Talk:Atheism

This talk page is for discussion of how to improve the article. It is not a forum for general discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Differences atheism is personocratic (it is non-personocratic, but studies the "personocratic criterion" and in philosophy and not only; categories are grouped with the hypernymic criterion of focus) (focused on the denial of the supposed precosmic cosmogonic person); naturalism is physiocratic/naturocratic (it is the pure metaphysics of physics; without a personocratic bias [it is impersonal but it's not that its main point]) atheism is a negation; naturalism not atheism as a term is famous nowadays; naturalism is not and doesn't have enough followers (it's not self-evident on philosophical doctrines people to easily move from one idea to a better defined) Similarities usually (but according to Pew Reseach, Robert Sapolsky and many others) they both accept only science (partially won't do, because theists do the same; partiality here is a bad criterion for categorization) older comments in Greek, more analytical

Obviously Incorrect Data

In the first paragraph of 'Ontological arguments,' the paragraph cites a citing of data about the percentages of academic philosophers and their beliefs. However the two values stated add up to about 106% which is not possible under these circumstances. I just wanted to point this out because it's an obvious mistake. 74.137.21.162 (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

They don't add up to 100% because they're answers to different questions on the survey. I think it's freely accessible so you should be able to click through from the citation, go into survey results, and search for naturalism (the questions are next to each other) if you want to check for yourself. Shapeyness (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2024

"Please change Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief .... to ..... Atheism, in the broadest sense, is a position of skepticism towards a belief" Redsparks2025 (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 09:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing Atheism with Agnosticism - as an atheist, I am not "sceptical", I am "sure" there is nothing to believe in. - Arjayay (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

That is not accurate either. An "absence of belief" does not equate to being sure there is nothing to believe in. For example, a newborn infant has no concept of a belief system and therefore has an absence of belief. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Bringing newborns into this debate is a argument based on a reductio ad absurdum. If one makes a claim based on a belief that "there is no XYZ or XYZ does not exist" then one inherits the burden of proof to prove the negative just as those that makes a claim based on a belief "there is XYZ or XYZ exists" have the burden of proof to prove the positive. However in the God debate the proposition that there is "no god" can be as unfalsifiable as the proposition that "there is a god" depending of the definition of "god". In any case a good skeptic keeps and open mind. Furthermore atheism is on a scale as noted in several other articles in Wikipedia and I am trying to capture the broadness of that scale in what atheism covers to highlight atheism itself comes under the umbrella of skepticism. Here is a comment I recently made on reddit = LINK Redsparks2025 (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Redsparks2025 Atheism does not necessarily involve the claim "God definitely does not exist". More usually it involves saying something like "God-claims seem implausible, there is no good reason to accept them, there are compelling reasons to doubt them, I will live my life on the assumption they are not true." Doric Loon (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Redsparks2025 appears to be ignoring implicit atheism. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

My mention of "there is no XYZ or XYZ does not exist" was only a warning concerning the burden of proof and not about atheism. Sorry is that has taken you all off topic. Anyway back to topic, atheism is a position of skepticism / doubt to the claim that a god exists. Please keep in mind that we all start life as newborns with a virtual mental blank slate from which point we are then subject to both nature and nurture. Newborns are neither atheist nor theists (or religious believers). It is how newborns are nurtured to maturity that can lead them either way. Please keep in mind that atheists can be converted to theists (or religious believers) just as theists (or religious believers) can be converted to atheists. Therefore there is NO implicit atheism in the human mind and as such "implicit atheism" is a ridiculous term that simply describes someone doubling down into that skepticism / doubt towards the claim that a god exists. Also keep in mind that for thousands of years of human history we humans have invented some version of a god or a divine mystery so as to give purpose to our lives. Why? Because we recognize our impermanence and the death that awaits. THAT recognition is more implicit than atheism. Redsparks2025 (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Further to my above comment ... as I said in my reddit post, not all atheists are nihilists. Redsparks2025 (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Rejection/skepticism regarding theistic beliefs is not its broadest definition. There are several definitions of atheism and the article, per Wikipedia's wp:NPOV policies, includes them appropriately. The current consensus can be found in this talkpage archives here and the lede's citations were removed last year. Modocc (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Redsparks2025, but you are narrowing the meaning of atheism with your opinion. Your view is not supported by the preponderance of the reliable sources on the subject. The existing first paragraph has been carefully worked out after extensive and exhausted debate over many years, and is now effectively locked from changes unless something dramatic happens. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Your "argument from authority" has been noted an rejected. "Belief" is an inherent feature of all humans and to say atheists have an "absence" of belief is to imply that atheist are somehow psychologically or mentally impaired. A human can have a disbelief or a lack of belief towards XYZ but an absence of belief towards XYZ makes no sense except for a newborn as I noted above. Atheists definitely have opinions towards the claim that a god exists and those opinions are based on skepticism and not an absence of belief. Redsparks2025 (talk) 09:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

