Talk:Atheism/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Definition, Definition, and Definition

There are five definitional levels of atheism:

(1) "x is an atheist" = _def "x does not believe that gods exist" / "x lacks belief in the existence of gods"

(2) "x is an atheist" = _def "x believes that gods probably do not exist"

(3) "x is an atheist" = _def "x believes that gods certainly do not exist"

(4) "x is an atheist" = _def "x believes that gods impossibly exist"

(5) "x is an atheist" = _def "x believes that 'Gods exist' and 'God exists' are cognitively meaningless"

(5) entails (1), (4) entails (1)-(3), (3) entails (1)+(2), and (2) entails (1).

(In my opinion, (1) is adequate as a definition of nontheism, but inadequate as a definition of atheism.)

Editorius 11:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference between certainly (3) and impossibly (4)? Is there any other way of certainty, other than holding that it is logically contradictory? --Merzul 11:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"certainly" means "undoubtedly", "definitely". "Gods certainly don't exist" means "The probability of the existence of gods is 0". An atheist in sense (3) is one who strongly denies the actual existence of gods, but not necessarily that there could have been any gods. — Editorius 11:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Then this isn't philosophically distinguishable from (2), you are using the word "certain" in a casual sense, meaning extremely high probability. I guess that's fine, though... So, if I don't think God is contradictory, but I do think his qualities are not reconcilable with my experience of the the world and I believe there is no God with the same certainty that I believe there exists an external world, then I would belong to your group (3), is that so? --Merzul 12:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a readily recognizable distinction between "(I believe that) It is probable that gods don't actually exist" and "(I believe that) It is certain that gods don't actually exist". The latter means "(I believe that) It is the case with probability 1 that gods do not actually exist." He who merely asserts that gods probably/most probably don't exist, doesn't believe to know that gods don't exist, whereas he who asserts that gods certainly/definitely don't exist, does believe to know that gods don't exist. Of course, so does anybody who claims that the existence of gods is impossible (for logical reasons). — Editorius 14:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Editorius. If I understand you correctly, since you say that "not necessarily that there could have been any gods" I would suggest amending sense (3) to 3) "x is an atheist" = def "x believes that gods certainly do not exist currently". Modocc 16:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently? And through evolution there will be one some day? I thought he meant there could have been, but in this world there simply isn't one. Perhaps, in some other possibility world, where fawns don't get hit by lightning, there is a god. --Merzul 16:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Current as in the "now" as opposed to either the past or present future. Not sure what an ideal world is, and I often think the universe is as large as it is for the sole purpose that it keeps sentient worlds separated. And Zeus used to throw the bolts. :-) Modocc 17:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I see, athorism comes to mind, but now about these five definitions... where are we going? Have we made any progress? Could a listing from narrow to wide work? And do we ignore probabilities? --Merzul 17:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need to expand to all these definitions. At most we could reorganize the current lead section from narrow to broad, but there's no reason to include every in-between definition. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-26 18:51Z

I agree. I think we have defeated the hair-splitting hare with the current count of 3. :-). -Modocc 20:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

@Brian0918: If we intend to remain as non-opinionated and impartial as possible, then I'm afraid we can hardly avoid mentioning all five definitions explicitly, leaving it up to the reader to choose their favourite one. — Editorius 13:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

@Modocc: There is a difference between thoughtful differentation and pointless hair-splitting. — Editorius 13:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Editorius, I really do appreciate your thoughtfulness. My previous remark was derived, in part, from the Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Its not an everyday occurrence that one gets to make these kind of connections. :-) Some thirty years ago I also worked out a similar scheme to these five definitions. Essentially, the additional hypotheses/positions/criteria are added with the scientific method and thus fall under the category “the critical rejection of theistic doctrines.” Nice definition and very scientific sense and authoritative. Of course, “critical rejection” is a subset of “rejection”, thus it would be this definition that would need to be split. However, and here's the catch, with regards to any phenomena, the criteria/probabilities/stances are going to vary significantly with the subject at hand(such as, what kind of god are we talking about) and the person doing the research... preferably not in a dark cave where they can’t see their own shadow, or on a precarious bridge when they get spooked. -Modocc 18:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Socrates

Great heavens! It is abundantly clear to anyone reading the Apology that Socrates is denying that he is an atheist. Read the whole thing - it is quite short and an absolute gem. If you want and extract, Socrates says: "Meletus, you really think that I do not believe in any god?... Nobody will believe you, Meletus, and I am pretty sure that you do not believe yourself. I cannot help thinking, men of Athens, that Meletus is reckless and impudent, and that he has written this indictment in a spirit of mere wantonness and youthful bravado." The article gives the impression that Socrates was an atheist - we cannot side with Meletus against Socrates, this is precisely to side with the ignorance of the majority against the truth of an intellectual giant! NBeale 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how many times you're going to rehash this. First, the Apology is not a historical account. Second, he purposely doesn't give an answer to "are you an atheist", instead continuing with his inquiry according to the Socratic method. That's the whole point of Apology. Third, the article doesn't call him an atheist. Meletus does. The article uses him to illustrate how people were persecuted as atheists; the Socrates example is the most famous such persecution. Whether or not Socrates was an atheist is not important. What is important is that the Apology says Meletus persecuted him as an atheist; this makes it a perfect example for the persecution exhibited against people arbitrarily deemed atheistic. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-26 21:48Z

(edit conflicted)Hi Nbeale. I don't think it's at all clear that he is denying (or admitting) anything! Socrates never claimed to be an athiest, but he never explicitly denied it either. You can say that you do not believe that he was an athiest, but in other passages, and most importantly the fact that he did drink the hemlock out of his convictions leads to the suggestion that he never directly challenged the charges. Of course, if his piousness (whatever this means in the Greek context) was certain to everyone else around him there is no way the charges would have stuck. In the end though, and most importantly, Socrates' actual beliefs are in some sense irrelevant to the section, which is about historical persecution of people for their purported lack of religious beliefs, of which Socrates is the most famous example. Edhubbard 21:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed, Brian. Forgive me, but it's obvious that you haven't studied Socrates much. And please spare me the "not a historical account" stuff - there are no "historical accounts" in the classical world by modern standards. Does either of your even read Greek?? Well if you don't see what Soctates is saying then perhaps others won't, so I must content myself with the unquestionable fact that he contested the charge. You may say "the whole point is that he was "persecuted as an atheist"" and from your POV maybe it is "Socrates was the first Atheist Martyr" but it really won't wash. The fundamental problem with this article is that is largely written from a very particular Atheist POV but to be a quality article we have to respect facts and see a wider context. NBeale 06:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Who thinks he is an "Atheist martyr"??? I don't think he was an atheist, and I doubt Edhubbard does either. There's a difference between being "persecuted as an atheist" and actually being an atheist; one need not actually be an atheist to be labelled as such. As for your insinuation that one must be able to read Greek in order to have a valid opinion on the matter, well the absurdity of that is apparent to everyone here, so I won't bother going into that. Original research is out of the question - we are only allowed to cite the interpretations of reliable sources, and just because you've created an article on yourself doesn't mean you are a reliable source. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-27 13:23Z

This isn't a clear cut case. I recall something about this on the philosopher's zone, this episode, and here is I think quite a good quotation. On the question whether Socrates was guilty as charged:

You know, it's a perspective issue. We always look at it ourselves from the outside, looking in, and not from the perspective of Athenian life in the 4th century BC. And if you look at what the charges actually were against him, and what Socrates' life was actually like—whether or not there should be a capital offence for this, right—but was he guilty of this, not acknowledging the gods of the state? Well, we have got pretty good evidence that he didn't think that— even where he gave them the same names—he didn't think the Zeus that he believed in was like the Zeus of the Athenians, or the Apollo that he believed in was like an Apollo. And he had a divine sign that visited him and would tell him not to do this or that. So there's some pretty good evidence that he didn't believe in the way in which Athenians believed in the gods, and he certainly did engage in discussions with the young in ways that made them question authority. So if we can look at it from within, it would be a tough call whether to call him guilty or innocent of those charges.

Our article also says: "Despite having expressed belief in various divinities, Socrates was called an atheist, and ultimately sentenced to death for impiety on the basis that he inspired questioning of the state gods." I think this is okay. No need to assume our readers only look at the pictures and know nothing about Socrates, and will immediately think he is an atheist martyr. --Merzul 13:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The caption, still... Is the "- which he denied" necessary in the caption? Must we assume the reader only looks at our pictures? And what grammatical construction is this "- which"? --Merzul 10:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. If we must have this in the caption, it should be rephrased. --Merzul 18:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Introduction Proposal for the 3 Definitions

Atheism, in the narrowest sense, is the belief in the nonexistence of gods. Other definitions of atheism include the absence of belief in gods, or simply, the rejection of theism. -Modocc 23:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• That's not correct; the narrowest definition already includes the other 2 definitions. Someone who believes in nonexistence also lacks belief in existence, and also rejects theism. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-26 23:58Z

• • Not include as in combining with the first definition as before, correct if read as include with regard to other definitions, which are many. But its a start. :-) Modocc 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Atheism, in the narrowest sense, is the belief in the nonexistence of gods. Atheism can also be defined as the rejection of theism, or simply, as the absence of belief in gods. --Merzul 00:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'd switch "can also be" to "has also been". But even that seems weasely. Maybe "Broader definitions include the rejection of theism, or simply the absence of belief in gods." I don't know. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-27 00:02Z
  • Merging your swap with my transition, we get:

Atheism, in the narrowest sense, is the belief in the nonexistence of gods. Other, broader, definitions include the rejection of theism, or simply the absence of belief in gods. Modocc 00:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Atheism, in the narrowest sense, is the belief in the nonexistence of gods. Other, broader, definitions include the absence of belief in gods, or simply, the rejection of theism. Modocc 00:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure which order is best really. Modocc 00:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not particularly fussed with saying "other", "Broader definitions" is fine with me too! -Modocc 00:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Should probably amend the above to conscious rejection of theism. -Modocc 00:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible for there to be cases of unconscious rejection? — I doubt it. — Editorius 16:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You have an important point. I tossed that in, because last I checked conscious rejection was being used in the lead. I figured someone has had a reason for it, and perhaps it is a good one and, regardless, it would get sorted out by us sooner or later. -Modocc 19:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There may be cases of unconscious repression, but the concept of unconscious rejection seems odd. — Editorius 20:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Amended Introduction Proposal given above proposed changes

Atheism, in the narrowest narrower sense, is the belief in the nonexistence of gods. Broader definitions include the conscious rejection of theism, or simply, the absence of belief in gods. Modocc 01:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In the narrowest sense, atheism is the belief in the impossibility of the existence of God/gods. There can be no stronger atheism than this one. There is an entire monograph titled "The Impossibility of God" (Martin & Monnier, Prometheus 2003). — Editorius 01:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine. Actually, I was trying to make the fix just now, but we had an edit conflict. Thanks for the reference. :-) Modocc 01:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if God is characterized as a necessary being, i.e. as a being that exists by logical necessity, then, according to the principles of modal logic, it is either the case that he exists or it is the case that his existence is impossible. That is, if there actually is no necessarily existent god, there couldn't have been any such god. — Editorius 01:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Theological noncognitivism seems like "stronger atheism" than that; it doesn't even accept that "God exists" expresses a proposition. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-27 01:54Z

The question is not "broad" or "narrow" senses. The point is that the primary/orginal/common sense is something in the neighbourhood of "belief that God does not exist" as distinct from agnosticism, theism and complete ignorance on the topic. This is perfectly clear from REP, Britannica, SEP. Indeed no-one who describes themselves as an atheist means anything else. But because this is a very rarely-held belief ITRW (however widespread in certain circles and on Wikipedia), some atheists want to extend the meaning (in a misguided attempt at intellectual imperialism that often goes with scientism and materialism) to redefine other people as Atheists whether they like it or not. Indeed in some respects that parallel with Islam "redefining" all babies as Muslims is striking. Now we can't deny that these attempts exist, although a number of sensible atheists argue against them and even Dawkins doesn't go along with it (it has BTW the consequence of making statements like "The majority of Atheists have given no real thought to whether God exists" true, which is perhaps not what the "extenders" really want. But we cannot expect to be taken seriously if we give the impression that these extensions are unproblematic and that they are all equally widespread - contra SEP, REP, Britannica etc... NBeale 06:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't true that "belief that god does not exist" is the "primary/original/common sense" definition. Originally it merely meant impiety towards the Gods of ancient Greece, regardless of whether or not you beleived in any other gods. Hence Christians were atheists. Later it was a term of general abuse for anyone who disagreed with you theologically. When people actually started describing themselves as atheists, openly, they meant all manner of things by that. Some of them meant that that there was no god, and some of them (and this is definitely true of the English secularists of the early 19th century onwards, Holyoake, Bradlaugh et al, but also Shelley in Necessity of Atheism) preferred to say only (for technical reasons) that they rejected belief in god. This is not a trivial distinction to make for atheists, and for you to characterise it as merely "imperialism" is historically ill-informed and prejudicial. However, there is certainly room in the article for the *opinion* that the definition of atheism has been used by some writers to help normalise atheism, if you can cite someone (like McGrath) saying that. It's rubbish, and even McGrath's book undermines its own case by quoting Annie Besant adopting a broader understanding of atheism, but it's not the place of this article to make judgements like that. The big controversy is between rejectionists, who understand atheism as a conscious rejection of belief - and this covers weak and strong atheism and has a long tradition in philosophy (Paul Edwards onwards) and in activism (Richard Carlile, Holyoake etc onwards), and absence-ists, which covers all of that but also those who lack theism but haven't consciously rejected it - this goes back to d'Holbach, continues through Smith etc. Many scholarship-based dictionaries acknowledge this, and most dictionary definitions will reflect the different approaches. Philosophical dictionaries, depending on who wrote the entry, will concentrate on rejection because "absence" is not a philosophical position! "Atheism is the rejection or absence of belief in god", however, is absolutely accurate. --Dannyno 08:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

@NBeale: You wrote above: "Indeed in some respects that parallel with Islam "redefining" all babies as Muslims is striking."

You've got a point here! For example, I could use the following definition:

"x is a Muslim" = _def "The disbelief in Allah's existence is absent from the mind of x"

According to this definition, every baby is a Muslim. — Editorius 14:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

@Dannyno: It is doubtless absolutely accurate to say that atheism entails the absence of belief in God; but not all accept the view that atheism is the absence of belief in God, for this means that lacking belief in God is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for being an atheist. You must not ignore that there are atheists, including me, who deny that the mere lack or absence of theistic belief is really sufficient. Prima facie, the 'absentist definition' may appear to be the most accurate and most neutral one, but on closer inspection it turns out that those favouring it are less disinterested than it seems. (Having interests is, of course, nothing intrinsically bad). — Editorius 14:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

For implicit atheism, absence of belief is sufficient for the definition. For other definitions, it is necessary but not sufficient. We list the range of definitions, so there's no problem here. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-27 14:38Z

(unindent) I don't actually think the interest is unjustified. If Muslims want to believe every child is muslim, well who is preventing them? Just as Calvinist strands of theology consider babies to have an innate sense of the divine. It's perfectly fine to think that way. The reason nobody actually defines Muslim in that way is, well, let's be honest, how can you have a significant religious life with negative belief? Taking a leap of faith is central to religious experience. Atheists, on the other hand, never talk about taking a leap of faith. Obviously, one may argue that the atheist needs a leap of faith to explain why the tides come in, the tides go out, but such language is not a significant aspect of "the atheist experience". If Christians and Muslims want to define their belief negatively, please go ahead! However, I don't understand why they object to atheists defining the term in a way that makes sense to their view of the world, using a language that is more familiar to them. --Merzul 14:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

@Brian0918: If we actually do list the complete range of the existent definitions (see "my" five definitions above!), then I have no problem at all. Talking about completeness, it occurs to me that there is a sixth, extended definition of 'atheism', which refers not only to God and other deities but also to all kinds of supernatural beings whatsoever (angels, ghosts, demons, etc.):

"x is a (naturalistic) atheist" = _def "x believes that it is (probably) not the case/impossibly the case that supernatural beings exist"'

Remark: It is often forgotten that the belief in angels is essential to Christian and Islamic theism:

"Who are the angels? The angels are purely spiritual creatures, incorporeal, invisible, immortal, and personal beings endowed with intelligence and will. They ceaselessly contemplate God face-to-face and they glorify him. They serve him and are his messengers in the accomplishment of his saving mission to all." (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, §60)

Editorius 15:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

@Merzul: I certainly cannot prevent the Muslims from believing that every child or at least every child born to Muslim parents is a Muslim, but I can at least reproach them for this belief.

As far as the 'absentist definition' of "atheism" is concerned, there is no doubt that it has one big advantage: it helps enormously to increase the number of atheists worldwide. ;-)

This statistical aspect, I suspect, is the political motive of those favouring that definition.

(It's no wonder that the theistic camp favours a very narrow definition, since that has the statistical consequence that the number of atheists worldwide decreases.)

