| Revision as of 08:18, 21 May 2024 editKowal2701 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,611 edits →Suggested change to lede: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:49, 5 January 2025 edit undoScjessey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,029 edits →Atheism in the purest sense of the word |
| (165 intermediate revisions by 35 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{notice|The '''definition of atheism''' has been repeatedly argued on this talk page. Before suggesting substantial changes, please make sure that your view is entirely supported by ] and has a ].}} |
|
{{notice|The '''definition of atheism''' has been repeatedly argued on this talk page. Before suggesting substantial changes, please make sure that your view is entirely supported by ] and has a ].}} |
|
{{Round in circles|topic=the '''definition in the first paragraph'''}} |
|
{{Round in circles|topic=the '''definition in the first paragraph'''}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header|archive_age=3|archive_units=weeks|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|
|
<!----- // ADD NEW DISCUSSIONS TO THE *BOTTOM* OF THE PAGE // -----> |
|
<!----- // ADD NEW DISCUSSIONS TO THE *BOTTOM* OF THE PAGE // -----> |
|
{{Article history |
|
{{Article history |
| Line 42: |
Line 42: |
|
{{to do}} |
|
{{to do}} |
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
<!-- Force table of contents to appear- it refuses to otherwise --> |
|
<!-- Force the table of contents to appear- it refuses to otherwise --> |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|counter = 55 |
|
|counter = 56 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|algo = old(21d) |
|
|algo = old(21d) |
| Line 68: |
Line 68: |
|
{{hab}} |
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The third definition in the opening == |
|
== Obviously Incorrect Data == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have not read this article or the preceding Talk comments, so, if what I write here is redundant, then I apologize. But the third definition -- "the position that there are no deities" -- is ambiguous. On the one hand, a person who takes that position might insist on the truth of a negative, but to do that requires an act of faith, and few atheists are foolish enough to do that. After all, atheists are generally people who do not believe things on faith. On the other hand, I take the position that there are no deities, not as an act of faith, but because no evidence of them is known to exist. Therefore, my taking of that position is provisional, because, if evidence were discovered, I would consider altering my position. ] (]) 00:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
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. ] (]) 01:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:It does ''seem'' a little ambiguous, but I can assure you it reflects the body of scholarly work on the subject. -- ] (]) 16:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::The sources states that in a narrow sense it is a position. It does not matter how people come to that position as there is no one path to reach it, any more than for theism (faith, reason, evidence etc are not unique, but universal).] (]) 05:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hi, 'believing in God' and 'believin in the existence of God' are 2 different things. Cf. my comment below. ] (]) 01:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:It is not ambiguous. The below statement is a statement of opinion, not fact. In order to make this statement, you would have needed to review all of the evidence, which you certainly have not, and correctly interpreted it. You're a human being capable of misinterpreting evidence. It is also a statement of faith, you're putting your faith exclusively in your own five senses since you personally have not experienced a deity with those senses. |
|
|
:"I take the position that there are no deities, not as an act of faith, but because no evidence of them is known to exist." ] (]) 17:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hello, |
|
|
::Believers do not believe in god because they think there is compelling evidence that god or gods exist. That's not what 'believing in god' (or gods) mean. |
|
|
::I noticed that dictionary definitions sometimes defined atheism as the lack of belief in the existence of God and others as the lack of belief in the existence of god of Gods. |
|
|
::The 'existence'-definition is misleading. The belief is not in the existence but 'in god'. |
|
|
::I keep reading sterile exchanges between theists and atheists about whether god exists or not, with atheists coming up with the no-evidence argument. These debates are restricted to the US to my knowledge. In the rest of the world we know that you don't convince someone into believing in god or stop believing in god. You don't talk someone into being in love or stop being love. |
|
|
::What you can show the person is that their claim that they are in love is fake. |
|
|
::Not a believer myself, not preaching my relgion. ] (]) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hat|reason=Collapsing off-topic discussion per ]}} |
|
|
::I am not interested in editing this article, so feel free to ignore this comment, but the third definition ''is'' ambiguous, for the reason I stated; it doesn't merely ''seem'' ambiguous. And it is unequivocally ambiguous, not just "a little ambiguous." If the body of scholarly work on the subject overlooks or writes off this ambiguity (if that's what you mean), then so much the worse for the body of scholarly work on the subject. ] (]) 16:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The third definition is strong or ] as in "there is no ] and no divinity either". It is true it can be provisional, as in "there is no divinity unless one becomes evident". Nevertheless, positive atheism is notable hence its inclusion in the lede. Also the degree it's provisional or not largely depends on context and individual assessments which falls a bit outside its scope, although I am reminded of Richard Dawkins' ]. ] (]) 18:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I agree with everything you say here, but I want to emphasize that the difference between a strong atheist (in Dawkins' terms) and a provisional one is crucial, because the former, like a strong theist, believes irrationally, as a matter of faith, and deserves no more respect a strong theist who claims to know that a god exists. |
