Atheism is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 8, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 31, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 29, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed April 28, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Atheism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite: If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page. Quick help Project's main talk page Article layout Links to atheism-related information · List of free online resources Writing about religion · Article development Citing sources · Verifying sources · About original research Assume good faith · Be civil Recent activity Core articles the "Atheism" article Articles recently added to Category:Atheism To do history watch purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold. Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members. Help with articles. See this month's adopt-an-article. Help out with this to-do list. Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles). Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box) Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it. Maintenance, etc. Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references). Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process). Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly. Always write for an encyclopedia. Articles to improve Agnosticism Create Articles on notable atheists Expand an atheism stub Immediate attention State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments. False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes. Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century. Philosophy: Religion High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of religion Theology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Template:Calm talk

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 10 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

Hi, I remember re-reading a number of times the articles on early Islamic atheism and agnosticism, that included such thinkers as Ibn al-Rawandi, and that's all I can find now. I remember there was a Persian guy who was a doctor who helped treat loads of diseases, and was the first to differentiate Small Pox and the Measles(?), and had some very interesting thoughts on religion. I've also noticed in the Apostasy in Islam page it only includes modern thinkers.

There was loads of fascinating links to the various thinkers of Islam who questioned their religion. Now there's nothing. I'm not going to say there's been a white-wash, but wikipedia is really missing something from the loss of these pages. I'm sure there are plenty of Muslim's who have doubt in Allah, and are missing out on learning about their predecessors doubts in Allah. And beyond that, it's such a fascinating subject!

I do accept there is this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_Muslims#Became_Atheists But there is no formal article on the history of atheism and islam like there used to be, and it's a real shame!

81.129.102.124 (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may find what you are looking for at the Atheism and religion article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a logical and philosophical argument that holds; should one wish to dismiss a ‘thing’, awareness of what that ‘thing’ is, is required in order to postulate a logical absolute answer regarding the dismissal of said ‘thing’.

In order for one to state absolutely; ‘there is no Godhead’, one is required to have an awareness of what Godhead is. One must accept Godhead, as per definition that primary and secondary sources prescribe, in order to validate the postulation as logical and absolute.

For an absolute and logical dismissive answer to be yielded, the qualities of Godhead must also be accepted as of relation to Godhead. There must also be grounds on which the dismissal of Godhead as defined is permissible.

In terms of the analytic proof method, this is not possible. The definition of ‘at least one’ Godhead renders Godhead as objective and hence an absolute. Human understanding is typically bound by the subjective, through such as the empirical method, and hence cannot reach objectively absolute results.

This is the main reason science does not formally attempt to ascertain definitively Godhead. The scientific proof requires that it be shown that Godhead is neither; existent nor non-existent ‘within and beyond space and time’ (where our subjective understanding of existence likely fails): I.e. the ‘possibility of Godhead’, must be shown with accuracy and precision, with no statistical or plausible room for error, to be null.

The quality of Godhead is such that Godhead is undeniable, though one may not necessarily objectively and absolutely perceive Godhead as such or at all. It is only in this capacity and hence argument from ignorance, that Godhead can be dismissed by current understanding. Should it be proven that 'there is no Godhead', it must be done by a method in agreement to the ‘definition of Godhead’, and hence renders an introspective self-denial, thus the argument is logically flawed.

In effect, atheism in respect to all approaches of proof, is entirely flawed. However, agnosticism does still hold valid, as a respective non-directional null hypothesis and stance with no burden of proof.

i would like to make the above addition to the article. any objections? Daenumen (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objections: see WP:UNSOURCED and WP:NOR. DVdm (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what sort of source do i need? which parts in particular need to be sourced more? Daenumen (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to source the entire argument, for one. In addition, you'll also have to overcome the problem of your flawed premise: "should one wish to dismiss a ‘thing’, awareness of what that ‘thing’ is, is required in order to postulate a logical absolute answer regarding the dismissal of said ‘thing’." It seems entirely rational to me to dismiss a "thing" purely because that thing lacks sufficient definition to be proven-- the argument you're making seems to shift the burden of proof improperly onto the skeptic. siafu (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for kinds of sources, please see WP:RS and WP:PSTS. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we need what we call reliable sources. Also please, do not use this space to start a discussion about whether some of your premises would be flawed or not. A more suitable place for that might be your own talk page, or perhaps user Variable's talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, being currently unproveable is a premise, as is a 'belief of insufficient definition' (where primaily primary sources are available). However, both are premises that holds no grounds for dismissal except by argument from ignorance, hence the only non bias stance is descriptive of such, and holds no burden of proof.

it is true that the greater burden is on the skeptic. This is due to the nature of the 'thing' to be tested for dismissal. As such the burden of proof on advocates of Godhead appreciate a similar proof for Godhead, ie proof for both 'possibility of Godhead' and 'Godhead', where should proof be found that disproof is neither necessary nor applicable, given the results have accuracy and precision.

