Talk:Atheism/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Let's keep progressing

I'll take a stab at the intro.

Atheism is defined alternately as either denial of the existence of God, or the absence of belief in any deities. Individuals who call themselves atheists tend to accept both definitions, defining the former as strong atheism and the latter as weak atheism, as do those who literally interpret the prefix "a-" of the word atheism as "not" (this group includes many academics and linguists). A portion of the population, which includes most self-identified theists and theologians, use first definition of active denial. Some theistic communities consider atheist a cognate of "infidels" and occasionally use the word "atheist" as a pejorative.

Because of the competing definitions, agnostics (that is, those who hold the epistemological position that truths concerning God, a god, or gods cannot be known) are held to explicitly not be atheists by under the "active denial" definition, but under the "absence of belief" definition, agnostics who take the stance that a god or gods probably do not exist because of lack of the knowledge of their existence are also considered atheists.

GDarwin 03:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nearly, a good try, but not quite I dont see what purpose the phrase 'Individuals who call themselves atheists tend to accept both definitions', It is unsupported. The prefice 'a' denotes 'without' not 'not', this is an important point. I dont see discussing who self identifies as theists and theologians. I dont see agnostics as a 'competing' definition and dont see the intro as the place to put definitions of agnosticism and comparisions of atheism with, that should go in its own section. I also dont see the intro as a place to discuss use of the term as a pejorative, again that would better sit in its own section.

Slightly changed this leaves us with this as the intro which covers both the strong or positive and the weak, negative or passive definitions:

"Atheism is either the active denial of the existence of any and all gods, or the absence of belief in any and all gods."

It's really very simple indeed!--Nick-in-South-Africa 07:11, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This seems more like the definition that the theists don't like. Or at least if another theist stumbles onto the site, they might have the same problems, etc... For the sake of peace and stability, we should compromise; we should really emphasize there is an atheistic definition and a theistic definition. Don't you agree?

No on this particular point I beg to differ, I see no evidence to suggest there is a perfect or even half decent split in understanding between the interpretation of the meaning of athesim by theists and atheists. I suspsect some theists accept the negative definition quite happily and some atheists would seek to limit it to the positive definition. I suspect that a better correlation could be based on how well studied the individual is on the subject matter. It is by no means a given that it is holding atheist views that causes folks to accept the negative definition. Attibuting cause thus is fraut with problems. For example there is strong evidence to suggest that most leading scientists are atheists, so can one conclude from this that atheists are more liable to chose a carreer in science,.....uh...ha I don't think so  ! --Nick-in-South-Africa 12:26, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think I see what you say about atheists possibly not accepting both definitions. Perhaps we should reword it as "Atheists tend to define themselves by one, the other, or both of these definitions."

I see what you mean with "a-" being "without" instead of "no".

I am indifferent about the part about the agnostic part and the pejorative part. --GDarwin 07:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My next stab:

Atheism is defined alternately as either denial of the existence of God, or the absence of belief in any deities. Atheists tend to define themselves by one, the other, or both of these definitions. These are also accepted by those who literally interpret the prefix "a-" of the word atheism as "without" (this group includes many academics and linguists). The former definition is usually referred to as strong atheism and the latter as weak atheism. A portion of the population, which includes most self-identified theists and theologians, use first definition of active denial.

--GDarwin 07:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good work we are getting somewhere. You make a valid point about insulating against future edits which has gotten me thinking.

I’m not looking to use this platform as a bulletin board but understanding the dynamic that causes the contention is important I posit to breaking the log jam....

The problem with this topic as I see it is that many see the term 'atheist' as a pejorative. Some thus seek to limit the set covered by the term, they see some atheist evangelical tacit conspiracy to up the atheist head count, so that atheists can tally for their side as many souls as possible (irony intended). I very much suspect that countering this perceived tacit conspiracy is Sam's mission, it is certainly the most parsimonious explanation that I can come up with.

The pejorative echo of the term 'atheist' even has some Buddhists, agnostics and yes even atheists who deny that they are indeed atheists. However when you drill into their belief system you find that they are without theism, they are a-theists. The fact that they deny the term’s applicability to their Cosmic outlook does not of itself make the term atheism inapplicable to their position, as with so many definitions it was ever thus. The analogy with the way the word ‘liberal’ is perceived and used in the US holds up reasonably well here, you get liberals denying that they are liberals because the word has pejorative connotations, whilst they comply with the parameters of the definition. With Atheism this is even more common, hell it's rather uncommon to get folks to stand up for what they don't believe or are indifferent to :).

Now if we can find some way to encapsulate this dynamic in simple, brief terms whilst covering both the negative/ passive/etymological/ weak as well as the positive/ strong definitions it would serve 3 purposes, It would serve the encyclopedic purpose and even put Wikipedia on top of the heap, secondly it would (hopefully) break through this log jam, it would thirdly help to insulate the article a little against future flippant edits driven more by pique or sanctimonious rage than proper understanding. I don’t have time to do this now, perhaps someone else would like to pick up on GDarwins last stirling effort and push it through the next iteration mindful of this?--Nick-in-South-Africa 08:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can see that from a linguistic position 'a' might mean 'without'. However, as an agnostic it seems to me that there is no reason from an encyclopedic perspective to duplicate the agnostic part? Surely what makes atheism different to agnosticism as a belief is the active denial, so something like:

In a general sense, atheism denotes the absence of belief in a God, and thus includes such ideas as agnosticism, jainism, etc. However, in its particular sense, atheism consists of the denial of the existence of God.

The links would provide the reader with access to a wide range of atheistic thought, and those working on the atheism page can concentrate on the denial of God's existence part. Sextus 23:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, just a few disputes with that, let's try merging it with what GDarwin posted.

Atheism is defined alternately as either denial of the existence of God, or the absence of belief in any deities. This may include agnosticism, jainism, etc. Atheists tend to define themselves by one, the other, or both of these definitions. These are also accepted by those who literally interpret the prefix "a-" of the word atheism as "without" (this group includes many academics and linguists). The former definition is usually referred to as strong atheism and the latter as weak atheism. A portion of the population, which includes most self-identified theists and theologians, use first definition of active denial. However, some people refuse to refer themselves as Atheists to avoid the baggage that accompanies the word even though under these definitions they would technically be atheists.

I also added that Atheism may have become much more of a label then a technical definition. Ambush Commander 20:31, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Looking good. Looking more acceptable. Unfortunately, there are ambiguous terms such as "some" and "most." I suggest:

---

Atheism, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is defined as the denial of the existence of gods and alternatively as the condition of being without theistic beliefs. These different definitions diverged from the original meaning, "without theism", due to interpretations of the a- prefix as either "not" or "without". The issues concerning self-identification as an atheist are complex as identification involves adoption of the former definition or only the latter definition, or both. Each definition is respectively known as strong [epistemological] atheism and weak [epistemological] atheism.

---

You'll notice that some ideas from what A.C. posted are missing as I think those belong in sections below the introduction. For example, which groups promote or avoid identification with atheism, and what theists think of atheism are two subjects that deserve their own sections. Adraeus 15:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now this is progress. It pretty clearly captures my concerns. I would hope that the matter of "self-identification" in relation to both definitions is described further in subsequent sections--i.e., it seems that for some, the atheism is more a sort of categorization--and whether one self-identifies as an atheist is irrelevant under such an understanding. older≠wiser 16:00, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

One of the purposes of self-identification is self-controlled categorization. If I identify as an atheist, I'm placed into the atheist category. If I identify as a Libertarian, I'm placed into the Libertarian category. I don't understand your emphasis. Please elaborate if necessary. Adraeus 16:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, it seems that a lot of earlier disagreement here was about the seemingly arbitrary division of humans into either theist or atheist categories, regardless of whether they self-identified as atheists. E.g., is an infant an atheist? My take on it was that some parties were arguing for a definition of atheism that by default included everyone who was not explicitly a theist, regardless of self-identification as an atheist. older≠wiser 19:11, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

By default, humans are atheists using the weak epistemological form of atheism. A person either holds beliefs in gods or does not; however, such emphasis is irrelevant to the article being that readers are sometimes capable of determining this alone. I don't think we should concern ourselves with this idea since, ultimately, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. How about this?