|
|
::::I disagree with Dawkins' description of the strongest atheist after that a "strong atheist." It is "''De facto'' atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. 'I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'" I consider myself a stronger atheist than that, without being a "strong atheist" in Dawkins' sense. That is because I would not say that I don't know for certain that a god doesn't exist. I would say that nobody ''can'' know for certain. But I have no more doubt about the non-existence of a god than I do about the non-existence of flying pigs, while I acknowledge that I can't "know" the non-existence of either. |
|
|
::::I concede that I may be conflating logic and feelings here. Logically, I acknowledge the possibility that a god exists, but I do not ''feel'' that there is any possibility. The person who uses Dawkins' phrase, "I don't know for certain," sounds as though he ''feels'' that there is a possibility, however close to zero, that a god exists. How's that for nitpicking? ] (]) 02:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::See ]. It makes a clear distinction between knowing (we do not or cannot know) and not believing because we do not have a belief in a god (or a divinity) and we may believe there is no god (provisionally on account of one's agnosticism). ] (]) 04:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Possible image? == |
|
: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. ] (]) 07:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per other language wikis and the ], would ] be good for illustrating the article? ] (]) 08:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Have added that image to the Etymology section ] (]) 21:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Atheism|answered=yes}} |
|
|
"Please change '''Atheism''', in the broadest sense, is an absence of ] .... to ..... '''Atheism''', in the broadest sense, is a position of skepticism towards a ]" ] (]) 08:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> <code><nowiki>''']'''<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki></code> (]<nowiki>|</nowiki>]) 09:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::You appear to be confusing ] with ] - as an atheist, I am not "sceptical", I am "sure" there is nothing to believe in. - ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 = ] (]) 04:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::@] 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." ] (]) 12:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Agreed. ] appears to be ignoring ]. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 04:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Further to my above comment ... as I said in my reddit post, not all atheists are nihilists. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages's ] policies, includes them appropriately. The current consensus can be found in this talkpage archives and the lede's citations were . ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.. ] (]) 11:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::{{tq2| "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. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 11:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od|:::::::::::}} {{tq2|To be an atheist you have to be aware that there is a concept of a god/God|Redsparks2025}} |
|
|
:This is not true at all. Only ''some'' atheists fall into that category. Please read and inwardly digest ] 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 ]. -- ] (]) 13:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== create page: ] = ] == |
|
: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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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? -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 . ] (]) 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. ] (]) 09:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{tq2|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 ]. -- ] (]) 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". ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 00:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od|:::::::::}}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 ]) 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. ] (]) 17:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ] = ]: Atheism based only on the lack of empirical methodologal proof (only ]: scientific observation and scientific experiments are safe for conclusions ). |
|
: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. ] (]) 00:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Sorry, further to the above I should have said "all humans except newborns". ] (]) 00:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not all atheists are '''empirical atheists'''. Some accept axiomatic foundations (see: ], ], ] , see also: ]). Some atheists accept the ], etc. |
|
== References to IQ == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
see: ] (see academic documents on all possible methods of proof). |
|
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. ] (]) 15:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not all methods of proof are formal. But those who have rigorous logical foundations are used by atheists who debunk the personhooded self-axiomatization, teleology and religious cosmogony. Logical monism is wrong (see: experimental logical foundations . ] has many arguments: separation of personhood per brain, Everettism = many-worlds interpretation, logical, axiomatic and cosmological pluralism, etc. |
|
