Talk:Atheism/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Recent edit concern (April 2016) - Lead sentence

A recent edit changed the wording in the lead paragraph from:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

to the following:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

Another editor reverted that edit, with an edit summary suggesting sourcing problems and pointing to a hidden comment embedded in our article concerning the editing the lead against a consensus developed back in 2007. I've carefully read the sources in the lead, and also the embedded note. Those sources cited in our article have been changed (for example, the Encyclopedia Britannica was edited just 4 days ago). Also, the following wording is from the Featured Article version of the article lead: In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of gods. I also see that this Featured Article of the Day bulletin shows the wording: "In its broadest definition, atheism is the absence of belief in deities".

Taking the above under consideration, I've reworded the lead to conform to the presently cited sources (without conflicting with the embedded warning in our article). Please review the present version and let me know if there are any concerns. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't noticed that the lead had been changed or I would have reverted it myself. Interesting about the Britannica article being changed. Another reason to avoid it as a source whenever possible. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

There has been considerable archived debate regarding the presentation of these definitions. From the sources listed, most dictionaries list one of the more narrower definitions first such as "Atheism is disbelief..." where "disbelief" can mean either "rejection" or "to believe not" thus it has been prevalent and is essentially the one adopted by the Britannica (and given that, I find "One inclusive, contemporary definition holds..." to be a tad disingenuous and POVish, it needs rephrasing so it doesn't sound like its one of many when its not, and the change from "belief" to "beliefs" is awkward (although I might just be too accustomed to the former language)). The Oxford dictionary fudges all three at once with "Atheism is the disbelief or the lack of belief...". Runes states "The latter meaning ["not theistic"] is a less rigorous use of the term though widely current in the history of thought". Harvey (in Flynn) admits that the broadest is unlikely to be adopted by the public. Note further that the Featured Article and the versions since have not presented the broadest definition first for there has been no consensus to date to do so, so if the edits are reverted, respect wp:Bold and don't revert back since there has been lengthy and adamant debate as to whether doing so is in accord with wp:due and an RfC may need to be initiated at that point (we currently do have better sources for the broadest definition than we used to have, but even so its not likely enough). --Modocc (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. My initial concern was simply with the pairing of adjectives ('broad', 'narrow', 'inclusive') with the selected definitions ('absence', 'rejection', 'no deities'), and how they have been switched since the 2007 Featured Article designation. Of course debate over the definition of atheism is certainly expected, since that same debate still rages among reliable sources even today. In fact, the very first words in the 'Definition of atheism' section of the Edwards source cited in our lead admits:

No definition of atheism could hope to be in accord with all uses of the term. However, it would be most confusing to adopt any of several definitions that can only be regarded as eccentric. These would result in classifying as believers many people who would not regard themselves as such (and who would not commonly be so regarded), and in classifying as atheists many people who have not usually been thought of in this way.

The very beginning of Chapter 1 of The Oxford Handbook of Atheism (2013) warns:

The precise definition of 'atheism' is both a vexed and vexatious issue. (Incidentally, the same applies to its more-or-less equivalents in other languages: atheismus, atheisme, ateismi, etc.) Etymologically, atheism is derived from the classical Greek a- (normally meaning 'not' or 'without') and theos ('god'). Its first extant appearance in English occurs in the mid-sixteenth century, as a translation of Plutarch's atheotēs (Buckley 1987: 9). Even from its earliest beginnings in Greek and English, however, atheism/atheotes admitted a variety of competing, and confusing definitions--often bearing no straightforward relationship to its strict etymology.

Even popular secular humanist writers outside of academia, such as Judith Hayes (The Happy Heretic), acknowledge the lack of a coherent single definition even while taking sides:

What ought to be a fairly simple, straightforward task — defining the word "atheist" — has turned into a philosophical nightmare requiring postgraduate courses and a thesis adviser. And it isn't just the religionists who have screwed things up so royally by heaping undeserved, malicious baggage onto that little word. (Atheist equals immoral, communist scumbag.) No, we nonbelievers are wrangling over it ourselves, and the whole thing is just plain silly.

Most comprehensive reliable sources on the subject begin with similar admission of the disagreement on definition, so it seems odd to me that our Wikipedia article does not do the same. Our article lead, in its present state, only hints that significant disagreement and variance exists between historical, philosophical and cultural definitions. I guess that's a new concern of mine. Regarding which definition gets listed first in our article, I observed that the "broad sense" definition was listed first, so I didn't change it. If you are saying that a "narrower sense" definition should be listed first, because "most dictionaries list one of the more narrower definitions first", I haven't considered that - but I would like to review the discussions that have resulted in that conclusion. I see that the Flynn source that you mention conveys that the first definition is "an absence of belief in", followed by a second definition of "the explicit denial of the existence of", which I presently perceive as the predominant order when all reliable sources are considered, rather than just philosophy sources. I do tend to think our articles should reflect the most common usage overall, rather than usage in a specific field of study, but I will of course defer to whatever Wikipedia precedent exists. On the matter of my introducing the wording, "One inclusive, contemporary definition...", of course it is POVish, the POV of the source, in fact. It is derived from the verbiage in the cited Edwards-The Encyclopedia of Philosophy source which admits that the given definition departs "in a significant respect from the one that is most popular" and is not "the most usual definition", so I paraphrased that as "one inclusive" definition among others. Would it be better to change that wording to "An inclusive", to be less singular, without misleading the reader into thinking it is the only inclusive, contemporary definition? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There was a difference between "broad" and "broadest" and the intervening change from the earlier version of "broadest" to "most inclusively" for this definition didn't concern me, but the rejection or disbelief definition as listed by most dictionaries can be viewed as general and "inclusive" per some sources, it's not by others. Since there is little disagreement as to their meanings, its only their utility within certain contexts which is actually of any concern (e.g. I view most agnostics as neither atheists or theists but as either pseudo-theists (for they may have a belief that a deity exists is exactly 50% probable which is simply a very large probability relative to more mundane odds (so I don't agree that beliefs based on such probabilistic assignments like Dawkins' spectrum of theistic probability are impartial) or they are pseudo-atheists instead because they hold the view that a divine being is unlikely). Of course, what is relevant to the due weight policy issue is how many sources are mustered that take each side as you have noted and I've seen many days when editors advocated for putting their favorite first by bringing the disagreements up when the definitions themselves coexist. Its not any definition that "holds" what atheism is per se but the writers and I don't see Nielsen or Edwards inventing anything new when the 'rejection' or disbelief definition as opposed to the 'no deities' definition has, according to Smith, been very popular as any dictionary will attest. Changing "One" to "An" doesn't flow well and yet I think your revision is approachable although the "definition holds" is strange insofar that it introduces the Britannica's POV which on the whole I think should be left out since they are just one source for these definitions. Never has all the editors had unanimous agreement with what to present when reaching a consensus; a significant number advocate for the broadest to narrowest arrangement and a few others vice versa, but its been fairly stable with the centrist disbelief definition being placed first. -Modocc (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

'Broad', 'Broader', 'Broadest', Inclusively", and 'Most inclusively' have each been used in the lead at various times, sometimes paired with "lack of belief" and sometimes paired with "rejection of belief". My edit, following the directions in the embedded editorial note, attempted to restore the usage to something resembling the Featured Article status. I've located this discussion ostensibly started to discuss disagreement over the usage of "commonly described", where an apparent swapping of the terms took place. However, I don't see reasoning for the exchange being presented; the swap appears to be more of an incidental side-effect. Am I missing something in that discussion, or was there a more relevant discussion somewhere else which justifies the change? I've seen where you have mentioned that you felt the wording "in general", as it was used in the Britannica article, was synonymous with "in a broad sense", but I'm not seeing where an active consensus was developed for that pairing. (And I note that the 'in general' descriptor in Britannica was applied not to the "rejection of belief" definition, but to the "critique and denial of belief" definition.)

Regarding your assessment that its been fairly stable with the centrist disbelief definition being placed first, the objections have been many and perennial. I've seen numerous editors (a number as large or larger than those holding opposing views) voice complaints about the order of definition presentation, with the only thing preventing a re-ordering (often) being just a couple of vociferous editors arguing for an arbitrarily determined status quo. I also find the characterization of the "rejection of belief in the existence of deities" definition as "centrist" to be curious; it is certainly one of the more nuanced and complex definitions, and some narrower definitions are encompassed by it, but I don't think it occupies a sort of middle ground between other definitions. I also think the wording in our lead, "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities", doesn't come close to conveying the aforementioned nuance and complexity, and has also been the cause of some confusion in readers. I know it is supposed to be just a summary, but without saying (as the cited sources do) "rejection of meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent belief in the existence of deities", it isn't made clear to the reader that such "rejection" of belief is held regardless of whether or not the claim that "God exists" expresses a false proposition. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure reasons for rejection matter any more than the probabilities one assigns (heads, tails, infinitesimal, etc, its just a can-of-worms which cannot be neatly summarized and its a middle ground in the sense that it doesn't include agnostics which have not rejected belief). Regarding "vociferous editors" as if there are not others, please there are no ownership issues here nor have I wasted my time with flawed polemics. Of course there have been perennial discussion and sometimes the fort as it is (the status quo if you will), is held by a few, but if they do go away, others take their place, which is why an RfC is likely needed. In fact, your revision did not restore the paragraph to the Featured Article version; because prior to and during the process of the article reaching Featured Article status there were very strong objections by a number of very active and respectable editors to the broadest being placed first; which they didn't because of the policy issue regarding wp:undue that I mentioned but you have not addressed at all. There are few reliable sources that acknowledge atheism as simply an "absence" compared to those that define it otherwise. -Modocc (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I should have been clearer on two points. First point, when I said my edit was attempting to get closer to the Featured Article status, I meant only with respect to what definition would be paired with the "broadest or broad sense" adjective. You applied it to the "rejection of belief" definition, while I applied it to the "lack of belief" definition, as it was in the Featured Article. You are correct when you observe that the Featured Article version did not place the "broadest" version first. But I must point out, with regard to position, your version (in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities) and my version (in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities) both equally stray from the Featured Article version which instead lists the affirmative disbelief first. So I must ask you, when did the "very strong objections by a number of very active and respectable editors", which apparently concluded that the strong denial of gods should be listed first, get superseded by having "rejection" of beliefs listed first? Second point, when I mentioned "vociferous editors", please rest assured that I did was not thinking of you - I was referring to other, more prolific editors. While I disagree with some of your arguments and conclusions, I found nothing at all objectionable in your Talk page participation (and I went back as far as 2007). As for your assertion with regard to: ...broadest being placed first; which they didn't because of the policy issue regarding wp:undue that I mentioned but you have not addressed... — I did address it. If you'll recall, I said above, "If you are saying that a 'narrower sense' definition should be listed first, because 'most dictionaries list one of the more narrower definitions first', I haven't considered that - but I would like to review the discussions that have resulted in that conclusion." I have since searched the archives, but can not find exactly where the clear consensus was reached. Could I trouble you for a diff or pointer to that conclusion? (I will continue to search, in the meantime.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my memory is poor and the archives long and I did contribute to some of it, so I'm afraid I can't be of much further help on that front.. In any case, there have been editors which have sided with the sources that discount the broadest definition. The undue weight argument I mentioned and have used myself in past discussions can be thought of as fairly strong due to the philosophical references that either dismiss or discount the 'absence' definition as not being rigorous (it's inclusive of agnostics that have suspended their judgement and are impartial), or alternatively, it's a very weak argument due to the significant number of dictionaries (even philosophical ones) that list it. Consequently, I'm fine with leading the article with either the 'rejection' or 'absence' definitions. -Modocc (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed the plural of belief [1] per my edit summary: "removed plural for disbelief is a rejection of belief; not others' beliefs which may have no bearing on their position". Also, this long-standing consensus version which I reverted to paraphrases a sourced definition [2]. -Modocc (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

That's an improvement. Having re-read the sources, I'm not sure now why I made 'belief' plural in my edit. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Changing "One" to "An" doesn't flow well and yet I think your revision is approachable although the "definition holds" is strange insofar that it introduces the Britannica's POV which on the whole I think should be left out...

Per that expressed concern, I've no problem with chopping both of those parts out of my edit, leaving simply: A contemporary definition is that atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. But as I noted above, I still feel that is an insufficient summary of the definition offered by Neilsen & Edwards; it doesn't convey that the rejection is for reasons other than that it is a false proposition that the deity(ies) exists. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Those authors are simply echoing modern views regarding atheism that have been present for a long long time, not really inventing new versions of atheism, for they are responding to earlier philosophical dogma. For example, consider the Webster's 1828 dictionary's definitions of atheism, disbelief, and the multiple meanings of denial. The ambiguity of disbelief and what it means to reject belief and be an atheist can be seen to date back at least that far. Atheism then is said to embody that atheistic thought, but as we know its just one of several definitions of atheism that contrast with theism. One of the many unanswered objections to the broadest definition that you might find in the archives which has been repeatedly brought up was that the suffix 'ism' implies belief or worse that rocks and trees are atheists! That is misguided and incorrect for the suffix can mean "a : state : condition : property <barbarianism>" [3] which unlike the uncivilized example given is fine. Thus, I'm OK with the suggested revision. -Modocc (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I've edited out the "contemporary" since that is somewhat tangential (like many other things), and revised their order so it is now broadest to narrowest, which should be easier for readers to understand. Perhaps we can attain a new consensus. Again, I think its best to leave the hot-button distinctions that often get raised and that typically have inherent POVs (e.g. inclusion or exclusion of agnosticism, infants too, belief vs. not a belief, varied conceptions of the divine, long lists of reasons for rejection, etc.) which are very difficult to summarize to the body of the article. --Modocc (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• As a lurker on this page may I add that the current version (broadest ... Less broadly ...even narrower) strikes me as clear and not pandering to any particular POV. A lead should be succinct to answer the simple question whilst allowing succeeding paragraphs and sections to elaborate. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• I've been an editor on this page for years and participated in many of the exhaustively long discussions over the introductory paragraph of this article. I would like to echo Martin of Sheffield's comments and endorse this new version. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• I too agree with Martin of Sheffield and Scjessey. The current version is much clearer and doesn't appear to be bias. Regards. danielkueh (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• I also agree with the current version. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The undue weight argument is obviously completely correct. Why are we leading with a minority view and building up to what very high-quality sources say is "commonly understood" and "widely accepted"? - Cal Engime (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

We are leading with the obviously broadest majority view, then including the narrower, commonly understood philosophy-specific definitions. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Why should the paragraph start with the broadest definition? Why not the conventional one, the one most accepted by experts in the field? - Cal Engime (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

"Experts in the field?" There is no field of atheism, and I haven't seen any sources indicating "expert atheists". There may certainly be experts in etymology of the term, or philosophical aspects, or the social and cultural aspects, or the historical aspects. While an argument could be made that a narrower definition is more "accepted" by experts in a specific field, WP:WEIGHT requires that we fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources, not just, say, a subset of philosophy sources, for example. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Given the support the "lack belief" definition currently draws from philosophical sources, surely it is agreed that philosophy is the relevant field, and that the history of atheism is the history of a philosophical position, and that social and cultural aspects of atheism are aspects of philosophy in society and culture. Anyway, unless it can be shown that a broader definition is more dominant in these other, uncited sources, the clear preference in philosophical sources tips the scale—no reason has been given for leading with the definition that includes the most people whose "atheism" would be disputed. - Cal Engime (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Our article presently conveys three competing 'meanings' of atheism in the lead paragraph, with the broadest meaning most prominently in use today listed first. Your suggested ordering, placing the narrow "affirmative denial" of the existence of deities first, does have some currency in the philosophical field. It is also the preferred definition promoted by religionists who, in defense of their own beliefs and dogma, wish to reduce and redefine the simple absence of belief as an equally irrational form of belief and dogma, and therefore subject to the same criticisms. But this narrow use of "atheist" does not reflect the meaning in widest use among all reliable sources.

surely it is agreed that philosophy is the relevant field

If you are suggesting that we should restrict our reliable sources to only those in the philosophy field, I think you would be hard-pressed to find support for that. When our readers come here to find information on atheism, they should be presented with information representative of what is conveyed by reliable sources, not just a limited subset of sources from a specific field we select. If you are suggesting that we need to add more non-philosophy sources to the article, that shouldn't be too difficult to accommodate. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Philology is at least as important as Philosophy in a page lead. Have a quick re-read of WP:RF and then consider what a high school student who doesn't understand the word wants to know. I would suggest that the broad definition which corresponds to the meaning of the word is the simple, first meaning. To those who are not versed in the finer shades of philosophy that is how the word is used - sometimes as an insult by religious bodies. The requirement to reject belief rather than simply failing to have belief is a nuance that those who are more interested may appreciate. Keeping to the consensus order also ensures the uncontroversial dictionary definition comes first, the increasingly controversial philosophical arguments come later. Remember, this is a lead, not the detailed information which follows. Too often leads become bloated as editors attempt to squeeze in their viewpoints when all that is required is a brief overview which leads (the hint is in the name) on to the main body. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The sources don't establish that the broader definition is "most prominently in use," and I don't think they would since the narrow definition not only seems to be favoured by dictionaries, but is used in popular works on atheism such as The God Delusion. It is simply not true that the general public understand atheism to be lack of belief as opposed to affirmation of non-existence, as is attested by Xenophrenic when he says the narrower definition is the one preferred by "religionists," i.e. the overwhelming majority of people. - Cal Engime (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The sources don't establish that the broader definition is "most prominently in use,"

Incorrect. They certainly do, if by "the sources" you mean all reliable sources, and not just philosophy-specific sources, as I said. And the definition in common use is becoming even broader still. Witness the rise of what the common-folk (and journalists) in the 21st century have dubbed the "new atheism", which has moved beyond simply lacking belief in deities, and is now equated with direct activism against religion and superstition. The majority of people (not academics, mind you), who self-describe as atheists today, aren't just rejecting belief in any specific god, but in religion altogether. The co-editor of the Oxford Handbook on Atheism, Stephen Bullivant, acknowledged this when considering how to define "atheism" today, in light of how it has been "commonly" defined in the philosophy field. He determined, as Wikipedia has, that it was best to use the broadest meaning, because:

In the first place, it is broader than the common-language, McGrathian definition, and permits exploration of a range of closely related (and sometimes-overlapping) positions vis-a-vis the existence of a God or gods. However, it is not so broad as to become either meaningless or indiscriminate. Rather, it recognizes atheism to be a useful ‘umbrella concept’, but one which permits various sharper sub-definitions (positive/negative, weak/strong, anti-theism, agnosticism, etc.). Secondly, this usage has both a strong tradition within atheist literature, and has gained a wide acceptance among atheist scholars. Beginning at least with Charles Bradlaugh, who in 1866 founded the National Secular Society, many prominent atheists have argued for the accuracy of this definition (e.g., Flew 1976: 14; Smith [1979] 1989: 8; Hiorth 2003: 9). Frequently, appeal is made to the etymology of atheos/atheist on comparison with similarly constructed words such as ‘amoral’ and ‘asexual’. Given that its alpha privativum prefix strictly means ‘without’, a-theist ought literally to mean ‘without (a belief in) God’. Admittedly, bearing in mind that historically the word has only rarely meant this (and even did not, as we have seen, in classical Greece), there is danger here of falling prey to the etymological fallacy. Nevertheless, the great utility of this definition, and its pervasive – although not universal (see Baggini 2003: 3; Cliteur 2009; Eller 2010) – deployment in recent scholarship on contemporary atheism, more than support its usage.

