Philosophy

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Calm talk

Since there's been so much discussion of this recently, I thought I would put the text I've worked out for the intro here first for comment. If no one registers objections, I'll put the text up tomorrow.

Atheism, as usually defined in the context of philosophy, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. The definition is construed broadly: covering not just those who deny that any deity could exist, but also those who, without making any claim as to the possibility of such entities, are simply unconvinced by (or indifferent to) current arguments for their existence. It is also a formally negative definition, in the sense that it makes no assertion as to what any given atheist does believe, nor does it entail any specific rationale for their lack of belief. While some self-identified atheists also favor this purely descriptive definition, atheism, in common parlance, is more often defined normatively. While this definition takes varying forms, often depending on a given person's religious sensibilities, it is generally anchored in two perceptions: first, the sense that atheists reject the concept of deities and many of the accompanying religious norms of their culture, and second, that atheists are motivated in this rejection by their adherence to humanist or rationalist principles.

As this article is part of the Wikipedia philosophy project, it seems important to provide the fully qualified formal definition up front. As the common usage definition can be fluid, I've tried to describe the factors from which it coalesces rather than try to specify the specific forms it takes, the latter being probably too unwieldy a task for an intro. While I think the language I've chosen for this is neutral, for some reason I'm not sure it comes off as neutral – but I could be imagining things. I think the distinctions descriptive/normative and formal/informal are more useful for the purpose of distinguishing the two definitions than the former broad/narrow, which, while strictly accurate, seems to miss the point. Any suggestions? (And anyone got a better term than 'religious sensibilities' to use in that spot?)
--Plover 03:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on this, Plover. I think the first paragraph is brilliant. I do not believe the second paragraph accurately captures the common ways in which atheism is regarded by the public. Frankly, I don't think most members of the public think enough about such things to even have as developed a view as you present in the second paragraph. I think a better approach to the normative definition(s) of atheism would be simply to list the two most common ones: (1) conscious rejection of belief in God, and (2) the doctrine that there is no God. These are the top two meanings I've found in my survey of dictionary definitions (see below), and this conforms with my own experience and readings on the topic.

I also think that, though the atheism article is part of the philosophy project, the normative definitions should not be given secondary treatment, since this is a resource for all people, not just philosophy majors. Due respect ought to be given to how most people use these words in everyday language, and I think one consequence of this respect ought to be that we list the most common definitions first, followed by the more specialized descriptive definition with which you lead. Defining atheism as a mere lack of belief in deities--such that infants and people who don't even consider the matter qualify as atheists--is a very small minority usage of the word, and I'm not sure even most self-identified atheists use it this way. I certainly don't. For this reason, I think it ought to be listed after the other two, following the convention of listing definitions from most commonly used to least commonly used.

Also, I don't believe the definitions will fall neatly into the categories of "descriptive/normative" and "formal/informal" you propose. For example, one common understanding of atheism is that it is the belief that there is no God. While this might be considered in some philosophical circles as an informal understanding of the word, it has been formalized by at least one atheist philosopher (Theodore Drange), who uses it primarily because of his belief that this definition has greater utility (it more closely conforms with standard public usage, saving much misunderstanding, and it preserves a unique meaning for another word--"nontheist"--which would be rendered superfluous if atheism were defined in the broadest sense). Rohirok 05:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, here's a new proposal. Again, I expect I'll put this up tomorrow if no one registers objections.

Atheism, in its most general sense, denotes disbelief in deities. However, while all definitions contain an element of absence of or rejection of theistic beliefs, there are wide variations of emphasis, inclusiveness and specificity. In cultures with strong traditions of monotheism, atheism is often defined as disbelief in or denial of God. The use of the monotheistic term "God" indicating that atheism is often conceived as a departure from the assumed baseline theism of the culture. While this definition is in common use by both atheists and non-atheists, some atheists with a commitment to rationalism or humanism reverse the implications and assert that theism is a departure from a baseline of rational and scientific thinking. There is also in common use a second, more narrow, definition of atheism: the belief that no God exists. This definition denotes the explicit assertion on the part of some atheists that no God exists or even that no God could exist, and is similar to the formal term strong atheism. In the context of philosophy, atheism is usually defined as an absence of belief in the existence of deities. This definition is construed broadly: covering not just those who deny that any deity exists, but also those who, without making any claim as to the possibility of such entities, are simply unconvinced by (or indifferent to) current arguments for their existence. It is also a formally negative definition, in the sense that it makes no assertion as to what any given atheist does believe, nor does it entail any specific rationale for their lack of belief. (Some atheists also prefer this definition.) Historically, strongly monotheistic cultures have considered atheism as a form of apostasy, with those who publically professed atheism often being put to death. While few nations currently treat atheism as a capital crime, widespread discrimination against atheists exists in many places.

Since, as Rohirok noted, this isn't just a philosophical article, I thought I'd try sketching some of the social issues around atheism.

Any reactions? Anything missing?
--Plover 05:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the 2 definition up front, then discuss them. Anything else will result in repeated edit wars--JimWae 05:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I completely understand. I assume the 2 definitions you refer to are the one currently in the article and whatever the proposal might be? And by leave them "up front", do you mean put both together on the article page itself? Is that a common procedure for significant edits on controversial pages? This is probably one of the more difficult intros to do justice to, but, well, I might as well try. And I have invited discussion – I'm actually a little surprised there hasn't been a greater response. I don't have much experience here, so suggestions about how to proceed are appreciated.

--Plover 08:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LEAVE the 2 defintions up front:

Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This definition includes as atheists both those who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions, however, often only qualify those who assert there are no gods as atheists, labeling the others as nontheists or agnostics.

