Talk:Atheism/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Lead: trying to sum up

I haven't counted, but I would guess that over 100 possible versions of the lead have been suggested in this talk over several weeks, some of them very thoughtful and insightful, others, well, less so. By way of reference, here is how the article began at the time of the top of this talk page, a few weeks ago (or was it a few years ago?):

"Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of belief in the nonexistence of a god or gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] It is also[3] defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism.[4]"

For comparison, here is what the lead says now:

"Atheism is the absence or rejection of belief in deities, or the explicit view that there are no deities.[1][2][3][4]"

With a newer, shorter, group of references.

In recent days (see Talk:Atheism#Back to the first sentence), a small and non-representative debating club of three editors (myself, and two others) has considered a large number of "compromise" versions, attempting to find a middle ground between those who have favored a detailed approach like the older version, and those who have favored a shorter approach like the page now. We looked for something in between, that is simple enough to be lucid to the general reader, but detailed enough to convey the complexity of the article that follows. Although the three of us do not even agree among ourselves, I believe that we have made some good progress, not towards perfection, not towards unanimous satisfaction, but towards consensus. Broadly, there are two versions that seem to have traction. One version is:

"Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities, the rejection of such belief, or the positive belief that there exist no deities.[1][2][3][4]"

Using the new, shorter references. The other version is:

"Atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[4] the rejection of such belief,[2] or the view that there are no deities.[1][3]"

Using the original references, here numbered as they used to be numbered. It is also very possible to make slight variations on either of these versions, or hybrids between them. But that's the overall idea. My personal hope is that the three of us will now step back a short while (please cooperate!), and allow OTHER editors, with varying views about this, to react. Please understand that it is very unrealistic to expect consensus to accept anything much closer to the old lead than this, anything much closer to the current lead than this, or anything completely different than this. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming the "three" of you are yourself, Born2Cycle and Editorius. I'm broadly happy with those wordings. I'd say that (positive) belief is better than view and there are no deities is better than there exist no deities. Ilkali (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And I think such is better than this (narrower in scope, less potential for confusion). Ilkali (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that rejection of the absence of belief??? I've alluded before to the problems in starting with the most controversial (because it can be too-wide by including babies, economics & monkeys). Here is yet another problem with doing so. Of the versions not mine, the one I find least objectionable is:

In the narrow sense, atheism is the view that there are no deities;[1] in a broader sense, it is the rejection of belief that any deities exist;[2] and, in the broadest sense, it is simply the absence of any such belief.[3]

There is still the problem that we are REQUIRED to point out in the lede any major controversies - and the broadest def is one such. This can best be handled in 2 sentences. One for the 2 explicit forms; the second to handle the broadest. And again, "rejection of theism" is too ambiguous --JimWae (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As you can see above, the phrase "rejection of theism" hasn't been used for quite a while.—Editorius (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

JimWae, keeping in mind the need for consensus, do you think that you could work with any of the versions suggested in this section? (Just asking.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"I've alluded before to the problems in starting with the most controversial (because it can be too-wide by including babies, economics & monkeys)". There's nothing wrong with starting wide and there's nothing controversial about the idea that some people use atheism to mean weak atheism. Putting it first doesn't mean we're saying it's the 'right' definition. Ilkali (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned rejection of theism only as a pre-emptive sidepoint. All proposals in this section begin with the weakest definition without pointing out the controversy regarding it. We are OBLIGED to point out this controversy in the lede, so we have a problem that will not go away--JimWae (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"We are OBLIGED to point out this controversy in the lede". We point out that the term is interpreted in different ways. That's all we're "OBLIGED" to do. Ilkali (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree with the assertion that we are "OBLIGED" to point out a controversy in the lede. A perusal of WP:MOS will actually show exactly the opposite. The lede is for summing up the most significant points about the topic, NOT relating every possible controversy or disagreement. Those properly belong somewhere in the body, assuming that the controversy passes muster with WP:Undue weight. Regarding the phrase "rejection of theism", I fail to see what is "too ambigous" about it. It seems perfectly clear and has been in use for some time; I suggest leaving that portion as-is. Doc Tropics 20:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:lede "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." Plus "rejection of absence of belief"??--JimWae (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, it's not a "notable" controversy, it's a trivial and rather pedantic disagreement (If it is a notable controversy I expect you can easily provide references from reliable sources which document the controversy). Regarding your second point, I can only say: "I do not think that word means what you think it means". Perhaps English is not your native language? There isn't really any possible way to translate "Theism" as "absence of belief" which seems to be what you are doing; a good dictionary could help avoid this kind of confusion in future. Doc Tropics 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Different people define the word differently" is not a notable controversy. "Plus "rejection of absence of belief"??" ...isn't anywhere in any of the proposed wordings. Ilkali (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:lede is about the lead section, not just the lead sentence. Can we add something to the section, as opposed to the sentence? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The appropriateness of the weakest def is one of the most notable controversies in the field. Defining children and monkeys as atheists, and biology & economics as atheism is certainly controversial. Everyone here is covered under the "rejection" def. --JimWae (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"The appropriateness of the weakest def is one of the most notable controversies in the field". Under what meaning of controversy? The matter in question isn't about what's 'right' or 'true'. Neither side is saying the other is wrong, they're just using the word differently. It's not even a disagreement; it's just a dissimilarity. Controversy? Ridiculous. Ilkali (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with either of the two proposed sentences (those posted above by Tryptofish). Powers ^T 22:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So, are you insensitive to objections against defining babies and worms as atheists, and economics & biology as atheism? I am not saying it HAS to be mentioned in first sentence, but that it is easiest to mention the disagreement at first presentation (which would seem to form a good 2nd sentence). I AM also saying that beginning with a controversial (because overly-broad) definition is not the way a scholarly encyclopedia ought do things - especially if the problem is never mentioned. People have become attached to the "absence" definition because it avoids claims that atheism is an article of faith. The "rejection" def handles that objection -- and does not include worms. --JimWae (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"So, are you insensitive to objections against defining babies and worms as atheists, and economics & biology as atheism?" The former is reasonable but would rarely be stated, since it's not very useful information. The latter (economics and biology) is a bizarre misunderstanding on your part. Aside from that you don't raise any new points. There's no disagreement and no controversy. Ilkali (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Do not biology & economics have an "absence of belief in deities"? We need to be concerned not just with what people commonly or rarely think or state, but with what our text implies. Certainly we need to include a common usage, but the task of definition includes noting the necessary & sufficient conditions. "Absence of belief in deities" is a necessary condition for atheism - it is not a sufficient condition. Else, are plants, TV's and rocks also atheists?Several ref works, some of which we have used, remark that the absence def is "less rigorous" or an extension of normal usage. --JimWae (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick survey: Is anybody giving credence to this drivel, or can I just ignore it? Ilkali (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

At first I thought this was mostly a language problem with someone whose grasp of English is...less than fluent. At this point however, I consider your suggestion to ignore it a more reasonable (and productive) reaction. "Move along people, nothing to see here..." Doc Tropics 00:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Lack of concern for precision in language says more about some editors than anything else could --JimWae (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Shall we content ourselves with humptydumptyism - that words mean what the "author" says they mean, shall be be post-modern & say words mean whatever the social group wants them to mean, or shall we also look at some logical implications of our words?--JimWae (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Jim, but sometimes it's only a short step from precision to fruitless pedantry!—Editorius (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So, are there other issues for which sloppy language is also acceptable in the service of brevity? I see several other issues here where people are saying that as long as it is "sort-kinda OK" the briefer expression is better than the more precise one. The fruitlessness seems to depend on who's in the mood not to care --JimWae (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Editors who support what appears to be emerging as the consensus version care just as much as the dissenters, but honestly disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

On absence of belief: judging by our sources under Atheism#Implicit_vs._explicit, I think it's clear that this definition is used to refer to people, as opposed to rocks and Economics. Should our lead be improved to make that clear? I've no objections to doing that, though it seems a bit tricky as we define atheism, not atheist. Any suggestions? I'm not sure it's a great concern though.

Whilst Baron d'Holbach's usage includes newborns, George H. Smith's seems to refer to having the capacity to grasp the issues involved, but being unaware of those issues. Another example would be humans living in some tribe untouched by the concept of god.

I would also say it's not clear that it's controversial - firstly, the idea that it includes "economics & monkeys" is not an issue, because the sources we've cited do not appear to claim that such things are atheists, as I've said, so the problem is one of wording of our own definition, and not that the definition we are trying to cover is itself controversial. Secondly, any controversy should be based on reliable notable sources, not whether we think it's controversial. Mdwh (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. As a "thought experiment," I tried mentally changing "belief" to "human belief" in each part of the sentence, and to me it sounded silly, almost comical. I think it goes to show that a reader will understand that the lead is about human beliefs and their absences, not about absences of belief in non-humans. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive, of sorts

I'm not deleting anything, but in the interests of letting a variety of editors weigh in, without having those who have already said a lot throw in even more versions and force others to respond to them, I'm copying some material from above to here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, we could alternatively write:

"Atheism is the absence of the belief that there is at least one deity, the rejection of this belief, or the positive belief that there are no deities."

—Editorius (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Atheism is the absence of the belief that there is at least one deity". The second the is unnecessary and clumsy, and the entire construct is just a longer version of the absence of belief in deities version. Seriously, who the hell is going to think that's specific to polytheism? Would this same person think "I don't believe in unicorns" means I might believe in a unicorn?

And I think such is better than this (narrower in scope, less potential for confusion). Ilkali (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"I don't believe in gods but there's a god I believe in" is certainly nonsense.

If "belief" is followed by a that-clause, then "the" is needed, since "the absence of belief that ..." doesn't appear good.

Another possibility (which I find elegant):

"Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities, the rejection of such belief, or the positive belief in the nonexistence of deities."

—Editorius (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

""the" is needed, since "the absence of belief that ..." doesn't appear good". As a native speaker, I assure you that is not true. Regarding your newest suggestion:

1. in the existence of deities is just a more verbose version of in deities.
2. the positive belief in is ugly. It's either positive belief in, or the positive belief that.
3. belief in the nonexistence of deities seems like a roundabout way of saying belief that there are no deities.

Ilkali (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

ad 1. "in the existence of deities" has more letters in it than "in deities", but it's more precise, "less open to misunderstanding", as some would put it.

ad 3. "belief in the nonexistence of deities" and "belief that there are no deities" are certainly synonymous.

—Editorius (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no potential for misunderstanding with belief in deities. Ilkali (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"If x believes in deities, then x believes in the existence of deity."

This is doubtless true, but, logically speaking, it doesn't imply the following:

"If x does not believe in deities, then x does not believe in the existence of deity."

(See the quote by Plantinga: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Atheism#absence_of_belief_in_deities.2C_or_in_existence_of_deities.3F)

—Editorius (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody with any competence in reading English would read absence of belief in deities in an atheism article and take it to mean anything other than "absence of belief in the existence of deities". Ilkali (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right.

Then let's take suggestion #10 from above:

"Atheism is the absence of belief in deities, the rejection of such belief, or the positive belief that there are no deities."

—Editorius (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle wrote below: "My objection to the double-use of belief remains unaddressed above."

Unaddressed??? I (and others) addressed it at length—see above!.

Would you prefer "belief in the existence of deities" to "belief in deities"?

And I beg you, please try to understand that "to belief that p" basically means nothing more than "to regard p as true". And when it is said that positive atheists believe that there are no gods, this simply means that they regard the proposition "There are no gods" as true—while the theists regard it as false.

—Editorius (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think he's referring to describing strong atheism as a belief. Ilkali (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I tried to dispel his worries by arguing that calling strong atheism a belief does not by any means imply per se that strong atheists are irrational fideists or that strong atheism is a "religion".

Shame upon him who thinks evil upon it! ;-)

—Editorius (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

My bad, I only read the first part of your comment and thought you thought his problem was just with belief in deities. I fully support your position in this matter and am terribly glad that you're arguing it with him and I don't have to. Ilkali (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

My point is that there are many people who distinguish what belief means with respect to deities and what belief means to an atheist. I have gone as far as citing a reference that contends, "it is erroneous to imply that atheists even have beliefs."1 Think about what that means, and the implication to the proposed intro. Click on that reference and read it. Those are not my words. Don't shoot the messenger. And that's not an anomaly reference. You can find countless examples like that. My objection based on such references is what I said was not addressed, and it still is not addressed. If you reference atheistic "belief" in the intro sentence along with a reference to "belief in deities" you are bound to get strong objections, sooner or later. But you don't have to take my word for it. Ignore me and try it. You'll see. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"It is erroneous to imply that atheists even have beliefs."

While it would indeed be erroneous to imply that all atheists have a belief, it would be equally erroneous to imply that no atheists have a belief, since all positive atheists do have a belief: the belief that there are no deities. It is simply ludicrous to deny this fact!

Those atheists who nevertheless do so, do so for purely ideological reasons that lack objectivity.

—Editorius (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Take it up with the person who made that statement, and, while you're at it, with the myriads who agree with it, not me. My only point is that associating "belief" with atheism, especially in a sentence that refers to the "belief" in deities of theists, is potentially confusing and objectionable (depending on one's perspective), and alternative wording should be used (like, but not necessarily, "view"). --Born2cycle (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle wrote: "My point is that there are many people who distinguish what belief means with respect to deities and what belief means to an atheist."

For theists believing in God means believing in his existence and putting one's trust in him, worshipping him.

For (positive) atheists disbelieving in God means believing in his nonexistence and not putting one's trust in him, not worshipping him (who would worship or put his trust in what he thinks doesn't exist?! Not even theists do that!).

HELLO, WHERE ARE YOU, PROBLEM, I CAN'T SEE YA?!? (I'm asking as a positive atheist!)

"Is atheism a belief?

Most atheists will say no, that by definition atheism is simply the absence of belief in God. Certainly for all weak atheists it is not a belief. However, I take a slightly more controversial view. Since I am a strong atheist, or perhaps I can be better described as an active atheist, I do believe something: I believe that there is no God.

The first time I said that on my YouTube video blog I was beset by a horde of angry comments, saying that I had betrayed atheism and had no right to say that atheism was a belief. But I never said that. All I said was that I believe there is no God. Isn't that just the same as saying that I don't believe there is a God? Reactions were still mixed. Some went so far as to give detailed explanations about why atheism is absolutely not a belief. It seems that even atheists fall into this trap of discussing whether or not atheism is a belief.

Unlike religion, atheism is certainly not a belief system. You don't have to actually do anything to be an atheist. If I stopped talking or writing about atheism, I would still be an atheist. The fact that I believe there is no God simply means that I've heard people talking about God, I've read information, looked into the subject closely, and based on all the (lack of) evidence, I have concluded that there is no God. That's what I believe is the right position to take."

(Gisburne, Nick. The Atheists are Revolting! Taking Back the Planet—Saying No to Religion. Lulu.com, 2007. p. 55)

Quote: "IT SEEMS THAT EVEN ATHEISTS FALL INTO THIS TRAP OF DISCUSSING WHETHER OR NOT ATHEISM IS A BELIEF."

—Editorius (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying is what your reference confirms - referring to atheistic "belief" is a loaded topic - a semantic quagmire - best left untouched if possible. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Referring to strong atheism as a belief is completely uncontroversial. That's just its definition. Ilkali (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you not read Editorius' referenced quote above? Here is a self-described strong atheist who makes clear he is not saying atheism is a belief: "I was beset by a horde of angry comments, saying that I had betrayed atheism and had no right to say that atheism was a belief. But I never said that." That's how controversial it is. Yet the proposed wording below for the intro of this article says exactly that: "Atheism is ... the positive belief ...". It's a semantic quagmire. Don't. Go. There. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did read it. He was talking about whether the unqualified term atheism should be taken to mean weak atheism (no belief) or strong atheism (belief). Strong atheism is a belief. Weak atheism isn't. Our text makes it clear these distinct meanings exist. No quagmire. Ilkali (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

He did not say strong atheism is a belief. That is your opinion. That is not the opinion of his, nor many others. He specifically said he was not saying it was a belief, and make a distinction between atheists believing and atheism being a belief. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In other words, while strong atheists believe no deities exist, that's just what they believe. That doesn't make atheism, or even strong atheism, a belief in and of itself. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does! Strong atheism is, consists in a belief "in and of itself".

And it is clear that such a belief doesn't have to be a "creed".

—Editorius (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you think strong and weak atheism are defined and contrasted? Ilkali (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Weak atheism is the absence of belief in deities. Strong atheism is the doctrine that deities do not exist. Neither is a belief. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement with Ed here; Strong Atheism is absolutely, unquestionably, a belief. A Belief can easily be defined as "Acceptance of a proposition without supporting evidence". That is exactly what both Atheism and Theism are. I suspect that what B2C really means is that Faith differs from Belief, which is altogether different, and not especially releveant in this context. Doc Tropics 21:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The concept "belief" doesn't even imply per se that there is no evidence for what is believed! (Remember that belief and knowledge are not mutually exclusive since knowledge is defined as a kind of belief!)—Editorius (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think (hope) what you mean is that one definition of knowledge is that it is a kind of belief. But there are different definitions of knowledge, just as there are different definitions of belief. So this is just stupid semantics. But that's my point. Because the statement is semantically ambiguous, we shouldn't use it. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: So you prefer the following formulation, don't you:

"Atheism is the absence of belief in deities, the rejection of such belief, or the positive view that there are no deities."

—Editorius (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, because it avoids the semantic quagmire that is so easily avoided. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

How about:

"Atheism is the absence of belief in deities, the rejection of such belief, or the doctrine that there are no deities."

--Born2cycle (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Doctrine?! Hell no. Ilkali (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

B2c, as I think you know, I'm more inclined to see your side of this than many of the other editors. But I very sincerely want to suggest to you that we have already made some excellent progress on improving the lead, and it might be best to leave this issue for a future edit discussion, and reach consensus where we can. Try as you might, and sincere as you are, you are not going to get consensus on this at this time. Maybe in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but unless someone provides a cogent argument that at least addresses my argument, I am not yielding on this one. Stating that (strong) atheism is a belief in the opening intro of this article is simply not tolerable. That is not an improvement, it is an abomination (not to mention an assertion without citation). To support the contention that "(strong) atheism is a doctrine", to which Ilkali says "Hell no", I have a dictionary reference (m-w.com - look it up yourself). I provided references to support the basis for not saying that atheism is a belief, and I even used the very reference that Edit provided to try to convince me otherwise. Let's be reasonable. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's be reasonable:

Keith Cantrall, the man you refer to above, writes in his article "Atheist belief versus Christian belief":

"(...) Whoever implies that doesn't understand the basic definition of the word "atheist." Let's look a little closer. The "a" in atheist is taken from the Latin root for "without" and the word "theist" is taken from the Greek root for "belief in theos (god)." So, in other words, atheism is the lack of belief in god. It is not a belief that no god exists. It is simply not having a belief in god or being "without belief..." Therefore it is simply wrong to ever use the word atheist and belief together as if atheism is some sort of separate belief system from a religious belief system. (...) [I]t is important to be sure it is clear that atheism is simply the lack of belief in god without regard for any personal philosophy, worldview or ideology."

1. Mr. Cantrall commits a fallacy called the etymological fallacy:

"What I am referring to as the etymological fallacy is the assumption that the original form or meaning of a word is, necessarily and by virtue of that very fact, its correct form or meaning. This assumption is widely held. How often do we meet the argument that because such and such a word comes from Greek, Latin, Arabic, or whatever language it might be in the particular instance, the correct meaning of the word must be what it was in the original language of origin!

The argument is fallacious, because the tacit assumption of an originally true or appropriate correspondence between form and meaning, upon which the argument rests, cannot be substantiated."

(Lyons, John. Language and Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. p 55)

Therefore, Cantrall's appeal to etymology is invalid or at least inconclusive.

2. Since it is by no means a priori clear that "atheism is simply the lack of belief in god", Cantrall's claim that only negative atheism is atheism proper is actually an expression of his "personal philosophy, worldview or ideology".

He even writes quite dogmatically "it is simply wrong to ever use the word atheist and belief together". As a matter of fact, there's nothing wrong with doing so for those positive atheists (like me) who are not "belief-paranoiacs"!

Are these two counterarguments reasonable or "cogent" enough...?!—Editorius (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No, these two counterarguments are not reasonable, since they don't even address my argument. Whether Cantrell is right or not is beside the point. The point is that his view exists, and it is not isolated. Right or wrong, whether you like it or not, the statement "atheism is a belief" is controversial, is a semantic quagmire, and we should avoid it. That's my argument. Address that. (Ideally, in the section I started at the bottom of the page on this topic). --Born2cycle (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Vote

CAUTION: Please note Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. I do think it's useful to assess views and to move towards resolution, but please keep voting in perspective. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's time to sort things out (otherwise this is going to be a never-ending story):

Are you prepared to accept or at least to tolerate the following formulation of the first sentence?

