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 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

Archive Index

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 14 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

This has come up a few times both in the archives and more recently. I suggest that we attack this head on by examining the sources which support this use.

This is what we seem to have at the moment:

Nielsen, Kai (2010). "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2010-02-01. "Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.... Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived)...".

Edwards, Paul (2005) [1967]. "Atheism". in Donald M. Borchert. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). MacMillan Reference USA (Gale). p. 359. ISBN 0028657802. "On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion.".(page 175 in 1967 edition)

Now at first blush this seems to be clearcut, we have 2 established encyclopedias stating clearly and unequivocally that Atheism is, or should be, understood as rejection of belief. The problem is that when you read the source articles (at least the freely available versions) their phrasing is a bit more guarded and circuitous: Routledge opens with: Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistance of god. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief. It does go on to describe positive atheism and negative atheism, but uses what is now known as Theological noncognitivism as its example. I would like to ask anyone who has access to the full text of this or a newer version to make it available for review.

Kai Nielsens article for Atheism in EB is no less guarded, a previous discussion on it can be found in the bowels of this. Here is what I believe is are representative quotes from that article which illustrate why confusion necessarily surrounds rejection as a meaningful, stand-alone definition:

Indeed, Nielsen does not seem to offer Rejection of belief as a stand-alone soundbite definition rather he states

Emphasis mine. Note that he has chosen to roll-up the common definition for atheism with Theological noncognitivism and poor debaters. I have great respect for EB and for Kai Nielsen in general, but this strikes me as a poor foundation for a 1 sentence definition, and should probably be saved for a fuller discussion in the article proper. Should we come to the conclusion that this deserves a place in the lede then I believe it needs to be couched as Kai Nielsen argues that .. Thank you for your thoughts on this matter. Unomi (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that very interesting analysis. In the last, lengthy quote from Nielsen, where he talks about "meaningless, unintelligible...", I remember very clearly from an earlier go-through of revising the lead that we considered for a while having a list similar to that as a way of clarifying the meaning of the "second" definition. In other words, these seem to me to be characteristics of, or reasons for, rejection of belief, rather than for positive assertions of nonexistence. I think, then, that there is still a case for the "second" definition in the lead here. On the other hand, your analysis actually makes me more inclined to want to delete the part about "with or without an assertion that deities do not exist". I say that because, not only is it wordy, but also it is unconvincing (at least to me, and even after all of the talk here) that someone who rejects belief while not taking a position as to nonexistence really fits with the definitions you have quoted here. It's more like, some atheists start by rejecting belief and go on to conclude that nonexistence is true or probable, whereas agnostics start by rejecting belief and go on to conclude that they have no position as to nonexistence. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I am an atheist and my reasoning went the other way around: I started from concluding that existence is false or highly improbable (or not meaningful), and went on to reject belief. (well, i didn't "start", there of course; the conclusion was quite near the end of the whole process.) I imagine this is the same for most atheists, whatever their specific lines of reasoning: i.e. - to put it in terms of a common expression - rejection of belief is the "cart", which necessarily comes after the horse. Kevin Baas^talk 18:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Actually, the chronological order was not really the point of what I said, and I think either chronological order remains consistent with the conclusion that I drew with respect to what the page should or should not say. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am fine with removing 'with or without'. Unomi (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'd have any objections to that either. Kevin Baas^talk 19:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will remove it and we can see if that inspires more input on the matter. Unomi (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are now down to : Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

I am going to await the comments the edit on the page will doubtlessly inspire. I think though, before we make too many changes to the lede from this, that we attack the article proper and try to capture what these definitions actually mean :) Unomi (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree. It would be a good thing to move on from discussing the lead. There comes a point of diminishing returns. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...Bursts out of high warp with running lights ablaze, enters standard orbit. - What did I miss? Oh dear. I think this is going to upset somebody. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've come to peace with the "rejection of belief" language. Allow me to amuse myself with the following passage (this is more of a regurgitation of thought than any point I'm trying to make).

• The Atheist 1 says - "There are no Gods"
• The Atheist 2 says - "There is no reason to believe in Gods, whether or not they exist"
• The Atheist 3 says - "Never really thought about it. No opinion on Gods"
• The Agnostic says - "No way to know for certain if there are Gods, but believing or not believing is ok"

Ok. I'm on-board with the content. I still have a vague impression that minor rewording could add clarity. But I won't pursue this, as I agree it's probably time to move on. NickCT (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the person who says 'I don't believe in any god, but I know they exist' an atheist? Grassynoel (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but they are a liar. They might think, feel, or will them to exist, but without being able to cite any specific examples they cannot be said to "know" they exist, even in the most liberal use of the term. For example, if i put a pen in a bucket, i "know" that there is at least one pen in it. but if i do not, nor have i seen one, at best i "guess" or "feel" that there is one. if there is absolutely no casual connection, no chain of logic or events, that leads to a demonstrable fact, then by definition one does not "know". Kevin Baas^talk 19:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries define terms. That is, for a given term, one or more definitions are provided.

Encyclopedia have articles about topics. Topics have names. If multiple topics have the same name, then the names are disambiguated.

What is the topic of this article? The current lede,

Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

reads like a dictionary definition camouflaged in paragraph form. Each definition of atheism is a separate topic and deserves its own article. Among those there may very well be a primary topic, and that is the one that should be at Atheism. Or, if there is no primary topic, then Atheism should be a dab page.

But combining all topics that happen to share the name "Atheism" into one article is very unencyclopedic. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definitions are broadly similar and the larger problem is that the term is in practice often used ambiguously. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think having three separate articles would get unwieldy and confusing. A large proportion of the material would be appropriate for all three and would have to repeated, making maintenance difficult. More importantly, although atheism can be said to contain those three different 'flavours', I think in general and academic useage it's usually treated as a single topic with potential sub-topics, rather than three different topics. Splitting it would therefore violate the least surprise principle. Finally, when we read sources which mention atheism but don't explicitly say which of our definitions they mean, which of the three pages would we put them in? Olaf Davis (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a perennial problem with this lead (among many other perennial problems!) that it does, indeed, read like dictionary definitions. However, I also don't think the solution is to split the article. The lead, as a whole, and not just the first paragraph, is an attempt to do what a lead section should, to introduce the reader to the concepts that are explored in the remainder of the page. Unfortunately, I've seen no alternative to using the first paragraph of the lead to define the term. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Part of the problem is that the meaning of the term has evolved over time, and it now means different things to different people. The article attempts to explore all aspects of atheism, and the only way to adequately summarize this in the introduction of the article is by having the definitions as part of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Scjessey correctly points out, the term has evolved over time, further, adoption of acceptance of such changed definitions are not universal. The problem with trying to come up with a succinct synopsis is that it makes it difficult to cover historical, niche and common definitions without giving undue weight. This is further made problematic as one of the niche definitions of Atheism 'Rejection of theism' is largely supported by Theological noncognitivism which is related but separate. Unomi (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This might help move towards a less dictionary-like lead. Without using the term "atheism", let's see who can describe the topic of this article as succinctly as possible. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 50/50 on changing the lede. Yes it certainly could be more succinct, but at the same time, it took copious debate to get this point. If we do change, might I suggest -

Think this covers all the three definitions currently offered. Whether you don't believe in dieties because 1) You don't think dieties exist or 2) You don't think evidence exists to believe or 3) You haven't really thought about it. NickCT (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how's that for succinct? Kevin Baas^talk 17:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Kevin's version, but we would have to have a 10,000-word footnote after it, discussing the meanings of "do" and "it". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget "just". I think that one is a little vague. NickCT (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, the sourcing for "just" is very flimsy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like "just" is going to be a source of contraversy. Can we drop it, to give ourselves "Atheism. Do it."? NickCT (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think we should be able to come up with an umbrella statement that does not look like an amalgamation of disparate definitions. Expanding on Nick's suggestion above, how about something like this?

Atheism can be any doctrine, philosophy, belief system or position which lacks or rejects belief in deities, or holds that deities do not exist.

--Born2cycle (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, after all the joking above, I have to say: that strikes me as a very promising basis to work from. I think it may well be an improvement. Good! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just kicking this around, how about boiling it down to:

Atheism is any position which rejects or does not include belief in deities, or holds that deities do not exist.

--Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "any position which rejects or ... or ... " because some sources hold that the position which only lacks belief could be something different than atheism. --windyhead (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Tiger Woods exists, but I do not believe in him.

Monotheism is a position that does not include belief in deities.