--JimWae 08:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least when I misconstrue someone's post I do a thorough job of it... :)

Anyway, one of the reasons I started doing this in the first place is because I think the dichotomy represented by those two definitions determines too much of the structure of the current intro and is misleading about how the word is used overall. AFAICT, atheists (or at least atheists who chatter online) take those as the two most important definitions, and more to the point take the distinction between the definitions to be important – something which people who haven't considered the subject, for the most part, I would guess, don't. The standard definitions of an atheist as someone who 'disbelieves in God' or who 'doesn't believe in God' do a fairly good job of semantically punting that distinction, and, I think, indicate fairly well how most people view the question. For most people – certainly most theists, but a good number of atheists too, I would guess – the only important distinction is whether or not someone derives their morality and sense of meaning from belief in a deity. In fact, the distinction isn't even necessarily that precise: many people would probably take some convincing that a Buddhist could be an atheist, because, after all, Buddhists are religious. This is what I was getting at above about normative and descriptive terms. The terms, as used by atheists who worry about the difference between implicit and explicit atheism, are a descriptive taxonomy of what a person believes. In common usage, an atheist is just someone who not only doesn't go to church, but doesn't think they need to, and doesn't even feel guilty about it.

There is nothing about this intro that is easy. Among the things that need to be balanced are: the common usage definitions, the descriptive definitions, how these definitions fit into more formal philosophy, recognition of how atheists self-identify, and recognition of how atheists as a group fit into society. I doubt my current proposal really succeeds at all this yet, but I've done my best to incorporate the different issues everyone's raised. To me it seems that to privilege the descriptive definitions is to adopt an atheist POV rather than a neutral POV. The atheist POV needs to be described not assumed.

In warning about edit wars, I assume you are referring to some of the discussions that took place a few months back. I may not have read enough of the archive yet, but so far I haven't seen that anyone was making the same argument that I am now, so I'd at least like to see someone argue against it before I switch tacks. I appreciate the warning though – part of me has been wondering when this is all going to blow up in my face.

--Plover 14:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current first sentence ("Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of gods.") is better than: "Atheism, in its most general sense, denotes an absence of belief in deities." Most importantly, "absense of belief" is more clear than "disbelief" which is a bit ambiguous. The rest seems reasonable however. Mdwh 17:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This ambiguity is deliberate, and is intended to follow from the change from "broadest sense" to "most general sense" i.e. rather than the definition which applies to the largest number of people, I have tried to choose the definition which reflects the largest number of other definitions. This is the theory anyway (some of the reasoning behind this is included above). The term 'atheism' is often used imprecisely (though correctly, as opposed to the more usual case (I think) of words that are used precisely but incorrectly), and so I'm not sure the article is best served by starting with a precise definition – or at least this is my current notion on how to implement NPOV. That said, I don't think the phrasing is particularly wonderful, and I'm open to changing it. Though I think it is important to keep 'deities' rather than 'gods', I wouldn't object too much to using the 'absence of' phrasing, but I would prefer a solution that better reflects the intent I was trying for.

Does this make sense? Or do you still want to change it? Any other suggestions?

--Plover 06:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But surely, "an absence of belief" does cover the largest number of definitions? When I say "ambiguous", I do not mean that it covers several definitions, but rather that it is ambiguous to the reader which of those definitions we mean - for example, it might be implied that we mean one of the less general definitions. Furthermore, I'd say that "disbelief" at the least implies explicit atheism, and therefore isn't really the most general way of defining it anyway.

I agree with the rest of what you say (and I have no opinion on whether deities or gods is used), but I feel that "absence" satisfies the requirement of being the most general definition, whilst also being clear exactly what it means. Mdwh 06:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my response to JimWae above, I discussed how I think the common usage definition works. In particular, I think it elides the difference between the two definitions that are important to some parts of the atheist community in more or less precisely the way that the wording 'disbelief in deities' does. Yes, I realize that this distinction is important to some atheists, and I think it is important that the distinction be described. However, even if the distinction were important to all atheists, I'm not sure I would think that starting the article with the distinction would make sense, as it is not an important distinction to everyone who uses the word atheist. This is what I was getting at above by the difference between describing the atheist POV and assuming the atheist POV. You and I see the term as being ambiguous because the distinction is meaningful to us, but my working assumption is that for most people, the distinction is not important. Thus, start with the generic definition that is most widely recognized, then show how that definition is ambiguous, and outline the specific uses of term that are important to the people who identify as atheists. Again, this is my current notion on how to implement NPOV.

On your point that "disbelief" at the least implies explicit atheism: yeah, I thought of that, it's one reason I wish I could think of better wording. I decided I cared more about the POV reasoning above. I also thought of using 'unbelief' instead of 'disbelief', but that just sounded icky and awkward to me. If it's just me and doesn't sound that way to other people, it might be a good choice. However, what you're saying also makes me think that the phrase "most general sense" probably doesn't quite work the way I intended.

My intent in making these arguments is less to protest the change you've suggested, than to make sure the reasons behind the choices I made are clear. If you or others are going to object, I just want to make sure the objections are to what I actually did.

--Plover 08:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why do you object to "absence of belief"? I can see what you're saying about disbelief not being ambiguous to most people, but we both agree that we want a definition that includes implicit atheism, and that "disbelief" doesn't really cover that. I agree that "unbelief" is awkard (and a rather vague too, perhaps), but "absense of belief" is quite clear. Mdwh 17:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that I want a definition that includes implicit atheism, but more that I think a wording where the ambiguity extended to cover implicit atheism would be more semantically elegant overall. My arguments above are intended to convey why my first choice is to err on the side of using the common form of the definition (i.e. why I think this choice better implements NPOV), and it's this rationale itself rather than any particular wording per se to which I've been hoping for a response. My reading of your statements is that you think a wording that includes implicit atheism is more important than one reflecting the most common definition. What I'd like to know is: why? How are you applying NPOV (or maybe some other principle I haven't taken into account) to arrive at your choice? My assumption is that reaching some consensus on how NPOV and such apply to the current situation may be the easiest way to minimize contention over word choice.

Also, FWIW, the 'absence of' language does appear in the second sentence. The purpose of the second sentence is basically to indicate the inadequacy of the common definition at conveying the range of meaning covered by the term.

--Plover 00:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily think that a definition including implicit atheism is more important. The article doesn't start with "Atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of gods.", it includes the words in its broadest sense, and it then gives the narrower definition (though I note we don't distinguish between implicit and explicit weak atheism - but is that important to do in the introduction?). I don't think it's a problem that we have to put one definition first - I don't care whether the order is broad->narrow or narrow->broad. I don't think it's solved by putting an ambiguous definition in front of them all.

Another thought I had was to consider that this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. The important issue here is an article about atheism, and not how people use the word "atheism". In that sense, I'd say that (a) the philosophical definition of atheism, and (b) how people who self-identify as atheists use the word is more important than (c) what non-atheists think atheism is.