"religionists," i.e. the overwhelming majority of people.

That one has me scratching my head. I don't know what recent numbers would show for your part of the world, but in England and Wales, non-believers account for more than 48.5% of the populace, and they are commonly referred to as "atheists". As for popular works like "The God Delusion", I know the author says he identifies as both an 'atheist' and 'agnostic', and that he cannot affirmatively deny the non-existence of deities (although he lives his life as though they do not exist), so I think that rather supports my point instead of yours. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been searching for the figures. There is a rather large transatlantic divide on this. Atheism is the largest group in the UK, but are a very much smaller group in the USA. Both sides of the pond need to take cognisance of this and not make assumptions on purely local figures. Apologies to other Anglophone nations, I don't have the figures to hand. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You're undermining your own points. The fact that the public associates the term with crusading against religion rather than passive unbelief tends to support the narrower definition. Anyway, the citation from Bullivant says that the definition is historically rare, and the whole sweep of atheist history is more notable than a trend in contemporary pop culture. As for the proportion of atheists to others in England and Wales, well, to paraphrase Nietzsche, men do not reject religion, only Englishmen do. About Dawkins, the seven-point scale of belief he presents in chapter 2 of his book clearly gives an "affirm non-existence" account of atheism: a theist without doubts is a 1, an atheist (defined by Dawkins as someone who says "I know there is no God") is a 7, and agnostics are somewhere in the middle. - Cal Engime (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

...crusading against religion rather than passive unbelief...

There is no juxtaposition there. The lack of belief has spawned activism against religion in government, education and politics. The "new atheism" is not "crusading" against the existence of a deity, but rather against the continued encroachment of religion in public life, so my point stands.

Bullivant says that the definition is historically rare, and the whole sweep of atheist history is more notable than a trend in contemporary pop culture.

Actually, no he doesn't - he says just the opposite, noting that the narrow view is outdated, constrained to it's earliest origins as defined by people of religion (as a pejorative) and the field of philosophy of religion, and therefore, "I believe a far better and usable definition of ‘atheism’ – one already in scholarly use – can be located in the category not of ‘commitment’, but of ‘belief’. What I want to do in this short paper, then, is simply to outline what I believe to be a fairly uncontroversial definition of atheism already in scholarly use: ‘a lack of belief in the existence of a God or gods’." That further supports my point. And I do believe Bullivant's more accurate and "uncontroversial definition" is the very thing Martin of Sheffield mentioned about our present wording, which: "ensures the uncontroversial dictionary definition comes first, the increasingly controversial philosophical arguments come later."

As for the proportion of atheists, you linked to a Pew study a half-decade old, whereas the newer study shows a 50% increase in that number of "non-religiously affiliated" worldwide. And far from being a "pop culture trend" like a hair style or the Pet Rock, the data indicate an ongoing sea-change and steady maturation of society globally.

About Dawkins...

I would request that you re-read that section from Dawkins more carefully. In his seven-point Spectrum of theistic probability, he lists number 1 as specifically, "Strong theist - 100 percent probability of God, 'I do not believe, I know'." And he defines three atheist categories ("leaning", "de facto" and "strong"), not just one as you implied, with only number 7 as "Strong atheist", but immediately qualifies that, saying, "I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated." So rather than define atheism as someone who says "I know there is no God", he instead says that category is nearly empty because atheists don't have "faith", and reason won't allow for the conviction that something definitely doesn't exist. He, who has been called the UK's most famous atheist, then explains that even he isn't a "category 7" in affirmative denial. Most atheists aren't. Which supports my point. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

In fact, Dawkins identifies two categories as atheism, with 5 being only an agnostic who is only "leaning towards atheism," and a 6 is someone who considers the non-existence of God so much more likely than the alternative that they take it to be true and act accordingly, which would undoubtedly be difficult to distinguish from a belief in God's non-existence by any reasonable definition. Even then, that makes you a "de facto atheist," a qualified expression that suggests a 6 in some way is not really an atheist, unlike the paradigmatic 7. I think it's a misreading of him to say that he personally doesn't affirm non-existence, since what he calls "the central argument of my book" attempts to reach "the main conclusion of the book", "there almost certainly is no God", but regardless, Dawkins' personal atheism or lack thereof, or whether Dawkins thinks there are very many atheists, has no bearing on the definition of atheism he has explicitly adopted in his very popular book, just as Dr Bullivant's expertise on atheism is not somehow compromised by the fact that he is a Christian and not any kind of atheist—and I don't understand how you can claim that he "says just the opposite" of what you have just quoted him saying, that "historically the word has only rarely meant" without a belief in God, in the course of explaining why he is justified in adopting this meaning rather than what he calls the "common-language" definition. - Cal Engime (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

To add support to the current ordering from a purely logical/cognitive perspective, a clear expression of definitions that differ in extent and complexity is often done by moving from the simplest to the most specific. In this case, the third category fits inside the second category, which fits inside the first. Thus, when introduced from the broadest to the narrowest each step introduces more complexity which also happens to build upon the preceding definition. This contrasts with the reverse order, which taxes the working memory by introducing the most complex and constricted definition first137.111.13.204 (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Dawkins does think there are very many atheists - including himself; but as for the kind who insist they 'know' there is no god, Dawkins says there are not many at all. That supports the point. Bullivant, with his "expertise in atheism", acknowledges that narrower views were common during certain historical periods, or from a philosophical perspective, but says those views are inadequate, outdated and have been justifiably superseded with the "lack of belief" definition. That supports the point. High quality sources also criticize the narrower views on etymological grounds. About the "affirmative denial" meaning, the Cambridge Companion to Atheism states, "Certainly, many people understand ‘atheism’ in this way. Yet this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek ‘a’ means ‘without’ or ‘not,’ and ‘theos’ means ‘god.’ From this standpoint, an atheist is someone without a belief in God; he or she need not be someone who believes that God does not exist." That supports the point. As IP:137 just noted, our presentation of the broadest, most inclusive definition before the narrow, more specific definitions, is also the most logical. That supports the point. And as noted above, we're not putting the presently least used, but most controversial and POV description ('atheism is just another belief system/religion...') first. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I hope we can keep this discussion closely based on the sources and not histrionics about the ghastly, terrible religionists and their devious insinuations that atheists believe things—it is frankly absurd to impute an agenda of making atheism out to be "just another belief" to atheist authors like Smart, McCormick, and Baggini who attest the normal definition, or for that matter to Dawkins, who cannot reasonably be claimed to endorse the lack-belief definition; he can count as atheists those who, like him, admit just the slightest doubt about God's existence while still distinguishing them from agnostics, as he clearly does in the text. Bullivant does say that the lack-belief definition has gained acceptance among atheist scholars, but above you thought that specialised usage within academia should be discounted, so surely you find his testimony to the common-language meaning more important? It is true that sources appeal to etymology to support the lack-belief definition, but Bullivant correctly notes that this etymology is (a) false, and (b) a fallacious criterion of what the word means or should mean today, so at best what the sources as a group say about this point does nothing to tip the balance in favour of lack-belief. Proceeding from broadest to narrowest is no more logical than proceeding from narrowest to broadest, and I think IP:137's argument that readers will find believing there is no God a significantly more difficult concept to understand than lacking a belief in God should be entirely dismissed. Finally, I think the sources give good reason to think that it is the lack-belief definition that is the most controversial, since those that endorse it like Bullivant, Flew, and Martin say things like that the broader definition is the common-language one or the one that will be found by looking up atheism in a dictionary, and explicitly ask that the word be construed in an unusual way. The least controversial definition is the most widely accepted one, and the one that doesn't include agnostics who would not wish to be called atheists (like Neil deGrasse Tyson, for example, who is known to be unhappy with Wikipedia's treatment of him in this regard): those who believe there is no God, the only class of people included by all three of these definitions. - Cal Engime (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

What appear as "histrionics" to you is actually from the very sources to which you say we must cling. Dawkins does not count himself as an affirmative denier, nor does he think very many people do. Bullivant himself uses the etymological evidence in support of his argument that atheism is best defined as a lack of belief in gods (with a footnote that by "lack of", he in no way implies any deficiency on the part of the nonbeliever at all). Odd that you claim he says it is false/fallacious. Those who use the most widely accepted and least controversial do not "explicitly ask that the word be construed in an unusual way"; to the contrary, they have observed that it is already the dominant meaning in use, and they therefore argue that the archaic, specific-field definitions be deprecated. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Cengime- That wasn't my argument, so your response to that can be dismissed. The point relates to logical ordering of definitions/sets, an attempt at describing an objective approach to this rather than focusing on biases, and using language which implies ad hominems (histrionics, for example). I have contributed to this page for a number of years, and am quite familiar with this discussion. The poorly sourced arguments that you are advancing now are no different to those advanced and addressed a number of years ago, though the youtube clips are at least new. There are enough sources that we need not rely on opinions about this, we have scholarly works that support the current ordering. Criticising the use of those works merely invites an argument about what sources should be emphasised on wikipedia, in which event there are numerous templates that can be provided to end this fruitless discussion.137.111.13.204 (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic: Dawkins' or anyone's denial or non-denial of the existence of God is irrelevant, his narrow definition of atheism still shows that it is in common use. Bullivant says what I say he does about the etymological argument, again, in material that you yourself have quoted. He observes that "appeal is made" to this argument by some writers, but then he says that this is not the authentic meaning of the Classical Greek root:

Admittedly, bearing in mind that historically the word has only rarely meant this (and even did not, as we have seen, in classical Greece),

Then he warns about the fallaciousness of such arguments in the first place:

there is danger here of falling prey to the etymological fallacy.

Then, he does not defend the argument but rather says that in spite of these weaknesses, the definition is justified for reasons independent of folk etymology:

Nevertheless, the great utility of this definition, and its pervasive – although not universal (see Baggini 2003: 3; Cliteur 2009; Eller 2010) – deployment in recent scholarship on contemporary atheism, more than support its usage.

I do not know to whom you are attributing the assertion that the broadest definition is the dominant meaning in use. Bullivant, in this case, indeed "says just the opposite": "Even today, however, there is no clear, academic consensus as to how exactly the term should be used." Turning to use in common language, he cites a survey he conducted of Oxford students in 2007 in which, presented with several definitions of atheist, over 80% said that it meant "a person who believes that there is no God or gods" or "a person who is convinced that there is no God or gods", and 13.6% chose "a person who lacks a belief in a God or gods." You could hardly have consulted Flew 1976 without reading his declaration at the very beginning that the term atheism "has in this contention to be construed unusually" and that "The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage." Martin 2007, which you have also just quoted, says just what I say it does, "If you look up 'atheism' in a dictionary, you will find it defined as the belief that there is no God", and not that this usage is wrong or obsolete but rather that it "should not be overlooked," and then in fact proceeds to adopt both definitions, distinguishing between the dictionaries' "positive atheism" and "negative atheism." It is simply not true that the reliable sources on this subject say that the broad definition is dominant in academic or everyday usage. What we do have are very high-quality sources that say the narrow definition is "commonly understood" (Rowe 1998), "widely accepted" (McCormick), and in "established common usage" (Flew 1976), and at worst, that there is "no clear, academic consensus", which puts due weight firmly on the side of the narrow definition. - Cal Engime (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You might think so, but there's a very longstanding consensus for the current order, discussed and debated exhaustively by scores of editors, across multiple discussions spanning many years. Your view may well be correct, but unless a consensus is reached that your view should prevail, the article should remain in its stable condition. Needless to say, trying to edit war your preferred version into the article is absolutely unacceptable. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and as the page you have linked explains, consensus is not a majority vote. It is necessary that reasons other than force of numbers be provided ("The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever."), and the global consensus behind Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability is not overridden by some clique's local "consensus" to ignore them. Nobody has disputed that WP:WEIGHT should guide the order of definitions in the first paragraph. It was also claimed that the sources establish that the "lack belief" definition has become the dominant one, but these claims were false, and the sources say the opposite. If the other side only wants to follow this up by digging in their heels and withdrawing from the discussion for five days and counting, they are welcome to withdraw from maintaining the article as well. - Cal Engime (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

In spite of the narrowest definitions, many sources still acknowledge negative atheism since it and positive atheism are inclusive of all nonbelievers (agnostic or otherwise). Moreover, due weight isn't about what is popular, but what can be sourced and although there is not agreement on what atheism is or should be, the broadest definition of absence of belief is pervasive in recent scholarship (per Bullivant) and it can be found listed in many dictionaries thus I'm satisfied that we are justified in leading with it. Putting aside the issue of reordering the definitions, your revision [4] to: "In philosophy of religion, atheism is commonly understood..." misses the recent pervasiveness of negative atheism within the philosophy of religion. --Modocc (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The sources support the inclusion of the definition, but there doesn't seem to be any firmer reason for pushing it to the front other than the personal preferences of editors. Most of the sources present the broad definition alongside the more common definition (see all four sources currently cited for the broad definition), or the common definition alone. The consensus order of narrowest-to-broadest that was established when this article became featured better reflects the representation of these definitions in the sources. - Cal Engime (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

That 2007 version wasn't accurate and didn't last long for it was inappropriate to say, in our collective voice, that atheism is a position when there was and is legitimate disagreement on that and even when atheism is an explicit position it's dubious it's always a "philosophical position" as if atheists are philosophers. The different definitions were segregated and the rejection of belief definition placed first for it better reflected a broader more inclusive definition of atheism that didn't include agnostics, but consensus can certainly change and I've no problem with that especially when whatever we have to say is accurate. Modocc (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is disagreement among the sources about whether atheism is a position; sources like Martin 2007 talk about negative atheism being justified, negative atheism entailing things, etc. Nevertheless, this is no reason not to follow the sources in saying that affirmation of non-existence is what atheism is commonly understood to mean (per Bullivant, Rowe, McCormick, Flew) and that the "lack of belief" definition is unlikely to be adopted by the public (per Harvey). - Cal Engime (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Which of the three definitions the public employs is a red herring for what matters per wp:weight policy is what definitions scholars use and the absence of belief is pervasive (i.e. common) in recent scholarship per Bullivant. As for accuracy, Smith stated that the disbelief definition is also common so its prudent for us not to be over-stating how common each of the definitions actually are. --Modocc (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Bullivant keeps being mentioned. It is perhaps relevant to consider one sentence from page 1 of The Oxford Handbook of Atheism by Bullivent and Ruse: "The existence of the deity - to be a believer, a theist in some sense, or to be a non-believer, an atheist in some sense - is no mere matter of academic concern and interest". Quite clearly the term atheist in some sense is in contradistinction to a theist and is therefore to be interpreted in in broadest sense. Consensus here, respected recent scholarly works and philology give the broad definition.