Anarchism is a position that does not include belief in the existence of deities. So is Darwinism, aestheticism, empiricism, pragmatism, and many other -isms. Capitalism and liberal legalism also do not include such belief, unless we mess around with what "include" means --JimWae (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, let's drop it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double agreed. B2C's wording could be misconstrued. However, he is still right in saying we need something more concise. NickCT (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes what you want and what is possible are not the same thing. Atheism is a slippery term and I think we'll be hard pressed to boil it down any further than it currently is. --Dannyno (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Anything can be summed up in a single sentence. Sometimes you lose accuracy because you fail to note exceptions and nuances, but you gain concision. See for instance the opening of Chrstianity - "Christianity is a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament". Of course, this definition misses allot and probably doesn't cover ALL religous beliefs typically thought of as "Christianity", but in general it holds true. That is what a good opening sentence should be. NickCT (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this is an encyclopedia; therefore, we are looking to expose detail and be as accurate as possible. We should never sacrifice detail in favor of concision unless we are trying to address WP:WEIGHT concerns. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we're not Twitterpedia; accuracy is the primary consideration, not length (although conciseness and avoiding verbosity are important secondary concerns). --Cybercobra (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the point that "belief in deities" is problematic. But does the following sacrifice detail or accuracy as compared to the current multi-sentence "definitiony" lead?

Atheism is any paradigm of the universe that does not include the existence of deities, or a position which rejects belief in the existence of deities, or holds that deities do not exist.

Current lead:

Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities

--Born2cycle (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see two problems right away: science is a paradigm that does not include the existence of dieties, but it it not atheism. i'm sure there are other examples. in fact pretty much all paradigms probably fit that category. dieties don't make for very effective thinking tools. secondly, what, pray tell, is the difference between "rejects belief in the existence of x", and "holds that x does not exist"? 'cause the only difference i see, besides being two different ways to form a sentence, is that one usese the word "hold", and the other uses the word "belief". Kevin Baas^talk 13:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kevin, and particularly dislike the "paradigm" part. This really seems to me to be a step backward. Sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Scj - "therefore, we are looking to expose detail and be as accurate as possible... never sacrifice detail for concision" - Dude, you are way off base. If we wanted to we could make an "Atheism" article 10 pages long with all sorts of notable details, but that is not what we should do. Wiki/Encyclopedic articles exist to offer brief, readable summaries of different topics without going into excrutiating detail. They do not exist to contain all information known to man.

Anyway, this discussion is about the lead, and the point is more this - As in any good essay/paper/article the first sentence should give a basic and general idea about what the rest of the article is about. At the moment, our first sentences read like somekind of legal document. I'd agree that these definitions should be in the article. I just don't think they should be here.

While I'd agree that B2C's suggested rewrite is a little off-the-mark, I still think the idea of coming up with a concise single sentence is a good one (as in Christianity). NickCT (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even I agree the specific suggestion is off the mark, but I was hoping to inspire more suggestions for improvement than dead-end criticisms. I agree the goal of the lead should be a "concise single sentence" that gives "a basic and general idea about what the rest of the article is about". --Born2cycle (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B2C, I think we are in agreement. To be frank though, I've battled here for so long, I'm losing motivation.... NickCT (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have faith in the process. LOL. One big problem with the current wording is the "commonly defined" phrasing which suggest the article is about the word rather than what it means. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After the change of paradigm to position, i like this best of the 5 suggestions. only thing thou is i would eliminate the second sentence as it is completely redundant. you already said that atheism rejects the idea of deities as real things. Kevin Baas^talk 00:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an objections to this wording, please suggest an alternative to improve it rather than just criticizing it. Thanks.

Atheism is any view of all that exists that does not include the existence of deities, a position which rejects belief in the existence of deities, or holds that deities do not exist.

--Born2cycle (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that an appositive or a list of 3 alternatives? --Cybercobra (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list of alternatives, but now that you mention it, how about this?

Atheism is any view of all that exists that does not include deities. It includes the position which rejects belief in the existence of deities, and that which holds that deities do not exist.

--Born2cycle (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"view of all that exists" - i.e. worldview? --Cybercobra (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes in the most general sense, but the term worldview may have too many connotations that do not apply. On the other hand, I think I'm okay with this:

Atheism is any worldview that does not include the existence of deities. It includes the position which rejects belief in the existence of deities, and that which holds that deities do not exist.

--Born2cycle (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted earlier, there are all kinds of worldviews that do not include the existence. Very awkward: "does not include... It includes". My suggestion of something better: what we have now. There are a great many other pages that could also be improved. I really don't mean to be disrespectful, but this seems like a waste of effort. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree w/ Trypto regarding "awkward". Don't agree w/ "waste of effort". If we discontinue debate now, it will only resume in a couple weeks! How about,

This of course excludes the "3rd" potential meaning of atheism (i.e. "I don't believe in God, b/c I've never really thought about it"), but otherwise I think it's good. NickCT (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to try to capture that definition too. See below. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish - The problem with the current version is that there is no single all-encompassing sentence, and the whole thing reads like a dictionary definition.

When you said, "there are all kinds of worldviews that do not include the existence", did you mean "there are all kinds of worldviews that do not include the existence of deities"? What worldview does not include the existence of deities that is not atheism? Anyway, "worldview" was not my idea... what about the original suggestion in this section? --Born2cycle (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I was referring to in respect to "not including" was the previous talk (just scroll up) about how science etc etc etc are also worldviews-or-whatever that do not include religious belief. As previously noted, there are all kinds of things that "do not include" religious belief that are not atheism. As for worldview-versus-other word choices, I don't see anything offered so far as being better than just "position". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if i say to Thor, "Thor, I think you're a failure.", that makes me an atheist? If not, what is it precisely about Thor that I don't believe? Kevin Baas^talk 00:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This latest suggestion tries to address all previously mentioned objections and reflects the fact that atheist redirects to this page.

Atheism is any view of all that exists which does not have actual deities. An atheist may reject belief in the existence of deities, hold that deities do not exist, or may simply not believe that deities exist.

--Born2cycle (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"view of all" just sounds unprofessional. I agree with Tryptofish that this is a fool's errand. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism is commonly used to denote a position which holds a particular belief system to be false.

Unomi (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely vague. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is the short version :) But I don't think it is vague at all tbh, isn't that exactly what atheism is? Unomi (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which belief system? Christians hold Buddhism to be false and Buddhism doesn't take a position on theism. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, good point how about this:

Atheism is used to denote a position which is incompatible with a particular religious doctrine. Unomi (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which "particular religious doctrine"? Transubstantiation? We can keep playing whack-a-mole all week and I betcha we'll end up with nothing more than the currently used phrasing. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is certainly true that the Atheism label is purely subjective, historically it was used to denote people who didn't worship the Greek Gods. There isn't a devout whatever who isn't an atheist in some other devouts eyes. Historically it was just a label to put on someone who you felt acted improperly. I am actually not bothered about the current wording too much, but since people were putting suggestions out there, I felt I might as well join in. Unomi (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I think about this thread, I am starting to (or maybe just remembering again to) realize that maybe the problem is the way the lead paragraph uses the word "definition". That does, I agree, make the lead sound more like a dictionary than an encyclopedia. So, I wonder whether, if we can fix that, does what remains actually work pretty well? In other words, I think having the opening three sentences discuss the three meanings of the concept of atheism, as opposed to the three definitions of the word atheism, might be what we really want. Could we, then, change "defined" in the first sentence, and "definition" in the third sentence, to another verb and noun, respectively (perhaps with some other accompanying word changes for syntax), to shift the emphasis from definition to meaning? Maybe "regarded" (or "understood"), and "meaning", respectively? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues, and you nailed one of them. Yes, the lead should discuss the three meanings of the concept of atheism, as opposed to the three definitions of the word. The second issue is with having the opening sentence introduce the concept of atheism in a manner which encompasses all meanings. --66.27.72.134 (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! As for the second issue you raised, doesn't the word "commonly" put that in context? And for the first sentence, which is better: "regarded" or "understood"? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The drawback of going with "meanings" is that the sentences then become about 3 meanings of the term rather than about the concept. WP:Lede advises that we define the topic. I do not see that such a change makes the 1st paragraph appear any less as (what some think of as - tho I disagree) a dictionary. Rather the opposite in my estimation: Dictionaries are about the usage of terms, whereas encyclopedias are about topics. While there is no agreed-upon single definition of atheism, the three are all related. "Bear" also has several meanings, but there is still a bear article on a single topic. Atheism does not need a disambiguation page for each "meaning" of the term. --JimWae (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's note that we are comparing "definition" with "meaning". To me, they are both about meanings: "definition" is how a dictionary presents a meaning, while "meaning" is an attribute of a concept. To me, they both pretty much mean the same thing, but getting away from "definition" makes the lead less dictionary-like. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bear actually uses the verb "classify". Thankfully, it does not use "define", which I don't think I could bear. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons expressed above (including WP:Lede), I think it makes the lede less encyclopedic - especially (but not limited to) the use of "regarded". Nor does such a change advance the hope expressed by several (tho again , I disagree)): to reduce the number of "meanings". --JimWae (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "regarded" to "described". I'm not trying to reduce the number. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we were talking about "the meaning of atheism" the article might resemble talk about "the meaning of The Scream". The new edit makes the paragraph more like the meaning of the term, rather than about "atheism" (which just happens to have 3 competing defs, [which result in 3 classifications of atheists]).--JimWae (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A definition defines one meaning of a term. This article is, or should be, about the concept of not believing in the existence of deities, most commonly referred to as atheism, which is why Atheism is the title of this article. In fact, how about this for the lead?