---

Atheism, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is defined as the denial of the existence of gods and alternatively as the condition of being without theistic beliefs. These different definitions diverged from the original meaning, "without theism", due to interpretations of the a- prefix as either "not" or "without". The issues concerning self-identification and categorization as an atheist are complex as both involve adoption of the former definition or only the latter definition, or both. Each definition is respectively known as strong [epistemological] atheism and weak [epistemological] atheism.

---

Adraeus 00:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Summarized views - an unofficial attempt at mediation

I'd really like to see the dispute resolved, so I'd like to take a stab at an unofficial mediation. I'd like User:Sam Spade, User:Adraeus and any other interested party to summarize their own POV and the main concerns again the "other" POV in an attempt to reach an article both parties find acceptable. These summaries should focus the discussions on the issues that have made consensus unreached so far. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 18:47, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

• I feel this version is best (giving the widely accepted definition 1st, and then following it w other definitions in a NPOV manner). I also feel that this talk page is incivil to the point of interfering with the progress of the article. The intellectual dishonesty and focus on ad hominems here is quite disappointing. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 18:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • Your just trying to poison the well, Sam. You have historically resisted all attempts to write a balanced article by insisting on your POV terms and definitions here, even after they've been definitively discredited. Quoting Nick-in-South-Africa: "He (Sam) wastes massive amounts of lots of good folks time who fruitlessly point out carefully his errors, and he just will not budge in the face of crushing evidence that he is mistaken." As far as civility here, I can speak from personal experience when I say I feel you've likely been the most egregious transgressor. Archive_11 is a shameful testament to this sort of hypocrisy.--FeloniousMonk 23:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here are some thoughts that may help to resolve the current dispute and which may permit us to move forward with this article without having it again be protected and without us continuing going in circles.

First some definitions:

• BX = Having the Belief that X.
• -X = Not X.
• G = God/gods exist.
• -G = God/gods do not exist. (NOT God/gods exist)
• BG = Having the belief that God/gods exist
• B-G = Having the belief that God/gods do not exist.
• -BG = Not having the belief that God/gods exist.
• -B-G = Not having the belief that God/gods do not exist.

Now, BG is Theism. Agnosticism is -BG AND -B-G, generally with the additional statement that it is unknowable whether G OR -G. B-G is so-called "strong atheism". -BG is what is being called here and elsewhere "weak atheism", not having the belief that God/Gods exist.

The dispute is essentially about whether "weak atheism" (-BG) is legitimately a form of atheism, and whether therefore the article should define "atheism" as B-G OR -BG, or simply as B-G (that is, "strong atheism").

In favor of including "weak atheism" as atheism are:

1. there are many people, including editors of this article, who identify themselves as atheists, who can be presumed to be operating in good faith, and who state that there personal view is -BG AND -B-G, although they distinguish themselves from agnostics in that they claim that G OR -G is knowable, only there is no evidence or other rational basis to decide it now.
2. numerous reference works have been brought forward (by Nick, Felonious, and others) that give a definition of atheism as (B-G OR -BG). Some of these works carry authority.
3. it is very easy to find atheist discussion groups online, that include -BG as atheism.
4. etymology favors this definition.
5. the majority of the current editors seem to beleive that "weak atheism" must be included in the definition, and this seems to have been the rough consensus for about three years.
6. in its current form, the article defines atheism this way, and even if the current consensus were to be different, nearly three years of previous consensus should not lightly be overridden by the current editors.

On the other hand, it is argued, notably by Sam Spade/Jack Lynch, that:

1. The "common" meaning given for atheism, at least in the United States, is that it means B-G. As a strong atheist, my personal view is that this is so, and while I find little else to agree with Sam about, I agree with him on this. However, it is objected, with some justice, that since the majority of people in the United States are theists, letting "common usage" decide the matter allows "atheism" to be defined by the theists, as the outright contradiction or denial of their position. Since there are relatively few "strong atheists" in the American population (perhaps 2 to 3%), but many more "non-believers", "non-religious", and "agnostics", this has the effect of reducing the numbers of the atheists, including some who would actually describe themselves as "weak atheists", if polled.
2. Treating -BG as atheism will define as atheists many people who would reject this label. For example, it would include agnostics as a particular flavor of "weak" atheists, even though many agnostics make a point of rejecting the atheist label, and would claim to be as agnostic towards -G as they are towards G. Also, this definition would make some adherents of non-theistic religions such as branches of Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism into "atheists". While some such adherents would not object to this, others would. Finally, this definition would define all manner of non-religious people and non-believers, including babies, as atheists, since -BG is true of them. This probably would not sit right with at least some of these people (although the babies would take it placidly), and it doesn't sit right with some of our editors.
3. There are also dictionaries and other reference sources that define atheism this way, although in my opinion the other side has done a better job of finding authorities supporting their definition.
4. "Weak atheism" is a construct of online discussion groups such as alt.atheism. Not enough "real" people would call themselves "weak" atheists to be bothered with it. Moreover, (my POV here) "weak atheism" seems to be somewhat an incoherent position, except insofar as it is identical with agnosticism. If there is no evidence or rational basis for BG, isn't B-G the logical position, unless one adopts an agnostic stance? Certainly in other domains, Ockham's Razor counsels B-X whenever there is no evidence or rational basis for BX. Against this, one must concede that "weak atheists" do in fact exist, and do not believe their position to be incoherent.
5. The consensus of the last three years in this article is wrong (i.e that atheism is B-G OR -BG). Anyway, there is no rule of stare decisis on the Wikipedia, which might imply that what the article currently says should carry any particular weight. (In fact, there is the injunction to "Be Bold!", to the contrary.)

How do we resolve it? The well has been poisoned by rancourous differences over editing tactics and style, and indeed there seems to have been long months in which dubious tactics were used on both sides of the dispute. But it must be assumed that all the parties to the dispute are operating in good faith, and indeed, in earnest, as regards the content. The customary Wikipedia solution is to strive for NPOV, and in this case NPOV holds the key to the resolution of the dispute. We must strive to reflect the foregoing situation in the article itself, assuming that the editors agree with the statement of the situation. Lets discuss this, and if people are agreeable, I would be prepared to try to do it. --BM 20:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree w all of the above my BM, especially the focus on rigor and NPOV. Everyone should keep in mind that the heart of NPOV is to write an article that those of a wide range of POV's can accept. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:44, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I take my cue on NPOV regarding the topic of atheism from qualified editors and academic sources, not from editors who've made bigoted anti-atheist statements and have history of POV campaigning in this article that covers nearly one year and two user accounts.--FeloniousMonk 22:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fine, FM. Now that you have got that off your chest, are you adverse to a rewording of the first paragraph or two of the article which makes it more clear that there are competing definitions, or at least issues concerning the definition, and that, in particular, "weak atheism" is controversial? By the way, I should mention, I didn't come out of nowhere on this article. I'm the anon who in August 2003 wrote the form of the article that prevailed well into 2004 and which still persists to some degree, now under many layers of edits. --BM 22:58, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Last month I proposed this compromise intro, and will bring it back here know to save us some headache:

Atheism is the lack of belief in, or the denial of, God or gods. Some consider Atheism to be a state of merely lacking beliefs in God or gods, while others consider Atheism to be the active disbelief or denial of God or gods. Some religious communities consider the term to be cognate with Infidel and atheist can be found being used in a pejorative manner.