It seems to me that the problem for many theists is that whilst they can accept a different belief, even a belief in absence, they cannot comprehend the absence of a belief. It is akin to the problem with the "meaning of life". A common rejoinder from some theists is that without a belief in some deity, what is the meaning of life? They accept that there may be other meanings, but that there does not have to be a "meaning of life" is actually impossible to comprehend. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's please not waste breath trying to psychoanalyse the overwhelming majority of language users (per Bullivant 2008) and the reasons they may have for giving the word a narrower sense, the sources are quite sufficient to base a decision on. It is true that Bullivant says the broad definition is "pervasive" in "recent scholarship of contemporary atheism," but even if the scope of this article were not broader than "contemporary atheism," pervasive does not mean what "commonly understood" and "widely accepted" do, so there is no reason to doubt what the other sources have to say about the matter. Bullivant's passing reference to being "an atheist in some sense" makes no difference to what has already been quoted from the work cited about the historical rarity of the lack-belief definition, the continued currency of the affirm non-existence definition among academic writers like Baggini, Cliteur, and Eller, and the widespread understanding among the general public that an atheist is one who has a belief or conviction that there is no God or gods. - Cal Engime (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

"Bullivant's passing reference..."? Absolutely not. Bullivant (the leading editor of what may likely turn out to be a great book in the study of atheism given its extensive list of academic contributors) states that "Throughout this volume,by contrast, unless otherwise stated, 'atheism' is defined as an absence of belief in the existence of a God or gods." He says this definition is pervasive but not universal and its pointless to conflate popular usage (which happens to vary with region and groups) with the academic exceptions he mentions. In addition, other editors have earlier expressed opposition to stating in the lead that some definitions are more common than another. What is the point even other than to push undue favoritism of the narrowest over the others? --Modocc (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Page 1, second paragraph, where one is starting to introduce terms and subject is a passing reference? Either Bullivant is an incompetent author or else he meant exactly what he put in such a prominent position. Personally I side with the latter! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Bullivant says these things, he also says that the common language definition is historically more prevalent and cites its recent use in scholarship. There is no need to retread this ground: the sources as a whole give decisively greater weight to the affirm-nonexistence definition, and the reason for this dispute is that some editors want to give less weight to the affirm-nonexistence definition, which they suppose theists and religionists favour because they cannot comprehend the absence of a belief and want to represent atheism as just another religion, because they want Wikipedia to take the POV that the lack-belief definition is objectively better on the basis of specious etymological arguments or whatever other non-policy-based reason. Bullivant and the other reliable sources are clear enough to anyone open to what they have to say. - Cal Engime (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Our policy, wp:reliable sources is to give greater weight to current scholarship such as The Oxford Handbook of Atheism than to historic and dated works. -Modocc (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Good thing, then, that Bullivant supports my points! - Cal Engime (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Reread Bullivant and answer me this, what does etymological arguments have anything to do with this dispute when dictionaries list the broadest definition's meaning? --Modocc (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

You tell me, I'm not the one who tried to introduce it into consideration saying, "High quality sources also criticize the narrower views on etymological grounds", nor the one who tried to introduce it into consideration saying, "Consensus here, respected recent scholarly works and philology give the broad definition." Plenty of dictionaries could be cited for "positive atheism" being the primary sense of the word, such as the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary, the Random House Dictionary, and the Merriam-Webster Learner's Dictionary, just as is the case with the more specialised sources. The notes to the page as it stands say that most dictionaries list the narrow definition first. - Cal Engime (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, but then please do not rehash your continued conflation of popular usage (which is the job of dictionaries to establish amongst all writers and is irrelevant here) with academic weight. To be clear, the handbook is a current survey and study of this article's topic, the scope of which is all forms of atheism. The book gives the greatest weight to the broadest definition as pointed out earlier by Martin of Sheffield, so why shouldn't we follow suit in accord with that weight amongst scholars? Regarding specific scholars, Bullivant writes that

Nevertheless, the great utility of this definition, and its pervasive – although not universal (see Baggini 2003: 3; Cliteur 2009; Eller 2010) – deployment in recent scholarship on contemporary atheism, more than support its usage.

-Modocc (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

What Bullivant says is that "there is no clear, academic consensus as to how exactly the term should be used." His own choice, motivated by his background as a theologian, should be weighed against other reliable sources that adopt other definitions, like the three recent sources you quote him citing. - Cal Engime (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Yet there is no reason we should dispute Bullivant's assertion that the broadest definition is pervasive among scholars without either doing are own survey of the literature as you suggest (which is perhaps folly given our source here has done this for us) or finding a contrary well-sourced opinion on the matter. --Modocc (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, as I have noted repeatedly, we have several high-quality sources that say the affirm-nonexistence definition is "widely accepted," "commonly understood," "established common usage"—pervasive is not such strong language that we would need to take Bullivant as contradicting McCormick, Rowe, and Flew. It is the "common language" definition, and "it is unlikely that the public will adopt" the alternative. There is no good reason to throw all this material out the window and give our exclusive attention to a cherry-picked sentence from a source that also says there is no clear consensus about how the word is to be used, because editors' personal animus against the most prevalent definition is not a good reason. - Cal Engime (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Your ad hominems are unwarranted and you have not altered my reasoning about what I've said regarding the definitions, our references and the applicable policies, which means that I've nothing further to say for now other than I will continue to support the current consensus. --Modocc (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It is not an ad hominem to take not of the fact that multiple participants in this discussion, all on one side, have thought it worthwhile to openly disparage the definition with the strongest support of the sources for personal (and apologetical) reasons unrelated to anything found in reliable sources, closely linked to personal abuse of "theists" and "religionists," who are alleged with no evidence and to no purpose to be the primary or sole supporters of the conventional definition because they find lack of belief "impossible to comprehend" and want to redefine it as an "irrational form of belief and dogma," who apropos of nothing at all are supposedly fading away with the "maturation of society." If you think that with enough biased people, the bias can be laundered into a pure and wholesome "consensus" that can be invoked in defence of the status quo independently of policies and sources, you are wrong. I, at least, remain open to hearing any reasons why the order of the opening should not reflect the balance of the sources. - Cal Engime (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You should take that with grain of salt, for none of that commentary was directed at you personally nor have I engaged you with any. As for the ad homiens that matter regarding your discussion of the sources with me: "motivated by his background as a theologian" is unwarranted. "...Bullivant as contradicting McCormick, Rowe, and Flew." no he does not nor had I imply that. --Modocc (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Bullivant writes "There are also theological motives for my adopting this definition" on p. 17 of his dissertation The Salvation of Atheists and Catholic Dogmatic Theology (OUP, 2012), and goes on to relate the broad definition to statements about unbelief in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the documents of the Second Vatican Council. But I'm the one who needs to "reread Bullivant"...

If there is no contradiction between Bullivant and the other sources, then he gives us no reason not to accept what they say about the narrow definition being the most accepted. - Cal Engime (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, but please do not repeat what you said earlier about animus against strong atheism at least not when you are conversing with me. The other sources are older and are not as restricted in scope as Bullivants assertion. --Modocc (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, there remains no consensus to change the stable version, in fact quite the opposite. I continue to urge User:Cengime not to edit war, lest that editor find oneself reported for doing so. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Libertine-atheism

Graham11 has proposed merging the Libertine-atheism page here.

That page has very little on it and the term itself seems mostly a word combination used by critics of atheism to add a little pejorative weight to their disapproval of atheism. The page has no supported reference that it refers to a body of beliefs held by a group of people, now or in the past. How it made it onto the Template:Atheism sidebar is a mystery to me.

What's to merge? Should it just redirect to some suitable page or section that places the criticism in context, like Secular ethics? Criticism of atheism?  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree For the little in it you might just as well WP:PROD it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree WP:PROD -- ZH8000 (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• I PRODded the article in question earlier. Perhaps someone can second the PROD? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

For sure. Graham (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Image for atheism

I think the use of the atheist alliance symbol at the top of the page is misleading. Atheism is notoriously not organised and many atheists feel this is a strong part of their identity. (e.g. Dawkins' "herding cats" comment [Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion])

People often try to misrepresent atheism as a religion when it is the opposite. If anyone has a good idea for another image? 137.222.59.4 (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

It is a problem, yes. I support removing the alliance symbol from the top. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Isambard KingdomI think this would have to be discussed at Template talk:Atheism sidebar where I would support it. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I initiated a discussion at Template talk:Atheism sidebar. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Why Are Empirical Arguments Not Included?

The Existence of God page currently has a nice list of them. BrianPansky (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There are no empirical arguments for atheism. Agnosticism/weak atheism is far more prevalent. Weak atheism is example of the fallacy of equivocation and it is in reality agnosticism. Knox490 (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

No, "weak atheism" is not a synonym for "agnosticism". Agnostics may be theists; no weak atheists are theists. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Agnostic atheist, one who does not openly accept nor deny that gods or a god exists, is "weak atheism". This is different from Agnostic theists who believe in a god or gods but say that it cannot be proven. Gnostic atheism, one who denies the existence of a god or gods, is "strong atheism".   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

statement lacking

"or the belief that there exists none." should be included after the "deities" word of the first sentence. This is consistant with the Oxford quote, reference #2  Therefore a more accurate description is offered: Atheism is, in a broad sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities or the belief that there exists none.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Companieshelper (talk • contribs) 21:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC) 

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120214102422/http://www.sdsmt.edu/student-orgs/tfs/reading/freethought/islam.html to http://www.sdsmt.edu/student-orgs/tfs/reading/freethought/islam.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedian definition of atheism

The Wikipedian definition of atheism is about god denial, not metaphysicality denial. (I did't say metaphysical denial because we should mention also Aristotelianism because some people like to blend multiple definitions to make their point stronger to the unsavvy) Many global and US atheists are metaphysicals (soul atheists, UFO atheists [no data or anti data atheists], new age atheists, not officially recognized field atheists, homeopathic atheists, paradise atheists etc.) Some people claim that atheism should not be pure, and that being antimetaphysical is a different term with some common ground. Other hard core atheists force antimetaphysicality into others claiming they are the "originals". We might want to merge the antimetaphysicals with the atheists, but forced mergers aren't an objective way to write encyclopedic articles, neither not to mention a great issue of everyday life, simply because you don't like the fact it exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4100:6900:21FC:E03A:7F55:72FB (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you not read the big box at the top of the talk page:

"The definition of atheism has been repeatedly argued on this talk page. Before suggesting substantial changes, please make sure that your view is entirely supported by reliable sources and has a neutral point of view."

? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

IP user, I'm having quite a bit of trouble parsing your intention. Do you have a proposal for improving the article? PepperBeast (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

You are not helpful. You are very generic. I will use your tongue: "Did you not read" that are specific issues? "Did you not read" the term antimetaphysicals? Read Wiktionary. You are acting as a hard core atheist, trying to delete or hide under the rug the term antimetaphysical.

(in the future maybe we should create a different page, I don't want to destroy atheist ideology if some atheist thinks so) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4100:6900:21FC:E03A:7F55:72FB (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Disagree with 2A02:587:4100:6900:21FC:E03A:7F55:72FB and thank you for introducing me to the term anti-metaphysical which I recognize that I am. I concur that the wiki definition is the appropriate one, the one cognitively consonant with wiki, its culture and standards. However, yes, only a absolute rejection of the supernatural is what most of us who think of ourselves as "real" atheists, mean by the term. "Spiritual but not religious", agnostics, etc., it's important to have such a clarification to see where these fall out, as far as wiki is concerned. 198.255.197.105 (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me that atheists may be pro- or anti- metaphysics, but the wiktionary article is a rather thin basis for proposing fundamental changes. I disagree with 2A02:587:4100:6900:21FC:E03A:7F55:72FB's proposal. Dannyno (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Definition Atheism v Agnosticism

Hello, an hour ago I done a distinction between of Atheism and Agnosticism, but as protected it was reverted. Well, I think suitable to update the version 2007 as following. What do you think about? My changed definition:

Writers disagree on how best to define and classify atheism, contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is a philosophic position in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. Atheism has been incorretly regarded as compatible with agnosticism, because, actually, it is a great difference between the two conception, even if often atheists and agnostics can be associated to contrast the religions. A variety of categories have been used to distinguish the different forms of atheism. We can distinguish them as following: "An atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in God and/or finds the very concept of God meaningless or incoherent. An agnostic is someone who is unsure or undecided about the existence of God, or who believes that there are certain matters -- such as existence of a God -- that are beyond the scope of human knowledge and comprehension.

Thank'You eluskerElusker (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but your revised version is not as good as what currently exists. I agree with the reversion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the revised version has several problems and is in my view not an improvement. Arnoutf (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I also agree, the revised version is not an improvement at all. It is badly worded, imposes distinctions which are contested in the literature, and appears to be merely POV. Dannyno (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2016

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities, or the belief that there exists none.

The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (2008 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 2013-11-21. "Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none

This will bring the first sentence in line with the Oxford definition AND society today. There are 30+ "Atheist mega churches" in the USA today. Major USA media sources have aired these news stories.[5], [6], [7] Oxford defines the current way of thinking. It is not just a lack of belief in a deity anymore. That also does not mean Atheism is not a system of belief. Actions of and in listening to how atheists speak, there can be no doubt, it is currently a system of belief, depending on the person. Atheism is not a traditional religious code with a deity, but neither is modern paganism, Buddhism and more. Atheists have clear codes for "the" appropriate thinking. It is being spelled out everywhere. They are most eager puritans, as much as religious people are. They have disdain, for other beliefs. It is an active opposition, not just a simple lack of belief. Atheism is an active rejection of deity It is not a coincidence, that people begin to define it, as a system of belief. Because that is the image, that is projected. That does not take the individual factor into account, but neither do atheists, when talking about religious people. Technically Buddhism is Atheist[8] and yet is considered a religion also? Yes, Atheism is a religion.

There is also STRONG argument to include the statement that "Atheism is a 'New Age' religion" for the reasons cited above. Companieshelper (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Your proposed edit would make our lead less accurate, according to the preponderance of reliable sources. You propose to add the very narrow, archaic and restrictive "belief that there exists none" outlier definition to a sentence that describes the "broadest sense" definition. As for the rest of your assertions (i.e.; atheism is a "belief", atheism "is a code", atheism is "active opposition", atheism "is a religion"), they sound like the routine (and groundless) arguments used by many religionists, theologians and a few combative philosophers, when struggling to form a criticism of what is simply the absence of belief in supernatural deities.

On the assumption that you are being sincere in your misunderstanding of the topic, you'll find that most of this has been discussed at length above (and in the archives). If you were merely trolling, well gosh, you got me! Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I was being serious I was not trolling and that is upsetting that that would even be a thought. If nothing else the very first sentence should only include what is included in the reference of the Oxford dictionary of philosophy. But strangely Everyone likes to quote only the first half of the Oxford dictionary of philosophy; why not the whole thing? That is disingenuous to say the least. Christopher Hitchens in a famous quote said "our belief is not a belief." Further clarification on that was that an atheist belief is that, it's just disbelief, not non-existence of belief. I did cite the mega churches of atheism. Truncating the definition of atheism from the Oxford dictionary of philosophy is absolutely disingenuous, it is false, and it needs to be corrected. it's a simple thing to include after the word "deities", the rest of the definition from the Oxford dictionary of philosophy: "or the belief that there exists none." I never meant for any of the other to be included only saying that it's possible that should be looked at in the future but this simple addition to the first sentence is needed to make it more accurate, NOT less accurate! because that's what the Oxford dictionary of philosophy defines atheismit as. everybody continues to go to the Oxford Dictionary to define atheism and they see a different version than what's on Wikipedia. Doesn't Wikipedia want to be accurate? Doesn't Wikipedia want to reflect the FULL definition from Academia? No matter what your personal opinion or your personal belief is on the matter, it's a simple thing to look at the actual definition from the Oxford dictionary of philosophy and you can see that what is in Wikipedia is inaccurate and has been truncated and has had part of the full definition removed. The actual definition is included in the reference notes, reference number 2. why the hysteria over not including it on the main page exactly as it is written in the Oxford dictionary of philosophy? Why was the last part of the Oxford definition deleted? What purpose does it serve to quote reference material and not put ALL the wording in that is used in the reference material? You may look at a green ball and I'm a look at the same ball and know that it's red because I'm not colorblind. The Oxford dictionary of philosophy does not stop in defining atheism where Wikipedia stops. It ,Oxford, continues on to bring a fuller, richer, more comprehensive and more understandable definition of atheism. Why does Wikipedia stop and truncate the definition? Why doesn't Wikipedia want to reflect the actual definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Companieshelper (talk • contribs) 06:28, 03 October 2016 (UTC)

Oxford dictionary is an expert in atheism? I would disagree. Atheist megachurches? Los Angeles, California Sunday Assembly has 400. Let's see from List of evangelical megachurches in the US, Lakewood Church has over 40,000. Who defines "atheist megachurch" anyway? Companieshelper, please review the extensive archives on the definition. I see no reason here to make your suggested change. Jim1138 (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Why doesn't Wikipedia want to reflect the actual definition?