:Agreed ] (]) 16:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::The inline citation <ref name="intmag">{{Cite journal |last1=Lynn |first1=Richard |author-link=Richard Lynn |last2=Harvey |first2=John |last3=Nyborg |first3=Helmuth |title=Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations |journal=] |year=2009 |volume=37 |pages=11–15 |doi=10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.004}}</ref> shows that atheism correlates with the ], AKA IQ. ] (]) 18:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not all atheists have the exact same views. Atheist popularizers like many new atheists, attack religion with merged forces but usually avoid to elaborate to the different atheistic movements. ] (]) 03:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{reflist}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please provide evidence of your claim. (which sounds reasonable)]] 07:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Suggested change to lede == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Atheism in the purest sense of the word == |
|
I think the lede should clarify that "the position that there are no deities" is the standard definition of atheism used in academic philosophy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Atheism comes from the Greek word ''atheos'' (without god/s), up to that we all agree, the problem is that then each person opts for one or another meaning, making this "-ism" very confusing. |
|
From ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'': |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If it is not too much to ask, I would like another meaning to be added that I see is not in the article (since the page is protected I cannot do it myself), being an atheist because even though the gods exist, they do not deserve worship or their worship is not necessary. Two great examples would be ] '''the Atheist''' and the emperor-philosopher ]: |
|
{{tq|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).}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Diagoras was an atheist because he did not believe that the gods deserved worship; |
|
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ ] (]) 14:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* Marcus Aurelius was "atheist" because he believed that the good gods did not care whether they were worshipped or not, only whether you were good to yourself and your neighbor, while the bad gods did not deserve worship. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "non-worship" or atheism of evil gods is represented in popular culture with ], gods exist but there are mortals who are atheists due to the fact that they do not believe that gods deserve any kind of worship. |
|
:The first sentence is just wrong. |
|
|
::''"Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities"'' |
|
|
:That is ], 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)<br>2. "At its core, atheism designates a position (not a "belief") that includes or asserts no god(s)" (Eller 2010:1)<br>3. "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)<br>4. "n atheist does not believe in the god that theism favours" (Cliteur 2009:1)<br>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 |
|
|
: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. ] (]) 16:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Per ]: "...it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead." The lede was cited . ] (]) 17:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks, I'll edit that out lol ] (]) 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 ] (]) 17:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} 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'''. -- ] (]) 17:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, I don't see it is discussed that, for example, christians are "atheists when it comes to Satan", but wouldn't fear or hatred of him be a form of worship even if it was from a negative perspective? |
|
:I disagree, the article should be on atheism in its current general form, with a section summarising the ] 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 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 ]"'' |
|
|
::] (]) 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: . All the definitions are current and the lede presently reflects the most recent scholarship. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{reply|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. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Then it is fortunate that Misplaced Pages gives deference to academia and the preponderance of reliable sources, rather than personal opinions and ]. -- ] (]) 23:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::] 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 ] (]) 08:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Also, academic sources on the definitions of atheism are still just well-informed personal opinions. ] (]) 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 "...the great utility of this definition , 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. ] (]) 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: |
|
|
::::::::* : ''Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings'' |
|
|
::::::::* : ''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.'' |
|
|
::::::::* : ''The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists. '' |
|
|
::::::::* : ''Atheism is the belief that there are no gods.'' |
|
|
::::::::* : ''the fact of not believing in any god or gods, or the belief that no god or gods exist'' |
|
|
::::::::Furthermore, the ] article defines atheism: |
|
|