"Atheism is the absence of belief in deities, the rejection of such belief, or the positive belief that there are no deities."

=> [PLEASE ANSWER ONLY WITH EITHER YES OR NO!] <=

• Yes.—Editorius (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• No, but it is better than the present mushed-up crud - I also think there is an ongoing discussion of a topic not recently raised, and that a vote is premature--JimWae (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Yes Doc Tropics 00:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Yes. Ilkali (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• No. (My objection to the double-use of belief remains unaddressed above). --Born2cycle (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Yes. Powers ^T 02:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Yes. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, if we use the old references and put them within the sentence.

No, if we use the new references and put them at the end.

I offer the yes even though I'm uncomfortable with "positive belief." But I think we need to wrap this up. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. I don't think I care whether "positive" is there or not, but this emphasises the distinction that the absence/rejection are two different definitions, which makes it better than the current lead. I make no comment as to how this compares with other possibilities, but it's better than the current version. Mdwh (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's not clear what the difference is between the absence of a belief in X and the belief that there is no X. If I do not believe that a fairy lives at the bottom of my garden, it is the same mental state as believing that no fairy lives there, or at least it is the same mental state as soon as someone brings the issue of fairies in gardens to my attention. So I oppose this on the grounds of incoherence. As for the issue of references, they should go at the end of sentences or paragraphs wherever possible.SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether you agree or not, a distinction is widely made between strong and weak atheism. It's not our place to comment on whether that distinction is valid. Ilkali (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. And say that those that believed that fairies did not exist had a name, say afairyists. That would not mean that afairyism was a belief. In fact, it would be more of a doctrine - the doctrine that fairies do not exist. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, it's kinda like the difference between saying "I've never seen a fairy" and saying "There's no such thing as fairies".

B2C, the horse you are beating is so dead it has decomposed and gone back to the earth. Please, for the sake of our collective sanity, move on. Doc Tropics 01:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, what would you say is the difference between belief that there is no X, and a "suspension of belief" (the definition you gave for agnosticism)? Basically, the rejection of belief is similar to suspension (although it can be for other reasons - e.g., a lack of evidence - but nonetheless, one can be agnostic and atheist by this definition). An absence of belief also covers suspension of belief, but also includes possibilities such as children and people in parts of the world untouched by Civilisation, who could comprehend the concepts but have not heard of the concept of God (some might even include babies in the definition). I reverted your edit because:

• It drops two of the major definitions.
• It's unclear on the comparison to agnosticism. How does "rejection" differ from "suspension"? What about people who are agnostics and atheists? What about agnostic theists - they can't exist, according to the lead you proposed.
• Please seek consensus - the lead is the result of vast amounts of discussion (see the talk pages), and now we are currently undergoing I imagine hundreds of edits trying to debate the current version. Please don't jump ahead when the topic is under large amounts of debate. Mdwh (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Would the following variant dispel the worries of those who are still feeling somewhat uneasy about speaking of strong atheism as a belief:

"Atheism is the absence of [the] belief that at least one deity exists, the rejection of this [such] belief, or the positive belief that no deities exist."

By using "belief" twice in combination with a that-clause, it becomes even more clear that its use in this context is innocuous, with there being no intolerable hidden connotations concerning strong atheism.

—Editorius (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• I realize, of course, that some editors still have sincere concerns about the version at the top of the "vote" section. I realize that it is not perfect, and that support is not unanimous. But, dare I suggest it? Seems to me that we have, for now, consensus to go ahead with the version that was voted on here. There will continue to be discussion (belief, doctrine, for example), and there will unquestionably be future, further edits. But I think that the proposed change is agreed upon, as an improvement, for now, over what the page currently says. OK? Amen. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK!—Editorius (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

NO! There have been many versions proposed about which we have unanimous consensus that it would be an improvement over what we have now. But this particular version, and any version that refers to (strong) atheism as a belief, is most certainly not an improvement to the current wording. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

YES! Do it. Some people will never agree (see B2C above), but it need not be unanimous. This is the best we've got right now, and it's a big improvement. Doc Tropics 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: Please don't delete the new version! IT IS REALLY TOLERABLE!—Editorius (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Here is what I am going to do. I just reverted another editor, who has the impulse control of a two-year-old, who made the edit, but ignored some recent talk about references and links. I'm going to wait a little while for more comment, then do the edit more carefully, recognizing that consensus does not require unanimity. Having done it, I will expect other editors to refrain from reverting the non-controversial parts, or changing it to something completely different without discussion first. But, that said, I personally have no objection if anyone choses to change "positive belief" to "view", and then lets the edit process run its course. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Tryptofish, especially for calling me "another editor who has the impulse control of a two-year-old"! :-(

"Revert as premature"—??? Do you think this is funny?!

Remember? You're the one who wrote above: "Seems to me that we have, for now, consensus to go ahead with the version that was voted on here. (...) OK? Amen."

I'm sorry, but that really pisses me off!

—Editorius (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Proves my point. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I beg your pardon ...?!?—Editorius (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Refs for defs

Including defs from Xns that included broader defs of atheism has ended several arguments here. I note they are no longer in present version. Is there some great disadvantage to having refs from a broad spectrum of authors? --JimWae (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Please see, carefully, the two versions I suggested at the top of the previous talk section. The arguments for and against the change in references have appeared above. At the time of the edit creating the current lead sentence, the editor who made it rather quickly made the change in references. I have subsequently suggested that a way of partially (not fully, I readily admit) addressing concerns such as those that you raise, would be to restore the previous, broader, references, and also, to insert their citation numbers within the lead sentence, instead of grouping them all at the end. Whatever one feels about putting them within the sentence or at the end, I cannot see any harm in having more references. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just how far up do I need to look? I've looked twice now. Refs inside sentences are widely used on wikipedia, and doing so decreases arguments on talk pages - so that is what I prefer (even tho' it is slightly unsightly).--JimWae (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are looking for. Could it be the top of the section called "Lead: trying to sum up," where I show the two ways of proposed referencing? Anyway, and more importantly, I agree with you (Jim) 100% about how the lead should be referenced. I also urge other editors to please examine this point more carefully. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Moved here from above. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I note that no one has responded yet to the issue of the references cited. Can we conclude that most are OK with the new references, and OK with keeping them all at the end of the sentence? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Please answer at Refs for defs, below. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, no "[n]s" inside the one sentence!—Editorius (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes Tryptofish, that sounds good. As far as I know, refs should only be used mid-sentence if the sentence is long, complex, and makes several statements that all need individual refs. And in that case, the sentence should probably be rewritten for clarity. Doc Tropics 17:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Doc, please understand that I was only asking it that way rhetorically, because no one had commented on it at the time. But now, people have commented. I actually do NOT agree with it, but, rather, agree with JimWae on this specific point, because (1) it may be helpful for consensus, and (2) I think it makes sense on the merits. In particular, it is a very bad idea to have decreased the number of references cited. Even if we keep them at the end of the sentence, we should provide generous referencing. It does the reader no service to provide fewer references -- and we already have all those references in the edit history. Now whether we put the references at the end of the sentence, or within, is a less critical issue, but I think putting them within helps the reader associate the references with the part of the sentence they support, and helps the reader understand the differences between the three parts of the sentence. The concern about breaking up the sentence visually, although somewhat valid, seems to me to be trumped by the more substantive value of providing information to the reader. And, seriously, how horrible is it, for a reader to read through superscripts within a sentence?! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood. I was really only commenting on the placement of the refs, not their quantity or quality. In general terms I would agree that the more we have the better, although there are reasonable limits, ie any sentence that needs 5 or more refs should probably be re-written. Regarding the placement of them however, I will stand by my earlier comments. It's not just the unappealing aesthetics of refs in mid-sentence, there are real issues of readability if every short phrase requires seperate citations. We should be writing with an eye towards relative simplicity; the goal of the article is to provide understandeable information to people who don't know the subject matter, not to show off our IQs and education. Doc Tropics 18:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, thanks for your comment on my talk page, where you indicated that you feel somewhat flexible about this. Actually, I agree with what you said, in principle, whereas I see this particular edit as being a case of needing to bend the usual conventions in the interests of clarity, the kind of clarity that worries JimWae (and, I think, other editors who haven't commented recently, but did in the past). (In fact, the number you used, 5 refs, is more than the number of ref numbers, 4, discussed here, although each ref number may have more than one source within it.) To illustrate what I mean, here is the tentative-"consensus" sentence from the vote section, with the reference numbers I would advocate within it:

"Atheism is the absence of belief in deities,^[4] the rejection of such belief,^[2] or the positive belief that there are no deities.^[1][3]"

Hardly a challenge to read! (P.S.: Those numbers correspond to the numbers of the old references, as they were numbered on the old version of the page. Obviously, they would be numbered in order now.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, actually posting the suggested sentence makes all the difference! At this point I agree with you entirely, at least in this specific case. The construction of the sentence as well as the number of refs and their placement looks perfectly fine to me. I would ask if both refs at the end are actually necessary, since the other phrases need only 1 each, but that's a very minor point and I wouldn't worry too much about it. Most of my concerns were based on experiences with Evolution and Alcoholism, articles that became completely unreadable in some sections due to absurd numbers of references scattered through every sentence. But what you proposed here isn't a problem at all. In fact, it looks like the best formulation we've come up with yet. Doc Tropics 19:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! About the two refs at the end, [1] describes the form of atheism discussed in the last part of the sentence, and [3] describes the views of authors who state that there is no single definition of atheism (although, by now, I might be getting numbers mixed up, ugh!). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In that context the two refs are totally justified as they provide the reader with different (but related) information. Thanks for clarifying! Personally, I think it would be ok to make the change now. This version doesn't have universal support, but it does have strong general concensus, and it's a huge improvement over what currently appears in the article. Doc Tropics 19:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! But let's not edit just yet. I feel a rebuttal coming any minute! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

@Tryptofish:

"Atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[1] the rejection of such belief,[2] or the positive belief that there are no deities.[3][4]"

Again, this looks ugly!

And again, what's wrong with the new references, two of which, if I'm not wrong, are identical to old ones?

—Editorius (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(See Doc, I predicted this!) Again, no it isn't ugly. And the added information trumps concerns about aesthetics, even if it were. And again, there's nothing wrong with the references that are the same as before, of course. And there's nothing wrong with adding new refs you have found, to the others. But there was something wrong with deleting the refs that you deleted. So, what was wrong with them? Too taxing for an interested reader to have access to? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ed, I respectfully disagree that this proposed version is "ugly". In fact, it seems quite elegant and smooth compared to most of what we've seen. This is not a topic that will allow a simple definition of a few words that presents only one view. Let me ask this: is there a version we've considered that you deem 'not-ugly'? If so we can certainly review it! In the absence of a better suggestion though, I'm very interested in replacing the current lede sentence which is almost incomprehensible. Almost anything would be an improvement, even if it's not perfect. Doc Tropics 21:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict: welcome to my world, at least at this talk. And please don't ask him to suggest another version, or we'll be here another month!!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish wrote: "There was something wrong with deleting the refs that you deleted. So, what was wrong with them?"

There would simply have been too many of them, if we had kept them all. How many references do you consider necessary for one sentence? 10, 20, 30?—Editorius (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me if we don't add the new refs that you found. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The old ones omitted are neither more relevant nor better than the new ones added.—Editorius (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Does that make the new ones better? And see what JimWae said at the top of this section. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

For example, the "investigatingatheism" link is definitely better than the "religioustolerance" link.—Editorius (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, that's the kind of thing we can discuss. I'm going to make links to make it easier for editors to see the two versions side-by-side. I guess we should actually be happy that we have progressed to where this may be the only remaining question! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

For everyone's perusal pleasure, here are the two lists of references, to compare side-by-side. The current, shorter, version is here. The previous, longer, version is here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what an outpouring of responses (smile)! I cautiously infer that a lot of editors see other concerns as more urgent, and would not feel unhappy with either possible way of referencing. From the limited talk so far in this section, sentiment seems to run 3 to 1 towards something like the longer references. I want to point out, again, that although I have consistently argued for brevity and simplicity in the wording of the lead sentence itself, I think that a different set of concerns apply to the references in the notes section at the bottom of the article. Most casual readers don't care about the refs, and will not be inconvenienced by having a lot (within reason) of them. For the smaller number of readers who want to read more, providing more references (within reason) is a service. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Strong atheism: belief or doctrine?

Q: Is it more appropriate to refer to strong atheism as a belief or a doctrine?

Here is a dictionary citation for strong atheism being a doctrine:

"2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity" [m-w.com] Obviously, 2a defines weak atheism, and 2b is strong atheism. Not a belief, a doctrine.

Here are just a few citations supporting the contention that the statement, "(strong) atheism is a belief", is, at best, controversial:

• "Is Atheism A Belief? No." --"belief"%3F Atheism is a belief.
• "Not believing a hypothesis is not a belief." --Is atheism a belief?
• "First of all it is erroneous to imply that atheists even have beliefs. Whoever implies that doesn't understand the basic definition of the word 'atheist.'" Atheist belief versus Christian belief.
• "The first time I said that on my YouTube video blog I was beset by a horde of angry comments, saying that I had betrayed atheism and had no right to say that atheism was a belief. But I never said that [atheism was a belief]" (Gisburne, Nick. bending over backwards to clarify that he never said atheism was a belief, The Atheists are Revolting! Taking Back the Planet—Saying No to Religion. Lulu.com, 2007. p. 55)

It is true that dictionary.com defines (strong) atheism as, "1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God." But note that doctrine comes first, and that this in no way undermines the contention (supported with references) that referring to even strong atheism as a belief is controversial.

Does anyone have any references supporting the contention that the statement, "(strong) atheism is a doctrine", is inappropriate or controversial?

Does anyone have any references supporting the contention that the statement "(strong) atheism is a belief" is not controversial? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Below is a variety of defs of doctrine. Will doctrine convey your intent to a reader for whom the primary meaning of doctine is "a body of beliefs taught as authoritative by an organized group"? Will doctrine convey your intended meaning to the widest audience? --JimWae (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer doctrine to belief, but I'm not insisting on using "doctrine" like you guys are insisting on using "belief". Propose a compromise. My proposal of doctrine was a compromise between "view" (my earlier preference) and "belief" (the abomination). Your turn. --Born2cycle (talk)

I propose "belief" as a compromise between "view" and "doctrine"... Mdwh (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

---

doc⋅trine –noun 1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine. 2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine. 3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

---

doctrine - a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school n. 1. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma. 2. A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent. 3. A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy. 4. Archaic Something taught; a teaching.

---

[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin doctrna, from doctor, teacher; see doctor.] Synonyms: doctrine, dogma, tenet These nouns denote a principle taught, advanced, or accepted, as by a group of philosophers: the legal doctrine of due process; church dogma; experimentation, one of the tenets of the physical sciences.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

---

doctrine Noun 1. a body of teachings of a religious, political, or philosophical group 2. a principle or body of principles that is taught or advocated [Latin doctrina teaching] doctrinal adj Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

---

Doctrine a body or set of principles or tenets; doctors collectively. Examples: doctrine of comets, 1754; of instruments [laws], 1594; of doctors—Bk. of St. Albans, 1486. Dictionary of Collective Nouns and Group Terms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

---

Fundamental principles by which the military forces or elements thereof guide their actions in support of national objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgment in application. See also multinational doctrine; joint doctrine; multi-Service doctrine. Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department of Defence 2005.

---

Doctrine (Latin: doctrina) is a codification of beliefs or "a body of teachings" or "instructions", taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. The Greek analogy is the etymology of catechism.

Function: noun 1 archaic : teaching , instruction 2 a: something that is taught b: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma c: a principle of law established through past decisions d: a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations e: a military principle or set of strategies

---

The references you provide for atheism not being a belief are not referring to _strong_ atheism! Those references would equally oppose referring to atheism as a "doctrine" for the same reasons. So there is no problem here. Mdwh (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are references to _strong_ atheism!. The fourth in particular is explicit about it in the full quote provided by Editorius earlier above where he clearly states that what a strong atheist believes (that deities do not exist) does not make atheism a belief.

But if you don't find that to be compelling, try this one on for size, which is clearly about strong atheism: "if ... we mean to question whether strong atheism must be a belief, the answer is no." Full context with citation follows:

• Isn’t strong atheism a belief, just like any other position?

Any position can be a belief, in the sense that it is held by the individual without sufficient evidence. So the short answer to this question is, yes, just like any other position, strong atheism can be held as a belief.

However, if by this question we mean to question whether strong atheism must be a belief, the answer is no. As you will read on this web site, there is an abundance of rational evidence in favour of the strong atheist position, and against theistic and skeptic positions, making it knowledge.

Some people, especially non-rational pragmatists, argue that our criteria for knowing things are flawed or relative. Everyone, however, does share such criteria: without it, we could not have the knowledge to survive, communicate meaningfully, and appraise the validity of various positions. What is at issue is the validity of specific epistemic positions. We defend rationality and discuss these issues in the “Against philosophical skepticism” section. Strong Atheism FAQ.

Note the definition of belief assumed here: "[A position is a belief if] held by the individual without sufficient evidence". Now, again, I'm not here to defend this usage. I'm just saying it's out there and it's quite prevalent, and it is used in the context of strong atheism. I will also say that in the proposed intro, that is the meaning implied by the first usage of the term ("belief in deities"), and is therefore easily misconstrued to be implied the second usage too. Saying, especially without any qualification, that (strong) atheism is a belief is controversial and should be avoided.

I should also note that my questions in the opening post to this section remain unanswered. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

None of the references you posted when I wrote that comment referred to strong atheism. E.g., the second clearly states "Not believing", the third stated "It is the absence of belief." The fourth quote specifically says "I do believe something: I believe that there is no God." and just said it isn't a belief system.

Now, to take the new reference you've posted - yes, I can see that some might use "belief" only for things that aren't supported by evidence, but I'm not sure this is that common. How notable is this Strong Atheism FAQ? If I say that I believe the Earth is round, I don't see the problem.

But more importantly, I think that "doctrine" is far worse - this has the same objections that these people would have for belief, but worse, it can also imply a belief system, or something that is taught. See JimWae's references. I've no objections to having "view" or "assertion" instead, but I don't see a problem with belief either, and would certainly object to "doctine". Mdwh (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if B2c rejects "belief", he should all the more reject "doctrine".—Editorius (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Editorius, if you think I should reject "doctrine" because I reject "belief", you still do not understand my objection to "belief"! It is because of the references that object to the notion that "atheism is a belief". I don't know of anyone anywhere (until you guys here) who has ever objected to "atheism is a doctrine". That's why one of the (still unanswered) questions above was whether any of you could find a reference to support that. Also, the term "belief" has a connotation that many atheists find objectionable, especially in this context.

Mdwh, unlike those here who insist on the use of "belief" over clearly stated and researched objections, I am not going to insist on the use of "doctrine", even if the objections are basically whimsical and without references. So, how about "view", or "position"? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

American Atheists object to the usage of "doctrine" [1]: "that use of the word doctrine is incorrect", "In addition, using words like "doctrine" and "denial" betray the negativity seen of atheists by theistic writers. Atheism does not have a doctrine at all". I suspect that you will find more hits for "not a belief" simply because the "Atheism is a belief" claim is more common than "Atheism is a doctrine". Also, as shown by the posted definitions, doctrine can mean a belief, so how is it an improvement? It's also more vague, which isn't useful, and the other things it can mean (such as system of beliefs, or something taught by a group) don't work here at all. And I'm fine with "view" or "position" (or "assertion") too. Mdwh (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle wrote: "It is because of the references that object to the notion that "atheism is a belief"."

Can you present any authoritative references (in the literature on atheism) that object to speaking of strong atheism as a belief?

—Editorius (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not offhand, and how would that be relevant here even if could? My objection is with respect to keeping probable WP readers of the Atheism article in mind, you know, the type who write and read the references I did provide, not necessarily the ones who read and write authoritative references.

I did find an authoritative reference for using "doctrine", but I don't doubt that there are authoritative refernces for using "belief". So on that count I hope you agree we have a wash.

Similarly, We have zero authoritative references objecting to the uses of either "belief" or "doctrine" with respect to strong atheism, but we do have one objection to belief, or at least belief system, for strong atheism (see below).

Now, with respect to non-authoritative objections, I've provided half a dozen or so non-authoritative references objecting to "belief" to establish that a problem exists, and the assertion made above "that there is no controversy" with respect to using "belief" is false. I've seen no references that object to the use of "doctrine", authoritative or not. So I think it's fair to say that "doctrine" definitely gets the nod on that.

But, here's an authoritative reference just to put the cherry on the top of my argument:

• "But there is such a thing as strong atheism, which is the hat that I choose to wear. ... Strong atheists actively deny the existence of gods. They speak out. The fact that I believe that those gods do not exist is just semantics. ... I've heard of them, and I believe that what has been described to me is bullshit. That simple statement is not a belief..." (Nick Gisburne, The Atheists are Revolting!, pp 7-8). --Born2cycle (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I take notice of the fact that this is what Gisburne says.

