased against atheists," - How so? How many atheists in human history have had a greater influence on the current popular views of atheists than Marx? The fact that people disagree with someone is not reason to try to hide mentioning of that someone in a largely-unrelated section with a more disapproving title. It is not an encyclopedia's job to whitewash history.
• "and there is no one with a positive association show elsewhere." - You must really hate the Buddha, ne? :)
• "Besides, my goal by placing him in the pejorative section was to give the reader pause; to think whether or not its fair to associate Marx (or Stalin's crimes for that matter) with atheism." - Then your goal was incompatible with Wikipedia's goals. It is not a purpose of Wikipedia to advocate a specific POV, even a virtuous and sensible one like "atheists shouldn't be blamed for communism". We seek to be a neutral academic resource, not an advocacy group.
• "someone not associated with as much suffering as Marx should be included elsewhere in the article for balance and perspective." - First off, Marx never killed anyone. Whether he was "responsible" for the suffering that resulted from his teachings is a matter of debate. Second, I wasn't aware that the Buddha or Baron d'Holbach (or, for that matter, Adam) had caused as much suffering as Stalin. You learn something new every day! :) Third, it is not Wikipedia's job to weigh how "good" or "bad" various people we include images of are; we include images based on their informational value and relevance, not based on how nice we personally think they are.
• "While it is civil, I feel it is boring, long-winded and pretentious." - Clearly you prefer the uncivil, interesting variety. I wish you well in finding a Talk page that suits your dispositions better. :)
• "More concision is needed." - ???
• "There is a great deal of redundancy and repetition." - I agree with this concern, at least. Where possible, we should try to find ways to avoid repeating information in two sections, even when it is relevant to both of those sections (which is difficult when there is so much overlap). To facilitate this, I recommend replacing some of the repetitions with links to the sections that discuss those issues in more detail.
• "More than half the page is about the definition or definitions. Enough already." - Nope. Defining the word this article is about is the most important priority for this page, by far. Without such definitions, it's impossible for anyone to even understand what is being talked about in the rest of the article. That's why, for example, the definitions go above the history section in this article; a word must always be defined before we can go into other topics.
• "There is the interesting "reasons" section," - That section is also much more poorly-referenced, low-quality, and unreliable than the "types and typologies" sections. It is interesting that you place more value on interesting, unreliable sections than on less interesting, reliable ones. You seem not to understand that encyclopedias are not tailored solely to your specific interests.
• "There are already sub-articles on most sections, rely on them more." - Actually, we don't have sub-articles per se for any of the "types and typologies" sections in this article. -Silence 19:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Where did what i say go Phillip1951 18:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Any support ?

is there any support for the edit (in the lead paragraph)that I (cinnamon colbert) made ? It seems to me to be fully npov and all that: (1) wikipedia is based on verifiable facts; (2) there is not one verifiable fact showing the existence of any supernatural phenomena, let alone a god; (3) therefore, my edit is the natural logical conclusion. I think people are scared of the religious nuts (and with good reason, look at salman rushie). To put it another way: why is it that Atheism is not considered the natural, default, logical state, and religiousness a wierd aberration ? Can anyone answer that ?

Yes, Wikipedia is based on verifiable facts, but Wikipedia defines a "fact" as an undisputed proposition. From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#A simple formulation:

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute."