The term atheism has several subtle meanings. Theism literally refers to a belief in a God or gods. Since the prefix “a” means “without,” the term atheism literally means “without theism.” Therefore atheism is the absence of a theistic belief. However, the term encompasses two meanings. The one form of atheism is simply the negation of theism. A person simply does not include God/gods in his metaphysics is often identified as a Weak Atheist. Those atheists who take a stronger stance by actively denying the existence of God or gods, are often referred to as Strong Atheists. Agnosticism, by contrast, is the epistemological position or doctrine that God (gods) is (are) unknown and answers to questions of God or gods are unknowable."

Many credible dictionaries define Atheism as "the disbelief in, or the denial of, God or gods." This definition is the source of much contention and confusion regarding the definition. One should note that "disbelief" is susceptible to interpretation for it allows for both agnostic and strong atheistic definitions: a) "doubt about the truth of something" and b) "rejection of belief." This ambiguity allows for those claiming primacy of both the weak atheistic and strong atheistic definitions to each claim that "disbelief" as used in the definition of Atheism is consistent with their own view.

It is factually accurate, simple, and well-supported by academic and common reference sources. The final paragraph describing the confusion around interpreting the common dictionary definition is usuful in that it addresses the source of much of the confusion that attends the term, as seen here in the archive for the last two months.--FeloniousMonk 23:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that is a good start. The aim is to find a formulation of the definition where none of the current editors will feel motivated to constantly be attempting to change it/defend it from being changed. It does not need to be what anybody considers ideal -- just good enough to let stand. Sam, is FM's formulation approaching being acceptable to you? If not, why not and how would you change it? FM, my problem with it as that I believe that at least in the United States, the primary meaning of atheism is the denial of the existence of God (or gods), and that the secondary meaning is absence of belief in God (or gods), without an outright rejection. I think we also need to define the term "weak atheism" in the article, since that term is prevalent in many circles, and needs to be included as part of atheism, without dragging agnostics, babies, etc. into the definition of "weak atheists". FM, do you think you can revise your formulation to do that, or do you feel it already does? --BM 00:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FM's version is totally unnacceptable, for obvious reasons you've already mentioned BM. The weak atheism concept is one not even accepted by the majority of atheists, much less the world at large. "absence of belief in God (or gods), without an outright rejection" cannot be suggested to be a standard definition. It can be pointed out later on that it is a view held by some, but it must not be in the first sentance, and must not be presented as anything other than wildly contentious. Same w weak atheism. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 00:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I don't think FM's version would command consensus or is ready for prime time, but it is much better than you say. It is better than what is in the article right now, for example. But I don't think it puts the controversy to bed, and that is the aim. This is going to take some compromising by everybody. Sam, please look at it again, and see if you can get it to be more to your liking. --BM 00:34, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here are some primary academic reference sources and citations (that I've presented here before) that support my definition of atheism I present in the proposed intro above. I suggest that those here who claim that my proposed intro is not ready for prime time or "The weak atheism concept is one not even accepted by the majority of atheists, much less the world at large." must present equally credible and weighty support for their position or concede the point.

• The Encyclopedia of American Religious History: "Atheism, literally the absence of belief in God..."
• The Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences: In its narrowest sense the term atheist applies to one who categorically denies the existence of any gods. But in its wider sense it properly applies also to skeptics, materialists, positivists and all other who do not accept the claims of theism.
• Agora, the Online Undergraduate Research Journal of Humanities: The term atheism has several subtle meanings. Theism literally refers to a belief in a God or gods. Since the prefix “a” means “without,” the term atheism literally means “without theism.” Therefore atheism is the absence of a theistic belief. However, this term encompasses two meanings. Essentially, atheism holds to a weak epistemological position – it is simply the negation of theism. Regarding this weak atheism, a person simply does not include God/gods in his metaphysics.
• The Philosophy of Religion website: Weak atheism is defined as the absence of belief in God... A strong atheist, on the other hand, is someone who has the positive belief that God does not exist.
• Encyclopedia of American Religious History: Atheism, literally the absence of belief in God...
• The University of Tennessee, Knoxville [1]

"atheism: The belief that no God or gods exist in or beyond the universe (traditional usage). Sometimes defined as an absence of belief in God."

• Harvard Human Rights Journal, Vol. 16 Spring 2003 ISSN 1057-5057 [2]

"atheism, or what one might call the absence of belief"

• Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, Class: Introduction to Theology [3] (pdf file)

"Atheism is actually the absence of belief in a god. An atheist is one who has no belief in god, or does not believe that God exists. There are two kinds of atheists: *Dogmatic atheists: consciously promote the belief that there is no god *Practical atheists: simply live their lives as though there was no god."

• Hamline Graduate School of Education, Religion, Glossary [4]

"Atheism: the lack of belief in the existence of God or gods, may include denial of existence or lack of interest."

• Texas A & M, Corpus Christi Class, Philosophy [5]

"atheism is disbelief in a god or gods, or is the absence of belief in a god or gods. (The prefix "a" means "without.") Atheism is not the belief that God does not exist; atheism involves no belief whatsoever."

• University of Arizona, Religious Studies Web Resources [6]

For "Atheism Definitions" University of Arizona, Religious Studies, directs readers to infidels.org, which defines atheism as:

"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible."

• Note that FM did not include the entire quote from this source (concerning a point which has been at the center of some dissension here): It [atheism] is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings. older≠wiser 14:37, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

If anyone yet has doubts that the broad definition (weak atheism) is the primary common and academic definition of atheism, they should post their supporting evidence or drop the issue and let us proceed. Otherwise once again they will be wasting massive amounts of lots of our time. We here making our cases in good faith should not once again held up by one or two with extensive histories of POV obstructionism who repeatedly refuse to budge or abide by consensus in the face of crushing evidence that they are mistaken.--FeloniousMonk 05:47, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FM, these are impressive sources, and they among the reasons that there is strong case for the "absence of belief" strand of thought to be included in the definition, as I mentioned above. However, I do think it is possible that the sources are influenced by etymology. Notwithstanding the sources, I don't believe that mere "absence" of belief in God is the common usage. I only have intuition right now to support this POV and some personal experience. In the United States, if you say that you are an atheist, most people will interpret that to mean that you do not "believe in" God, meaning that you believe that God does not exist. If your position is actually "weak atheism", you have your work cut out for you to explain the nuances, unless you say you are an agnostic, in which case people will accept that you "believe it is not possible to know". If you told them that the "case is still out and don't have an opinion" positions were also atheism, I think they might be a bit perplexed. More to the point, many people holding the "still deciding/don't have an opinion" position would object mightily to being labelled as atheists. This is anecdotal, based on my personal experience as an atheist who is "out of the closet". Would you disagree with these intuitions about "ordinary usage" based on your own experience using the language?

Given that, I don't think essentially "weak atheism" can be presented as the primary meaning -- certainly not without a lot of further explanation. To be NPOV, the article needs to acknowledge and explain the conflicting definitions. That is important for the article. But it is also important as a practical matter to arrive at a compromise that will avoid edit wars. By the way, you haven't mentioned how, given these definitions, one would avoid including agnostics, babies, etc as "atheists". These are also problems. Finally, I think we should all stop dragging the ad hominem stuff into the discussion. There is abundant precedent for it in this Talk page, true. And it is human to want to keep going over all these remembered slights and grievances, but it is not the path to compromise. --BM 12:48, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I brought back the "Progressing" section from the Archive since it is still active, and seems to be another encouraging effort towards compromise. Despite some of the unfortunate ad hominem stuff that has gone on in this Talk page over the past months, it is clear that there is an overall sense that there should be compromise and a lot of work is being done towards it. People are working in good faith and progress is being made. Sam, FM, I'd be interested in your take on some of the formulations in the "Progressing" section. --BM 14:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're arguing that a particular meme (strong atheism is the common definition) is "True" simply because it is comparatively more infectious. That fails to address the reality of whether the statement is actually true - the most common definition. I think there is enough ambiguity as to whether the broad definition (weak atheism) or the narrow definition (strong atheism) is the most common to indicate a lack of general public consensus on the matter.[7] That leaves us with having to poll source material to see which is the most common.