The problem I'm now having is that the more often I re-read his statements, the less I agree with some of them:

1. "All I said was that I believe there is no God. Isn't that just the same as saying that I don't believe there is a God?"

It now seems to me that he fails to see the subtle but nonetheless relevant logical distinction between "to believe that non-p" and "not to believe that p".

2. The following statement appears plainly inconsistent: "I believe that there are no gods but that there are no gods is not a belief of mine."

If Gisburne really means that, then he's the one who's just doing semantics in an illogical way.

(Analogous example: Some theologians affirm that God is personal but deny that he is a person. That's bullshit!)

—Editorius (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)]

Once again you're falling into the trap of arguing with the arguments that are out there. My only point is that the arguments are out there, whether they are valid or not is beside the point. Because they are out there, and because that POV exists, "valid" or not, use of the term "belief" in this context is problematic and should be avoided. Dodge the semantic quagmire and choose another word. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you know at least one totally uncontroversial alternative term for "belief" in our context?—Editorius (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe "view" meets the criteria. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the following was one of my early suggestions (18 February 2009):

"Atheism can be the doctrine or belief that there are no gods, the rejection of theism, or simply the lack of belief in the existence of gods."

—Editorius (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

1. To believe X is to hold X to be true
2. Strong atheists hold "there are no gods" to be true
3. Strong atheists believe there are no gods

Point 3 is a logical entailment of 1 and 2 (some syllogistic steps removed). B2C, which part of this do you contest? Ilkali (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

None of it. Please read the arguments and references I'm posting. I quote Gisburne again, "I've heard of [deities], and I believe that what has been described to me is bullshit. That simple statement is not a belief". He's saying that just because one of the things a strong atheist believes is that deities don't exist (your #3) doesn't make atheism a "belief", much less the belief that deities don't exist.

Besides, my main point is simply this: referring to atheism as a "belief", especially in the same sentence in which "belief" is also used to reference theistic "belief", is controversial. My case supporting that point is overwhelming. We should use something else (and not necessarily "doctrine", which I admit has its own problems). We've tried "worldview" and that was rejected (for reasons I never fully understood). But what's wrong with simply "view"? But even if "view" is not acceptable, can we please take "belief" off the table? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"My case supporting that point is overwhelming". You've established that some atheists dislike describing "atheism" as a belief. That's irrelevant. You've established that one atheist dislikes describing strong atheism as a belief. That's relevant, but unconvincing; the person in question is not an authority on the meaning of the word belief, and his position seems to clash with yours anyway. He doesn't seem to accept it as belief in any sense of the word, while you (correct me if I'm wrong) accept it in a literal sense but object to perceived negative associations. See my below reply. Ilkali (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Finding specific objections to describing strong atheism in particular as a "belief" are harder to find, but I did fine one in the short amount of time I searched. How many would you like?

Besides, since the proposed introductory sentence does not clearly distinguish atheism from strong atheism, the objections to describing "atheism" as a belief are certainly relevant.

What I personally accept or do not accept is not relevant. Please leave that out of it. I replied to your reply below. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"since the proposed introductory sentence does not clearly distinguish atheism from strong atheism, the objections to describing "atheism" as a belief are certainly relevant". All the sentence says is that the word atheism can refer to the belief that there are no gods. This is entirely different from the claim that it must refer to such a belief, which is what you seem to be arguing against. Ilkali (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no "can" in the proposed sentence: "Atheism is the absence of belief in deities, the rejection of such belief, or the positive belief that there are no deities." (irrelevant portions struck out). Like I said, since it does not clearly distinguish atheism from strong atheism, the objections to describing "atheism" as a belief are certainly relevant. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"There is no "can" in the proposed sentence". No, there's an or. Ilkali (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

How many? Well, one reference, that's reliable, notable, and not self-contradictory (he says he believes that those gods don't exist, and then says it's not a belief?) would be a start. Equally, a theist could make claims of "God exists! That's not a belief!", are we going to remove all references of belief in God from Wikipedia too? Mdwh (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientists believe science is a reliable method for learning about our world. Surely no one will dispute that. But would any of you say that that makes science a "belief"? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Science is a method, a process. To call it a belief is as incoherent as calling it a tangerine. If you want to talk about scientific theories then that's another matter. I believe that gravity holds me to the Earth. I believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun. I believe that life arose through abiogenesis and evolution. I have no problem making any of these statements.

The problem you're clutching at is that referring to something as belief rather than knowledge can implicitly call it into question, evoking an uncertainty that doesn't exist. That's why biologists sometimes object to questions like "Do you believe in evolution"; they feel it delegitimises scientific fact by suggesting doubt.

Wikipedia can only adopt the same linguistic sensitivities as the biologists if it mirrors the belief that evolution is uncontestable. And it pretty much does - evolution is treated as fact throughout Wikipedia. Strong atheism is not. We can't extend it the same treatment without adopting an unacceptable POV. Ilkali (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Although you went off on a tangent irrelevant to this discussion, I hope it's fair to glean from this that you agree science is not a "belief", even though scientists believe science is a reliable method (or process) for learning about our world.

Yet you insist that because one of things that strong atheists believe is that no deities exist, strong atheism is a "belief". Why? Because it's not a method? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"I hope it's fair to glean from this that you agree science is not a "belief"". Tangerines, remember? You seem to have ignored pretty much all of what I wrote. Ilkali (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying it's not fair to glean from this that you agree science is not a belief? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As I already said, it's an incoherent question. Is a tangerine a belief? Ilkali (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No, a tangerine is not a belief. And neither is science. Nor is atheism. What's incoherent? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please stop saying that either I or Editorius is claiming that "atheism is a belief"? You've been corrected enough times now. Anyway, science isn't a belief in the same way that a tangerine isn't a belief; they're just entirely different classes of thing. That doesn't say anything about whether strong atheism is a belief. Ilkali (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not here nor anywhere else have I ever said that either you or Ed is claiming that "atheism is a belief". Why you ever felt the need to correct me on that point is beyond me.

Regardless of whatever you and Ed are claiming, pointing out that "atheism is not a belief" (the apparent source of your objection) is relevant here because the controversial statement we're discussing does not specifically, nor clearly, refer to strong atheism; it's a statement about plain old "atheism". Whether the problematic "or a belief" clause refers to strong atheism can only be determined by inference, and thus depends on the reader. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What you're doing here is like reading "A foo is an X, a Y or Z" and then objecting on the grounds that not all foos are Zs. I'm trying not to be rude here, but... do you actually know what or means? Ilkali (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, a programmer who does not understand or. No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying atheism is "belief" is a controversial statement, especially without the modifier "strong", double-especially in the context of referring to religious "belief" in the same sentence.

I'm also saying that the above statement is sufficiently controversial that implying atheism can be "belief" is also controversial. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That analogy doesn't work - yes, scientists believing something about science (that it's a reliable method) doesn't make science a belief. That would be like me saying "I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, does that mean the sun is a belief?" Obviously not.

But no one is talking about people who believe something about atheism. Rather, (strong) atheism itself is used to describe believing that God doesn't exist. "Science" OTOH does not mean "believing that science is a reliable method" - that would be a rather circular and stupid definition.

As to your statements about distinguishing strong atheism from atheism - I think what you're getting at is that some people think the definition "Atheism is the belief that there are no Gods" is incorrect. Well sure - but equally, some people disagree with "Atheism is the rejection of belief" and plenty more disagree with "Atheism is the absence of belief". The whole point is that there is more than one definition, and therefore, not everyone will accept all definitions. What suggestion for improvement do you have? Changing the definition because someone disagrees with it is not the answer, because many reliable references do support the definition. Mdwh (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that strong, positive atheism is neither a belief system nor a creed but simply a belief in a perfectly innocent sense: the belief that gods do not exist. (Weak, negative atheism is certainly not even a belief in the innocent sense.)

Can we now stop this grotesque debate about the word "belief"?!

—Editorius (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to stop this debate as soon as you stop insisting on referring to atheism as a belief, especially without clearly pointing that you're only talking about strong atheism (but even then many strong atheists would object to their atheism being referred to as a "belief"). --Born2cycle (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Without clearly pointing that you're only talking about strong atheism"—???

You don't bother to really read what I write, do you?!

And by the way, you're not the only one here who's got a right to happiness!

—Editorius (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not misunderstanding. Are you not still insisting on the proposed statement that we are voting about? That's where atheism is referred to as a belief, without clearly pointing out that the reference is only to strong atheism. That's what I'm talking about when I say, "Without clearly pointing that you're only talking about strong atheism". What are you talking about? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, Born2Cycle, it's becoming more and more clear that we're never going to convince you. I hope you respect that we don't have to. Ilkali (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course you can't convince me that the implication that (strong) atheism is "belief" is not controversial and should not be avoided. That's because it is controversial and should be avoided. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I'll read any further arguments you have for why we should avoid describing strong atheism as belief, but I won't bother debating it with you anymore. Ilkali (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Would "position" work? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Distinction without a difference

How are sources describing the difference between "the rejection of such belief [in deities]" and "the view that there are no deities," and are the sources any good? It seems to me that there is no difference here at all, certainly not in ordinary language usage, which makes the first sentence appear nonsensical. It needs to be rewritten, at the very least to attribute the distinction to someone. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Suppose I tell you I'm going to toss a coin. Which of the following propositions do you believe?

1. The coin will land heads.
2. The coin will land tails.

Ilkali (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that both are possible, one of them necessary, assuming it lands on one of its faces. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You're not answering the question. For each proposition, I'd like to know whether you believe it is true or false. Ilkali (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Slim. There are about 12 pages on the difference here. It is yet another ref that needs to be restored to the article, as the present one supporting "rejection" is but a single phrase in one dictionary. --JimWae (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the first sentence using Britannica as a tertiary source, which does emphasize rejection in its first sentence. Where secondary sources disagree on the meaning of a term, it's best to go to a good tertiary source instead — but we should not be using dictionaries as sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to work out any changes to the intro on this talk page before implementing them in the actual article, especially major changes like yours. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My version lasted nine seconds minutes. It is here on the left if anyone's interested. This reverting to torture the English language isn't a good thing, especially not in an FA. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are minutes. We've been discussing the lead for weeks now. If you want to have some influence, do it properly. Ilkali (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the lead in the FA version. It's a lot better than the current one, and should probably be restored, otherwise the article risks losing FA status. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

See above for my reasons for reverting :) Good point about the FA version, I'm fine with that lead. Also, I don't think that the primary/secondary/tertiary source makes sense when talking about word definitions. I mean, what is a primary source? There is no possibility of original items, or eye witnesses. I suppose we could distinguish between "philosophers or other individuals who make up a definition" and "sources that document these definitions", but dictionaries fall into the latter just as much as Britannica does. Since plenty of dictionaries offer different definitions to Britiannica's, we should take account of those too. And given that Britannica ignores these definitions, I'm not convinced it really behaves as a "tertiary" source here - what makes Nielsen's definition more authoritative than any dictionary author, or philosopher? Mdwh (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A committee of editors would have decided that Neilsen's version was neutral enough to represent Britannica, and that's the advantage of a good tertiary source. There's been consensus for many years that we should avoid dictionaries. Regardless, we really ought not to change the FA version. It's a lot better than the other versions, mine included, and it gained widespread consensus before going on the front page. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's between the FA version or the "(strong) atheism is a belief" abomination, there is no contest. FA wins hands down. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh shit, the FA version does have the "atheism is a belief" language! I don't know how I missed that. Well, then, I suppose I'm wrong about how much objection that would bring. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Trusting my instincts, I decided to double-check SlimVirgin's claim that the "atheism is a belief" wording he put in the article came from the FA. It did not! Ha! See new section below. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

@Slim Virgin:

"Rejecting something is not the same as not believing it: it is much stronger. To reject something is not to accept its negation. One can reject something without accepting its negation."

(Priest, Graham. In Contradiction: A Study of the Transconsistent. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. p. 98)

That is, if you negate (say no to) the proposition "Gods exist", then, by doing so, you accept (say yes to) its negation "It is not the case that gods exist". But if you merely reject (don't say yes to) the proposition "Gods exist", then you don't have to accept (say yes to) its negation "It is not the case that gods exist". For you might reject (not say yes to) its negation as well, as do the agnostics and the noncognitivists with regard to theism. —Editorius (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Rejection", as it applies to our atheism def, is to the belief, not to the existence. I reject "belief that extra-terrestial intelligence exists", I do not reject the "possibility that ETs exist", nor do I even reject "the existence of ETs" - I am neutral on that, even inclined to think it probable. I accept it is possible "our universe" was created by some kind of super-being, but I reject belief in such because I see no reason to believe it.--JimWae (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Who objected to "view"?

When I changed "positive belief" to "view" in the new intro, I was reverted with this comment:

"If one objection to 'belief' is enough to declare no consensus, then an objection to 'view' constitutes the same. a lot of people explicitly approved the 'belief' version."

I agree an objection to "view" would constitute the same, except I don't recall anyone objecting to "view". Did I miss something? Who objected to view? (not counting any objections made prior to my edit to the article - I'm talking about prior to the time I made my change, just as I made my objections to "belief" prior to it being put in the article despite the objections). --Born2cycle (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I did, a few times. There is no justification for referring to theistic belief as belief and atheistic belief as a "view", especially since your reason for doing the latter is to avoid negative associations. Gross NPOV violation. Ilkali (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed each of the times you objected to "view". Can you please show me where you did at least one of those times? Otherwise, I will have no choice except to conclude you're just being argumentative. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's one. See "unacceptable POV". Ilkali (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As noted below, that one is an objection to the objection to "belief", not an objection to "view". It does not even mention "view". Where are the other ones? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've given you your "at least one of those times", and that's all the hoop-jumping I'm willing to do. Go search the discussion yourself if you want to. I made my position quite clear. Ilkali (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You said "a few times". I asked you to cite at least one. You cited none. See below. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What difference does it make, Ilkali? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I just checked every reference to NPOV on this page, and none (except now) are from you, much less in reference to objection to the use of "view" as being NPOV. This is new. The explanation for your revert is unfounded. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hah! Just proves my thoughts about you not reading my comments. Ilkali (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Baloney. I read that. It's an objection to the objection of "belief", albeit made on POV grounds (I remembered it, but couldn't find it, since I was searching for NPOV). It is not an objection to the use of "view". You didn't even even mention "view", nor did you imply anything about it. The explanation for your revert is unfounded. You're conflating an objection to an objection of "belief" with an objection of "view". What you cited here is the former, not the latter. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"It is not an objection to the use of "view"". It was an objection to special treatment. It was an objection to use of anything except belief. I clearly stated: Avoiding this use of belief promotes an unacceptable POV. I clearly stated this in the context of you offering view as an alternative. You really don't see how that's an objection to replacing belief with view? Ilkali (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you think you "clearly stated" "Avoiding this use of belief promotes an unacceptable POV", you're hallucinating. In retrospect, I can now see how it is possible that you were thinking that, but you can't expect others to read your mind. I note your inability to cite the words in which you "clearly stated" this. They aren't there. Nor is any objection to the use of the term "view". Whether you realize it or not, the entire time you only expressed objection to my objection for the use of belief. You never objected to "view", or anything else, except maybe "doctrine". You certainly never stated nor even implied that it is important to use the same term (in this case "belief") with respect to both atheism and theism. It's revealing to me that you think you said all this stuff (even multiple times!), and yet you can't cite where you actually said it. That explains much about why we seemed to not be communicating - you were apparently not conveying what you were thinking! --03:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I accept no responsibility for your inability to read. Ilkali (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course. But will you accept responsibility for you inability to write what you think? I note again your inability to cite the words in which you stated at all, much less "clearly stated", that "Avoiding this use of belief promotes an unacceptable POV". --Born2cycle (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think what Ilkali simply wanted to demonstrate is that one could even find "view" objectionable. (I'm not saying should!)

I know that there are many arrogant atheists out there who are so damn cocksure about their standpoint that they always speak of it as a "view", i.e. as something oh so rational, oh so scientific, oh so non-faith-like, thereby implying that the belief of the theists was per se irrational. They proclaim "We are atheists, we don't have any belief, we have a view; beliefs are what the stupid theists have!"

—Editorius (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

But the point here is whether we're making an honest effort working towards consensus. We were rolling along with pretty much everyone having veto power, until my "belief" objection came along. Then all of a sudden everyone dug in for some reason about "belief". My grounds for editing "positive belief" to "view" was that there were at least one objection to "belief", and none for "view". The fact that there could have been an objection to "view" is not relevant. The fact that there was not even one objection to "view", is relevant. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

During the FA discussion, the article was referred to as having been "de-weaselfied." It seems to me that some of you are trying to "re-weaselfy" it. These distinctions you're drawing don't matter, and especially not for the lead. What is the difference, for this purpose, of a view, belief, position, etc? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Referring to atheism as a belief is something to which many atheists object. Since there are many alternative ways to describe atheism, including the current FA wording (and "view"), I think it should be avoided. Anyway, it's moot as long as the FA version stays in place since it does not refer to atheism as a belief. The discussion in this section is not about that, but is about whether Ilkali's explanation for reverting my edit was true. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You were the one who reverted it. I agree that the FA version should stay in place. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I was convinced by the logic and reason of your arguments here and on the edit summaries that it should stay. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the logic and reason that convinced me was that we should go with what the FA version said. I still uphold that reasoning, it's just that the wording needs to come from the actual FA! See section below. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle wrote: "The fact that there could have been an objection to "view" is not relevant. The fact that there was not even one objection to "view", is relevant."

If "view" should be the one term everybody deems perfectly acceptable, then we'd best not use "belief" at all:

"Atheism is the absence of the view that there is at least one deity, the rejection of this view, or the positive view that there are no deities."

—Editorius (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Would "position" work? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In both are just the latter?

(a) "Atheism is the absence of the view that there is at least one deity, the rejection of this view, or the position that there are no deities."

YES.

(b) "Atheism is the absence of the belief that there is at least one deity, the rejection of this view, or the position that there are no deities."

YES (even better).

(c) "Atheism is the absence of the position that there is at least one deity, the rejection of this position, or the position that there are no deities."

I don't think so.

(d) "Atheism is the absence of the belief that there is at least one deity, the rejection of this view, or the philosophical position that there are no deities."

YES (perhaps the best?). --Born2cycle (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I meant the ones that you said "yes" to. I'm trying to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The real FA version

This article was the Featured Article on June 8, 2007. The opening line on that day was:

Atheism is the philosophical position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. In its broadest definition, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, sometimes called nontheism.

The current wording is claimed to come from the FA version, but it is quite different:

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

I don't know what the source of this wording is, but it is not from the FA version. The entire first paragraph from the last edit from the June 8, 2007 version is:

Atheism is the philosophical position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, sometimes called nontheism. Although atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, some religions, such as Buddhism, have been characterized as atheistic.

I don't know where SlimVirgin got the current wording, but it is not from the FA version. I will restore the 1st paragraph with the above which comes from the actual FA article, and if anyone replaces it with another "atheism is a belief" abomination, I will begin the process for this article to lose its featured status. When this article was featured, it did not say anything so absurd as atheism is a belief, and it shouldn't now. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't hold an article hostage like this. In any event, I copied the version that Raul gave FA status to on April 28, 2007. What are the differences between your version and the one I added? (I can't see them in a diff because you changed the alignment.) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I went with the info on the top of this article, which states when this article was featured, and provides a link to the featured article that day. I also provided a link to this article from that day. That's what I used.

I'm not holding this article hostage. I'm saying I will go forward with getting featured status removed if it says atheism is a belief.