In other words, something is not a fact because it's true, but rather because it is not seriously disputed. (Of course, in the case of scientific articles, a "serious dispute" is one which has scientific support, rather than just whatever laypeople believe. But atheism is clearly more of a philosophical than a scientific article.) Although it is a fact that there is no undisputed evidence for anything supernatural, it is not a fact (at least by Wikipedia's standards) that "atheism is a natural logical state". "Natural" and "logical", as used here, are either untrue or dubious (not all atheists base their views on logical grounds, or even have any grasp on logic; and whether atheism is "natural" depends on how one defines "atheism") or, at best, plausible but non-factual opinions. Moreover, it's not even very useful to our readers, because it asserts that atheism is natural and logical rather than explaining why it's natural and logical (which our article does a nice job of already in the "Reasons for atheism" section). Rather than telling our readers what to think about atheism, we should just give them the undisputed facts and the noteworthy arguments on both sides, and let readers decide what to think for themselves. We'll be both more useful and more credible as a resource as a result; no philosophy textbook would say "atheism is a natural logical state"; it's just too polemic. -Silence 23:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, one of the consequences of the WP:V and WP:NPOV policies is that here in the Wikiverse a "fact" is a proposition in the form "X published that Y claims that Z is true (ref to X)". Propositions purely of the form "Z is true", particularly where Z involves controversial matters such as religion, are generally regarded not as facts but as opinions. Facts begin with "X published that Y says..." because only this can be verified with the tools available to Wikipedia editors, Wikipedia editors cannot verify claims and statements themselves. "X published" is rarely in the main article body, but it still has to be present in the article's references and it's considered part of a verified statement. Hope this helps. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There is something seriously wrong here. In the wikiverse, a "fact" is something not in dispute. So, if some number of people decide the earth is flat, this becomes a fact ? You have to have standards and judgement; it is almost a Goedelian fallacy to assert that there are or are not things in dispute. It's like what Russel went through with logic: he kept peeling back layers, to try and find the undisputed basis for math. What you all are saying is that "god exists" is asserted by more people then "lunar cheese" and therefore the two superstitions are equal. In this universe, "Hitler was good" is a wikifact. I guess wiki is just not for me: I don't accept that an encyclopedia abdicates judgement for its readers. That is the essence of an encylopedia: I know more then you, therefore my opinon is more valid. In the absence of that, all opinions are simply majority, which leads to something... goodby —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.69.179.85 (talk • contribs) 26 February 2007.

Hello, please see Wikipedia's WP:CIVIL and WP:Assume Good Faith polices regarding approaches to situations where you disagree with the opinions/editorial judgment of others. Thank you for your adherence to these policies. Best --Shirahadasha 01:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, he wasn't addressing you personally, he is talking about Wikipedia making a Goedelian fallacy, not you... :) --Merzul 01:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case I'll just mention that Wikipedia editors are just ordinary folks, anyone can edit, and hence have no basis to claim greater knowledge or better judgment than anyone else. All we can do is present information from reliable sources and let people make up their own minds. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Political discrimination and persectuion section

Is there a section for this? Currently athiests can't run for election in some States in the USA apparently, which is outrageous of course. What would happen if a black man or woman was prevented from running for office? Exactly.-A101

Yes, there is a place for that: Discrimination against atheists#United States. --Merzul 11:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a mention of public attitudes[8] in this article, with a link to the other one. Citicat 13:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Confusing Introduction

The article now starts with: "Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities. It is contrasted with theism, the belief in a God or gods. Atheism is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist. However, others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities"

Basicly what this is saying is: "Atheism is defined as X, except by most people who define it as Y".

I know the definition of atheism is still hotly contested, but something obviously went wrong here. To me, logicly, if most people use atheism to mean Y, that is the definition. Perhaps it's best to reword this introduction to:

"Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities. It is contrasted with theism, the belief in a God or gods. Most people and groups identifying themselves as atheistic define atheism as absence of belief in deities, although a stronger, more restrictive, definition of atheism as positive belief that deities do not exist is also common, especially among religious groups."

If the stronger meaning is the historical one (which I honestly wouldn't know) perhaps that should be included as well. Diadem 11:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It says "most atheist philosophers and groups" use the broader definition; most if I may use the term "common people", both atheist and theist, still understand it as the more narrow positive; this is slightly related to a long discussion here, if you are interested. --Merzul 11:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well we have no data on how the common people define atheism. So we can't use that. Personally I have met a great many atheists and not a single one of would indentify himself as a strong atheist. That is not proof, but it seems reason enough to at least not assume that the common people would think the opposite. It is a common argument amongst christians that "Atheism is just another believe, they believe god does not exist", but I have never seen any atheist subscribing to that point of view. In fact I would say this is a common misconception about atheism - and how unfortunate it would be if that misconception became the definition!