Common information sources stating the weak definition as the common definition:

• About.com [8] "atheism: broadly defined, it is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods. The superiority of the broad over the narrow definition can be found in the fact that it simply allows us to describe a wider range of positions. For those who insist on the narrow definition, there are three basic positions:

• • Theism: belief in (my) God.
  • Agnosticism: don't know if any gods exist.
  • Atheism: denial of (my) God.

Once we introduce the broad definition and recognize that agnosticism is about knowledge rather than belief (a related, but separate issue), we find that there are now four categories available:

• • Agnostic Theism: belief in a god without claiming to know for sure that the god exists.
  • Gnostic Theism: belief in a god while being certain that this god exists.
  • Agnostic Atheism: disbelief in gods without claiming to know for sure that none exist.
  • Gnostic Atheism: disbelief in gods while being certain that none (can or do) exist. "[9]

• religioustolerance.org [10]
  • "Atheism is confined to one factor: the existence or non-existence of a deity. Atheism can involve the positive assertion that there is no deity. Atheism can be the absence of a belief that there is a deity."[11] "Other Atheists are people who have simply never been exposed to belief in a deity or deities and therefore have no belief in them."[12]
• www.2think.org [13]
  • "If you answer the question, 'Do you believe in god?' with an affirmative, then you are a theist. If your answer is 'no' or 'I don't know' then you are an atheist due to your lack of an affirmative belief."[14]
• The World Almanac and Book of Facts (2001), Page 692.
  • Atheists: "Persons professing atheism, skepticism, disbelief or irreligion, including antireligious (opposed to all religions)."

I'm not willing to easily dismiss the broad definition of atheism as just not common. There's plenty of ambiguity on the matter. I've read and researched extensively on the topic and I've seen no compelling reason to assume or conclude that the narrow definition is indeed the most common. I've presented credible sources for the position that the weak definition is being used just as often by primary sources, both academic and common. I've yet to see any support cited otherwise. What is your basis for believing "weak atheism" cannot be presented as the primary meaning? Are there any credible supporting references? If we are to accept the claim that the narrow definition is most common, you'll have to make that case with some references. Not many will accept it on word alone. --FeloniousMonk 18:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't either the broad view or the narrow view can be presented as the "primary" meaning. It isn't clear to me. It may be that in on-line venues, especially since 1990 or so, that "weak" atheism is the dominant definition. But the theism-agnosticism-atheism schema also has a long tradition behind it, and I don't need to do as much legwork as you have done in gathering quotes to know this. Both the "theism-agnosticism-atheism" and the "theism-atheism(strong,weak,agonsticism)" schemata needto be presented, if only as a practical necessity to end the edit wars on this article. If one of these was completely bizarre, then integrity would require that we not compromise just for the sake of stability in the article. But that is not the case. My POV as to the "common usage" is actually not relevant, and the article doesn't need to mention it. --BM 19:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Reading the Progressing section you've brought back, I'm inclined to Adraeus' proposed intro of 3 Dec 2004:

:Atheism, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is defined as the denial of the existence of gods and alternatively as the condition of being without theistic beliefs. These different definitions diverged from the original meaning, "without theism", due to interpretations of the a- prefix as either "not" or "without". The issues concerning self-identification as an atheist are complex as identification involves adoption of the former definition or only the latter definition, or both. Each definition is respectively known as strong [epistemological] atheism and weak [epistemological] atheism.

--FeloniousMonk 18:25, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

I find the suggestion that Jainism is atheistic to be particularly offensive. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If that's the only thing you object to, Sam, it seems like we aren't too far from a solution, at least for you. Is there anything else? Would you care to put forward an edit in the Progressing section of one of the works-in-progress there that would satisfy you concerns? --BM 14:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, thats by no means all I object to. My proposed compromise is this, I thought you knew that. You can post it whereever you want, but I thought placing it in bullet format in response to your original request was sufficient. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:07, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam, it doesn't look like your proposed compromise wording got much attention, and efforts towards compromised are now channeled elsewhere. What do you think of the various paragraphs being proposed in the "Progressing" section, beyond your Jainism object. Would the paragraph be acceptable to you if Jainism were not mentioned? --BM 15:33, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you are quite wrong, I think the compromise proposed @ Atheism/DR got, and will contibue to get, plenty of attention. It is true that I am not dialoging with a certain portion of the editors of this talk page, but that in no way means we are not paying attention to one another, or our respective proposals. And no, FM's paragraph is not acceptable, for reasons you made clear, and no amount of page flooding on his part will change that. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What you dismiss as "flooding", other's see as researching and presenting evidence supporting their position. That you fail to grasp the distinction is likely why you continually fail to recognize any POV other than your own here. If you insist on your POV having a bigger representation in the article, you might try presenting some credible, compelling support justifying it, instead of just being contentious, complaining and falsely maligning others.--FeloniousMonk 20:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, Knock it off

Sam, trying to push your views into the article now is only going to trigger another edit war, and get the article protected again. After 11 months of this, I would think you would have learned something. Surely you have better things to do with your time than endless edit/revert/edit/revert cycles. What do you have to show after 11 months of this. Adreus, what Sam is doing is not vandalism, and calling it this does nothing to bring about consensus. I can think of other words for it, (how about pigheadedness?), but vandalism isn't one of them. Everybody needs to calm down, put differences and past bad blood aside, and work towards a consensus. Didn't 25 days of having the article protected cool anyone off? --BM 21:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't put my views in the article, and I am rather annoyed at your assessment of my action. My view would be to redirect the whole page to amalek. Thats clearly not what I did. What I did was install the result of the last attempted mediation into the article. See Atheism/DR. Please also note that I last edited the article @ 20:51, 3 Dec 2004, previous to my engaging in the above discussion, and that my edit was reverted to by at least one user (User:Noisy). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I am not commenting on your content. You will note that I rebuked our colleague Adreous for characterizing it as vandalism. The point, which I implore you to try to grasp, is that in the current situation, nothing useful can be served by any unilateral change made by you or anyone else. It is completely necessary if this article is not going to continue to be a time-sink for everyone that people discuss in good faith and try to get consensus on this Talk page BEFORE making any changes to the article itself. Considering the past history of interactions on this Talk page, that may be difficult, but it is still necessary.

In any case, the article as it currently stands is not a disaster. You may not agree with it, but the definition of atheism it currently contains is more or less the same as what it has been for three years, despite almost a year of your trying in vain to change it. At this stage, it is impossible to imagine that it will be changed without being preceded by some form of consensus. Otherwise almost any edit will be suspect and will lead to an edit/revert war, and eventually the article will be reprotected or some more severe administrative action will start to seem justified against individual editors. --BM 21:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the version I placed had been discussed, and seems to embody the concensus, presenting both POV's. Unless an article is protected, I can and will edit it as needed, altho I will of course discuss any disagreements w my edits in talk. IMO the problem on this page is primarilly a short list of impolite users unwilling to discuss anything honestly, not me being bold. As far as me spending a year at this, I outlived a much worse troll on this page, and am quite likely to outlive some of our current unfriendly editors. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 23:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam, if you are actually interested in having the article encompass your views, then I suggest that you refrain from editing it without consensus in advance. Otherwise, we are all going to spend our time reverting one another, and the article will be protected again. You will keep being dragged in front of the community to explain and defend your behaviour. Do you need that aggravation? Your aim should not be to outlast everybody else. There are a large number of people who have worked on this article over the years. Many of them are still active, and people like me will keep popping back from ancient history to see what his happening with the article. You cannot grind down everybody, even if you decide to make changing the article your mission in life. The only way for you to "win" is to cooperate to create a situation in which the Wikipedia is winning -- for the article to be comprehensive and to sufficiently reflect the range of views of the people likely to edit it that it is stable. That is what we are trying to achieve here. You have some valid points, and because of that, the best way to have them be in the article is not to put them in yourself unilaterally (just to have them reverted) but to work on a version that will command support. Then your views will be reflected in the consensus version which a group of editors will defend from unreasonable changes. Besides, I 'm convinced its possible, and it will take about 10% of the energy required for an edit war. --BM 01:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since the talk page history is a bit too long for quick searching, can you point a link to the discussion that you are mentioning here? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]]

1. Spade's edition cannot embody consensus that never existed.
2. Spade has a history of undesirable behavior. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements/Sam Spade.