You have no idea what's in my pockets, however we all agree the belief/position definitions of the term atheism are narrower. Again, since sources differ the article reflects their differences.. Modocc (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

"Belief" is an inherent feature of all humans and to say atheists have an "absence" of belief is to imply that atheist are somehow psychologically or mentally impaired.

This is complete nonsense. An absence of belief occurs when a person is unaware of the concept. For example, there are probably "micro religions" around the world that I am completely unware of and are thus covered under my implicit atheism. While this differs from the explicit atheism I have towards well-known religions, they are both forms of atheism and the former does not imply I am "mentally impaired" in some way. The introduction to this article intends to capture all forms of atheism, not just the forms you believe in, Redsparks2025. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I too found that nonsensical, and also deeply offensive. People who disagree with you are not mentally impaired. Religious belief is not an inherent feature of all humans, and there is nothing deficient about people who lack such beliefs. Depending on how you define the word "believe", atheists may believe in other things, like people or love or their own integrity. But that is a different sort of belief, so I don't think atheists have just transferred belief from one thing to another. Religious belief is something you can happily do without. Doric Loon (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

As your say "An absence of belief occurs when a person is unaware of the concept". Yes that is correct, such as in a newborn. However atheism is defined in opposition to theism. To be an atheist you have to be aware that there is a concept of a god/God so as to oppose that concept otherwise what are atheists doing? Shouting into the void? Atheism in the broadest sense is a position of skepticism / doubt towards the claim that a god/God exists. Skepticism / doubt towards the concept of a god/God existed before "atheism" became a word. That word was created to define a specific type of skepticism / doubt that only had to do with matters relating to a god/God. Redsparks2025 (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

BTW Scjessey your incredulity towards my comment has been noted and rejected. There is absolutely nothing special about atheism or being an atheist. It's just an ordinary human that is skeptical / doubts that a god/God exists. Redsparks2025 (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

To be an atheist you have to be aware that there is a concept of a god/God
— User:Redsparks2025

This is not true at all. Only some atheists fall into that category. Please read and inwardly digest implicit and explicit atheism before you insult any of us again. Remember that this article seeks to describe the extremely broad topic of atheism in all its forms. If you are seeking the currently-accepted definitions of atheist (which may help you understand what we are all saying), you are in the wrong place. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Your use of "some" is the key word as to why all oppose my change. You and everyone in opposition to me has not understood I am requesting changed to the "broadest" meaning of atheism as noted in the paragraph. So stop dragging my request down "into the weeds" about all the different subcategories of atheism. 114.74.194.146 (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Your use of "some" is the key word as to why all oppose my change. You and everyone in opposition to me has not understood I am requesting changed to the "broadest" meaning of atheism as noted in the paragraph. So stop dragging my request down "into the weeds" about all the different subcategories of atheism Redsparks2025 (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

How can it be the broadest sense if you want to limit it to skeptics and exclude people with an absence of belief? You know what broadest means, right? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As I said absence of belief only occurs in newborns as only their minds are near to a blank slate. However after that as we develop our minds absorb information from our environment and from our social interactions that we eventually develop opinions on that information we absorb. Some of those opinions are based on skepticism which is in itself a negative opinion / negative belief towards some information we encounter, such as the claim that a god/God exists. As a thinking human being - especially as an adult - you are never the blank slate of mind required to have an absence of belief. 114.74.194.146 (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Further to my above comment you may be confusing "absence of belief" with agnosticism, which is not an absence of belief but the view / opinion / belief that some things are unknown or unknowable. This is supported by the issue of falsifiability. 114.74.194.146 (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Further to my above comment an agnostic can still be skeptical towards the claim that a god/God exists but recognizes the practicable limit to verifying such a claim. 114.74.194.146 (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

absence of belief only occurs in newborns

This is wrong. I already answered this in my comment above about "micro religions" but it also holds water in secluded parts of the world where a belief system may never existed, although I would concede that in the modern world this is now extremely unlikely. To bring this to a close, I would remind you that the wording of the introduction has been carefully worked out by a large body of editors over a long period of time, with everything fully supported by cast iron sources. I would suggest any continued argument on the matter would be using a stick. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