There is a larger issue here though. Who determines the definition of the term? The one originally coining it? The people identifying themselves with the term? The makers of dictionaries? If the overwhelming majority of those people calling themselves atheist use this term as equivalent to weak atheism, wouldn't it be rather arrogant to 'decide' that it actually means strong atheism? Even if non-atheisms outnumber atheists, and thus form 'the common people'. Anyway, I worded my proposed text the way I did exactly to avoid those issues. I just say "most atheists use it like this, but many others like this". That's neutral and true. Diadem 15:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know most popular dictionaries use the positive definition first. And since you haven't met one... I self-identify as a strong atheist, I positively believe in the following, yet I can not prove it:

1. There is an external objective reality.
2. God does not exist.

I have probably more doubts about the first than the second ;) Still, I don't see the problem with people calling this a belief, what matters is how people have come to believe in what they do and what is the basis and foundation of their beliefs. --Merzul 17:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that makes one. It's a pleasure to meet you. Still though, I'd maintain that allmost all atheists are weak atheists. All atheist websites I know are weak atheistic (including the site [i]called[/i] positive atheism). Can you give me examples of famous strong atheists or significant strong atheistic groups? I wouldn't know a single one. The current article already states that most atheist philosophers and atheist groups use the weak definition. I'd say given those facts it's logical to assume most atheists in general use this definition. Which would logicaly make it the default definition. I do not care much for dictionary definitions, they are notoriously bad about controversial issues. There are plenty of dictionaries who define atheism as "denial of the existence of God". What a horribly biased definition! And this nonsense has made it to wikipedia as well, in a few articles. Terrible. As if being innocent is the same as denying that you are guilty! Diadem 17:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice to meet you too :) Note that I'm not 100% certain on these definition, so I might mis-identify myself as strong atheist. Anyway, what we need are some neutral sources on this issue; because atheist groups may have a certain interest in "redefining" this term, User:Silence knows very much about this. Maybe he will comment on it. --Merzul 17:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I myself am in favor of a very broad definition of atheism. Atheism to me is the rejection of theism. You do not believe in god(s). This means that most agnosts are atheistic. It could even be argued that some other groups, such as pantheists, are atheistic. But of course I'm entirely biased. Still though, if the choice is between "not believing in god exists" and "believing god does not exist" the former definition seems by far the best. The latter is, in fact, a very popular attack on atheism by christians. The problem of defining atheism this way is that atheism becomes another religion. A believe that can not be proven or disproven. Thus atheism and christianity become equals - both religious, both impossible to proof or disproof, both subjective. Once you've reached this points it usually doesn't take more than a few sentences before christians are arguiing that creationism should be taught in classrooms. And indeed, if atheism were 'just another religion' this argument would be valid. But it isn't! The rejection of a claim is not a claim in itself! That's an extremely important law in logical thinking. Atheism rejects theist claims. It doesn't make any claims of its own. Thus it's not a system of believe, not a doctrine in itself, but rather a lack of one.

One more thing. I think the definition of atheism as: "disbelieve in god" is even worse. I don't even know what that means! What is disbelieve? "The crowd watched in disbelieve as the magician pulled a rabbit out of his hat". Is that kind of disbelieve meant? I hope not! The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "refusal or reluctance to believe". But reluctance clearly doesn't apply here, and refusal has a strong negative undertone - it's like saying god really exists but an atheist is just to stupid to see it. Surely a position many theists would take, but hardly objective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diadem (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Remember that there are three definitions, and it's not clear to me what people mean by "the broader definition". Note that "rejection of belief" is covered both in the footnote as a definition of "disbelief", and in a reference (though it recently got dropped from the article text, which may have contributed to the confusing nature of the introduction). Whether we should say that the broadest "absence of belief" definition is less common or not, I'm not sure.

I agree that "disbelief" is an ambiguous word, but unfortunately this is what many references seem to use, and we are tied by them to some extent. I think defining it primarily as "disbelief" seems the simplest way without either starting off with a long-winded set of definitions, and without choosing one definition over another. Mdwh 22:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources needed for the broader definition

What is needed are pointers to reference material that use the broader definition - rather than just Internet columns & TV/radio programs. I provided several back in November but was quickly & rudely reverted. I do not think we can safely say either is more common anymore. --JimWae 16:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you were rudely reverted, did you post your sources on the talk page? What is needed is probably more than a few sources, but I don't know why exactly you were reverted; I'm sure it wasn't intended to be rude. --Merzul 17:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I need to learn to read, it's not even in the archive... #Rewrite by JimWae contains a number of sources; I will look at the discussion. --Merzul 17:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is so much discussion, changes and irrelevant stuff up there, let's just collect various neutral definitions. And by neutral I just mean it should be published in a neutral source, the views of the author isn't important. --Merzul 18:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

List of definitions

• A survery of definitions for atheism.