Adraeus 00:48, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Atheism/DR maybe? I'm not really sure which discussion you were talking about, but thats my guess. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 23:49, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Incivility

Do to the utter lack of civility and intellectual honesty on the parts of a couple of editors here, I will withdraw from communicating on this talk page until administrators have enforced some accordance with policy and a focus on rigor. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:21, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam, if that means you are going to start making edits again in the article without participating in discussion on this Talk page to gain consensus first, I again urge you to reconsider. The Wikipedia statements about the controversial header clearly call upon editors of such pages not to make major changes without seeking consensus. And major is not measured by the number of words affected, either. If you cannot bring yourself to engage in dialog with some of the other people, then let some of the people trying to act as mediators (such as me), be your interlocutors. --BM 12:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you wish me to respect your attempt at mediation, please enforce Wikipedia:Civility in these discussions. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam, having just read Wikipedia:Civility, I can see little reason for your objection. Could you elaborate? Sextus 14:49, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you just read Wikipedia:Civility and saw no reason for my objection, maybe you ought to read this talk page again. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:08, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam, if you are referring to my comments on the Arb com endorsements page, you will see that I had second thoughts about them and have already removed them, before your comments here. I don't think they were strikingly uncivil, but I removed them because I didn't want them interfering with the mediation role I'm adopting here. However, Sam, in case you read my comments, what I wrote does actually reflect my views concerning your suitability for the Arb Com post, and your uncompromising attitude (at least to date) in editing this article was one of the main reasons. However, none of that changes the need for compromise in this article, and we are making progress here. Incidentally, Sextus, Sam certainly has been the target of great deal of incivility, now mostly in the Archives. On the whole, he has been more civil than his critics, although in defense of his critics, Sam's behaviour has been more than a tad on the provocative side (in my opinion). However, nothing is gained by dwelling on any of that. --BM 15:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposed Wording for Definition Section replacing current first two sections

Here is my attempt:

The term atheism comes from the Greek a-, meaning "without" or "not" ; + Θεός, theos, meaning god, in the form theismos, Θεϊσμός meaning theism, or belief in god. The literal meaning of the term is therefore "non-belief in a god", "without a belief in a god".

There are two distinctive meanings of atheism, and these two meanings are somewhat inconsistent.

One interpretation of atheism is that it represents the explicit contradiction or denial of theism, and is simply the view that there is NOT a God or gods, that God or gods do not exist. On this definition, other positions in between theism and atheism are possible -- positions which neither assert nor deny the existence of God or gods. One such position is agnosticism, the view that it is impossible to know whether there exists a God or gods, or not. On this definition, all atheists are what have come to be termed "strong atheists", and agnostics are not atheists.

The other view of atheism is that it is the lack or absence of belief in God or gods -- that is, it is the logical complement of theism. On this view, one is either a theist, or not, and if not, one is an atheist. People who are atheists by the previous definition -- those who explicitly deny the existence of God or gods -- are termed "strong atheists", a subset of atheists. Agnostics are also a type of atheist, as are members of some religious groups with non-theistic views, such as (allegedly) some Buddhists and Jainists. Also under the heading of atheist, but distinguished from agnostics, are the "weak atheists" -- those who believe that there is no rational basis to believe in God or gods, and who therefore do not incorporate God or gods into their ontological inventory, but who nevertheless do not positively assert that God or gods do not exist. Weak atheists are distinguished from agnostics in that they think there could, in principle, be evidence or other rational basis for a belief in the existence of God or gods. Weak atheists would not be atheists at all by the other definition, and would be regarded as akin to agnostics. This definition is controversial, since it includes as atheists people who ordinarly reject this label, such as agnostics, and people who simply have no opinion on the existence of god or gods, including babies. However, this definition accomodates the "weak atheism" concept, and it is increasingly popular and reflected in academic and online discussions of atheism. --BM 20:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It has the following problems:

1. It's not concise. It makes far too many nuanced points for an introduction. Such nuances are better suited to sub-sections.

Agreed, while conciseness is a virtue; on the Wikipedia conciseness can result in an edit/revert war, and that certainly isn't a virtue. I'd be grateful to anyone who can improve the conciseness without losing comprehensiveness.

1. It's make too many characterizations and unsupported assertions:

• It makes the the unsubstantiated claim that strong atheism is the most common understanding of atheism in the United States. That point is a matter of opinion, there is no compelling proof that it is. An overwhelming amount of proof has been presented that there is plenty of ambiguity on this issue, and there's literally dozens of published, credible references that cite weak atheism as the primary understanding of atheism. Also, characterizations have no place in the introductions of encyclopedia articles.

Also agreed, and I already removed that statement -- probably while you were writing that criticism. Sorry for the confusion.

• It characterizes weak atheism's position and definition as controversial and secondary. It's largely only controversial to those with the opposing POV. Again, the characterization is a matter of opinion and characterizations have no place in the intro, but in a sub-section perhaps.

I don't agree it is presented as secondary. One of the positions has to be described first, by necessity. I thought long and hard about which should go first, and picked the order only because the definition that ended up first is the more straight-forward and simple, and that it was easier to present the other definition in contrast to the first, than the other way round.

• Introducing agnosticism in the definition of strong atheism is confusing and unnecessary. Further, the wording of your definition of strong atheism implies that it more readily provides for positions between theism and atheism, when in fact, it is rather more limiting in that respect than weak atheism.

This was because I think we need to present two competing/conflicting classification schemes. One is: theism/agnosticism/atheism, with atheism not being agnosticism. My POV (not mentioned in the text) is that this is the traditional scheme. The other is: theism/atheism with (strong,weak,agnosticism) being subclasses of atheism. My POV (again not mentioned in the text) is that this is a new scheme, albeit of increasing popularity.

1. It confuses the concept of atheism as a state with atheism as a movement. A movement always implies volition, a state does not require a choice.
2. References to babies, et al. only serve to further muddle the intro. They should go.

Clearly, the characterizations have to go, as do any unsupported assertions. I've rewritten it to for concision and to eliminate the non-intro type content:

The term atheism comes from the Greek a-, meaning "without" or "not" ; + Θεός, theos, meaning god, in the form theismos, Θεϊσμός meaning theism, or belief in god. The literal meaning of the term is therefore "non-belief in a god", "without a belief in a god".

There are two distinctive understandings of atheism.

One understanding of atheism is that it represents the explicit rejection or denial of theism. It is the view that there is no God or gods. This is often referred to as strong atheism. This position only allows for the counting of those who actively deny the existence of God or gods as atheists.

The other understanding of atheism is the lack or absence of belief in God or gods. On this view, one is either a theist, or not, and if not, one is an atheist. This position is commonly known as weak atheism. The weak atheist position allows for other types of atheists, including agnostics, people with metaphysical views that do not incorporate god or gods, and a variety of others who happen not to be theists, including members of some religious groups with non-theistic views, such as some Buddhists and Jainists. As such, those "strong atheists" who explicitly deny the existence of God or gods", are but one subset in a spectrum of atheism.