Atheism is not believing in the existence of deities. An atheist may reject belief in the existence of deities, hold that deities do not exist, or may simply not believe that deities exist.

This provides an all-encompassing general lead sentence, following by clarification presented in terms of "atheist". --Born2cycle (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist.

Whether they "reject" the opposite belief, "hold" the belief, simply "have" the belief, or if we use the active voice and say simply "believe"... maybe they "sustain" the belief or "maintain" it?

Atheism is can mean one of a number of things: a) the rejection of belief in dieties, b) holding the belief that dieties do not exist, c) it can be used to describe those who have the belief that dieties do not exist, d) another definition says atheists maintain the belief that dieties do not exist, e) a broader definition is that atheists do not believe that dieties exist.

Seriously folks, enough w/the synonyms! Kevin Baas^talk 13:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??? Do you mean replacing the current lead paragraph with the sentence you have first? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean enough w/the synonyms, please. Kevin Baas^talk 00:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though not always apparent, there is a distinct logical difference between saying, for example, "I don't believe in Thor" and "I believe Thor doesn't exist". The latter represents a deeper conviction on the part of the speaker. --King Öomie 19:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

by a trick of semantics only. the former could mean "I don't believe in Thor's existence." or "I don't believe in what Thor has to say.", or their capabilities, or what-have-you. as one would say "i believe in you.", one is not commented on one's existence. but unless you mean to suggest that that is the sense meant in the phrase "i don't believe in god." as it pertains to atheism, then it is merely a truncation of "I don't believe in god's existence.", which is, of course, logically identical to "i don't believe that god exists." Kevin Baas^talk 00:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than just a semantic difference. The statement "I don't believe in god's existence" equates to "I am not a theist." There are, of course, different types of nontheists. Weak atheists (and most agnostics) are neither theists or strong atheists. Weak atheists "don't believe in god's existence" and they don't assert god's nonexistence, as in "I believe god doesn't exist." Having absolutely no faith in theists' claims and thus not believing in their claims does not equate with strong atheism. --Modocc (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's all fine and dandy, but I wasn't comparing asserting non-existence with not asserting existence. Kevin Baas^talk 12:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you are fine with all that. I suppose you concur with Kings main point then which was that, semantics aside, his statements about Thor are logically different. Oh, and I can't follow up on this further right now, cause I am taking a break for a few days. Later... --Modocc (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the 'Anthropocentric arguments' section the phrase 'full-development' links to the article on Nietzsche's Übermensch. The sentence it is in only refers to Marx, Freud, and Sartre. It would be a good idea to link to a more appropriate article on 'full-development'. It isn't a phrase I've seen in Nietzsche studies, and I'm assuming it is relevant to one of the other thinkers mentioned. It isn't appropriate to Nietzsche because of his emphasis on continual self-transcendence, which precludes the possibility of becoming 'fully developed' - that implies a final form. (I don't think he went much for a 'higher absolute' either, unless you think of the will to power that way.) Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

interesting. I think Nietzsche predates all of them. And I'm pretty sure Sartre read him, would fathom that freud did (a lot of his ideas seem stolen from him), and i'd fathom a guess that marx did. so that might very well be the original. though we'd probably be better off w/a source that could verify that or more academic and to the point of what was said in the sentence. Kevin Baas^talk 17:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've unlinked it.

Freud commented on Nietzsche's impressive self-knowledge after attending a public reading, but Marx and Nietzsche didn't show much interest in each other's work, IIRC. Don't know about Sartre, but you're probably right. In any case, I don't think the Ubermensch idea fits very well with constructive atheism as discussed in that para, and I couldn't find an article on 'full-development' to link to instead. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised this article isn't "Semi-Protected" like Islam and Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.104.191 (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We atheists are better at assembling an array of different ideas together in a way in which they don't come into conflict with each other. ;-) Kevin Baas^talk 17:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I recognize that the reply was said facetiously, I am concerned that a meme is settling in that editors who work on this page are atheists, while editors who work on pages about various religions are members of those respective religions. That is untrue, and contrary to how the editing process works. I have recently seen attempts at canvassing that were based upon this false assumption, and it is time to put it to rest. (And the real reason this page is not currently semi-protected is that there has not been much vandalism by unregistered editors recently.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can affirm that I am not an atheist. Unomi (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But still, people edit based on their interests. This often manifests in people editing articles relevant in their own lives. That's not going to change. --King Öomie 19:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is true, as a believer in the unknown and unknowable, I am here to spread the message of humility and agnosticism to the brutish atheists. Unomi (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, certainly. But I'm just saying that it should not be assumed, nor should anyone regard it as an inclusionary/exclusionary requirement. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not here to spread anything to anybody! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i believe there are things that are unknown and unknowable. It is a fact that I am quite content with. ;-) But yeah, I didn't mean to promulgate a meme, just making a joke. sorry. Kevin Baas^talk 00:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Believing there are things that are unknown and unknowable does not preclude one from being an atheist. For example, I suspect we'll never know for sure exactly how and when life started on Earth, or what existed prior to the Big Bang, but acknowledging either doesn't warrant jumping to the conclusion that some deity was involved. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, any interest in pursuing what I raised under #Observation 6? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit burnt out at the moment, but I see no problem with replacing definition with any of those that you have suggested. Unomi (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look. I hate to say this. But I think it's time to poll. My suggestion is collect all the proposals we have, make a big list, then ask people which ones they think are acceptable. The proposal that the most editors find acceptable will win. Would anyone second my idea? NickCT (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. WP:POLLS. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typtop - The alternative to me seems to be endless debate. In my experience, a poll w/ and RfC can be a good cure for this kind of thing. And by the way, as FDR says "It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something". This is what I want to try to break the deadlock. What do you want to try? Simply saying "no" ain't helpful. NickCT (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLLS. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well Trypt. Don't let anyone tell you you're not concise. NickCT (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that I've had my chuckle, let me say, more seriously, that I really don't think what we have here is any worse in terms of "endless debate" than is Wikipedia as a whole. I don't think the lead is all that bad as it is, or that the situation is urgent. The existing system of WP:CONSENSUS really works pretty well. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3x(edit conflict) I concur with Tryptofish and anti-second the idea. The discussion has yet to become intractable/hopeless/pointless. And a vote would be premature; new options (phrasings) are still being pondered. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I yield the point. However, I would point out that this debate has taken place over the course of MONTHs. How long must it go before we describe it as "intractable/hopeless/pointless"? NickCT (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's been YEARs. But it's never been hopeless. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(blinking in disbelief) Still think a poll/RfC would be helpful. NickCT (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too see no reason for a poll. Though I've made half-a-dozen suggestions, I'm not sure even my last one is the one I would definitely push to be in a poll versus the current lead. I do think the current lead is sufficiently bad to definitely need a change; the lead should introduce the topic (the concept), and it currently does not do that. Instead, it describes the term that happens to comprise the title. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Poll idea shot down :-(

While I'd agree that "Polling is not a substitute for discussion", we have had discussion! But whatever, I ain't going to poll unless I recieve at least a little support for the idea. NickCT (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polls and their choices create divisions and seem to foster intractable positions, and so should be avoided whenever possible. In general, finding consensus for one considered evolutionary change at a time seems to be much more effective. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this version manages to broadly summarize the topic of the article in one simple all-encompassing sentence, which is followed with the variants described in terms of atheist:

Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. An atheist may reject assertions of the existence of deities, hold that deities do not exist, or may simply not believe that deities exist.

I believe this is much better than the current version which is more about the term than the concept. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the google results, FWIW:

Results 1 - 10 of about 9,410 for "Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities".