Editorius 15:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

@Brian0918: Yes, in some sense theological noncognitivism (TNC) is the strongest form of atheism. But only very few still adhere to TNC, i.e. to TNC with regard to the ontological proposition "God exists". The conception of God may be vague or underdetermined, but it's not literally meaningless. With regard to other theological notions (such as Trinity, Fall) there are much more adherents of TNC. I myself think that several core notions of Christianity (+Islam +Judaism) are hardly intelligible, being hopelessly nebulous. — Editorius 16:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Simple but accurate lead-in

I think we are getting bogged down in detail (and there is lots of OR on these pages). For the lead-in we should have something simple and accurate. How about The primary sense of Atheism is belief that no God exists, as distinct from Theism and Agnosticsm. However some authors use the term in extended senses such as "absence of belief in God or Gods" thus including Agnosticism and other positions often distinguished from Atheism. NBeale 06:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"some authors use..." is a little too dismissive in my opinion. I support the current version, but would add have added "Atheism can be defined in several different ways." at the start. --h2g2bob 08:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

But this is *not* accurate. Your "however..." is probably fair, if you're citing d'Holbach and Smith, but "belief that no god exists" is not. You can go back 60 years to Paul Edwards defining atheism as "rejection of theism" and pointing out that this covers a range of positions, some of which would be happy to say "no god exists" and some of which would stop at "there is no evidence that god exists". But it goes back before him to Holyoake, Richard Carlile, even Shelley. Your "primary" definition misrepresents those atheists who have recognised a philosophical problem with proving non-existencve - which is many of the key writers. --Dannyno 08:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There are several equally valid definitions: I don't see how we can favour any definition over another, without providing a reliable source per claims of consensus. --h2g2bob 08:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in hearing Dannyno's opinion of the current lead paragraph, and/or his suggestion for a rewrite. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-27 11:59Z

Danny. You (and others) keep trying to do OR on this page, citing various authors who may or may not have used Atheism in various senses, philosophical problems etc.. These are beside the point. The point is that all the leading philosophical encycolpedias affirm that this is the primary/common meaning, and without making this clear the article is really not up to scratch. The place to change the common meaning of Atheism is not Wikipedia. NBeale 21:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it OR to cite authors who use definitions contrary to yours? The leading encyclopedias discuss the definitions you're trying to repress. Why shouldn't we? Why should we maintain any one definition as valid? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-28 03:53Z

I'm not trying to repress any definitions (that are used in reliable sources). I'm merely trying to ensure that this article explains what the primary sense is. Because otherwise the article is (a) dishonest and (b) non-sensical: eg. "about 2.3% of the world's population describes itself as atheist, while a further 11.9% are described as nontheist" makes no sense at all if atheist = nontheist. NBeale 08:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not what the article says; you replaced "non-religious" with "nontheists", obviously incorrectly. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-28 10:00Z

Taking the point that "belief" might be seen as too strong, and implying a commitment to Atheism comparable to the commitment of a believer to God, let's go with The primary sense of Atheism is the view that no God exists, as distinct from Theism and Agnosticsm. However the term in also sometimes used in extended senses, such as "absence of belief in God or Gods", thus including Agnosticism and other positions often distinguished from Atheism. NBeale 08:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

See the problems with your latest undiscussed rewrite below. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-28 10:01Z

'Atheism' is a technical term. We need no more discuss in detail popular misunderstandings of the word than the inferiority complex article needs to spend a great deal of time on the popular misunderstanding of that concept. NBeale cites William Rowe's definition, and claims that "all the leading philosophical encycolpedia" agree. This is untrue, they do not. Rowe's definition is much narrower than many others, particularly any of those encyclopedia articles written by people like Paul Edwards, Kai Nielsen (cited next, of course), Michael Martin etc, which cast rejectionist atheism widely. Rowe's definition would exclude many people from consideration as atheists who surely should be included. Richard Dawkins would not count, for example. This is not OR, as we can cite all these people saying this, plus others: not just philosophers but historians such as Edward Royle. Rather, it is the claim that strong atheism (or that particular characterisation of strong atheism) is the primary sense that is OR.

The present definition does reflect the diversity of atheist opinion, but is tortuous. As a philosophical view, atheism is the rejection of theism (strong or weak). "Belief in the nonexistence of Gods" is denied by many atheists and is an unnecessarily confrontational formulation for the first clause. Furthermore, it is merely a subcategory of rejection. So why does broad rejection come second? I accept that "absence" is a different kettle of fish, though it should be mentioned. Complicating matters is the fact that weak atheists may describe their position in terms of "lack of belief", but this is still a rejectionist position and therefore different to "absence" as it is meant in Smith's implict/explicit classification.

What's wrong with defining atheism as the philosophical position that rejects theism, with due mention of the Smithite approach? --Dannyno 14:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Middle Ages

Re:

Atheism and freethought were virtually unknown in Europe during the Early Middle Ages and Middle Ages

The Dictionary of the Middle Ages (Supplement 1, Volume 14, pp.43-44) has an article on Atheism in the Middle Ages. -- Stbalbach 03:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide any more information? There were certainly the precursors of atheistic thought back then, but self-described atheists didn't come around until later. If it's only 2 pages, can you scan it and post it online? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-27 04:14Z

I removed the sentence crediting Abelard, Chaucer, Bacon, and Ockham for causing educational institutions to move away from the Church, as this is false. Bacon and Ockham were men of the Church, and though Abelard got into personal trouble with the Church, his works were influential among Scholastics, including Thomas Aquinas. None of these men did anything to directly cause a rupture between the universities in the Church. That's a revisionist narrative invented by later skeptics. Most of the Renaissance humanists were quite devout, and saw themselves as correcting the seemingly un-Christian Aristotelianism of the Scholastics. The source cited is inaccurate in many points, skewed by its POV of equating scientific inquiry with an increase in atheism/freethought, which is contradicted by much of the history of the 13th-17th centuries.Djcastel 13:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You misread the sentence. It doesn't say those folks directly moved institutions away from the Church. It says that through their influence, later institutions moved away from the Church. If you believe that scientific inquiry is unrelated to "the philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logical principles" (freethought), then you're going to have to cite some highly reliable sources to back that up. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-27 14:00Z

The sentence is poorly written, as it credits men with an effect they hardly intended, and does not show how they were causally responsible. I did not say that scientific inquiry is not correlated with atheism/freethought, but it is not to be equated (i.e. strongly correlated). The rise of scholarly inquiry in the 15th-16th centuries corresponded with a religious revival in both the Catholic and Protestant worlds. Thus the simplistic analysis that Europe became less religious because scientific inquiry was more free fails for extended periods of history. Djcastel 14:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So how would you rewrite the section? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-27 14:53Z

Well, first I would get rid of the reference to the 13th and 14th centuries. That's the heyday of Aquinas and Scotus, so it's just false to speak of a de-Christianizing of the universities. In fact, the judgments of the University of Paris at that time were considered to define orthodoxy. If you want, you could say that the methodologies of Ockham, Bacon, et al. were influential in the later 17th-18th century move toward skepticism and de-Scholasticizing. Although Scholasticism was challenged by Renaissance humanists, they did so on very different grounds. It should be "easy" (though requiring some work) to find sources for these assertions, as this is all bread-and-butter for historians of the period. Djcastel 15:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on rewriting this section from a much more complete and reliable source; the assertions you complain about will not be in the final version. Expect improvements to be made in the near future, and let me know what you think. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-27 15:14Z

Is the latest version an improvement? What else should be covered in this section? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-27 16:19Z

This is much better, except Ockham was emphatically not an agnostic, and he did believe that the existence of God was demonstrable. See the "Univocity" and "Natural Theology" sections of the linked document.[1] He only said that the divine essence could not be intuitively or rationally apprehended by human intellect, which was a fairly common belief among Scholastics. Djcastel 16:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Agnosticism" there means that God is not knowable, not that one should not accept belief in God. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-27 16:38Z

You seem to know what you're talking about; please take a stab at expanding/improving this section. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-27 16:42Z

These thinkers all held that God is knowable through faith, though they had doubts about the rational proofs of God's existence. This is practically the definition of fideism, not agnosticism, so I made the substitution. I think the section is fine now; expanding it more would probably be outside the scope of the article. Djcastel 17:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! This source seems to say that Nicholas of Cusa had two competing factors: his agnosticism and his fideism: "Hence the title of Nicholas' work De Docta ignorantia, which indicates the limitation of human understanding (reason) as opposed to the knowledge of God that is free of all such limitation (supra-rational). Thus the agnosticism of Nicholas of Cusa is corrected by his fideism, which of course has nothing to do with philosophy." Either way, the section is much improved. If you think your knowledge can be applied to improving any other sections, please be bold and make the changes, or continue with suggestions on the talk page. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-27 17:09Z

I've tried to straighten this out a bit, but a section describing Eriugena as "heretical" ... ah well. NBeale 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• You didn't clean up old problems, you undid the new changes we just discussed. Why make the paragraph less specific and more vague?? Removing the individual names? Changing it from a statement that closely follows the source to a nebulous "debate"? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-27 21:25Z

Because the text that was there falls into a spectacular set of elephant traps, and is clearly written by someone who has little or no understanding of medieval religious thought! "forwarded distorted conceptions of the Christian God" forsooth! Are you in a position to judge that? Are we?? "differing views of the nature, transcendence, and knowability of God." have been continuous in theological debate. Eriugena was not at all a pantheist, and I doubt whether the other were. The reference to Nicholas of Cusa is hopelessly confused - what we are talking about here really a form of Apophatic theology, the discussion of William of Ockham is laughably simplistic, and as for "The resulting division between faith and reason" ... words fail me! I suppose there is no reason why someone with a BS in Physics should have heard of Tertullian but even Dawkins mentions him (though getting him hilariously wrong). Please don't try and edit sections on highly technical topics if you haven't studied them for at least a few years. NBeale 07:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Your statements are looking more and more absurd. The source says "In the Middle Ages there were trends that had views departing from the accepted image of God, which distorted the concept of God or attacked the possibility of knowing God by reason." How much clearer can that get??? I'm not making any judgment. Eriugena was a pantheist; SEP says "other possible pantheists include ... Eriugena". Asserting your superiority in a subject when your statements clearly contradict reliable sources is not going to make anyone agree with you. The sooner you get over yourself, the sooner we can try to make progress. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-28 08:10Z

If it is wrong to describe Eriugena as "heretical", then the article about him is grossly inaccurate, especially about the heretical views: Eriugena#Periphyseon, which states that two Popes condemned it, and "swarming with worms of heretical perversity" seems to imply his work wasn't a welcomed contribution to the theological debate. --Merzul 11:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Brian, Merzul. This really shows the problem of editing on topics (Chritian theology 800-1800) which you haven't studied and don't understand. However the fact that E. died in 877 and the condemnation of one of his works (more specifically, the potential pantheistic tendencies in one of his works), by the two Popes cited was in 1255 and 1585 might give you a clue. It's a bit like saying that "Newton was fundamentally wrong about gravity", or that "Darwin had no understanding at all about what happened in evolution". There are undoubtedly pantheistic tendences inherent in some of E's writings, but E was not at all intending to depart from Christianity. Read the SEP article on him, not the one on Pantheism that mentions him en passant. NBeale 14:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that these thinkers were not pantheists. That part of the section was there before the recent revisions, so that should be cleaned up as well. As for the Ockham part being oversimplified, that's hardly avoidable for a cursory treatment. The intended point appears to have been that by undermining some of the rationalistic basis for natural theology, Ockham opened the door for more fideistic thinking. Naturally, there had always been fideistic Christians, as you mention with the late classical example of Tertullian. Djcastel 19:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked into the situation, I think the Eriugena article is fine, but here the "maintained pantheistic viewpoints" is inaccurate, I would say something like maintained a bold cosmology that was later condemned. Now, I don't like when Wikipedia isn't delicate about such matters and misrepresents people's views, so your pointers and knowledge on the matter is much welcome and much needed, but in the words of Bill O'Reilly: "Humility is a Christian virtue" :) --Merzul 19:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Djcastel has cleared this up by rewriting it as "maintained Christian viewpoints with pantheistic tendencies". — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-28 21:15Z

Early Modern Period

I've made this a new section and started to expand it somewhat, since it is critical period in the development of atheistic philosophy. I won't be able to access my books until this evening (EST), so if someone else wants to fill in material and sources in the meantime go ahead. Djcastel 17:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent work! I'll help with wikilinking and sources, but I'd prefer to let you expand the content. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-27 17:45Z

Classical Antiquity

Despite having expressed belief in various divinities, Socrates was called an atheist, and ultimately sentenced to death for impiety on the basis that he inspired questioning of the state gods.[55][56] The early Christians were labelled atheists by pagans.[57] During the Roman Empire, Christians were executed for their rejection of the Roman gods in general and Emperor-worship in particular. Heresy and godlessness were serious, and sometimes capital, offenses in some Christian states.[58]

The last paragraph in this section doesn't hold together well. It has one sentence about Socrates, two about early Christians in Rome, and the final sentence is about non-Christians in early Christian states.

What is the best way to fix this? I see two options: 1) Make this a paragraph about Socrates and remove the rest as incoherent. 2) One paragraph about Socrates and one about atheism and early Christianity 3) Break each of the 3 topics covered into separate paragraphs

Option 2 seems strongest to me because it seems Socrates can support an entire paragraph. Also, the point of the remainder is perhaps that the definition of atheism changed in Rome as Christianity gained wider acceptance, and an entire paragraph may be needed to illustrate this. Tritium6 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Your change doesn't make much sense given that the English word "atheist" didn't exist back then. I would just keep it all together as 1 paragraph and add a sentence at the beginning explaining that the paragraph is about persecution. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-27 21:44Z

• I think its better to leave Socrates his own paragraph to grow into. As to use of the word "atheist", if the word did not exist at the time, then how is it that Socrates was called an atheist and The early Christians were labeled atheists? I'm not arguing that the current usage should remain, rather asking how we should deal with this inconsistency in all cases within this section.Tritium6 22:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The word "atheist" (atheos) did exist in Socrates' time, and is used in Plato's Apology [26c]. Socrates says in his defense that he is not παράπαν ἄθεος (parapan atheos, "on the whole, or altogether, atheist"). Djcastel 19:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Atheos existed, but the English word didn't; I was referring to Tritium's edit, which made it sound like we were referring to an English word being used in classical antiquity. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-28 19:03Z

Well, we do that all the time describing history. It's understood that there weren't any English words in Socrates' time. Actually, since atheos is used as an adjective, it might be better translated as "godless". This would be more consistent with its broad usage in antiquity. Djcastel 19:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

NBeale's latest mass rewrite of the lead

Apparently, NBeale thinks this is an improvement over the current lead paragraph:

The primary sense of Atheism is the view that no God exists, as distinct from Theism and Agnosticsm . However the term in also sometimes used in extended senses, such as "absence of belief in God or Gods", thus including Agnosticism and other positions often distinguished from Atheism.

The problems with it should be obvious: weasel words such as "sometimes", "other positions", "primary sense", "often"; unexplained undue weight on the nebulous "agnosticism" (which itself has multiple meanings); complete ignorance of the "rejection of theism" definition; improper usage of "God", etc. Here's what I would suggest as an improvement:

As a philosophical view, atheism is the belief in the nonexistence of gods, or the conscious rejection of theism. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of gods.

Any comments? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-28 09:36Z

• Wholly behind you, Brian. You have nicely and neatly introduced the topic, avoiding POV and weaselisation. The NBeale version was quite unacceptable. Gnusmas 10:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• I like it, I think it is the best proposal so far in terms of giving due weight to the mainstream philosophical definitions, while respecting the wide array of views we have found in reliable sources. Thumbs up! --Merzul 10:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Two points: Since there seems to be no such thing as "unconscious rejection", the "conscious" in "conscious rejection" is redundant. And the formulation sounds as if the disjunction were exclusive: "An atheist believes in the nonexistence of gods or rejects the belief in the existence of gods, but not both." But somebody who believes in the nonexistence of gods certainly refuses to believe in the existence of gods as well. — Editorius 11:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with you first point, I don't think that in this context the word "conscious" is very necessary. Your second point depends on the reading of "is". What we mean to say is "Atheism is defined as X, or defined as Y. And sometimes defined more broadly as Z". --Merzul 11:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wait, I'm afraid I'm starting to see problems with this one too. I believe it is the best so far, but it implies too strongly that the first definitions are "philosophical definitions", and the broader definition is the lay man's definition. This isn't the case. We have Anthony Flew (above) saying "nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God'". (Another problem is that I'm afraid I misrepresented Britannica when I said it supports "rejection of theism", it seems that Kai Nielsen is arguing against that notion, and he considers that atheism is a more complex position.) I'm taking a break now, I will think about these things, perhaps read REP, SEP, and Britannica carefully without jumping to conclusions too quickly. Hopefully, you guys will have already solved the issue by then. :) --Merzul 12:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Here's Nielsen's complex definition of "atheism":

"Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived): for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God (the God of Luther and Calvin, Aquinas, and Maimonides), he rejects belief in God because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers, he rejects belief in God because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., 'God' is just another name for love, or 'God' is simply a symbolic term for moral ideals."

(Nielsen, Kai. "Atheism." In Encyclopaedia Britannica, from Encyclopaedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2005 DVD. Copyright © 1994-2004 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.)

He doesn't argue against the term "rejection" at all. What he states is that an atheist doesn't reject only one thing but several things.