The definition you are proposing to add is already in our lead paragraph. And it is already cited to the philosophy source from Oxford you mentioned. That narrow, philosophy-based, rarely used definition isn't the only definition, however. Nor are philosophy sources the only (or even the best) sources available. So what, exactly, are you proposing? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "the actual definition", and even if there were there is no particular reason to think that the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy would be it. In any case, our lead definition already reflects the key elements of the Oxford definition, but it does not slavishly copy it. And as a veteran of past battles over the definition, I add my voice to those above urging you to familiarise yourself with previous discussion. Dannyno (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to emphasise the point, the lead definition cites the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy twice, first to support the assertion that "atheism" can be defined broadly, and secondly to support the assertion that it can be defined narrowly. This seems to be a perfectly reasonable and accurate use of the source. It's important to remember that wikipedia is interested in what reliable sources say, not what one particular reliable source says. We list three main ways of conceptualising atheism, because those are the main ways of conceptualising atheism that are found in the literature. If we were to make privileged use of the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy either/or definition of atheism, or make the binary distinction the key one, we would in fact be failing in our job of reflecting what the range of sources found in the literature say. You have to see the Oxford Dictionary definition alongside many other sources. Dannyno (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

My edits

Why was my edit reversed? The article contains inaccurate information. Apollo The Logician (talk) Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, there was a typo; you removed referenced material; you added in something referenced solely by by about.com; your edit summary was 'removed immaculate material'. And this is a contentious article. So I'm not surprised you were reverted. But please explain here what you feel is inaccurate, and why. And what you want to add. Mcewan (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Well first of all it confused practical atheism with apatheism and pragmatic atheism, second of all it says methodological naturalism, which is described as the following on the naturalism page "Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what nature is. It is the idea that all scientific endeavors, hypotheses, and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events." is a form of practical atheism. what on earth does that have to do with practical atheism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo The Logician (talk • contribs) 16:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) and indent the messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

William Lane Craig

The reference was from William Lane Craig's website, what's the problem? Apollo The Logician (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

We generally don't cite self-published work unless it is reviewed by an editorial board. See wp:RSSELF. I've looked at the source now, so I'll also add that your distillation of Craig's question and answer discussion is only close to what he is saying for he doesn't say atheists are attempting to shift the burden of proof onto theists, but he does say "If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view." This is because regardless of atheists' views, theists still have their own burden(s), yet many theists would also rather not have any burden (who would?), thus they have faith. That said, I discern too that Craig is inconsistent with regards to the non-theism of the agnosticism that he defines and the nonbelief of positive atheism by stating that the broadest definition of atheism "is no longer a view but just a psychological condition" when this definition, in fact, encompasses the non-theism, AKA atheism, of their different views too. -Modocc (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't really understand why though.

He also adds "But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo The Logician (talk • contribs) 10:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

To extend his analogy: Let class B A-martian-aurums maintain the assertion "I do not believe that there is gold on Mars." Their assertion regarding their absence of belief or lack of knowledge is unequivocally not a "psychological condition." Neither is any of the definitions of atheism. It's a strawman argument that he is making by not presenting the definition properly in regards to the various atheists' views. --Modocc (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

How is it a strawman? Anyway even if it is what's your point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo The Logician (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Craig is arguing against defining atheism as "a psychological state" that "makes no assertions", but this isn't what the definition has in common between all atheists which is simply an absence of a belief in a God or gods even for prominent atheists such as Dawkins. Craig asserts however that atheists doing this are playing a deceptive game to shift the definition of atheism from a view that God does not exist to "a psychological state" that makes no such assertion. In addition, he observes that atheists are removing their traditional share of the burden of proof, and as a published theologian, Craig is pushing back against this tide created by his adversaries. Nevertheless, per wp:NPOV we as editors here have to look at the weight of his blogged comments that you would like to add [9] and that I removed. For example, the simplistic "a psychological state" is confused and unwarranted and probably wp:fringe unless it can also be sourced to other scholars that concur with him on this. Again, Craig didn't say "...it's an attempt by atheists to shift the burden of proof on theists...", he only said that atheists are shirking their burden of proof or "epistemic responsibility" which he claims they have. -Modocc (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

"but this isn't what the definition has in common between all atheists which is simply an absence of a belief in a God or gods"

Which is a psychological condition

"Nevertheless, per wp:NPOV we as editors here have to look at the weight of his blogged comments that you would like to add [1] and that I removed. For example, the simplistic "a psychological state" is confused and unwarranted and probably wp:fringe unless it can also be sourced to other scholars that concur with him on this. "

First of all you're breaking the NPOV by removing it becuase you don't like what was said, second of all Craig is a scholar.Apollo The Logician (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

As I've said, your piece is inaccurate and you are sourcing Craig's self-published blog. His label of a psychological state for the absence definition appears to be original to him making him a primary source for this idea (which we avoid) and it is not peer-reviewed for correctness or published by a third party, so if it is not primary or fringe then other sources agreeing with him should be available too. Furthermore, Craig's idea of labeling weak and strong atheists as having some kind of psychological state or condition, as you put it, is an over-simplification and, frankly, absurd and demeaning. It's an extraordinary claim coming from a self-published blog WP:RSSELF. Since you are a new editor, I do strongly suggest you familiarize yourself as much as you can with our various policies regarding adding new additions to articles and you will need a wp:consensus of the editors here for any addition you propose. I've other things that need tending to and this is all I have to say for now. -Modocc (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

"As I've said, your piece is inaccurate" I know, I've already admitted to that. "you are sourcing Craig's self-published blog" I'm sure there are other sources. "making him a primary source for this idea (which we avoid) " Why? "or published by a third party, so if it is not primary or fringe then other sources agreeing with him should be available too" Why is this relevant? "Craig's idea of labeling weak and strong atheists as having some kind of psychological state or condition, as you put it, is an over-simplification and, frankly, absurd and demeaning. It's an extraordinary claim" Completely irrelevant, again you're breaking the NPOV. By that logic I can just go around removing opinions that I don't like.

I think it's you who needs to do that, as you clearly don't understand the NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo The Logician (talk • contribs) 20:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Completely irrelevant, again you're breaking the NPOV. By that logic I can just go around removing opinions that I don't like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo The Logician (talk • contribs) 20:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I have linked to the policies that make everything that I've written relevant, but perhaps that is not enough. For example from WP:RSSELF we have this: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims." emphasis in bold is mine. I could go over the other policies one-by-one with you but I really do have to go, so other editors will have to fill in since I won't be responding to any more queries directed at me. Thanks. --Modocc (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I have stated I've no problem with that, not sure how many times I have to repeat it. You were strongly suggesting that because you thought his ideas were nonsense they shouldn't be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo The Logician (talk • contribs) 21:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Craig's complaint is a point which is found in the literature. Indeed, some philosophers who have adopted "weaker" definitions of atheism have done so explicitly to shift the burden of proof - and there's nothing wrong with that. Antony Flew did it, for example, in order to try to move the debate on from where he thought it had stalled, but it might also be done because it's seen as a more secure position in itself (i.e. it is argued by some atheists that it is indeed easier to defend a negative atheism founded on the failure of theism than a positive atheism). Craig perhaps adopts a hostile or controversialist rhetorical tone and characterises the move in ways which may not be helpful in NPOV terms - but since the argument itself is a respectable and familiar one we can probably find better formulations of it. Wikipedia is not a debating forum and the important thing is to reflect key points from "the literature". The controversy about burden of proof is a real debate and there is room for it here. Dannyno (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

That may be. But als Modocc argues multiple times above, such a debate should be introduced based on reliable secondary sources. As self published (non reviewed) blog is not secondary, and the reliability can be challenged. So if this content is to be added, reliable secondary sources should be provided to do so. And the burden of doing so lies with editors wanting to add it. Arnoutf (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• That principle doesn't apply to opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo The Logician (talk • contribs) 09:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

True, but then we would need a reliable secondary sources to state the specific opinion (here the specific quoted blogpost) is relevant and notable before we should discuss the opinion. Arnoutf (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It's from a leading theologian and christIan apologist, how isn't it notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo The Logician (talk • contribs) 10:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Is "a leading theologian and christIan apologist" necessarily the best person to pronounce on atheism? Would you cite the Pope on the differences between Sunni and Shia Islam? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Your personal opinion of him is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo The Logician (talk • contribs) 15:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion of him, relevant or otherwise. I merely wondered how citing his Christian credentials made him an authority on atheism. Indeed, if he is, as you say, a Christian apologist then wouldn't he have a vested interest in misrepresenting atheism? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Even if and when a secondary source is found, some portions of his opinion may fail wp:due, whereas other portions may not. Which means that each and every idea he expresses that could be included here has to be shared in some manner by a multitude of scholars and not just exclusively by him. This article is not Craig's or anyone else's biography or opinion page or a place for us to deposit their rejected or fringe theories. From wp:due:

"Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

--Modocc (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Apollo The Logician Indeed personal opinions do not matter; mine does not, Modocc's does not, yours does not, and Craig's does not. That is why we do not accept blogposts for inclusion in articles. Arnoutf (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Arnoutf I appreciate Dannyno's comments regarding Craig's blog because the way wp:RSSELF is written there is leeway for inclusion since Craig is published in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism[10], which is why it is important for us to assess whether his statements comport with other scholars or not. -Modocc (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2016

Replace: unjustified religious beliefs.[58]</blockquote

with: unjustified religious beliefs.[58]</blockquote>

Finish the block quote ending tag so that only the intended quote is indented. Weslawe (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Done Thanks for pointing that out.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Add Persecution, Discrimination, and opposition?

This section in the Portuguese version exists, and many pages about specific religions have a section about persecution.

Perhaps for atheism, add this section, which will have a further info link to Discrimination against atheists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateoski06 (talk • contribs)

Tom Flynn as source

Tom Flynn who's only credentials are advocating atheism is not a reliable source. Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Tom Flynn (author)? I am not sure why you would think Flynn's published works are not considered reliable. As a prominent atheist, surely he is a reliable source on... er... atheism? He is being cited to support what I would consider to be a non-contentious fact, so I am confused as to why you would delete the citation but not the material it was referencing. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Flynn is not even being cited. The citation is of a statement by Van A. Harvey sourced to The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief which is published by Prometheus Books of which Flynn is the editor. "More than 130 respected scholars and activists worldwide served on the editorial board and over 100 authoritative contributors have written in excess of 500 entries." --Modocc (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

In that case, my earlier reply is somewhat irrelevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

My mistakeApollo The Logician (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2016

Specific parts of the article "atheism" are biased and non neutral by my opinion. For an example the section "metaphysical arguments" which states the controversial "Relative atheism is associated with idealistic monism (pantheism, panentheism, deism)" is referenced to philosopher Zofia Zdybicka which is a nun and catholic, and her view is biased and wrong.

Atheism is derived from a-theism, "without god(s)". How is this "associated" with pan-theism noone can understand. Please correct at least this section or delete it. I will read the whole article and perhaps, ask for further changes. Fra77x (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The above edit by Fra77x ensured that the first item on my watchlist to be edited on Christmas day was Atheism! Is "someone" trying to tell me something? :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems the bit in question is part of a quote. Also the quote seems valid - even if the author may not be an atheist. So no, rather than remove it - the stubby section should perhaps be expanded. As to the first item on my watchlist bit - just say "Bah humbug" and roll on down the road. :) Vsmith (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

We can't perform your edit request because it lacks specificity. It's interesting that you selected that particular quote, though. I think it may have been given too prominent a place in the article. I pulled up the PDF it was taken from and that particular passage is far down in the argument and, to my eyes, stands out of context. As an article in a philosophical encyclopedia, the entire article tries to identify many different subspecies of atheism, organizing them (sometimes uncomfortably) in relation to what seems to be an ongoing argument about how atheism can't really exist.

  Purely practical atheism, like purely theoretical atheism, does not exist. (near the bottom of p 20)

As a standalone quote, it is not of much use for understanding the various distinctions she had been making because, at this point in the argument, her goal seems to be lumping the varieties together so they can be dispatched as groups using a few common refutations.

As with many philosophical writings, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the profound and the farcically obfuscatory. Maybe it's just bad translation, but I agree that the Zdybicka article as a whole is very tough going.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Opening language (again)

Ignoring long-established talk page consensus derived from multiple discussions over many years, Sheila Ki Jawani (talk · contribs) continues to disruptively edit war changes to the opening paragraph of the article. I just reverted the most recent of these edits and I'm start this thread in the hope that Sheila Ki Jawani will engage in discussion here. Most egregious of all is the recent change of "the absence of belief in the existence of deities" to "an absence of belief in the existence of any deities," which somewhat changes the meaning of the phrase. I would like to see Sheila Ki Jawani defend her proposed changes here, and invite other editors to weigh in, before we all come to an agreement over what changes, if any, to implement. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Mr. or Ms. Jawani (which is actually the name of a song, I believe), has been basically correct in his or her editing in many and varied articles, some of which, however, I have had to revert because this person is rather dogmatic in opinion. Thanks to Sciessey for opening this discussion.

Its. Jawani is correct in suggesting its. Otherwise, we should have to make it read in the broadest sense of the word.

the or an. Should be the, because absence is only one thing, which you can't choose between.

any. Jawani is absolutely correct. The word covers both singular and plural.

Thus the sentence should read: Atheism is, in its broadest sense, an absence of belief in the existence of any deity. Or, Atheism is, in the broadest sense of the word, an absence of belief in the existence of any deity.

Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I point interested editors to Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: Your second suggestion is definitely not correct, because it makes the sentence about the word "atheism" rather than the concept it represents. We have literally spent years crafting the opening sentence to deliberately not clash with WP:DICDEF, and your suggestion basically does just that. I think we should allow time for regular editors of this article to weigh in before we make any more changes, and while it is true "consensus can change" (and often does), a failure to properly discuss this issue will almost certainly lead to more edit warring unpleasantness. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Thanks for starting the discussion here on the talk page. I've been watching the edits and reverts with a bit of concern, but your reference to past discussions and particularly to following the advice of WP:DICDEF has helped to crystallize my position. I'm in favor of retaining the long-standing language in opposition to arguments posed so far her and in edit summaries. At first I thought that Sheila Ki Jawani was following some extreme prescriptivist grammar principle in making their changes and that the changes were extremely small and not worth making an argument about. Now, with eyes a little more open, I have to side with the already established consensus.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Sheila Ki Jawani appears to have been blocked indefinitely, so I assume the edit-warring has ceased. If the matter should arise again, however, I'll be joining those who have voiced concern that the ostensibly "minor" tweaking of the wording significantly (and incorrectly) changes the meaning of what is conveyed. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Atheism = Persecution?

Almost a decade ago, articles called Historical persecution by atheism and Historical persecution by atheists were created and then deleted after discussions. A year ago, a category called Category:Persecution by atheists was created and is presently under discussion for deletion. Informed pro & con input based on Wikipedia policy and reliable sources is requested at that discussion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Where categories (and article titles) are concerned, more importantly than 'reliable' sources, are mainstream, consensus-representing sources. Categories are labels, yet they are not citable (as article challengable claims are), and this is quite often abused, so they must represent established, consensual fact, not fringe opinion or talking-points. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 16:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and in particular for controversial categories, each individual inclusion of an article to that category needs to be backed by such consensus. Arnoutf (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

But often, consensus always works out in favour of the majority/most vocal/most disingenuous, and when it comes to religious questions (usually pushed by apologists), fact and reason don't even matter. It most often ends up being pages of selective-source sophism followed by silence until canvassed voters show up (while accusations of canvassing fly from both ends of the argument). I'm not sure what can be done about this; the best one can do is bring attention to the factual inaccuracy (and clear agenda) in what's being discussed (and that goes for both sides). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Legitimately "controversial categories" shouldn't exist, according to WP:CATDEF. That doesn't mean that unflattering or critical categories cannot exist, if the preponderance of mainstream scholarship holds that such a category is warranted. If the state of scholarship of properly reviewed, and Wikipedia policy on determining consensus is properly followed, no amount of agenda-pushing, selective canvassing or blustery argumentation should matter. Twenty-five vociferous debaters who lack reliable sources and policy support can not establish consensus against five participants whose arguments are soundly based on sources and policy. In a perfect world, anyway. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

In my thirteen years here, I've seen quite a few contributors who have made it their goal to use Wikipedia as a platform to trumpet a 'reality' that was demonstrably quite different from actual reality... in one case, it took ten years before an arbitrator looked into a talk page (purposely) filled with muddled arguments beyond a 'sounds good' level to put a stop to it (so all the arbitrators inbetween actually aided that effort)... plus all the usual tactics (selective sources, poisoning discussion, edit-warring, false accusations, and canvassing: WP:GAME in general, what, making even arbitration a nightmare). I've been more or less away from Wikipedia since a few years largely because of that, but I do keep a watchful eye... I hope things have improved in recent years. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not attempt to force agnostics to profess their atheism

I'm rather surprised that the lead of this article makes no mention of the fact that many agnostics do not consider themselves to be atheists. Amongst such agnostics were two of the greatest scientific minds of the 19th and 20th centuries, namely Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. Both of these great scientists refused to accept the label of "atheist," to describe their own personal beliefs, and instead asked those who knew them to call them agnostics. It seems to me that neither one of these gentlemen would agree with the manner in which this article seems to attempt to "force" such individuals to profess themselves to be atheists, whether they want to or not.

Every single major mainstream dictionary (mainstream meaning here, most popularly used), that I know of lists the very first definition of atheism as "disbelief" in any god, and none of them list mere "uncertainty" about the existence of, or mere "inability to comprehend" the nature of any god as an attribute of atheism. Every mainstream dictionary that I know of lists the first definition of "agnosticism" as a certain type of "uncertainty" about the existence of any God.

Minimally, it seems to me that if Wikipedia is meant to be represent the sum of all human knowledge, for it to exclude these mainstream definitions from the lead of this article does a disservice to the overall quality of Wikipedia, and to the truly inclusive nature, including "all knowledge" that Wikipedia was originally intended to offer.