Skeptic is perhaps not the best word: The advocates of 'there is no Godhead' bare the greater burden as the postulation is 'beyond' or 'above' Godhead. As such, subsequently, entirely logically flawed.

thanks ill take a look. is there a directory with the wiki editor(?) information in like a linked dir list? Daenumen (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. Because one ponders whether such a thing as godhead can exist, that means it must exist? Or is it because one must understand the definition of godhead in order to decide it does not exist, then it must really exist? That doesnt make sense to me. Please, if my understanding of your reasoning is different, please explain my error. The way it reads, because I know what a pink unicorn is, one must exist, and I cannot come to the conclusion that it does not because I understand the definition of what a pink unicorn is. I'm baffled. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 15:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Daenumen, when you edit a page, there is a link Editing help next to the 3 buttons. There's also a number of interesting links on your talk page, on which I have added a proper welcome message. Enjoy. DVdm (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User RobertMfromLI, please take this to user talk space. An article's talk space is for disccusions about the article, not about the subject. See wp:TPG. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies DVdm, I was attempting to discuss the article (and perhaps my flawed understanding of the proposed addition), not the subject (except in asking for a clarification on the proposed addition). Sorry you misunderstood my intent, perhaps I worded it poorly? RobertMfromLI | User Talk 16:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but technically the proposed addition can only be discussed when a reliable source for it is presented. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly; the proposal of such if in agreement with content policies(?), is acceptable according to citation regulations.

quickly; there are numerous sources defining Godhead. To 'ponder of' Godhead, you must be able to define Godhead, otherwise you can not dismiss nor concieve it.

Any further queries please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daenumen/atheism , all sensible and polite questions regarding this topic, welcome. Daenumen (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, this thread is making me think of William Shatner. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scj, that gave me the best LOL moment I've had in some time! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I even see a hint of Barbra Streisand. - DVdm (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." So by that anyone who says their is one deity is an atheist..... hmmmmm The definition is one who does not have the belief in a god, not one who rejects as you can have people who dont believe in a god, but also dont deny the possibility of one.--27.33.106.67 (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. If you take the time to review the talk page archives, you will see that your issue has been discussed at considerable length. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has a point. A monotheist would qualify as rejecting belief in the existence of deities. I will fix this--JimWae (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was the historical definition of atheist, wasn't it? The Ancient Greeks and Romans believed in many gods, referring to people who believed in only 1 god (or zero gods, of course) as atheists. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Ancient Greeks and Romans " I believe things have changed in the last 2000 years, we are also using english which they did not.--Somepers99 (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly correct. "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." -RD. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear if these comments are meant as objections to a change. The modern def does not make all monotheists atheists. The historical def would make everyone an atheist. The historical def is not what appears in the sources JimWae (talk)

JimWae changed the lead, I reverted him, and he has complained at my talk page. Personally, I think this god/gods thing became navel-gazing about a zillion talk page edits ago. (A plain reading of the current language is that it means general non-belief, not just rejection of a particular monotheism or set of multiple monotheisms. One can obsess about the wording until the point where it sounds like it is saying monotheists are atheists—and throughout the history of this talk page editors have—but a common-sense reading does not support that.) But if others want to make it their hobby, let the games begin. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Common english usage suggests this is a non-issue. I don't believe in Ghosts. Any of them. I don't believe in deities. God is a deity. I don't believe in God because I don't believe in deities. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Common" English usage is often imprecise, such as not distinguishing "all bees are not alike" from "Not all bees are alike". If we can make the meaning clearer without altering the intended meaning and without really complicating the syntax, the article is improved. At the very least we should add "any" (as Nuujinn did with his 3rd sentence) to say "rejection of belief in the existence of any deities" - though that is not really a complete solution either, and "rejection of belief that there are any deities" is better. Btw, it seem to me that considering how others might interpret a sentence differently is the very opposite of navel-gazing. Btw2, "rejection of belief in the existence of deities" would be rejection of polytheism, not (as someone seems to state above) "rejection of a particular monotheism or set of multiple monotheisms"--JimWae (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JimWae, with all due respect, you're splitting very fine hairs, and I think unnecessarily so. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Common" English usage would also say it's good enough to say "rejection of belief in deities". We are dealing with a definition here, and with definitions our language should be as unambiguous as possible. We also do get occasional objections (as recently) to this wording for this very reason, so while nothing is "necessary" here at all, there are advantages to making the language less susceptible to misinterpretation. About 95% of discussions on this talk page are about the first paragraph, and the less open to misinterpretation it is, the less confusion there will be. Here is the edit that originally removed "any".--JimWae (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on need for an unamiguous lede. Kevin Baas (and now I) are proposing working on a new consensus for such. Any ideas on proposed wording for that? Best, RobertMfromLI ^{User Talk/Contribs} 18:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misconstrue this as discouraging new ideas, but, as someone who has gone through a lot of prior discussions about this lead, I would strongly encourage editors who are new to the page to read the last two years or so of talk archives. Consensus is not as easy as it first appears, but wasting a lot of one's time only to end up feeling frustrated is all too easy. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not proposing that we change the meaning in any way, just that we tighten up the wording (such as by returning to an earlier wording) so that the meaning is less ambiguous. --JimWae (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When we feel certain that a person who says they do not believe in the existence of unicorns also does not believe in the existence of one unicorn, is that sureness based on the syntax of the sentence? Or is is based on what we know about what it would be like to believe in unicorns -- that there could hardly be any reason to believe that just one unicorn existed? The sentences "I do not believe in religions", "I do not believe in religion" and "I do not believe in any religion" could mean 3 (or more) different things. We do know that there are people who assert that only one deity exists. There is no confusion caused by inserting a simple "any" in the first sentence, and there is the benefit of more explicit clarity in doing so. --JimWae (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm highly skeptical that more than one or two people find the original wording ambiguous. Having said that, I don't object to adding "any". --Dannyno (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is terrible, it says those that reject the existance of deities are atheist, this means everyone who believes in one god is an atheist.