::::::::::''] is the rejection of an assertion that a ] exists.<ref name="encyc-unbelief-def-issues">{{cite book |last=Harvey |first=Van A. |title=Agnosticism and Atheism |postscript=,}} in {{harvnb|Flynn|2007|p=35}}: "The terms ''ATHEISM'' and ''AGNOSTICISM'' lend themselves to two different definitions. The first takes the privative ''a'' both before the Greek ''theos'' (divinity) and ''gnosis'' (to know) to mean that atheism is simply the absence of belief in the gods and agnosticism is simply lack of knowledge of some specified subject matter. The second definition takes atheism to mean the explicit denial of the existence of gods and agnosticism as the position of someone who, because the existence of gods is unknowable, suspends judgment regarding them ... The first is the more inclusive and recognizes only two alternatives: Either one believes in the gods or one does not. Consequently, there is no third alternative, as those who call themselves agnostics sometimes claim. Insofar as they lack belief, they are really atheists. Moreover, since the absence of belief is the cognitive position in which everyone is born, the burden of proof falls on those who advocate religious belief. The proponents of the second definition, by contrast, regard the first definition as too broad because it includes uninformed children along with aggressive and explicit atheists. Consequently, it is unlikely that the public will adopt it."</ref><ref name=oxdicphil>{{cite dictionary |editor=Simon Blackburn |encyclopedia=The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy |title=atheism |url=http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199541430.001.0001/acref-9780199541430-e-278?rskey=GC0Coc&result=279 |access-date=November 21, 2013 |edition=2008 |year=2008 |publisher=Oxford University Press |quote=Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none. Sometimes thought itself to be more dogmatic than mere agnosticism, although atheists retort that everyone is an atheist about most gods, so they merely advance one step further. |isbn=978-0-19-954143-0}}<!--Same in 2005 edition: https://books.google.com/books?id=WHILCw0hDA4C&pg=PA27&dq=atheism --></ref><ref name=religioustolerance>Most dictionaries (see the OneLook query for {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930023613/http://www.onelook.com/?w=atheism&ls=a |date=September 30, 2007 }}) first list one of the more narrow definitions. |
|
|
::::::::* {{cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofphil00ange |title=Dictionary of Philosophy |editor-first=Dagobert D. |editor-last=Runes |editor-link=Dagobert D. Runes |year=1942 |publisher=Littlefield, Adams & Co. Philosophical Library |location=New Jersey |isbn=978-0-06-463461-8 |quote=(a) the belief that there is no God; (b) Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic". The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term though widely current in the history of thought |access-date=April 9, 2011}} – entry by ]</ref><ref>{{cite encyclopedia |url=http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism |encyclopedia=] |title=Atheism |publisher=] |access-date=April 23, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160911080901/http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism |archive-date=September 11, 2016 |url-status=dead}}</ref>'' |
|
|
::::::::And the simple wikipedia article states: |
|
|
::::::::::'''''Atheism''' is rejecting the belief in a ] or gods.<ref> |
|
|
::::::::* {{cite encyclopedia |first=Kai |last=Nielsen |encyclopedia=] |title=Atheism |url=http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism |year=2009 |access-date=2009-08-23}} |
|
|
::::::::* {{cite encyclopedia |title=Atheism |first=Paul |last=Edwards|publisher=Collier-MacMillan |year=1967 |encyclopedia=] |volume=1 |page=175 }} |
|
|
::::::::</ref><ref> |
|
|
::::::::{{cite encyclopedia |first=William L. |last=Rowe|encyclopedia=Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy |title=Atheism |year=1998 |editor=Edward Craig}} |
|
|
::::::::</ref>'' ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.'' |
|
|
:::::::::] (]) 11:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::{{tq2|"<nowiki></nowiki> the general usage and popular understanding should be more prominent..."}} |
|
|
::::::::::That is what dictionaries are for. Encyclopedias seek to fully describe a topic. -- ] (]) 14:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Per ] |
|
|
:::::::::::::''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''''' |
|
|
:::::::::::] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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 ] ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 16:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent|15}} 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 ] 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 ] ] (]) 16:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:What you have just added is essentially ], and you have done so without first seeking a consensus for a change here. I suggest you revert it. -- ] (]) 17:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I have provided evidence here but I can find more concrete evidence. Feel free to revert it per ] ] (]) 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".'' |
|
|
::] (]) 17:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@] Can you please elaborate as to why you reverted my edit? ] (]) 18:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::America's Webster's dictionary is inclusive of the broadest meaning. Like it or not Misplaced Pages's due weight policy regarding the topic is determined by scholarship. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent|7}} 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. ] (]) 20:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 17:14, 3 January 2025 (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. ] (]) 21:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:This case would seem to fall under other articles, such as ], ] and, well, ]. What you are seeking to add is no longer considered a form of atheism, as evidenced by the fact it is not reflected in the reliable sources we have drawn from. -- ] (]) 17:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
::Or maybe a third opinion would be more fruitful. At the end of the day, it’s about the MOS ] (]) 21:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::Well, I have to disagree with your take, I never said the meaning I posted is or must be the main meaning of the "-ism", I just said it should be added as another meaning alongside the rest that already appear. Maybe as a part of the "Etymology" section or the "History" one, or an independent one as "Popular culture" (in reference to D&D). |
|
