Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:21, 19 August 2011

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about the definition in the first paragraph. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting on that topic.

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

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

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

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The definition of atheism has been repeatedly argued on this talk page. The current revision attempts to put forward all definitions without favoring any particular definition. Before suggesting substantial changes, please make sure that your view is entirely supported by reliable sources and respects others' views.

To-do list for Atheism: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2016-08-04 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Other : Add an FAQ to this talk page to curtail future edit-warring and give information to new editors

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Ambiguity in first sentence

OK. To clarify my question to the IP editor in the section above, I suggested the first sentence in the article might be ambiguous. To illustrate that point, consider the following --

‘Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities’ could be interpreted to mean:

a) it is the belief that is rejected, perhaps in the form of scepticism that anyone actually believes in deities as opposed to saying they do;

b) it is the existence of deities (as opposed to a single one) that is rejected;

c) it is professed belief in deities (but not necessarily their existence) that is rejected, perhaps as a matter of avoiding sacrilege or taboo;

d) both the existence of deities, and of any belief system demanding faith in deities is rejected; and

e) that it is a personal conversion of rejecting a former belief to now not believing in deities (I think that is what the IP editor was alluding to).

It seems to me that a difficulty arises from the words ‘reject’, ‘belief’, and ‘faith’ because one cannot objectively contradict the statements ‘I reject’ or ‘I believe’, but one can doubt sincerity, and therefore the matter of actual as distinct from professed faith. Ergo, it seems to me that the opening is ambiguous and could benefit from a clearer exposition if one can be found. What about: ‘In its broadest sense, atheism is the absence of faith in the existence of deities’?

Does this treatment of ambiguity cover your concerns, IP editor?

Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 17:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter, some of the above options are not semantically possible. "The rejection of belief ..." is not the rejection of deities, or the rejection of the "existence of deities" it is the rejection of belief. So b and d are simply not legitimate possibilities. c has similar problems, because it is explicitly the "belief in the existence of deities" that is being rejected. So how does one get from this explicit rejection of belief in their existence to "but not necessarily their existence?" One simply doesn't because it isn't semantically viable. a is extremely far-fetched because the lead doesn't say, "the rejection of the idea that others actually have beliefs in the existence of deities." Without that kind of specificity it is understood that we're talking about this type of belief in the abstract, general sense. That leaves e, which I'd say exactly what said about a to. Without the specificity we are meant to assume the abstract, general principle of rejecting all such beliefs. This is basic comprehension of the English language in context and by way of convention. What I don't understand Peter, is how you missed the one meaning that the clause has to 99% of readers, and is meant to have. Instead you offer 3 impossible meanings, and 2 wildly out there ones. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to interject here - These are by far the most discussed/debated/contested several lines that I have ever, ever seen in an article... I don't see why we can't just RfC this and be done with it. NickCT (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I wish it were that simple. It will remain an issue as long as there are atheists promoting the absence definition as a piece of convenient rhetoric, which is what it is used for. "Look we are all born atheists ... " then add whatever the particular argument they are trying to make after that. Of course religion is a social construct, but you don't need to make ridiculous claims about babies being atheists to make that argument. Ugh. This will continue until the rhetorical fad that is currently ongoing dies down. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh I wish. Its not even that simple. Shiver, because its not entirely a fad. The suffix of -ism can simply define a state or condition and not only simply a belief or position. I think this is why we can talk about non-theism and have an article on nontheism. Under the umbrella of non-theism, babies are non-theists. Thus, all that has to happen is for atheism to become more widely understood to mean non-theism. So when anyone says babies are atheists, its understood that ALL they are saying is that the babes are without belief, or are non-theists, nothing more and nothing less. Historically, various untenable idols, myths and even entire religions have become obscured by disbelief, and its possible that the terms theism and atheism might one day not even register on most people's radar. In the meantime, there will be an ever-present ongoing struggle on how the term can be understood. --Modocc (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(again, after edit conflicts):That suggestion is simply a restatement of the article's third sentence, or third definition and it is contrary to the Britannica's definition, the source that is cited. I and others have discussed the weight issues of these different definitions many times over. As for the possible ambiguities, there is nothing ambiguous about not accepting a religion because you don't accept everything they espouse hook, line and sinker. There are Christian atheists, and nothing in the definition implies otherwise. You don't have to reject your own belief, so there is no ambiguity there. There is nothing special about God such that we have to denote a singular god. If this was about reindeer, we wouldn't write that we do not believe in "Rudolph" or "Rudolph or flying reindeer", unless we taught one to fly a hang-glider of course. Similarly, "that there are no unicorns" does not normally require us to write "that there is no unicorn or unicorns". BTW, you did not address this ambiguity with your suggestion and most editors have agreed before that its not significant. We are defining an -ism, so why would the reader not see the definition and its analogues as a refusal to accept a belief as their own? That has nothing to do with conversion and I think that a mistaken reading of "insincere belief" is also a considerable stretch here. --Modocc (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate all the input, but I'm seeking clarification of the IP editor's input, not everyone else's certainty about their own. On that topic, please don't misrepresent my inquiry as a concrete position on any one possible interpretation. Don't tell me that I cannot read into a sentence the meanings I can plainly read into it. Would you respond at all if there was no doubt? Is the intended end product of your response more than censorship? Prove it with wording for the article that removes ambiguity.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 03:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to read whatever meanings you want into whatever piece of text you want, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to point out that you're wrong when you claim that your strange "reading" is in any way meaningful to this discussion. If you tell me that "my dog eats garbage" could actually be understood to mean "some dogs drink brandy" I'm going to tell you that's not possible. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation to comment. Reading through the following comments, I am left with an empty feeling that there is no desire to actually come to much of an agreement here because ulterior motives seem to be seen behind each and every edit proposal. The comment "as long as there are atheists promoting the absence definition as a piece of convenient rhetoric" surprised me in how naked this attitude has become. The topic of how people define themselves is always going to stray into areas where opinions conflict. Griswaldo and Modocc, have you considered that some people have an interest in how the definitions are used because of how they identify themselves rather than it being a mere pushing against others who identify themselves differently? In its broadest sense atheism has been used to describe the absence of belief. Many people use such a definition merely because they themselves associate with this sentiment, not because they wish to cast a net over babies. If we incorporate the concepts of usage, and recognise that this also intrinsically relates to self-identification then it is important to reflect how people understand atheism as it relates to their own positions, not merely as a comparison with others. To answer you Peter, yes I do find the wording of the definition lends itself to each of these interpretations. I think the wording has undergone a number of transitions which has lead to ambiguity, though at times ambiguity has been the point. Regardless of the ordering of the definitions, one definition must relate to the assertion that there are no deities. The current wording strays into areas which can lead to inappropriate interpretations, I see no good reason for this awkward wording. What is wrong with the sentence "Atheism is the position that deities do not exist"?137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Perfect. I have struggled with the wording but your rendition cuts all the crap while containing the essence. I move to replace the first and all paragraphs in the introduction with that sentence. Thank you. Peter S Strempel | Talk 03:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually would have no problem with that personally. I'm not sure why so much fuss has been made over the implicit definition in that case though. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And many Christians self-identify as Christian with the concomitant understanding that Christianity is the "one true faith" and the only path to salvation. Should we add that as a definition of Christianity? "Christianity is a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings or the one true faith and the only means to human salvation." Sound about right? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually in agreement myself. mezzaninelounge (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the length and complexity of the discussion here, I'm not sure I understand what we are talking about now. So, sorry, please bear with me. Are we talking about replacing the first paragraph of the lead with the single sentence: "Atheism is the position that deities do not exist." (with the subsequent paragraphs of the lead as is)? Would we then modify the existing first paragraph to be, in effect, a new second paragraph outlining the three forms, or would we drop it entirely? I'm receptive to a short-and-sweet first sentence, so long as the lead section, as a whole, goes on to cover the three definitions of long standing. But I suspect that other editors may object. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish, my initial ambit was to try to understand the IP editor (a Macquarie University IP in Australia, I think, that that may actually have been more than one person) without the noise of interjections about semantics. On reflection, I would strongly favour the removal of all but the first paragraph from the introduction; the content in those paragraphs belongs in the main body of the article. What would be missing then is a different second paragraph outlining the approach taken in the article to discussing the topic.

I would favour wording along the lines of :

Broadly speaking atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities (gods), most simply expressed as the position that there are no deities, or the explicit rejection of belief in deities. Atheism contrasts with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

This article explains a range of prominent philosophical and religious positions on atheism, and traces a history of thought on atheism to contemporary debates and factors, including those about morality, social dynamics, and demographics. Links are given to separate articles about specific aspects of atheism offering more detailed explanations.