Editorius 14:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he supports the term rejection, but I have used him to back up our claim that atheism is the "rejection of theism"; and I feel a bit guilty about it, because his point seems to be that atheism depends on the postulated forms of God, so in the case of the "old man with the beard", the atheist rejects it by being very positively convinced that such a God doesn't exist; but for modern notions of God, the atheist response is different. --Merzul 14:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brian. Merzul. This is getting better, but we still have the fundamental problem that the lead (and indeed the article) does not make clear that Atheism, in the common sense, is disinct from Agnositicism, and it makes it very hard to see how it can be true that nontheists vastly outnumber atheists. Can you address this please? NBeale 14:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we first need to address the section discussing agnosticism, the paragraph in question lacks references. What is our sources for this? It's also not very delicate in the treatment of Kant, but I'm surprised people objecting to the medieval stuff hasn't objected to this section. --Merzul 14:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking about how to make it clear that atheism is distinct from agnosticism, but to be honest I have no idea what the difference is. Bertrand Russell is considered an agnostic, and he say "As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods." When Richard Dawkins is saying the exact same thing, everyone considers him an atheist. What is the difference, and how do we make it clear? If Russell isn't a real agnostic, perhaps you can explain what it is about Kenny that distinguishes him from Russell and Dawkins. --Merzul 17:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The ref for Epistemological Arguments was in there, but got deleted; I've restored it. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-28 17:59Z

Disappointment

I'm rather disappointed with the way the introduction has evolved. I think we have ended up with a sort of sanitized, politically-correct description of atheism. In this new version, "normal" atheism has become a belief. This is a fundamental change, because it has the effect of placing a burden of proof upon the atheist. Furthermore, it seems contrary to the common approach of beginning with a broad definition and then going into specifics (see Theism, for example). To my mind, it is a bit like pointing to a cardiologist and saying "he is a neurologist" just because they are both doctors. -- Scjessey 12:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

We should not be concerned with the cultural impact of our definition. The philosophical definition is the most common one and should be put first. The only reason I ever saw for putting the broad definition first was so that the prose would not be awkward. Brian seems to have found an elegant way to put the common definition first. johnpseudo 13:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"The philosophical definition is the most common one and should be put first."

It isn't a case of either/or though. It is more a case of degrees. The broad definition of atheism could be said to be the weakest position (the doctor in my example), with the other (stronger) positions being more specific (cadiologist, neurologist). I think it would be better to say this:

Atheism encompasses the belief in the nonexistence of gods, the absence of belief in the existence of gods, or the conscious rejection of theism.

-- Scjessey 16:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Your analogy is inadequate. The issue here is that philosophically, atheism does not include the "absence of belief" definition. Because "isms" are generally defined as philosophies, the broader less-common definition should be presented distinctly. johnpseudo 17:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Apparently, the main epistemological motive of those favouring the "absence of belief" definition is their conviction that the absence of a belief from one's mind never needs any justification at all — that it's a 'free lunch'. But that's a mistake, for if God should exist and the theistic arguments for his existence should be successful, then one is certainly not justified in not believing in God. (For example, the amount of evidence for Darwinism is overwhelming, so nobody lacking belief in Darwinism is rationally justified in persisting in that negative state of mind.) The weak atheist is justified in not believing in God if and only if there are no rational reasons to believe in God, i.e. if and only if the theistic arguments are shown to be invalid or (probably) unsound. Of course, the primary burden of proof is on the theist. If he doesn't devise and present any explicit arguments for his position, then there is nothing for the weak atheist to refute. But, as a matter of fact, theists have offered quite a lot of arguments who allegedly show that they are right. This means the weak atheist must face those theistic arguments, analyze them, and show that they are invalid or (probably) unsound. In other words, the theist has the primary burden of proof, while the atheist — even the weak one! — has the burden of disproof (with regard to the theistic arguments):

"Theists have put forth reasons for believing that religious language is cognitively meaningful; and they have given arguments that an all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing being exists. Negative atheists must show that these reasons and arguments are inadequate. To be sure, if theists had never given reasons for supposing that God talk is meaningful or that God exists, perhaps negative atheists would not have to produce refutations to be secure in their nonbelief. But this is not the case."

(Martin, Michael. Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Philadelphia, PA: Temple UP, 1990. p. 30)

Editorius 13:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the narrower definitions, even if you manage to refute every single one of the theist's arguments, you still can't call yourself an atheist. To call yourself an atheist, you must provide positive atheological arguments yourself, otherwise you are merely an agnostic. That's the problem with the narrow definition, and which is why the narrow definition is rejected by the SEP article on "atheism and agnosticism", because this definition is based on an "unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic." --Merzul 14:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• If there are no rational reasons to believe that God exists, then one is justified in not believing in God. And if there also are some rational reasons to believe that God doesn't exist, then one is justified in believing that God doesn't exist. The atheologist has got to devise some arguments ending with the conclusion "Therefore, God (probably) doesn't exist." But it is arguable that already the complete absence of evidence for God's existence amounts to evidence for his nonexistence. (For example, if I thoroughly search my fridge for a tiny polar bear, and cannot find any, then I am justified in believing that there is no tiny polar in my fridge.) — Editorius 14:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• @Merzul: It's wrong to suppose that there is nothing between absolute certainty and absolut uncertainty. Actually, there are many probabilistic degrees in between. As an atheist, I don't necessarily have to subscribe to "God's nonexistence is absolutely certain" but merely to "God's nonexistence is (very) probable". And if there are no rational reasons to believe in the truth of theism, i.e. if the theistic arguments are unsound or most likely so, then this alone renders the existence of God more improbable, thereby rendering his nonexistence more probable. And if there additionally are some explicit atheological arguments with the conclusion "Therefore, God probably doesn't exist", then God's nonexistence is rendered even more, much more probable. — Editorius 14:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, you are absolutely right. I confused a few issues, it's not positive/negative that's the underlying issue for Stanford. The reason I was confused is because Martin splits up weak/strong atheism, and he backs up weak atheism by refuting theist arguments, and then supports strong atheism with the problem of evil and such. --Merzul 15:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Generally, it is important to take notice of the fact that being an atheist is one thing and being epistemically justified in being an atheist is another thing. What is more, even the absence/lack of belief or nonbelief in theism is not self-justifying! — Editorius 15:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Should probably place definitions in same context

As a philosophical view, atheism definitions include, the belief in the nonexistence of gods,[1] the conscious rejection of theism,[2] and the absence of belief in the existence of gods.[3]

I like Brian's introduction phrase and this revision would keep all the definitions/usages in the same context/level. -Modocc 16:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I just said above (I use "encompasses"). I'm not sure the "philosophical" bit is necessary if we do it this way. -- Scjessey 16:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I prefer saying include, encompasses suggests these are all there are. _Modocc 16:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The distinction is important, and perhaps even Modocc's version isn't clear enough. The editors in favour of the broader definition feel comfortable presenting all three definitions as various forms of atheism, while editors in favour of the narrow definition want to get rid of the wider definition. The compromise position must therefore

1. include all the significant definitions, and
2. make it clear that these are different definitions, not just different forms of atheism.

This second point is very important, or we are immediately biased in favour of the inclusive definition. NBeale's objection is that weak atheism isn't atheism at all, it is agnosticism, and that we must make that clear. --Merzul 16:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

NBeale is wrong however. Agnosticism will always be a subset of weak atheism or anything else for that matter. Its an occult position that offends many theists and scientists alike which seek truth, rather than bar it away. _Modocc 16:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The entire benefit of Brian's revision is that it presents the "rejection of" and "belief in nonexistence" as philosophical definitions, and the "absence of belief" as a non-philosophical definition. You seem to have thrown them all together. johnpseudo 17:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the definition of "absence of belief" is a doctrine and this will surely be debated. Modocc 17:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Amended Introduction to a Definition List

Atheism encompasses refers to one of any distinct, but related philosophical views, the definitions of which include:

• the belief in the nonexistence of gods,[1]
• the conscious rejection of theism,[2] and
• the absence of belief in the existence of gods.[3]

Any comments? _Modocc 17:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no real need to make it a list in my opinion. I'd suggest

Atheism refers to one of a number of related philosophical positions. Common definitions include the belief in the nonexistence of gods,[1] the conscious rejection of theism,[2] and the absence of belief in the existence of gods.[3]

--h2g2bob 17:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Your first sentence is better. But, the defs are not all common. In keeping with the "list" how about. Atheism refers to one of a number of related philosophical positions, the definitions of which include...Modocc 18:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Absence of belief" is not a philosophical position, though. It's a definition applied after-the-fact by philosophers to non-philosophers. That's why it's important to keep that distinction in there; people seeing "atheism" will immediately think of it as a philosophical position, and this is seen in the preference given in philosophical encycs to the philosophical position. However, the absence of belief definition is the most well known alternate definition, so we should include it, but we can't lump it under "philosophical positions". — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-28 18:07Z

Yes we can. Philosophers such as Smith are no different from you or me, and they are people with ideas and definitions. It not us vs them. The absence definition is a doctrine about what atheism is and as such it is a philosophical doctrine. In a culture without theists there would be no doctrine or word for what atheism is. Modocc 18:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

He's got a point there. Atheism is a necessary label only because other points of view exist; however, I would not use the word doctrine, since that means a "presentation of a belief system" and atheism is most definitely not a belief system. Perhaps that reinforces my earlier point about why I think the introduction is skewed in favor of the narrow definition. -- Scjessey 18:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The definition itself is a "presentation of a belief system". The definition itself refers specifically to the absence of a system. There are two levels of abstraction here. I never liked separating any of the definitions, unless they had proper context, for they are each POVs, which is another way of putting it. _Modocc 19:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Even with a single, simple definition here I am using doctrine correctly too. The first definition of doctrine is "something that is taught" in my Unabridged Webster. _Modocc 00:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Modocc, I think you're misunderstanding things. You're talking about the philosophers who use that definition; I'm talking about people who are absent a belief (ie, the people that defintion applies to, such as newborn babies). Such people cannot be said to have a "philosophical position" simply for lacking a certain belief. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-28 18:58Z

We are presenting "definitions/senses of atheism" atheism is..., And its not just philosophers who use the word atheism. Babies can't use it the word atheism, but they are atheists of atheism too, by the definition/doctrine. _Modocc 19:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You are not making any sense. "Absence of belief" cannot possibly be a philosophical view. You can't define a philosophy based on the absence of a certain thought. However, you can define a word (atheism) in both philosophical and other ways. "Absence of belief" isn't a philosophical definition, but it is a definition nonetheless. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-28 21:17Z

I am doing my best to make sense, here. :-) Suppose I told you that my baby is an atheist. Then my definition of atheism would have to be this, "atheism is the absence of belief in gods". Now suppose about 42 percent or more of the planet actually liked this definition. They would be following a convention, a way of viewing and talking about their kids, they would all agree that little tikes are not indoctrinated, yet everyone who agrees with the view, are following suit, they are being led into agreement, they all agree that the definition is a great idea, a very simple one, but nonetheless a great one, and a doctrine thats worth putting in this article. Its a great doctrine about not having any. To simply call it a mere definition does it an injustice! _Modocc 22:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're still confusing things. Sure, people can label babies atheists for lacking belief, but that is still only a label, and the lack of belief cannot be a philosophy. Every atheist is absent belief in God, but strong atheists also attach affirmative beliefs, making their's a definite philosophy, whereas mere absence of belief alone cannot be a philosophy. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-29 01:34Z

(unindent) Brian, you are referring to the baby yes, and I am referring to the adult making the statement. The adult holds the belief and expresses that belief. The belief in something, that something is the statement(s) and are doctrine(something taught). The usage and definitions of atheist and atheism is defined by the person(s) making the statements. These define their values and beliefs. Its the adults that deny or accept. Holbach's ideas are his, and he preached! Not theism mine you. Whether or not his definition is good/bad such that people want/don't-want to use it is not relevant. But Holbach stated his philosophical views and he stated it and its been taught. _Modocc 02:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that's his view. But the absence of belief itself is not a philosophy. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-29 03:15Z
  • I don't believe I said that absence of belief itself was a philosophy. You can double check. Its late here and I have to retire for the night. I'll check back tomorrow. _Modocc 03:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It looks like we've both been confused. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-29 07:45Z

A NPOV Introduction Proposal

Atheism refers to one of a number of definitions, which include the belief in the nonexistence of gods,[1] the conscious rejection of theism,[2] and the absence of belief in the existence of gods.[3]

I am taking a break, cause I need to mow the lawn, any comments are welcome before I make what I consider a long needed edit. _Modocc 20:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• That unnecessarily oversimplifies the lead; it's important to distinguish actual beliefs (ie philosophies) from other definitions (absence of belief). The current lead does that. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-28 21:19Z
  • Although it would be nice to disambiguate or avoid a possible reading "a view atheism is x" as opposed to the intended meaning "atheism is some view x" in the lede, on the bright side, most isms are philosophical views, thus misunderstandings are perhaps unlikely and the article is balanced and featured now. That said, I've amended my proposal again, to encompass a more cohesive perspective. Modocc 15:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I am not sure we can deny that atheistic Buddhism is a kind of "philosophical" view. I think an argument could be made that some forms fall under "absence of belief" rather than "rejection of belief"
• I am not sure the lede needs to be the the place to sort out which definitions involve an -ISM from those that only involve -ISTS & -ISTIC
• We seem to have lost any statement about what all 3 definitions have in common --JimWae 01:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • • I agree. Before I proposed this, that was a sticking point, yet the reader has the definitions presented and can relate each one to the other. It ends up being a dictionary entry. Thus, a follow up statement that that transitions into the next paragraph would help. Modocc 01:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong atheism has "absence of belief" in it, just as Buddhism does, and any other form of atheism, philosophical or otherwise. But the bare minimum absence of belief with no philosophical attachments (as with a newborn baby) is what is being referred to as "the broadest sense". — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-29 01:28Z
• I am not sure we can deny that atheistic Buddhism is a kind of "philosophical" view. I think an argument could be made that some forms fall under "absence of belief" rather than "rejection of belief" --JimWae 01:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "As a philosophical view, atheism is the belief in the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2]" does not include this kind of atheistic Buddhism as a philosophical view --JimWae 01:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If all we're referring to is a person's attitude towards deities, what does the person's religion (Buddhism) have anything to do with whether that attitude is philosophical or not? Buddhists still fit into one of the three categories we have listed in the lead. johnpseudo 02:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As a Doctrine, Proposal(old version)

As a philosophical doctrine, "atheism" can refer to the belief in the nonexistence of gods,[1] to the rejection of theism,[2] or, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of gods.[3] Other definitions may require a justification for disbelief, such as conscious rejection or critical thought.

Pros: Cohesive; the most important doctrines given equal weight; and it addresses the issue of justification, since much of the article and atheism in general is about reasons or the absence of reasons.

Cons: First sentence is longer; and the view distinction is gone(But these views/non-views are self-evident with each definition).

Because this would be a huge and bold edit on my part, comments please. _Modocc 15:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• "can refer to" is not proper usage; that's only proper when discussing terms rather than concepts. Either change it to "is" or italicize "atheism" (or put it in quotes). Also, lack of belief cannot be a doctrine, so it's fine to cite it as the broadest definition, but not fine to call it a doctrine. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 16:04Z
  • I put it in quotes, to define the term. Thanks. :-) And as a term, we should have an understanding, I hope, such that "atheism" = "atheism is a 0" is a doctrine. _Modocc 16:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It's certainly a claim that can be made and justified, but the subject of the claim is not a belief system. The sentence is talking about philosophical doctrines of atheism, not doctrines of philosophically defining "atheism". — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 16:27Z
      • Smith's(or dHobach's) doctrine is a philosophical doctrine of atheism. Clearly we are presenting and teaching it. _Modocc 16:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
        • You're confusing two things. The sentence is talking about these doctrines: "I believe in the nonexistence of God", and "I reject theism". You are saying that the sentence is talking about the doctrines "I believe that 'atheism' is defined as belief in the nonexistence of God", and "I believe that 'atheism' is defined as the rejection of theism". The sentence is talking about the former, not the latter. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 16:36Z
          • Setting aside the complexity of the sentence for the moment, is it or is it not the case that: Smith's(or dHobach's) doctrine is a philosophical doctrine of atheism? And how would you state that doctrine? _Modocc 16:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
            • It's an assertion, definitely, and one that can be justified. It's not a philosophical doctrine, because saying "I believe atheism is defined as the absence of belief" doesn't say anything about your actual belief system, just something about how you define a certain word. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 16:58Z
              • "Philosophical doctrine" does not have to pertain to belief. The scope of philosophical is much wider than that. _Modocc 17:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
                • It doesn't extend to "absence of" anything, though. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 19:19Z
                  • Its not extended, or its not meant to be extended. All the sentence is saying is that "'atheism'refers to '1,2,3'" and these are "philosophical doctrines". The third is dHolbach-Smith's nontheism doctrine. _Modocc 16:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As a Doctrine, Proposal

(new version) As a philosophical doctrine, "atheism" can refer to the belief in the nonexistence of gods,[1] to the rejection of theism,[2] or, to nontheism, the absence of belief in the existence of gods.[3] Other definitions may require a justification for disbelief, such as conscious rejection or critical thought.

Pros: Cohesive; the most important doctrines given equal weight; and it addresses the issue of justification, since much of the article and atheism in general is about reasons or the absence of reasons; No weasel word is needed to introduce nontheism.

Cons: First sentence is longer; and the view distinction is gone(But these views/non-views are self-evident with each definition). To make room for the addition of "nontheism", had to removed "broadest sense" but this was already too opaque anyway.