Having posited my opinion here, I will say no further. Neither will I attempt any edits into an article where it seems to me that more "atheistic preaching" than neutral reporting is being accomplished.

Yes, the God of traditional Christianity, in the light of modern science, begins to appear as a rather foolish thing. But no, neither Darwin nor Einstein would agree with this article's attempt to paint all agnostics with the label of "atheist."

It would seem to me, that to prominently acknowledge the fact in this article, that many agnostics do not consider themselves to be atheists, would in no way detract from Atheism. Rather it would add to it, by presenting Atheism as a less "coercive" belief system, that does not try to force anyone to do anything, or to "profess" anything against their own will. Meanwhile such an acknowledgment might also lend a greater level of inclusivity, authority, and credibility to this article, thus meanwhile also presenting Atheism itself in the same "better light."

(Revised) Scott P. (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Noted. But as to the issue you are bringing up, self-identification as atheist is not what proper sourcing on Wikipedia requires. A person may identify themselves as atheist, which we can usually take as fairly reliable, or they can deny that they are an atheist, which is not necessarily reliable, since there are many reasons a person might prefer not to be identified that way. In the latter case, it comes down to what independent sources say about them, giving proper weight, since sometimes the "atheist" label is used as a pejorative to label someone's beliefs even though those beliefs are manifestly not well aligned with atheism or non-belief.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The honey of tolerance. Thank you jmcgnh for your very thoughtful and honest reply above. True, Atheism does have a long and unfortunate history of being regularly targeted by certain state sponsored programs of repression by various "Theist" governments. As a result, so too does Atheism have a long history of resultant stigmatization. This history of antagonism and aggression by "Theists" towards "Atheists" is quite unfortunate.

Historically, self professed Theists have been far more likely to raise their hands or their fists against Atheists, than the other way around. Dogmatically, Theists have also had a long history of attempting to "force" Atheists to profess Theism, whether the Atheists wanted to be Theists or not! (Also, though on a slightly smaller scale, some "Atheist" governments have also persecuted Theists e.g. China in Tibet.)

Regarding whether or not Darwin or Einstein ever felt so coerced by the Theists as to have to lie to those around them about their true beliefs, so fearful were they about the possibility that they might be persecuted, this I sincerely doubt. Quite to the contrary, I like to believe that these two men were the scientific giants that they were, specifically because they alone had the courage to reject the prevailing thoughts of their day, and to profess what they knew to be true, despite all of the many objections that they knew they would face, and not because of their cowardliness. If Atheism were based on the premise that most people were too cowardly to admit that they were really Atheists, then it would be a belief based on cowardliness, and not courage.

Further, regarding such an imagined cowardly posture in so many, I also find it unfortunate that so many Atheists have not yet been able to raise themselves out of the merely reactive posture of now attempting to adopt some of the same coercive tactics as the Theists once used, now that Atheists are finally in a position where they are no longer prone to persecution for their beliefs. Why the seeming need by so many Atheists to coerce and browbeat anyone who is not yet a card carrying Atheist, into professing themselves as "actually" Atheists (whether they really want to be Atheists or not)?

It still seems to me that not many people will be drawn in by the vinegar of coercion, but many more might one day be drawn in by the honey of tolerance. Namely the tolerance of simply allowing people to hold their own beliefs without having to feel coerced about them by Wikipedia editors in any way. If Atheism were somehow capable of adopting the posture of truly being the "less judgmental" of the belief systems, then I have no doubt that people would soon flock to it. Rather than trying to use some kind of reverse-logic-semantics that are not supported by any of the mainstream dictionaries, to "convert" agnostics to atheism, why not try simple tolerant, and respectful logic, that points out the foolishness of believing in some God that would condemn one, when Atheism would tolerate, accept and respect one?

Scott P. (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

(revised) Scott P. (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The lede gives three definitions and the second sentence of the lede states that "Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist." Rejection of belief is synonymous with disbelief. As such, the lede spells out the scope of the topic on atheism (not theism or agnosticism which have their own articles) per wp:lede. The most recent relevant discussion concerning the presentation of these definitions can be found in the archives here. --Modocc (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Modocc, I believe I may have already stated my case as far as I think I can, but thank you for the careful reference. Scott P. (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

While the Out Campaign and David Silverman may be encouraging more people to self-identify as atheists, Wikipedia is certainly not "forcing", "coercing", or "browbeating" agnostic atheists to identify themselves in any particular way. We just wrote an article about atheism, and began it with a summary of the various definitions of "atheism". ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you use the term "agnostic atheists" rather than "agnostics" already demonstrates that you are co-opting agnostics into the atheist fold. I, both as an agnostic and a person who takes lexicographic meaning very seriously, strongly object to this. I refer primarily to the simple fact that the Greek a-theos means "no god" or "without god". 82.176.221.176 (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Whether a person lacks a belief in gods and thinks that the existence of gods is ultimately unknowable (agnostic), or lacks a belief in gods after serious consideration and conclusion, both are still atheists (absence of belief in gods) - regardless of whether it is publicly declared or not. They are both without gods. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Although I see where you are coming from, I still find that reasoning slightly sophistic. You equate the absence of belief in gods with disbelief in gods because neither fulfills the requirements for being belief in gods. But that does injustice to several forms of agnosticism, such as those following from theological noncognitivism where the objection to belief in gods is not a question of ontology but of definition: the question of the existence of a god/gods is not even asked, because the more fundamental question, "what do we mean by the term 'god' that we are discussing?" is not, or inadequately, answered, rendering the point of the existence or non-existence of a god/gods entirely moot. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

That though is why the lead has three nested definitions. In the broadest, literal, sense a-theism simple means without gods in contradistinction to theism. This does not do any "injustice" to either agnostics or noncognitivists, both of whom are not "with" any particular god or gods. The next sense is the rejection of belief at which point the noncognitivists and some agnostics will drop out. Finally we have the positive atheists who clearly are neither agnostics or noncognitivists. You might have a valid claim if there was only one definition, but the point is that there are different shades of meaning.Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no, you are wrong there, because these 'looser' definitions of atheism are neologic definitions. The word agnosticism is far newer (probably 19th century) than atheism (known in the English language since the 16th century) and arose because the term atheism did not cover a variety of non-theistic positions, of which agnosticism was one. I would point out that the dictionary definition is, and I quote, "1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings." (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism). If you wish, I shall have a look at what the Oxford English Dictionary has to say on the development of the word over time, but I doubt they will have a very different position. I do have access to a Dutch-language historical dictionary right now, and it states clearly that atheism, originally atheismus, is "denial of god; denial of the existence, possibility of existence or provability of the existence of (a personified) God". It is NOT up to Wikipedia to redefine words simply because a number of people consider it convenient. Many atheists may wish to co-opt agnosticism, and many agnostics may in fact feel close to atheism, but that is entirely beside the point: this article MUST deal with the word and concept atheism as it is, and as it is, it does not cover agnosticism and these 'softer' definitions are a-historical and lexicographically INCORRECT. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Now you are puzzling me. To quote from your above paragraph: "1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."; that is two quite different definitions. The OED (2nd ed) supports your date of 16thC for the earliest recorded use of "Atheism" in English. "Atheism" starts with a note: "see atheal". So, looking at atheal we have "from Greek ἄθε-ος without God", denying God. Returning to the atheism entry the definition is "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God". Both entries clearly and unambiguously have the wider disbelief stated first as well as the narrower denial as a qualification. Quite how young a word has to be to be a neologism is debatable, but I would suggest c.500 years probably qualifies as established. The rise of the term "agnostic" is directly attributable to the social sigma associated with the word atheism. One could bring in examples such as Locke who believed in religious freedom, except for atheists (see for instance the US Declaration of Independence - "endowed by their creator"). "Agnostic" by the way was coined by Huxley in 1869. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Since most 'atheists' follow no doctrine (as atheism is a non-thing), the term is reduced to a simple description whose 'definition' changes with person using it and context. Dictionaries may try to list all the commonly-or-'traditionally'-used definitions, but they will ultimately fail, as, again, atheism is a non-thing, and there probably would not be room enough to list all possible definitions/uses of the term. And don't forget that dictionaries record word usage just as much as (if not more than) they dictate it. All this article can do is attempt to document as many 'definitions' as possible (and the source/origins of these).

As for the 'origin of agnosticism' claim that it was 'because stigma', that can only be a partial truth, at best. It is also a term whose definition and use has evolved over time, and, again, the best we can do is describe all common usage of the term and the origins of this usage. The wikipedia article on agnosticism covers this pretty well.

As they are both non-dogmas, any effort to find 'one true definition' of either term (let alone attempt to classify/group people according to it) is pretty futile. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: it seems you take the word "disbelief" to mean the same as "lack of belief", and that's not quite so. It is the difference between "believing that ... is not" and "not believing that ... is", so in the first instance negative belief (belief in the non-being of something) and in the second the mere absence of positive belief (no belief in the being of something). I quite understand that the distinction is subtle, but it is neither trivial nor meaningless. To put it into the form of a simile: the difference between not believing in the existence of Planet 9 because it has not been proven (yet) but might be subject to review later on and the belief that there is no Planet 9 and that this is a final position that will not change. The neological part is not the word itself, but the 'looser' definitions applied to atheism in the lede: no definition short of disbelief in the existence of a god / gods is generally accepted in lexicographic sources, so any other definition is therefore neological. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@ ThePromenader: I make no mention of stigma, as this is not what I mean, so I will leave that to Martin. I refer to the fact that the term agnosticism arose because it described a number of philosophical positions that are inadequately described by the term atheism.

I again point out that the lexicographical definition of atheism states that it is disbelief, which is negative belief (believing that not) and not the same as the mere absence of belief. Therefore, agnosticism cannot be adequately described as a form of atheism and the more 'inclusive' definitions in the lede are not accurate and, in fact, confusing. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This is straying off the point to I'll be brief. The OED definition of disbelieve starts with "Not to believe or credit" and then moves to "to reject the truth or reality of". I think that covers both '"believing that ... is not" and "not believing that ... is"'. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I make no mention of stigma, either, and my comment more-or-less addressed the opening statement and the 'trend' through the thread of trying to use dictionary definitions as 'evidence'. I would think that documented actual usage would be more accurate (and varied!).

For the record, perhaps it would help discussion to quote the contested description from the, and perhaps propose a new one... I have a feeling that I may have misunderstood (the goal of) what's being discussed here. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Reliance on mere dictionary definitions is very problematic. "Atheism" as a label has often been used pejoratively, or as an epithet of accusation, by adherents of religion. It has likewise been narrowly defined by theologians and religious philosophers as a "belief" in the nonexistence of gods, in order to facilitate argument against it as merely a competing "belief" system, and as such definitions of "atheism" as a position of denial will of course be numerous. This is fully expected in the English-speaking world, which has been described as overwhelmingly populated by "believers". The marginalization of the "out-group" of non-believers has been a constant effort since the days of antiquity, and is no less prevalent today. Proper definitions of atheism exist, of course, (i.e.; The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (1996): "Atheism. Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none"; The Dictionary of Atheism, Skepticism, & Humanism (2006): "An attitude of skepticism toward claims of the existence of any sort of God or gods. Atheism is as old as theism and comes in as many shapes and sizes. The claims frequently made by religious apologists that atheism involves the denial of God and/or the certain knowledge that there is no God are little more than caricatures that can only be made by ignoring what atheist thinkers have actually said.") The ratio of "denial" definitions to "comprehensive" definitions in dictionaries is expected to mirror the ratio of believers to non-believers in the societies in which those dictionaries are produced.

Agnosticism is a position on the statement of knowledge, while atheism is a position on the statement of belief, and as such the two are not mutually exclusive positions. Referring to someone as an "agnostic atheist" is very often redundant. And yes, believers have naturally stigmatized non-believers, including the terms by which they describe themselves. The concepts of agnosticism and atheism can both be traced back to before 5th-century bce, and since one term speaks to knowledge while the other speaks to belief, the assertion that "the term agnosticism arose" to cover positions not covered by the term "atheism" is nonsensical to me. Attempts to define atheism with the narrow definition of "the affirmative denial of God", which is an untenable, unprovable, and unsupportable position, allows defenders of supernatural belief to criticize atheism as an equally absurd belief system. Most atheists disregard the "denial" position held by the infinitesimally small minority as not representative and not worthy of serious consideration. But as long as there are believers who object to the existence of non-believers, efforts to redefine unbelief as an unsupportable "denial of existence" position will no doubt continue. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I am frankly disgusted by your thinly-veiled suggestion that I'm pushing some religious agenda to marginalize atheists. I live in one of the few regions in The Netherlands where orthodox protestants still hold significant power, so I am very much aware of repression by religious fanatics. It is equally clear to me that missionary atheists differ very little from missionary theists in their zeal and their utter disregard for dissenting positions, as they are convinced they are Unquestionably Right, and can as such redefine terms as they please. It is clear that meaningful discussion on the actual facts is impossible, as you make it abundantly clear that you wish to politicize the subject, so I will give up this pointless argument and accept that this wikipedia-page is now designed to co-opt agnostics such as myself under the atheistic banner, even though many like me do not hold atheist positions as, like I pointed out before, the question of the existence of a god/gods can only be discussed once the term has been defined, and many agnostics such as myself do not believe there is any meaningful definition of the term, see theological noncognitivism, and as such I am both non-theistic and agnostic, but not atheistic as that question cannot be addressed with inadequately defined terms. But apparently, people like you have sought to redefine the term atheism to include us under your heading even though it does grave injustice to the philosophical position I take. I find that extremely saddening, but apparently there is little I can do about it even though dictionaries and encyclopaedic works, not to mention much philosophical writing, backs up my position. So I hope you are happy with your propaganda victory, the article remains as it stands, and you can further your indoctrination to include agnostics under the atheist banner. Which, ironically, is not unlike the appropriation of Aristotle and other pagan men of learning by scholasticists. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Why is god written with a capital G?

What is the significance of writing it with a capital G? God is not a proper name. A proper name for a god is Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Yahooway (YHW), Baal, etc. Just like universe should not be capitalized either. There could be many universes. Universe is not a name. Also, allah should not be in capital either since it means god. It is not a person's name either. 207.61.145.4 (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

To many the word god is inseparable to the Christian god who is called God. It should probably be fixed.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

God is the proper noun for the Abrahamic god of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Wikipedia uses "god or gods" when the word is being used generically. Allah certainly does need a capital.Charles (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

God (word)#Capitalization and God#Etymology and usage have more info on this. clpo13_(talk) 18:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is a standard grammatical convention whereby when a class of objects or beings are named after a particular instance, English uses a capital for the specific and lowercase for the class. Hence the Moon is in orbit around us, but Ganymede is a moon of Jupiter. The Universe is the particular instance, should you ignore the semantic logic and postulate parallel universes they are part of a class. English has developed out of a Christian culture and so the word God does indeed refer to the specific example historically understood by English speakers. Like all good conventions its aim is to clarify meaning. Conceptually it is similar to using a definite article for the specific instance and an indefinite article for the class. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I see. OK, so I'll leave it as is. (PS: I was signed in as anonymous for my first post.) Vmelkon (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

When in doubt, check the manual: MOS:CAPS#Religion – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

"God" with a capital "G" is the most widely used way of saying "God". This article could be clearer about what kinds of Gods it's talking about however. I.e. suffix a section where the Hebrew God is under discussion.--Edittrack121 (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Pew study

I've reverted the inclusion of material from a Pew Center study because it somewhat cherry picked the results. Geographical differences in where certain religions are concentrated skew the results. Without some form of geographical sampling, this study gives the false impression that "unaffiliated" are somehow "less educated" than Jews or Christians. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome to read WP:TRUTH, which states " that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." The Pew Research Center meets WP:RS and should be included in this article. It could be added that Geographical differences in where certain religions are concentrated is one of the main factors instead of removing the source. User:Ramos1990, do you have any thoughts to offer? Thanks.--Jobas (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps reword to include just the raw numbers would be the easiest solution. The numbers should speak for themselves and left at that. Considering that there are not many global studies, the Pew study does provide some insights at that wide level. The reality of course is that western religions (Jews and Christians) and the unaffiliated (which does include atheists, per Pew) generally all have high levels of education and the differences are not so dramatic precisely because they are all heirs to medieval western tendencies toward education. Almost 1000 years of that will surely have some effect on Westerners overall. In terms of geographical distribution concerns, the reality is that very few of the unaffiliated are concentrated in the West. Other global Pew study shows that 76% of the unaffiliated are in Asia and the Pacific, so the majority of the unaffiliated are not in North America or Europe [11]. Other study's like the WIN-Gallup 2015 one, though a bit narrower - 65 countries surveyed, shows that most "convinced atheists" reside in China. China's population size of a billion surely will affect the numbers significnatly, but that is part of the global reality.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with the source being used, but I'm not happy with how it was being used. There are two things that bother me about it. The first is that geographical distribution problem that gives the impression that Jews and Christians are better educated than the unaffiliated, when that's largely due to the accident of where they are born. The second is the measurement itself - the total time spent in education. Exactly how useful is that data? What does it tell us about atheism? I'm not sure how useful it is to the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Atheism#Demographics seems to take care of the regional differences. In fact, there is a section titled Atheism#Atheism.2C_wealth.2C_and_education within that. The Pew study would also balance the sentence in the article that says "In a 2008 study, researchers found intelligence to be negatively related to religious belief in Europe and the United States. In a sample of 137 countries, the correlation between national IQ and disbelief in God was found to be 0.60." Jobas (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't "balance" anythingm, because the two studies are unrelated. The amount of time spent in education is only loosely related to how intelligent a person is. It has more to do with the education policies of a particular country, and that country's relative wealth. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned, rewording would likely be the solution here since Scjessey agrees that the issue is in "how" it is used, not that is used. Jobas, raw percentages would speak for themselves and could be left at that. I am not sure how Scjessey is linking education with intelligence since the source does not do that. No one would say that people from poorer countries with less wealth and education are automatically less intelligent than people from wealthier or more educated countries. Intelligence is a different matter (related to environment, genetics, and heredity - not personal beliefs or worldviews); and education is quite another. No?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That is the same point I was making. Are you replying to Jobas? It is not clear from the threading. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I was responding to both. I added some names above to clarify context.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I was not linking education to intelligence. Jobas was implying such a link by using the word "balance", and I disputed that. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Well we agree that Pew is reliable source, If we leave the edit like this: A Pew Center study about religion and education around the world in 2016, found that the religiously unaffiliated—a category which includes atheists, agnostics and those who describe their religion as “nothing in particular”—ranked as the third most educated religious group with an average of 8.8 years of schooling, and that around 16% of unaffiliated have graduate and post-graduate degrees."

still you have problem with text?.--Jobas (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I do indeed have a problem with it. This article is about atheism, so having a meaningless statistic that lumps other non-affiliated groups into the mix is not appropriate for this article. Perhaps the article on irreligion is what you are looking for? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The article itself use the religiously unaffiliated category in different part of demographics section.--Jobas (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It does so when specific information is not available about the distribution of atheists, but it does not do so when characterizing atheists. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The Pew survey being discussed has some interesting numbers, but as anyone with experience in polling knows, a poll can be made to convey almost anything you want. This particular poll has no fewer than a dozen disclaimers and cautions stated within, and there are of course numerous additional concerns raised by third parties who try to make sense of the numbers. Besides the concerns noted above about selective number-picking and the lumping together of atheists with non-religious, academics looking at such studies have made numerous criticisms. The failure to take into account the large number of atheists who, for example, are also Buddhists or Jewish, and would check those descriptions instead. Some have noted the inherent inaccuracy in counting atheists because the social stigma attached with such a description in some countries or territories will influence responses, even in anonymous polling.