I don't know why you can't diff. I provided a link to the June 8 2007 version above. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SlimVirgin was entirely correct to replace "the FA version" and I've restored it again. Furthermore, my ability to AGF here is deteriorating rapidly. B2C seems to be behaving with nearly fanatical obsession; it's thoroughly disruptive and counter-productive. Doc Tropics 05:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree heshe was correct to replace the intro with the wording from the FA version, except he didn't use the FA version! Where is the citation that shows that the wording from SlimVirgin was in the featured article? I provided citations above for the wording I'm putting in the article... it's the 1st paragraph from the version the very day it was featured. What is your objection to that??? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I take Slimvirgin's word as the strongest possible cite because she is one of the most productive and respected editors in the project. Doc Tropics 05:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand the source of the confusion now. There is the day the article was submitted for featured consideration, there is the day it was "promoted", and the day it was actually the featured article of the day. SlimVirgin used the 2nd date, and I the 3rd, and of course they are different versions since changes occurred in between. I have not gone back to review the version that was promoted, but if has that wording in it, I will accept that. I still think the version from the day the article was actually featured was an improvement. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If the only difference is the slight change in word order in the first sentence, there is no difference in meaning. (As I said earlier, I used the April 28, 2007 version that Raul promoted.) I think the point is that it seems to deal with all the issues people have been discussing on this page, and it was a version (the one that was promoted and/or the one that was on the front page) that was looked at by many editors, so it's safe to assume it has consensus. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's version is the correct one - the article achieved FA status with this edit [2]. Note that AFAIK, the day when an article makes the "Today's Featured Article" is not based on any consensus of how good the current version of the article is, just so long as it has FA status. Mdwh (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm convinced. With difficulty, I am willing to accept that the article achieved FA status with the abominable "atheism is a belief" wording, noting it wasn't there when submitted as a candidate, and that is was gone again before it was actually "Today's Featured Article". That indicates that that wording is not sustainable, at best. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't like the "affirmation of nonexistence" language anyway, and neither have numerous other editors in this talk. That being the case, please let me suggest that we compare the FA version with the version that we were on the verge of having consensus for, about a day ago. On first reading, I like the later paragraphs of the lead section in the FA version better than the corresponding paragraphs in the versions of the last several months, because they are very clear and neutral, and better fleshed out. I need more time to decide what I think about the first paragraph of the FA version, but there are some wordings that look to me like they are no longer supportable as consensus evolves, so maybe there is a way of combining some of the new insights into the FA first paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's version

SlimVirgin's version, while imperfect, did have some points in its favor:

1. It attempted to deal early on with the differences between agnosticim, atheism & theism - something that many, many readers would expect. Granted, that is not an easy task, but one that we do need to address at some point in the lede.
2. It presented a definition that covered everyone who would call themselves an atheist & did not endorse a definition that would include babies, brain-dead people, dogs, worms, and rocks as atheists, and biology & economics as forms of atheism. I agree that we are obliged to at least remark on the "absence of belief" usage since it does have currency. It appears in several reference works (not just self-contradictory atheist tracts) -- BUT several of those reference works specifically state that such usage is less rigorous (those refs were recently removed). The "absence of belief" usage is the weakest definition of atheism - it is not just a definition of weak atheism, it is weak as a definition because it relies on many unstated conditions that really apply more to atheISTS than to atheISM. One such unstated condition is that the entity that does not have the belief in any deity is a sentient being. This, however, still leaves monkeys & babies -- I leave others to state all the other conditions, for I find the "absence" def to be more & more useless.
   • I want to emphasize here that when a reference work says "A is L, or R, or P", it is doing more than saying those 3 meanings have currency -- it is saying those 3 defs are good defs. This differs from saying that "A, in current usage, can mean L, or R, or P."--JimWae (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

blah-blah-blah ... — Editorius (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

 

Very helpful. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Lets settle with it. --windyhead (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The tricky thing with covering the differences between agnosticism as well is that we have to take into account multiple definitions of agnosticism as well. The idea of "agnostic" as a middle ground between atheism and theism is just one definition - but futhermore, the lead didn't explain to me what the actual difference was at all, because how is rejection of belief different to suspension of belief? (I can see how belief that God doesn't exist differs to rejection/suspension, but the latter terms are just forms of explicit weak atheism AFAICS.)

As I've said, the implicit atheism definition is intended to cover people who are capable of comphrending the idea, but who have not heard of the idea; and most broadly, babies (I don't see what's so controversial about that - there's nothing wrong with using labels to refer to babies as well; it was also an important philosophical point given the earlier view that babies were born with beliefs). No one claims it covers rocks etc. I don't see it's more controversial than the other definitions - our job is not to pick and choose what we think makes most sense as a definition (I speak as someone who uses the "rejection of belief" definition myself for atheism), it's to represent what's covered by referenced sources. I have no objection to making the wording more rigorous if you prefer, based on what philosophers such as Smith and Holbach stated, but that's no reason to pretend the usage doesn't exist. Mdwh (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering how hard we are finding it to deal with atheism, I would suggest leaving agnosticism out of the lead, at least the first paragraph of the lead. There's another page on it, of course. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if you want the lead to say atheism is absence of beliefs, it should also be mentioned that some sources say that absence of beliefs is distinguished from atheism (being agnosticism). --windyhead (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In the FA version, we had "sometimes called nontheism" for absence of belief. Mdwh (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Esp for Mdwh: Nowhere anywhere have I suggested that we ignore the absence def - in fact I say above we are obliged to cover it
• Esp fot Tyrptofish & Mdwh: Many, many people will come here looking for some idea of how atheism & agnosticism map out relative to each other. We could say something like: "while some authors draw a sharp distinction between atheism & agnosticism,[#], others[#] state the two positions are compatible and that it is possible to be both an atheist and an agnostic. The disagreement arises because both terms have a variety of definitions."
• Definitions do not have intent - people do. The literature will better support a claim that the absence of belief def arose as an attempt to distinguish atheism from a "belief that no deities exist", than that it was a stipulative definition so that babies would be included. And even if we found such stipulative def was historically first, it would not matter - because defs sit on the page *now*, and if a def is too broad (by including rocks & mathematics), then the def needs to be revised by stating the other conditions. Compounding the issue is the attempt to begin with this, the weakest of all definitions.
• Why is it that some of the following qualify as atheistic (containing atheism within them) and some do not: communism, capitalism, Marxism, Stalinism, Existentialism (general), Existentialism (a specific branch within it), economics, mathematics, Darwinism, biology, physics, heliocentrism, Theory of Evolutionary, Nihilism, Big Bang Theory, Buddhism, Dadaism, Behaviourism, Theology? Is "absence of theism" a sufficient condition, or is something more needed?
• The Neilsen article also provides a source for stating that criticisms exist of the definition of atheism as denial of the existence of any deity for being too narrow. If there is criticism of the rejection def, then that too needs to be mentioned. --JimWae (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

others[#] state the two positions are compatible and that it is possible to be both an atheist and an agnostic - what are sources for this? --windyhead (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify - I was talking about problems in SlimVirgin's version (which didn't mention the absence definition).

I think a statement like that about agnosticism sounds good. Note that we do already cover this in Atheism#Definitions_and_distinctions, I guess it's just a question of do we need it in the lead?

AFAICS, all references for the "absence of belief" definition are referring to people; can that be worked into our wording for that definition? Mdwh (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

atheism - a philosophical view

Thanks for the help evolving the version I started with in the previous section (which itself was a slight variation on what we all developed here together). I'm going to leave for a while (the whole weekend perhaps), suggesting that you guys think about and/or work on the result of the previous section:

(10) Atheism is a philosophical view characterized by the position that there are no deities, the rejection of theism, or the absence of belief in deities.

I believe this version addresses most if not all of the concerns raised on this page, except for Jim's insistence that two sentences are better, which I don't understand. Ciao, and thanks again! --Born2cycle (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Process

Normally, I'm all in favor of being bold, but this is different. I went to bed last night having objected to what I thought was an edit made slightly too soon, and I wake up this morning to find that, per my worst fears, an edit war has followed. I appreciate that some editors, more experienced than I, have the perspective to recognize that an earlier version was good enough for FA status, but I also want to point out that consensus evolves over time, and a lot of editors here have worked very hard to address real concerns that have come up since the time of the earlier version. Coming in here and making the change to the old FA version without contributing meaningfully to the talk of the last few weeks betrays a disrespect for the editors who have worked hard and doggedly for consensus. Maybe the FA version, if we can find the correct one, is better, but that can be discussed rather than edit warred. At this point, I haven't had enough time to digest the conflicting opinions, and neither, I will dare to suggest, has anyone else. Take a deep breath. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Me three weeks ago: "(this) page has a tendency to bend over backwards trying to satisfy everyone. But the reason for that is that this is a high-traffic page, and the first sentence has been subject to ceaseless change in the past. Maybe that is no longer such a problem". Or maybe it is :) johnpseudo 14:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Right you are (and were)! But it seems to me that the alternative choices we have are to give up, to edit war, or to engage in a respectful deliberative process. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm holding off on involvement in this article until we get edit validation for featured articles. There needs to be much more focus on discussion than on having your edit be live for the next 9 minutes. It also consumed too much of my time. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-03-13 16:55Z

What do you mean by "until we get edit validation for featured articles"? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish, perhaps you didn't notice that all those involved in what you call an "edit war" were apparently satisfied with the result that you went ahead and changed back to the version that almost everyone agrees is inadequate. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't take it personally. If that wasn't an edit war, what is? I agree with you that the present version needs badly to be improved on, and perhaps you didn't notice that I've been working hard to improve it, including trying to help you when almost all the other editors were telling you to drop your concerns. Maybe a few editors were happy at the moment with the last edit before my reversion, but I don't think you have any evidence that there was consensus for that version, or for going back to any older versions that haven't been discussed (as you correctly point out below) for months or more. WP:There is no deadline, and if there has been no urgency for months to go back to an earlier version, there is no urgency for the changes that were made over, at most, a few hours. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There was an edit war, but what he means is it was already resolved - there was confusion over what was the correct FA version, but now I believe we're all agreed it's the one dated 28 April 2007, at [3] (although, as JimWae says, I'm not too bothered between either versions, and any of those are preferable to the current version). As for "any evidence that there was consensus for that version", I think it's reasonable to assume that the FA version had a large amount of consensus (else it wouldn't be an FA), and in the talk archives, IIRC there was a large amount of discussion that contributed to that version. Mdwh (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The present lede sentence is crud - nearly everyone here agrees - and risks the article losing FA status. ANY of the presumed FA ledes is preferable. --JimWae (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, OK, so why not give editors enough time to evaluate it and agree on it, as opposed to edit-warring it? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Another process-related point: I note the recent correction of which version is actually the FA one (and I agree with the correction). But I think it points out some concerns. One is that it should be clear that the first edits restoring it were made hastily and without the needed discussion and consideration. Likewise, it is hard to accept that it had consensus when editors were not even sure what they were agreeing upon (but, again, I'm not arguing against working with the version we have now, only with the way that we got here). Another is that the dictum that it's a bad idea to edit an FA seems to be undercut not only by the lack of clarity among versions, but by the fact that there have since been edits in the body of the page. Anyway, now that we are here, I hope we can discuss issues like those in the issues with FA versions section, below, and make corrections thoughtfully and with discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

(I inserted a break here, because it is really a separate line of talk.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

For all the work that went into this over the last month or so, I wish someone had pointed out the June 8, 2007 FA version. Here it is:

Atheism is the philosophical position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, sometimes called nontheism. Although atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, some religions, such as Buddhism, have been characterized as atheistic.

Compare that to what we have now:

Atheism is the absence or rejection of belief in deities, or the explicit view that there are no deities.

Many atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Many atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism and naturalism,, but there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere. Some religions, such as Jainism and Buddhism, do not require belief in a personal god.

Which do you prefer, and why? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

2nd version is unacceptable because it puts "absence" on a first place while sources mention it on 2nd place, mention it as less used, doesn't mention it at all, or say "absence" is not atheism. 1st version is questionable because of "When defined more broadly" - who, when, and why would, will, or need to define it "more broadly"? --windyhead (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying the "When" is superfluous in the FA version? If so, I agree. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I said that when talking about absence, the lead must explain controversy behind it, which sources support it, which are not. --windyhead (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which words of yours above you think said that, and I'm also not sure why the controversy must be explained in the lead, much less which sources support it. I'm also not sure what controversy you're talking about. Regardless, all that kind of stuff seems like material for the meat of the article, not the lead. The lead should be an overview of what the article is about ("tell me what you're going to tell me"). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The controversy is that some sources include "absence" into definition, some don't, and some say "absence" is agnosticism. You are right that the lead should be an overview, thus it can give an overview of controversy, see Talk:Atheism#SlimVirgin's version for an example: Each of the three concepts encapsulates a variety of definitions and contrasting positions. --windyhead (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Points 2 and 3 as mentioned above:

• "rejection of belief is also explicit, and the above strongly *suggests* otherwise"
• "There are too many ORs, and it's not clear if synonymous or distinct alternatives are being presented"

Are major problems with the current (second) version. Therefore I prefer any of the FA versions to this. Mdwh (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

atheism - belief system that lacks belief

It just struck me that atheism is not a lack of belief itself, but really any belief system (for lack of a better term) that lacks belief in deities. Not being so crazy about "belief system", I WPed it and found that belief system redirects to Philosophical theory which is defined as follows:

A philosophical theory (also called a belief system or simply a philosophy) is a set of statements, each of which is believed to be true, and which supports some conclusion which explains something about the nature of the world we live in.

With that in mind...

(1) Atheism is any philosophy, philosophical theory, belief system or world view that lacks belief in deities, rejects theism, or maintains the position that there are no deities.

--Born2cycle (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't "lacks" sound pejorative? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to me. And certainly no more so than it does in the myriads of other suggestions that defined atheism in terms of "lacks". My main point here is to define atheism as something that lacks something rather than as just a lack of that thing (either way there is a lack involved). How about this:

(2) Atheism is any philosophy, philosophical theory, belief system, view or paradigm about the world or universe as a whole that lacks belief in deities, rejects theism, or maintains the position that there are no deities.

--Born2cycle (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Or, with absent instead of "lacks":

(3) Atheism is any philosophy, philosophical theory, belief system, view or paradigm about the world or universe as a whole that is absent belief in deities, rejects theism, or maintains the position that there are no deities.

Better? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Capitalism? --JimWae (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Btw, how many more times will I need to repeat this: "lack" implies a deficiency - look in any dictionary --JimWae (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've changed "lacks" to "absent". Does that address your concern?

As to "capitalism", that's why I added the phrase, "about the world or universe as a whole". The scope of capitalism is limited to the sphere of economics and politics, and does not extend to "the world or universe as a whole". Marxism, on the other hand, has broader scope, and of course "maintains the position that there are no deities" (it is atheistic). Of course, I don't think it's correct to say that Marxism is atheism. So maybe atheism is not the philosophy per se, but an aspect, or characteristic, of it?

(4) Atheism is the characteristic of any philosophy, philosophical theory, belief system, view or paradigm about the world or universe as a whole that makes it absent belief in deities, reject theism, or maintain the position that there are no deities.

In fact, I think that makes the "about the world or universe" clause superfluous, so...

(5) Atheism is the characteristic of any philosophy, philosophical theory, belief system, view or paradigm that makes it absent belief in deities, reject theism, or maintain the position that there are no deities.

I'm not crazy about "makes it". Suggestions? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Science? Epicureanism? I do appreciate the attempt to connect another noun though - as in : Capitalism is an economic system... Democracy is a form of government... Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology... Darwinism is a term used for various movements or concepts related to ideas of transmutation of species or evolution... Agnosticism is the philosophical view... Catholicism is a broad term for the body of the Catholic faith... Theism, in its most inclusive usage, is the belief... Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that...

We could try "Atheism is the ontological view..." but the answer lies in treating "absence" separately --JimWae (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There's also the problem in calling atheism a "system" as though it had a body of tenets - observe all the tenets we agree upon here --JimWae (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Take a deep breath, all. It would be better to work with what we have, especially including the FA version(s), rather than spinning out new-versions-du-jour. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

T, agreed, except this is working with what we have.

Jim, I agree there is a problem in calling atheism a "system"... that's why I'm experimenting with the "a characteristic of a" wording. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• The answer lies in treating "absence" separately - instead of trying to mush it up against the others in a single sentence - which is now becoming much longer & more jargony --JimWae (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think we can all agree that atheism is not a philosophy, any kind of system, or "an absence". Then what is it? Isn't it an "aspect of something characterized by ..."? As in:

(6)Atheism is the aspect of a philosophy, philosophical theory, belief system, view or paradigm that is characterized by the absence of belief in deities, the rejection of theism, or the position that there are no deities.

Jim, I did not mean to ignore your suggestion, but do you still think absence needs to be treated separately when atheism is defined like this, as an aspect? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Or, simpler:

(7) Atheism is a belief system aspect that is characterized by the absence of belief in deities, the rejection of theism, or the position that there are no deities.

Better? This definition is predicated on the assumption that absent a belief system, there can be no atheism. Hence, a rock or baby isn't an atheist, since neither harbors a belief system. Also, note that this wording cleverly evades referring to atheism as a belief system itself (rather, it says it is an aspect of a belief system). Trypto, with regard to your concern with working with what we've got, note that the entire latter part is wording that recently evolved in our discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

How does this relate to original research / synthesis? Arnoutf (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's very light and quite permissible synthesis, I think, not OR. We don't need to have citations for particular wording. As long as it accurately describes the concept as it is used, that's what matters. No? Show me a usage of atheism where it is not "a belief system aspect that is characterized by the absence of belief in deities, the rejection of theism, or the position that there are no deities". --Born2cycle (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Monkeys can be said to have belief systems - about what behaviour will bring the most bananas & sex. The wording "belief system aspect that is characterized by" is not clever, it is jargony, weaselly, & evasive. Two sentences better see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Atheism#Issues_with_FA_version.28s.29 --JimWae (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps monkeys can have "belief systems", but they don't have belief systems. The version you like says that atheism is a position. I don't think that as accurate as is "belief system aspect". Even shorter:

(8) Atheism is a belief system aspect characterized by the absence of belief in deities, the rejection of theism, or the position that there are no deities.

--Born2cycle (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you the guy who objected to calling even "strong" atheism a belief - and now you want to make it an "aspect of a belief system" cludge? Two sentences better. See http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Atheism#Issues_with_FA_version.28s.29

Something being an aspect of a philosophy (or belief system) doesn't make it a belief. Anyway, don't like belief system? How about this (borrowing from agnosticism):

(9)Atheism is a philosophical view characterized by the absence of belief in deities, the rejection of theism, or the position that there are no deities.

Yes, I like this better than the aspect thing. Why two sentences when one will do? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

These "best" formulations change radically by the minute (or less). Rejection of theism will not do - our def should not depend on the revolving def of theism. Rejection is also "a position" - but absence need not be. See comments re philosophy in http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Atheism#Issues_with_FA_version.28s.29 --JimWae (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

All this word-twisting is unnecessary if we do not feel the need to present the sloppiest definition first--JimWae (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please spell out your objections? I'm not following.

Change radically by the minute? Radically? By the minute? And even if, so?

Our def should not depend on def of theism? Um. We're defining atheism.. Of course our def depends on the def of theism (which should not be conflated with the current wording at the theism article).

Rejection is also a position. Yes. So what?

Absence need to be a position. yes. So what?

Seen the comments. What about it? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, this kind of wording suggests that any belief system that lacks belief in a god would count as atheism. E.g., feminism? Buddhism? Or capitalism, as JimWae suggests? One might say that a belief system could be atheistic or secular, but that does not make it equivalent to atheism. The lead should say what atheism is.

And atheism is not a belief system in any sense. Most atheists happen to have belief systems, which do not include the existence of god, but this does not mean those belief systems are all atheism. Even for strong atheists, it's not clear that a single belief (that God does not exist) is a belief system. Mdwh (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Jim, don't like "the sloppiest first"? Not sure why you can't come up with these slight (not radical) variations to meet all of your objections...

(10) Atheism is a philosophical view characterized by the position that there are no deities, the rejection of theism, or the absence of belief in deities.

Voila! --Born2cycle (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Mdw, your objections seem to apply to a much earlier version (1,,2, 3). I addressed that issue starting with (4). How about this latest one (10)? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

7/8 also call it a belief system. 4/5/6 are better, but still have the problem of defining atheism only in terms of being part of some bigger system, and this seems excessively complicated. Surely, rejecting belief, or believing God doesn't exist, alone constitute atheism. 9 and 10 are better still - in what way are they better than the FA version? One problem with 9/10 is that it's less clear that these are separate definitons (as opposed to being synonymous). Atheism is only defined as one thing ("a philosophical view") which could in turn be three possibilities. Rather, we should be explicitly listing three different definitions. I agree with the comments below - I could sit here and churn out tonnes of different definitions all day, but I think it would be more productive to look at existing versions, say what specifically is wrong with them, and how a new proposal is better. Mdwh (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

10 new serious "best" formulations in under 4 hours from one person. Take a breath. Yes, the last has problems too - later for that (some already mentioned) --JimWae (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jim. Too many formulations, too little attention to previous talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle suggested: "Atheism is any philosophy, philosophical theory, belief system or world view that lacks belief in deities (...)"

Very funny ...

"Atheism is a philosophical view characterized by the position that there are no deities (...)"

Isn't that still too simple?! ;-)

How about: "Atheism is a philosophical view characterized by the position which is defined as the standpoint commonly referred to as the conviction corresponding to the assertion which is identical to the belief that there are no deities."

—Editorius (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It was great until the word "belief."