This new edit should help clear up the confusion. _Modocc 20:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Absence of X" is not a philosophical doctrine. Also, the lead already explains how there are different rationale/justifications for atheism, so I don't see the need to state it again. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 20:13Z
  • Granted this extension is difficult, even for me to grasp(maybe I am confused), but if I wanted to call anyone else a nontheist, then I would think that I would need my own personal doctrine of nontheism to present in order to support my claim. Since its my own doctrine, then it is a philosophical doctrine. Furthermore, there is no reason why my ideas about theism and nontheism must be consistent with each other. _Modocc 20:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's your doctrine to define people as atheists if they satisfy condition X. But condition X itself is not a philosophical doctrine, which is what your verison of the lead section is saying. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 21:42Z
      • Please rephrase and state the explicit context of X that you are referring. I am thinking that you mean "condition 'absence of X'" or does that(the absence) no longer matter? And if the absence still matters, then how do I or others reconcile the inconsistencies of the theism and nontheism doctrines we share? My head is actually hurting(literally from sinus pain), so I am taking a break now and will come back to this. _Modocc 22:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Brian, my head is fine today, I think. :-) Let me make clear that "nontheism doctrines" is context sensitive. There are doctrines about nontheism, such as a claim that rocks are nontheists and the like. In this context, one is communicating a nontheism, "rocks are nontheists" doctrine. This nontheism doctrine is a philosophical doctrine. There are certainly others that are far more rational and complicated. Certainly "nontheism doctrine" is meaningless in other contexts. Yet, the "absence of doctrine" cannot negate a doctrine and we are presenting doctrines. _Modocc 15:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Western

In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed to be irreligious or unspiritual

????

And might I suppose that Eastern Culture likes atheism? Apparently, theres been a few Religious extremists lately in the Middle East. Clearly these individuals are atheists, or don't mind them.

I mean...

GIVE ME A BREAK!

I am a Catholic and don't regard atheists as unspiritual or whatever. In the west, atheism is widely though indirectly supported by the government's secularism - one could argue.

But in the Middle East, many non-monotheistic religions are banned, like in Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc. and even Judaism and Christianity is strictly regulated.

Please don't insult Western freedom, look to Sad Extremism, whom believe in killing infidels.Tourskin 00:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't meant as a slight to the West, it's simply that the source for this claim [2] only refers to the West. I'd support a change of wording, but not sure what to. --h2g2bob 05:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Tourskin. In religious studies, Islam is considered a Western religion. "Western" is, loosely speaking, a synonym for "Abrahamic", whereas Eastern religions include Dharmic, Taoic, etc. traditions. Additionally, the statement isn't "In Western culture, atheists are violently persecuted"; all it's saying is that there is a strong association between atheism and irreligion, which is true. However, I've removed the statement anyway simply because it lacks a reference. -Silence 06:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Agnosticism

The only section that seems to deal much with agnosticism is Epistemological arguments. This section still seems like gibberish to me & still implies that Kant was an atheist - which is not so. It may turn out that agnosticism has worse definitional problems than atheism, but some clear discussion on it is needed --JimWae 01:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, not belief. "Rationalistic agnosticism" is a statement about knowledge, and atheists who hold to this view are described in the Epistemological arguments section. It doesn't say Kant was an atheist, just that his rationalism became the basis for epistemological arguments used by atheists. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-29 02:07Z

Huxley also said, did he not, that since one cannot know "X exists" it is unethical to "believe in X" - so for him, agnosticism was also about belief. Then he hijacked the epistemological argument & said those who still called themselves atheists rather than agnostics were denying it. He maintained a standard for knowledge such that nobody is capable of knowing whether deities exist or not. His standard for reasonable belief was the same as that for knowledge.

People who believe in God, when asked their religious views, would rarely identify themselves primarily as agnostics. People who primarily identify themselves as agnostics are for the largest part people who are in a state of active doubt about the existence of gods - so being an agnostic is also about a hesitation to believe, and - unless one is spealing strictly of the -ISM - it is somewhat an oversimplification to say agnosticism is not at all about belief. --JimWae 03:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The epistemological arguments section doesn't say Kant was an atheist - but the obtuse wording suggests it --JimWae 03:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Epistemological arguments are not arguments for belief in the nonexistence of God. Your use of the word "atheist" refers to strong atheism, when in fact epistemological atheism is weak atheism - it merely rejects theism, but does not assert belief in nonexistence. As for Huxley, he took a statement about knowledge and through the unspoken middle step of "If I can't know it, I can't believe it" resulted in a statement about belief. Other people take that unspoken middle step as well. To assume that the middle step should be taken, however, is incorrect. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-29 07:44Z

• @Brian0918: You wrote repeatedly: "Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, not belief." Strictly speaking, you are right; but nevertheless you mustn't ignore the fact that, in popular usage, "agnostic" does have a bearing on doxastic states:

"one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"

(http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=agnostic)

As I already did in one my previous postings, it is helpful to distinguish between mere knowledge agnosticism and belief agnosticism.

Editorius 11:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

We have to say something about this - FA or not this article at present doesn't make sense because at one point it classifies all "agnostics" as atheists and at other points (eg statistics) it does not. Here's a start on the wording: In common speech the distinction between Atheism and Agnosticism is that an Atheist asserts that no god exists and an Agnostic asserts that(s)he does not know whether any god exists. Richard Dawkins offers a 7-point scale ranging from "strong theist" (100% probability of God) to "strong atheist" ("I know there is no God") with points 3,4,5 considered "agnostic" and 6 (his own position) De facto atheist: 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there". The borderline between this and "Techically agnostic but leaning towards atheism" (point 5 on his scale) is necessarily imprecise (ref Russell). However people who self-describe as agnostic are doing so as a position distinct from atheism (ref Kenny)NBeale 06:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. Whatever about the philosophical niceties, I think a basic reason for someone to come to the Atheism article might well be to find out a bit more about what distinguishes atheism from agnosticism, and I think the distinction (or perhaps, more accurately, the difficulty of making a clear distinction) needs to be addressed explicitly, clearly and early in the article. There is some material at Spectrum of Theistic Probability which might well be better renamed, deleted or merged into this or another article – but which might be worth considering for use in some shape or form. Snalwibma 07:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Knowledge agnosticism is not in contrast to atheism. One can deny that it's possible to know with absolute certainty whether God (or other gods) exists, and yet affirm that it's possible for one to be epistemically justified in believing in God's nonexistence. So one can well be both a knowledge agnostic and an atheist. For example, I'm convinced that God's existence is extremely unlikely, but I wouldn't claim to know with certainty that God doesn't exist. What one certainly cannot be is both a belief agnostic and an atheist, for the set {x believes neither that God exists nor that God doesn't exist; x believes that God (probably) doesn't exist} is inconsistent. — Editorius 11:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think we're trying to fit too much into this article. A proper discussion of the difficulties and confusion surrounding agnosticism and atheism would be properly addressed in a separate, new article. This is how Stanford Enc. Phil. does it. The reasons are that you would first have to discuss what agnosticism means, how it went from a statement about knowledge to a statement about belief, how atheism overlaps with the latter, how people have disputed being labeled either of them, etc, and by then you've got too much information on agnosticism to justify it being in this article, and too much on atheism to justify it being in Agnosticism. So maybe Atheism and agnosticism, or Distinctions between atheism and agnosticism, or something like that. Then we could link to the new article in both Atheism and Agnosticism. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 12:48Z

Point taken. Maybe a "distinctions" article would be the best way forward. Is the stuff at Spectrum of Theistic Probability worth using as a starting point, I wonder? Not under that title, though! Snalwibma 15:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Such an article wouldn't focus on Dawkins (or necessarily even mention him), since this problem has been around for a long time and is written about extensively. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 15:24Z

I agree that we shouldn't get bogged down in the subtleties of this, which could well be done in a separate WP article and are quite well treated in the SEP which we should ref. But we must say something because frankly without it the article doesn't make sense. Shall I be bold and do it? NBeale 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a wonderful volume on atheist thought: "Atheism: A Reader", edited by S.T. Yoshi. In it, a different notion of agnosticism is put forward - it is the opposite of gnosticism, which is simply the belief that the accomplishment of Humanity's purpose relies upon special knowledge that cannot be obtained through our senses. It does not necessarily have anything to do with belief in "God" or "gods".

This reduction of the terms of debate is endemic to this discussion, and leads it away from extremely profitable ground. Gnosticism is a belief in spirituality. The examplars of most of the religions listed in the contents were motivated by the desire to assist people in managing their spirituality. The difficulties we have with religion have to do with the challenges inherent in attempting to institutionalize a deeply personal process.

Has the group considered taking a stand on spirituality? "[g]ods" are interesting physical and psychological constructs (speaking from experience), and so may attract more attention than they deserve.--Trichronos 05:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Silence's latest "rewrite"

In his latest edit, Silence basically restored (ie, reverted to) an older version of several sections of the article, from before the article even got to FAC. Does everyone agree with this change, for reasons other than the fact that it's Silence making the edit? Several of the sentences that were restored, for example, are rather poorly written, add weaselness, and unsourced generalities. While his rewrite of the lead section is not too bad (I'm not sure what positives were gained from it), his "rewrite" (read: reversion) of the rest of the article has not been an improvement.

It's also impossible to figure out what has been changed, since he made the changes all in one edit, and the diff can't figure out how to compare versions (making one think that it was simple copying/pasting from older versions, rather than a thought-out rewrite). I'm also left wondering why Silence waited until after the article was promoted to Featured to make such a substantial change; it's likely that several people would have left complaints in the FAC about such a version. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 12:59Z

• and now the ambiguous "disbelief" has returned to the lede. Among ambiguity issues, it makes it less clear that the "or" is there to include 2 separate definitions rather than 2 ways to say the same thing. We have 23 paragraphs on the History of Atheism when there is a separate article on that. We have just 2 sentences (& 1 paragraph that lightly touches the issue) on the definition when there is no separate article on that & we have spent years discussing definition. We need a section that clearly states the 3 or more major definitions & who & what gets included by each one --JimWae 15:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The Distinctions section discusses the different definitions: strong, weak, implicit, explicit, scope, etc. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 15:55Z
  • How is "belief in the nonexistence of gods" a different definition than "rejection of theism"? In many ways, the two are just different ways of phrasing the same thing. Characterizing atheism as a belief from the get-go strikes me as bending NPOV unnecessarily; we can convey the exact same information (indeed, convey it much more smoothly, since "belief in the nonexistence of" is much more awkward than "disbelief in the existence of" in context), while also not needlessly implying that everyone who considers atheism a "philosophical view", also considers it a belief.
  • By the way, I agree entirely with shortening the "history" section. That is one of the big problems I see with the current article; we don't need to go into so much detail on "history" when we have a whole article for that elsewhere. This is not first and foremost a historical article; it is first and foremost a philosophical article, for the same reason deism and agnosticism are. I also agree that some other sections have become far too short, and have replaced clear wording with very opaque, un-reader-friendly wording; my edits are the start of an attempt to try to resolve all of these issues, moving from the top to the bottom.
  • Also, the "distinctions" section does not discuss the different definitions; it discusses the different distinctions and categories within atheism. It fails on the level of explicitly stating how different groups define atheism itself. I was planning to work a bit more on that next (and integrate "Practical vs. skeptical" into the section, since it clearly is a distinction rather than an argument, and practical atheists rarely have a "rationale" for their nontheism or immorality anyway), but it looks like that'll have to wait. -Silence 16:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• His "silent" edit sets a bad precedent - a precedent that has been set here before with unfortunate results --JimWae 15:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've restored the first couple sentences that have been thoroughly discussed. I still agree about the ambiguity around "disbelief". — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 15:54Z

"Revert" implies that I simply mass-deleted current information and mass-restored old information. This is clearly not the case; the article has never had sections quite like the ones I proposed with my recent edits. It is correct, on the other hand, to say that I restored information that was important but had been removed over the months. I did not restore the overwhelming majority of removed information, however; I was very selective.

In my opinion, both the earlier versions of this article and the current version of this article are very substandard; with respect to the "types/typologies" or "definitions/distinctions" section, the earlier version suffered from being unnecessarily long and disorganized, and the current version suffers from being uselessly short and opaque in its wording. My recent edits were an attempt to find a "middle ground" between the two edits; regardless of bizarre insinuations, they were not done "silently" or covertly, as I detailed every major aspect of them in my edit history, and am perfectly open to discussing them in as much detail as anyone wishes. -Silence 16:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How about we begin discussing the actual text in question. That seems like a more productive use of our editorial time, energy, and skill. To begin with, a list of some of the problems with the current lead "distinctions" section:

1. "Distinctions" is a misleading and strange title. The section isn't solely concerned with "distinctions" within atheism, but also with definitions of atheism. We should note that to avoid opaque vagueness in the titles.
2. "proposing a number of different classifications with respect to the range of phenomena rejected," - This phrase will be a meaningless jumble to 90% of our readerbase. Also, the sentence is ungrammatical without a comma preceding "proposing".
3. "and the degree to which they are rejected." - How so? What distinctions in atheism are a matter of "degree" in this way? Certainly not explicit v. implicit—for one thing, implicit atheism isn't a rejection at all! Nor are "weak" and "strong" atheism, despite their misleading names, different by the "degree" of their rejection—it's perfectly possible for a weak atheist to much more strongly reject "the range of phenomena" than a strong atheist does, as long as the weak atheist doesn't positively assert anything, and the strong atheist does. If anything, explicit/implicit and weak/strong are not differences of degree, but of manner.
4. "Common disagreements include whether those who make no positive assertion," - No positive assertion about what? Again, opaque. Remember that we're supposed to be explaining these things to people who don't already know what we're talking about.
5. "Part of this ambiguity arises from the related difficulty in defining terms like theism, deity, god and agnostic." - Why and how so? Unlike older versions of this section, the current article fails to establish any logical flow or continuity in what it's saying. It doesn't explain that because words like deity and God (not god, so much) are ambiguous, theism is ambiguous, and because theism is ambiguous, atheism is; agnostic isn't really relevant yet at this point of the article, as it can be better-explained later on isn't involved in the complications in the same way. If you do include it, though, remember that agnostic is not an article, and that words-as-words need to be italicized.

And here is a side-by-side comparison of the two versions of this paragraph (note that the "conceptions of God" sentence was moved to the start of the next section in my version):

Brian's version (distinctions lead)	Silence's version 1 (distinctions lead)	Silence's version 2 (distinctions lead)
Writers have disagreed on how best to define atheism proposing a number of different classifications with respect to the range of phenomena rejected, and the degree to which they are rejected. Common disagreements include whether those who make no positive assertion, those who have not consciously rejected theism, or those who do not reject all supernatural phenomena can be considered atheists. Part of this ambiguity arises from the related difficulty in defining terms like theism, deity, god and agnostic. The various conceptions of God and deities lead to differing ideas regarding the applicability of atheism.	Writers have disagreed on how best to define atheism, and much of the literature on the subject appeals to contradictory definitions and divergent classifications. Disagreements commonly arise over whether those who lack a belief in gods, but have not positively asserted that no gods exist or consciously rejected belief in gods, can be called atheists. Other disagreements concern the range of entities atheists disbelieve in—whether atheism applies to God, all deities, or to the supernatural in general, and what each of these would entail.	Writers have disagreed on how best to define and classify atheism, frequently contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. A variety of categories have been proposed to try to distinguish the different forms of atheism, most of which treat atheism as "absence of belief in deities" in order to explore the varieties of this nontheism.

My edits to the top section were an attempt to resolve these and other problems. Although I reviewed past versions of this article for ideas on how best to solve some of these issues, I did not blindly "copy-paste" anything, and I carefully reviewed and weighed the different options to try and find. I certainly may have made a mistake, but if so, I recommend specifically pointing that out so it can be discussed, rather than making bad-faith accusations ("making one think that it was simple copying/pasting from older versions, rather than a thought-out rewrite") that just show that you haven't even read the edits in question (even though they only span 4 short paragraphs!). -Silence 16:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think the biggest problem is that your mass rewrite in one edit makes it difficult to figure out what you have/haven't changed. Given that you haven't really been involved on the talk page since the FAC attempt started (one comment on April 13th, one on April 30th), it just makes things worse. You are proposing too many changes at once. Just take them one at a time so this page doesn't just explode (along with all our heads). Which would you like to start with? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 16:54Z

"I think the biggest problem is that your mass rewrite in one edit makes it difficult to figure out what you have/haven't changed." - That's why I just listed the first paragraph I did major changes to in "distinctions", so you can easily do a side-by-side comparison of our two versions. If you're too lazy to even read what I wrote, how do you expect any progress to be made in the editing? Feel free to take your time reading it, but I don't think one paragraph of information is so overwhelming. It's not like I rewrote the entire "History" section in one edit or something.

In any case, I just pointed out which one to start with: the first section of "Distinctions". The changes there are pretty basic (clarified first sentence, rewrote following sentences to make them a bit more accessible to our poor uninformed readers), and the section is short, so it will be easy to discuss in one block, no? Feel free to comment on the changes one at a time, and I'll respond one at a time, if you find that easier. It doesn't matter to me.