You are getting into the weeds. The comment I want to change is about atheism in the BROADEST sense. All humans can be skeptical / have doubts about XYZ and if a human that does not know what a god/God is and then told what a god/God is then that human will have to make some judgement either for or against that new information, including humans in your "micro regions". Redsparks2025 (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I know exactly what you are saying, but what you are trying to do is take the broadest possible definition of atheism and narrow it. Our introductory paragraph must include that broadest possible definition, otherwise the article will fail to capture all forms of atheism. Let me reiterate: having knowledge of theism is not a requirement of atheism. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

NO! Skepticism is a position against a claim that is available in ALL humans including YOU right now being skeptical that atheism in is broadest sense a position of skepticism towards the claim that a god/God exists. Redsparks2025 (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

You can only be skeptical of something if you are aware of it in the first place. If you are not aware of religion, either because you are a newborn or because you have grown up in a society that does not know about religion, you are an atheist. These scenarios are covered by our current wording, and it is supported by the literature. This will be my last reply to what has become a disruptive argument. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Dear Scjessey, there is nothing disruptive about my argument so don't try and threaten me into silence. I have been doing nothing more than debating my position against those who debate against my position. So the conclusion is that you and I have reached the point that most of these online debates reach and that is we agree to disagree. There is nothing I can say to change your mind and there is nothing you can say to change my mind. It will be up to other to decide as you are not the sole judge, jury, and executioner of what happens on this site. Redsparks2025 (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be going nowhere. Major philosophers have debated whether babies and others are atheist or whether active rejection is needed (and as far as I know did not arrive at an unanimous conclusion). The current discussion seems however to be based on personal opinion. The current version (as Scjessey) says above my response is backed by reliable sources, so the onus on anyone wanting to change this would need to provide (extremely) high quality sources, but not only that, but also a clear statement that these sourced represent consensus amongst high level scholars. Without any sources establishing that (which I very much doubt exist) furthering this thread makes no sense. Arnoutf (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Dear Amoutf, since you have said " I very much doubt" then you have proven my point about all humans have the capacity for skepticism. Keep in mind that the sentence that I request to be change is about defining atheism in the broadest sense. Many dictionaries define atheist slightly different to each other but generally they are similar in saying that atheist is about disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. That disbelief or lack of belief is grounded in skepticism. Redsparks2025 (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, further to the above I should have said "all humans except newborns". Redsparks2025 (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

References to IQ

The last section references links to atheism and intelligence, however IQ is used and I don't think that's correct. 1. IQ is generally agreed to be an unreliable number. 2. None of the references I was able to view (one is a paywalled) mention IQ, rather they talk about education/intellectualism. Lindsey40186 (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The inline citation shows that atheism correlates with the g factor (psychometrics), AKA IQ. Modocc (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Suggested change to lede

I think the lede should clarify that "the position that there are no deities" is the standard definition of atheism used in academic philosophy.

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

This generates the following definition: atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists. In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ Zarimi (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence is just wrong.

"Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities"

That is Agnosticism, which is different. Atheism is the belief/position that there are no deities.

1. "Atheism [...] is the belief that there is no God or gods" (Baggini 2003:3)
2. "At its core, atheism [...] designates a position (not a "belief") that includes or asserts no god(s)" (Eller 2010:1)
3. "[A]n atheist is someone without a belief in God; he or she need not be someone who believes that God does not exist" (Martin 2007:1)
4. "[A]n atheist does not believe in the god that theism favours" (Cliteur 2009:1)
5. "By "atheist", I mean precisely what the word has always been understood to mean - a principled and informed decision to reject belief in God" (McGrath 2004:175)

The Oxford Handbook of Atheism, Defining atheism pg 11 [1]