It has always been my view that an article introduction should require no references because all assertions made there should be contained in the body of the article, and therefore referenced there (which is WP policy on introductions). But I know that significant disagreements about that exist, and I'm not particularly attached to my wording, except to say I prefer it to the clumsy catch-all that is the current introduction.

Tryptofish, I'm not gonna argue or bicker about the introduction too much right now because I think the main game in Misplaced Pages's coverage is actually on the atheism sub-pages, where some sort of covert war is being fought to legitimise conspiracy theories about atheism, opposition to atheism, and the existence of shadowy 'movements'. But I hope this addresses your question, which appears to have been ignored by everyone else.

Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 13:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Peterstrempel, I really like your suggested substitute. mezzaninelounge (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter please do not treat any part of Misplaced Pages as a "game." If people are pushing a POV on atheism related entries please help to keep those entries NPOV, but let's not play games. I do not agree with your suggestion since it puts UNDUE emphasis on a disputed definition of "atheism," namely the absence definition. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter, your proposed introduction looks just fine to me, with one proviso. Please be advised that a sentence that begins "This article explains a range of . . ." is a violation of WP:SELFREF. If you're willing to modify it to read "There are a range of . . ." you would thereby eliminate that problem. Also, the second sentence of that graf should be deleted for the same reason.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that we are discussing two entirely different things here, and I have low enthusiasm for the two of them, taken together. One is to rewrite the opening paragraph of the lead, in a manner that ignores all of the previous discussion of it. The second is to change the lead into something very short, presumably moving everything else in the lead into the main text. Perhaps this second idea has promise, but I'd like to see a clearer and more completely thought out plan for where the information would go. And I would oppose simply cutting it. I also agree with Steven about the selfref problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with "Atheism is the position that deities do not exist" is that although the position that deities do not exist is atheism, so is the position that a belief that deities exist cannot be justified. --Dannyno (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Breaking down the first sentence along symbolic logic

• Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. --> A = not(belief) of Exist (objects)

That is not the same as A = not Exist (objects) or Atheism is the rejection of deities existence

There are plenty of people out there that believe in the existence of deities and I do not reject that they believe in their gods. I would change the first sentence to One definition of atheism is to reject a personal belief in a deity's existence.

• In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. This is wider than the first instance, not narrower. This here is A = not Exist (objects) for All while the first assertion is A = not Exist (objects) for individual

And we don't have information on how widely the two assertions are held amongst the populace we can't use narrow in a demographic way so how about a reword as such. Another that includes the first definition is atheism is a rejection of any assertion that deities exist.

• Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

This statement includes agnostics who don't concern themselves with the debate and thus also have an absence of belief. Why are we including those that are A >?< Exist (objects)? Since this definition necessarily wrongly includes agnostics I don't support it. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Join the club. Kevin Baas 18:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Are there different names for these two types of atheists? Activist atheist and private atheist? 97.85.163.245 (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, "atheists" and "agnostics". Kevin Baas 18:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I meant the first two definitions. The atheist who actively goes around telling everyone that theists are idiots for believing what they do and there clearly is no deity anywhere and those that deny the existence of a deity but don't deny that proof could come and do not actively try and denounce theists. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That includes only ONE of the 3. Btw, which symbolic logic notation are you using?--JimWae (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access to a symbol alphabet to put in the reverse 'E' and other specialty symbols. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

but what is the name of the notation you intend, who else uses it? Statements about necessity and possibility have special symbols in modal logic. Statements about beliefs involve doxastic logic, for which no notation is standard yet. --JimWae (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to get you up to speed on this debate with a pictoral view. consider this graphic: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/29/us/politics/20110729-debt-matrix.html?ref=politics The are in the upper left represents the 2 or 3 editors here that are forcing the first paragraph to remain as it is, while the upper right area and to a lesser extent the lower left area represents, well, everyone else. Kevin Baas 19:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hehee, nice choice of graph. mezzaninelounge (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an addiction for me so I don't sign in any more and can't promise I'll be rechecking this page but be it clear that if there is another consensus vote to count my rejection of phrase 3 in that vote. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that defining atheism so as to include infants (and even ants) as atheists (and mathematics and basket-weaving as forms of atheism) is a horrible definition, contrary to the actual, non-polemical application of the word "atheist". However, it is found in some reliable sources & few reliable sources exist to demonstrate what an abomination it is. Thus, to follow WP:NPOV, it gets to be included--JimWae (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Its a "horrible" "abomination" of a definition, and thus there is no good reason other than that we must follow wp:NPOV? Is the word "non-theist", defined by the OED as "A person who is not a theist" just as unacceptable a concept for the same reasons that you have chosen to give? Certainly "non-theist" is without "polemical application" because it cannot ever have the primary connotation of rejection that "atheist" has had, nevertheless "atheist" can be synonymous with "non-theist" and, as far as I can tell, there is nothing particularly wrong with talking about non-theists.--Modocc (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I would not use "atheist" and "non-theist" as synonyms. I take "atheist" as a subset of "nontheist", but would not define atheism in terms of "nontheism" because "nontheism" is something of a neologism and nontheist can include some who believe in deities (such as deists). That deists qualify as nontheists but not as atheists speaks against synonymy of atheism with nontheism.--JimWae (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What is meant by "theist" as in "not a theist" by the OED is debatable. Deists are usually considered to be theists, and that they are sometimes not is simply a theological debate (for those that care whether or not a theist must believe in an active personal deity). In any case, "non-theist" is not a neologism and since babies are non-theists, I've always been a non-theist. --Modocc (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