--Born2cycle (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My qualms are: the first sentence includes agnosticism. The second sentence says the same exact thing in three different ways, which is totally redundant. I think "Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." or "Atheism is the belief that deities are not real." without repeating it again and again would be better. I suppose "...is a man-made construct." or things like that might also work, but then that's probably getting too specific/in-depth for an intro. (then again there seems to be some people here that are all for splitting hairs in the intro.) I do think the wording is simpler, and i do like that about it. Kevin Baas^talk 12:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be onto something here. The wording is a little awkward, but the format is right. Having a primary "definition" sentence followed by an expanding follow-up sentence feels good. My only objection to that wording is that the "absense of belief" is not the primary definition.

May I suggest 7a -

NickCT (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly support this suggestion, my only qualm is with the last part as it goes against the first sentence. I would suggest changing the last sentence to read : "or may simply not be aware of the position that deities exist". My reasoning here is the position of the innocents and insulated cultures. Unomi (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(blank stare) - "the innocents and insulated cultures"???? I think the whole "god idea" has reached pretty much everyone on the plant.

One could be in a position where you are aware of the position, but simply haven't thought about whether you agree or disagree with the position. NickCT (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My qualm with that is that lumping those together with "atheists" is controversial, at best. Kevin Baas^talk 12:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin - Aren't these "lumped together" in our current lede? NickCT (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Well, our article and the sources do just that. See As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[28] Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist.". Unomi (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point but

1) I don't see how changing the last part fixes your initial complaint that the "last part as it goes against the first sentence"

2) Aren't your so called "innocents" already included under "have no position on the existence of deities"? NickCT (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) I agree that there is still some tension there, that could be resolved by 7b

2) erm, its not my innocents, it is what strikes me as being precisely what our article and the sources say on the matter. The wording I propose makes a clearer delineation between the implicit atheism of the innocent. Unomi (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The oxford reference we have now simply says "the lack of belief in a god". I think this applies whether or not you "aware of the position that deities exist"? Your wording seems to be more, and I think unecessarily, exclusive. And I realize they aren't your innocents. NickCT (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned with the overlap between agnosticism and atheism which will take place if it is not delineated. I think that we have a number of sources which indicate that such a delineation is proper. Our only sources in the article which supports implicit atheism is regarding what I consider innocents. Btw, we seem to have lost a picture in the article :(. While Martin does argue that such an overlap is justified, we have a number of scholars, such as Theodore Drange, and indeed Thomas Henry Huxley who argue against such a conflation. Shrug, as an agnostic I am in a poor position to argue that I have absolute knowledge on the matter :) All I can say is that this was my impression when I read the sources surrounding this. I won't stand against consensus on the matter, to be honest, as you know NickCT, I think there are more pressing matters. Unomi (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unomi, the clear delineation between agnosticism and atheism you wish to create does not exist. Many agnostics are weak atheists, by definition... See Agnostic atheism. Delineation from agnosticism should not be a concern here, certainly not in the lead, where the focus needs to be on accurately framing the topic of this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With some reluctance because the opening sentence excludes weak atheism which is covered in this article, I never-the-less support the immediate replacement of the current intro with Nick's much-improved suggestion above, copied here (7bb):

I also prefer this version to Nick's more recent revision which has the somewhat awkward "have also been considered" wording.

But even here please note that the first sentence would be no less accurate if we inserted the word "strong" in front of it. I understand the concern with using the more general phrasing I suggested at the top of this section because it arguably describes weak atheism, but that is the sentence that more accurately describes the topic of this article, which should be the priority for the opening sentence of all articles, not which concept is the primary definition in ordinary usage. That's why I prefer the more general wording to this one, but I still much prefer this one to the current wording. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the general approach of having a succinct opening sentence, followed by a second sentence covering the three "meanings". I think we need to cogitate a bit more on the exact wording though. One thing that stands out to me is that there is little accomplished by "position, doctrine or belief" in the first sentence; just "position" would be enough. In the second sentence, it may be better to start with "Atheists" instead of "An atheist", and I'm not sure about the wording of the third clause. I'm also not sure how to reconcile the first sentence with the fact that it really only describes one of the three meanings in the second. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyrpt - Re "how to reconcile the first sentence" I not sure either. But I think they need not be reconciled. As I see it, the first sentence give the basic, most common definition, the second gives additionaly "secondary" definitions.

Re "position, doctrine or belief" - I think this language will quiet dissent. We have RS that offers all 3 wordings.

"Atheists" instead of "An atheist" - Can you expand on this. Maybe on my user talk page?

"I like the general approach" - Me too! This almost feels like consensus! NickCT (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons the encyclopedias these definitions were taken from were worded differently from each other is because if they were the same that would be plagiarism. Kevin Baas^talk 17:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'll answer here. About position etc., I remember dissent about using the word "belief" to describe non-belief, but I don't remember any dissent about "position" by itself. Plural or single, I don't really feel very strongly, but just felt like it read more smoothly. More broadly, I feel like I still need to think about the overall approach. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty to label Nick's two suggestions as 7a and 7b respectively so I can ask you which one you're referring to.

Nick, you say the first sentence in 7a gives "the basic, most common definition". I agree, but is that an appropriate function for the first sentence of an encyclopedia article? Isn't that the role of a dictionary (to give the primary definition first)? Shouldn't the intro sentence in an encyclopedia article simply frame the topic of the article it is introducing? In a manner that does not exclude anything that is within the scope of the article? I think so, and, so, to that end, and to address Trypto's concerns, I give you 7c:

--Born2cycle (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"but is that an appropriate function for the first sentence of an encyclopedia article"

Yes. See Christianity, Buddhism, Islam. Not trying to imply atheism is another religon, but bare with me here.

All these examples start with one overarching definition. Obviously there are "sects" within each one of these religions that vary slightly from each other, but the first sentence of each article explains what makes them all the same. I really feel nervous about "the absence of belif" in the first sentence. NickCT (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To B2c, I was referring to 7bb. I like the way 7c reads, but I also think Nick makes a very valid criticism of the first sentence. Would a solution be to change "the absence of belief" to "non-belief"? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, wait, non-belief includes agnostics. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T, I know non-belief (and "absence of belief") includes agnostics; so does the topic covered in this article. That's the point. Why would we want to obscure that?

N, the articles Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam each start with an opening sentence that describes the topic of each article in general terms; they don't pick one meaning of the term and describe that in a way that excludes other meanings. Why do you think we should do that in this article? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider what other encyclopedias write:[1]

• Atheism is denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia® Copyright © 2007
• Atheism is Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1994-2008

Unomi (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that i'd be happy with! Kevin Baas^talk 18:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we are onto something here. One issue that has been elusive for a long time has been that the lead here has not done a good job of explaining the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Perhaps the approach we can follow is to use a paraphrase of the Columbia version as our first sentence, with the goal being to make an introductory statement about atheism that distinguishes it from agnosticism instead of trying to define it, and then, have a second sentence along the lines of the second sentence of 7c, in which we present our longstanding three meanings. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Columbia and Britannica definitions don't sound neutral to me; they seem to be written from the perspective of a theist. In fact, I don't know anyone who calls himself an atheist who would agree with those definitions, not even Richard Dawkins!. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I call myself an Atheist and I consider both definitions to be WAY better than ours! In fact I think not only MOST atheists, but most PEOPLE would! Kevin Baas^talk 12:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and lets be clear here: the theist agenda pov is that atheists "haven't found jesus" and hence they want to conflate "atheism" with "not knowing" i.e. "innocents" or "agnostics" or so-called "weak atheism", as if "strong" atheism wasn't a valid or common position, when in fact it is by far the most common form. Kevin Baas^talk 16:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that spirit, here is my shot at it. The idea is that the first sentence would be sourced to both encyclopedias just above, and the second sentence is derived from, and sourced according to, our existing lead paragraph:

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree in the strongest terms possible with the implication here that atheism is based on the holding that existence/non-existence can be proved (I reject the notion that holding that existence cannot be proved distinguishes agnosticism from atheism), but I still think this is much better than the current version. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and I'd be happy to accept as a friendly amendment, changing "cannot be proved" to "is unknowable", which I take from the lead of agnosticism. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really, agnosticism is a shade of atheism. I don't think there is a significant (if any) distinction between agnosticism and weak atheism. The problem is that in many contexts the term "atheism" is used as a synonym for the strongest conceivable type of atheism, but there are actually very few adherents of that shade of it.

Atheism is inherently defined in terms of theism. If someone took the time to create a Venn diagram, there would be a circle representing all belief about the existence of god, some portion representing "theism", and the remainder shaded as "atheism" (not theism). Nothing would be left unshaded in that circle. If atheism is further subdivided into weak and strong, then "agnosticism" would be coincident with "weak atheism", but it would be entirely in the "atheism" area. That is, theism/atheism is a true dichotomy with no middle ground. Theism holds that at least one deity exists, while atheism rejects that holding.