An atheist is someone who does not say that a god might exist, in contrast to an agnostic. If this overly broad definition is to be given undue weight, then there needs to be a section on agnosticism as a subset of atheism. Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Per wp:lede: "...it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead." The lede was cited [2]. Modocc (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll edit that out lol Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Even in the citations it does seem that the narrower definition is more prominent, so at the very least, the narrow definition should be first Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I would oppose any attempt to narrow the scope of the introduction, which attempts to describe all forms of atheism, not just atheism as currently understood. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, the article should be on atheism in its current general form, with a section summarising the History of atheism article. I think a good compromise would be:

"Atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In a broader sense, atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of deities, although in modern times this is more commonly termed agnosticism. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

I can find and provide citations for this if people feel it's an improvement, it doesn't narrow the scope of the article. Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Or rather, maybe more logically:

"Atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. In a broader sense, atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of deities, although in modern times this is more commonly termed agnosticism"

Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Many agnostics reject theistic belief(s) too, asserting deities are simply unknowable, so agnosticism is not limited to just unbelief without any rejection. Note also that atheists per the narrowest definition are included within the scope of the broadest definition, it therefore cannot be called agnosticism. The last significant change in consensus occurred 8 years ago with this rather long discussion: Recent edit concern (April 2016) - Lead sentence. All the definitions are current [3] and the lede presently reflects the most recent scholarship. Modocc (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Reject is not the word I'd use. Agnosticism is more passive and indifferent. You're right that an absence of belief in the existence of deities is not the same as the belief that the existence of god is unknowable, that should be removed from my proposal. The order of the definitions does not reflect the most recent scholarship, even in the citations given the narrower definition is given more prominence. Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

My impression is that if a person is secular and respects religion they identify as an agnostic, and if they're secular and don't respect religion they identify as an atheist. The terminology is more descriptive about that person's attitude towards religion. Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alexanderkowal: This is essentially confusing agnosticism with implicit atheism. The two overlap, so it is totally understandable. The current introduction is crafted to reflect the broad scope of atheism in all its forms, and there is no need to narrow its scope to satisfy what is merely the most modern interpretation. Nor is it necessary to invert the introduction so that the most restrictive definition comes first. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything about implicit atheism in academia. I really think this is ridiculous, the modern interpretation is what should be most prominent, and at the very least it should come first. I am not talking about narrowing the scope of the article at all. The status quo is disingenuous and mis-reflects the views of most atheists. Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The editors of The Oxford Handbook of Atheism define atheism in its broadest sense, by default, because it is pervasive (with a few exceptions) amongst recent scholars. Hence we follow in accord with WP: due weight. Modocc (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that it is as pervasive a definition among academics as you say, out of the various definitions the source gives, 3/5 comply with the narrower definition, which is also the popular or public understanding of atheism as is represented in media. I do think undue weight is being given to the broad definition by having it first. Personally I think the popular definition, whatever it is, should be first, and then academic definitions which clarify/represent the diversity of opinion, all in the first paragraph. Alexanderkowal (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Then it is fortunate that Wikipedia gives deference to academia and the preponderance of reliable sources, rather than personal opinions and recentism. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:Recentism applies to historical events and contemporary events, if the meaning of a word changes then it is the contemporary meaning that should be given prominence. I've backed up my proposal with RS but I can add some more Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, academic sources on the definitions of atheism are still just well-informed personal opinions. Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The broadest definition was adopted by The Oxford Handbook of Atheism (2013) (see page 4). Stephen Bullivant its co-editor writes "...the great utility of this definition [the broadest], and its pervasive – although not universal (see Baggini 2003: 3; Cliteur 2009; Eller 2010) – deployment in recent scholarship on contemporary atheism, more than support its usage." It is its pervasiveness amongst these scholars not general usage that matters with regard to due weight. Modocc (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

My bad, I should've read that. I do disagree though, since our readers are just members of the public, the general usage and popular understanding should be more prominent, with academic definitions clarifying.

See:

• [4]: Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings
• [5]: Atheists are people who believe that god or gods (or other supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths and legends or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful.
• [6]: The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.
• [7]: Atheism is the belief that there are no gods.
• [8]: the fact of not believing in any god or gods, or the belief that no god or gods exist

Furthermore, the History of atheism article defines atheism:

Atheism is the rejection of an assertion that a deity exists.