Also, what the hell does "Given that you haven't really been involved on the talk page at all since the FAC attempt started, it just makes things worse." mean? All editors are free to edit Wikipedia, not just people who happened to be around at arbitrary points in time. I wouldn't have stopped working on this article a few months ago to begin with if real-life obligations hadn't forced me to take a partial wikibreak; now that I have more time to spend on it and can focus on bringing it up to acceptable quality again (in a way that will actually be useful to our readers), I'm not going to stop looking for ways to improve the prose and layout just because I was too busy to do more than a cursory review during the article's FAC. We don't lock articles from editing when they receive an FA—especially an undeserved one. -Silence 17:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits involving restoration of text from a much earlier version of the article in the context of controversial articles are disruptive and should be rejected as anti-collaborative. It has been difficult enough for me to follow the changes to this article, as I do not track it on a daily basis. Now I really have no idea where the article is in relation to prior discussions. Buddhipriya 17:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The changes were already reverted. They are being discussed now. Only no one has yet come up with any actual problems with any of the edits I made (other than the meta-objection that Wikipedia's hardware did a poor job of representing the changes). So I can't do anything to improve them or to come up with new solutions to issues. Until an editor other than me decides that he's actually interested in working on the article, rather than all this politicking. I'm 100% open to discussing the edits; I layed out a few of my first edits above, presented a side-by-side comparison of the changes, explained my reasoning, etc. I fully accept that many of my changes were sub-standard (though I consider them improvements over some of the terrible problems in the original version, such as stub-sections and opaque, meaningless wording), and that I may have been in error with some of my changes. But if none of you have any interest in discussing or analyzing any of the proposed changes, then the article's reached a dead end.

Additionally, if mass edits to controversial articles were invariably "disruptive", then both me and Brian would have been banned from Wikipedia long ago. Methinks you're overreacting a tiny bit. My edits were only to a few sections, and are really not that complicated. Feel free to take the time to go over them and to comment on what changes you agree and disagree with. -Silence 17:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that my perspective on this is as one of the editors who began looking at this article as a result of a peer review process. I have basically only participated in one small aspect of the article dealing with Hinduism. I have found it difficult to keep up with the edits on this article because there are so many of them. I have become accustomed to seeing prior discussion on the talk page of issues that will be dealt with, and that makes it easier for an "outside" editor such as myself to keep track of the debate. Buddhipriya 17:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. What would be the best way for me to present the changes, then? I'll be glad to explain any aspect of my edits that you find confusing or troubling. -Silence 17:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that so many people get involved in discussions on this page that we really need to discuss things one sentence (or even one word) at a time. Changing an entire paragraph or paragraphs all in one edit will just explode the talk page. If you can specify a certain sentence or header that you would like to focus on, then we can go from there. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 18:25Z

I do not have time for this. There are hundreds of changes to be made, and I may only have a couple of weeks left to work on Wikipedia. I'll gladly discuss anything anyone has a problem with, but this talk page would be flooded with hundreds of pages of text if I listed every single trivial change even before anyone's objected to it. How about you look at the edits (I've conveniently provided the first few directly above), note the first change you disagree with, and I'll justify it or provide an alternative solution. The page would be flooded much more by my pointless listing of uncontroversial, minor fixes than by some ordinary discussion of contested changes. -Silence 18:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There are few changes to this article that are not controversial. Could you at least make your changes one paragraph at a time to avoid confusing the MediaWiki software. Many of us are unable to follow what is happening here, and a lot of discussion had gone into some of the changes. --Merzul 18:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can make your changes a few at a time so MediaWiki understands, and stick to the least controversial changes for now (prose improvements, grammar, style, etc), then we should make progress. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 19:00Z

1. I'm fine with rewording the header. 2. That sentence should remain in some form, as an introduction at least. I'll make a change and let me know what you think. 3. The point of this sentence is to classify how these definitions differ. If you can do better, let us know. Saying "I believe in the nonexistence of God" is a stronger rejection of theism than saying "I do not accept theism currently, as it lacks evidence." — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 19:02Z

Alright, I'll make the changes in smaller "chunks" so they're easier to read in edit-compare. I don't know which edits will and won't be "controversial", though, and it's hard to correct grammar, style, etc. without also correcting factual errors, ambiguities, and opaqueness, so I won't make any promises about the severity or triviality of my changes; there will probably be a mix of obvious (e.g., moving a comma) and discussion-worthy changes. Besides, it would take too long for me to go through the article twice, once for "uncontroversial" and one for "controversial" changes.

2. The sentence doesn't need to stay in any form if we present the important information in that sentence in a different format. In my (first) version, for example, "proposing a number of different classifications with respect to the range of phenomena rejected" is replaced with "Other disagreements concern the range of entities atheists disbelieve in—whether atheism applies to God, all deities, or to the supernatural in general, and what each of these would entail.", which I think is much clearer and more accessible to readers. There's just next to nothing worth saving about that clause; it's vague, it's difficult to parse, and it's factually inaccurate on at least two counts—first, because it describes atheism as a "rejection", even though all implicit atheists and most weak atheists do not necessarily "reject" anything; and second, because it describes the things atheists disbelieve in as "phenomena", even though most (if not all) supernatural entities are non-phenomenal by definition. That's part of the problem, in fact: they're unobserved, and even unobservable, which makes them the exact opposite of phenomena (which the dictionary defines as "facts, occurrences, or circumstances observed or observable").

3. My version doesn't mention "degrees" but presents the same basic information, so it's already a "better" example. "I believe in the nonexistence of God" is not a stronger or more intense rejection of theism than "I do not believe in the existence of God"; rather, it is an equally strong rejection that also includes an additional proposition. That's because the rejection (and absence) of theism is weak atheism: a weak atheist is precisely someone who does not affirm the proposition "God exists". A strong atheist is someone who, in exactly the same way, does not affirm the proposition "God exists" (thus, his "rejection" is equally intense), and who additionally affirms the proposition "God does not exist"; characterizing this difference as one of "degree" is at best an oversimplification, and at worst simply inaccurate, in the same way that a red bicycle is not different from a blue unicycle by a matter of "degree" (or even if it is, characterizing a bicycle, or atheism, in this way can only cultivate misunderstandings). -Silence 20:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your changes so far look alright. It's less ambiguous than before. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 20:45Z

Regarding the "Etymology" section, how about taking a break from the mass-reverts to actually look at the edits in detail and discuss which ones to keep and which to leave out or adapt? You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And do you really want me to point out the ridiculous number of weasel words currently in the atheism article? I could probably list over a hundred. You seem to misunderstand what weasel terms are, if you think that phrasings like "Writers have disagreed on how best to define and classify atheism" aren't just as weasely as "There have been disagreements on how best to define and classify atheism"! Weasel words aren't just a specific kind of phrasing for sentences; changing the grammar or word choice alone can't correct weaseliness. Only adding specific, cited sources can do that. If you aren't going to bother in a certain case, then complaining about weasel words isn't, in itself, a reason to favor one instance of weaseliness over another. -Silence 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In "A Tragic Sense of Life", Unamuno observes that reason is murderous because it cannot deal with ambiguity. Faced with ambiguity, it becomes paralyzed.

A sanguinary application of will is one solution. Another way forward, in such situations, is frequently to talk about behavioral differences. How do we live our lives differently as atheists and as theists? Do we eschew religion? Do we lean on reason over emotion (problems evident in the coda to Unamuno)?

Again, S.T. Yoshi, in "Atheism: A Reader" tends to lean on agnosicism as the meaningful definition (see my comment in the prior section). Atheism is deeply problematical - principally because spirituality is addressed only superficially.

For example, modern pantheism and paganism are inventing gods from whole cloth. They are returning to the roots of human spiritual practice. Does that make them atheists (no "God", just "gods" that some group of humans finds useful to believe in)? Maybe. But it certainly makes them gnostics - if only in that they hold that psychological archetypes are essential to managing our personalities. The alternative is to be overwhelmed by complexity.--Trichronos 05:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Objection to use of a trivial source

Currently the article uses the following web link to a couple of paragraphs from the online Brittanica in a footnote: Britannica (1992). "Atheism as rejection of religious beliefs". Encyclopædia Britannica 1: 666. 0852294735. Retrieved on 2006-10-27. I generally object to the use of these Britannica stubs because they are basically advertising hooks trying to get the reader to register for the site, and sites that require registration are generally discouraged under WP:EL. I also think that the reference to Hinduism once again injects that issue into the article in a manner that is not well-sourced. I think that the link to Britannica should be removed, and any statements made that are currently sourced from it should be sourced in some other way, if possible. Buddhipriya 17:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Should we also not cite journal articles simply because most users will only be able to read the abstract (ie, the advertising hook)? As external links, of course pay-to-view sites are discouraged, but as sources, they're not. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 18:23Z
• Britannica is not a trivial source, especially when Kai Nielsen's article is so well written. As johnpseudo said, it's a must-read for anyone editing this article. And it's not just a stub, the entire article is available, click "next page". With regard to Hinduism, could you be more specific, where do we inject Hinduism into the article in a bad way? --Merzul 18:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

External links policy does not apply to sources. Sources are governed only by reliable sources policy. --h2g2bob (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My specific concern has to do with a lumping together of Hinduism and Buddhism, an issue which has come up several times before on this talk page. The sentence cited by the Britannica stub says: "With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may counter anything from the existence of a god, to the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of Hinduism and Buddhism" which to me seems completely unclear regarding what it is trying to say about Hinduism and Buddhism. The article is written so strongly from the point of view of Western religion that it does not seem to have a clear view of what it is trying to say with regard to either of those two Indic-Dharmic religions, which are quite different from one another. Lumping them together in that sentence might sound like a Hindu writing something like "the existence of any transcendental concepts in Christianity and Judaism." What exactly is the point that is being made? Can a better source be found for that point in particular? I guess I just don't understand what the sentence means. The vast majority of Hindus are extremely theistic in devotional practice. As written, the sentence implies that they are not, since they are being contrasted with the first part of the sentence referring to belief in god. The implication is that Hindus don't believe in god. The article also currently confuses orthodox Buddhist philosophy, which denies the existence of any permanent entities, with popular Buddhist religion, which has many deistic features, as has been previously discussed on this talk page.Buddhipriya 08:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence isn't trying to imply that Hindus don't believe in God; it's trying to imply that atheists, at least by some people's definitions, can't accept the transcendental ideas of (at least certain denominations of) Buddhism or Hinduism. It doesn't say that atheism encompasses the belief in the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of Hinduism and Buddhism; rather, it says "atheism may counter... the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of Hinduism and Buddhism". However, it's a terrible sentence and a poorly-made point, so we certainly shouldn't repeat it in the article, though I don't see a problem with citing it as a source, since it is indeed a prominent academic authority. -Silence 16:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Distinctions discussion

Now that we seem to have at least for the moment worked through the first paragraph of Definitions and distinctions, let's discuss each of the three subsections of that section, one at a time. Each of them is exceedingly short at the moment (indeed, they're stub-length, to the extent that I'm incredibly surprised that this article passed FAC without merging or expanding them; standards must have slipped), so it shouldn't take long to cover them. The first one, "Range" (which was originally named "Scope", a name I restored because it seems clearer and makes more sense; we're discussing the scope of atheism's disbelief), is particularly short, despite its crucial importance. Here's a side-by-side comparison:

Brian's version ("range")

Silence's version ("scope")

With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may counter anything from the existence of a god, to the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of Hinduism and Buddhism.

Part of the ambiguity and controversy involved in defining atheism arises from the similar ambiguity and controversy in defining words like deity and God. The plurality of wildly different conceptions of God and deities leads to differing ideas regarding atheism's applicability. In contexts where theism is defined as the belief in a singular personal God, for example, people who believe in a variety of other deities may be classified as atheists, including deists and even polytheists. In the 20th century, this view has fallen into disfavor as theism has come to be understood as encompassing belief in all divinities. A problematic consequence of the broader redefinition of theism is that atheism can be seen as disbelief in almost anything; many pantheists, in particular, believe in a "God" that is synonymous with the natural world, which would make disbelieving in such a God result in disbelief in nature. Increasingly vague, abstract, or figurative conceptions of divinity have led some sources to circumvent the problem by defining atheism as disbelief in all "immaterial beings", rejection of the supernatural world altogether, or simply as irreligion. However, god-centered definitions of atheism remain more common.

Note that my version is significantly shorter than this section's original version; it is essentially a compromise between the overlong and overshort versions, and is a reasonable length for a section like this. Any shorter and it wouldn't merit a distinct section at all, and would be better simply as a paragraph in the overall "distinctions" section. But the importance of the topic rules that out. It is doing a disservice of our readers to give such a cursory glance at the crucial issue of what it is that atheists actually don't believe in, which is, after all, the whole point of "atheism"! -Silence 23:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're simply suggesting that the current short paragraphs need to be merged together, that's simple enough. I don't think your change is an improvement, for the most part. It focuses too much on random (and in some cases absurd) examples, such as the "disbelief in God=nature" implies "disbelief in nature" claim. The quote you give for Martin's source doesn't seem to back up the claims made in the sentences it follows. The last sentence definitely needs a source, even if it seems obvious. The only sentence I like is the 2nd to last one, which lists important and common ways of defining atheism to avoid confusion. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 13:11Z

• There's nothing absurd about "disbelief in God" and "God=nature" resulting in "disbelief in nature"; in fact, that's not only not absurd, but it's a logical necessity! Of course, not all pantheists simply believe in a God that is exactly the natural world of science; many ascribe other attributes to God/nature which are what justifies atheists rejecting their specific conceptions of the world, sure. But as long as many other pantheists simply view God as the natural world which atheists believe in, the point stands: the flexibility of the word "God" is a common problem for finding consistent definitions of atheism in academic texts. There are people who believe in a God that is not supernatural; there are people who believe in a God that is not a being or entity; there are people who believe in a God who is not active, not a creator, not a person; and so on. When all of God's traditional attributes are stripped away, what is atheism's actual content? If a theist defines his God as "a toaster", are atheists required to doubt toasters? (This is the point that is made with the more concrete real-world example of pantheism.) This is a crucial issue for the article to address, one way or another, and the previous version of the article is woefully inadequate at doing so.
• In my view, there are two options: either delete most of the current contents of the "Distinctions" section and merge everything we've got into 2 or 3 brief paragraphs that only spend a sentence or so on weak/strong, explicit/implicit, theoretical/practical, and naturalist/nontheist distinctions; or expand the subsections to deal with the topics in sufficient depth to merit separate sections. This depends on how important clarifying these distinctions is in the overall article.
• As I see it, they are important enough to merit the expansion I recommended; however, I am open to the possibility that they are not (and, in particular, I'd argue that the weak/strong and implicit/explicit distinctions are much less noteworthy than the range/scope ones, and it is especially troubling that we only have a single source for the use of "implicit/explicit", its creator; it is likewise troubling that we rely mostly on online sources for "weak/strong" because of our choice not to use the "negative/positive" terminology which is vastly more common in the academic literature). If they are not, however, then having separate sections for them is completely unacceptable. FAs do not have stub sections, and they don't devote whole sections to trivial topics (and topics that only have a couple of sentences are, in the context of the article, either trivial or need expansion). -Silence 16:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not a logical necessity. I reject the God=nature part of it; there's no reason for me to believe that I'm rejecting nature for rejecting God. Regardless, the point is that it's unconvincing and not important, and I don't see the need for that sentence in that section. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 16:26Z
    • You aren't understanding anything that was said, either here or in the article. Have you taken a basic philosophy course? "Logical necessity", in this context, means, roughly, validity: if the premises are true, then the conclusions logically must follow. In this case, the premises are "1. God = nature" and "2. I do not believe in God", and the conclusion is "3. I do not believe in nature." All the article is saying is that 3 logically follows from 1 and 2; this is exactly as uncontroversial as saying "17 + 2 = 19" in an article, and it is thus just as unnecessary to cite a source for this claim, since it is essentially true by definition. What neither I, nor the article, have ever claimed is that the premises are true; that's completely irrelevant. The argument is valid, regardless of its soundness; your rejection of the "God=nature" premise is a non sequitur.
      • Yes, that logical argument is obvious, just not convincing. You're assuming that pantheists are going to use the word "God" in such a sense, and are ignorant of other uses of the word, such as the usage of "God" by atheists; it just seems needlessly confusing and pointless, and I don't see the need for it in the section. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 17:08Z
        • I'm not assuming that some pantheists use the word "God" in that sense; I'm simply restating what pantheism says, precisely to that effect. Many naturalistic pantheists, in particular, equate "God" with nature, despite not ascribing any special theological or supernatural qualities to this "nature". This extreme example highlights the point that different people understand different things by "God", and therefore by "theism", and therefore by what it is that atheism denies. From this extreme illustrative example of naturalistic pantheism, the general point is then made that people disagree on what is or isn't a legitimate use of words like "God" and "deity", and consequently disagree on what entities are or aren't denied by atheism. None of this requires that pantheists, or anyone else, be "ignorant" of other uses of the word; it only requires that pantheists and other groups of people disagree on how the word is used, and that is obviously true. It is this disagreement that is important for Wikipedia's purposes, because it introduces ambiguity which it is Wikipedia's job to explicate, rather than contribute to. Without the "pantheism" example (and/or some other appropriate example), people won't understand that these disagreements have real-world consequences for what is or isn't considered (a)theistic. We should have a mix of the particular and the general in order to keep readers grounded, while also explaining to them the overall issues. Simply saying "People disagree on what atheists don't believe in" fails completely at actually informing our readers on this point, just as much as replacing the entire rationale section with "Atheists have many different reasons for their atheism" would fail. -Silence 17:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed, the idea that just about all atheists (and, of course, most theists) reject "God=nature" is precisely the point! It shows that people who self-identify as theists and people who self-identify as atheists in many cases use different definitions of the word "God", and therefore that it is important to establish, in any discussion of atheism, how "God" (and other important terms, like "deity") is being understood. The point of the example is to show that an absurd conclusion (3) follows from two not-unheard-of premises (1 and 2), and that the occurrence of this sort of absurdity raises a problem that any philosopher of religion dealing in the subject must address by being clear on what, exactly, atheists actually disbelieve in (and if it's God, what God is; if it's deities, what deities are; if it's the supernatural, what the supernatural is; etc.). If everyone agreed on what theism, atheism, God, deity, etc. mean, this would be a non-issue; but because they don't (and the pantheism example drives this home in the more extreme, yet concrete, way possible), definitional disputes arise, and it is Wikipedia's job to report on them. -Silence 16:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Alright, I get what you're trying to say there. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 17:14Z

I think the God/nature discussion is a little confusing (surely, an atheist would simply need to doubt that nature is god, and not need to doubt the existence of nature?) That said, I think an expanded version could be better: I like Silence's first paragraph, perhaps with Brian's paragraph replacing the second paragraph? --h2g2bob (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and added the 1st paragraph - feel free to revert / discuss / edit as needed. I'm personally not sure on the "and controversy" bit - "ambiguity" seems sufficient, IMHO. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think you should delete the original paragraph (currently the second paragraph), since it's useless and misleading (as discussed in another section on this talk page). The reference, if kept, can be used elsewhere. In the meantime, we can continue to discuss how best to word the revised second paragraph.