Say someone tosses a fair coin and, without looking, declares he knows it's heads. When you ask him, "how do you know?", he responds, "I just do... it's faith". Do you believe him? The truth is of course he does not know (assuming no tricks), though he may still be right (he has a 50/50 chance). When you tell him you reject his belief that the coin is heads, that doesn't mean you reject the possibility that the coin is heads! What you're rejecting is the possibility that the believer-in-heads really knows it's heads! This is what rejection of belief in deities is for an atheist; atheism only has meaning in the context of a claim that some deity exists - and rejects that claim as being baseless. This is the point atheists try to explain over and over with stories about Russell's teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but so many (including the editors of the encyclopedias cited above, apparently) just don't get it. All deities are man-made concepts, theism is the assertion that at least one of them corresponds to an actual deity, and atheism is the rejection of any such assertion.

But there is nothing in atheism that says the existence of deities is "knowable". Atheists acknowledge that that is unknowable in the same sense that the existence of Russell's teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is unknowable. These concepts were invented to make this point. It's only theists who claim deity existence is knowable, and, they "know" at least one of the deities exists to boot! In fact, the theistic claim of deity existence being knowable is why atheists reject theism, and why they are called atheists. - --Born2cycle (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that we should put faith in your OR. Theodore Drange explicitly rejects the appeal to etymology as being specious, so I don't know why you continue to write atheist, it was never a greek word, and in the form that it was it was 'without god', not 'without belief'. Unomi (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out; I didn't know that atheism comes from the Greek atheos meaning "without God".

The main point about Russell's teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster stands; acknowledging that no one can know for sure whether they, or any particular concept of a deity, actually exists, does not preclude one from being an atheist. A clear distinction between agnosticism and the topic of this article (particularly weak atheism) is simply not there. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dawkins does a better job explaining this point than I can:

Link: Agnosticism#Atheist criticism

--Born2cycle (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to drop in and say that 1) As to trypto's suggestion, while elequent and poetic it seems slightly wordy and verbose (e.g. "metaphysical", "supernatural existence"). Suggest we stick to the K.I.S.S principle. 2 Skimming the comments above, it appears as though we're moving into a philosohpical debate rather than a discussion on how to improve the aritcle. I might suggest moving some of this discussion to individual user pages. NickCT (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of Nick's points. My initial stab at the first sentence was a sort of hybrid of the two encylopedias', but I agree that it can be edited down. I also am concerned that the arguments about the lines between atheism and agnosticism are getting to be OR. So long as we cite the sources, in this case the two encyclopedias plus citation number 1 at agnosticism, then I think that should be good enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree with Nick's first point, but it has been argued here that the intro should exclude agnosticism. Whether doing so improves the article is a fair topic here, not on user talk pages. Perhaps if you guys would read my comments rather than just skim them you would see they are, ultimately, about improving the article.

How does it make sense to cite sources for a description of extreme strong atheism (referred to as just atheism there) as justification for an introductory sentence of an article that encompasses weak as well as strong atheism? Don't you agree that it's more important for the intro to be in sync with the article topic than with possibly irrelevant sources? Just because another encyclopedia has an article entitled "atheism" doesn't mean the topic of that article is the same. Don't you agree that all sources should be considered in context, and what's salient with respect to "atheism" is to understand which meaning is intended (strong, weak or both) in each cited source, and how that compares and contrasts to the topic of this article? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing the first paragraph to be more accurate. It insenuates that we firmly say there are no deities, whereas Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity. RPGfanatic (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't, without discussing it here first. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto'ed, I have undone the change, please skim through our conversation and join in, preferably with source based arguments and stuff like that. :) Unomi (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have an objection to a change, you shouldn't revert it. That is, you shouldn't revert something simply because it wasn't discussed here first, or even because we're in the midst of a discussion. So, do you object? If you revert, you should explain your objection, and, if there is consensus, the revert can stand.

I agree with Kiminatheguardian's change because it more accurately reflects what this article is about.

What we have now:

Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities

Kiminatheguardia's version 9a:

Atheism is commonly described as the lack of belief in a deity or deities

What I suggest 9b:

Atheism is the lack of belief in deities.

--Born2cycle (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the preponderance of sources be they dictionaries, encyclopedias or scholarly works do not seem to support it. There are 3 types of sources which do support it, 1. Regarding default position of innocents, 2. Regarding Theological noncognitivism and 3. Popular Science writers. In the archives we have lists and lists of RS and the overwhelming majority list atheism as a belief in the nonexistence of deities. In light of that it seems improper for us to declare something else. Unomi (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as long as 3 competing definitions (each with different extensional results) have currency and are reliably sourced, we cannot say simply "atheism is X", no matter what that single X may be. That is why we cannot give a definition, but must give 3 - even if it "sounds like a dictionary" (with which sentiment I do not agree) --JimWae (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment, I would also say that a case could be made for giving the most commonly given definition primacy. At the moment we do not list only 1: Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] A broader meaning is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Unomi (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but we repeatedly see repeated proposals that we state what atheism really is. Btw, I do see "rejection of belief" being adopted by more people (above) - even by those who have favored "absence".--JimWae (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You guys are still thinking and talking as if this is a dictionary. We are not defining "atheism" here, so references for what "atheism" means is irrelevant. We are describing the topic of this article, which is about the lack of belief in deities, so that's what the intro should say. Either that, or we need to change the article content to match the intro, and make it be only about strong atheism. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have to choose between "sounding like a dictionary" (horrors!) and being unencyclopedic. One way to sound less like a dictionary is to be less like a laundry list. 1> One way of being less like a shopping list is to include the scope of each def within the context of definition - something we still do somewhat, but did better in the past. 2>Another way is to distinguish atheism from related concepts, such as agnosticism. This would make our 1st paragraph's sound somewhat resemble an advanced thesaurus --JimWae (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bears are described as brown quadrupeds with snouts. Though I disagree that the "position that there are no deities" is the best definition, the sources cited are not merely describing atheism. --JimWae (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that the sourcing for weak atheism is particularly weak and deals almost exclusively with innocents, our article and hence our lead should reflect the weight of the sources. I also want to point out that I have earlier argued for a more verbose and explanatory introductory paragraph, but it seems, perhaps in a lapse of AGF, that some people kept wanting to make it shorter in the hope that their favorite wording would win out. Unomi (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were I writing my own encyclopedia, I'd write extensively about how terribly inadequate the "absence" def is. I have even found additional reliable sources that oppose that as a def - but they give very little rationale. Btw, the absence def scope includes, besides infants, agnostics (except for the theistic ones), and mathematics. Agnosticism is distinguished from atheism by being about knowledge rather than about belief. Atheism is distinguished from agnosticism by being about belief rather than about knowledge. (maybe we could use that somewhere.)--JimWae (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, let me try this. In this last comment you used the term "atheism". Now, please consider the meaning of that term that you had in mind in each use of it here (especially when you wrote, "Agnosticism is distinguished from atheism..."), and compare that meaning to the topic of this article. Are they the same? I just want the intro of this article to say what this article is about - what relevance does that have to how anyone defines "atheism"? Is that really asking for too much?

To wit, the topic of this article is not distinguished from agnosticism by being about belief rather than knowledge. Most self-proclaimed atheists are atheists precisely because of knowledge (and lack thereof). That some precise strong-leaning definition of atheism somewhere else is distinguished from agnosticism by being about belief rather than knowledge has no relevance to what the topic of this article is, or what the intro should say. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unomi, do not limit sourcing of "weak atheism" to specific references to "weak atheism". That term was invented precisely because so many references to "atheism" (unqualified) meant lack of belief in deities rather than denial of existence in deities. Arguably the best-known atheist living today, Richard Dawkins, is a "weak atheist" (and, technically, an "agnostic"), but I don't think he refers to his "atheism" as "weak atheism" or as "agnosticism". --Born2cycle (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All 3 defs of atheism we give are about belief. Though we describe one as a "position", the sources use the term "belief" and a "position" is just a more neutral and less-committal way of saying "belief". Nobody I know of defines atheism as "knowledge that deities do not exist", though absence of knowledge might lead to rejection of belief.--JimWae (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When one says 2 things can be distinguished, that does not mean they cannot overlap (tho' too many people think it does). Blind people can also be deaf people--JimWae (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what has happened is that people get too hung up on perceived etymological connotations, Huxley coined the word agnostic precisely because he wasn't comfortable with the knowledge that both atheists and theists thought they had. Just because it contains the root gnosis doesn't automagically mean we get to redefine agnostic away from its original intent. I will admit that there are sources that do so, but none of particular heft or demonstrated broad acceptance within the field. Unomi (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It would, tho, be misleading to say ONLY: "atheism is distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence of deities cannot be known" because all atheists agree that the existence of deities is not known, and many agree the "non-existence cannot be known"--JimWae (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) "the knowledge that both atheists and theists thought they had". This statement is an outstanding example of usage of the term atheists that is substantially different from the topic of this article. Please reread the article, understand the topic of this article, and especially how it it distinguished from "denial of the existence of God, especially based on knowledge that one has", then refer to that as "atheism", not whatever preconceived notions you might have. Otherwise, it gets very confusing.