The Restrictive Definitions

• Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2000): "Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief." Entry by William L. Rowe.

• Collins Dictionary of Philosophy, by G. Vesey and P. Foulkes: "a position that asserts that there is no GOD. In this, atheism goes further than agnosticism, which merely says that we cannot know whether there is or not."

• Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, by Thomas Mautner, p. 48: "n the view that there is no divine being, no God."

• The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (2005): "Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods. Thus much Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist."

• A Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion (1999): "Atheism. The attitude that affirms there is no God. Until the Middle Ages, when the philosophers, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim, who in response to atheistic attacks sought to prove by rational argument the existence of God, theoretical atheism was unknown..."

• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." Entry by Jack Smart.

• The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (2000): Atheism. Disbelief in the existence of God; to be distinguished from agnosticism, which professes uncertainty on the question. Modern atheists make a variety of claims to defend their position: that there is little or no real evidence for the existence of God, that theism is refuted by the existence of evil in the world, that it is meaningless because unverifiable, that it is inauthentic because it attacks human autonomy, and that it is unscientific.

Rejection of belief (not rejection of all possibility of existence) - one specific meaning of disbelief

• A Dictionary of Philosophy, Pan Books (1979), by Anthony Flew: "The rejection of belief in God, whether on the grounds that it is meaningful but false to say that God exists, or, as the logical positivists held, that it is meaningless and hence neither true nor false."

• The Encyclopedia of Philosophy in 8 volumes, Collier-Macmillan (1967), ed. Paul Edwards: "According to the most usual definition, an 'atheist' is a person who maintains that there is no God, that is, that the sentence 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. In contrast, an agnostic maintains that it is not known or cannot be known whether there is a God, that is, whether the sentence 'God exists' expresses a true proposition. 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. An atheist in the narrower, more popular sense, is ipso facto an atheist in our broader sense, but the converse does not hold." Entry by Paul Edwards.

• The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2006): "Atheism now normally means disbelief in God. Until the expression ‘ agnosticism’ came into general use in the 19th cent., ‘atheist’ was used of those who thought the existence of God an unprovable thesis..."

More Permissive Definitions

• Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd edition), 1999, Robert Audi editor: "the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God; this use has become the standard one." Entry by Louis P Pojman.

• The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (1996): "Atheism. Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none. Sometimes thought itself to be more dogmatic than mere agnosticism, although atheists retort that everyone is an atheist about most gods, so they merely advance one step further."

• Dictionary of Philosophy - Peter A Angeles, 1981 1. the belief that gods do not, or God does not, exist 2.The disbelief in any kind of supernatural existence that is supposed to affect the universe 3. the lack of belief in a particular God

• Dictionary of Philosophy - Dagobert D. Runes, 1962 edition Two uses of the term: (a) the belief that there is no God (b)Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic". The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term though widely current in the history of thought - entry by Vergilius Ferm.

• A Dictionary of Non-Christian Religions (1971), Geoffrey Parrinder, pp. 32-33: "'Denial of the Gods' (Greek a, not, theos, God) to the Greeks might mean complete scepticism or dislike of the myths of the traditional deities. Socrates criticized the immoral myths, but had a deep personal faith in divine inspritation. Pindar and Euripides did the same, and there was no room for such personal deities in Aristotle's intellectual concept of divinity. 'Atheist' also meant godless in the sense of wicked. In Hinduism na asti, 'it is not', meant primarily a denial of the revelation in the Veda scriptures, and also atheistic or impious. The Charvakas were materialists who rejected the Vedas, and so did the Buddhists and Jains. Yet Hindu gods appear in these systems, though subservient to the Buddhas and Jinas. Rather than atheistic they have been called 'transtheistic', by-passing the great gods, or 'transpolytheistic' in that they relegate the many gods to a low place and have no knowledge of a Supreme Being."