-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agnosticism is often contrasted with atheism

Agnosticism, the position of neither believing nor disbelieving that God exists, is often contrasted with atheism - since all authors agree on this, it should be included in the lead. If some say this "contrast" is wrong, and one entails another, their opinion can be included as well, mentioning that not all authors object this, and if possible who are authors who do object. --windyhead (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that this is only one possibility, and it depends on both the definitions of agnosticism and atheism. Going by our own articles:

• Agnosticism can mean that the existence of god is either unknown or unknowable. Indeed, this is the strictly correct meaning of it AFAIK; the idea of it being a "middle ground" is a separate definition. One can be an agnostic atheist or even an agnostic theist, since knowledge of god is a separate issue to belief in god.
• Even if we do take the "neither believing nor disbelieving" definition, this overlaps with both the rejection of theism definition and the absence of belief definition of atheism. It's only a middle ground if we also use the definition of atheism as being only strong atheism.

So I disagree with putting the statement in as it is. Yes, it's true that agnosticism is often contrasted with atheism, but this contrasting is done in different ways - the definition you give here for agnosticism is only one definition, and completely different to the one we give even in our own Wikipedia article. So we need to work on a wording that takes into account the various definitions. In fact, I thought we did have something like this [4] but then it got removed. I'm sure we could probably find sources for the statements, since we have complete articles on agnostic atheism and agnostic theism; and the rest just follows from the various definitions of both terms, which we have sources for. Mdwh (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are two kinds of agnosticism. If one doesn't distinguish clearly between them, a lot of confusion and misunderstanding arises:

1. Knowledge agnosticism (k-agnosticism), i.e. epistemic agnosticism

2. Belief agnosticism (b-agnosticism), i.e. doxastic agnosticism = neutralism

There can be k-agnostic theists or k-agnostic atheists but there certainly cannot be any b-agnostic theists or b-agnostic atheists, since a b-agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves that God or a god exists. By definition, b-agnostics count among those who reject the belief in the existence of God or gods. Of course, they also reject the positive atheists' belief in the nonexistence of God or gods; and that's exactly why b-agnostics are neutralists with regard to the question as to whether God or gods exist.

(P.S.: From the etymological point of view, agnosticism in the second sense, i.e. belief agnosticism, had better be called "apisticism" (from Greek 'pistis' = 'belief'.)

—Editorius (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Mdwh wrote: "Even if we do take the "neither believing nor disbelieving" definition, this overlaps with both the rejection of theism definition and the absence of belief definition of atheism."

The difference between somebody who rejects the belief in gods and somebody who merely happens not to believe in gods is that the former consciously refuses to believe in gods.

Therefore, the rejecters of the belief in gods are in principle explicit negative atheists.

It is arguable that the agnostics are part of this group of atheists.

—Editorius (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are (at least) two definitions of agnosticism, which this statement ignored. As for "there certainly cannot be any ... b-agnostic atheists", you presumably mean b-agnostic strong atheists, as agnosticism is only contrasted with atheism where the definition is a belief that gods do not exist. As you say yourself, "By definition, b-agnostics count among those who reject the belief in the existence of God or gods" which would count them under the "rejection of theism" definition of atheism (and also the "absence of belief" definition, in that this includes those who explicitly reject belief as a subset).

So if we are going to say something along these lines, firstly I think we need to make it clear that this statement only applies for the b-agnosticism and the "belief of no gods" atheism definitions. Secondly we should mention that there can be k-agnostic theists or k-agnostic atheists. Mdwh (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Mdwh wrote: "As for 'there certainly cannot be any ... b-agnostic atheists', you presumably mean b-agnostic strong atheists."

Yes, of course: There can certainly be and actually are b-agnostic negative atheists, while there cannot be any b-agnostic positive atheists.—Editorius (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Political atheism

There is an interesting essay here on political atheism, which is a rather recognizable phenomenon, although few people are willing to distinguish it from secularism. Admittedly, many Secularists claim to be theists or deists, while on the contrary various Christians and others are said to behave as if they were de facto political atheists. Political atheism is also distinct from practical atheism, since practical atheism can be both private and public. [5] ADM (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not see the relevance for this page though as it deals with a 19th century issue within the US-catholic church. Arnoutf (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What is a "positive belief"?

The opening line currently states:

Atheism is either the positive belief that no deity exists, the rejection of the belief that at least one deity exists, or simply the absence of this belief.

What does "positive believe" mean? What would a negative belief be? "Positive belief" is awkward, unclear and weasly wording. When I google for it the only usage I can find is in the context of positive thinking (if you believe positive -- good -- things will happen, then positive things are more likely to happen), which I don't believe is the intent here. "Philosophical position" is much better:

Atheism is either the philosophical position that no deity exists, the rejection of the belief that at least one deity exists, or simply the absence of this belief.

Any objections to making this change? If so, what are they? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Your grievance isn't with the word positive, it's with the word belief. This is just one more obvious attempt to remove it. Ilkali (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is no secret that I think "atheism is a belief" is problematic, but "positive belief" is nonsensical. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

B2c, please see, carefully, my comments near the bottom of here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I personally have no strong objection to "belief." But I have to say that "positive" sounds silly. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which comments you wanted me to see, but I see that not only you agree that "positive belief" is silly, but it has already been removed. Good riddance, that. Now the only problem is "belief". --Born2cycle (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Dude, slow down! I was telling you that I was going to revert to a version that says "philosophical position." Please take the time to understand what is going on; otherwise, you only end up undercutting yourself. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't insist on using the phrase "positive belief" (even though the addition of "positive" helpfully underlines the contrast between PA and NA), but "belief" as such is absolutely unproblematic. The only real problem is that you are unable or unwilling to recognize this. Like Don Quixote, you've been tilting at windmills!—Editorius (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Philosophical position" or "belief"?

The current opening sentence no longer has "positive" in it, thankfully, and says this:

Atheism is either the belief that no deity exists, the rejection of the belief that at least one deity exists, or simply the absence of this belief.

For comparison, let's look at the first sentence of agnosticism:

Agnosticism ([α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help); after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove.

So, according to Wikipedia, agnosticism is a philosophical view, while atheism is a belief. Why not make these two consistent? What's wrong with saying atheism is a philosophical view? That's what this article said the day it was featured on the main page. Any objections to changing it back to:

Atheism is either the philosophical view that no deity exists, the rejection of the belief that at least one deity exists, or simply the absence of this belief.

If you object to this wording, please explain why. And, no, just because one may not have a "philosophical explanation" for their philosophical position does not make it any less of a philosophical position. --Born2cycle (talk)

I beg to disagree: The problem with "philosophical position" is that not all who are personally convinced of the nonexistence of gods are interested in philosophical argumentation. That is to say, the positive atheism of some may be called a "position" but not a "philosophical position".

—Editorius (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Poll

Please select the view that most closely matches your own:

Where "..." is "rejection of the belief that at least one deity exists, or simply the absence of this belief.":

a) I prefer "Atheism is either the belief that no deity exists, the ..."

b) I prefer "Atheism is either the philosophical position that no deity exists..."

c) Makes no difference to me.

(use capital letters if your preference is strong).

• B Reason: too many people object to the notion that atheism is a belief; no downside to "atheism is the philosophical view that ...". --Born2cycle (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• C --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• A --Just because "many people" are aggressively ignorant bigots is no reason we should cater to them in our articles. It's profoundly offensive that B2C continually denigrates and belittles other people's beliefs, even to the extreme of claiming that they aren't beliefs at all. This is absurd. Doc Tropics 16:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• A -- "Belief" is more inclusive. TechBear (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: belief is more inclusive, but here we are using the terms for something specific, not for all forms of atheism. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• D -- none of the above --JimWae (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

You continue to misrepresent the opposing view. Nobody is arguing for "atheism is a belief", they're arguing that certain forms of atheism constitute belief - specifically, strong atheism. For the sake of honesty, I recommend you change your poll from contrasting "Atheism is a belief" with "Atheism is a philosophical position" to contrasting "the belief that no deity exists" with "the philosophical position that no deity exists". Ilkali (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Since there are no such qualifications/clarifications (specifying "strong" atheism) made in the sentence in the article, I see no reason to make them here. But I did make the other changes you suggested since nobody besides me has voted yet. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I abstain from participation in your poll on the grounds that it dishonestly represents the opposing view. Ilkali (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

How can using the exact words from the sentence in question be a misrepresentation? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You deliberately tried to give the impression that the article defines atheism only as a belief, even going so far as to remove the word either from your so-called "exact" quote. Ilkali (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried no such thing. Please AGF. The full context is clearly shown, including the "either" wording, at the top of this section. Did you miss that? If you did, perhaps others will too. I did not foresee that. I'll try to adjust the wording in the poll accordingly, but it's getting unwieldy. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The qualification is there in that it says "either", and then lists three different definitions. If I say "A is either X, Y or Z", it's unfair to represent that wording as "A is X". To be fair, you make a reasonable point that agnosticism uses "view", and we should look at whether this is better to be consistent. But I don't agree with your objections to the word "belief". There are many references which do list, as one definition, atheism being a belief that god doesn't exist. Mdwh (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just trying to zero in on the differences, after providing the full context at the start of this section, but I've now added "either" since two of you think it makes a big difference.

I don't dispute that there are references that list atheism as a belief. My objection is that there are references that object to atheism of any kind being referred to as a belief, while I know of no objections to it being defined as a "philosophical view". "Philosophical view" also makes this definition consistent with how agnosticism is defined in Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Denial of the existence of deities" is a philosophical position (with the Herculean task of defending a negative "proposition"); "rejection of belief in deities" (for any of many reasons) is also one. "Absence of a belief" is not a position at all - philosophical or any other. This, again, is why "absence" works better with 2 sentences. The "absence" def is less sloppy when applied to atheISTs as "PERSONS without a belief in any deity" - thus rocks are not called atheists. The situation is far more complicated when attempting to define atheISM as an absence of belief. --JimWae (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted to Tryptofish's March 14 version — minus "or gods," which two people didn't like. [6] The version that was on the page had grammatical issues (e.g. if you use either, you can only have two alternatives), and was very unclear. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the change, but note that "either" can be used for more than two alternatives, when used to indicate one out of a series of choices - I made this mistake myself :) Mdwh (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Two more edits were made, without justification in edit summary, much less here on the talk page, after SlimVirgin's changes, so I reverted them. I think the current version reads better, and appears to be a consensus approved version, only a slight change from what Tryptofish had. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I misread - I do object to this version. The version Tryptofish was proposing we revert to, and which I support, is [7]. I don't know if it was intentional or not, but your change doesn't just remove "or gods", it also removes the rejection of theism, which is not discussed, and does not have any consensus that I see. The current version is not anyway a "consensus approved version", and the "slight change" is a major change that goes against what has been supported in the FA version, and vast amounts of previous discussion (i.e., the need to cover three definitions, not just two). Mdwh (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And on top of that, it adds the bit about agnosticism which I do not agree with (see above), and I am not sure there is consensus of. Even the version we had before [8] was better than this - since I see no talk to support moving to this version, I'm reverting back to that version until we agree which version we move to. (That's not to say that I think this version was the best, just that it gets us away from the new undiscussed version). Mdwh (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

But the current version, to which you have just reverted, is also problematic. Here it is:

Atheism is either the belief that no deity exists, the rejection of the belief that at least one deity exists, or simply the absence of this belief.

To start, here is the definition of "either" from m-w.com:

1 : being the one and the other of two : each <flowers blooming on either side of the walk> <plays either instrument well>

2 : being the one or the other of two <take either road>

SlimVirgin is right - you can't write either A, B or C. Either always applies to one of two choices.

Second, we have the "belief" problem. I understand that switching to "philosophical view" makes it seem like "rejection" is not a philosophical view even though it is. I get that. So, let's fix it.

Third, we have the JimWae problem (for lack of a better term) which apparently can't be solved without going to two sentences. So, how about this:

Atheism is one of several related philosophical views. It is

(1) the view that no deity exists

(2) the rejection of any belief regarding the existence of deities, or

(3) the absence of any such belief.

--Born2cycle (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not endorsing the version I reverted to, I was just undoing SlimVirgin's significant changes which had not been discussed, let alone got consensus (mostly notably, dropping the rejection of belief definition), and in my opinion are far worse than either the version I reverted to, or the discussed alternatives. There are better versions we can go to if we want to lose the current version, such as the FA version.

As for either, it refers to any number when used as one of a list of things (I made that complaint myself, but it turns out the usage is fine). See the Wikipedia article, or [9] "Used before the first of two or more coordinates or clauses linked by or".

And now we have yet another definition. IIRC, I'm sure at one time we did have a "list" format, but that prose is preferred to lists. Can anyone confirm? Mdwh (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Once again I restored "rejection of belief" to Slim's version - only to have it removed twice by Born2Cycle's reverts to Slim's version, before I had a chance to explain in the talk pages. The FA article had 3 defs. There has been no discussion about removing any of those 3 defs. Whether an editor here can discern any difference between "rejection of belief" and "denial of existence" is irrelevant. The unopposed consensus has long been to keep all 3 definitions. If atheism is defined primarily as the assertion that deities do not exist, then to defend it one needs to attempt to prove a negative - something virtually impossible in most cases & certainly impossible re some superhuman creator of the universe. Meaningful FA content should not be removed without discussion. If anyone needs to learn the difference between "denial of existence" & "rejection of belief", I suggest the EB & the Encyclopedia of Philosophy articles
2. Putting the "absence of belief" in list form does not magically make it a "position" or "view" of any kind. Absence is indistinguishable from "lack of awareness" in this case. "Lack of awareness" is not a viewpoint on something--JimWae (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Please refain from referring to your problem as the "JimWae" problem. The problem is how to include "absence of belief" - Is it best done in 1 or in 2 sentences --JimWae (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I entirely agree on all three points. For 1, I entirely agree that the definition shouldn't be dropped, and seems to have been done so without even discussion (see below). These are my reasons for reverting away from SlimVirgin's version - since there appears to have been no discussion for it, we might as well focus on the versions that have been discussed, hence my reason for reverting to the previous lead (as I say, this does not mean I necessarily favour it over other discussed versions, just that major changes should not be made without discussion, especially when they go against consensus for having the three definitions). For 2, although I've defended the "absence" definition, I agree it doesn't make sense to refer to it as a "view", and I have no objection to the two sentence form. Mdwh (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle wrote: "SlimVirgin is right - you can't write either A, B or C. Either always applies to one of two choices."

You're wrong:

"As a conjunction, 'either' often introduces a series of more than two: 'The houses were finished with either cedar siding or stucco or brick.' 'The pizza is topped with either anchovies, green peppers, or mushrooms."'

"The traditional rule holds that 'either' should be used only to refer to one of two items and that 'any' is required when more than two items are involved: 'Any (not either) of the three opposition candidates still in the race would make a better president than the incumbent.' But reputable writers have often violated this rule, and in any case it applies only to the use of 'either' as a pronoun or an adjective. When 'either' is used as a conjunction, no paraphrase with 'any' is available, and so 'either' is unexceptionable even when it applies to more than two clauses: 'Either the union will make a counteroffer or the original bid will be refused by the board or the deal will go ahead as scheduled.'"

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/either)

—Editorius (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle wrote: "We have the "belief" problem."

No, not we—you!!!

Your stubborn refusal to grant that there's nothing objectively problematic about speaking of positive atheism as a belief is embarrassing.—Editorius (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Jim Wae wrote: "Absence is indistinguishable from 'lack of awareness' in this case."

One can either consciously or unconsciously lack the belief in gods.

All explicit atheists, i.e. all positive disbelievers in the existence of gods and all rejecters of the belief in gods, are well aware of the fact that the belief in gods is absent from their minds.

Only implicit atheists needn't even be aware of god-belief being absent from their minds (e.g. infants).—Editorius (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I may have slightly overstated my case, but so have you. "Belief in deities" is hardly absent from my mind these days - how could it be so for anyone involved in this discussion? However, it is still a misuse of language to say that "absence of belief in X" is a philosophical position on "X" or "belief in X". For someone to have a philosophical view about "belief in X", they must have at least formed some opinion about "belief in X" -- and, unless one does that with some reasons or some some conscious regard, it would not be regarded as being philosophical. This process is not best described as an "absence of thought" --JimWae (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

By saying that the belief in deities is absent from the mind of person X, I mean to say that X's mental "belief box" doesn't contain the proposition "There is at least one deity". Of course, an intellectually mature adult is fully aware of the fact that his belief box is free of that proposition, whereas an infant is not aware of this fact. So, when "negative atheism" means nothing more than merely implicit negative atheism, then we cannot meaningfully apply the term "view" or "position" to it, since the mere absence of a belief is not a propositional attitude.—Editorius (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Atheism may be divided into two broad categories: implicit and explicit. (a) Implicit atheism is the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it. (b) Explicit atheism is the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it.

(a) An implicit atheist is a person who does not believe in a god, but who has not explicitly rejected or denied the truth of theism. Implicit atheism does not require familiarity with the idea of a god."

(George H. Smith: http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smith.htm)

Implicit atheism is per se only negative, while explicit atheism can be positive or negative.—Editorius (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You need not repeat stuff on implicit/explicit/strong/weak for my benefit - I fixed up those sections & the diagram captions several years ago--JimWae (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

All right.—Editorius (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to 2nd sentence

Existing 2nd sentence:

In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]

This broad sense is so broad it includes nearly everything and everyone in the universe - except people who are actively thinking about some god at the present moment. It includes rocks, and dandruff, & the Pope when he is asleep or sneezing. It includes as atheism every -ISM and every discipline (including e.g., capitalism and mathematics) that does not profess a belief in a deity. If I were writing my own article I would include this definition only in order to attack it as preposterously sloppy. However, in the interests of consensus, I propose a non-radical change in the wording. This wording will be about atheISTs rather than atheISM, and no longer carries the logical implication that rocks and sneezing popes are atheists, nor that mathematics is atheism.

In the broadest sense, it is defined to include as atheists anyone who is without belief in the existence of even one deity.[3]

or

In the broadest sense, it includes as atheists anyone who does not believe in the existence of any deity at all.[3]

• anyone makes it clear that we are talking only about persons - not rocks nor dandruff nor mathematics
• without belief (or does not believe) eliminates the problem of sleepy, sneezing popes in whom there would seem to be at least a temporary "absence of belief".

This formulation still includes babies & agnostics -- and that 'enormously' large group of "indifferents" & "primitives" -- as atheists. We can deal with the appropriateness of this at a later time, perhaps, but at least for now we can remove the embarassment of defining rocks as atheists, and mathematics as atheism. The specific wording may change slightly, but the main proposal is twofold 1> define "atheist" rather than "atheism" for this "broad" sense, and 2> remove "absence" -- --JimWae (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that virtually all readers are clever enough to read "absence" as "absence from a mind". So we don't need to waste our time with that pseudo-problem.

(And please try to understand the difference between occurrent and dispositional beliefs!)

—Editorius (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on what I find here, we need to presume as little as possible - we are trying to write a definition for what we hope would qualify as a scholarly encyclopedia article.--JimWae (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC) I see you've gone back to that old dismissive standby of "pseudo-problem". Nice...it must be getting to you somehow --JimWae (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you want me to presume that Wikipedia's average reader is an idiot?!

Take a look at the following definition used by a distinguished scholar, Prof. Michael Martin, in an encyclopedia article:

"Atheism, the denial of or lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods."

(http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563962/Atheism.html)

He doesn't seem to have had your kind of "problem".—Editorius (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Guess what, here I agree entirely with Editorius. I think that this suggestion is an attempt to fix a problem that doesn't exist. (On the other hand, I do think that we need to figure out how to improve on "theism" in the first sentence.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed as well. We can credit our readers with at least a basic understanding of natural language. Ilkali (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

- this has nothing to do with "natural language", tho'. It is simply presuming that the reader already knows a good deal about the topic.--JimWae (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, this really does have everything to do with "natural language." The two proposed changes at the top of this section are awkwardly worded, and do absolutely nothing to improve the meaning, because the meaning as it is communicates perfectly well what it should, to anyone who is not sitting around asking, "Let's see, if I think about this enough, can I think of a way of construing the words here to mean something other than their usual meaning?" --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Martin's uses "lack", not "absence". "Lack" implies a capacity that is (at least) absent -- so things without the capacity cannot "lack" it. But "lack" also has the problem of connoting a deficiency. If I turn out to be the only one here who thinks defining anything as an absence of something (specifically defining atheism as the mental state of someone who has never considered the matter of deities) is problemmatic, there's not much I can do about it here & now. I do think it is undeniable that many readers will take completely opposing interpretations on whether the 3rd defintion, as so far given, includes all of the following as species of atheism: Darwinism, communism, capitalism, economics, mathematics, biology, physics, heliocentrism, Theory of Evolution, Feminism, Logical Empiricism, Epicureanism, Cubism, Abolitionism, Altruism, Big Bang Theory, Dadaism, Behaviourism.--JimWae (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the proposed change, as this definition has only been used to refer to people, according to the sources. I'm not convinced that this is a problem, as Editorius states, but I have no problem with making the definition more rigorous. I think you are right in that this problem only arises due to us avoiding the word "lack" (which I agree, we probably should do).