The A infornt of the Theist means its the opposite. (There is only 2 options and you have to be one or the other) Wiki definiton of theist is "the belief that at least one deity exists" the opposite is one who does not have a belief a deity exists.

A person who says "I dont know if there is a god" does not reject the existance of a god, so by the poor definition this means they are t--Somepers99 (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)heists, which they are not![reply]

A good definiton and correct would be: doesnt not have the belief that at least one deity exists. This is covered in the defintions of the refernece already used.

--Somepers99 (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Somepers99, please see the discussion directly above. Your interpretation of the statement is at odds with the consensus, as well as with normal use of such sentences. Another example (to add to the ones above) "I reject the existence of unicorns" does not mean that I believe in one unicorn, or MAY believe in one unicorn, it means I reject the existence of any quantity greater than zero. Best, RobertMfromLI ^{User Talk/Contribs} 16:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, RobertMfromLI, the current lead is at odds with consensus, as demonstrated again and again and again by passing readers filing complaints about it on this talk page (e.g. this and the above section) in addition to contributors here recurrently butting heads against a few obstinate hair-splitters who don't seem to understand the common sense interpretation of policy. a pattern, unfortunately, with a long history and no foreseeable end. Kevin Baas^talk 17:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I disagree. The subject of this article is, in my experience here and in real life, always an issue of contention to which people of widely varying viewpoints pour much time and effort. But if you have a better version of a possible lead, by all means post it here and we can discuss it. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin, then perhaps we should re-evaluate the wording on the lede and reach a new consensus. Perhaps it has been too long since the last consensus was reached (a few weeks ago?) with so many new people coming into this discussion after earlier consensus. Would you like to write up what you believe the issue(s) in contention are so we can all reach a consensus? And thank you for politely (especially on an article in such contention) stating your position on the lack of current consensus. Your point is taken and agreed with (at least by me). Best, RobertMfromLI ^{User Talk/Contribs} 18:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For that, I'll refer you to the archives. I'm sorry I know there are many people new to the conflict here, but I'm so very tired of it myself (i've rephrased myself so many times!). There are many good ideas in the archives. Most of them were shot down for reasons that I don't think there will be (or was) very broad support for. So I recommend referring to the archives to see what issues have been brought up and how they have or have not been addressed. Kevin Baas^talk 13:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for better reference: starting at archive 43: objections to leading paragrah and going through archive 44, 45, and 46. (notice how awkward that would sound w/out a serial comma) Kevin Baas^talk 14:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silly question. Robert is correct. The statement is quite clear that atheists reject the existence of Her, or any god for that. PalindromeKitty (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what God is and I will tell you whether I believe in his (her) existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.55.179 (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

God is a stapler. your answer? Kevin Baas^talk 13:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do believe in staplers... so... hmmm... I dunno. ;-)

In all seriousness though, it seems many people would be happy with some sort of rewording of the lede. The only problem we still face is that no one has proposed any real rewording (there have been minor wording changes proposed, but I suspect that will just reopen the original can of worms). So, perhaps someone can rewrite the entire lede and submit it here for a collaborative effort to finally (or at least for a few weeks) put this to bed. I'd volunteer for that, but alas my writing skills are probably not up to such a task. Among other things, I tend to ramble. Best, RobertMfromLI ^{User Talk/Contribs} 16:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would help if we create a list of things the lede needs to actually say. Trying to actually construct a concise lede before decisions have been made on what should be included and what should be excluded is probably futile. I am assuming, for the moment, that by "lede" we are actually referring to the contentious first paragraph. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an excellent plan. And I have no idea (and havent been that interested in finding out) why Wikipedia (and/or many editors/admins) refers to it as the lede (sp). Best, RobertMfromLI ^{User Talk/Contribs} 17:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please add anything you think needs to be there, but do not delete. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
• Atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
• Atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
• Atheism contrasts with theism.
• Atheism is variously conceptualised in the literature.