And the simple wikipedia article states:

Atheism is rejecting the belief in a God or gods. Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

On this survey of the first two pages of google "atheism definition", two non academic sources used the broad definition, compared to the five I've put here. Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I think one of these middling ones should be used first, and then the broader and narrower definitions after. Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this one:

Atheism, in general, is the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.

Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

References

"[...] the general usage and popular understanding should be more prominent..."

That is what dictionaries are for. Encyclopedias seek to fully describe a topic. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:Lede

If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist

Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

We should not mislead the nonspecialist into thinking atheism is not a complex, multilayered topic. Many would argue that the broad description we begin with represents the largest body of atheists, and you dismiss that as less important than the narrow definition you evidently prefer. As has previously been stated, the makeup and order of the introduction has been exhaustively discussed. You'll find the archive of this talk page contains substantial discussion and debate. You have bought nothing new to the discussion to suggest that a shift is necessary. Atheism has been a thing for thousands of years, but you seem to want this article's focus to be the atheism of just the most recent portion of that time. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

You really misunderstand me. I am saying that we should still include all three definitions in the first paragraph. This discussion is about which should be the most prominent and come first. The popular understanding being more prominent is just WP:Common sense Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It should go from widest scope to narrowest. You are proposing we go from medium to wide to narrow, which makes no sense at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the most common definition should come first, which makes perfect sense. At the very least, the lede should state which one is more common. Putting the broad one first gives WP:Undue weight to it. Please provide evidence that the broad definition is more common or prominent. I'm going to edit in "commonly" as a compromise per WP:BRD Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

What you have just added is essentially original research, and you have done so without first seeking a consensus for a change here. I suggest you revert it. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I have provided evidence here but I can find more concrete evidence. Feel free to revert it per WP:BRD Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Cliteur (2009) argues for a broad definition of atheism, however says:

Atheism in the sense coined above seems also a defensible position. The only problem is that hardly anybody follows the semantic convention that I have proposed. In popular parlance, atheism is associated with all kinds of negative ideas and attitudes, especially with the way it can be defended. Atheists have a reputation for being arrogant, militant, missionary, zealous, and also impolite if not rude. For that very reason George Jacob Holyoake coined the word “secularism".

Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Modocc Can you please elaborate as to why you reverted my edit? Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

America's Webster's dictionary is inclusive of the broadest meaning. Like it or not Wikipedia's due weight policy regarding the topic is determined by scholarship. Modocc (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

My edit was backed up by scholarship, see the above post from a proponent of the broad definition. I think it is right that the broadest definition comes first if that is how people within the movement want to redefine it, but we must clarify what the popular definition is for the reader and that is what my edit did. I can find more sources if you're not satisfied, or rephrase it? Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The current dictionaries determine contemporary usage, as the present Webster's attests. It can no longer be considered less common. No wp:weasel words like "perhaps" either and not by scholar(s) from one and a half or more decades ago. Moreover, the 2013 Oxford Handbook surveyed the scholarship and found the broadest definition pervasive enough amongst scholars to adopt the broadest definition, hence it has more current academic weight than the other definitions. Thus since its the most deployed definition amongst the subject experts we give it the most weight. Modocc (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the premise here, words are not created by academics, they are created by people collectively and it is the common definition which should be treated as the true definition. In this regard I thought my edit was more than reasonable.

• Cambridge dictionary: the fact of not believing in any god or gods, or the belief that no god or gods exist
• Collins dictionary: Atheism is the belief that there is no God
• Oxford learners dictionary: the belief that God or gods do not exist
• Merriam webster: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

In fact, the Webster's dictionary is the only one that uses the broad definition. We can do an RfC if you still don't agree with my compromise. Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Cambridge includes it with "...not believing...". "...the true definition", really? We have a reliable source that scholars have adopted it. That is because these definitions, in fact, coexist. Modocc (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

True was not the right word, obviously multiple can coexist. We are talking about which definition should be most prominent, whether it is the order or a framing. As you say, dictionaries define words, and 4/6 of the dictionaries we’ve found use the narrow definition, while 1/6 uses both, and 1/6 uses the broad definition. I’ve also provided a source that states the popular definition is the narrow one, and I can provide more if you don’t believe that is beyond reasonable doubt at this point. I’m light of this, there is a very weak case for the status quo and I think my edit was a good compromise. If we did an RfC, would you be okay summarising your argument below the main post? I’d argue for the narrow definition to come first and be framed as the popular understanding, whilst the broad be framed as the recent academic understanding. Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe a third opinion would be more fruitful. At the end of the day, it’s about the MOS Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Since the dictionaries are all over the place how would we write honestly about that without using weasel words? Modocc (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s funny because we can’t be definitive. I do think differentiating between the popular and academic understanding in the first sentence would be worthwhile, and without implying which is ‘truer’. Is the emphasis on the broader definition to distance the movement from the fundamentalist tendencies of new atheism, and have a wider appeal? Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