I don't see that it's a problem that it includes babies and agnostics, because that's the whole point of the definition, and to exclude them would mean we are no longer accurately representing the definition (I don't see why the latter is controversial; for the former, the issue isn't about whether we think it makes sense, it's about what the definitions have been used by people). Mdwh (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As you all know, atheism in the broadest sense is characterized as the absence of belief in gods. Therefore, babies and agnostics are by definition atheists in the broadest sense of the term—period.

This, of course, doesn't mean that there couldn't be any alternative definitions, since definitions are conventions. For example, if we distinguished strictly between atheism in the exclusive sense "positive atheism" and nontheism, then babies and agnostics would be nontheists but not atheists.

Actually, things would be much easier for us if the concept of atheism were disambiguated by introducing additional terms such as "nontheism" or "antitheism". The big theoretical advantage of doing so would be that we could do without a complex disjunctive definition of "atheism" (i.e. "Atheism is ... or ... or ..."). For example:

Atheism/Antitheism =def the belief that it is (probably) not the case that one or more gods exist.

Nontheism/Atheism = the absence of the belief that one or more gods exist.

And then it would make sense to speak of "nonatheistic nontheists".

I actually think that for practical communicational reasons the pairs "atheism"&"nontheism" and "antitheism"&"atheism" are preferable to "positive atheism"&"negative atheism".

For two words with respectively one meaning are less likely to cause confusion or misunderstanding than one word with two (or more than two) meanings. (And using single words is easier than using phrases.)

—Editorius (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No to "rejection of theism"

This version mentioned above as a possible version:

Atheism is the philosophical position that deities do not exist,[1] or that rejects theism.[2]

the same language that was used in the FA version, is no longer a viable option because of the some changes (most with some validity) made to the theism article. There is now support in that article for the position that theism refers to a single, personal, monotheistic God. Thus, deists & polytheists & pantheists are distinguished there from theists, and THEY could also be considered to "reject theism". This is not what atheists have in mind when they "reject theism". The brevity of "rejects theism" that had/has existed in our lede, has long been a weakness in this article in that it has not conveyed to the reader (nor to several notable editors) how it is to be clearly distinguished from "denial of existence" -- leading to its removal far too many times. This article, henceforth, needs to be totally clear that the rejection applies to "belief in the existence of any & all deities" (or similar words only slightly less emphatic). "Rejection of all forms of theism" will not do as a substitute, for the meaning of atheism should be clearly made in this article & not depend on any revolving def in the theism article.--JimWae (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Jim Wae wrote: "There is now support in that article for the position that theism refers to a single, personal, monotheistic God."

We need to distinguish between Theism and theism:

"1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).

2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism )."

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theism)

Atheists reject not only Theism but also theism, and so also polytheism, deism, panentheism, and (perhaps) pantheism.—Editorius (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Jim Wae wrote: "This article, henceforth, needs to be totally clear that the rejection applies to "belief in the existence of any & all deities"."

The phrase "rejection of the belief that at least one deity exists" renders this point totally clear!—Editorius (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, though I do not agree with all you said here, it seems we agree on the main point. At least one other editor has been linking to a version that said "rejection of theism" and remarking that they STILL considered it a contender. --JimWae (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As you perhaps already know, Michael Martin distinguishes between broad atheism and narrow atheism: Broad atheism is the rejection of theism, while narrow atheism is the rejection of Theism (= personalistic monotheism).

"Negative atheism in the broad sense is then the absence of belief in any god or gods, not just the absence of belief in a personal theistic God, and negative atheism in the narrow sense is the absence of belief in a theistic God.

Positive atheism in the broad sense is, in turn, disbelief in all gods, with positive atheism in the narrow sense being the disbelief in a theistic God."

(Martin, Michael, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. p. 2)

Unfortunately, Martin's speaking of broad and narrow atheism is likely to be misleading, for many, if not most, seem to think that atheism in the broad sense is the same as negative atheism, and that atheism in the narrow sense is the same as positive atheism. But, as one can gather from above, Martin uses "broad sense" and "narrow sense" in another sense. His distinction is the one I'd rather call "absolute atheism vs. relative atheism (with regard to Theism)".—Editorius (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What is to be characterized in the first sentence is absolute atheism, i.e. the positive disbelief or nonbelief in any deity whatsoever.—Editorius (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

---

We discussed why disbelief (and lack) were rejected less than a week ago.

Alternatively, there are 2 main kinds of atheism: agnostic atheism (rejection of belief) and gnostic atheism (while atheists of this type also reject belief, they also make an assertion, with what they consider at least a high degree of assurance, that there are no deities). In this view, no controversial assertion is made about babies or primitives. They are without belief in deities, but they can also be without a belief in Kinetic Theory of Motion and Evolution - they do not get a label based on that either. --JimWae (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(I just used "disbelief" here, and I think you know what I mean by it. I don't want to see it in the article's first sentence.)

Your distinction between "agnostic atheism" and "gnostic atheism" doesn't seem clear to me. First of all, even positive atheists needn't claim to know with certainty that there are no gods:

"It is worth noting that the 'positive atheist' need not have certainty that God doesn't exist: it is a matter of belief, not knowledge."

(http://www.investigatingatheism.info/definition.html)

The only relevant difference between "rejection of belief" and mere "nonbelief" is that the former means "refusal to believe, not simply absence of belief". The set of the rejecters of the belief in gods has the positive atheists, the agnostics (i.e. the explicit neutralists), and some of the indifferentists as its members.—Editorius (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Their assurance is subjective - but if they take that as a philosophical position, they are forced into the position of "proving" (or defending in some way) the negative assertion that "no deities exist" - and "deities" could mean some superhuman (not necessarily perfect) being(s) who designed "our" universe. While there is nothing to really support such a deity's existence, and so belief in such is uncalled for, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. -- "Refusal" might suggest some willfulness, whereas a rejection can be simply being aware that according to the standards one has for believing something, "belief in deities" does not fulfill those standards. --JimWae (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"To reject" actually means "to refuse to accept, submit to, believe, or make use of".

(See: http://www.bartleby.com/61/40/R0134000.html)

That is, who rejects the belief in gods is consciously unwilling to accept this belief, i.e. he doesn't merely happen not to believe in gods.

—Editorius (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"REJECT" has other meanings too (like most words do):

• verb: resist immunologically the introduction of some foreign tissue or organ ("His body rejected the liver of the donor")
• verb: deem wrong or inappropriate
• verb: dismiss from consideration

Yes, it carries some baggage, but does not necessarily mean the same degree of willfulness that "refuse" has. I am liking "eschew" instead - but that is not what is in the literature, so we are stuck with "reject"--JimWae (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Whereas a refusal virtually always connotes a decision has been made, sometimes one just "discovers" that "belief in X" is repugnant --JimWae (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Mr. Nice Guy might prefer to say "I decline to accept the belief in gods". In any case the rejection of the belief in gods is by definition a deliberate attitude, which presupposes that one knows what it is that one rejects.—Editorius (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Now, what is the scenario that differentiates "absence of belief" from this "no, thanks" - other than babies & "primitives"? --JimWae (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it's exactly the difference between a mere lack of a conscious propositional attitude and a conscious propositional attitude.

"Propositional attitude reports concern the cognitive relations people bear to propositions."

(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prop-attitude-reports)

Both the positive atheists, the agnostics, and the (theological) noncognitivists have a conscious propositional attitude towards "God exists" or "Gods exist": The positive atheists regard these propositions as false, the agnostics as meaningful but neither as true nor as false, and the noncognitivists as meaningless and so neither as true nor as false.

The way I see it, the merely implicit negative atheists are the religiously indifferent (the religious indifferentists), or at least some part of them, since indifference may be a conscious attitude towards something. Babies, "primitives", severely mentally disabled individuals, and all higher animals are unconsciously indifferent to the proposition "God exists" or "Gods exist".—Editorius (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

But, on what basis, can *ALL* (per the "absence" def) people (leaving rocks aside for the moment) who have not yet discovered their own propositional attitude re belief in deities be classified as atheists? ... much less have their position called a philosophical view? It is not just that they have an ontology without deities, most do not have much inkling (who does?) what the term is supposed to mean, so they cannot even imagine whether the term has a referent or not. Many of them will discover, some quite soon, that they "agree" that deities do exist.

As for the indifferent, they would seem to have decided/determined that belief in deities is not important to them - they have "eschewed" it. They may be indifferent to "deities exist" (in this way they are like the rejectionists who do not assert "deities exist" and do not wish to defend "deities do not exist") but they are not indifferent to whether believing in them is important - for them it is not. --JimWae (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

From the logical point of view, it's very simple: either somebody is a theist or not.

And that's why all conscious living beings who are not theists are atheists in the broadest sense, i.e. implicit negative atheists.

—Editorius (talk) 08:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And everyone is either a feminist or not? A boy or not? Healthy or not? White or not? All is binary - no degrees & nothing is fuzzy (except things that are entirely fuzzy)... All statements have one of 2 truth values - not only are they either entirely true or entirely false, but that truth value can be determined for all statements - and since nearly every statement has something wrong - those are all entirely false, except this one --JimWae (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And atheism gets defined as the state of mind of someone who has given no thought to the matter (unless you are a rock), but not before we call this empty state of mind a philosophical viewpoint. --JimWae (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted back to the version that had gained consensus on this page. The other version's first sentence is "atheism is either a or b or c." This is *very poor* English. Whatever we end up with, it can't be that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please can you show me where we have consensus for that version? I see no discussion at all for removing the "rejection" definition (note, I don't disagree with JimWae's point about the problems of "rejection of theism", but that does not mean the definition should go altogether, just that it should be replaced with something like "rejection of belief", as for example in the version I was reverting to anyway). I also do not see consensus for the misleading comparison to agnosticism (it ignores the other definitions of both words)?

I note that everytime you make this change, you say that you're only making a minor change, e.g., saying it is simply "minus "or gods," which two people didn't like", and IIRC when you first made this change, you put a comment saying this was a "slight copy edit" - is it that you're mistaken, and haven't noticed that you accidently removed the "rejection" definition? I note that you also revert the edits about "non-believer" too, again is this just a mistake, or what is the reason for this?

I've repeatedly pointed out that this is a major change with major problems that hasn't even been discussed AFAICS, so I'm not sure why it keeps getting reverted back.

As I say, I'm not endorsing the current version that I revert to - I'm perfectly happy with working from the FA versions etc. But that is not an argument for replacing it with a completely different undiscussed version that, in my opinion, has far more problems than simply "not good writing" (how is the other version not good writing? I've corrected you on the "either" point). Mdwh (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Would whoever keeps reverting to the new first sentence please stop? ("Atheism is either the belief that no deity exists, the rejection of the belief that at least one deity exists, or simply the absence of this belief.") This is an FA. But it would not have been given FA status *with that first sentence*. It is bad writing. You can't just take a featured article and muck it up like this, unless you want it to lose its status.

The current version was supported by a number of people on this page, and is almost exactly the version that was granted FA status. If there is something about it that you don't like, please say here what it is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are not to the FA version, nor is it "almost exactly" that version. This is your version: [10]. This is the FA version: [11]. You can't just drop "or the rejection of theism" - that's a major undiscussed change, that goes against consensus, and has had other editors recently oppose such a move. As for the "plus two sentences" - there isn't consensus for those sentences (I for one disagree with this wording about agnosticism, unless we cover the various definitions of both terms, as I said in earlier comments). I also think it's misleading to sneak this in whilst claiming to simply be reverting to the FA version. Saying it's "almost exact" is rather misleading, when your changes significantly alter the meaning (e.g., I could replace "deities do not exist" with "deities do exist" - is that "almost exactly" the same version?) Lastly, you are still reverting the edits made about "atheists, agnostics, or non-believers" later in the article. I suspect that this is unintentional, but please be careful when reverting not to lose other changes that have been made in the first place. If we want to revert to the FA version until we sort this out, I'm fine with that, but that's the FA version. Your version I believe is worse than any of the various discussed versions (mainly due to dropping the "rejection" definition).

Can you point me to where your version (your version, not one that you think is "almost exactly" like it) was "supported by a number of people on this page"? I see no discussion, except for several editors agreeing that we shouldn't lose the "rejection" definition. Mdwh (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It was Editorius who changed it, presumably to satisfy Jim Wae. [12] But we cannot have either A or B or C. It doesn't exist in the English language. Editorius, can you say what you wanted to achieve exactly that the current version lacks? If it is the rejection nonsense, that is already there with the doctrine that there are no gods. That encompasses the "rejection of the belief" silliness. Sorry to be so blunt, but this discussion really is very infuriating and pointless. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that use of "either" is less than ideal (though I disagree with the assertion that it is grammatically incorrect), but the definitions you supplied to replace this version are not as good. The lede should not start off with the flat claim that atheism is the denial of the existence of deities, as it is contradicted by the latter, more broad definition. That's confusing and misleading, especially since the assertion of gods' nonexistence isn't even the most common definition. The assertion that deities do not exist is not the same as the rejection of belief in any deities, which is why the rejection definition must be mentioned. One may decide not to adopt the belief that "X exists," but that does not mean that they assert that X does not exist. Nick Graves (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that the "either...no...or...at least one.. or" is needlessly klunky - because it is forcing everything into one sentence. That version does not "satisfy" me, nor does your removal of "rejection..." against all consensus here AND in the FA process. I have repeatedly presented a version, more similar to the FA one than yours. It appears below again

• Atheism is the philosophical position that deities do not exist,[1] or that rejects any belief in their existence.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]--JimWae (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin wrote: "The other version's first sentence is "atheism is either a or b or c." This is *very poor* English."

No, it isn't:

"As a conjunction, 'either' often introduces a series of more than two: 'The houses were finished with either cedar siding or stucco or brick.' 'The pizza is topped with either anchovies, green peppers, or mushrooms."'

"The traditional rule holds that 'either' should be used only to refer to one of two items and that 'any' is required when more than two items are involved: 'Any (not either) of the three opposition candidates still in the race would make a better president than the incumbent.' But reputable writers have often violated this rule, and in any case it applies only to the use of 'either' as a pronoun or an adjective. When 'either' is used as a conjunction, no paraphrase with 'any' is available, and so 'either' is unexceptionable even when it applies to more than two clauses: 'Either the union will make a counteroffer or the original bid will be refused by the board or the deal will go ahead as scheduled.'"

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/either)

—Editorius (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Any problems or not with "either or or" aside, the issue is compounded here as "either...no...or...at least one...or..."--JimWae (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's even worse than I thought - the version that was put in did not even have the first "or", making a misinterpretation that the "rejection" clause was an appositive synonymy far more likely - and possibly the cause of some editors' misunderstandings--JimWae (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Even though I don't think the first "or" is grammatically mandatory, I certainly wouldn't mind if we wrote:

"Atheism is either the belief that ..., or the rejection of ..., or the absence of ..."

—Editorius (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (5)

• I want to say thank-you to Mdwh for paying careful attention to what has been going on with the lead.
• Please note, everyone, that I suggested here and even earlier that the lead be changed to this. I had not yet actually made the edit, when the recent flurry of edits began. None of the editors who, in this recent flurry of edits, argued for going in other directions with the lead, ever indicated in this talk that they disagreed with my suggestion (or even that they had paid serious attention to it). I wish that some of the editors who made recent edits would note that WP:There is no deadline, and take the reasonable step of suggesting their proposed edits in this talk and waiting for responses before making edits that end up being quickly reverted.
• Please note that there is not yet consensus for the sentences directly after the first sentence or two of some FA versions, and I did not propose adding those sentences or making other changes farther down.
• Not that my say-so will influence them, but some editors in this talk might want to read WP:No angry mastodons. At least, it might be good for a laugh.
• I take the point that "rejection of theism" has some limitations. However, it is absolutely incorrect to think that "the rejection of the belief that at least one deity exists" is an acceptable substitute. As I explained earlier in this talk, that wording is essentially synonymous with the deities-do-not-exist form, and that is not what we should say. It is pointless to list the same meaning twice, with slightly different wordings, as if they mean two different things. Instead, the correct meaning of the reject-theism form is that its proponents reject those kinds of systems of belief, not because deities do not exist, but because they see theistic systems as being (as we considered saying in earlier talk here) immoral, irrational, unwarranted, etc., etc. Not the same as saying gods don't exist. There are at least two ways, therefore, to improve upon "rejection of theism," but rejection-of-belief-in-existence isn't one of them. One would be to use a different wording. How about "rejection of theistic belief systems?" Want to discuss that? The other would be to use subsequent sentences to contrast with theism and agnosticism. Let's continue that discussion too. Until we sort those out, it is difficult to decide what best to say. In the interim, I suggest that the sky is not going to fall if we temporarily say "rejection of theism."
• I'm changing the lead to this. If you disagree, fine, but please, as I already did, explain your views here in talk, and then wait at least a day for responses from others. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The best interim compromise while discussing changes to the lede definitions would be to revert to the exact wording used when the article was promoted to featured status. That version was developed through extensive discussion, and won widespread consensus. Changes beyond that wording are bound to niggle while a new consensus is built, and invite more reversions.

The version that Tfish has put up is, IMO, better than the one that Slim supported, but there are still problems. First, there is the ambiguity that arises when one considers that theism is not definitively used as a synonym for the belief in any deities. It is commonly used to denote belief in a singular, personal deity ("God"), as opposed to such deity-beliefs as Deism and polytheism. Defining atheism as "rejection of theism" would then include such deity-beliefs under the banner of atheism, which is of course incorrect, or at least far outside the bounds of standard usage of the terms. If we are to retain such wording, we should at the very least include a footnote right after the phrase to specify that "theism" is here meant to denote belief in any deities. If we were to do that, however, we may just as well use such wording in the body itself, for the sake of immediate clarity.

Also, there is the fact that, contrary to what Tfish and Slim have asserted, rejection of a belief does not equal acceptance or assertion of its contrary. An agnostic may consider the propositions "At least one deity exists" and "No deities exist," and reject both (that is, they do not adopt either). Rejection of either proposition does not entail acceptance of the other. Nick Graves (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Further, the sources do not say "rejects theism" but "rejects belief in..." So instead we need something like:

Atheism is the philosophical position that deities do not exist,[1] or that rejects any belief in their existence.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]

I see no stylistic problems with that - and content would trump style anyway --JimWae (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The lede read, at the moment of FA promotion: "As a philosophical view, atheism is the belief in the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of gods.[3]" This is somewhat different from the version to which Tfish has now reverted the lede, but close enough.

The clause "As a philosophical view..." I find over-wordy, and perhaps over-limiting. Belief in the nonexistence of gods need not have philsophical underpinnings to qualify as atheism. I was not active in this article when it was being spiffed up for FA status. Does anyone recall the reasoning behind inclusion of that clause? Nick Graves (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for replying here. With respect to Nick's comment that the FA version reflects past consensus and should be used in the interim, I hope the current version on the page comes close to that, while also reflecting more recent talk that does have consensus. At the same time, we don't really have agreement as to which version is the true FA version, so I think it best to not worry about it too much, while continuing to discuss improvement, and making improvements slowly and carefully. The point about monotheism strikes me as a very good one. But I think the conclusions that both of you draw from it show that we are, mutually, misunderstanding one another. What I was attempting to say is that (1) when an atheist does hold the belief that deities do not exist, that person is rejecting belief that they exist, and vice-versa (regardless of what agnostics and others do), and (2) the wording in the other version completely failed to convey the fact that the "rejection" form means believing that there is something unacceptable about the religious belief systems, as being immoral, irrational, and so forth, rather than as simply being false. I'm sure there are better ways of wording it, and only put forth the current wording (which is from one of the FA versions, apparently) for the time being, while we sort this out. Would "rejects religious systems of belief" be something we could work with? I think it is a mistake to point to the wording of sources without considering the context of that wording, and as for this talk being too long, well, yeah! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Is it true that "theism" and "monotheism" are synonyms? I would think "theism" includes both monotheism and polytheism. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Atheism is specifically about deities - not about all religious tenets (some atheists are even Buddhists, some even believe in reincarnation). We do not in the lede need to specify *why* the belief is rejected - it could be any of a myriad of reasons. What is essential is that "rejectionists" do not all consider "deities exist" to be a false statement - many think it indeterminate. However, they do not find good support for *believing* in the existence of any such entities (and so act & think "as if" they do not). Similarly, there *could* be life off Earth, even intelligent life - I cannot assess the probabilty of that but I do consider it entirely possible & feasible. However, there is no support for it (at least not for the intelligent life - other forms may be found next week) & belief in it could make one susceptible to charlatans of all kinds --JimWae (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Theism has a special use - see theism --JimWae (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Theism aside, I think you just agreed with me about the other aspects of this part of the lead. As I already said, maybe there are ways of saying it with "religious" as an alternative to "theistic." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Theism and religiosity are not the same. One can be religious without being theistic (eg. adherents of Ethical Culture, Humanistic Jews, many UUs, some Quakers, many Buddhists, etc.), and theistic without being religious (Deists, such as Antony Flew). And yes, "theism" can be used to mean personal monotheism, as opposed to polytheism or Deism. Check OED definitions on the terms, if you have access (I'd cut and paste them here, but I'm no longer subscribed--I'm going on memory here.). Nick Graves (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: All who consider "Gods exists" false reject the belief in gods, but not all who reject the belief in gods consider "Gods exist" false.—Editorius (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Straw-man argument. Those who reject belief without considering existence false, fall into the second definition as it is currently written (and fit it better than they fit the alternative wording). How best to describe theism/religion etc. is a separate question. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

- which alternative wording? I cannot see any difficulty in having them fit under or that rejects any belief in their existence.[2] Deists & pantheists and polytheists can also be said to "reject theism" & so there is a real problem with the current wording. --JimWae (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Alternative wording = "the rejection of the belief that at least one deity exists." You seem to be missing the point. I have no quibble with you as to the wordings of references or as to who can fit under the assorted wordings. But as I have already said repeatedly, a normal WP reader, one who is taking what is written at face value and not navel-gazing about possible ways of construing the meanings of words, will understand that wording to mean the same thing as the deities-do-not-exist definition, which it should not. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

- just by looking at the Neilsen ref used for "rejection of theism", it would be seemingly apparent to anyone that the source says "rejection of belief in the existence of [deities]" - and thus that is what was always intended. I think we should just go ahead & change it. --JimWae (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

- OK, the source(s) say "rejection of belief in the existence of God - but they also (both) go on to reject belief in the deistic, metaphysical, impersonal God - so a change to deities is more appropriate than a "conversion" to theism - an article which, until quite recently, included only the broad def of theism. --JimWae (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We want to avoid jargon in the lede whenever we can - but the "rejectionists" would qualify as "explicit weak" - and "weak" can be thought pejorative --JimWae (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

All who reject the belief in gods are either positive atheists or explicit nonpositive atheists. The only ones who do not belong to the rejecters are the implicit (negative) atheists.