Of course, we could still start off with the narrower definitions, talking about the common usage of the term, and then say "but" before going into the issues of philosophy, and of atheists. Mdwh 23:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the intro should begin with "Atheism is characterized by the absence of belief or disbelief in the existence of god(s)." MFNickster 08:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thankyou Plover for your work on this, and for engaging in careful dialogue here. I've seen the article go through many changes, many of which have involved controversies over the "proper" definition of the word, and the "proper" classification of its many subspecies. As has happened with such words as Mormon and humanism, atheism has been subjected to many tussles over ownership from all sides, and it seems that the moment when it will dawn on everyone that no single individual or group or dictionary owns this word and can fix its meaning once and for all is yet far away. In the case of atheism, where there are many definitions being used by many people at once, it's hard to know how to make an accurate, comprehensive and neutral article on the subject. My inclination is to keep this complex issue as simple as possible in the introduction. I am in favor of restricting the intro to statements amounting to: (1) a list of the most common definitions (please see below) for atheism, with a note that not everyone is in agreement on the proper definition, (2) a statement that the article treats as its subject all positions encompassed by those definitions, without taking a stance as to the proper definition, and (3) a note distinguishing atheist as a taxonomic classification in philosophy and atheist as a chosen self-identity that might carry with it certain attitudes, assumptions and significance within a given culture. I don't think the entire intro should be changed at once, nor do I think that every change to it ought to be discussed in depth here and voted on before being made. We want to avoid constant reverts, but we also want to avoid catatonia brought on by perfectionism. I think the intro right now is a pretty good start, and that we can start to build on it and tweak it. I propose that we avoid major overhauls as too contentious, and that we instead go ahead and make small changes--perhaps no more than one sentence per day per editor--keeping in mind the opinions expressed here both now and in the future, and responding with constructive criticism if we ever feel compelled to revert someone else's edit, and also taking such criticism in stride, explaining our changes if we ever feel our edits have been reverted to the article's detriment. Rohirok 08:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, I finally got around to finishing a new draft. This is definitely closer to what I've been trying for, and should better illustrate some of the structural ideas I've discussed above. Everyone's feedback has been very helpful – my thanks to each of you.

Atheism can be characterized, in a general, inclusive sense, as an absence of belief in deities. While this characterization identifies a chief element common to the various definitions of atheism – both current and historical – definitions of atheism are often strongly affected by social and cultural perceptions and exhibit wide variations of emphasis, inclusiveness and specificity. In cultures with strong traditions of monotheism, atheism is commonly defined as disbelief in or denial of God. While this definition is in common use by both atheists and non-atheists, and often serves the normative purpose of identifying atheists as a social group, many self-identified atheists consider it too ambiguous to accurately characterize the diversity of attitudes toward belief among atheists. One approach taken by atheists is to adopt the inclusive characterization given above – that is, to define atheism as an absence of belief in the existence of deities. As a definition, this is construed broadly: covering not just those who deny that any deity exists, but also those who, without making any claim as to the possibility of such entities, are simply unconvinced by (or indifferent to) current arguments for their existence. It is also a formally negative definition, in the sense that it makes no assertion as to what any given atheist does believe, nor does it entail any specific rationale for their lack of belief. Another common approach is to adopt a more restrictive definition of atheism as the explicit denial that any deity exists – or, in its more common form, the assertion there is no God – and label other positions covered under the broader definition as agnosticism or nontheism. These approaches provide definitions of atheism that function descriptively rather normatively. However, among atheists with a strong commitment to rationalism or humanism, it is common for these definitions to be accompanied by a view that theistic beliefs are a departure from a baseline of rational and scientific thinking, reversing the more common notion which views atheism as a departure from a culture's assumed baseline of theism. Although atheists often share common concerns regarding empirical evidence and the scientific method of investigation and a large number are skeptics, there is no single ideology that all atheists share. Additionally, there are atheists who are religious or spiritual, though many of these would not describe themselves as atheists. Historically, strongly monotheistic cultures have considered atheism as a form of apostasy, with those who publically professed atheism often being put to death. While few nations currently treat atheism as a capital crime, widespread discrimination against atheists exists in many places. Sometimes this arises from a confusion of atheism with antitheism – a position which goes beyond just the rejection of theistic beliefs on the part of the individual atheist to active opposition to others holding such beliefs. While this is not an uncommon position among atheists, the majority do not directly oppose theism.

I don't think I really have a good sense of what would be important to include from the standpoint of philosophers as opposed to the atheism community, so if anyone thinks I've missed anything on that score, please let me know.

Any thoughts?
--plover 05:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a thought I may have mentioned before: leave BOTH definitions in the 1st paragraph. --JimWae 05:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I wrote an answer explaining what I was doing to which you never responded. What I've tried to do this time is actually have no definition in the first paragraph – I've stated the unifying factor among definitions without giving it the status of one, and waited until later to show how the same wording can function as a defintion. My goal is to illustrate the fluidity with which the word is actually used. The audience for this article is not atheists; it's everyone. And this goes double for the intro, since atheists who argue about what the word means obviously already have some sense of the different ways people use it. I think it's more important to find a way to introduce the subject to people unfamiliar with it than to worry about what definitions come first.

It would help if you would actually explain the problem. Do you find this first paragraph offensive for some reason? If not, who would? Why? There's obviously something going on here.

--plover 14:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That piece is fantastic. Only one point of contention from me - the second sentence of the final paragraph seems to imply that one does not need to look far to find discrimination against atheists comparable to, say, discrimination against blacks in the 50s and 60s. I know some states still have laws that prevent atheists from holding particular positions, but if a challenge ever came up they probably wouldn't even need to go through the full appeals process before someone just put a stop to the madness - beyond that, not much comes to mind, as atheists tend not to flaunt their atheism (in my experience). Then again, I've always lived in a relatively liberal part of a relatively liberal country. Did you have something specific in mind to back up that statement, or am I misinterpreting it? --Ted 20:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a survey I made of definitions linked by One Look, supplemented by the definitions I found in my own print dictionary. I found basically 4 definitions, having the following frequency:

A. Lack of belief in God = 5
B. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God = 12
C. Belief that God does not exist = 11
D. Godlessness or immorality = 8

Note that definition B is pretty ambiguous. If disbelief is defined in the weak sense (of lacking belief without necessarily having consciously rejected belief), definition B extends into the territory covered by definition A. And if denial is defined in the strong sense (of asserting the contrary of a belief, rather than merely refusing to accept it), it extends into the territory covered by definition C. Note also that definition D was generally listed as an archaic meaning.