--FeloniousMonk 20:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The first two parts of this are fine as far as I'm concerned. I have a big problem with the presentation of weak atheism here. I do not think it is accurate to represent weak atheism via an analogy to mathematical sets wherein theism is the defining quality either possesed or not. Refer to the introduction to atheism at infidels.org: Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings. In this sense, from an atheist advocacy site, even weak atheism is not simply a default characteristic to be modelled by boolean sets. I don't doubt that many do assert the set theory approach to atheism and it should be discussed at some point, but I dispute it as a universally accepted definition of weak atheism. IMO, the set theory approach is responsible for many of the contentious points that have caused problems here for so long. As it is not an essential part of the definition of weak atheism, I don't think it helps to present it at this point. I suggest leaving it at "lack of belief" rather than using one interpretation of it (the set theory approach) to illustrate it. older≠wiser 20:56, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

I think FM has improved my version, and I basically yield to his better writing skills. However, I still have a bit of a problem with his second paragraph, and I think it can be improved more. (Of course!!!) I would not characterize the definition as weak atheism. The second definition is one which allows weak atheism to be regarded as atheism, which it would not be on the first definition, but the definition itself is not the essence of weak atheism. A strong atheist could still accept the second definition and happily regard "weak atheists" as atheists. Other strong atheists might reject the second definition and insist that "weak atheists" are agnostics in drag. Also, I do think a crucial difference between the two definitions is the situation of agnosticism in each, and that this should be mentioned. So, how about this:

Same etymology paragraph.

One understanding of atheism is that it represents the explicit rejection or denial of theism -- that atheism is the view that there is no God or gods. This definition only allows for the counting of those who actively deny the existence of God or gods as atheists. On this view, agnostics (that is, those who think it impossible to know whether or not God or Gods exists) are not atheists.

The other understanding of atheism is that it is the lack or absence of belief in God or gods. On this view, one is either a theist, or not, and if not, one is an atheist. On this definition, in addition to those counted by the previous definiton (strong atheists), other types of atheists are recognized. To begin with, agnostics are considered a type of atheist. The term atheist also extends to people with metaphysical views that do not incorporate God or gods but who, in contrast to strong atheists, do not explicitly deny the existence of God or gods (weak atheists). Finally, atheism encompasses a variety of others who happen not to be theists, including members of some religious groups with non-theistic views, such as (allegedly) some Buddhists and Jainists. Thus, by this definition, "strong atheism" becomes one end of a spectrum of atheistic views.

--BM 21:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Similar objections as I indicated above. The division of humanity into theists and atheists trivializes weak atheism. It is not about categorization. It is about the insufficiency of evidence to assert the existence of god and other subtle arguments which, IMO, are misrepresented by using sets as an analogy. older≠wiser 21:39, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. You seemed quite willing above to have atheism defined as the absence or lack of belief in deities. That implies a division of humanity into those who believe in deities and those who do not, atheists being the latter. There is another definition of atheism and that needs also to be included, since there are many people, both atheists and theists, who have a different understanding of the term. How do either of these definitions "trivialize" weak atheism. Is the characterization of "weak atheism", under the second definition, incorrect? --BM 22:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The implication is really not pertinent nor essential to the understanding of weak atheism. I contend that it is entirely inadequate to imply that the division into theists and atheists is in any way central to the definition of weak atheism, and in fact distracts from a full understanding. Weak atheism, rather than dogmatically asserting a denial of god, instead emphasizes that there is no sufficent reason to believe in god. It is distinct from, but often confused with agnosticism. Using the set schema opens weak atheism to trivial criticisms about whether or not infants are atheists. Certainly some do think this--but that is emphatically not an essential position of weak atheism. I refer once again to the section from Infidels.org: Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings. A simplistic binary division based on whether one or not one has theistic beliefs misses the point that it a deliberate choice. Not all definitions of weak atheism assert that people are by default atheist and must choose to be a theist. older≠wiser 22:22, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Well I think we are starting to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the various POV's rather than the article and how to get out of the edit war. In fact, I think it *is* a weakness of the second definition that it includes babies as atheists, which seems nonsense. This is a consequence of defining a position as the logical complement of another position. Babies are not only atheists, by this approach, but also a-Darwinists, a-fundamentalists, and a-any-other-ists you would care to think of. I'm showing my POV, and honestly, I am trying hard for NPOV. I'm not giving definitions, or at least I don't think I should. I'm trying to report definitions that are actually given by significant numbers. A defect of the current article is that it only gives one definition (at a time, which one depends on the last edit). I'm a bit handicapped in reporting the second definition because my personal POV is that the first definition is the right one and that the second definition, which calls agnostics atheists, and admits so-called weak atheists as atheists, is wrong. But I don't want to make it a straw man. That wouldn't be NPOV and anyway, would not end the edit wars. So, how would you reword the second definition so that it captures the "lack or absence of theistic belief" concept that the weak atheists insist upon, without dragging in babies? --BM 22:49, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll have to think a bit more about possible phrasing. I'm actually fine with leaving it as "lacking belief" and simply dumping the categorization stuff. I mean, thinking back on when I first stumbled across this dispute a month or so ago, my first reaction was to say something like "atheism is simply the lack of belief in god"--however, I naively assumed such a statement was only relevant to things capable of belief and that understand the distinction. That is, IMO, saying an entity lacks belief in something is meaningless without reference to some conception of the thing lacked. If I say you lack fooblegar, this is unintelligible without some understanding of fooblegar.

I tried getting at my concerns regarding this earlier with Andraeus regarding categorization and self-identification. My take on this is that atheism is a position regarding one's belief in or the existence of god(s). AFAIAC, this applies to both strong and weak atheism. By my understanding, weak atheism does NOT intrinsically require the division into theistic/atheistic sets and describing such a division is not necessary to understand weak atheism. Using atheism as a label to divide all of humanity into camps treads awfully close to advocacy. We can certainly describe that some people try to use the term this way (much as some Christians divide the world into believers and non-believers), but it is not essential to understanding weak atheism. One can be a weak atheist without casting the world in such simplistic binary divisions. older≠wiser 23:26, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I may have had an insight into the differences that have arisen here. It seems that in the discussion on this page the definition of weak atheism has somehow morphed into being equivalent to "lacking belief in god". But this really is an oversimplification. Yes, weak atheists do "lack belief in god", but this is related to the position that there is insufficient reason to either believe in god or the existence of god. This implies an awareness of the theistic position and a tacit rejection of it. It is not an overt rejection through active denial, as with strong atheism, but more a recognition that such belief is unnecessary and life can go on just fine without any such belief. older≠wiser 23:41, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Bkonrad: infidels.org is strictly a positive (activistic) atheism resource. Any information you get from there will be biased in favor of strong atheism unlike, ironically, positiveatheism.org. Adraeus 00:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Adraeus. That is an interesting site. While much of what is said there is useful, it strikes a tone that I find rather irritating--what I had some while earlier characterized as "militant weak atheism". It is in its own way even more in-your-face than strong atheism's outright denial of god. But my argument is not based solely on Infidels. I'm also drawing on the Encylopedia Britannica's highly nuanced explication of the topic (which thoroughly resists easy summarization or I might have tried to do so already). There is no question that it is possible to define atheism as merely the absence of the attribute of theism and then simplistically use that definition to divide the world. But where does that get us? Does it really help to understand what atheism is? While it is certainly true that there are atheist advocates who paint the world in such broad strokes, such an advocacy position should not be taken without qualification as the primary definition. And just how exactly does one objectively determine the status of one's belief in theism (which of course also begs the question of just what is meant by theism). If we rely on self-identification, there are some who would not identify themselves as atheists, even after understanding the weak atheism position--despite lacking any belief in a theistic system and not exhibiting any outwardly theistic behaviors. Some advocates might want to classify such individuals as atheists anyways--but what is the point? Is atheism a classification system or a philosophical position? Certainly the article should explain that some people consider aspects of systems like Jainism or Buddhism as atheistic, but does that make Jains or Buddhists atheists? That's a problematic assertion. Some of them would readily identify as atheistic and others would not (and even the most rabid atheist would not necessarily view every aspect of those systems as being consonant with atheism). If we do not rely on self-identification, then what other basis is there for determing the status of a person's theism? Anyone for mind-reading? What are the behaviorial characteristics that mark theists? Without objective criteria for making such a sweeping binary division, positing such a division as a definitional statement carries little actual meaning. It is a true statement that atheists lack belief, but I find it problematic to positively assert that all who lack belief are by definition atheists. Seems like circular reasoning of some sort. What exactly does it really mean to lack theistic belief and how do we know with certainty what someone else believes and why should anyone really care what someone else believes anyhow? older≠wiser 02:06, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

"There is no question that it is possible to define atheism as merely the absence of the attribute of theism and then simplistically use that definition to divide the world. But where does that get us?"