• Ultralingua Online atheism 1. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. 2. The doctrine or belief that there is no God atheist One who denies the existence of any deity. atheistic Rejecting any belief in gods;

• RhymeZone a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods; the doctrine or belief that there is no God
• LookWayUpLookWayUp 1. [n] a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. 2. [n] the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

• Kyoto Notre Dame University English Vocabulary Assistant The noun atheism has 2 senses 1. atheism, godlessness -- (the doctrine or belief that there is no God) 2. atheism -- (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods) Synonyms/Hypernyms (Ordered by Estimated Frequency) of noun atheism 2 senses of atheism Sense 1 atheism, godlessness -- (the doctrine or belief that there is no God) religious orientation -- (an attitude toward religion or religious practices) Sense 2 atheism -- (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods) unbelief, disbelief -- (a rejection of belief)

• 1911 Britannica ATHEISM (from Gr. a-, privative, and O€6, God), literally a system of belief which denies the existence of God. The term as generally used, however, is highly ambiguous ... But dogmatic atheism is rare compared with the sceptical type, which is identical with agnosticism in so far as it denies the capacity of the mind of man to form any conception of God, but is different from it in so far as the agnostic merely holds his judgment in suspense, though, in practice, agnosticism is apt to result in an attitude towards religion which is hardly distinguishable from a passive and unaggressive atheism. The third or critical type may be illustrated by A CandidExamination of Theism by"Physicus" (G. J. Romanes), in which the writer endeavours to establish the weakness of the proofs for the existence of God, and to substitute for theism Spencer's physical explanation of the universe, and yet admits how unsatisfying to himself the new position is. "

• 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia
  • Atheism is that system of thought which is formally opposed to theism. Since its first coming into use the term atheism has been very vaguely employed, generally as an epithet of accusation against any system that called in question the popular gods of the day. Thus while Socrates was accused of atheism (Plato, Apol., 26,c.) and Diagoras called an atheist by Cicero (Nat. Deor., I, 23), Democritus and Epicurus were styled in the same sense impious (without respect for the gods) on account of their trend of their new atomistic philosophy. In this sense too, the early Christians were known to the pagans as atheists, because they denied the heathen gods; while, from time to time, various religious and philisophical systems have, for similar reasons, been deemed atheistic.
  • Though atheism, historically considered, has meant no more in the past critical or sceptical denial of the theology of those who have employed the term as one of reproach, and has consquently no one strict philisophical meaning; though there is no one consistent system in the exposition of which it has a definite place; yet, if we consider it in its broad meaning as merely the opposite of theism, we will be able to frame such divisions as will make possible a grouping of definite systems under this head. And in so doing so we shall at once be adopting both the historical and the philosophical view. For the common basis of all systems of theism as well as the cardinal tenet of all popular religion at the present day is indubitably a belief in the existence of a personal God, and to deny this tenet is to invite the popular reproach of atheism. The need of some such definition as this was felt by Mr. Gladstone when he wrote (Contemporary Review, June 1876):

    "By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole unseen, or to the existence of God."

  • Moreover, the breadth of comprehension in such a use of the term admits of divisions and cross-divisions being framed under it; and at the same time limits the number of systems of thought to which, with any propriety, it might otherwise be extended. Also, if the term is thus taken, in strict contradistinction to theism, and a plan of its possible modes of acceptance made, these systems of thought will naturally appear in clearer proportion and relationship.
  • Thus, defined as a doctrine, or theory, or philosophy formally opposed to theism, atheism can only signify the teaching of those schools, whether cosmological or moral, which do not include God either as a principle or as a conclusion of their reasoning.
  • The most trenchant form which atheism could take would be the positive and dogmatic denial existence of any spiritual and extra-mundane First Cause. This is sometimes known as dogmatic, or positive theoretic, atheism; though it may be doubted whether such a system has ever been, or could ever possibly be seriously maintained.

• University of Calgary Professor of Religious Studies, Irving Hexham ATHEISM: originally used in Greece of all those who, whether they believed in a GOD or not, disbelieved in the official GODS of the State: SOCRATES was the classic instance. In the Roman Empire the term was applied to CHRISTIANS but sometimes Christians, like POLYCARP, would turn the term against their persecutors. Until the expression "AGNOSTICISM" came into general use in the nineteenth century, the term "ATHEISM" was popularly used to describe those who thought the EXISTENCE of GOD an unprovable thesis. -- from Irving Hexham's [9] Concise Dictionary of Religion

Discussion

Please edit the above list by adding sources, and we can discuss things down here. But currently, it doesn't seem like the situation has changed. --Merzul 18:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)