This should give us some idea as to the frequency of the various usages of the word. Obviously, this is a very rough survey, by no means random, no doubt skewed by plagiarism between the sources, and premised on the assumption that the frequency of word usage by the public is reflected in the frequency of such definitions in dictionaries. Also, those dictionaries that are purely online are probably not as authoritative as those that are in print.

Encarta World English Dictionary, North American Edition

1. unbelief in God or deities (A)
2. disbelief in the existence of God or deities. (B)

Compact Oxford English Dictionary

1. the belief that God does not exist. (C)

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition

1. ungodliness, wickedness. (D)
2. a disbelief in the existence of deity (B)
3. the doctrine that there is no deity. (C)

The Wordsmyth English Dictionary-Thesaurus

1. the belief that there is no God. (C)

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. (B)
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. (C)
3. Godlessness; immorality. (D)

Infoplease Dictionary

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. (C)
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. (B)

Dictionary.com

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. (B)
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. (C)
3. Godlessness; immorality. (D)

UltraLingua English Dictionary

1. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (A)
2. The doctrine or belief that there is no God; (C)
3. godlessness. (D)

Cambridge Dictionary of American English

1. the belief that God does not exist . (C)

Online Plain Text English Dictionary

1. Godlessness. (D)
2. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. (B)

Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition

1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. (B)
2. Godlessness. (D)

Rhymezone

1. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods (A)
2. the doctrine or belief that there is no God (C)

AllWords.com Multi-Lingual Dictionary

1. The belief that there is no god. (C)

Webster's 1828 Dictionary

1. The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being. (B)

Columbia Encyclopedia, Six Edition

1. denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence. (B)

1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica

1. Denial that there is a God. (B)

WordNet 1.7 Vocabulary Helper

1. godlessness (D)
2. the doctrine or belief that there is no God (C)
3. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods (A)

LookWAYup Translating Dictionary/Thesaurus

1. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (A)
2. the doctrine or belief that there is no God (C)

Encyclopedia.com

1. denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence. (B)

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Fifth Edition

1. Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God or gods. (B)
2. godlessness. (D)

Rohirok 06:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[I messed with the definition formatting --Plover 14:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)][reply]

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has: ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. What is more interesting from that page though is this prefatory remark:

these words [atheism and agnosticism] are what Wittgenstein called ‘family resemblance’ words. That is, we cannot expect to find a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for their use. Their use is appropriate if a fair number of the conditions are satisfied. Moreover even particular members of the families are often imprecise, and sometimes almost completely obscure. Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic.

--Plover 07:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that disbelief is equivalent to lack of belief by definition - it's not clear why Encarta is making a distinction - I'd say that "disbelief" implies concious rejection (so it can still be weak atheism, but it's explicit atheism), where as unbelief would include implicit atheism. Denial is more ambiguous between weak and strong, I agree.

I'd say the most important increasingly-narrower definitions are (a) Implicit weak atheism, (b) Explicit weak atheism, (c) Explicit strong atheism, which we should try to define without possibly ambiguous words like "disbelief", "deny", "reject".

It's also important to indicate the definitions common only among non-atheists. It's like saying that many people think a witch is a evil person who rides on broomsticks - clearly this has no relevance on those who self-identify as witches. Another example would be anarchism.

Another point is that the people who only use definition C tend to use "agnostic" to refer to weak atheists (and similarly, plenty of dictionaries include the "weak atheist" definition for "agnostic). But I don't believe this definition is covered over at agnosticism - there we stick with the strict definition, rather than the popular misconception of the word. Perhaps we should follow the same example here? Mdwh 23:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the problems here. One of the things that should perhaps be reflected by the articles on atheism, agnosticism, nontheism, etc. is some consistent philosophical taxonomy of the various positions. However, the system of terminology that is AFAIK the most prevalent in philosophy does not map especially well onto the common usage of the terms. Secondly, unlike most philosophical terms people other than philosophers care about what the term 'atheism' means, and so the conflict between the different meanings can't be made a side issue. In other words, in addition to a philosophical categorization, being an atheist is also an identity, and each person who adopts the identity has a specific definition in mind under which they choose that identity, and people often get upset if anyone uses a definition that is too distant from the one their identity is based on – especially if that other person's terminology puts them in a different category. Note this obviously holds even more strongly for those who define themselves against atheism, i.e. those equating atheism with immorality. This is what I was getting at above in the Another intro proposal section when I was talking about common use definitions of atheism being normative: the definitions are motivated by factors other than providing a consistent (or sometimes even a coherent) taxonomy.

I think this problem mostly only arises for agnostics and atheists, as this is a case where there are too many concepts for the commonly known terms; weak atheism being the stance worst served by the terminology, but also, I've tended to assume, the most common. I like the term nontheist as a better inclusive term to cover weak and strong atheism than atheism, but according to the article here on Wikipedia, even that has a technical sense which is distinct from any of the standard categories (and I have no idea whether the technical definition used in that article is more or less common than the use I'm suggesting which I'm assuming is the same (or nearly) as the one used by Drange that Rohirok mentioned above). Theists don't worry about the exact definition of theism too much because, their identity is associated much more with the specific kind of theism they adhere to, so while a theist may be very incensed at being identified as a member of the First Church of the Reformed Immaculate Whatsihoozer rather than the Second CotRIW, they are unlikely to care whether they are lumped together with deists or not under the label 'theism'. I suspect even deists and pantheists (though I could be wrong about this) aren't terribly concerned about whether they're lumped under some appropriate definition of theism – obviously as long as they aren't lumped under monotheism.

Ok, um, shorter more coherent version of the above: 'atheist' and 'agnostic' are the categories that most commonly act as both top level taxa in the classification of religious sensibilities, and as identities for individuals, and are thus the most contentious to define. (And this is in spite of the fact that, under their technical definitions, the two terms don't even categorize the same aspect of belief.)