There has been a suggestion to just present the "raw percentages", but that doesn't address or resolve the concerns. I could quite accurately reword the proposed text to say instead, "A 2016 Pew Center study about religion and education around the world found that the religiously unaffiliated ranked higher than Christians, Jews and any other religion-affiliated group in attaining secondary education." Or, alternatively, I could add: "According to Pew, there is a greater percentage of uneducated Christians than there are uneducated 'unaffiliated'. Or alternatively, "Globally, a greater percentage of religiously unaffiliated have achieved higher education than the religiously-affiliated." Or we could try this: "With the single exception of Sub-Saharan Africa, people unaffiliated with religion have higher education attainment rates than people affiliated with religion, in every geographic region on Earth." Or we could just quote the study directly, and say "Countries with high levels of educational attainment tend to have larger shares of religiously unaffiliated adults than countries with low attainment." As demonstrated, it is easy to play with poll numbers. I think the question that needs to be asked is: "What information about atheism, from this Pew study, are you trying to convey to our readers?" Xenophrenic (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent points. The different ways you can interpret this data is a valuable lesson for us all. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, with polling data, one need not isolate only one instance since others can be included so that it reflects many points instead of just one. Most things are not linear either way. So by either quoting the text or paraphrasing the text is the safest way to treat polling data since it avoids the examples Xenophranic makes (which is WP:SYN either way if the source does not make those connections in their written analysis in a sentence). Usually these polling studies have an analysis already (they have made the connection between variables) and that is probably where one should stick to instead of manually making connections the study itself does not make. There are overall conclusions in the Pew study, which is what I think Jobas wanted to note. Hope this helps.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The examples Xenophrenic makes are not WP:SYNTH, since they are either direct quotes, or they are simple representations and calculations from the tables in the cited source. And WP:SYNTH instructs us: Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations. I used only obvious calculations. The text proposed by Jobas is likewise a derivative from selected numeric tables in the source, and is neither quoted or paraphrased text, nor is it a connection made by the study itself. There are many of these tables, charts and lists within this 140+ page survey, so that prompts me to ask again: "What information about atheism, from this Pew study, are you trying to convey to our readers?" You mentioned that the source does contain some analysis (not very detailed, actually, but they do make some observations and correlations), and the same question applies to that information. Given the confusion caused by lumping "atheists" (who may be religious or non-religious) in with "agnostics" (every single one of which is also an "atheist") and the "nothing in particular" religiously affiliated (who may or may not be "atheist"), I looked through the study for information which pertained specifically to the subject of this Wikipedia article, and I found only this pqaragraph on page 59:

In some countries, there are important educational differences within unaffiliated populations. Although data on the educational attainment of self-described atheists, who make up one category of religious “nones” (along with agnostics and people who describe their religion as “nothing in particular”), was not available for most countries in this report, analysis of survey data collected by Pew Research Center finds that atheists in the United States and France are significantly more likely than adults who say their religion is “nothing in particular” to have postsecondary degrees. But in Germany, Spain, United Kingdom, Australia, Uruguay and China, differences in postsecondary attainment between atheists and adults with no particular religion are not statistically significant.

What strikes me as important is the admission, data on the educational attainment of self-described atheists ... was not available for most countries in this report, which tells me that most of the information generated by this survey is not really germane to the subject of atheism. Pew was apparently able to collect enough relevant survey data to conclude that within the oddly constructed "religiously unaffiliated" category, atheists are significantly more likely to have postsecondary degrees - in the US and France, anyway - but that seems to me to be a comparison of apples to oranges, according to their stated methodology. If there is something in that Pew survey that is useable in this article, I guess I'll just have to wait until an editor proposes it; I'm not seeing it. In the meantime, I'll look for third-party reliable sources which may have covered Pew's data with more specificity toward the subject of this article. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I did not imply the examples were automatically WP:SYN. I qualified by saying "which is WP:SYN either way if the source does not make those connections in their written analysis in a sentence". The "if" is important. Under routine calculations, it does not warrant cherry picking numbers out of the blue and isolating the rest when considering the same variable. For example, if one is going to cite % of people who have secondary degrees (the variable), it is certainly better to cite the % of all of the categories (Jews, Muslims, unaffiliated, etc) and leave it at that. The same goes for whatever variable (years of schooling, secondary education, etc). At least it makes it look more transparent than slanted since the numbers would speak for themselves. The overall numbers are found on page 5 on the chart which does show that overall Jews have the most years of schooling, followed by Christians, followed by the unaffiliated, followed by Buddhists, followed by Muslims, followed by Hindus. That is certainly true and probably the main point of the add on the article in terms of bulk global #s. Perhaps more interesting is what Pew reports in terms of differences within countries:

"Indeed, when affiliated and unaffiliated adults are compared within countries, religious “nones” do not consistently have an educational advantage, especially among those in the youngest generation. There are 76 countries in this study with data on the youngest generation (born 1976 to 1985) of religiously unaffiliated adults. In 33 of those countries, religious “nones” in this generation have a similar number of years of schooling as their religiously affiliated peers (a difference of less than half a year of schooling). In 27 countries, the unaffiliated are less educated than the affiliated by at least half a year of schooling. And in 16 countries, the youngest “nones” are more highly educated than their religiously affiliated compatriots by at least half a year. In countries where the religiously unaffiliated make up a large share of the population – that is, 20% or more –differences in educational attainment between the youngest cohorts of unaffiliated and affiliated people are often small. For instance, there is a difference of less than half a year of schooling between the two groups in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Australia, New Zealand, China, South Korea, Japan and the Czech Republic."

Admittedly the actual numbers of atheists is not easy to find since they are very few globally and not many studies on the actual numbers of them exist. It gets more complicated with the fact that merely not having a belief in god does not make them "atheists" in the Western sense (which is linked to dealing with theism). "Secular" atheists seem to be quite rare compared to people who merely do not have a belief in a deity. I agree that the study does not narrow down enough on atheists "directly", but "indirectly". Probably had to be this way since many who do not believe in a deity do not self-identify with atheism for many reasons, but more likely will identify with no religion instead. On that note, I think the Pew study may not be as relevant here. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Attribution

A recent edit changed this sentence:

A broad figure estimates the number of atheists and agnostics on Earth at 1.1 billion. (cited to Secularization and the World Religions)

to:

A broad figure from adherents.com estimates the number of atheists and agnostics on Earth at 1.1 billion.

It is technically correct that the cited book has a footnote referencing adherents.com, but if you look at the relevant section of adherents.com from that date, it further references in its footnotes data from the Zuckerman, et al., demographic sources on religion and atheism. I haven't yet checked to see if those cited demographic sources, in turn, also cite sources. My point is, we could dig back through several levels of "sources of sources", but we shouldn't. I've returned the sentence wording (omitting the "from adherents.com") pending an explanation as to why the citation to the book apparently wasn't adequate. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, in that case them maybe we should just cite Zuckerman considering that the source uses adherents.com just as a footnote. It does not really do much about atheists / agnostics as a whole in that chapter of the book or the rest of the book. Zuckerman's #s are actually 500 million to 750 million. From Zuckerman's essay on the Cambridge Companion, "the total worldwide number of atheists, agnostics, and non-believers in God is somewhere between 504,962,830 and 749,247,571". This number is bigger of course than those who self-identify as "atheist" in the Western sense. I think there should be a distinction since merely not having a god belief does not mean that they identify with the "secular" constructs of atheism. Two different things as even the Adherents page notes the same thing. But at least we can start with the broadest numbers and make the phrase: "According to Phil Zuckerman, the broadest estimates of those who have an absence of belief in a god is 500 million to 750 million people worldwide." What do you think?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I did some digging from adherents.com on the footnote from Secularization and the World Religions and the 1.1 billion number is actually based on adherents category which says "Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion" [12]. Furthermore, in their methodology, adherents.com clearly state that this number does not correspond to atheism, but is a mix just like the unaffiliated are in the Pew Study in the last section. It says "Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism. People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population in many countries where much large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States (13.2% nonreligious according to ARIS study of 2001) and Australia (15% nonreligious). Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman compiled country-by-country survey, polling and census numbers relating to atheism, agnosticism, disbelief in God and people who state they are non-religious or have no religious preference. These data were published in the chapter titled "Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns" in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK (2005). Different type of data collection methodologies using different types of questions showed a consistent pattern: In most countries only a tiny number of people (zero to a fraction of 1 percent) will answer "atheism" or "atheist" when asked an open-ended question about what their religious preference. A slightly larger number of people will answer "yes" if asked pointedly if they are an atheist. A slightly larger number than that will answer "no" when asked if they believe in any type of God, deities, or Higher Power. A slightly larger number answer "no" when asked simply if they "believe in God" (omitting wording indicating more nebulous, less anthropomorphic conceptions of divinity). Finally, a larger number of people answer "none" or "non-religious" when asked asked an open-ended queston about what their religious preference is. Although figures vary for each country, average numbers indicate that roughly half of the people who self-identify as "nonreligious" also answer "yes" when asked if they believe in God or a Higher Power."

Adherents.com notes that, specifically on atheism that "Estimates for atheism alone (as a primary religious preference) range from 200 to 240 million. But these come primarily from China and former Soviet Union nations (especially Russia)."

Given that the reasons above and the similitude between the adherents.com's methodology and the Pew Study methodology (not narrowing down enough on atheism or atheists to be of much relevance to the article), I will remove this source and replace it with Zuckerman's, which was more focused on people who do not have a belief in a god, which is more on topic.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2017

Other critics of religion and the Church during this time included Niccolò Machiavelli, Bonaventure des Périers, Michel de Montaigne, and François Rabelais.[160] to Critics of religion and the Church during this time included Niccolò Machiavelli, Bonaventure des Périers, Michel de Montaigne, and François Rabelais. 123.231.122.239 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You need to provide examples as to why these individuals are particularly important & notable. — IVORK _Discuss 23:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@IVORK: It's not clear, but I think all the original poster is suggesting is the removal of the word "other" from the beginning of the sentence. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Is atheism "... specifically the position that there are no deities"?

As described in the opening definitions. Clearly atheism may possibly include this position, but using the word 'specific' seems unnecessarily dogmatic, and in at least one example seen recently, can inadvertently contribute to the common misunderstanding by theists that atheists are necessarily attempting to prove an absence. It strikes me that leading-in to the piece with a definition (however narrow it is stated as being) which is so open to misconception may not be the most considered approach. Pmcrory (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't around when the three-part intro was hammered out, but the consensus was clearly trying to cover a spectrum of degrees of belief. The third definition is the most extreme, yes. Changing it to "may include" seems like watering it down. Is there doubt whether there are atheists who maintain the position being characterized by the third definition? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The three levels are:

• Broad – absence of belief
• Middle – rejection of belief
• Narrow – the position that there are no deities

So the narrow definition is specifically the belief there are no deities, if you use "may include the position..." then you are restating the middle ground in an ambiguous inclusive manner. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "spectrum" or "levels". The point is that atheism is conceptualised in different ways, to the extent that in the literature one writer may regard as atheistic a position which another writer does not. Broad includes middle and narrow, but narrow does not include broad.The intro tries to explain this. There's lots of discussion on this if you go back through the archive. Dannyno (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Are people born Atheist?

No, according to all biological studies that show humans have a predisposition towards belief in God. To editor Isambard Kingdom: You undid my edit where I removed the blatantly factual nonsense of people being "born atheist". You said that this needs to be worked on, but removing it in its entirety is not the way to go. The opposite is true. It must be removed until a coherent formation of the sentence can be formed, but until then, the statement is 1) inaccurate 2) misleading 3) makes Wikipedia sound like an apologetics website for atheism when it purports "this is what we're born into, guys!" (violating NPOV). Furthermore, no sources are given to back up the claim that people are "born" atheists, whereas other studies clearly show humans are biologically predisposed to belief in God. My advice to Isambard is to not start POV pushing and admit this is a factual error on Wikipedia that must be removed, rather than trying to block edits that conflict with your interests.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Korvex (talk • contribs) 04:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Your source doesn't say God, but "gods and the afterlife." There's a big difference. Doug Weller talk 06:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. The source explicitly talks about a "predisposition" towards belief in gods and an afterlife. It also explicitly states that this predisposition requires a reasoned response to arrive at either theism or atheism.

Nevertheless looking at the disputed sentence: "Atheism is a more parsimonious position than theism, and is the position in which everyone is born, and therefore it has been argued that the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism" the argument "and is the position in which everyone is born" appears odd, and largely irrelevant (we are all born naked, does that put the burden of proof of the relevance of clothing with those telling us we should go outside wearing clothes.....????).

In fact the parsimony argument is in my view the sufficient and stronger argument to make the claim that the burden of proof lies with those wanting to add God to the equation.

So while the tone of voice and the specifics of the argument of the original poster (Korvex I think - unsigned) here , and the jumping to conclusions about removal first, find consensus later are not well developed, there is something to his objection of the specific phrase in the context. Arnoutf (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Fiddled with the sentence wording. Yes, we are all born naked and the culture (and climate) we are born in determine the types of clothing we wear. Likewise, the religious environment (or lack thereof) we are born into has a strong influence on the developing brain after our birth. Vsmith (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I see part of the point Korvex is making. I kind of think that the part about being born atheist needs to be attributed as in "According to...." or reworded since people are born without a belief in God, but merely not having a belief in God does not mean one is an "atheist". Afterall, most people who do not have a belief in God do not self-identify as "atheist" due to unwanted stigmas. They merely do not label themselves in relation god-belief propositions.

Perhaps one can re-word as "According to Van Harvey, atheism is a more parsimonious position than theism. Since people are born without a belief in a god, it has been argued that the burden of proof does not lie on those without belief in a god, to disprove the existence of God, but on those who have a belief in a god to provide a rationale for theism."

What do you think?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a fair solution, as it avoids attributing active atheism to babies, and allows for the predisposition (but not yet developed stance) towards religiosity. (We should quickly check whether it contradicts the source though) Arnoutf (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Glad you like my suggestion. Very good point about the source, though. I looked up the citation in the wiki article which is Victor Stenger "God: the Failed Hypothesis" on pages 17-18 and he does not say that people are born atheists (even when Stenger cites Keith Parsons). And the other citation, to the same claim by Van Harvey also does not say that people are born "atheist". Van Harvey simply states, "Moreover, since absence of belief is the cognitive position in which everyone is born, the burden of proof falls on those who advocate religious belief." As such, I think that the part about being born an atheist will have to be removed or replaced with "absence of belief in God" like I proposed in my wording. What do you think? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The "absence of belief in God" (or gods) is one of the definitions of atheism; ergo, people are born atheists by definition. I would not support your proposal. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

If we can say that atheism includes not even contemplating whether or not there is a god, then newborns are atheists. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that there are many definitions of "atheism", not just one. Other definitions include active rejection of god belief, indifference to the question of God, etc and all of this muddles the situation. If people are born "atheists" why then do the majority of people who do not have a God belief, not identify as "atheists" and try to avoid attaching themselves to such a label? For example, In the US Pew Research Center found that "According to the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, 5% of American adults say they do not believe in God or a universal spirit, but only about a quarter (24%) of these nonbelievers actually call themselves atheists." [13] Other major studies like the General Social Survey shows the same thing as does the American Religious Identification Survey.