Huxley may well have wanted to distinguish from those atheists who thought they had knowledge of God's non-existence, but that hardly serves as basis for the notion that all or even most atheists think they have such knowledge, or that that is what is the topic of this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huxley coined a term for ideas that had been raised to the forefront by Kant (and Hume, and had been around for millenia). Further, Kant was a theist. Huxley used the term to distinguish himself from hos (mostly theistic) colleagues. It was also a way to not get himself marked as the "village atheist" --JimWae (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I suspect the meanings of the terms atheism and atheist as used in society have shifted significantly since then. But, again, none of this is relevant to what the intro of this article should say. Only the content of this article is relevant to that. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, if atheists self-identify as something other than the commonly understood definition of an atheist, could it be possible that they are not actually atheists? Unomi (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you want to play semantics. Again, the focus here should be on what is the topic of this article, and that the introduction describes that. It should have nothing to do with how others define the term that happens to be the title of this article, what is commonly understood to be the definition of that term, or what anyone who self-identifies with the term thinks it means. Though all of that is arguably content for the article, it's not relevant to decide what the intro should say.

The only thing we should be looking at to decide what the intro to this article should say is this article. (I submit this is a true statement for any article anywhere). --Born2cycle (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you completely. Unomi (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! So can we all agree to stop referring to anything external in discussions about what the intro should say, and refer only to article content? Obviously, we can't repeat the whole article in the intro. The intro paragraph should be a summary outline of the article, and the introductory sentence in that paragraph should be a really high level statement about the topic of the article... it should not be a definition (or collection of definitions) of the term that happens to be the title of this article. Can we agree on this too? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:BEGIN says: The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader. It is not ambiguous to give 3 competing defs - but characterizing any of those defs as "descriptions" *is* being ambiguous.--JimWae (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In an ideal world, "unambiguously defining the topic" and "concisely summarizing the body of the article" should amount to the same thing, which is why there shouldn't really be a need for references in the introduction of an article. Atheism is a complex and ambiguous topic, so concision is always going to be difficult to achieve. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, "unambiguously define the topic [of the article]" does not mean "provide all definitions used in reliable sources for the term that happens to be used as the title of the article". That would be the purpose of a dab page.

I agree with Scjessey that there should be no need for references in an introduction. I think we need to fix the introduction to this article in that regard. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do not live in an ideal world and English is not a technical language. WP:LEADCITE supports using citations in lede - especially for controversial topics containing statements likely to be challenged. Of course, "nobody" would ever challenge any definition of atheism, would they? ;)

Okay, if a statement in the intro is declaring something about how the term "atheism" is used externally, that should be cited. But if the statement simply summarizes what the article is about, what is there to cite? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without citations, who's to say what's a summary and what is a POV synthesis. The 1st sentence is presented as a definition of atheism. Where's the source?--JimWae (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account the above discussion, I hereby propose the following introductory paragraph WITH NO CITATIONS, PURPOSEFULLY, as an accurate summary of, and introduction to, this article.

Any objections based on usage of the term that happens to be the title of this article are not pertinent here.

I also propose (10a) to add the following paragraph to the end of the current introduction:

--Born2cycle (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My, how busy this talk page is. To comment quickly since my last log-in, I think that, in general, there's nothing wrong with WP:BOLD edits, indeed quite the contrary. But I think that the lead here is such a matter of debate that it was quite reasonable to ask that editor to come to talk, especially since, as already noted, the edit went against sourcing.

As for 10a, I can see a lot of value in dealing with the distinction-from-agnosticism in that way, as opposed to other ways we have discussed. In other words, to deal with it, briefly, in the lead, but at the end of the lead instead of in the opening, and to focus it on the way Dawkins and others have discussed it, rather than to try to synth a paraphrase. My main suggestion for a revision to B2c's version would be to lose the unverifiable "many" at the beginning. Maybe something more like "Prominent atheist Richard Dawkins considers...". Similarly, it might be better to replace the second sentence with a direct quote as well.

As for the opening, I continue to like the idea of some kind of overall brief introductory sentence, followed by a second sentence that sticks to our longstanding three definitions. So I'll modify 10 with 10b, as follows:

What I did was replace the second sentence of 10 with the second sentence of 8, which simply stays closer to our current lead, and would be sourced as it currently is. I also deleted "actual" (just before "existence") from the first sentence, because I don't think it added anything. Finally, I changed "the absence of belief" to "non-belief" in the first sentence, both to avoid redundancy with the next sentence, and to try to make it more general to all three meanings, but maybe there's a better wording for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like this suggestion. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.... So we have the following

(10) Dislike "absence of belief". Thought we'd discussed this earlier.

(10b) Me likey! Slightly worried by "non-belief" as it is a slightly awkward (i.e. not common use) word. But that concern is minor. I would still go for this choice.

(10c) I'd humbly resubmit my previous suggestion. I think by saying "position, doctrine or belief" we basicly cover all our bases. No matter which word you use, there are going to be people who say "Wait a sec, atheism isn't a belief/non-belief/doctrine/position etc etc". If we say it could be any of these possibilities, we silence possible future dissent. As I mentioned before there is RS for all three words.

Additionally, I think I prefer An atheist to the plural Atheists. This is b/c Atheists could be misinterpretted to mean all atheists, which is not what we are trying to say. NickCT (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind that I labeled these three for ease in referring to them. About yours, 10c, I would suggest avoiding the singular/plural atheist/atheists issue completely, per 10b. I still don't get "position, doctrine or belief". In the past, there have been objections to calling atheism (ie, a non-belief) a belief, although admittedly that gets kind of picky. About 10b, I do agree with you about the non-commonality of "non-belief". Can anyone think of a better choice of word? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would "disbelief" be better? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-belief is slightly unusual, but I think it works. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the transition from "Atheism" to "Atheist" inelegant personally. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with 10b, except ditch the hyphen in non-belief to have nonbelief for consistency with Argument from nonbelief and Dinesh_D'Souza#Atheism and Nonbelief, if nothing else. I agree nonbelief is good because it arguably encompasses the full spectrum of atheism. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you are quite right that "nonbelief" is better than "non-belief". Is "nonbelief" also better than "disbelief" (I'm not sure)? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonbelief is better, because disbelief implies intention to not believe that nonbelief does not (while not precluding intent either); so nonbelief more accurately summarizes the broader meaning covered in this article. I'm going to go ahead and put this in the article - it's time for a new "baseline", and maybe, hopefully this one will prove to be more stable and less controversial. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)  Done[reply]

Definitely think this was a good switch as a "new" baseline. My chief concern at the moment is that we go from saying "Atheism is..." to "Atheism can be". Seems like awkward, like saying "A rose is red....A rose can be pink, reddish or orange". I suggest either 1) We switch to the "an atheist" language, or 2) We change "Atheism can be" to "Atheism can include" or "Atheism includes". NickCT (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. I added back the blue links and moved the sources to within the second sentence. With respect to Jim's reverted reversion, I also had a moment of wondering about "too soon" when I first saw B2C's comment, but I think think I, B2C, Nick, and Cybercobra have all indicated support for this change, and we can of course tweak it further. And it's really not that big a change. As for Nick's comment just above, my take is that the first sentence says something like "this is what it is" while the second sentence says "more specifically, it can take the form of...", so it doesn't really bother me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are we to signal to the reader that the first sentence is NOT a definition, when it is standard practice on wikipedia that articles begin with a definition? Unless we do that, we are endorsing the absence def as THE definition of atheism. How are we to signal to the reader that wikipedia does not ENDORSE all three definitions as equally valid? (saying it "can be X, Y, or Z" says any of the three is an adequate def.) Where is the ref for the first sentence? What does "nonbelief" mean - it does not appear in any of the 80 dictionaries at onelook.com. Surely, many people besides myself will want to see one, o/w we are treading on WP:SYNTH. The following might meet some for these objections, though it would not be my choice and is still inferior to previous versions:

Atheism is about not believing deities exist. Atheism has been defined as the position that there are no deities,[1] as the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2] and as the simple absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

Also, Btw, see Wp:BRD--JimWae (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the new opening sentence (well, assuming Jim's latest revert is undone, again) exemplifies Wikipedia brilliance at its best.