One thing that probably needs to be decided in organizing some of these articles is whether there should be any attempt to present any of the terms as constituting an exhaustive classification system. Theism and atheism are at least exclusive under (probably(!)) any set of definitions, but are not exhaustive under most. Theism/deism/pantheism/atheism is probably not much better. The theist/agnostic/atheist system as it exists in commmon usage is geared toward social realities of Western culture where agnostic and atheist serve most often to indicate attitudes to some perceived baseline of monotheism, but quickly becomes inadequate when complications are introduced. Most of the articles I've seen on Wikipedia on such terms seem to emphasize that the term under consideration actually answers a different question than any related terms. Is there some set of terms that can be established as a set of top of level categories? If there is, is it prevalent enough to form a basis for organizing a section of Wikipedia articles? And if no such categorization is reasonable, should Wikipedia address the concerns of those looking for such a categorization? If so, how and where?

--Plover 04:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't strong atheism a sub category of weak atheism? weak athism can be summed up with the statement "I do not belive in a god" and strong as "I belive there is no god" a strong atheist is therefore also a weak atheist, but a weak atheist is not neccesarily a strong atheist. I recomend revising the diagram. 24.237.198.91 08:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct. What's wrong with the diagram? Mdwh 03:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram shows a clear separation within the circle, as if to say that "strong" and "weak" atheists are all atheists, but "strong" atheists are not also "weak" atheists. IMHO, the diagram isn't very helpful and should be removed or replaced with one showing the differences between the categories instead of trying to diagram the categories themselves. MFNickster 03:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any separation? There's a purple circle inside the blue circle, with no gap in between. If you mean that "purple" is separate from "blue" - well, this is the correct way to indicate a subset in a Venn diagram. If someone can make a better diagram then that's fine, but I don't see how the existing diagram is wrong. I think it helpfully shows the distinctions between weak/strong and implicit/explicit. Mdwh 03:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see I've read it wrong - the labels at the bottom gave me the impression that the center dividing line was for both "implicit/explicit" and "strong/weak," although the colors should have clued me in. But that itself is an example of why the diagram is problematic. Worse, it doesn't serve to explain anything about the distinctions... you might as well show a simple table with the terms in it (perhaps with some shading as well). MFNickster 08:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I agree with you here. It would be better if the weak/strong labels were closer to their respective regions, possibly with arrows, rather than on either side of the dividing line. Mdwh 22:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I haven't been following the discussion, so please excuse me if this has already been addressed. I'm afraid that due to the current layout the casual reader will gain nothing from this article. What can be done? (FWIW, I'm facing a similar problem over at Drug abuse). A quick solution would be to eliminate most split sections and replace them with a top right-aligned navigation template. I would also like to move the "Reasons for atheism" as well as the "Distribution of atheists" and "Atheism studies and statistics" between "Etymology" and "Types and typologies of atheism". —Viriditas | Talk 04:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page needs a lot of work too. There's a lot of good material, but there are consistency problems regarding definitions and so forth, and a lot more organization is needed for it to read like an article rather than an organic accretion of topics. So far I've only pursued rewriting the intro, and I haven't decided yet whether I'm going to continue after that. One thought I had though is that "Distribution of atheists" and "Atheism studies and statistics" should actually be moved to their own page (i.e. both sections as one page not two different ones) called "Atheism (demographics)" or something. The article is far too lengthy, and that seemed like one of the easiest bits to separate out.

I'm not sure that really answers your question though. I'm happy to see anything that makes the page more navagable. Changes to this page are often controversial, but off the top of my head, I don't know why the type of changes you're proposing would particularly upset anyone. Several people here have a lot more familiarity with the history of page than I do though. Intuitively, I would push the "Distribution" and "Statistics" sections to the end of the article rather than the top (if they remain on the page), but, like I said, any real attempt at organization will probably be an improvement over what's there now.

--plover 08:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about implementing a roadmap, or at the very least, a to-do list? I tried posting an outline on Drug abuse, but the trolls showed up before I was finished with the lead. —Viriditas | Talk 23:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean? Are Atheists now non-cognitivists? Since when has this been the case?--Ben 22:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cross-posted by Ben from Talk:Intelligent_design/Townes_RFC

Hey, all. Benapgar's been adding spurious WP:OR notices to a variety of articles on atheism, either without explanation in Talk or with a misleading explanation. Given the lack of proper explanation and his track record here, I felt that the best response is to simply revert these additions. Just wanted to kee you all in the loop. Alienus 22:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What? I posted an explanation on talk on all three pages, and not only that, I also directed the talk to my concerns on the primary page (here). And why is what I said "misleading?" You think I'm trying to pull something on you? By all means, tell me what it is. -Ben 22:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. The reason you tagged this article as OR is because you do not understand what 'absence of belief' means? It doesn't sounds like you posted an explanation on the talk pages... oh, and you didn't post "all three pages" like you said, you missed the talk page on existence of god--Andrew c 23:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking a question. I don't know exactly what is meant by "absence of belief." Why is it written that way? And it seems like original research to say "[Atheism] includes as atheists both those who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not." I've never heard of Atheism being non-cognitivist, and I can't find any dictionary that defines Atheism this way. Is that what the intro is supposed to be saying? That Atheism is non-cognitivist? Check out Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism and there are quite a few references in there and none of them say Atheism is non-cognitivist. Atheists, in my experience with the word, and every reference I can find, means "those who do not believe in a God," and it only means that.

(And yes, I realize now that I did miss that page, but the notice is gone now anyway so it's not like I can go back in time and fix it :/). --Ben 23:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] says "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods", which is where absence of belief comes from, and there is nothing in that dictionary definition that says that atheists are only those making an assertion. It also contradicts your claim that atheism can only mean "those who do not believe in a God". And I'm not sure where it's implied that atheism is non-cognitivist.