To respond to h2g2bob, the article makes no claims about whether an atheist would reject the pantheist's definition, because making such a claim is assuming that we know how every atheist defines the word God; the fact that all people (including atheists) understand different things by God is precisely the problem that's being discussed here, and so making claims to that effect seems unwarranted. What the paragraph does state is, "A problematic consequence of the broader redefinition of theism is that atheism can be seen as disbelief in almost anything; many pantheists, in particular, believe in a "God" that is synonymous with the natural world, which would make disbelieving in such a God result in disbelief in nature." It doesn't claim that atheists disbelieve in nature; it points out, using the example of pantheism, that certain definitions of God are incompatible with atheism as commonly understood. This raises the problem of which definitions are and aren't compatible, which the following sentence addresses by listing several solutions to this problem. -Silence 18:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What was unsatisfactory about section with the Pantheism example was how it highlights the problem with the narrow definition, but it doesn't then show how this is related to other definitions of atheism. It points out a problem, but it never solved the problem, it left the reader hanging at atheist must then disbelieve in nature. What I liked about the Britannica article is that Kai does end up with an adequate definition of atheism that can cope with such notions of the divine. --Merzul 11:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See: Is Pantheism Atheistic? — Editorius 16:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Silence's Etymology addition

"Most recently, there has been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism negatively, as the "absence of belief in deities", rather than as a belief in its own right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though its mainstream usage has been limited"

The problem I see with this is that it is weasely and vague. How "recently"? Which "philosophical circles"? The meaning of "negatively" is not clear; most will think it means "badly". Which "atheist communities"? You got all of this information from those couple cited sources? Do any one of those sources state all of the claims in this sentence? If not, it would see to violate WP:SYN. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 16:50Z

• It's vague because it's addressed more specifically in the very next section, and including detail would create redundancy. If you want more specifics, replace "Most recently" with "In recent decades" and "in certain philosophical circles" with "by philosophers such as Flew and Martin". If you think that the "negatively" note is unimportant, feel free to remove it. Asking "which atheist communities define atheism negatively" is like asking "which American communities speak English"; it is impractical to list them all, so it makes sense to just note that "most" or "many" do, or, best of all, just leave it unqualified so it can refer to any unspecified number—then it's indisputably true, yet still informative. If you still want specific examples, though, you can start with Internet Infidels. The sentences in question are quite clearly not "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position"; if they were, then the lead section of this article would need to be deleted too! (And most of its body, including "Rationale", "Demographics", and "Religion and morality".) -Silence 17:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well... what is the role of footnotes on Wikipedia? My understanding was that the source in question should back up the claim directly and explicitly, and not serve as evidence for our own accusations! Does any of the cited sources back up the claim that there is a recent push, or are these sources examples of the push? The latter case is not an appropriate use of sources. Personally, I think you are right about there being such a "push", but I agree with Brian that it doesn't seem right to use a source like Austine Cline to back up a claim that is contrary to the central thesis of that source. --Merzul 11:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerning just the dispute here about use

Silence's sources do support the claim that there isn't any consensus on usage. Should the citations warrant mentioning, then a statement about "there is no consensus on usage" or something like that is fine with me. _Modocc 20:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

History of Atheism needs Update

Ok the History section of this article ends at the 1990's, this needs to be updated due to the rise of the "New Atheism" movement which is being spearheaded by people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Anyone want to take a stab at it? The Fading Light 04:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not finding any reliable sources for this "new atheism"... Do you have any? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-02 13:02Z

You have GOT to be joking, but here is a little something from one of our wikipedia articles! [[3]] Enjoy! The Fading Light 16:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. That article doesn't even use the phrase "new atheism". Are there any reliable sources for these claims? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-02 16:25Z

Are you kidding?! If we can't use the website we are working on as a source then why bother working on it in the first place?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Fading Light (talk • contribs) 21:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

No, I am not kidding. This is well-established. If another article cites its sources, you can use those sources in this article, but you can't use another article as a source. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-02 21:41Z

A source can't cite itself as a source, that goes for anything. In this case, I'm not sure what you're referring to anyway - that someone created a redirect for "New atheism"? What does that show about it? Mdwh 22:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a few news articles at http://newatheism.org/. I'm not sure what to label this phenomenon, but I'm sure there is a rise in intolerant atheism, and it doesn't seem to be losing momentum, even if other atheists aren't at all pleased with this movement. [4] --Merzul 10:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be a fake site set up by a domain squatter, with links to articles matching the phrase, and links to related domains they're squatting with more random copied content.[5] — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-03 12:53Z

I got a "whois limit exceeded", but a normal whois claims it is registered by HostMonster. I don't see anything suspicious, and in any case, I didn't intend that site as proof of anything, but some of the news articles they link to might be of interest. --Merzul 14:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

They work just like any normal domain squatter, but instead of providing the same generic directory search, they list relevant content grabbed from other sites; this pulls in more hits than they would otherwise. This is how they've managed a #3 ranking on Google. Most of the linked articles are just about Dawkins/Harris, and don't really describe "new atheism", and the ones that do use the term simply refer to Dawkins/Harris/Dennett as "New Atheists" attacking religion. This seems more like the media trying to create a neologism. The new atheism doesn't look much different from the old atheism, just that a few prominent individuals have some best-selling books released around the same time. From the CNN article: "What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises." Hasn't that always been the case? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-03 14:20Z

The "new atheism" is the old atheism, only louder. MFNickster 19:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

d'Holbach's photo

I removed it from the top and put it in a more appropriate place. --Revolución hablar ver 02:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That works. Now people won't fight over what to put there... hopefully...... — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-03 03:03Z

I strongly disagree. The D'Holbach image was a superb compromise, providing without flirting with a POV, as almost any other image here would. Removing the image will lead to months more of pointless feuding over what image to put at the top, with people re-suggesting the same old suggestions we've gone over dozens of times over the years (e.g., the atom). I fail to see how removing such an uncontroversial image will end any "fighting" between editors—it will do precisely the opposite. And surely such a removal does nothing but a disservice to our readers. We already have plenty of other images to put in the "History" section!! Hume, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, or Marx would be much better placed where d'Holbach has been moved to (whereas none of those other atheists could possibly be placed at the top of the article, because only d'Holbach has a claim to fame that avoids significant controversy). -Silence 14:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this?

Image:Atom_of_Atheism-Zanaq.svg --Revolución hablar ver 03:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's worse than d'Holbach. At least d'Holbach's picture had a purpose. This is just an advertisement for a fairly-recent US "atheist" organization. We should just leave pictures out of the lead section. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-03 03:39Z

Well done, Revolución!

User: Devraj5000

What was wrong with d'Holbach? I don't really understand why it had to be removed in the first place, and now the article lead looks very empty. --Merzul 14:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure I understand the rationale. Just because an image could be placed in the "history" section doesn't mean it has to be. If everything that could possibly go in a lower section was unacceptable to place at the top of the article, then no article would have a lead section image. -Silence 14:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with it either way. I just figured that with no photo in the lead, people wouldn't have something to complain about... but maybe it should be put back. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-04 14:37Z

In this case, having no image would cause more debate than having one simply because everyone would be suggesting an image to go there until the end of time. And in any case, our primary concern should be readers, not editors: if someone causes a lot of editorial complaining but is of huge benefit to readers, it shouldn't be removed without good reason. A useful and controversial article is better than a useless and uncontroversial one; controversy is only bad when it gets in the way of utility. -Silence 16:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I like images in the lead - even if slightly pointless - just because it looks good and breaks up the text. I say have an image, whatever it is of. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, images are important for drawing readers into an article. And they're all the more important for abstract philosophical articles like atheism, which need an occasional image to keep things grounded. -Silence 16:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I love finding images for articles (the atheoi papyrus bit; the 16th-century emblem) to make them more interesting. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-04 17:04Z

Implicit perspectives, trouble with lede and a simple remedy

For many noncognitive nontheists, their atheism is simply, “I am an atheist because my world-view doesn’t include gods.” They have not accepted theists’ beliefs because they do not understand theist doctrines, but they may not have explicitly rejected theism altogether given the different conceptions of gods and any evidential uncertainties. But, under the broader doctrine/definition under which they do fall and self-identify with, they are atheists. Yet, and this is important, their broader sense of atheism is integrated, in a noncognitive way, with their philosophical view. For these implicit(and occasionally explicit) atheists, the way the current lede is worded, their restrained philosophical view is not included under “As a philosophical view, atheism is”. Of course, they get bumped inside anyway(after perhaps sulking and wondering why) with “in the broader sense...” that is “...sometimes called nontheism."

Similarly, indifference is not rejection, and frequently it just doesn’t take very much justification to be justified, for indifference is not only a default position, it is often a condition, a necessity and a prerogative. Yet, completely indifferent implicit views that are recognized are also not included “as a philosophical view” of atheism.

In short, the current abstract lede, although having the appearance of being adequate and trouble-free, gives the impression that the two narrow definitions listed, positive belief and rejection, encompass the philosophical views of atheism, when they do not. Consequently there has been some instability(attempts at revision), as some readers struggle with the inconsistent treatment of the definitions. Thus, additional revision is needed.

To best address this issue, the “As a philosophical view” statement simply needs an open structure. Thus, I propose that it be changed to: “As a philosophical view, atheism can refer to the belief in the nonexistence of gods, or to the rejection of theism.” This minor change also makes clear to the reader that the rejection definition is a separate definition and not simply just a restatement of the first. _Modocc 20:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Noncognitivists have been categorizes in different ways. It's not our job to accommodate everyone's needs in properly defining them, but to explain what the reliable sources say. I don't see the need for this change. Noncognitivists can either be defined as rejectionary atheists, or as a whole other breed altogether (as the article already explains further down), in which case they wouldn't even be a part of this article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-05 23:47Z

My change does not define either way, as it should be, but I object to the lede making an assertion to that effect. _Modocc 00:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, we're not defining either way. We're giving the most common definitions. Your wording is no different from the previous wording, just more obtuse by referring to the word rather than the subject. See the lead section for Meat as a comparison. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-06 01:34Z

My change is actually "can refer to" and not "refers to". The latter would be equivalent. It should be clear that "refers to" would mean "a philosophical view" implies either of the first two definitions. But "can refer to" does not, thus leaving the entailment open-ended. _Modocc 02:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem in all this is that it seems some insist on the primary definition of "atheism" to be a "belief." This runs counter to the overwhelming majority of atheists who define themselves as having a "lack of belief." This is a very important distinction. While it is appropriate to point out that there are those who claim to "believe in the nonexistence of god," it is extremely inappropriate to lead with this definition. Instead, the definition used by atheists to describe themselves should be the primary introduction to the topic. — Rrhain 2007-05-05

Rrhain, Brian's Meat example goes from broad to narrow. Actually for a while, the broad definition was first, and the article stability seemed ok at the time. Which definition goes first is perhaps a preference? And if so, then there must be a consensus for that preference. At this point, the editors have picked the present lineup. But that could change. I, for one, am not particularly fussed by any arrangement, but I think the meat example sets a nice precedent. _Modocc 02:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Modocc, no, the definition does not go from broad to narrow but instead goes from tiniest minority view as primary with the majority view held by atheists tacked on as an afterthought. This is not a question of "preference." This is akin to defining a large, heterogenous group by what the smallest collection of members claims it to be. The meat example does not apply because all meat shares the broad definition.

Instead, with atheism, we have an A-or-not-A problem. Is atheism a belief or is it a lack of belief? It can't be both. The overwhelming majority of atheists claim it is a lack of belief. As the cliche goes, "Atheism is a belief the way that not collecting stamps is a hobby." And since the claim of atheism being a belief is primarily driven by those who do believe in god, it is highly suspect to list that as the very first statement in the article. It is quite appropriate to bring up the question of this distinction ("lack of belief" versus "belief of lack"), but it is outrageously inappropriate to have the primary statement be something that the overwhelming majority of atheists would claim isn't accurate. Rrhain 02:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It can be both, in that words can have more than one definition. I don't mind which we list first - i.e., we could basically just swap the first two sentences more or less. However, I disagree with your suggested lead, which implied that sources are wrong, and made the unreferenced claim that most atheists disagreed with it. Also, it missed out the "rejection of belief" definition. Mdwh 03:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, I did provide references. And again, since the primary driver of the claim that atheism is a belief are theists, such a claim is highly suspect. If I neglected the "rejection of belief" definition, my apologies. Please include it. But your suggestion is akin to defining Judaism by asking Christians. Rrhain 03:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither of your sources are comprehensive. You can find anyone quoting anything, but the only sources we can trust here are the most reliable and comprehensive. Your first source is obviously not primary or particularly reliable. Your 2nd source contradicts your first sentence: "If you look up 'atheism' in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way." So you're basically using the preferred definition of "many atheists" to be the main definition? The problem with this should be obvious. Also, absurdly wide-sweeping phrases like "vast majority" need excellent sources; the writings of someone known only as "matthew" are not likely to fit this description. There is also the problem that "lack of belief" by itself is not a philosophy, which contradicts what your first sentence asserts, and is the primary reason for our rewrite. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-06 03:38Z

And still you miss the point. The source that claims atheism is a belief isn't comprehensive, either. And again, it is a definition driven by one who is not an atheist. The reference to the dictionary definition is to show that the "common understanding" is not shared by those who call themselves atheists. This is very much like the creationist claim that evolution is "just a theory" by turning to the dictionary. Yes, "theory" does mean "educated guess," but not in the context of science. Yes, there are lots of people who use "atheism" to mean "belief in lack," but that doesn't mean atheists do. Shouldn't we let atheists be the primary source for what "atheism" means? You're absolutely right that "the writings of someone known only as 'matthew'" are not sufficient...but I didn't use such a reference, did I? Do you know about Infidels.org? It has been the resource for atheism for quite some time. As you say, "you can find anyone quoting anything." That applies just as much to you. Since all the sources written by atheists (Freedom From Religion Foundation ("Atheism is not a belief. It is the "lack of belief" in god(s). Lack of faith requires no faith."), Infidels.org, etc.) say that it is a lack of belief, why shouldn't we believe them? I am perfectly happy for us to decide that the article should be expanded to include a section on the difference between what is commonly termed "positive" atheism as compared to "negative" atheism and why it is that atheists more commonly associate with negative atheism, but respect for those who identify as atheist would indicate that we start off using what atheists say about themselves.

And what makes you think that "lack of belief" has no philosophical consequences? That atheism does not base questions of ethics and morality upon a metaphysical being doesn't mean it can't tackle those questions. Rrhain 06:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the rest of this talk page if you want to find all this out. This is getting ridiculous, repeating the same arguments over and over. JJC Smart is one of the most well known atheist philosophers, and his entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (comprehensive as expected) begins with "Atheism means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." Of course, he also discusses the "lack of belief" definition, as does Routledge, but neither of them assert that definition as the primary one. As for "lack of X" not being a philosophy; your rebuttal uses the "rejection of theism" definition. "Absence of X" from your mind (in other words, you haven't thought about X at all) cannot be a philosophy; this has been discussed ad nauseum here. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-06 06:47Z

You're right. This is getting ridiculous. I have read the rest of this talk page and nobody is commenting about it. Oh, people claim that the definition is "controversial," but nobody seems to think that the best solution is to lead with what atheists define themselves to be. JJC Smart may be a very good philosopher, but he is wrong when he defines atheism primarily as "the denial of the existence of god" in any sort of positive sense. The overwhelming number of atheists disagree with that claim. As you said, you can find anybody quoting anything you want. I have never denied that there are atheists out there who do make the positive claim, who do say that they have a "belief in lack," etc. The problem is not that they exist but that this minority position is being given the primary definition. Would you define Christianity by claims of a tiny sect? Your response is nothing more than the argument from authority: "JJC Smart is important, therefore he is right." When you ask the atheists themselves (as the Freedom from Religion Foundation routinely does), you find that the majority opinion is that atheism is the lack of belief, not the belief of lack.