The only difference between "atheism is the rejection of the belief in gods" and "atheism is the absence of the belief in gods" is that the former definition excludes the implicit atheists.—Editorius (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (6)

I've put a break here because, somewhere around this point, the discussion changes from the topic at the heading of this section (theism), to another topic (absence). --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

plus rocks, everything non-human, babies, blastocysts, eggs, dandruff, and the brain-dead --JimWae (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not "plus", including.

But I think that it is tacitly presupposed by virtually everybody that even an implicit atheist is somebody, not something. So the conscious animals are the ultimate group of implicit atheists.—Editorius (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

and the Pope when he is sleeping, or if there are any moments during the day when God is absent from his mind - and same goes for everyone else who mistakenly thinks they are not an atheist - every moment that God (or gods) is absent from their minds.. --JimWae (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're a funny chap ... — Do you know the difference between occurrent and dispositional beliefs?—Editorius (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So what? The pope believes in God, but when he sneezes he does have *an* absence of belief. I am just pointing out how problemmatic it is to define anything as the absence of something (it works for a vacuum (the absence of *all* matter, if perfect), which can be relative, but not much else)--JimWae (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

When the Pope sleeps, his belief in God is still dispositionally present in his mind. (Just wake him up and ask him whether he believed in God, and he'll say yes.)

The belief in God is neither occurrently nor dispositionally present in the mind of an atheist.

"Suppose Harry thinks plaid ties are hideous. Only rarely does the thought or judgment that they are hideous actually come to the forefront of his mind. When it does, he possesses the belief occurrently. The rest of the time, Harry possesses the belief only dispositionally. The occurrent belief comes and goes, depending on whether circumstances elicit it; the dispositional belief endures. The common representationalist warehouse model of memory and belief suggests a way of thinking about this. A subject dispositionally believes P if a representation with the content P is stored in his memory or "belief box". When that representation is retrieved from memory for active deployment in reasoning or planning, the subject occurrently believes P. As soon as he moves to the next topic, the occurrent belief ceases."

(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/#2.1)

—Editorius (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

He still has an absence of belief - no matter what mind-brain model you hold on to (and I do not think our def should depend on any brain-mind model). Your examples are talking about "having a belief" or "possessing a belief", not about an "'absence' of a belief". The pope has a belief - but it is momentarily absent from his consciousness. The problem is with the word "absence" - as it would be just about anytime it is used in a definition. Yes, when he sneezes he does still "believe", but this belief is momentarily "absent" from his awareness. If we said these implicit atheists were those without belief in deities, then, even if the pope's awareness is elsewhere, he is not without that belief - and so not an atheist. We would have to say "complete absence" to keep "absence" (or else we include sneezing popes)--JimWae (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, we're not writing this article for complete idiots!

The average reader will understand that in our context "absence" means "nontemporary absence".

Anyway, when we refer to a belief, we generally refer to a belief as a mental disposition.

—Editorius (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear that to hold a belief, it need not be present in one's awareness at all times. Nick Graves (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it really is clear that to hold a belief is to hold it dispositionally at least.—Editorius (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And I never disputed what it means to "hold a belief" - and I said the meaning of being "without a belief" is quite clear. To be "lacking a belief" is also clear -- But you have presented nothing to indicate that "absence of belief" (the wording we need to discuss) is not quite vague. So who are you arguing with? --JimWae (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (7)

Returning to the topic of the main heading of this section, "rejection of theism," I'd like to point out some things that may, perhaps, be helpful. First, I want to repeat that it is important that whatever we say makes clear to the general, non-navel-gazing reader that what is being "rejected" is not the existence of deities, because that's what the first part of the first sentence is about. I looked at Wiktionary for the definitions that they give of theism, monotheism, and religion. I think it's worth taking a look. The first definition of theism is: "belief in the existence of one or more deities." It seems clear to me that, while theism is sometimes used synonymously with monotheism, it is more generally used in the "one or more" sense that includes polytheisms as well. The definition of religion is more complex, but for those editors who have raised issues about Buddhism, deism, etc, it's worth looking at how the "usage notes" address that point. So, I want to suggest that we change "or that rejects theism" to "or that rejects theism or religion." I think that construction (please note the "or" between theism and religion), covers what we intend to cover. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Atheism is primarily about deities and belief in deities. Our sources do not present any great deal of agreement about how atheism & religion-in-general are related - except for a few who remark that while most atheists also reject other forms of religious belief, it is still quite possible for atheists to be religious. (This applies to any of the "3" definitions of atheism.) I think the better place to deal with "religion" and "other religious beliefs" is not within the initial definition, but later in the lede or article itself. Obviously, many people have not distinguished the first 2 defs based on what has been presented as "rejection of theism", and we do need put more focus on rejection of belief. We could take a step in that direction simply by italicizing belief when presenting the 2nd def. as "rejection of belief in their existence". (This would also be in accordance with what our encyclopedia sources say -- at greater length, because for them, this is THE proper definition -- and they are not trying to present 3 defs as being of equal or nearly equal validity.) --JimWae (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I think it's a stretch to say that some atheists can still be religious, I see some of what you are saying. However, I don't think that italicizing belief will mean what we want to a reader without an explanation. How about: "or that rejects theistic or religious beliefs?" Clearer than just "rejects belief" and also makes clearer the distinction from non-existence. (I also thought about "theistic or religious belief systems" or "theistic or religious systems of belief," but I think they get unnecessarily jargony. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish wrote: "I want to repeat that it is important that whatever we say makes clear to the general, non-navel-gazing reader that what is being "rejected" is not the existence of deities, because that's what the first part of the first sentence is about."

The set of the rejecters of theistic belief is identical with the set of the explicit atheists. And, of course, the set of the positive atheists is a subset of the set of the explicit atheists, which means that all positive atheists belong to the rejecters of theistic belief.

—Editorius (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Jargon aside, the substantive difference between the first half of the lead sentence and the second half of the sentence is the reason for atheism in each case. In the first half of the sentence, the reason is that deities do not exist. In the second half, the reason is something else, not that deities do not exist. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think italicizing belief will do the first part of the job - particularly since it breaks the parallel structure between the first 2 defs. The second part of the job is to include a section on "rejection of belief" in the body of the article. If we were writing this "rejection" definition in a sentence by itself, we could make it longer (the same way our encyclopedia sources do) & add "regardless of whether or not the further assertion is made that no deities exist". I have long thought that including theism in this def just clouds the issue - and moreso now that the theism article presents several definitions of theism that would exclude people who are clearly not atheists. --JimWae (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Atheism is the philosophical position that either asserts deities do not exist,[1] or that rejects all belief in their existence.[2]
• Atheism is the philosophical position that either asserts deities do not exist,[1] or that rejects all belief in their existence, regardless of whether or not the further claim is made that they do not exist.[2] --JimWae (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The scope of atheism:

1. Negative Atheism (nonbelief)

1.1. Implicit Atheism (nonrejection)

1.2. Explicit Atheism (rejection)

1.2.1. Agnostic/Sceptical Atheism (nondisbelief)

1.2.2. Positive Atheism (disbelief)

—Editorius (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Tangent. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish wrote: "In the second half, the reason is something else, not that deities do not exist."

Again, one of the possible reasons for a rejection of theistic belief is the belief that theism is false, i.e. that there aren't any gods.—Editorius (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's ONE of the reasons. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I shouldn't feed the troll. I'd like feedback from interested editors in what this sub-section is actually about: "or that rejects theistic or religious beliefs," as discussed above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is easily solved: keep "the rejection of the belief that at least one deity exists"!—Editorius (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no one who would say that after the very clear explanations that have already been made. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

From a now-archived section of this talk:

"There's no difference between the view that there are no deities and the rejection of theism as false.—Editorius (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)"

--Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not at all understand Tfish's desire to see rejection of religion inserted into the definition of atheism. I am unaware of any widely recognized definition of the word that has to do directly with a person's disposition toward religion--rather all the major meanings I've seen have to do with a person's disposition toward the claim that deities exist. Tfish, do you have a reliable source that defines atheism in terms of rejecting religion, and that shows this usage to be more than a very small minority one? If not, I think we ought to set aside the possibility of inserting any clause in the lede definitions regarding rejecting religion. Also, you say it's a stretch to suppose that atheists could be religious, but I've already listed several counterexamples that prove it is possible to be both atheist and religious, as well as a very notable person (Flew) who happens to be a non-religious god-believer. Barring discovery of a good source supporting the contention that atheism has (definitionally) to do with rejection of religion, that avenue of discussion is a dead-end. Furthermore, the reasons or motivation for atheism aren't really pertinent to its definition, so that area is best covered elsewhere in the article. Nick Graves (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nick, let me clarify some things about that. First, it's not really my desire to insert that, so much as my desire to be helpful with what is probably, for the moment, the one area in the lead where several editors seem to have significant remaining issues. Please note that others, not me, began this talk section with the heading "No to 'rejection of theism'." For me personally, it would be just fine to leave the lead as it is now and be done with it. Second, I did not suggest listing motivations in the lead, as you seem to be saying. Rather, I think that there is an established, consensus, understanding going back at least to the FA version that there are three basic definitions that must be included in the lead, and the one that we are discussing here has a history of how this page has distinguished it from the first (non-existence) definition. It goes back longer than you have been in this talk. Please take a look here, at the version proposed at the top of that section (no need to read much below it). That list at what was then the end ("meaningless, incoherent, unwarranted..."), although now discarded, conveys the idea that the rejection form is grounded in thoughts other than the thought that deities do not exist. ("Immoral" was on that list for a while, too.) Let's not lose that, by making the rejection form sound, in natural language, to a general reader, like it is simply the rejection of the belief that deities exist. In fact, it may be good for a laugh to note that the editor who now advocates that wording previously proposed deleting "or false" from that link I gave you, for exactly the reason that I have given here. So, I'm OK with leaving the lead as it is now, and anyone else who has a problem with "rejection of theism" can take on the argument themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Atheism is simply not to be equated with "areligionism"! Irrespective of the fact that there is no unanimously accepted definition of "religion", there seems to be no logical contradiction in the idea of an atheistic religion.—Editorius (talk) 05:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: PLEASE PUT NEW TEXT UNDER OLD TEXT, NOT NEW TEXT ABOVE OLD TEXT!

"There's no difference between the view that there are no deities and the rejection of theism as false."

This is true, to negate theism (= the view that at least one deity exists) is to reject it as false, but to reject theism is not necessarily to reject it as false.—Editorius (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm so glad that you now agree with me, both about correct format for talk pages (by the way, all caps are considered to be "shouting" and impolite), and that it is a bad idea to change "rejects theism" to something that equates rejection with (only) rejection as being false, ie, rejection on the grounds that there are no deities. That's very nice that you now recognize that I'm right. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is a "correct" format, it's the one described in Wikipedia's indentation guidelines. Anything else obfuscates the flow of discussion. Ilkali (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

True. I've been inserting indents in front of some other editors' comments, and I really shouldn't have had to do that. Turning for a moment from "style" to "substance," I wonder whether we are at the point where the wording of the lead has achieved enough of a consensus that we don't really need to continue considering changes for a while. I think the recent edits to the references have been very helpful, though. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I switched off when SlimVirgin barged in and started throwing imaginary weight around. I think the current version is markedly inferior to what we had before then. I'd even call it ungrammatical due to the conjunction of two instances of that with completely different grammatical functions. But, blah, I've lost interest. Ilkali (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Trypotfish wrote: "[I]t is a bad idea to change "rejects theism" to something that equates rejection with (only) rejection as being false, ie, rejection on the grounds that there are no deities."

What are you talking about?! If you think that the phrase "the rejection of the belief that at least one deity exists" reduces the rejection of theism to its being rejected as false, then you're the one who's wrong. Of course, if one believes that no deity exists, then this is a very good reason for one to reject the belief that at least one deity exists. Other possible reasons for doing so are the belief that the proposition "At least one deity exists" is meaningless and the belief that it is undecided or even undecidable whether at least one deity exists.—Editorius (talk)

Ilkali is right:

"the philosophical position that deities do not exist, or that rejects theism"

Here, "that" ist first used as a conjunction and then as a relative pronoun. This is a bad syntactic construction! I'm sure that many readers will have to read this more than once in order to understand it properly.—Editorius (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agnosticism & absence

Someone added in link to agnosticism in connection with "absence of belief". Depending on the definition of agnosticism, those who reject belief in the exitence of deities, & even SOME who plainly assert "there are no deities" (but only those that make no knowledge claim, nor any claim that the truth value of that claim could be established in some way) could also be called agnostics. Further, those with no concept of deities (such as babies... [and rocks]) cannot assert that the truth value of "deities exist" cannot be known -- nor can they suspend judgement on the matter. --JimWae (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

All true, but I don't see an explanation for what is wrong with having the "see agnosticism" link there. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Why there?" is the question. How is it relevant? --JimWae (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It was inside the sentence - and the edit summary said they were the same - another indication of how confusing "absence of belief" can be to readers and editors. --JimWae (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the use of atheism as an "absence of belief" very closely borders on the philosophy of agnosticism and therefore justifies a link to that philosophy. My edit summary was intended to point out this fact, and not to claim that the two terms are to be used as synonyms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xetxo (talk • contribs) 14:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm tending to agree with Xetxo. I think agnosticism and how it relates and compares to atheism is relevant to understanding atheism. A link there could be very helpful. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There has been discussion about more clearly comparing & contrasting atheism & agnosticism in the lede. A "See also:" does not satisfy the concerns expressed, especially not when it suggests that the connection is somehow most appropriate to the "absence" def. This suggestion "to bring agnostics under the fold" has made me reconsider why people have found this extremely sloppy def so important to include (and I used to be among that group, before the rejection def was included). So, for people at least (rocks aside), it is supposed to include babies, "primitives", "indifferents", the brain-dead, and agnostics -- but not the pope when he sneezes. Does it also include people who call themselves atheists but have not rejected belief in deities?

If babies legally become persons at birth, do they philosophically become atheists at birth - or does that happen sooner, or later?

Regarding the "indifferents" - supposedly these are people who have heard about deities, but are so indifferent that they have not yet determined even whether they care if it is important TO THEMSELVES to believe or not, and if asked if they believe [not if any deities exist, but if they believe any exist] would not be able to truthfully answer "No, I have already thought to myself that such belief is not import to me". Looks like a pretty small group compared to agnostics.--JimWae (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely with JimWae. As I have stated in earlier comments, how atheism and agnosticism relate depends on which definition of both terms is being used, and I don't think it can easily be covered in the lead. I also think that "(see X)" is bad writing style - it's unclear what's being said here (is it saying that they're the same? If not, why is the link here?) Note that previously, we stated that the absence of belief definition was also known as nontheism - I think that is a much more accurate statement. Would that be preferable, for those who want to note that this definition sometimes has other names?

We already cover the issue later in the article in several places (just search for "agnostic"), is that not sufficient? In fact, there used to be even more explanation, but it was removed due to lack of sources [13]. If that is contentious, then I don't see how we can justify putting unsourced and less accurate information in, especially in the lead. Mdwh (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I note that it was SlimVirgin who both removed that paragraph on agnosticism, and also placed in a new sentence that only presented one definition of agnosticism [14] - I'm concerned if the intent is to only present one definition of agnosticism as fact here. Firstly, agnosticism can also be about lacking knowledge, in which case it can be compatible with the first two definitions - but not those who only implicitly lack belief, as JimWae notes. But even if we take the "neither believes nor disbelieves" definition of agnosticism, then it's the "rejection of belief" that this is equivalent to - again, not those who only implicitly lack belief. Mdwh (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

For your information: Before the term "agnosticism" was coined by Huxley, the agnostics were commonly called "sceptical atheists" (in contrast to the dogmatic atheists, i.e. the positive ones). Examples:

"Sceptical Atheism is when the Existence of God is merely doubted. It supposes the proofs for and against the existence of a personal God to be so nicely balanced as to leave the question undecided; and it, therefore, professes to hold no opinion on the subject."

(Blackburn, John. The Popular Biblical Educator. Vol. 2. London: Cassell, 1855. p. 22)

"Sceptical Atheism, or Atheistical Scepticism. This form of Atheism professes to hold no opinion as to the existence of God, alleging that the evidence in favor of, and that against the divine existence, are too nearly balanced to afford any rational ground of conviction either way."

(Finney, Charles G. Skeletons of a Course of Theological Lectures. Vol. 1. Oberlin: Steele, 1840. p. 27)

—Editorius (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Drawing somewhat off task, the function of the proverbial '(see here)' is probably most similar to the function of vagueness in linguistics. For instance the sentence, "Atheism can 'refer' (or 'liken') to agnosticism" ...while this is true, it's not very explanatory, and that is in fact (as I see it) the reason vagueness is such a powerful literary tool; it allows for complicated associations between two things to be 'drawn attention to,' yet explained elsewhere. I feel it's 'iffy form' in that it is only seen online and in text books, but still a very dynamic and useful mechanism in those environments and its usage is far better than standard vagueness which personally only find to be disruptive. This explanation seems almost extremist now that I see it in writing, but let's first establish relevance before getting into grammar.

As far as the reasoning goes behind "why should the Atheism page have a link to the Agnosticism page?" I feel that a link is needed because: according to consensus "In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities [which is an idea that agnosticism closely relates to as well]."

Furthermore, I'll posit this, 'theism' is linked-to, understandably so.. is it not also logical to link to 'agnosticism' as well? It is suggested to me that agnosticism is a relevant part of the equation as well. When you say "how atheism and agnosticism relate depends on which definition of both terms is being used" I'm in complete agreement in fact, hence the vagueness in my original reference to agnosticism.

Also, "to bring agnostics under the fold" is not my intention here, I wish only that all three complementary ideas be acknowledged in a place near to the definition (especially when they ideas are touched on in the definition).Xetxo (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Issues with FA version(s)

I've now had some time to take in the FA version(s) a bit more. On the plus side, I really do think that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs of the lead are clearly better than the corresponding material in the current and recent versions -- more completely explained, but very readable and clear. On the minus side, there are issues I can see with the first paragraph, that have been discussed in recent weeks, and which really need to be addressed intelligently if we are going to restore something like the FA versions.

• The opening prepositional phrase ("As a philosophical..") is weasly and weak. Varying from one retrieved version to another, the words after it either use "affirmation of nonexistence" or "belief in nonexistence," etc. Maybe we should consider "Atheism includes the philosophical position that (words about nonexistence)."
• It uses "gods". Better to use "deities." So, maybe: "Atheism includes the philosophical position that deities do not exist..." And, change to "deities" in the second sentence too.
• We have discussed problems with "rejection of theism." This needs to be addressed.
• We might not need to start the second sentence with "In the broadest sense," if we use "includes" in the first sentence. So, maybe: "It is also..." or "It can also be..."

I think that we can discuss these concerns productively. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Something like:

Atheism is the position that either denies,[1] or rejects belief in,[2] the existence of all deities. Defined most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief in deities.