:::Since the dictionaries are all over the place how would we write honestly about that without using weasel words? ] (]) 22:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::And about "is no longer considered a form of atheism", depends on the person you ask, there are many atheists that are atheists no because they know 100% there are no gods, but because even if the gods exist (good, neutral or evil ones), there is no point in worshipping them. |
|
::::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? ] (]) 22:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::This article is not about what form of atheism is correct (this is not religion where there's an orthodox view and the rest of meanings are heresies), but what atheism means, and not adding the most essential meaning of the word ''atheos'' (lit. "without god/s") is a little ridiculous. |
|
:::::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. ] (]) 23:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::And about the other "-isms" you mentionated, they explain about point of view from the perspective of the relationship '''between''' god/s and humankind, not from the '''lack of''' relationship, in othe words, atheism. |
|
::::::How about: |
|
|
|
::] (]) 18:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:::::::: Atheism is commonly defined as , however experts define it more broadly as . |
|
|
::::::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? ] (]) 23:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::I'm sorry, but if you and "many atheists" believe in the existence of one or more gods, even if those gods are not worthy of worship or don't need it, then you are all ''theists'', not atheists. -- ] (]) 19:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I don't believe in gods, so I'm an atheist in the mainstream meaning of the word. But you're wrong, atheist came from ''atheos'', without god/s, therefore (again) even if gods exist, you are an atheist if you don't worship them. |
|
:::::::But atheism is commonly defined as "not believing" too. ] (]) 00:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::Atheist also was used for people that were proper believers but were forsaken by their gods, using (again) the original meaning of the word: "without god/s". |
|
::::::::True, maybe: |
|
|
|
::::This article is about Atheism, all meanings of the word should appear, don't matter if they're modern or not. |
|
:::::::::: ”Atheism is commonly defined as , or, especially among experts, .” |
|
|
::::::::] (]) 08:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::] (]) 16:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I think your point is not without merit. In practice, I like many atheists understand the word "atheism" to mean both "there are no gods in my world-view" and "there are no gods in my life", and the second part of that is possibly the more important part. Many atheists will say they are not interested in debates about the theoretical possibility that there is a god out there somewhere, because even if one does exist, it would make no difference to their lives. Now you are imagining a person who actively believes there is a god, but gives it no place in their life - Scjessey is right that atheism is not the best word to describe that, but if you tone down the active belief to a "dunno", that is actually where many atheists would position themselves. ] (]) 17:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::(But to be clear, I am agreeing with Scjessey that this doesn't belong in the current article unless you have reliable sources showing that a significant body of informed opinion uses the word in this way. I am agreeing with you that atheism can have as much to do with a lifestyle choice as with an intellectual opinion, but if your characterization of Diagoras of Melos and Marcus Aurelius is correct, they are at best tangential to what atheism is today.) ] (]) 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I would argue the section on ] fully explains how the meaning of the word has evolved to the one we use today, so the construct posited above is already adequately covered. -- ] (]) 19:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC) |
I have not read this article or the preceding Talk comments, so, if what I write here is redundant, then I apologize. But the third definition -- "the position that there are no deities" -- is ambiguous. On the one hand, a person who takes that position might insist on the truth of a negative, but to do that requires an act of faith, and few atheists are foolish enough to do that. After all, atheists are generally people who do not believe things on faith. On the other hand, I take the position that there are no deities, not as an act of faith, but because no evidence of them is known to exist. Therefore, my taking of that position is provisional, because, if evidence were discovered, I would consider altering my position. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Not all methods of proof are formal. But those who have rigorous logical foundations are used by atheists who debunk the personhooded self-axiomatization, teleology and religious cosmogony. Logical monism is wrong (see: experimental logical foundations . Pluralistic physicalism has many arguments: separation of personhood per brain, Everettism = many-worlds interpretation, logical, axiomatic and cosmological pluralism, etc.
If it is not too much to ask, I would like another meaning to be added that I see is not in the article (since the page is protected I cannot do it myself), being an atheist because even though the gods exist, they do not deserve worship or their worship is not necessary. Two great examples would be Diagoras of Melos the Atheist and the emperor-philosopher Marcus Aurelius:
The "non-worship" or atheism of evil gods is represented in popular culture with Dungeons & Dragons, gods exist but there are mortals who are atheists due to the fact that they do not believe that gods deserve any kind of worship.
Also, I don't see it is discussed that, for example, christians are "atheists when it comes to Satan", but wouldn't fear or hatred of him be a form of worship even if it was from a negative perspective?
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