This is the definition - it is the definition of the topic of this article. The title of this article could be Nonbelief in the existence of deities, except that WP:TITLE prefers shorter, more succinct titles that employ most common names. In this case that is clearly Atheism. Atheism is the title of this article, "nonbelief in the existence of deities" is the topic of this article (which is clear if you read it). This introductory sentence makes that clear. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: I'm perfectly happy to temporarily go back to what we had while we talk this out, but I'm pretty sure we will conclude that Jim is totally wrong in this instance. I don't buy the argument that the purpose of the first sentence of a lead is to be a dictionary definition. And if, just for the sake of a hypothetical, it were, then the existing lead uses only one definition out of three for the first sentence. I think that Jim, chronically, focuses on one sentence from WP:LEAD: "The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader", and over-emphasizes its importance relative to what the rest of the guideline says. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat myself: How are we to signal to the reader that the first sentence is NOT the definition of atheism? (and all I just said too)--JimWae (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, they can look at the top left of the page, and notice that it does not say "the Dictionary that anyone can edit". Then, they can read the second sentence of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat myself, "nonbelief in the existence of deities" IS the topic of this article, and "atheism" IS the the most commonly used name for that topic.

We need to go back to the version where Tryptofish fixed the links. Here is what happened:

1. B2C makes change to "nonbelief" consensus 10b version (see above)
2. Jim reverts B2C without explanation except "too early" (though later provided here)
3. B2C reverts Jim (back to 10b)
4. Tryptofish makes non-revert edits
5. Jim (essentially) reverts again, with no comment.

As soon as Tryptofish made his non-revert edits, we were out of the WP:BRD cycle. I urge someone to take us back to that version. That's our new baseline. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@B2C: You were the boldee & it was improper for you to revert my revert without proper discussion--JimWae (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I reverted your revert, the only reason you had provided was "too early". You provided nothing to discuss, so I reverted. Next time, explain your reasons on the talk page or in the edit comment BEFORE you revert. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reverting others reverts to your own version just 5 minutes later is not part of BRD --JimWae (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Trypto See:Wikipedia:NAD#Good_definitions & much else in same article - it repeatedly says that encyclopedias do give definitions. Saying WP is not a dictionary means it is not limited to that. Circulatory system begins with a def - as does nearly every article on wp. The problem is more acute here because there is no def that all agree on - that does not mean we do not address the issue of definition. --JimWae (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I basically agree with that account, but, rather than worry about the exact protocols for BRD, let's focus on what's best for the page. There's no hurry, but I'm confident that the correct answer is to go to our new version. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that Jim's concerns really have been addressed to his satisfaction, so I strongly urge all involved not to edit war. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jim - it is a definition. But it's not supposed to be a dictionary definition - it's supposed to be the definition of the topic of this article, which is presumably one of the meanings of the word that happens to be used as the title of the article. That we don't agree on the definition of the term "atheism" is a moot point. The only issue is whether "nonbelief in the existence of deities" is a good definition for the topic of this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Jim, I have seen that. Yes, encyclopedias do include definitions. No, they do not slavishly do so in the first sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, both B2C and Jim are at 2 reverts each. I suggest taking it calmly. And at this point, I'm logging out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, "nonbelief" is "now" presented as THE def of atheism - whether one calls it a "dictionary def" (as though non-dictionary defs were a priori better) or not. And of course, the word "nonbelief" does not appear in any of 80 dictionaries. --JimWae (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already offered an alternate that meets several of my objections

Atheism is about not believing deities exist. Atheism has been defined as the position that there are no deities,[1] as the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2] and as the simple absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]--JimWae (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When my suggestions are ignored (see above for more than a few examples), I assume it's due to lack of agreement that they would be an improvement. I move on. Only when others latched on to, and improved, one of my suggestions did I try to incorporate it into the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about: "In its most general form, atheism is nonbelief in the existence of deities." etc. ? The suggestion of "about" sounds odd to my ears. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ecx3) The current lede presents the absence def as THE def on atheism. I doubt I will long remain the only one opposed to that. "About" is odd - but it at least conveys that what follows is not intended as a def--JimWae (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cybercobra, I agree with your statement, but disagree it's appropriate as an introductory statement to this article. That wording makes it sound like the article is etymological; that it's about the word. It's not. This article is about the nonbelief in deities.

Jim, all the lede does is present the definition of the topic of the article. Do you not agree that "nonbelief in the existence of deities" is the topic of this article? If not, what do you think is the topic? And please don't say "atheism", because that's too ambiguous. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is, of course, atheism -- in ALL the ways it is defined--JimWae (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Jim's objections. How about beginning with something like "Atheism can encompass different kinds of nonbelief in the existence of deities."?--Modocc (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Perhaps... Atheism can refer to different kinds of nonbelief in the existence of deities."? Followed by the details. --Modocc (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Or just stick with the details as we have now with the new edits.--Modocc (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current lede wouldn't be a bad stopping point. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm going to integrate parts of last lead we have consensus on [2] into the new lead, for the reason the consensus lead does a better job in telling that "no deities" and "rejection" are more widely agreed on than "absence" definition. --windyhead (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, please do not. The purpose of the intro is not to indicate what meanings of the term that happens to be the title of the article are widely agreed on, but to introduce the topic of the article! I strongly disagree with the removal of the "is nonbelief" introductory statement. The lead is already back to having the intro being concerned with what the word atheism means in the "real world" (and all its meanings, in order of popularity), rather than introducing the article by stating succinctly what the topic of this article is. There is no consensus for this.

How about adding a, "This article is about ..., for other uses ..." header comment? Maybe that will help? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done This is the About comment header I added:

This article is about general nonbelief in the existence of deities. For specifically denial of existence of deities, see Strong atheism.

Does that help? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits start to become disruptive. Your intro rules has not reached consensus. WP:LEAD : The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The consensus lead was there for more than 2 weeks. This article is about atheism not about general nonbelief. --windyhead (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Nonbelief in the existence of deities" comprises all aspects of atheism that are covered in this article, from weak to strong, implicit as well as explicit. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B2c really is correct about that. It's unfortunate that other editors parse the meanings of words to the point where they have no meaning. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I suggested the recent change, there is nothing urgent about making the change, and there has been way too much emotional editing about it. I have just requested temporary full protection of the page. I suggest editors take a break, work on other articles for a day or two, and then come back and work this through at talk, not through competing edits to the page. Reason will out, one way or the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you know what? This edit [3] changed the dash within the file name for the image that is supposed to be in the Rationale part of the article, rendering the image unreadable, and none of us (including me) realized it amid all the talk about the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This being the weekend, I'd rather have discussion on unresolved issues sooner rather than later. The problem I see with placing the unbelief definition first is that it does not adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy as it gives the least used definition undue weight. --Modocc (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but I'm trying to find a way to have a simple opening sentence that works. It seems to me that, to a general reader, one who has not been joining us in this perpetual discussion, nonbelief, or some word like it (I'm very open to suggestions), simply means the opposite of believing in a religion, believing in deities, and does not refer to any one of the scholarly distinctions that we go on to make in what would be the next sentence. In the talk above, you started to raise the idea of wording indicating that there are multiple forms that this nonbelief can take. Perhaps we can work further with that, with the goal of having a first sentence that we can agree is not undue, followed by a second sentence that elaborates the three definitions. By the way, I think the "about" hatnote was a bad idea, an excuse for not getting the actual text to consensus. We should not need such a hatnote when we get this right. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We and other editors have attempted to fix the first sentence so it describes the topic of atheism accurately and in accordance with policies for years and this recent discussion is no different. I understand that nonbelief is used in specific contexts and has currency, but it lacks any rigor when context is absent, since most theists would not consider their toddlers to be atheists. "Nonbelief" works for the third definition only. "disbelief" is more verifiable, but excludes the "absence" definition. It seems too that rehashing a new first sentence such that we end up with even more redundancy than we have does not seem productive. Instead, I'd go with "Atheism can be the position that there are no deities,[1]the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,[2]or simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." because it is concise. Windyhead and a few other editors favor the current lede which gives the first definition more weight, but I not sure that the disparity in weights are so great that this is necessary. --Modocc (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, because it gives "absence" definition less weight --windyhead (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, why not go back to the recent version, with three sentences? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current consensus three sentence version is OK.--Modocc (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windyhead, the "nonbelief in the existence of deities" statement succinctly covers all meanings covered in this article without giving any definition undue weight. See my recent post to Jim below for more on this. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the point that the purpose of the intro to any Wikipedia article is not to provide all definitions used for the term that happens to be the title of the article, but to introduce the topic of the article? That the purpose of the introductory paragraph is to provide an outline of the article content, and the purpose of the introductory sentence is to provide a succinct overview? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at WP:LEAD. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. and so on. --windyhead (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this comment or anything in WP:LEAD answers my question. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modocc... "Most theists would not consider their toddlers to be atheists". That might be true given the meaning of the word "atheists" most theists probably have in mind, but what does that have to do with this article? With respect to the topic of this article, the toddlers of theists are "atheists", by definition. Do you agree that that is not a matter of opinion; that it's simply true given the way this article is written? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trypto... "We should not need such a hatnote when we get this right." The hatnote simply clarified the fact that the topic of this article is not the definition of atheism that necessarily means active denial of the existence of God. Isn't this precisely the kind of thing that About hatnotes are for? In the case to avoid confusing anyone (editors as well as readers) who gets to this page expecting it to be about some specific meaning of atheism when this article is about the general? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of this article is the same as the title: atheism -- in all (three) ways it is defined. People do not come here to find out what is known about "nonbelief in the existence of deities". (Btw, the rejection def also is not the same as "active denial that deities exist".) The absence def is the most controversial and the one that is most marked as "non-rigorous" (or even plainly wrong) by sources. A NPOV article cannot declare that (what amounts to) the absence def is THE def of atheism, nor even appear to do so. Strictly speaking we should not even suggest (with a "can be...") that it is just as valid as the other 2, no matter what persuasive definition Michael Martin came up with, nor what deHolbach might have said that makes babies & all nontheistic agnostics atheists (&, ridiculously, mathematics atheism). Dawkins himself says, just as there are no Christian babies, "it would also be an abuse to talk about an atheist child"[4][5]. We must note that atheism "has been defined" as "absence of belief" and discuss that def & its implications, but it is NOT our task on any WP article to endorse any definition at all when "reliable sources" disagree on the def. The absence def was presented to counteract the claim that "atheism is the belief that deities do not exist" - but there is another (more adequate) def that also avoids that claim. --JimWae (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, I think what you mean by "the absence def", since you say it is "the most controversial and the one that is most marked as 'non-rigorous'" is the implicit def (i.e., "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it"; e.g., toddlers). Then you conflate that with Trypto's nonbelief statement.