The fact that usually more people identify as "agnostics" or "nothing in particular" shows that the label of "atheist" is often rejected, for whatever reasosn. Probably due to many stigmas and stereotypes. Keep in mind that no one self-identified as an "atheist" until the 18th century, despite that the fact that the label had been around for a few thousand years. So no, babies are not "atheists". Neither are religious, irrreligous, or theistic either - they don't have any views on these things.

The best way to disambiguate is to go neutral by leaving it as people are born with no views on the theological propositions like belief in a god. The way Harvey says "absence of belief is the cognitive position in which everyone is born" is slightly more neutral.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. You don't have to identify as an atheist to be an atheist. Atheism is the default position of every human being at birth, so you are essentially an atheist until you are capable of self-identifying otherwise. Even the most fervently religious people start off as atheists, because they are unaware of the concept of deities. The Pope was born an atheist. It's possible there may be some as yet undiscovered genetic predisposition to being religious, in which case this view may be invalidated, but for now it is the prevailing philosophy. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, "Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities." As we can pretty much agree that we are not born believing in a god, the yes, we are all atheists at birth. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Again "atheist" and "atheism" have diverse meanings even at the earliest usages in ancient Greece. So forcing one definition and ignoring the rest of the variant definitions (lawlessness, forsaken by the gods, rejection of god belief, indifference to god belief, etc) etc can be an issue. The section on definitions says clearly, "Writers disagree on how best to define and classify atheism, contesting what supernatural entities are considered gods, whether it is a philosophic position in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. Atheism has been regarded as compatible with agnosticism, and has also been contrasted with it." Obviously the situation is more complex, which is why the majority of people without belief in God do not call themselves "atheists" and opt for many terms like non-theist, agnostic, none, etc) I think that it is better to use "raw" and generic the wording from the source on this point or to explain the meaning and leave it at that. Also maybe to attribute. This should accommodate most editor's concerns here since numerous absurdities arise (most languages have no word for "atheist" either) - People are born without mathematics, without science, without English, without knowledge, but no one would say everyone is born ascienst, aenglishist, or amathematicist, other weird reifications. Since people are not born with a concept of atheism then they would be "a-atheists" too. "Absence" is better suited and less problematic. I will try a mild edit. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Your argument about what other things people are born without is horribly, horribly flawed. Many atheists do not identify themselves as such because it is unnecessary. They see the notion in believing in unsubstantiated supernatural beings as absurd. It would be akin to defining themselves as "not Martians", because the existence of Martians is just as likely as the existence of deities (arguably more likely, in fact). Atheism is not a religion. It is the position of all humans before any form of indoctrination. Whether or not a child grows up to believe in deities or remain an atheist depends entirely on how they are nurtured. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the evidence from sociological research shows that the majority (76% in the US for example) actually avoid the label. If it was natural, then they would embrace that which was natural for them, like gender or age. Either way the edit was mild since it tried to clarify the definition being used, considering that the Van Harvey source identifies 2 definitions: 1) mere absence of belief and 2) explicit rejection of belief. He notes, "Moreover, since absence of belief is the cognitive position in which everyone is born, the burden of proof falls on those who advocate religious belief. The proponents of the second definition, by contrast, regard the first definition as too broad because it includes uninformed children along with aggressive and explicit atheists. Consequently, it is unlikely that the public will adopt it." I think it is better to just quote per the source on what it argued on the point of birth. "Absence" is unambiguous compared to the many deviant definitions of atheism. Will try that out since it is what the source says.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that there are many definitions of "atheism", not just one. --Ramos1990

No, not really. There has been disagreement on how broad the definition should be, and disagreement on its application and classification, but the core definition has always been: "absence of belief in gods". "Rejection" of belief is still an absence of belief; "indifference" to such beliefs is still an absence of belief; "one who holds that gods are unknowable" still, therefore, has an absence of belief. Even the early Christians who were branded as atheists were so labeled because their god was a fiction and they lacked a belief in the actual gods of the era. And yes, "born without a concept of gods" is still an absence of belief in gods, which is the issue under discussion. There is no "problem" here.

...why then do the majority of people who do not have a God belief, not identify as "atheists" --Ramos1990

For the vast majority of people who have never been indoctrinated into a deity-worship system (by their family, or by their education system, or by the culture they were born into), there is simply no need to identify as such. Just as there is no need to affirmatively declare their lack of belief in magic elves. You mention a "stigma" associated with the description. Humans are social beings, and as such, generally tend to conform rather than conflict -- which explains how established cultural belief systems become self-propagating, and why most people aren't outspoken about their atheism (or check that questionnaire box in polls, etc.), if that goes against the current of societal norms. In fact, it is a matter of self-preservation in some established theocratic societies, in order to avoid ostracization or legal penalties or even death, to refrain from expressing an absence of belief. All of this, of course, is completely irrelevant to the fact that babies are born with an absence of belief in deities.

So forcing one definition and ignoring the rest of the variant definitions (lawlessness... --Ramos1990

The definition of "atheism" does not include "lawlessness". (I see you added that to our article in conflict with what the source actually says, so I will be rewriting that for compliance.)

Since people are not born with a concept of atheism then they would be "a-atheists" too.

That is a nonsensical statement, unless you have some very creative personal definition for "a-atheist" beyond what the plain English wording implies. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Obviously atheism has been diversely used in the ancient period since even the Bible uses "atheos" in one of the New Testament texts. You noted, correctly, that early Christians were branded as atheists because they did not believe in the other gods, but if people with belief in at least one God lie Christian were called atheists, then it shows that it was not understood as complete absence of god belief the way you are using it. Also, here is the quote from Tim Whitmarsh's historical overview on the definition: “The invention of atheism was, both etymologically and historically, the creation of a negative. The Greek word ‘atheos’, which first appears in the fifth century BC, implies the absence (a-) of a god (theos). The older meaning implies someone who has lost the support of the gods, someone who is “godless” or “godforsaken” in the archaic English senses." Obviously forsaken by a god does not mean one lacks a belief in the god so ancient usage is pretty complex. I will correct on the "lawlessness" (namely remove it), since it was associated with it. I am not sure your explanation for the majority of people being without a belief in a god not identifying as "atheist" makes sense here since all polls and surveys are confidential. Realistically, what fear would there be to pollster who is just collecting data? Even in predominately atheist countries like China (most atheists globally come from there), the majority still do not self-identify as "atheist" despite high amounts of absence of belief in gods. In some European countries this same thing occurs.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand this talk about what babies believe when they are born. New-born babies neither believe nor don't believe – they simply don't have the neurological development and experience for statements about their beliefs or lack of beliefs to mean anything. Perhaps you are talking about dispositions. Young children certainly have an innate capacity or disposition to relate to mother and father figures, and as we get older that capacity can extend and develop into imaginings and beliefs. Vedic traditions, such as Hinduism or Buddhism, have practices which involve relating to deities imagined in meditation. There is no doubt such deities exist as visualisations, that is, as psychological or inner realities. But there is no need to think that they exist apart from and outside of oneself. Vedic traditions often acknowledge the subjective nature of their deity practices by having the practitioner dissolve their visualisations into their own being, thereby acknowledging that the deity is a projection of, or part of the self. Following a Vedic tradition can be perfectly compatible with being an atheist. On the other hand, Abrahamic religions, such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, usually dispense with such subtleties. According to the Abrahamic view there is only one deity, a theistic deity, which is to say a single deity that exists outside of and independently of the believer. There is not one skerrick of evidence for this belief, but it hasn't stopped the growth of global control structures centred on this fantasy. This article has mysteriously gained an "FA" status, yet it fails to make some of these basic distinctions. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

New-born babies neither believe nor don't believe... --Epipelagic

That is simply incorrect, unless you know of actual evidence of which I am unaware. (I'm fairly certain you do not.) The disagreement in this discussion is not, by the way, over whether newborns have "the neurological development and experience for statements about their beliefs or lack of beliefs" — I'm sure we all agree newborns don't make "statements". Newborns do not have a belief in gods. Do people, even at the earliest age, have the capacity for imagination and belief-creation? Of course (you might find information such as this to be of interest), but the topic under discussion is whether people are born with ready-made beliefs, regardless of their ability to express them. As for the Rigvedic deities you mentioned, and whether they are internal or external "visualizations" of deities, that just illustrates the wide diversity of definitions of "god", "deity" and "supernatural being". Our article does already touch upon some of what you described, perhaps inadequately, but "Featured Article" doesn't mean it is in a perfect state and cannot be improved. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Well that's a very confused response. Please don't make up straw man positions so you can appear to knock them over. My statement, that "new-born babies neither believe nor don't believe", is pointing to a category mistake. If you believe otherwise, you are the one who would need to supply the evidence. And the phrase "statements about [a babies] beliefs or lack of beliefs" was not referring to the baby itself making statements. Nor was I referring specifically to Rigvedic deities. I had more in mind broader practices with roots in the Vedic tradition, such as visualization practices in tantric Buddhism. Of course a featured article doesn't have to be "perfect", but it should represent its subject matter with reasonable accuracy. In my view, this article does not. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a category mistake. One meaning of "atheist" is 'a person with no belief in any gods'. A newborn infant is a person with no belief in any gods, notwithstanding their incognizance of that state. Hence, by that definition, they're atheists. When somebody speaks of infants being atheists, there's only one definition where that statement makes sense, hence that's obviously the one they've used. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It is a category mistake. A log of wood doesn't believe in gods either. Or more to the point, like a newborn infant a log of wood lacks the capacity for believing; it neither believes nor doesn't believe. So it is a category mistake to think of it in terms of "believing". By your reasoning, the article should mention that logs of wood are atheists. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The first paragraph defines three different definitions of atheist:

1. the absence of belief in the existence of deities
2. the rejection of belief that any deities exist
3. the position that there are no deities.

Clearly therefore a newborn is (1) yes, (2) no, (3) no. This is basic common sense, and yes, it does apply to logs as well. All of these three are binary choices so there can't be a position of "neither believe nor don't believe", for each specific proposition it's one or the other. This argument is descending into "X is a member of definition 1" versus "X is not a member of definition 3". You may as well argue that "chalk is a good building material" versus "cheese is edible" - there simply isn't an argument. Let's leave the quotation as it stands and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you are trying to make a point or are you just trying to brush the issue aside? --Epipelagic (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the point that you are talking about two different definitions and the discussion is degenerating into an argument that neither side can win. You are obviously right under definition 3 and just as obviously wrong under definition 1. Have you read WP:DROPTHESTICK? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, the log of wood argument is stupid. Rather obviously, belief in deities is only possible in humans (at least on this planet, anyway), so the descriptions of atheism only apply to that specific group. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Then perhaps you would be more comfortable with an orangutan than a log of wood. The argument is fundamental. It is not stupid. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

So... you are arguing that an orangutan is capable of belief in deities? Um... yeah... that's not going to bolster your argument, I'm afraid. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

In general, any noun with an "-ist" suffix signifies a person. Inanimate objects cannot be -ists. A letter to your senator is not a lobbyist. A toothbrush is not a dentist. One shouldn't call dogs or orangutans -ists either, but at least anthropomorphizing an animal is less silly than anthropomorphizing a log. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Okay... there's little point responding to wild tangential forays as irrelevant to the main point as the ones on offer here. So let's just leave the mess where it lies. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The literature includes definitions of atheism which a broad enough to encompass new born babies as atheists. The literature also includes definitions of atheism which are not so broad as to allow that. Wikipedia did not invent these definitions, and it is not Wikipedia's job to decide between them. They are disputed, and disputed heatedly. That is why we report the main definitions. As a matter of simple logic, whether or not human beings are predisposed to theistic belief (and whether or not that's what the source says), is irrelevant to whether or not the broadest definitions of atheism are correct or not - whatever else it says, the source does not say that babies are born with a belief in God. So an upholder of the broadest definition of atheism will be untroubled, since they regard as atheistic any being who does not have a belief in God. Again, Wikipedia doesn't care what we think: it cares about what the literature says. The actual question here is not whether the sources about predisposition to theism or supernatural belief affect the definitions of atheism (they don't, logically, but whether they do or not is something we ultimately look to the literature on atheism for information about - and if, illogically, writers start to say it matters, well then it might reach the article regardless of my opinion), but whether the question of predisposition is a prominent enough issue among atheologians and their opponents to warrant a section in the article.Dannyno (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Nagel's differing opinion was there all along. Just added it to provide a contrast condering that there are more ways to look at this. No wording was altered for the original source from Keith Parsons/Van Harvey.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Definition does not make sense

"The absence of belief in the existence of deities" needs to change, because by logic:

• If I don't believe that deities exist, and also I don't believe that deities doesn't exist, am I an atheist? How can I be labeled something when I take a neutral point of view? Arguments like "you're atheist/socialist/anarchist whether you like it or not" is clearly a fallacy.

• If I know that deities exist, then I am an atheist according to the definition. (Note: How I know is a different question, for example if science found evidence for that)

We cannot get around that there is some sense of belief in atheism, and the definition should reflect that to make sense.

Please refute both points with a logical argumentation when you answer.

As110 (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@As110: I think I'll just invoke WP:NOTFORUM here. The talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article. Improving this article is hard because it covers a contentious topic and the current wording has been arrived at through a consensus process. You are welcome to propose improved wording here, but – as you've seen – unilateral changes to the text of the definition in the article itself will most likely be speedily reverted. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Consensus beats logic, another nail in the wiki-coffin... I'm glad I have better things to do than argue here, adieu. As110 (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You don't get it. Talk page is about actionable changes supported by reliable sources. Self created logical arguments are not based on reliable sources and can therefore not result in changes. Finding support or refutation of logic is something to do on a forum site, which Wikipedia is not (hence the reference to WP:NOTFORUM). (By the way both your statements are critically flawed so can be easily refuted). Arnoutf (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The strengths and weaknesses of the divergent typologies of atheism are not for Wikipedia to pass judgement on. Our job is to reflect the most prominent schools of thought in the literature, and there is indeed a prominent school of definitional thought that says that the atheist label can be applied to any person who does not have a theistic belief. It doesn't matter whether you or I agree with that or not. Dannyno (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Antitheism is the activist movement of atheism

WP:NOTFORUM – does not appear to be a suggestion on how to improve the article

Antitheism is texts and actions against god. Atheism does also include and scientific theories that explain difficult to grape things as 1. the megaverse (Leonard Susskind) as the causal field of Big Bang (at some regional phase-invertion of it), 2. the Wilczekian (Frank Wilczek) grid of all particles etc. (of course many other theories exist) Be more analytical please about the non-theistic atheism. I mean we have to be more analytical about the unapologetic scientific atheism that doesn't care much about religious terms and cares about learning, NOT subduing theism. The whole article here is extremely apologetic, not atheistic in context and theistic in thought. Negation isn't enough to change one's dictionary. To change one's dictionary is more important than using the old list of words and simply adding "no". An innately atheist, is primarily a seeker of scientific knowledge and method, not an apologetic. the Antitheist: I pray to nothing, I prey on god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4112:2B00:1832:FC09:ED75:38B5 (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC) I'm collapsing this. See WP:NOTFORUM. To contribute on this page, you need to make a more specific suggestion on how to improve the article. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Atheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430163128/http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930024429/http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/s1990c25.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/s1990c25.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016062403/http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-press-release-Religion-and-Atheism-25-7-12.pdf to http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-press-release-Religion-and-Atheism-25-7-12.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215001129/http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121202023700/http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_393_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_393_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011014538/http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/battle.html to http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/battle.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Skepticism

Skepticism cat is for things like Cartesian Skepticism or Global skepticism. Not Scienific skepticism. Even if you believe that is what cat is for doesnt it still make sense to be more specific?Apollo The Logician (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Skepticism (American English) or scepticism (British English) is generally any questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief. It is often directed at domains, such as morality (moral skepticism), religion (skepticism about the existence of God), or knowledge (skepticism about the possibility of knowledge, or of certainty). Formally, skepticism as a topic occurs in the context of philosophy, particularly epistemology, although it can be applied to any topic such as politics, religion, and pseudoscience.

Cartesian skepticism, Scientific skepticism, etc., are indeed more specific sub-categories related to Skepticism, as are Pyrrhonism, Agnosticism, Atheism, etc. Specificity in categorizing can be a good thing when the article is about a very narrow subject, but a subject such as atheism - which entails many of the subcategories of Category:Skepticism - should not be pigeonholed into just one arbitrarily selected subcategory when many are equally applicable. (See WP:DIFFUSE for more information on this.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Xenophrenic on this. Atheism fits into many flavors of skepticism and so I prefer to more generic categorization. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I add www.facebook.com/groups/Atheists to the page?