Atheists consider "God exists" to be a proposition - they just don't assert that such a proposition is true (they don't necessarily state it false, by the way - many people use atheism in a way different to the link you gave, and the definition given for agnostic there is incorrect; agnosticism is about knowledge). The point is that we need to cover all the main usages of the term atheism, not just your personal opinion, or the usage as it appears on one random webpage. Mdwh 23:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is inappropriate to tag an article as either OR or not verified just because you are unfamiliar with or misunderstand a single phrase. Please google "weak atheism". The editors of this article are not making up this position, or the language used to describe it. I am unfamiliar with the term "non-cognitivist". Looking through its wiki entry, I do not see how it applies to an absence of belief. Just because you have only experienced one definition of the word, does not mean that "weak atheism" is OR on behalf of wikipedia editors. Are you making a philosophical argument against the position of 'weak atheism', or are you making an argument that 'weak atheism' should not be included in wikipedia (for whatever reason)?--Andrew c 23:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe we can clear it up this way. Is "having a lack/absence of belief in God" the same as "not believing God exists?" And if it is, let's substitute that instead. I think it would be a lot more understandable. And if that's not what the article is getting at, please explain the difference between "having a lack/absence of belief in God" and "not believing God exists."

And how does atheos, "without gods" turn into "lack of belief in gods????" It says nothing about belief at all. This is why I am concerned about original research in the article, especially concerning this "lack of belief" nonsense.--Ben 00:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Lack of belief" is the same as "Not believing", as far as I know. I don't really mind what is put there, but I guess lack/absence was chosen to make it more explicitly clear (a lot of people confuse "don't believe in God" and "believe God doesn't exist", the latter being closer to an assertion that God doesn't exist).

Ok, so then explain the difference between "don't believe in God" and "believe God doesn't exist." This is something I don't understand and the article doesn't explain the difference.--Ben 01:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the latter, I mean people who assert that God doesn't exist. There are many things I don't believe in (unicorns, ghosts, etc), but I wouldn't necessarily assert that they don't exist. The distinction most likely came about in response to people criticising atheists, saying that they need evidence/proof/faith for their claims - the point being that many atheists do not make any claims. Does that help? Mdwh 03:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And are you really disputing that atheism comes from atheos? This is backed up by many sources (e.g., the answers.com link I gave), and certainly isn't original research. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it OR. Mdwh 01:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course not. I am disputing that atheos means "lack of belief in Gods." That seems to be a stretch from "without Gods" of the original research kind. --Ben 01:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point, I didn't see that bit. I'll remove it unless anyone who knows more about this objects. Mdwh 03:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Lack of belief" nonsense? Did you google weak atheism like I asked? You can play semantics all you want, but this is an actual term that wikipedia editors did no make up. And it is very commonly defined as lack of belief, disbelief, or absence of belief in deities. None of this is remotely controversial. Just because you have never heard of weak atheism does not mean it should be excluded from wikipedia. Are you now convinced that weak atheism does exist and is defined in these terms, and therefore its ok to be included in the articles, or did you have another concern?--Andrew c 01:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize there something called "weak atheism." But when someone says it means someone who "doesn't believe in God" then goes on to say it does not necessarily mean they "believe God doesn't exist" I do not understand what that means. I'm not saying the entire article is original research. --Ben 02:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read through the section this article about weak and strong atheism. Could you quote me the part that is confusing you? Or maybe you could edit it yourself to clear things up? I think your problem is a dualistic outlook, where someone either positively believes in the existence of deities, or they positively believe in the non-existence of deities, with no other options. Weak atheism is a third option that is not a positive belief either way (so what is something that is not a positive beleif if it isn't an absence/lack of belief or disbelief). I believe you are saying "disbelief in deties" is the exact same thing as "positive belief in the non-existence of deities", where this article (by explaining the difference between weak and strong atheism) differentiates between the two. Does this help at all? If not, could you please be specific about what content in the article is concerning to you?--Andrew c 02:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read and I don't understand it. "they only refrain from assenting to theistic claims?" What does this mean? --Ben 02:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A theistic claim would be something like "God exists" or "there are [1, 7, infinite] gods". If you assent to such a claim (i.e. accept it as a true proposition, establishing theistic belief) then you are a theist. If you do not assent (concur, believe, or justify) such a claim, you are an atheist - whatever the reason for your position. MFNickster 03:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is from Encyclopedia Britannica:

"An atheist denies the existence of God. As it is frequently said, atheists believe that it is false that God exists, or that God's existence is a speculative hypothesis of an extremely low order of probability." [2]

This is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"'Atheism' means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." [3]

Yes, and? These definitions are included in the article. Mdwh 01:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Included is not the same as being the actual definition. Defining words can also be original research.--Ben 01:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already posted dictionary definitions showing other usages of the term. Those two Encyclopedias are not the only ones in existence; there are many sources showing the word being used in other ways. There are no words being defined here by us. Mdwh 03:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in another section above the Stanford Encyclopedia also says:

[Atheism and agnosticism] are what Wittgenstein called ‘family resemblance’ words. That is, we cannot expect to find a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for their use. Their use is appropriate if a fair number of the conditions are satisfied. Moreover even particular members of the families are often imprecise, and sometimes almost completely obscure. Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic.

There are several different meanings of 'atheism' in use with varying descriptive and normative shadings. 'Agnosticism' poses a slightly different problem since, while there are fewer definitions, some use it as position about knowledge and others as a metaphysical position. In addition, the position taken on 'agnosticism' affects which definition of atheism is used. There are thus two incompatible taxonomies covered by the terms. IMHO, this is the one of the main issues that needs to be addressed.

--plover 02:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I understand there are several different meanings, apparently, but I don't understand what those meanings are. --Ben 03:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page may help clear up the distinction for Ben. --Andrew c 02:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly I didn't understand that page either. What is the difference between not believing in the existence of God and believing God does not exist? It means exactly the same thing to me, it's just a different way to say exactly the same thing. It's switching the words around.--Ben 03:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe in unicorns? If not, is that "disbelief" in the same sense as atheism? You believe unicorns do not exist, AND you do not believe that they exist. Now, do you believe in zorgs? If you don't know what they are, does that constitute "disbelief" or just a "lack of belief" in zorgs? MFNickster 03:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has left the realm of dealing with content of this article, and is entirely about your inability to understand the difference between the type of atheism. I'm only continuing the conversation because I want to try to help you understand. So, in case you missed this, I'm going to quote a portion of the link above:

The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses 'atheist' to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distiniction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that the term 'god' has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.