• "Philosophical" was removed because someone noted that their 7 year old considered gods a fantasy, but was not prepared to defend it with philosophical argument. While there's a way around that, it cannot be denied that upon first impression, it sounds like atheists have to be ready to philosophize. That's how explicit got in there instead.
• I think there is no harm, and some benefit, to pointing out which definition includes the most people (actually also rocks, but that is another matter) --JimWae (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If we're worried about a reader thinking it includes rocks, with a two sentence form, I wonder if we could switch to referring to saying what atheism covers - as a vague example, "In the broadest sense, it includes anyone [or any person, etc] who lacks belief in the existence of gods."? Mdwh (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree about philosophical - using "explicit" would be better. I still disagree about there being problems with "rejection" - that can be explained in greater detail in the article. I'm not sure on using "includes" - it's vague, as it implies that atheism might be other things that we're not saying. We should say what atheism is, not what it includes. Also, it could be read as meaning that there's just one definition of atheism that includes these three positions - when actually, it's that there are three definitions. And just to say, I'm glad to see a discussion like this. I think discussion is much better if we are breaking down perceived problems like this - we can discuss them individually, and there might be a consensus to change some bits, but not others. That's much easier than have several entirely different wordings going around, with no clear idea on who agrees with what bits of what. Mdwh (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Mdwh, for your appreciation of this approach to the discussion. I have to say that I'm finding this whole business quite difficult. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't remove the FA lead again. Once an article has FA status, it really shouldn't change much, unless the changes are without doubt an improvement. Otherwise, it risks losing its FA status. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've moved your comment down here, to keep the comments in chronological order. Of course, we all agree that the FA version had consensus at the time that it was an FA version. But I'm genuinely disappointed that you have not responded, as other editors just above did, to the specific points of discussion. I'm pretty sure that there isn't any policy that says that, once an article becomes FA, further edits to it are not permitted. Furthermore, it has been something close to a year since the article was in the version you restored, I think, and until about 24 hours ago, no one was raising the issue of it losing status. Did something suddenly change, to make this an urgent concern all of a sudden? I doubt it. Using the argument that we shouldn't change the FA version comes across as a lazy way of avoiding serious discussion. The version that you restored ignores the comments from editors, not me, just above, about "philosophical." It has a sentence about Buddhism that is redundant with the 4th paragraph, and perpetuates "affirms the nonexistence," "gods," "theism" (not the reject part, Mdwh), and also, oddly, italicizes "nontheism." Consensus evolves over time, so please show us less experienced editors the kindness of acknowledging the thoughtful concerns that quite a lot of us have raised. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Once an article has FA status, there is a presumption in favor of that version standing, unless changes are clear improvements, especially if they're substantive. The writers of the FA are ideally supposed to maintain it, though that seems not to have happened here. As things stood, the changes had caused deterioration. For that reason, it makes sense to allow the FA lead to stand until an improvement is suggested and agreed upon.

What is your objection to "philosophical"? Atheism is a philosophical position. A person doesn't have to be able to philosophize in order to hold a philosophical position. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back here. As for "philosophical," that's not me, but see JimWae and Mdwh, just above. And I think that we were within about a day of having a substantive improvement that had a lot of agreement, when another editor, again not me, made the edit sloppily and prematurely, triggering the edits that followed. Now, I have to say that I personally like a lot about the FA version, and I guess I agree with you that it is unfortunate that the editors who made it FA didn't do more to make us newcomers aware of it and of its rationale -- in my case, because of so much of my time and effort that has been wasted in trying to fix the edits that happened after FA but before my arrival. But I sincerely do believe, if you take the time to subject yourself to all of the talk displayed above, that there are meaningful and substantive reasons to fix "gods/deities" and "affirms the nonexistence," at a minimum. It is absolutely clear that there is no longer consensus for those in the FA form. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the gods/dieties issue? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

OMG (pun intended)! Please set aside some time, go here and read and keep reading. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's far too much to read. Can you briefly summarize what you see as the problem with gods? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that the version that was up there before the recent changes [15] wasn't hugely different from the earlier FA versions, so I presumed that everyone taking part in the recent discussions were aware of that version, and as far as I could tell, the criticisms of that version seemed to apply to the original FA version too, so I didn't think pointing it out would stop people from proposing the large number of alternative leads that we've seen recently. Mdwh (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Because "affirms the nonexistence of gods" suggests to some people that it may be construed as a rejection of polytheism (but not necessarily of montheism), people come along & put "god or gods" in its place - everywhere the word "god" appears. Then they argue over capitalization. Putting "the position that either denies,[1] or rejects belief in,[2] the existence of all deities" avoids the capitalization, redundancy, polytheism, and "disrespect" arguments - and still conveys all the meaning that we need --JimWae (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there evidence that anyone has understood rejection of gods to be a rejection only of polytheism? I think we need to be careful not to buy into religious POV here, then try to accommodate it with our choice of vocabulary. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

At least one editor has started the ball rolling on this several times. His edit just previous to this also made the lede sentence more cumbersome. "Deities" conveys what we need to convey. Numerous monotheists do not include God among "the gods", but they do consider God a deity - without capitalization --JimWae (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

And let's not forget the "too-long to extract for meaning" conversations about it here --JimWae (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't see what deities conveys that gods doesn't. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there isn't anything that "gods" conveys that "deities" doesn't. I think that Jim did a good job of summarizing the gods/deities talk. I would add to it the other side of the coin, which is that some editors also argue that "god" can be taken to mean only the Abrahamic god, implying that atheists only reject monotheism! In that sense, there's a case to be made that the use of "god(s)" is actually the usage that falls into the trap of religious POV (and that's where "deities" conveys a more inclusive meaning than does "gods"). I'm so sorry that the senior editor found the talk above too lengthy, and I feel your pain! But finding it too much of a drain on one's time is not a reason to decide that the views of the editors who wrote it should somehow count less than the views of other editors (don't bite the newbies, just regard them as a lower caste that should defer to the opinions of older editors). Let me make it simple: there was a lot of careful consideration, and there was a strong consensus that "deities" solves a lot of potential problems that occur with any of the variations on "god." --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is not helpful. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. But in all the material that you found lengthy, I have spent a lot of gastric acid trying to quiet the sarcasms and worse of others, and in the last few days, I have felt that my efforts and those of some others have been disregarded. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If multiple editors are getting fed up, it's likely because much of the very lengthy discussion is pointless. This article was only able to get to FA status once it had been de-weaselfied. It's important not to undo that. Let's call a spade a spade, a god a god, and a position/view/concept/idea/thought a "belief," if that's what it is. The linguistic naval-gazing doesn't get us anywhere, and we should definitely not be caving in to religious POV about what gods ought to be called. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I second your call about navel-gazing. But I also think there have been some very substantive discussions that are not that. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If there have been, it's gotten lost among the other stuff, which is why it has become unreadable, for "senior" editors and others alike. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, after all that, I have to say that we have made very good progress. The lead section, as a whole, is much better now than it has been since I've been here. (And I have no quarrel with those two commas, because I do not gaze at my navel!) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I see absolutely no discussion here that would justify removal of "rejection of belief" as a definition from the lede. During the FA process, there was a great amount of discussion that the lede cover *all 3* definitions. That definition is the one that is used by Kai Neilsen in the EB article, and by Paul Edwards in the Enc of Phil. I think it is quite possible that there is life outside Earth, so I would *never* say there is no life outside Earth. However, I also reject belief in such life - as I have no indication that such belief is warranted AND I think that believing such would just make me (or anyone) more gullible to explanations of phenomena using that as a premise (such as of life ON Earth). Thus we have a distinction with a difference that applies also to deities -- and has substantial tertiary sources. If the removal of this definition from the lede was an oversight, I expect it will be restored soon. Otherwise, I consider its removal "tinkering" with the FA version. (And that raises another point about "god or gods" or even "deities or gods", viz: once you put that "or" in there, it makes parsing any other "or"s in the sentence more of a challenge.

I also have problems with overly-quick distinction between atheists and agnostics - and note that the Neilsen article is being misapplied. Neilsen specifically states that he is starting with some common notions that are inadequate - and it is only later that he presents his thesis--JimWae (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

We should do the same here. Broad description in the lead, making clear there are a number of definitions, with more detail later. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That has NOT been discussed and is a major change in the FA lede --JimWae (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Which part is the major change? diff SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Dropping one of the 3 defs from the lede - "rejection of belief that deities exist" -- and leaving only the inadequate one and the sloppy one. The lede should be capable of standing by itself --JimWae (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead says atheism is the philosophical position that gods don't exist. That's the same as saying you reject belief in gods. If I hold the position that unicorns don't exist, I am rejecting belief in unicorns. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

But the converse does not apply: If I reject belief in the existence of deities, I do not need to hold the position that deities do not exist - yet I am still an atheist. That is my point with life off earth just a few paragraphs up --JimWae (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

How could you agree with the proposition, "I reject belief in gods," but not agree with the proposition, "Gods do not exist"? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not "hold it as a position". Please look again at my first entry in the paragraph just above that begins "I see absolutely no discussion..." Besides, it is not up to us to pick & choose which defs we agree with. The Neilsen article is 12 pages on this topic --JimWae (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Jim, I reverted because the first sentence read, "Atheism is the philosophical position that rejects religious belief in the existence of deities, ranging from an absence of belief in their existence to an explicit assertion that they do not exist." A position that rejects belief ranging from an absence of belief ...? Also, philosophical positions don't reject beliefs. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What does the "it" at the end of the sentence refer to? Is the full range represtened when it says it will give it?

Atheism is the position that either denies,[1] or rejects belief in,[2] the existence of all deities. Defined most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief in deities. --JimWae (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Positions don't deny or reject or accept beliefs. "It" refers to the existence of gods. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your concerns are covered by the current lead. Atheism is the position that gods don't exist. It encompasses anything from an absence of belief in gods to an explicit rejection of them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

1. There are many philosophical discussions about whether belief in the existence of deities is called for - and there are philosophical positions about what constitutes good grounds for such belief.
2. That is what you say "it" refers to - but it needs to refer to the rejection of belief in their existence. The current lede drops one of the 3 defs from the FA article - a def that discussed for weeks & weeks in the FA process, with the firm decision to present all 3 - leavingonly the inadequate & the sloppy defs --JimWae (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Atheism is the philosophical position that deities, or gods, do not exist, ranging from an absence of belief in their existence to an explicit rejection of it" (my bold). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

1. How is "absence of belief" a philosophical position? This def's usage in the article is used to include babies & "primitives" who have an "absence of belief" because they have not been exposed to the concept of a deity - certainly they do not have a "philosophical position" on something they have never heard of --JimWae (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were the one who was insisting on three definitions: (1) there are no gods, (2) I have no belief in gods (absence of belief), (3) I absolutely reject any belief in gods. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly am - but I would not call "absence of belief" a philosphical position - that is another reason why "absence" is best treatd on its own in a separate sentence --JimWae (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I think this is being too picky, and the writing suffers. Readers have to be able to understand what we're saying, and the lead is not the place for detail anyway. Absence and presence of beliefs can both be philosophical positions; skepticism, for example, is a philosophical position characterized by a lack of belief or withholding of conviction. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of talk, much of it repeating talk that came before. Maybe someone can make me a summary of it. But, in the end, I have to largely agree with SlimVirgin that the changes she and I made are a huge improvement over what the page was recently, and also are a fair representation of the talk of the last month or two. And likewise, that it is a mistake to be too picky. In my opinion, the most recent edits, combining the first and second sentences, actually have made it worse, and should be rolled back. But I do agree with Jim about the commas. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

From your coments, it sounds like we agree on more than the commas --JimWae (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Scepticism is a critique of belief &/or of knowledge, or at the very least a withholding - not an absence of awareness --JimWae (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

To Slim: As far as "picky" goes, you were the one who began the topic of which defs were "philosophical positions" or not --JimWae (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify what I said above, I suggest that we go with this, but minus the two commas in the first sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, except we need the commas to make clear that deities and gods are the same thing. Without commas, it sounds more like two things, as in I don't like cheese or beer. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My short answer is that I'm OK with that either way, because it's such a small issue. My long answer is that the sentence reads better without the commas (Jim seems to agree with that), and the argument that the commas make the difference between implying one thing and two things is a very tortured one. And in the spirit of tortured arguments, if they are the same thing, why list them both? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that "rejection of belief" was removed at the very moment the redundant & totally unneccessary "god or gods" was inserted with this edit - sacrificing meaning, precision, & breadth of scope for redundancy. I suspect that was because it put too many "or"s in the sentence - I agree. The comprehensive solution is to remove the "god or gods" This was done at a time when the editor was of the opinion that the 2 terms were synonymous rather than distinct in meaning. Meaningful FA content should not be removed over stylistic concerns caused by inserting a redundancy --JimWae (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Atheism is the philosophical position that deities, or gods, do not exist,[1] ranging from an absence of belief in their existence to an explicit rejection of it.[2] It is distinguised from agnosticism, which is the suspension of belief based on the idea that the existence of gods is unknowable, and theism, which broadly refers to the idea that one or more deities are real. Each of the three concepts encapsulates a variety of definitions and contrasting positions."

My goodness! This is becoming worse and worse!

Remark:

"Agnosticism, the position of neither believing nor disbelieving that God exists, is often contrasted with atheism. However, this common opposition of agnosticism to atheism is misleading. Agnosticism and positive atheism are indeed incompatible: if atheism is true, agnosticism is false and conversely. But agnosticism is compatible with negative atheism in that agnosticism entails negative atheism. Since agnostics do not believe in God, they are by definition negative atheists. This is not to say that negative atheism entails agnosticism. A negative atheist might disbelieve in God but need not."

(Martin, Michael, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. p. 2)

—Editorius (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Jim, the page currently says "deities, or gods,". I agree with you that it would be appropriate to delete ", or gods," and just say "deities." Ed, I'm kind of agnostic about "agnostic," but I agree that it will be awfully difficult to define, and might not be worth attempting here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ed, I disagree with your change in the first sentence, and consider it to be anti-consensus, but I'll let others revert you. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the recent version [16] (before Editorius's latest change) was awful. It presents the first definition, and says that this can range between either of the second two definitions. This makes no sense. An absence of belief is not meaningfully described as believing gods do not exist, for example, and it suggests that "rejection" is the strongest form of atheism. JimWae at least fixed it so that it is no longer quite so nonsensical (although this was reverted!), but it still did not convey the fact that there are three separate definitions, and instead suggested that there is only one definition that encompasses all possibilities. It also claimed that "absence of belief" is a form of rejection, which does not seem correct - the whole point of the "explicit rejection of the belief" definition is that it does not include a simple absence of belief.

I also share concerns about trying to sum up the differences with agnosticism - in particular, the idea that it is a mutually exclusive 3rd alternative to athesim and theism is just one definition, we also need to cover the idea that agnosticism is a separate concept (not knowing that gods exist), and that one can be both agnostic and atheist - or indeed, both agnostic and theist.

I do not see any discussion on the latest changes after [17] at all - and these changes are certainly not a "slight copy edit". I'm also concerned at the speed at which these decisions are made - it seems like every day there's a new completely different version proposed or even edited directly without discussion, and even editors watching the article will miss the discussion if they are away for just a few hours. I would suggest that any new versions be proposed here, discussed/voted over a period of days (perhaps trying to get additional editors to look over them), before any change is made to one of the established FA versions.

I think Editorius's new version seems reasonable - much better than that version, and much better than the "Atheism is the absence or rejection of belief in deities, or the explicit view that there are no deities." we had earlier. How does it compare to the FA version? And are there any who think that the previous versions we've had are better than the FA version? The large number of edits being generated, along with regular drastic changes being made to the lead, suggest that we are nowhere near consensus of a new and improved lead. Mdwh (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but I have the strong impression that most of you continue debating just for the sake of debate. The alternative either endless, increasingly pointless debate or brutal edit war sucks!!! :-( Stop fighting, start thinking!!!—Editorius (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

@Tryptofish:

"Atheism is either the positive belief that no deity exists, the rejection of the belief that at least one deity exists, or simply the absence of this belief."

This statement is concise, precise, fully sufficient, fair towards all three main conceptions, and completely supported by reliable, authoritative sources.

So tell me then, what's the fu***** problem with it, what's so fu***** intolerable about it that we must continue quarrelling about the first fu***** sentence until doomsday?!

(Remember, the first sentence is followed by a long text elaborating on everything!)

—Editorius (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, here's a web-source for "that no deity exists":

"Most of the North American public define an 'Atheist' is a person who believes that no deity exists."

(http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm)

—Editorius (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

comment;If our best source for information is "the North American public" we may as well have a Jerry Springer wikipedia with the loudest nastiest and most outrageous contributors as the final word! sorry! ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ern malleyscrub (talk • contribs) 11:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on theism reads:

"Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity."

—Editorius (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ya, I think simply saying "Atheism in the broadest sense is the belief that no deity exists." I understand there are some definitions that are more complex than that but, I think it is good for an intro sentence. --Agent Agent (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Except that would be the narrowest sense... Furthermore, it's misleading to suggest that theism is defined in only one sentence, because the lead is longer than that (it would be like quoting only the first sentence from the atheism FA version - the definition was across two sentences). The first two sentences of theism are: "Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity.[1][2]. Theism today, however, generally refers to a specific doctrine concerning the nature of God and His relationship to His Creation[3]." Thus, if we want to follow the example of the theism article, it would suggest that (a) we should present all major definitions, and (b) it's okay to split across more than one sentence - both of these are what the FA version does. Mdwh (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mdwh's reply to Agent. I also agree with Mdwh's call for discussion of edits, instead of what has happened over the last few days. And I appreciate the observation that this represents the last version that was adequately discussed. I think that I have made it very clear here that I, too, am troubled by the high-speed edits of recent days. In that regard, the WP:NAM-style outburst directed largely against me just above, while not unexpected, is both inappropriate and hypocritical. (It's true that, during the most recent Slim-and-Jim quick edits, I tried to intervene, but I tried to do so in a way that would bring the version closer to what had been discussed here just before the FA-related barrage of edits began.) And, first sentence aside, I do think the FA edits have improved the paragraphs that follow the first sentence within the lead.

Now, that said, I think I agree with Mdwh also that it is best to work with the kind of structure we have now in the first sentence, rather than with the changes that were made to make it like the FA (but please note that other editors are likely to disagree). However, I do not, for the life of me, understand why we should use a wording-du-jour that seems to have been inserted on the spot without real discussion, instead of the version that we discussed here. Mdwh, if you or anyone else thinks that it "seems reasonable" that "the rejection of the belief that at least one deity exists" can serve as the rejection-of-theism definition, when placed in contrast to "the positive belief that no deity exists," then you are not reading what it says. The rejection-of-theism form has never been synonymous with the deities-do-not-exist form, but that's what the page says now. So, I'm not going to make a rapid edit, but I am going to suggest here that we change the first sentence to be like here, but, this time, that we not ignore the issues of referencing that were discussed here. Or, alternatively, use this version, but not the hasty and sloppy version on the page now. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is better than this, and either one is much better than what is on the page now. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that both editors who commented above have now commented below, in the time period after I made this post. I'm not sure, but I wonder whether the absence of response here means no objections. I'm going to wait a bit longer before actually making the edit, but I suggest changing the first sentence to this, while continuing the talk below about whether and how to discuss agnosticism etc. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want the lead to include "atheism is absence", it must be noted that some major sources (Britannica) oppose this, regarding absence as agnosticism. Also what is "in the broadest sense"? Majority of sources doesn't allow atheism to have this "broadest sense". The real situation is that "Some sources also define atheism as absence of belief, although other object this, regarding absence as agnosticism". --windyhead (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The issues that you raise reflect the fact that there is no single definition, but it does not follow then that we cannot say anything if there is a reference somewhere that says it differently. The word "absence" is used by several references cited (see current ref 4), and it's in all page versions we are considering (I think), including what the page says now. Although I'm not married to "broadest sense," I think that it is pretty clear that it simply refers to weak/practical atheism, as opposed to strong atheism. I think consensus is clear that we have to include the weak forms, and not treat atheism as only equaling strong atheism. If you mean that you want to continue to say what the page says now, then you need to justify equating "the rejection of the belief that at least one deity exists" with rejection-of-theism (see above). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The term broadest sense doesn't mean what you think it does. Also, those sources don't "oppose" the weak atheism definition. The most they do (and I'm skeptical even of this) is to simply not include it. Ilkali (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but: "doesn't mean what you think it does." Did you mean me, or Windyhead? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read this. Ilkali (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I see. You were correcting Windyhead and agreeing with me. (Rather subtle, given all the casualness about indentation by some other editors in this talk.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"...all the casualness about indentation by some other editors..." Yes, I've noticed that. Ilkali (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

To add to the above responses: should we also say that some references oppose defining atheism to only mean a positive belief? The point is that there are three different definitions, so it follows that anyone who favours one definition will "oppose" the others. Mdwh (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)