There is no edit button. Did some idiot forget to add one? The facebook atheists group http://www.facebook.com/groups/Atheists is an awesome source of recent news and should be included within the external links section. Can somebody please take care of this. I saw some errors on the page which also needed attention but like I said some twit forgot to add an edit button so maybe one of you could bring this to the attention of the admins. Thanks. 1.128.97.1 (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected which prevents unregistered users from editing the page directly, but you can make edit requests here. Also, external websites like Facebook that require registration goes against the current content guidelines, see WP:ELREG. --Modocc (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

moved to correct part of page. Please put new text under old text, as is required in the guidelines at the top of this talk page. There's no need to add Facebook links to any Wikipedia page. wp:el, as mentioned above is a guide to what information is suitable for inclusion in the external links section. I can see from your talk page that similar edits you have made have been reverted by bots. Thanks for your contributions, but please take a moment to familiarize yourself with some basic wp practices and create an account for a wider range of editing options and resources. Many thanks Edaham (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Drift in History of Atheism

I'd like to point editors to recent changes in History of atheism. I've started a discussion at Talk:History of atheism#Recent changes - July 2017. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Atheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304060920/http://www.alanwallace.org/Is%20Buddhism%20Really%20Nontheistic_.pdf to http://www.alanwallace.org/Is%20Buddhism%20Really%20Nontheistic_.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130822080733/http://atheismplus.com/faq.php to http://atheismplus.com/faq.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207172239/http://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/files/2012/02/13-Garfield-Book-2-Vol-33.pdf to http://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/files/2012/02/13-Garfield-Book-2-Vol-33.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Atheism more parsimonious?

The article states "atheism is a more parsimonious position than theism" but presents no evidence that is the case. The current atheist position is that a) the universe sprang up out of nowhere on its own accord b) the earth universe are billions of years old c) abiogenesis is true and d) humans evolved over the course of millions of years. Even if you believe scientific research has proven the above, it isn't a more parsimonious position. A better statement would be "atheists accept the views of modern science to explain the world and view supernatural explanations as obsolete".

2602:306:8010:B930:7CE5:9DC8:206A:AE98 (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the claim about parsimony is more rhetorical than scientific. This claim and the rest of the paragraph are cited, so you'd need a good source for your alternate wording. But this whole argument needs to be developed in the body of the article before it merits appearing up in the introductory summary. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

What reliable source states "the atheist position" as laid out above? Belief that "scientific research has proven the above" is irrelevant to atheism. There is no monolithic "atheist position;" claiming otherwise amounts to a deeply flawed assumption. Just plain Bill (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The current atheist position is that there is no God; no more, no less. a) b) c) & d)are scientific statements that most, but not necessarily all, atheists also believe. It's quite possible to be an atheist and to disbelieve one or more of the propositions a)...d). I'm not sure if this makes atheism "parsimonious" or not. I'm not even sure what the word "parsimonious" means in this context. --Roly (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Good points. I suspect that "parsimony" in this context is meant to suggest something along the lines of Occam's Razor. There is an argument that atheism requires a simpler worldview than religion, and therefore adheres to the principles of Occam's Razor. However, the objections raised by the original poster in this section do highlight the fact that, if this is going to be in the article, then it needs to be explained better, referenced, and placed in an appropriate section (eg, arguments for atheism).Newzild (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Reversions

@Just plain Bill:, I added this to the article:-

Some people have tried to prove that Gods exist. In 1801, while serving as the Collector of Bellary, Thomas Munro is believed to have come across an apparition of Raghavendra Swami.

References

as the previous sentences were, "Atheism is a more parsimonious position than theism and is the position in which everyone is born; therefore it has been argued that the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism.[24][1] However, others have disagreed with the view of being born into such a position.[25]"

What is wrong with what I added (I am open to discussions)?—Dona-Hue (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

That paragraph in the lead section concerns arguments for atheism, and is not the place to mention supposed supernatural observations, or references to "proofs" in news articles on Avicenna or Gödel. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Ageism and propaganda – you've written: "However, others have disagreed with the view of being born into such a position". You confuse atheism (aware preference in reason and data) with non-theism (which means I don't care, I haven't thought about it, I don't believe because of the circumstances and not because I analyzed something.) If you present as a strong point of Atheism the fact that you personally confuse it with non-theism, don't expect to make Atheism stronger! Atheism is based on analytical thought, and non-theism usually not, or in an analytical thought that stopped at a deadlock and gave up! Fight theism by supporting political parties who introduce immigrants from various faiths. Complex social statistics ALWAYS boost Atheism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4111:2800:a9b0:b96e:9d53:30d4 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Your characterisation of atheism and nontheism doesn't seem to be in line with the way that atheism and nontheism are characterised on wikipedia. Dannyno (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Atheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051113062053/http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/jm3303.htm to http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/jm3303.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929171840/http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=523 to http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=523
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516191405/http://www.truthdig.com/dig/print/200512_an_atheist_manifesto to http://www.truthdig.com/dig/print/200512_an_atheist_manifesto
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130407012751/http://www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/range.htm to http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/range.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110425091126/http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/athval0.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/athval0.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Atheistic religion listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Atheistic religion, which redirects to this page. The discussion is listed here:

• the redirect discussion.

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Make page: Ametaphysics/Antimetaphysics

Atheism is only about the denial of deities. Lexicographers usually deny longer definitions. If one person denies also anything supersensual or antiscientific, then that person is an ametaphysicalist. Try to submit on Wiktionary that atheist means someone who only follows the scientific method and the data. They immediately delete it and etymologically they're correct. I don't support their strictness though. Also study religious analytical data from US studies. Many atheists believe in the soul and other antiscientific stuff. Not all atheists are ametaphysicalists. I know that most people who visit this page are atheists, and I know that atheists usually don't like the soft atheists of supersensuality, but we aren't supposed to distort facts we don't like! Claiming that the Wikipedia page of Atheism is enough to include Ametaphysics isn't enough!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:844B:600:E865:16E9:EDB6:2449 (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

1. why then don't you merge these ideas?
2. why when you try they delete it?

Is gnostic atheism the same as ametaphysics? Colloquially yes, encyclopedically and philosophically certainly not. We cannot merge different terms. Metaphysics as a philosophical notion is the analysis of the fundamental universal properties. That might or might not include religion, but it's definitely about cosmomechanics (deep causation of astrophysical and physical laws), thus it's a wider and different subject than gnostic atheism. Ametaphysics isn't necessarily against the fundamental universal properties, but certainly it's against the ideas which oppose scientific reasoning. Forms of atheism might or might not involve opinions about cosmomechanics. Ametaphysics and metaphysics always do though! --2a02:2149:844b:600:e865:16e9:edb6:2449 Revision as of (talk • contribs) 14:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Atheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130730235818/http://www.womeninsecularism.org/2012/ to http://www.womeninsecularism.org/2012/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20131121223333/http://www.secularwoman.org/about to http://www.secularwoman.org/about

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

History of atheism section needs more contemporary events

The history of atheism section needs more contemporary events - particularly in the last 5-10 years.

History/politics go hand and hand so that could be a good place to start. Another good place to start would be various conflicts within the atheist movement (left-wing atheism vs. right-wing atheism and battles related to feminism).Knox490 (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Atheism is a religion

@7kingis: Hope you don't mind -- I've moved your comment from my talk page here, since it's something that would need to be discussed here (and between "red tree faeces" (?) and "Rhododendrite's" in the third person, I'm unsure if you intended it to be here in the first place. I'll respond after pasting. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi red tree faeces, (is that right?) Discussion of academic criticism of atheism. You ask for compelling reason to add academic criticism of atheism. (I note that most atheistic contributors deploy lengthy criticisms on each page which they disagree with). But 'compelling' would indicate a point of view, wouldn't it? By compelling, you mean, 'from my point of view, it has to persuade me'. Clearly you have a different point of view from the authors of the books I have cited, which is why we have a discussion. But the points of view are the nature of the discourse: As an atheist you are demanding to be convinced that criticisms of atheism should be 'allowed'. I say that you are an interested party and therefore are not suitable to decide. These types of pages should have an editor of atheist and non-atheist persuasion.

It is an objective fact that academic criticism of atheism exists, has been published and widely read. Rhododendrite's refusal to acknowledge this is likely to be construed as religious bias. 7kingis (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

You ask for compelling reason to add academic criticism of atheism I did not ask for that. I said we need a compelling reason to add a primary source such as the one you added. The existence of a line of thought doesn't mean we include it. When it receives coverage within the massive body of literature on this subject such that WP:WEIGHT is established, we may be able to include it (and this presumes the coverage is from reliable sources).

But 'compelling' would indicate a point of view, wouldn't it? This is not how I intended it, no. Just "very good reason".

As an atheist you are demanding to be convinced that criticisms of atheism should be 'allowed'. Lots of new editors convince themselves that if someone reverts your edits, it is because they are biased, when in fact it's just the way Wikipedia works. You may want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, perhaps starting with WP:AGF.

It is an objective fact that academic criticism of atheism exists, has been published and widely read. Rhododendrite's refusal to acknowledge this is likely to be construed as religious bias. This is silliness. See criticism of atheism. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Rhododendrites. I read the essay used as source and I think there is a fundamental flaw to the reasoning. The author does his utmost best to fit atheism into the dimensions of religion and uses some very liberal redefinitions of those to manage to do that. However, by taking these liberties the argument loses all specificity and with the same liberties you could easily make the case all human institutions (economics, democracy, schools, nationalities) are religions since they share origins (i.e. narrative) lead some fulfilment in involved people (experience) has to do with interaction between people (social) is based on assumptions how the world should operate (doctrinal) adopts some kind of morality (ethical) follows procedures and rules (ritual) and relates in some way to the material world or possessions (material). That makes the arguments in the source dissatisfactory. In addition the source is from a site called creation.com which in its own statement claims to "see the Lord Jesus Christ honoured as Creator and Savious of the world" - that is a very strong indication the source is not neutral on the topic shedding doubt on reliability at worst and making their opinions primary at best. Arnoutf (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Attempting to misrepresent the lack of belief in deities as a religion is an old argument attempting to create false balance (we have the related policy explanation WP:FALSEBALANCE). The false balance can then be used with other fallacies in order to dismiss much of reality including well established scientific knowledge. Wikipedia does have a bias for correctly representing mainstream science, by WP:YESPOV the scientific consensus can even be represented in Wikipedia's voice without attribution. What is acceptable however is to describe these reactionary arguments and apologetics in their relevant articles when they are notable, with attribution and presenting them as they are, religious arguments. As was previously pointed out, we have Criticism of atheism#Atheism as faith. —PaleoNeonate – 07:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

7kingis's edit summary claiming that I advised him to add criticism about atheism isn't a religion does not reflect what I wrote on his talk page, which was "Put your money where your mouth is. Change the article Atheism to state that it's a religion. Until then, please stop pretending it is." That's not what he did. He's still insisting on that any scientist who is using the word 'miracle' must be religious as they must be using it in a supernatural sense. Doug Weller talk 10:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm just comfortable with the definition of Atheism as lack of any religion at all, and thus not a religion itself. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Atheism also involves belief, that is belief in the absence of God. But it is disguised as "Absence of belief in God". -Polytope4D (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Gambling also involves belief, that is belief in winning more than you put in. That does not make gambling a religion. Arnoutf (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Polytope4d and Arnoutf: - This is not a forum for discussing personal philosophical beliefs. NickCT (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021065544/http://www.wingia.com/web/files/news/14/file/14.pdf to http://www.wingia.com/web/files/news/14/file/14.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Respect the English language!

Write first the famous term atheism, but write next to it: or ungodness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8410:2400:BCDD:C9EF:2569:22F2 (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

If qwertyness were a common term for atheism, we would include it here. However, like "ungodness", the term doesn't seem to be widely used. The few results on Google seem to be from people who meant "ungodliness", but didn't know the word. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This isn't Anglish Wikipedia. PepperBeast (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825005955/http://www.wingia.com/en/news/win_gallup_international_ae_religiosity_and_atheism_index_ao_reveals_atheists_are_a_small_minority_in_the_early_years_of_21st_century/14 to http://www.wingia.com/en/news/win_gallup_international_ae_religiosity_and_atheism_index_ao_reveals_atheists_are_a_small_minority_in_the_early_years_of_21st_century/14/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The anthropic principle

analyze

1. the anthropic principle as the Holy Grail of religion
2. as a means to fragment annihilatively the face of the anthropomorphic god but also of the theory of everything (infinite more algorithmic families of megaverses can exist, having a different set of topological mechanics - one system of universal families cannot describe the other universal algorithmofamilies - also one universal family, isn't thoroughly explainable at the metalogical level if we aren't aware of the æternoverse [eternoverse] - infinite times larger than the Susskindian megaverse) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2149:8860:a000:8401:a651:e8d2:e10a (talk • contribs) 5 February 2018 (UTC)

And how will this improve the English Wikipedia article? Do you wish it to be added to the article? If so, where, please? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 21:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

While I don't think that word salad contains any worthwhile contributions, I'd like to point out that the anthropic principle is covered in its own separate article. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I recommend we archive this thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Atheism is being redefined without consensus.

Atheism is an affirmative belief that there exists no gods. It is not to be broadly construed as to include an absence of belief. Defining it this way has brought many confused students to my philosophy classes. Atheism has had a concrete definition in academia and academic texts for millennia. I am not sure where this new wave of incorrect definition has come from but it is seriously a problem I have only been recently having to clarify in my classes. I encourage our community to stop propagating this incorrect definition and properly define atheism as an affirmative belief against the existence of any gods.

Please see the Stanford University Philosophy Department's discussion on this matter.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estarski (talk • contribs) 01:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The "definition" in the article is the result of exhaustive discussions and painstaking consensus building; moreover, everything within it is properly sourced from largely scholarly works. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

One can assert "I'm without theistic belief and I identify with atheism in its broadest sense." This can be said of someone who has studied and rejected various theistic beliefs, but does not even attempt to deny the existence of a hypothetical ill-defined god called God, but not because they are even slightly ignorant or irrational. Is merely stating one's rejection of theism without denial not rational? Yet Draper's critique of the broader definitions is, if I understand him correctly, that positions such as these are not in the form of an epistemological proposition that can be argued for or against? Somehow I think this point misses the forest for the trees. Surely nontheists with similar positions of rejection are common enough that the broader definitions of atheism are in use and were identified by Smith and others. In any case, editors here have dealt with these definitions at length and we have given them treatment here with what I believe to be proper wp:due weight to each of these enlight of recent scholarship such as by the large number of contributors to the Oxford Handbook of Atheism (Bullivant & Ruse 2013). -Modocc (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not a "redefinition". Many words have multiple definitions. And one definition of atheism has been "absence of belief in gods" for centuries. Frex:

Holyoake, George Jacob (1858). The Trial of Theism. p. 114. Atheism expresses, not the denial, but the absence of God—i.e., the absence of him from our knowledge—or the absence of belief in God.

~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The SEP articles discusses the range of definitions of atheism, before advocating one definition in particular (for a particular purpose). The SEP cannot therefore be cited in support of the idea that there is only one definition of atheism. It's about what the definition "should" be, whereas this Wiki article reflects, neutrally, the different ways atheism actually is defined in the literature. Dannyno (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Reductionary accounts of religion

This sub-chapter, is solely based on primary sources, which is highly problematic. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Epistemological arguments

I have added a little prologue from Michael's Martin book The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, [14], please have a look if it is ok to add (has since been undid) Τζερόνυμο (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Atheism, religions and spirituality

This is a subchapter of the argumentation for atheism. I really cannot see any argument for atheism being made. As I had deleted it and Doug Weller undid it (no hard feelings ofcourse!), I would like to ask him if he feels that subchapter is in the right place or should we transfer it somewhere else? Thanks Τζερόνυμο (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Τζερόνυμο, you should probably wait for consensus before adding poorly spaced text, or removing large swathes of referenced material. 11:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That is what I am doing right now, thank you. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the content should have been removed. This article isn't an argument for or against atheism. It describes atheism and the removed content detailed a relevant aspect of it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe transferred somewhere else? Coz now it's a part of the chapter Arguments Τζερόνυμο (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That might work. I agree with Finnusertop on the content. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

History of atheism and Christianity

Undue, misleading and irrelevant. I can't see why a whole paragraph at the section of Classical antiquity is on Christians. It is pretty clear that Christians were and are not atheists. The fact that they were charged as atheists, does not make them part of atheist's history or their philosophy a part of atheistic thought. Why Jews are not mentioned, who where charged with atheism as well? And why don't we mention Scythians or nomadic Lybians who really didnt had a gods at that time? (Bremmer, Atheim in Antiquity, p 21 in Martin, 2007 the Cambridge Companion to atheism) Maybe the story of that paragraph would be more appropriate in history of the word atheism, but has nothing to do with the meaning of atheism.

Furthermore, the picture that supports the text, is misleading. It depicting "christians thrown into the lions" has a misleading narrative. First of all, contemorary literrature supports that the persecution of chistians was/is a myth and second Damnatio ad bestias was common punishment to criminals, runaway slaves, not just Christians. The picture is based on popular culture rather than science. There are four refs in the picture's text, I could just check the last one, and didn't notice somewhere talking about lions. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Not getting an answer is a yes or a no? Τζερόνυμο (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Activists for civil rights of atheists

To editors of atheism pages: I'm trying to make improvements to the page of a prominent outspoken atheist, with the goal of eventually submitting the page for Feature Article status. Can anyone here direct me to other "Featured Article" pages for atheists who are civil rights activists on behalf of nonbelievers, that I can use as examples to follow? I went here first for this information: [15], but it says the page is defunct. Also, is there a way I can search for existing pages ranked as Featured, or should I be asking this somewhere else?Holbach Girl (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)