Like I said, such insight is irrelevant to the article.

"Does it really help to understand what atheism is?"

Yes. Understanding that atheism as a category is key to completely understanding atheism.

And just how exactly does one objectively determine the status of one's belief in theism (which of course also begs the question of just what is meant by theism)?

Theism is "the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods." So a-theism is "being without the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods."

Some advocates might want to classify such individuals as atheists anyways--but what is the point?

You fail to comprehend that the aforementioned insight is not restricted to atheism activists. Some Googling will net you a series of Christian sites that acknowledge humans are born without beliefs in God or gods and they twist that to enhance their own belief system... something to the effect of "being more than a shell" or "becoming enlightened by following the divine path." There are also people, such as I, who are atheists and not activists that acknowledge humans are born without god-beliefs. We are born without clothing but that does not preclude us from wearing clothes. Are you offended by that insight: that we born without clothing? We are born without god-beliefs in the same way we are born without clothing.

If we do not rely on self-identification, then what other basis is there for determing the status of a person's theism?

Theism is a positive position and requires self-identification in order for categorization as a theist to take place. That reliance on self-identification is necessary for categorization as a theist. All positive positions require self-identification. Neutral categories, such as the weak epistemological form of atheism, do not require self-identification just as granite stone need not self-identify as a hard substance in order for us to understand that granite stone is hard.

Anyone for mind-reading? What are the behaviorial characteristics that mark theists? Without objective criteria for making such a sweeping binary division, positing such a division as a definitional statement carries little actual meaning.

These are questions based on a false conclusion that theists can be identified by other means.

It is a true statement that atheists lack belief, but I find it problematic to positively assert that all who lack belief are by definition atheists.

By definition, all registered Wikipedia users are Wikipedians. By definition, all people are modern-day humans. By definition, all aluminum Pepsi cans are manufactured by independent bottlers under the authority of Pepsico, Inc. By definition, all people who do not hold a belief in a God or in gods are atheists. These aren't "broad strokes." These are statements of fact based on objective comparison and contrast. A generalization involves subjectivity. For instance, "all atheists are evil and manipulative" is a generalization—a broad stroke.

What exactly does it really mean to lack theistic belief and how do we know with certainty what someone else believes and why should anyone really care what someone else believes anyhow?

• To lack theistic beliefs means to lack beliefs in a God or in gods.
• Belief requires positive behavior in order to be identified.
• What we know of another's beliefs aids communication. For instance, understanding another culture will help with cooexistence in another society.

Adraeus 03:22, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Avoid Self References???

I find this funny: A while ago, some User:Maveric149 removed the controversial header and moved it to the Talk page, citing concerns of avoiding self references. However, it would seem that User:MacGyverMagic has added it back. These edits took place when the page was locked. I'm confused now. What's correct?

I thought it would be a good idea to put such a notice back in as people seem to edit the page without checking the notices on talk first. I'm happy to remove it, if more people ask me to. It was added while the page was protected, because I protected it. Putting such notices up while the page is protected is not against policy if you protected the page, as far as I know, but if you can prove me wrong, point me to the appropriate reference, and I'll remove it. I'll be off to read WP:ASR now. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 19:57, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

• I've read WP:ASR and I see your point, I've removed the blue box I added earlier. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 20:04, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Possible changes to weak/strong atheism elements

Before I start here I would like to firstly apologise for walking right into an edit war like I did. I am new to editing on Wiki, and didn't realise just how contested this page was. I am an atheist myself, and the first statement I saw when I visited the atheism page was "Atheism is the condition of believing there are no gods or of lacking theistic belief". This is a definitive statement of fact and is absolutely incorrect. Atheism is usually characterised by a lack of belief, not a belief in itself. Whatever happens elsewhere in the article, I think it only fair and accurate to remove any insistence that atheism is a definite system of belief from the article. There may be room for this in an 'opponents to atheism' element (although in the interest of fairness, there should also be room for an atheistic response to these claims).

Secondly, I edited the 'weak atheism' and 'strong atheism' elements. These were my edits -

Weak Atheism

[my edited but now removed definition] 'Weak Atheism' Sometimes negative atheism, is the position that there lacks reason to assert the existence or nonexistence of gods, but that through lack of evidence and apparent lack of gaps in religious logic, it is most likely that dieties do not exist. A weak Athiest will typically hold the position that although one cannot assert the non existence of dieties through positive evidence, the onus is on those who assert the existence of a diety to provide proof for their beliefs. This is commonly referred to as the 'burden of proof'. Therefore, the weak atheist will tend to take the position that until the existence of a diety is conclusively proven through evidence, it is safest to bet that such dieties do not exist.

I think this is a better position to the definition that currently exists in the article. The current definition contains the following statement:

"...A weak atheist abstains from positive judgment and retains tolerance of the possibility of the existence and nonexistence of gods."

While this may be technically true, it is also misleading in my opinion. This is because a weak atheist will also be likely to assert that because there is unsupportable or insubstantial evidence for the existence of dieties, it is most likely that they do not exist. The statement as it is does not make this clear. The description as it currently exists seems to be describing agnosticism rather than any particular form of atheism. The importance I think is the inclusion in my edit of phrases such as '...but through lack of evidence and [the religious logic line could be removed], it is most likely that dieties do not exist'. I think this is a more relevant and accurate potrayal of the position taken by the atheists that fall into the 'weak' camp.

Strong Atheism

[My edited but now removed definition (changed slightly here compared to my original edit] 'Strong atheism or positive atheism, is the positive assertion that gods do not exist, which differentiates it from a mere lack of deistic belief. Strong atheists often cite logical impossibilities and the lack of assertive evidence presented by arguments intending to demonstrate theistic concepts of the devine.

To me, the term 'positive assertion' is more accurate that the word 'belief' here.

I think the most important distinction between the 'weak' and 'strong' forms of atheism (both are terms I am not actually that comforable with, but that I can work with in the interests of clarifying the differening spectrums of athiesm) is simply that one asserts that god does not exist, while the other position does not believe in the existence of god, but stops at making a definitive statement to this effect. The 'weak atheism' definition as it currently stands does not make it clear that these people still do not believe in god.

I made one other change to the article. This was simply to add the qualifier, 'this form of', into the sentence "Critics of strong atheism contend that atheism requires faith due to a supposed impossibility of proving negatives;", so that the statement became "Critics strong atheism contend that this form of atheism requires faith..." Again, I think this helps the article from a NPOV.