So, unless I misunderstand, you are conflating implicit atheism with nonbelief. "Nonbelief in the existence of deities" includes, but is not limited to, implicit atheism; the statement encompasses ALL definitions of atheism covered in this article, succinctly. That's why it's perfect for the introductory sentence to this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that despite what editors here may intend by "Atheism is nonbelief in the existence of deities" there is no way the words themselves are clearly distinguishable from "Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities". Though "nonbelief" does not appear in any dictionary I have yet found (or perhaps especially BECAUSE it has not) it can be expected that people will interpret "nonbelief" as "absence of belief". There is also no way to tell this is not being presented as THE defintion of atheism. Nearly every article on WP begins with a def. Whether editors intend it merely as summary or not, that sentence is indistinguishable from one presenting a def. (Nor is the absence def a definition of implicit atheism - it is the definition that INCLUDES implicit atheism, it too being an attempt to ENCOMPASS all varieties of atheism [but being too broad, also includes mathematics].) A NPOV WP can neither give, nor appear to give, preference to one definition over other reliably sourced ones. --JimWae (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the potential problem of people not knowing this is presentation of THE definition of atheism, that's exactly why I introduced the About hatnote saying that This article is about all forms of nonbelief in the existence of deities, for specific denial of existence in deities see Positive atheism. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ALL the hatnotes in the world will not make it NPOV to have WP present "nonbelief (i.e. absence of belief) in the existence of deities" as THE definition of atheism, thereby classifying mathematics (& much else) as atheism.--JimWae (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100%. How about the following hatnote: "This article is about atheism, or rejection of belief in deities. To read about agnosticism, which is merely lack of belief in deities, see the agosticism article." Or better yet, how about we put that IN THE LEDE? Kevin Baas^talk 14:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hatnotes are not the solution. Getting the lead right is. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The three sentence version is OK with me, and not worth arguing about. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The three sentence version is not OK with me. See the above lengthy discussion for details, but the gist of it is it's not an introduction to the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not too bothered about it. But I think a very logical case can be made that it is actually SYNTH for us to say that there are three definitions, as opposed to one or two or four. And it's SYNTH to say that the word "nonbelief" only refers to one definition, as opposed to encompassing all of them, however many there may be. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Making another try at this, please let me suggest:

This differs from the version that was recently tried, and reverted, in that it incorporates the suggestion made by Modocc to indicate more clearly in the first sentence that the sentence is not talking about just one meaning. Note: "the position that there are no deities" is a form of nonbelief in the existence of deities; "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities" is a form of nonbelief in the existence of deities; and "the absence of belief that any deities exist" is a form of nonbelief in the existence of deities. Any claim to the contrary is simply playing with words. I'm not sure if it's the best possible way of saying it, but I think that some sort of expression that there are multiple forms, or aspects, or something like that, could be a way of making a short first sentence work, and I think it would be better to have a short first sentence followed by a second sentence with the three meanings, rather than the three-sentence version we have now. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only if we add this to clarify some of the different forms of atheism:

Kevin Baas^talk 16:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On first quick read, I thought you were serious and I was about to respond indignantly, but then I saw the "not not not". :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another brilliant suggestion from Tryptofish incorporating comments made by others. I concur. You really deserve a

--Born2cycle (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks. I'm waiting for the trout that will inevitably follow. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, seriously, let's please take it slow before deciding whether to add anything to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Trypt's proposal is an improvement over the current version that has become watered-down by misinterpretation of "wikipedia is not a dictionary". I do have remaining concerns about saying "atheism can be...simply the absence of belief that any deities exist" because this endorses that def (and the other 2) -- each as adequate as another. Also, by just listing the defs rather than presenting them in a context, it actually makes the paragraph MORE like a dictionary. I know stating that there actually are multiple "definitions" has become unpopular here recently, but saying "Atheism has been defined as... the simple absence of belief that any deities exist" would remove any endorsement from any of the defs. (Btw, such would not state that there are no other defs.) Still the Modocc/Trypt proposal is better than a euphemistic opening that says competing defs are merely "describing" atheism. I do foresee future editors wanting to substitute "is" for "encompasses various forms of", and even attempts to merge nontheism and atheism, and I do hope others will also be prepared to resist any such proposals. I expect we will also have to contend with: "nonbelief is a neologism", and "the 1st sentence is not sourced". -- JimWae (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I think these are points we can, and should, work with. Let me try to take them point by point:

1. Treating the three definitions as each as adequate as another, and also listing them without contexts. My hope would be that the context would come further down on the page. And I think that trying to establish priority between them in the lead is a recipe for more argument here.
2. Has been defined as. I guess that, as a rebuttal to the arguments against using the word "defined", the case can be made that it has a distancing effect, one of indicating that WP does not necessarily endorse a particular definition. However, I'm not convinced that the wording discussed really endorses anything, as opposed to just reporting and citing it.
3. The risk of future attempts to substitute "is". Yes, I agree that's a very valid concern. At present, it's pretty clear that pretty much any attempt to change anything gets a pretty aggressive examination, so I would be hopeful that there would indeed be resistance. And I'll offer resistance from me, for what that's worth. But that leads to a closely-related point, that I would really like to discuss more. I myself, as I said above, am not convinced that "encompasses various forms of" is the best choice of words. Is it a bit clunky? Is it, in fact, vulnerable to future efforts to modify it? Is there a better way of saying it? I'd like us all to think about that carefully before changing the page.
4. Nonbelief as unsourced neologism. Similarly, can we do better?

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually being seriously sarcastic in my example on have, hold, reject, don't have, doesn't exist, is not existing, etc. The three definitions aren't any different and please let's not go into this again. The are worded differently in those three encyclopedias because if they had worded them the same that would be plaigarism. Not one of those three encyclopedia's have "all three definitions" in them and that's no accident. Them being worded slightly differently from each other, however, is. Kevin Baas^talk 12:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The active verb of the first sentence should really simply be "is", though I'm not too put-off by the current "is described as", nor would "is defined as" be horrible. "Encompasses" is really getting too vague. johnpseudo 14:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just "encompasses"... the key phrase is "encompasses various forms of nonbelief". I don't think you're suggesting we say, "is various forms of nonbelief", or even "is described as various forms of nonbelief", are you? When objecting to a suggestion, please try to be clear on exactly what would make the suggestion acceptable to you. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I didn't give any suggestion as to how the proposal could be made acceptable is because I don't think the proposal is in any way an improvement over the current article. I suppose it could be made acceptable by changing the proposal to match what is already in the article. johnpseudo 12:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]