Once again, the question remains: Why lead with a claim about atheism that the overwhelming majority of atheists would consider false? Nobody is denying that there are those who do claim a "belief in the non-existence of god." But since they are in the minority, why do they get the front position? Shouldn't the definition that most atheists find accurate be the one that is mentioned first and then the minority positions identified and described?

No, the response regarding philosophy is not a "rejection of theism." It is a lack of theism. The philosophy of most atheists does not take as a starting position, "The philosophical underpinings/statements/conclusions of theism are absurd," or, "Because god does not exist, we therefore conclude...." It does not concern itself with god because there is no god to consider. Your argument is akin to saying that Spanish "rejects" French. It isn't that Spanish is some sort of reaction to French. Spanish is its own language that works under its own rules. It does not take into consideration what French would do because Spanish is not French and there is no French to consider. Atheism, as a philosophy, functions as its own system and not as a response to theism. This is one of the more common insults against atheists: That they have "rejected" religion as if they were willful, petulant children. We must be very careful not to confuse abandonment with "rejection." To do so would be to define atheism on theistic terms.

The questions of philosophy such as right and wrong, morality, and ethics still need to be answered for atheists. The fact that supernatural beings don't enter into the discussion doesn't mean there is no philosophy taking place. By your argument, a philosophy that doesn't actively deal with the question of the existence of Santa Claus "cannot be a philosophy." If it is still a philosophy if it doesn't deal with Kris Kringle, why does it fail if it doesn't deal with god? What's so special about god? Rrhain 09:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You can do all the original research you want. Until you provide good sources for your repeated claims about what the "overwhelming majority of atheists" believe, such claims do not belong in the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-06 17:22Z

What original research? I provided my sources. Your only argument is that you don't like them. My references (plural) are based upon surveys of atheists. All you have is a single book by a single author. Your only objection is the logical fallacy of argument from authority: JJC Smart said it, therefore it must be so. Who is this JJC Smart and how did he come to his conclusion? Given that surveys of atheists indicate that they disagree with his conclusion, shouldn't we consider the possibility that maybe his conclusion is wrong? Are you seriously arguing that JJC Smart has the ability to speak for the community of atheists? To contradict them in what they think? That he has the ability to tell other people what they feel?

Since we have sources that conclude based upon surveys of atheists that conclude that atheists, as a group, would claim "have no belief in the existence of god" rather than "believe that god doesn't exist," what possible argument can be made not to lead with that? Rrhain 03:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agnostics assert that they make no assertions on the (non-)existence of gods.
• Atheists affirm the existence of no gods.
• Theists affirm the existence of one or more gods. Non-theists are agnostics and atheists lumped together.

Is this what you the disagreement is over, or is the word "belief", which in some contexts means the same as the word "religion", in "belief in lack of gods" the issue? I believe it is simple to avoid the word "belief" there. I don't think anyone here is saying that atheism is a religion. --MarSch 11:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to weasel around "belief". In general, "x believes that p (is true)" means "x mentally accepts that p (is true)". Anyway, "Atheists affirm the existence of no gods" sounds crampy. — Editorius 12:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

@MarSch: Your second statement isn't true for the vast majority of atheists. That's the entire point: Atheists find no evidence for the existence of god. The burden of proof is always upon the one who makes the claim. Theists are the ones claiming that god exists, therefore it is up to theists to provide evidence of god.

While you will certainly find atheists who say, "There is no god," that statement cannot be taken simplistically. It is a shorthand method of indicating that of the myriad attempts to show that there is a god, all have failed. If you were to take the time to talk to atheists and ask them about the full justification for that statement, you would find that it is not based in the concept of, "I believe there is no god."

Yes, the problem is the word "belief." To claim that not having a belief is a belief is to ignore the entire point: Atheism is the lack of belief according to the majority of atheists. Yes, there are those who identify as atheists who say that they "believe in the non-existence of god," but they are in the minority. Most atheists, as demonstrated by those who survey atheists such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation, do not agree with that statement. Therefore, it is inappropriate to lead with it as the first definition of atheism. Rrhain 03:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

@Rrhain: You wrote: "The problem in all this is that it seems some insist on the primary definition of 'atheism' to be a "belief." This runs counter to the overwhelming majority of atheists who define themselves as having a 'lack of belief.'"

It is certainly true that all atheists lack belief in theism; but does that mean that atheism is completely belief-free? The answer is no! Just ask the question why an atheist lacks belief in theism. Answer(s): Because she believes that it is false or at least unlikely that God exists; or because she believes that "God exists" is a meaningless sequence of letters; or because she believes that belief in God's existence is unbeneficial and irrelevant to life. So atheism is actually belief-entailing.

As a slogan: Atheistic nonbelief is parasitic on atheistic belief!

Editorius 13:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course atheists are not belief free. Where ever did you get such a disingenuous notion? This is specifically about the concept that atheists "believe there is no god." That isn't true for the majority of atheists. Instead, they say that they "don't believe in god."

Contrary to your claim, if you ask an atheist why he or she says, "I don't believe in god," the reply that you will most commonly get is, "There isn't any evidence." Since the burden of proof is always upon the one making the claim, the atheist has no responsibility to try and prove the non-existence of god. It is the theist who is making the claim that god exists. Therefore, it is up to the theist to provide evidence. If that evidence does not pan out, then it is necessarily rejected.

As an example, I do not need to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 in order to show that 2 + 2 <> 5. Oh, it certainly would be nice to show that 2 + 2 = 4 and that would certainly be sufficient to show that 2 + 2 <> 5, but it is not necessary.

Here, maybe this will help: If you were asked "why" you lack belief in Santa Claus, woud you respond that you "believe" that it is false or at least unlikely that Santa Claus exists? Would you say that it is because you "believe" that "Santa Claus" exists is a meaningless sequence of letters? Would you say that it is because you "believe" that belief in Santa Claus's existence is unbeneficial and irrelevant to life?

Or would you point out that there is no evidence for the existence of Santa Claus? Would you say that there is no workshop at the North Pole? Would you point out that the presents that get left under the tree are put there by the parents? Would you respond that the milk and cookies are dealt with by the parents? Would you claim that the manifestations of Santa Claus seen on street corners and in shopping malls aren't really Santa Claus but rather costumed actors? Notice that these arguments are not putting forth evidence to positively prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist. Instead, they are pointing out that the claims of the existence of Santa Claus do not withstand scrutiny. Thus, with absolutely no evidence to support the existence of Santa Claus, we find the overwhelming majority of people saying, "No, I don't believe in Santa Claus," rather than, "I believe Santa Claus doesn't exist."

So if it isn't a belief when it applies to Santa Claus, why does it suddenly become a belief when the same process is applied to god? What makes god so special? I warn you not to invoke the logical fallcy of special pleading.

There is an old cliche: What's the difference betwen a theist and an atheist? The theist claims that of the 1000 religions out there in the world, 999 of them are false. The atheist doesn't make an exception for that last one. If we are going to claim that atheism is a "belief," then we suddenly turn the entire world into polytheists for every single person shares at least some quality of lack of belief with the atheist with regard to other gods and religions. The only thing separating the atheist from the theist is that the atheist doesn't make an exception for that last one. So if we are unwilling to declare everybody a polytheist, then we must necessarily conclude that atheism is the lack of belief, not the belief of lack. Rrhain 03:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing to note is that all self-described atheists are surely explicit atheists at least (by definition). I can see it's maybe true that many if not most atheists would want the definition to include "rejection of theism" and not just a positive belief in nonexistence. But that's not a problem, as we have the "rejection of theism" in the first sentence (unless you are complaining that it isn't listed first?)

However, it's not clear to me at all that the "vast majority" of atheists think that the definition should include implicit atheism - e.g., babies, those who have never heard of theism. Where is your source for such a claim? Mdwh 15:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

@Mdwh: No, the problem is not "rejection of theism." The problem is the claim that atheism is the "belief in the non-existence of god." The overwhelming majority of atheists (and I did provide references that were summarily deleted...check the history) would say that such a claim isn't true. They don't "believe" that god doesn't exist. Instead, they have no belief that god does. This is a very important distinction. While there are atheists who do claim that they "believe" that god doesn't exist, they are in the minority as evidenced by those who survey atheists (such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation). Therefore, it is inappropriate to lead with a statement that the majority of people who identify as atheist would reject as false. Rrhain 03:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This one [6]? Which says "Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning" - surely that supports that the word has more than one meaning? And all we're doing here is listing those meanings. The line you quoted ("Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not.") does not have anything to do with what most atheists supposedly believe, and I can't see where it says such a thing? Do you have a link to these surveys you speak of? Mdwh 04:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "atheism" has more than one meaning. But just because a word has more than one meaning doesn't mean that we get to ignore context when trying to describe the concept that uses the term to describe itself. This is precisely the same argument that takes place over the use of the word "theory" with regard to evolution. Creationists quite commonly claim that evolution is "just a theory" and point to the dictionary definition of "theory" meaning an "educated guess." And that is a valid meaning of the word. But to pretend that the word "theory" means that in the context of science is disingenuous in the extreme. If we are talking about scientific "theory," then we necessarily restrict ourselves to what scientists mean when they use the term. We might bring up the other meanings of "theory," but it would only make sense to do so in order to point out that those other meanings are inappropriate and are not meant when a scientist talks about a "theory." To lead off with a meaning of "theory" that scientists would overwhelmingly agree is false would be disingenuous at best in a discussion of "scientific theory."

Thus, if we are going to talk about what the term "atheist" means, it is inappropriate to jump to the meaning that non-atheists invoke. Let us remember: Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive. The reason why the other definitions are in there is because they are used. And because there are vastly more theists in the world than atheists, of course the theist definition of the word is going to be predominant.

But that doesn't make it accurate. As Berke Breathed pointed out, "Just because two million people do a dumb thing, it's still a dumb thing." It is common for people to think that Mae West said, "Come up and see me sometime." That idea is so prevalent that the phrase has entered our language as a stock phrase. But she never said it. Same thing with Carl Sagan and "billions and billions." If you watch the entire Cosmos series, you will never find him saying "billions and billions." In fact, he wrote an article for Parade dealing with it. If I recall correctly, he wrote that he would never say such a phrase because it is imprecise. Exactly how many is "billions and billions"? Oh, he made a point of hitting the "b" hard so as to distinguish it from "millions," but he never said "billions and billions." The phrase originated with Johnny Carson when he impersonated Sagan.

And yet, the overwhelming majority of people think he did and because the langauge follows the speakers, that phrase has entered the vernacular. That doesn't make them right, though. And if we are going to talk about Carl Sagan, it would be highly inappropriate to lead off with that claim. The fact that the majority of speakers mean one thing when they say "atheism" is irrelevant if they aren't atheist. The primary definition of "atheism" is what the atheists think it is for they are the ultimate authority regarding their own philosophy.

And we are talking about what the philosophical concept of atheism actually is, aren't we? Yes, we should talk about how atheism is received in the wider community. Yes, we should indicate how non-atheists see atheism. Yes, we should talk about how the term does not mean the same thing to all who claim to be atheists. But, what on earth is the logic behind leading with a definition that most atheists would declare to be untrue?

And since I realize I neglected to respond to some comments in your original post, let me do so now. The reason why the definition of "atheism" most commonly used by atheists doesn't include things like babies is self-evident: It is ridiculous to impose a philosophical stance upon something that cannot comprehend philosophy. Babies aren't "atheists" except in the most trivial sense. They aren't anything because they cannot make any sort of claim or attempt to show that a claim has not been established. Since they cannot engage in any philosophical action, how can they possibly lay claim to a philosophy?

And as for the question of those who haven't heard of theism, what is the problem? That is how atheists tend to live their lives. They don't go around actively proclaiming the non-existence of god. The only time they bring it up is when somebody else introduces the topic. There are no rituals for atheism. How does one deliberately not worship something? There is a difference between acknowledging the existence of something but paying it no heed or respect and not acknowledging its existence at all. Tell me, do you believe in Santa Claus? If not, how often do you think about Santa Claus? It only tends to come up when something outside you brings it to your attention such as the coming of Christmas or somebody mentioning it, right? So what is the difference between somebody who has never heard of the concept and someone who has but never thinks about it unless pressed? Rrhain 06:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

@Rrhain: You wrote: "...the best solution is to lead with what atheists define themselves to be". The right to self-definition is reasonable for cultural or doctrinal groups, but not for philosophical beliefs (isms). Christians could not suddenly decide that "theism" means the belief in a Christian God, as much as they might want to- the word "theism" is defined by the proposition being asserted. In the same way, the members of Infidels.org and the FFRF cannot change the philosophical meaning of "atheism"- that term is defined by the proposition being asserted.

We aren't telling you that your definition of atheism has "no philosophical consequences". We're just saying that your definition is not a philosophical definition. Atheists are free to define atheism however they want- they just shouldn't expect their new definition to be the accepted philosophical one or a definition relevant to the population as a whole. They have taken the term atheism as a descriptor of a cultural or doctrinal group, and therefore it has taken on a new, self-defined meaning. The primary definition is still the philosophical one- and it's still the one most relevant to the population as a whole. johnpseudo 17:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you? The people who identify as atheist don't get to be the ultimate authority as to what their own philosophy is? You will note, I have repeatedly said that the article should include the concept of positive atheism. That is why I did not touch the lower section that talked about positive and negative atheism. Such a formulation of atheism does, indeed, exist. But that position is a tiny minority within the community of atheists.

Look at the Mormonism entry. It includes a section regarding polygamy. However, it does not indicate that polygamy is a standard practice within the LDS church. In fact, it directly states that the official position of the LDS church is against polygamy and that it is only a minority group who have split off from the larger group who still practice polygamy while claiming the title of "Mormon." And that is the right way to do it: Talk about their existence (for they do exist), but point out that they do not represent Mormons as a whole and that the larger community of Mormons reject the concept.

Your insistence that there can be somebody who can contradict what the majority of atheists claim for themselves is a slap in the face to atheists. How on earth can the minority tell the majority what they think and feel? This is an extremely important point to make because it is this attitude that leads to such silly declarations that "secular humanism" is a religion. In fact, we should all look at the secular humanism entry with regard to what it says about it being a religion. Note that it talks about the fact that there are those who think that it is a religion while emphatically stating that those who identify as humanists insist that it isn't.

And your claim that atheism "is not a philosophical definition" is simply false. Atheism that claims a lack of belief uses the tools of philosophy to come to its conclusion. Yes, it is a negative philosophy, but that doesn't mean it isn't a philosophy. Again, burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. Since it is the theist who is making the claim, it is the theist who must provide evidence. The only burden upon the atheist is to show that the evidence proffered is not sufficient to justify the claim. That is a philosophical action. I realize that it isn't very satisfying to have no actual claim beyond "no evidence for the existence of god" as the sum total of the philosophical position, but that doesn't make it something other than an exercise of philosophy.

And again, I have to say: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? "Atheists shouldn't expect their new definition to be the accepted philosophical one"? Just who else would we turn to for the definition of atheism or for the philosophy of atheism? Theists? "Atheists shouldn't expect their new definition to be relevant to the population as a whole"? Who cares what the "population as a whole" thinks? Those who aren't atheists don't get to tell atheists what they think and feel. Your argument is nothing more than a claim of "I know what you think."

About the only thing you said right is that the philosophical definition is the one that is most relevant to the population as a whole: And they have said that it is a "lack of belief," not a "belief of lack." Yes, we should point out that the common conception of atheism is "belief that god doesn't exist," but that doesn't make it correct. After all, everybody knows that the quote from Casablanca is, "Play it again, Sam." Alas, only Casablanca gets to say what the quote is and if it shows that the quote is, "You played it for her, you can play it for me! ... If she can stand it, I can! Play it!" then that's what the quote actually is and all those people who are certain that it isn't are simply wrong.

Who are you or anybody else to tell atheists otherwise? Are you seriously claiming that you know what the community of atheists think and feel? That if the vast majority of atheists tell you that you are wrong, well that's just tough because you know better? Rrhain 03:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What is your source for what all atheists feel? The people who use the positive definition, the definition that "atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God", are just as good atheist as you are. In fact, our source for the positive definition is William L. Rowe, who has formulated the strongest atheological argument of all time, the evidential argument from evil. The positive definition is preferred for its clarity by many top atheist philosophers. But the important thing is that nowhere, absolutely nowhere, in discussing the definition have we ever relied on theist sources. --Merzul 10:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Where are my sources? Ask Brian0918. I provided them. He deleted them. Look at the Freedom From Religion Foundation (which regularly polls the population regarding their stances on religion) as well as Infidels.org (part of the Secular Web) which is, essentially, Wikipedia for atheists.

As for references from encyclopedias on philosophy, they all must bow to the final authority: Atheists themselves. It really doesn't matter what philosophers think atheists think. Only atheists can tell you what their philosophy is. If the majority of atheists tell you that you're definition is wrong, then it is wrong. It may be what a small group of atheists think, but that doesn't make it appropriate as a primary definition of atheism. Surely you're not going to judge Catholicism by the Polish National Catholic Church, are you? They don't recognize the Pope. They do exist. They are Catholic. But to put their philosophical opinion as the primary definition of Catholicism is an error. The vast majority of Catholics would disagree with it.