I hope this helps clarify some of the changes I attempted to make. And thanks to BM for clarifying some aspects of wiki for me. And I'm definately not a sockpuppet ;) --aarrrrggh

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia and the the happy band of Atheism editors, now reduced to Atheism::Talk editors! One thing that helps by the way is to sign your contributions so people know who is talking. You can do this by typing three tildes

~~~

. If you make it four tildes, the system adds a timestamp, which is also helpful.

Concerning your comments, one of the reasons that there is an edit war is that there seem to be competing definitions of "atheism". Your statement that "atheism is not a belief system" would not command universal agreement. A common definition of atheism is that atheists deny the existence of God, which is the belief that God (or gods) does not exist. This definition makes atheism a belief. This definition of atheism does not even admit that weak atheists are atheists at all. This dispute is the main one underlying the edit wars. The edit war basically causes the article to cycle between atheism being defined as "lack/absence of belief in God" and "belief that gods don't exist". Right now, we are working on wording that recognizes that there are competing definitions. By the way, as a strong atheist myself, I have no problem with my views being characterized as a "belief system". I assert that God/gods don't exist. I also believe my assertion. (In fact, I generally believe my assertions, except when I'm joking, lying, or sleep-walking) --BM 01:15, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Split

Why cannot the article just be split with Atheism forming a disaambiguation page? Split it up to "Atheism_(strong), and "Atheism_(weak)". They obviously refer to essentially different things not worth having in the same article, at least on how it's being talked about here in Wikipedia. One being a lack of belief one involving a belief (that there are no gods).--Whoabot 06:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Atheists of the strong epistemological position are without theistic beliefs in addition to positively asserting that no gods exist.
• Atheists of the weak epistemological positions are without theistic beliefs.
• Generally, atheism is the condition of being without theistic beliefs. The aforementioned are the two major types of atheists that exist. There is no rational need to split this article. Adraeus 06:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are already strong and weak atheism pages. Personally, I don't think they should exist as separate articles and should be merged back in.

The dispute here is not over "strong atheism" versus "weak atheism". Both positions clearly exist, and need to be documented in the article. Sam, for example, wouldn't argue that a NPOV article must be silent on the existence of the two positions, and that "weak atheism" must never be mentioned.

The dispute is over the definition of "atheism". There are two competing definitions. First there is what one could call the "weak definition", which unsurprisingly, allows weak atheism to be regarded as a form of atheism. This definition has grown in popularity over the past 10 to 20 years, especially on web sites that discuss atheism. Before that, I never heard the term "weak atheism". Naturally it is the definition insisted upon by those who label themselves as "weak atheists". Then, there is what you could call the "strong definition", under which all atheists are "strong", and agnostics and the "weak atheists" of the other definition are not atheists at all. This is the older definition, which you still run into a lot. I don't know which definition is currently the most prevalent, but it is fair to say that the "strong definition" has lost a lot of ground. But it probably is insisted upon by agnostics, who generally don't wish to be classified as atheists. And many, if not most, theists, such as Sam Spade (a pantheist, actually), are definitely favor the strong definition. Probably many strong atheists don't care that much between the two definitions, since they are atheists under either definition, and under the weak definition, they get to be "strong" or "positive", which is manly. (Nice of the weak atheists, actually, although I've never understood why they want so much to be called "weak" anything. Why not "strong agnostics"?) But some strong atheists, like me for example, don't like the weak definition much because it makes agnostics into atheists, which seems wrong and contrary to what we were taught, as well as babies, which seems silly, and which defines the essence of our philosophical position as the absence or lack of belief in another philosophical position, which seems bizarre.

So, the fact is there are two different positions, "weak" and "strong" atheism, no matter what you CALL them. And there are two different DEFINITIONS of atheism, which doesn't change anybody's position, but does change how they are labelled and with whom they are categorized. The article keeps veering back and forth between the two definitions, with the "weak" definition prevailing more of the time here partly because the majority of active editors of this article are weak atheists, and partly because acrimony has prevented the easy solution to this problem from being implemented, which is: present both definitions. Since people find labels to be important, the only way to resolve this difference and end the edit wars is to agree that both definitions of "atheism" be mentioned (and both labelling schemes), as well as presenting the spectrum of actual positions --BM 15:32, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BM your comment ignores many cogent points made in these last few talk pages, perhaps you should re-read them, rather than me re-typing it all ;) --Nick-in-South-Africa 21:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yikes, there's way too many pages of archives to go hunting for cogent points. Did you guys actually make cogent points before I arrived on the scene? ;-) --BM

I agree with Nick. BM's analysis lacks general knowledge of the subject. If BM chooses to ignore the information contained within our archives, should his opinion be considered? Apparently, these newcomers to this discussion are causing much of the merry-go-round effect. Adraeus 00:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, so what do you think the issues are Adraeus? By the way, I'm not a newcomer. I've contributed to Wikipedia for over a year. And, as a matter of fact, it was me that essentially rewrote the Atheism article in August 2003. It stood in essentially that form well into 2004, of course with editing going on, although my work is not recognizable in the article any more, except for a phrase here and there. So don't play your little games with me, dude. Now, lets start over. If I haven't stated what you think the issue causing the article to cycle in edit wars, be my guest and state it. --BM 01:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The problem isn't merely that your analysis produces a false conclusion but also that your explanation is completely inaccurate. By the way, there is no record of the user "BM" in the history of the atheism article unless User:66.82.116.82 is you. Regardless, the fact that you recently re-introduced yourself into this discussion after abstaining from development of the "way too many pages of archives" makes you, indeed, a newcomer. Moreover, you (and others like T2X) are apparently ignorant of the obvious issues that prohibit this article's development: 1) this article will remain protected until the POV Warriors (Sam Spade & Co.) are bridled and leashed, and 2) this article will remain in its current state until all editors acknowlege progress. If newcomers are too lazy to read the archives, they should not attempt to participate in this discussion until the issues are settled. One way to reduce problem #1 is to ban Spam Spade.] Problem #2 will sort itself out if given the opportunity. Adraeus 04:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I too agree with both Nick and Adraeus. I also agree with their opinion that you need to RTA before you try to summarize the issues and discussions that have taken place over the last 3 months.

Also, you do not seem possess basic knowledge of the historical distinctions within atheism. Both weak and strong atheism may be recent terms, but the distinction they represent is not recent. Haven't you read any Bertrand Russell and Robert Ingersoll? The distinct within atheism between active and passive disbelief has been acknowledged and written on for over 200 years. The distinction is discussed in Atheism's seminal early writings by Paul Henri Holbach (1772), Voltaire(1778)[15], Charles Bradlaugh (1876)[16], Charles Watts [17]. Weak and strong atheism in the past been known as "implicit" and "explicit" atheism.--FeloniousMonk 05:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey. New guy here. I'd like to comment on the discussion here by saying that I am just a bit annoyed that religious people, Christians in particular, and even some atheists tend to insist that one either believes that there is a God, believes that there is no god, or believes that there might be a God. I'm just a young country boy who simply finds the religion itself and absolutely all of the other religions he's been exposed to to be one or more of uninspiring, silly, and simply apalling. Look, maybe it's hard for you to wrap your mind around the concept of someone not liking your religion for reasons of taste, but the simple fact is that I just don't like it. Beyond this, I'm simply uncomfortable with the idea of religion altogether. Setting aside that I am a reductive-materialist, structural-functionalist, and empiricist/firewood/foul heretic/magnet for thrown stones, this is all that I should need to be able to say with confidence and poise that I am an atheist. Just as one chooses Buddhism over Sikhism out of preference, so I choose to be an atheist. What's so hard about that? Bill Mutz

Hi, Bill. Welcome. Hope you enjoy contributing to the Wikipedia and the Atheism article. How were you thinking of contributing? --BM 01:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure that one out. I have one major complaint, and that is the part that is titled, as I recall, "Persecution in the name of Atheism." As I recall from my history classes, the Soviets didn't just persecute religious groups. They oppressed anyone who was likely to retaliate against them. Those religious groups were not persecuted for their beliefs so much as they were persecuted for being groups. That the Soviet government was officially atheist is beside the point. If they had been Lutherans, for example, they still would have persecuted any Lutherans who didn't tow their line, and it would have been the "Soviet Lutheran Church", nothing, or prison, even if you were a Lutheran. The persecution was done strictly in the name of politics.

Also, I would like to add a third group to "positive atheists" and "negative atheists." I'm not sure what to call this group, but some atheists just don't like religion and don't feel that they should have to prove atheism to prove that they are atheists. Perhaps "agnostic atheist" is a good term for this group because they don't neccessarily make a knowlege claim. --Bill Mutz

Agnostic atheism already has its own article, check to see if the definition over there matches what you're referring to before using the term extensively. There are a lot of definitional problems in this area since there's no One True Church of Atheism to keep it all straight for us. :) Bryan 05:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)