Is there anything in that passage that confuses you?--Andrew c 03:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between not believing in the existence of God and believing God does not exist?

One can find the God (or gods) defined by various religions unconvincing, and thus not believe in any of those ideas of God, without necessarily also thinking there is any certainty that some entity is not inextricably entwined with the existence of the universe (and which thus may as well be called God). It can also be a matter of whether any definition of God is sufficently specified and internally consistent – for someone who feels no such definition has been proposed, the current ideas of God are not so much disbelieved as dismissed as logical absurdities. Often these positions are called agnosticism, but when agnosticism is defined as an epistemological position, they are often called weak atheism.

Also, the 'lack of belief' definition of atheism can be used purely descriptively, that is, with no normative component – for example, it covers those types of Buddhists who consider the question of God entirely irrelevant or nonsensical. In such cases, it simply registers that an individual does not hold certain types of belief, without any implication as to why that is so, or as to whether the individual would identify with any normative idea of atheism.

--plover ^talk 03:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps another example might help to illustrate the difference between "lack of belief in something" and "belief that something does not exist". Before the advent of modern chemistry a commonly held belief amongst alchemists was a belief in the existence of phlogiston. Modern chemists deny the existence of phlogiston, yet the average layman probably merely has a lack of belief in the existence of phlogiston. --BostonMA 18:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - before the theory of phlogiston was formulated, it was impossible to "believe that phlogiston does not exist." MFNickster 03:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this talk page precisely because the first two lines of this (otherwise very clear) article confused me, which is a pretty bad sign whatever position you take. The problem, I think, is that 'absence of belief in god(s)' broadens the definition of atheism so much that it includes agnosticism (in all its forms). Here are, as far as I can see, are the seven attitudes I can have towards the proposition 'God(s) exist(s)' (which have not been clearly separated in the comments so far):

1. I believe the proposition is true.
2. I believe the proposition is false.
3. I have never encountered the proposition, so I 'lack belief' in it. This is the sort of lack of belief in the above examples of one's lack of belief about 'zorgs' or the common man's about phlogiston and would apply to people in a culture (if one ever existed) that simply never considered the question of a God or his existence.
4. I have encountered the proposition, but think it is meaningless. This is being a 'non-cognitivist' about the proposition and covers the position of philosophers such as A. J. Ayer and the example given of Buddhists who consider the question nonsensical. Such people (I think) could also be described as 'lacking belief' in God, insofar as they think formulating such a belief is impossible (since it includes a nonsensical claim).
5. I have encountered the proposition, but take the stance that the article defines as 'weak atheism': 'the absence of belief in the existence of deities without the positive assertion that deities do not exist'.
6. I am 'agnostic' about the proposition in the first sense (in WP agnosticism): I think the truth or falsity of the claim is 'unknown or unknowable' (the article adds 'or incoherent' (i.e. 4.) but I think this is questionable)
7. I am 'agnostic' about the proposition in the second sense (in WP): those 'who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion'.

So 2-5 are the possible candidates for types of atheism. 2 is clearly atheism (and I think it is the primary and most commonly used sense of the word). 3 could indeed be seen as a sort of atheism (most definitely if we are thinking etymologically). 4 is difficult – I don’t think it is agnosticism as the WP article on agnosticism suggests, but it is also quite different from denying the existence of God, so it is perhaps safest to say it is a third, separate attitude to talk about God (as A J Ayer believed; see also http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism). On the other hand, it certainly includes a lack of belief in God and a refusal to assert that God exists, so some might want to call it atheism.

5. is even more difficult. Now this is most definitely an important part of the discussion of atheism and should have a place in the article. However I do not think it should be part of the primary definition of atheism that the first lines of the article represent.

First, it is a special notion of atheism and not how the word is normally used. Most people who argue for negative atheism recognise this point. Anthony Flew, perhaps the most prominent modern proponent of weak atheism, introduced the terms negative and positive atheism (synonyms of weak and strong atheism), noting that 'nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is "someone who asserts that there is no such being as God"' and that 'the introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be … going arbitrarily against established common usage' (God, Freedom, and Morality). Furthermore, in pretty much every reputable source that I have at hand (the OED, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Oxford Companion to Philosophy, and Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy Online) 2. is given as either the only or the primary definition of atheism. Finally, as a special notion, it is subject to debate; many thinkers think 5. is not atheism at all and many thinkers believe that it is - nonetheless, as far as I am aware, no one has ever denied that 2. is atheism.

Second, and most importantly, the reason I think it should not be part of the primary definition of atheism is that it includes agnosticism and is, thus, confusing. As defined in the article, weak atheism makes atheism a broad concept indeed, covering both senses of agnosticism: if one believes that the truth or falsity of ‘god exists’ is unknown or unknowable or is noncommittal on the question, then one (a) lacks belief in God and (b) does not assert that God does not exist. Flew also recognised that the idea of negative atheism will overlap with the common understanding of agnosticism (and accordingly he offers a special definition of agnosticism).

Thus, the first line of the article ('Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of gods') makes atheism, first, an umbrella term that includes all forms of agnosticism (sacrificing consistency and making it fairly confusing) and, second, a term partly determined by a specialised sense of the word that is a matter of debate (thus defining it in a less than neutral way that takes a position in modern controversies). Dast 18:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you're assuming that atheism is mutually exclusive to agnosticism - I see no reason why this should be true. Atheism is about belief, agnosticism is about knowledge, and therefore there will be stances which come under both. Also, I disagree that this definition makes agnosticism a subset of atheism - it is possible that someone could believe in God through faith alone, even though they also believed that this was something we could not know through evidence. Trying to list all possibile categories is a lot easier if we simply ask "Do you believe in God?":

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Then other ones such as "I think the question is meaningless" or "I don't know if I do".

But I don't see why number 2 should be subdivided in such a way that only some of those "No"s count as atheism.