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for the topic being noteworthy should be established early on in the lead. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.) This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, because the reader will know that greater detail is saved for the body of the article.

In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction. Mathematical equations and formulas should not be used except in mathematics articles. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar. For example, rather than giving the latitude and longitude of a town, it is better to state that it is the suburb of some city, or perhaps that it provides services for the farm country of xyz county. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it.

The first paragraph should define the topic without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example List of environmental issues is only about the effects of human activity.

• The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject.
• If its subject is amenable to definition, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the subject is a specialised term, provide the context as early as possible.^[1]
• Redundancy should be avoided. For example, avoid leading sentences like 'the Oxford English Dictionary is a dictionary'.

I've added the three sections above form WP:LEDE, as it seems to me there are still unresolved issues with the lede in regard to them. Kevin Baas^talk 18:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If mentioned in the lede, it should be expounded upon in the article, with appropriate citations
• The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.
• It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies.
• The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences.
• The lede should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important fact(s)
• General GUIDELINES on Lede length are:

Fewer than 15,000 characters One or two paragraphs

15,000–30,000 characters Two or three paragraphs

More than 30,000 characters Three or four paragraphs

I've entered this here as a guideline, since I suspect much of the controversy that remains is still based on how to write a lede or based on inferring a POV in the wording. Pretty sure though, that everyone here, can separate their religious or non-religious/atheistic beliefs from the wording of the lede, which should not include any bias imposed by our beliefs. I only bring that up because in earlier discussions (a WHILE back), some of the wording debate was based on personal beliefs of a deity/deities or lack thereof. RobertMfromLI ^{User Talk/Contribs} 18:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i think this idea is flawed in principle. it assumes a conclusion that many editors have already stated their rejection of; namely, that good ledes are formed by adding without subtracting. (a notion that seems at best ironic to me.) Kevin Baas^talk 17:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed the point, I'm afraid. It's intended to be a complete list of all possible things that can be included so that they can be debated in this section. If it were up to me, the lede would probably say "God is @#!*% , so there." -- Scjessey (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, so it's sort of like brainstorming. In that respect i think it would be more beneficial to have a more general/philosophical discussion, i.e. more like "what types of things should be in an intro?". for which i would argue that people should simply refer to Wikipedia:LEDE (and a common sense comprehension and interpretation thereof). it seems to me that there, precisely, lies the problem: that the intro is not up to par with those standards, in part because some things that some people insist on are mutually exclusive with them. (and having them written down, as we do, seems to have no effect.) Kevin Baas^talk 17:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really saying anything particularly insightful here, but clearly that list is a brief summary of the current first paragraph. The first three items are, I think, not so much ends in themselves as expressions of the three "definitions" (for lack of a better word) that long-standing "consensus" (for lack of a better word, smile) has held that the sources have given us. I think some of the ongoing dissatisfaction comes from wanting to change what's on the list, but much more of it comes from wanting to say the same things in different words. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if this gets anywhere. Fundamentally, atheism is very difficult to define, simply because there is no single widely accepted definition in the literature. Instead, there are several. So long as the introduction conveys that fact accurately, I'm reasonably happy. Anything else I will resist. --Dannyno (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with the current lede? It seems like this conversation began with issues about the 'definition' of atheism. I don't want to demean the constant brainstorming here on ways to describe disbelief in Her Majestic Lord Stapler, but it seems good as is. Surely, there are other atheism-related articles that could use more attention. PalindromeKitty (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know the concerns, you can refer to the archives i listed above, or for a brief overview of guidelines that some feel the intro is not up to par with, see the first few section of "notes from wp:lede", above. Kevin Baas^talk 14:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, take for example: "If its subject is amenable to definition, then the first sentence should give a concise definition:" Is atheism "amenable to definition" in a way that permits a "concise" definition. Well, no, it's not. --Dannyno (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By your rhetorical question it seems to me that you didn't even read the sentence correctly. And if you want to debate the prudence of that policy, this is not the place to do it. Kevin Baas^talk 20:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist" Should be the first definition as it covers all atheists, Not all atheists deny the existance of a god or reject the belief in a deity. Somepers99 (talk · contribs)

This has been discussed many, many times on this very page. I also think that before plunging into deep intellectual questions, your priority should be to get the spelling of words like existence right. "Atheism is the disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God." As such, atheism is the rejection of theism. Sorry to sound elitist, but I doubt you can do very much better than OED. --dab (𒁳) 08:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]