In other subjects like global warming and monetary policy we determine and give the most weight to what the relevant academicians publish. Also, since their foundation, theology departments have put a lot of emphasis on the existence/nonexistence God debate, but not a lot on what people actually believe or not and the latter has become more popular with time. Modocc (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

How about:

Atheism is commonly defined as [narrow definition], however experts define it more broadly as [broad definition].

So the prominence of the popular definition is negated by the authority of experts, and both are framed. The second sentence can then frame the very narrow definition? Alexanderkowal (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

But atheism is commonly defined as "not believing" too. Modocc (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

True, maybe:

”Atheism is commonly defined as [narrow], or, especially among experts, [broad].”

Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Note that the lede introduces three common definitions, and "experts" is too vague. Modocc (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the very narrow one be put in the second sentence as it’s the least common of the two. I don’t think experts is too vague, it’s clear that experts means academics I think Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Unqualified "experts" in precisely what though? Philosophy? Clearly "...scholarship on contemporary atheism..." is interdisciplinary, with Bullivant listing exceptions because the narrowest definition is still very common. Modocc (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by unqualified? All academics writing on this will have relevant qualifications. Maybe replacing experts with scholars or academics Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Unqualified by not informing the reader who the academicians are. It will raise too many unanswered questions in the average readers' minds thus it would get tagged with "by whom?". Bullivant's assertion is useful from a historical and an editorial perspective, but it does not really add anything of substance to the lede. Modocc (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, I think stating "by scholars" is clear enough providing citations are provided. Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

In the definition section it might be worth explaining this discrepancy, like you did for me, so that the lede summarises this and is of substance Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Still, this is a tertiary reference work that reflects accredited published academic work, but your rationale for reordering them does not appear to reflect the weight of that scholarship and it definitely detracts. The phrase "is commonly defined" is wordy and the term "commonly" is superfluous. Modocc (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, it is definitely worth framing the three definitions. I'm going to ask for a third opinion Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok.Modocc (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

apparently there needs to be more input for a 3O, so I'll start an RfC Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Does that summarise the arguments adequately and in a neutral way? Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It is neutral enough. Perhaps you can add a complete rendering of your proposed text for comparison. Modocc (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Good idea but I’m undecided on what it should specifically be. I’m hoping that someone will come along with a good idea but if not we’ll stick with the status quo Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC on definitions

On the order, wording, and framing of the three definitions in the first paragraph of the lede, which currently is:

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

It has been stipulated that the middling definition is more commonly found in dictionaries and among the general population and should have primacy, and that the status quo gives the broad definition WP:Undue weight, however the broad definition is supported by a plurality of recent academia and its primacy allows for a natural procession into narrower definitions.

An alternative might be:

Atheism is the absence of or rejection of belief in the existence of a God. In a narrower sense, atheism is the position or belief that there are no deities. (needs to be edited slightly)

Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Simply here to help guide you..... have no vested interest in the article. Can we get an example of the changes.... As in now and text to be..... and a few sources of academic caliber. .... Feel free to erase this comment at will. Moxy🍁 22:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I’ll do this tomorrow Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't like the muddling. The definition of atheism is, by the very word itself, "not theism"—anything but an affirmative answer to the question "Do you believe one or more gods exist?". So, the definition is the first one; the other two are subsets of atheism, not definitions of it. Certainly, people who reject such claims or affirmatively assert that no gods exist are indeed atheists, but they are not the only types of atheists. So, just use the actual definition (an absence of belief in the existence of deities) as the definition, and then the rest of the article can cover various subcategories and subsets of that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  That is the benefit of going with the broad definition, however it would be going against most dictionary definitions Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  We should be able to do better then WP:TERTIARY sources...as this topic is an academic discipline WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Moxy🍁 23:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Surely this is an exception as tertiary academic sources aimed at defining atheism provide an overview of the material, which is what is useful when deciding on something like this Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Which dictionaries? I just tried Merriam-Webster ([9]), which gives a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods, Cambridge ([10]) the fact of not believing in any god or gods, or the belief that no god or gods exist:, dictionary.com ([11]) disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or a supreme being or beings.. I'd have to go to the library to look at the OED, but I imagine it's similar. But certainly those three all give the "lack of belief" definition. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Here's some dictionary definitions:

  • Cambridge dictionary: the fact of not believing in any god or gods, or the belief that no god or gods exist
  • Collins dictionary: Atheism is the belief that there is no God
  • Oxford learners dictionary: the belief that God or gods do not exist
  • Merriam webster: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
  • OED: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of a God
  • Chambers: the belief that there is no god
  • Brittanica: a person who believes that God does not exist

  I think the OED one works best here. Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the OED one really doesn't work well at all, being incomplete. Those are a subset of atheists, but not the whole. Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, etc., encapsulate the whole thing. So, we should start with the complete definition of the entire thing, and then drill down into subsets as the article continues. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree because the broad definition is less common, especially among the general population, and giving it primacy would be giving it WP:Undue weight. We should prioritise focussing on representing the popularity of academic definitions as accurately as we can, and then secondly making it flow, or summarise the article Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what the fact that a term is sometimes, or even commonly, misused, has anything to do with what the article should read at all. We don't say "literal" means "figurative but meant really strongly" just because a lot of people misuse it like that. If a lot of people misunderstand what something means, that makes it all the more important that the article describe it accurately. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree, words mean what people understand them to mean and thus use them to mean. Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  If Humpty Dumpty wrote our articles, maybe that would be so. But if language is to have any actual utility, words have to have actual meanings. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  ? There is no actual meaning, dictionaries are the authority on what a word means and they alter or differ on their definitions often. I think you view reality as overly absolutist and totally independent of perception. Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Agree [that "they alter or differ on their definitions often"]. I was raised in a university town, the home of UNC. The few dictionaries my school and town's libraries had in the 60s and 70s listed only the active disbelief definitions. The first time I encountered the broadest "not believing" definition was with Smith's book Atheism: The Case Against God (1974). Even today if an elderly preacher here were to inform me that his "atheist grandson" needs to be saved I would certainly assume he means a rebellious grandson who is not a toddler. Modocc (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  What do you think of the OED's definition that fits the broad and narrow into one sentence, with the broad first? Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think disbelief is a good word that sits in the middle of passive and active. I'd be okay with moving rejection to the second sentence to be honest. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe scepticism or doubt would be good words that leave it broader? Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  As I have said before (and not to be redundant but I repeat here for the benefit of others) the broadest definition that is adopted by The Oxford Handbook of Atheism (2013) is "Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of a God or gods" (page 4). Stephen Bullivant its co-editor writes that "...the great utility of this definition [the broadest], and its pervasive – although not universal (see Baggini 2003: 3; Cliteur 2009; Eller 2010) – deployment in recent scholarship on contemporary atheism, more than support its usage." Of course, these other definitions are not as broad, but Wikipedia has included it in the lede since day one. [12]. Modocc (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  There needs to be a sentence in etymology explaining the a- prefix and theism. Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  How about

  Atheism is the absence of or rejection of belief in the existence of a god.

  Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  The currently lede is super clunky and unclear. The second and third sentences are saying the same thing as each other.

  I support Modocc's suggestion from The Oxford Handbook of Atheism, i.e. "Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of a God or gods" for the lede. With the exception of going with 'a deity or deities' instead of "God or gods" as it avoids the theologically difficult issue of capitalising "God".

  As with every subject in every humanities discipline, there is no one single right answer, which the editors of the handbook point out. However we have to start somewhere, and this definition is simple clear and succinct, which is what the lede should be.