As for sources, many dictionaries include one who "disbelieves" under atheism. I see no reason why we should exclude a definition that is both covered in dictionaries, and used by many who identify as atheists. Mdwh 18:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this sentence because it seemed a bit confusing and didn't seem to belong in the opening paragraph, though it is true that Buddhism is (generally) agreed to be a non-theistic religion. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 16:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the literature on atheism discusses how it can be distinguished from agnosticism, and on whether or not atheism is itself a belief system. These issues are briefly addressed by pointing out that while agnosticism, focusing on what can be known, is an epistemological position (dealing with the nature and limits of human knowledge); both atheism and theism are ontological positions (a branch of metaphysics that deals with what types of entities exist). In this account, atheists do not need to assert "There are no gods" (which some would call a statement of belief, since it has yet to be proven), but rather simply do not count words referring to deities as among those having any referent or denotation. Some atheists and agnostics, pointing to inconsistencies in concepts of deities, go further and also maintain that the term "god" has no clear connotation (meaning) at all.

-- only problem I see is that it might be too much original research --JimWae 20:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On one level, I like the approach that your proposed text takes in avoiding some of the definitional issues that have been raised previously. However, as it stands, I think it makes far too many assumptions about what the audience knows, that is, it appears to be addressed to philosophers rather than the average reader. Also, in common usage, agnosticism is not always used as a strictly epistemological term. (Also, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy skirts the issue in such a way as to imply a strictly epistemological usage may not be the consensus among philosophers either.)

Because this article has to serve so many functions, I think the important question to ask when writing the intro is, "What information does the average reader need in order for the article useful?" In my proposals, I've trended toward putting more into the intro rather than less, but I've realized this is at least in part due to the poor organization of the overall article, or at least poor organization for the purposes of a general reader. The "Typologies" section starts well, but wanders off into the kind detailed taxonomy that probably is not the most helpful thing for someone new to the subject, and the "Reasons for atheism" section, which probably is important for general readers, is stuck at the end of the article. A very minimal intro that mostly directed readers with different purposes to good places to start would be fine if the rest of the article supported that. Since that is not the case, it seems to me that more attention should be accorded to the needs of non-specialist readers who are not currently well served by the body of the article.

--plover ^talk 01:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Although atheistic beliefs are often accompanied by a total lack of supernatural beliefs, this is not an aspect, or even a necessary consequence, of atheism. Indeed, there are many atheists who are not irreligious or secular. These are most common in spiritualities like Buddhism and Taoism, but they also exist in sects of religions that are usually very theistic by nature, such as Christianity, especially in some Liberal Quaker groups."

Uh...what? Isn't the very definition of atheism the disbelief in God or a higher power? IMO, you cannot be religious and atheist at the same time; there's just no way. The first sentence in that section is in blatant contradiction to the crux of atheism. If someone thinks they are a religious atheist, they are just ignorant, and/or confused. Perhaps they should research agnosticism and other related schools of thought. The term "religious atheist" is an oxy-moron though, plain and simple. King nothing 2 17:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support. I've hidden section for now. If no decent reasons to keep it will be provided, we should delete it. --tasc 17:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I attend a Quaker meeting, and this is actually an issue. My understanding of it is that some people believe that reality is simply spiritual. In fact, New Age philosopher Ken Wilber has defined his conception of divinity as "The simple feeling of Being". Famous protestant theologian Paul Tillich defined god as the ground of being. This, of course, does not entail any belief in a seperate theistic being. Tillich was called an atheist by most Christian who understood his beliefs, but he called himself a Christian theologian. The holders of such views, which exist in Zen Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, and among Quakers, generally decline to label these views as either theism or atheism. It seems appropriate to discuss or to link to a discussion regarding this phenomenon in this article. — goethean ॐ 17:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

am i right that the one who calls himself "Christian theologian" might be considered an atheist according to the article? --tasc 17:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well at the very least, it needs to be revised quite a bit. King nothing 2 18:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly be religious and/or spiritual, and an atheist. Atheism is simply not believing in God(s) - nothing more. You can believe in supernatural things in ghosts or telepathy. Also, whilst most religions are theistic, not all of them are - you can certainly follow a religion such as Buddhism, which does require believe in any god.

The first sentence is true. I think the entire paragraph is correct, apart from the Christianity bit which I have no idea about. "Religious atheist" is not an oxymoron. Mdwh 23:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In respone to the unsigned comment above: "religious" is defined as "having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity." The definition of "atheist" is the exact opposite of that. There is really no way you can be both. King nothing 2 00:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section should be added back in with revisions. This is not as cut and dry as one might think. See also: [4]. —Viriditas | Talk 01:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Buddhism isn't a religion then? The definition of religion is not so simple as that. Another common definition is "A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader." [5]. Mdwh 02:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, no, I wouldn't call it a religion. I'd call it an agnostic philosophy. King nothing 2 17:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all religions are theistic, King... this is hardly a controversial point. You might define religion that way yourself, but if you do any research in the philosophy of religion you will find that you are in error. MFNickster 17:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article not capitalize Atheism and Atheists as I see that Christianity and Christians are capitalized in the Christianity article? --Revolución hablar ver 20:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because 'atheist' and 'atheism' are not proper names (although technically 'Christ' isn't either). MFNickster 21:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

define "proper" names, please. --Revolución hablar ver 23:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look on Wiktionary MFNickster 00:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Atheism isn't capitalized for the same reason theism isn't capitalized: they're philosophies or beliefs (or "lacks of belief", if you prefer), not religions. In general (though there are exceptions), the only times philosophical views are capitalized is in cases where they're named after proper nouns. Christianity is capitalized because Christ is capitalized, and the Christ in Jesus Christ is capitalized for the same reason the Queen in Queen Elizabeth is. The only difference is that the word Christ (originally meaning "anointed", a direct Greek translation of the word messiah) has survived and flourished in English only in the "Jesus Christ" name, whereas queen (like god) can be either capitalized or uncapitalized. Though religions and political parties are conventionally capitalized (which is why both communism, the economic philosophy, and Communism, the political party, are valid capitalizations), philosophies and worldviews like atheism, existentialism, and materialism are usually not. -Silence 00:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-snip-

As no one objected to the suggestion, this discussion has now been moved to User talk:Alisyd on the grounds that it is, though an interesting discussion, irrelevant to the atheism article, and thus serving only to distract from Wikipedia's purposes. Please feel free to continue the debate there ad libitum. -Silence 13:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article agnostic atheism was previously split from atheism. The article is currently selected for deletion. If you have any opinions on this issue, please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agnostic atheism. Thank you. Adraeus 00:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]