This is typical deconstructionist/post-modern claptrap: All opinions are valid and any denial of an opinion is an affront. Analysis is good, but it must be followed by synthesis. After you take the pieces apart, you have to put them back together again and come up with something that is recognizable. Rrhain 10:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidential argument from evil? It only rules out gods which have the power and the intent to eliminate suffering and the perseverance to actually do it. Very meagre grounds for ruling out the existence of all gods and thus a very bad argument for being an atheist. --MarSch 11:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidential argument from evil? Worse, if rejects the derivation from reincarnation that "evil" is simply bumbling around that follows inevitably from all learning - and doesn't really do too much harm over the long run. In a hyperdimensional reality (such as those described in the "Brane" theory of the universe, it isn't hard to can imagine physical mechanism that support reincarnation. Don't conflate theism and spirituality!!!!--Trichronos 05:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Rrhain, you seem to be arguing a lot of points which nobody has disputed. Such as where the burden of proof is. In your example:

Thus, with absolutely no evidence to support the existence of Santa Claus, we find the overwhelming majority of people saying, "No, I don't believe in Santa Claus," rather than, "I believe Santa Claus doesn't exist."

I do not believe there is a difference in meaning between those two responses. Such is the nature of language. Perusing your example: a theist says "Santa Claus exists", an atheist says "Santa Claus doesn't exist", an agnostic says "Santa Claus might exist and he might not exist". Maybe _you_ should ask some atheists whether they "believe that there exist no gods" some time. When they say that indeed they do believe that, it migh be fun to tell them they in fact do not believe that and that they also do not believe that "there exists a god". It seems to me like you want to lump agnostics in with atheists. It might be helpful if you would state how agnostics and atheists differ or fit together. --MarSch 11:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, MarSch, but if I were to post any personal research, that would violate the policy on no original research. As such, I'll stick by my sources that I have posted (and which were removed by user:Brian0918). As I have said over and over again, I know that there exist people who claim the term "atheist" who also claim that they "believe" that god does not exist. The point is that this group is a tiny minority among all those who claim to be atheists. To use the opinion of the minority as the primary definition is ludicrous. Would you define Judaism by the Sanhedrin sect? If I recall correctly, there are only 70 of them. By your logic, their opinions on Judaism are just as primary as those of Reform Judaism (the largest group). Yes, we should talk about them and compare and contrast their opinions to those of the larger group, but to treat them as common enough to be considered a primary reference is beyond the pale.

And nice try, but it is not for atheists to define agnosticism. That's the exact problem what we're arguing: Those that aren't trying to tell those who are what they think and feel. Rrhain 10:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Rhrain-

1. "The people who identify as atheist don't get to be the ultimate authority as to what their own philosophy is?"

   That's right. People who call themselves "atheist" are not automatically the authority on what the philosophical definition of "atheism" is. It's different in the case of religion, because "Christianity" is primarily a label for a group of people. The doctrine shared by that group of people changes over time. The "philosophical definition" of atheism does not change- it is independent of any group of people. The "broad definition" does change because, like religion, a group of people use it as a label for their doctrine of beliefs. See the distinction there? There are no philosophical definitions of religious doctrines.

   This distinction has absolutely no bearing on what atheists are allowed to think or feel, or where the burden of proof lies for the existence of God. The philosophical definition of atheism is not a label for a group of people. It does not describe a person's entire belief system. It merely reflects their rejection of the proposition "A god exists." But that's just the philosophical definition - you can use the word however you'd like.

2. "And your claim that atheism "is not a philosophical definition" is simply false. Atheism that claims a lack of belief uses the tools of philosophy to come to its conclusion. Yes, it is a negative philosophy, but that doesn't mean it isn't a philosophy."

   Your definition for atheism (lack of belief), is not a philosophy in itself. Over the course of these weeks of debate on this forum, we've described it as a state-of-mind or a category. Negative philosophy, or anti-philosophy is fine with me. That's what we have the word "non-theism" for. It is not a philosophy, though. johnpseudo 20:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And once again, I have to blink and wonder if you actually said that: The people who hold the philosophy are not allowed to have a voice in the definition of that philosophy. After all, what could they possibly bring to the table? They're just the people who are living it every day.

Contrary to your claim, the philosophical definition of atheism can change. As conceptions of god change, atheism changes in response. It is, after all, the absence of god. Do not confuse the trivial case of something that has never conceived of any sort of god as an "atheist" with those who have but found the concept wanting. If a new definition of god appears, an atheist will have to consider it and, if he is to remain an atheist, find something in that definition that does not withstand scrutiny. And by doing so, the philosophy of atheism changes.

"There are no philosophical definitions of religious doctrines"? Where are you getting this stuff? Religion is first and foremost philosophy. The philosophical definition of any term is precisely a label for a group of people. The philosophy would not exist were it not for those people. They claim that term for themselves. They are the ones that get to determine what that philosophy is and what that term means. Others can observe their philosophical process and describe it, but only they have any ability to define it in the first place.

After all, they're the atheists. Rrhain 10:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The Definition That Is Too Minimal

Here's the minimal definition of "atheist":

"For all x, x is an atheist iff x is not a theist, i.e. iff x does not believe that God or other deities exist."

This means the set of atheists is the complementary set of the set of theists.

But one of the problems is that "x does not believe that God or other deities exist" is ambiguous, for it can mean:

(a) x has a non-empty mental belief box that does not contain "God or other deities exist".

(b) x has an empty mental belief box that does not contain "God or other deities exist".

(c) x has no mental belief box at all that could contain "God or other deities exist".

(a) is satisfied by conscious, mentally mature unbelievers, (b) by babies, and (c) by any non-living material things. — Are we really prepared to call those living or non-living things atheists which satisfy (b) or (c)?! — Editorius 16:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

One could add a fourth possibility:

(d) x has a non-empty but non-propositional mental belief box that does not contain "God or other deities exist".

There are scientists who are convinced that higher animals such as apes, cats, and dogs possess non-propositional mental belief boxes (belief sets). (Propositional beliefs, and particularly metaphysical ones, seem to require the possession of a complex verbal language.) — Editorius 16:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather missing your point on this one. None of this seems to relate to the article, which says "In its broadest sense, [atheism] is the absence of belief in the existence of gods." --h2g2bob (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Since "absence of belief in" is synonymous with "nonbelief in", my comment does relate to the article. According to the allegedly broadest sense, cars, apes, babies, and agnostics are all atheists. — Editorius 18:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What you should be categorizing over is what happens when a person (or anything else capable of accepting a belief) is offered the belief that "there exists a god". They might add it to their own beliefs, they might not add it, they might add its negation. From that point on you may categorize them as theists, agnostics or atheists. --MarSch 11:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Modocc's "Can refer to" change

In all the chaos above, I think I missed what the point was to change "is" to "can refer to". It seems unnecessarily ambiguous, and I think it's a step in the wrong direction. johnpseudo 18:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The primary reason for the change was that the two definitions of "belief" and "rejection" are not the only definitions that are philosophical views of the term. Therefore, what we had was something like saying that "a numeral is one or two"(true if one limits the discussion to binaries), when one can only show that numerals "can refer to" either or both. _Modocc 19:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that it is a bit confusing to have a lead that says "Atheism is A or B." but then to say that it can also be C. Although there's something about "can refer to" that I dislike, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Possibly that it seems too vague for the lead. One possible alternative is to combine the second sentence into the first, something like: "Atheism is the belief in the nonexistence of gods, the rejection of theism, or in its broadest sense, it is the absence of belief..." - but that may be too long and unwieldy a sentence? Could "in its broadest sense, it is" be dropped? Mdwh 20:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gotten no support for a similar statement. Also there are many definition and stating just three as the definitions might be a problem. I almost hate to say this... replacing "can refer to" with "commonly refers to" might have a better ring to it and do whats needed here. For the "disbelief" definition is very common and it also implies "belief or rejection". I striked that for a number of reasons. In any case, from my perspective, my edit does not really detract from "the best" lede yet, it also clarifies the presentation of the definitions. One problem with the earlier version was that it was unclear if the second definition was just a restatement(saying the same thing in different words), or a new definition. _Modocc 21:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

But the "belief" and "rejection" definitions are the only widespread philosophical definitions. The "absence of belief" definition is widespread, but not in philosophical definitions. Two categories: "philosophical" and "broadest sense". The point of the first two sentences is to put forth the two most widely used definitions first, then to immediately include the important "absence of belief" definition. With the sources we have (Routledge/Brittanica & most dictionaries vs. most atheist definitions), the distinction seems pretty well-supported. johnpseudo 22:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet, there is still our lay-in-the-mud underdogs and that guy that sulked with a robot(which may not have had a philosophical view either). Thus, my point is, that although A and B definitions are very common(also with the "in crowd", especially those that demand "critical rejection"), the two main definitions/views do not fully encompass the actual range of real views. To acknowledge that the definitions are incomplete required revision, and mine improves the presentation. _Modocc 23:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right- the two main definitions/views do not fully encompass the actual range of definitions. To acknowledge this, we already have the clarifier "As a philosophical view". We don't need an additional, ambiguous "can refer" clarifier. Yours does not improve the presentation because it introduces the article by referring to atheism as a term. The article is not about the term- it is about the concept. johnpseudo 23:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, indeed it's valid if it were clear that philosophical view meant simply "the common, textbook variety", but its not clear that is what is meant. To me, "philosophical view" is vague. Essentially, there is this domino effect and its not terrible, for my edit resolves my end of it. If what is meant could be made clearer then, of course, my edit wouldn't be needed either. _Modocc 23:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand you. "As a philosophical view" means that these two definitions are how atheism is defined philosophically. What is unclear? How does your edit help? johnpseudo 00:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"philosophical": 1. Of, relating to, or based on a system of philosophy. ->The sourced ones yes, but different philosophies entail alternate views. 2. Characteristic of a philosopher, as in equanimity, enlightenment, and wisdom. ->Who's?, perhaps Smiths? Without sufficient context, what is meant is unclear. _Modocc 01:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that we first define atheism to be a philosophy. Philosophy: "#1: doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school. #2: any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation"[7]. A philosophy is a belief, not a state of mind. Maybe we could change the first sentence to, "As a philosophy, atheism is ..."? johnpseudo 02:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "as a philosophy" is much clearer, for me too. The "broader sense" doctrine must be a subset of these doctrines? Yes? In this case, I'm am fine with this change. _Modocc 02:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, but in that case, going off on a tangent, "rejection of theism" is not a belief. Not that I'm saying that rejection of theism should be removed from the first sentence - it should be there alongside the "belief in the nonexistence" definition, as the two common definitions. So is this a problem? Is "philosophical view" or "philosophy" really the right term? I dislike defining atheism foremost as a belief... Mdwh 02:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As a system of beliefs, philosophy is about what we think about, either personally or collectively, and belief plays a large role, but tentative assumptions and sound rejections of doctrine are entailed too. Thus, nothing is amiss. _Modocc 14:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Philosophical view is better at unifying for it is more specific than philosophy, but neither phrase serves well as an indicator that there are alternatives. _Modocc 14:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "rejection of theism" a belief? It's the belief that theism is wrong. johnpseudo 20:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The rejection of a belief may be motivated by other beliefs but it is not a belief itself. — Editorius 21:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well now that I look up what "reject" means (refuse to accept or acknowledge), I have to agree. I suppose that's why "philosophical view" is better. I guess a better reason for Wikipedia to call them "philosophical views" is because that is how the philosophical encyclopedias define atheism. I can't think of a way to better indicate that these two definitions- rejection/nonexistence - are the standard definitions of philosophers. "Can refer to" doesn't help. johnpseudo 21:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"is used to refer to" would be better. — Editorius 23:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would that be better? We should try to refer to the concept instead of the term if we can. johnpseudo 01:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Atheism & Probabilism

I find it very disappointing that the aspect of probability is virtually always neglected:

"Probability is the very guide of life."

(Joseph Butler: "The Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed", 1736, Introd.)

"A more familiar mode of judgment is flat, 'dogmatic' assertion or denial, as in 'It will rain' or 'It will not rain'. In place of this 'dogmatism', the probabilistic mode of judgment offers a richer palate for depicting your state of mind, in which the colors are all the real numbers from 0 to 1. [...] Yes or no: was there once life on Mars? We can’t say. What about intelligent life? That seems most unlikely, but again, we can’t really say. The simple yes-or-no framework has no place for shadings of doubt, no room to say that we see intelligent life on Mars as far less probable than life of a possibly very simple sort. Nor does it let us express exact probability judgments, if we have them. We can do better."

(Jeffrey, Richard. Subjective Probability: The Real Thing. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004. pref. + p. 8)

"Either [God] exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability. [...] I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other. [...] God's existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable in principle if not in practice. If he existed and chose to reveal it, God himself could clinch the argument, noisily and unequivocally, in his favour. And even if God's existence is never proved or disproved with certainty one way or the other, available evidence and reasoning may yield an estimate of probability far from 50 per cent."

(Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. pp. 48+50)

One of the very few philosophers who explicitly take the aspect of probability into account is A. J. Ayer (who himself wasn't an atheist but a theol. noncognitivist):

"[I]t is characteristic of an atheist to hold that it is at least probable that no god exists."

(Ayer, Alfred Jules. Language, Truth and Logic. 1946 (2nd ed.). New York: Dover, 1952. p. 115)

How right he is! Atheism doesn't begin with the (firm) belief in the nonexistence of God (or other deities); it already begins with the belief in the improbability of the existence of God (or other deities)! An adequate dictionary entry on "atheism" should read as follows:

"Atheism: the standpoint that it is not the case or at least unlikely/improbable that God or other deities exist."

— Editorius 23:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I like these characterizations. --MarSch 10:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets put the rejection definition first

As the lede stands now, belief is mentioned first, perhaps due to it being historically the narrowest or most common used, but from my perspective, these reasons are not adequate. Normally, it wouldn't matter to me what the lineup is, but if I had to choose, to make a favorable impression, I would put the rejection definition first. The reasons for this is that the rejection definition is very creditable, noteworthy and modern in its own right, and if I'm not mistaken, it is the preferred academic definition, and if we are going to use "as a philosophical view" to refer to the primary academic definitions then it is proper to put the rejection definition first, and although there is still going to be those that favor the other definitions, these important factors favor it being the first definition mentioned. _Modocc 01:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Source for "it is the preferred academic definition"? Brittanica says "the critique and denial of (God)" (sort of like rejection), but Routledge says "the position that affirms the nonexistence of God" and most dictionaries use a variety of the affirms nonexistence definition. johnpseudo 02:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My mistake perhaps. Although there is a tendency to consolidate. Rejection and belief are both denial and affirmation, but denial and affirmation are not necessarily rejection. Also, the way the current lede is worded, it appears that simple rejection is a restatement or consequence of belief, but it is not. With respect to science, putting rejection first and the belief following that is more inline with the method. _Modocc 02:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To reject p is not to deny p, i.e. to affirm ~p. But if one denies / affirms p, then one also rejects p / ~p. Both weak atheists (agnostics) and theol. noncognitivists reject the proposition "God exists", but they don't affirm its negation, the proposition "God does not exist". — Editorius 12:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, and thanks. _Modocc 19:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"As a philosophical view, atheism is ..."

"The very notion of 'philosophical atheism' is far from clear. There are many philosophers, as well as others, who are atheists, but I do not know that anything sensible is added by calling their atheism 'philosophical', anymore than anything sensible is added by saying of a philosopher who is a socialist that his socialism is a philosophical socialism. I wanted my 'Philosophy and Atheism: In Defense of Atheism' to be simply entitled, after its lead essay, 'In Defense of Atheism'. But this conflicted with another Prometheus title. My publisher proposed as a title 'The Philosophy of Atheism' which I rejected out of hand, and quite correctly so, for there is no philosophy of atheism, though atheism can have a philosophical articulation and defense."

[Nielsen, Kai. "Atheism without Anger or Tears." Walking the Tightrope of Faith: Philosophical Conversations About Reason and Religion. Eds. Hendrik Hart, Ronald A. Kuipers, and Kai Nielsen. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999. 82-127. p. 98 (fn. 16).]

What exactly is the non-philosophical view of atheism?

Editorius 15:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Once the relevant neurological structures have been identified then atheism (and theism) could be reduced to an understanding of the signals in the brain related to that structure. We know so-called religious experiences can be more or less simulated so that would indicate a non-Philosophical view of any of this is at least in principle possible (from a materialist point of view it is obviously a certainty!). Ultimately the cause of the neurological structure could be tracked back to particular genetic structures. This does hold out a cure for theism (though on the flip-side you could also argue a "cure" for atheism but the problem with chemically or genetically manifesting the delusion of theism is that you do not always know how many gods you would end up creating !). Ttiotsw 08:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Madness Dast 10:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Very true. A number of people have attempted to compare "religion" and madness though I don't know if it follows that simply being a theist would make one mad and a complete lack of belief in gods is to be completely sane. Religion part culture, part politics and imagination and you need not believe in god to take part. I personally disagree with equating belief in god or gods with any "madness" on the basis that it is a human trait to be able to believe many fictional characters in art, poetry, film, books and music. I feel it is essential part of being human to imagine an alternative reality. The delusion is when this harms others e.g. killing people for having a alternative reality e.g. a different god, gods or even no god for that matter. In the end the fictional creation isn't real but the illusion is real. Ttiotsw 15:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

More madness Dast 19:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)