  Further distinctions between the kinds of atheists, the common misunderstanding of the difference between atheism and agnosticism etc. can be elucidated in the body of the article with appropriate sources. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Er, the rejection of believing that something is true is not the same as believing its negation. Is there a card in my wallet, yes or no? Perhaps most days there is, but you can reject that belief without believing there is no card. Dictionaries, Smith and other reliable sources distinguish between them too. See also the Wiktionary entry). Because of this, I favor keeping the status quo, especially since this talkpage has been relatively quiet the past 8 years with it given this newer source material. Modocc (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - this article covers the entire topic of atheism, which necessarily spans thousands of years of history. During that time, the definition of atheism has expanded, contracted and evolved over time. But the definition of the word is a matter for dictionaries, not encyclopedias. The introductory paragraph of this article has been discussed extensively and exhaustively on many separate occasions, as a perusal through the talk page archive will reveal, and in each and every case the consensus has affirmed the current arrangement of introducing atheism by its widest scope and ending with its narrowest (and least used). This approach is well supported by scholarly sources, which is why it came about in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I really don't get this point, the function of the first sentence/paragraph per WP:Lede is to define the topic. Are you saying we shouldn't prioritise including an accurate definition? Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  The words topic (an encyclopedia thing) and definition (a dictionary thing) are not interchangeable, and it is my view that the topic is much broader than just the definition of the word. The reason for the structure of the introduction has already been explained to you above, mulitple times. You have already stated your opposition to my point of view and you do not need to restate that opposition in the RfC. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm amazed you don't think an accurate definition or series of definitions should be prioritised. The reasoning for the structure of the introduction is purely just aesthetics, and should come secondary to putting an accurate definition. Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Sources:

• Oxford Handbook of Atheism (2013), Defining atheism [13]:

The precise definition of atheism is both a vexed and vexatious issue ... Etymologically, atheism is derived from the classical Greek a- (normally meaning 'not' or 'without') and theos ('god') ... there is no clear, academic consensus on how exactly the term should be used ... a study of over 700 students found ... the most popular choice was "A person who believes there is no God, or gods" The chapter argues for the broad definition

• Malik (2018): Defining Atheism and the Burden of Proof [14]:

  In this paper I demonstrate how certain contemporary atheists have problematically conflated atheism with agnosticism (knowingly or unknowingly). The first type of conflation is semantic fusion, where the lack of belief in God is combined with the outright denial of God, under the single label of ‘atheism’... Conflating these positions under the single term ‘atheism’ mischaracterises agnostics and inflates the territory of atheists. I don't have access to the article

• Cliteur (2009) [15]: argues for the broad definition

  Atheism in the sense coined above seems also a defensible position. The only problem is that hardly anybody follows the semantic convention that I have proposed. In popular parlance, atheism is associated with all kinds of negative ideas and attitudes, especially with the way it can be defended. Atheists have a reputation for being arrogant, militant, missionary, zealous, and also impolite if not rude. For that very reason George Jacob Holyoake coined the word “secularism".

  Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose change, Keep Status quo. I think the ideal way to phrase it is the current structure of the first paragraph of the lede, which goes from the broadest historical sense to the most specific. The proposed change muddies the water for no clear benefit. Psychastes (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  The phrasing should not be prioritised over having an accurate definition. Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  the current definition is wholly accurate, and despite writing quite a lot on this talk page, you've laid out no coherent argument to the contrary. Psychastes (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  You haven't read much then. When I say accurate, I mean the emphasis placed on each represents their popularity/frequency of use. So putting the broad one first despite not being the popular definition, nor the agreed upon scholarly one gives it WP:Undue weight. Does that make sense? Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  your argument defeats itself, by the very source you quoted, there is no clear, academic consensus on how exactly the term should be used. hence, incoherent. Psychastes (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  That makes no sense, I'm not saying there should only be one definition. Never have I said that, you've just ignored or not understood what I wrote above. Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Can I request that someone else summarises my position and argument based on this RfC as it does not seem I'm being understood. Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I know I haven't been very coherent or concise but I do believe there are very valid points behind what I am saying Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• There are various definitions given by various sources, there's no need to privilege one or the other. Reflecktor (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree however it necessitates that put them in an order, therefore privileging some Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose change, there is not one definition of "atheism" and as Scjessey said this is about the entire history of atheism in all its forms. Wikipedia is also WP:NOTDICTIONARY. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose change, for the lede is accurate and it reflects, with due weight, the various academic source descriptions of what atheism is. Bullivant's assertion that the broadest definition has gained academic weight amongst many scholars justifies their present order. Before that, the ubiquitous disbelief/rejection definitions were considered to be more befitting of rational thought than the other two definitions. Prior to that, dictionaries tended to favor the narrowest definition, but now many have changed so as to be inclusive of the broadest definition. Modocc (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)