First sentence misleading

Please change to "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is the lack of belief in gods."

Thanks, Dr oco (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify the distinction that you make between "gods" and "deities"? I can't think of any difference that would matter to the definition of atheism, which impartially rejects every variety of theism, regardless of classifications, labels, or names. How could using one label rather than another be misleading in this context? Ornithikos (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Or better yet, please read past talk, where this issue has already been discussed to death. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps those threads have been archived, I saw only synonymous usage, like "existence of deities (gods)". I would not want to revisit what sounds like an arduous discussion. Did it end with any consensus that you could briefly describe? Ornithikos (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you go through the archives, it's in virtually every one (one place to start: Talk:Atheism/Archive 40#"God" or "gods" in lead, continuing through many archives thereafter). Given how much it's been discussed, please forgive me if I smile at the question about any consensus that could be described briefly. I suppose the answer might be that few editors are genuinely happy with the lead, but every alternative that has been presented, and there have probably been hundreds, has been met by objections that it would be even worse. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I had only done a fast keyword search looking for "god" and "deity" found adjacently, so I missed "Compromise on Atheism definition" right at the top. Lord knows you tried! I advocate no changes and recommend no revisiting. This dialog is happening only because Dr oco wrote, and I thought on general principles that someone should reply, but seeing the history I should have left that to you. In future cases I will be more careful to check what has gone before. This isn't my area anyway. The One True Faith is obviously agnosticism! Ornithikos (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no need to be sorry! You aren't the first, nor will you be the last. Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

So, you two agree that it should be changed to "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is the lack of belief in deities." Glad we could get that cleared up so easily.

Thanks, Dr oco (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I see no such agreement. There are several of us who would like to see "lack of belief" removed from the first sentence altogether. This is the best compromise that has been found so far after many discussions. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

And after all this, methinks I see someone under the bridge. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean Dr oco. It looks like the same thing that comes up every few months to me. There are plenty of atheist organizations who promote the lack definition outright. It should not be a surprise that new editors show up here wanting to see the Misplaced Pages page reflect this POV.Griswaldo (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You assume correctly. Nuff said. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, you seem to be confused. "Lack of belief" doesn't appear in the first sentence.Dr oco (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the synonymous phrase "absences of belief" does.Griswaldo (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Which I think is perfectly acceptable to convey the same meaning. In actuality (though personally I couldn't care less about such), using the word "absence(s)" as opposed to "lack" may be preferable, as some may deem that "lack" implies a negative connotation, in a similar fashion as the word "lacking" is often used to denote. Either way, I'd say it's covered with the current wording. ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 19:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we disagree on the meaning of the word "sentence" as neither of the phrases under discussion appear in the first one. I agree that "absence of belief" is suitable. However, as it is, "rejection of belief" is the first definition that the reader is treated to. And for some reason "rejection of belief" is qualified as "in a broad sense" even though it is a rather narrow sense. I care not about the distinction between god and deity of lack vs. absence, but the issue is that the first sentence is poorly worded and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr oco (talk • contribs) 20:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. The first paragraph. The first sentence is not misleading, but you are welcome to that opinion. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A narrow definition be referred to as a broad one is quite misleading.Dr oco (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, but the problem isn't the sentence, per se. The "problem" (if there is one) is that is exactly what the source says. We cannot simply change the sentence, unless we find another suitable source that says something different (ie: we can't mischaracterize what the source is saying by changing the sentence to say something unsupported). But, with everyone's edit history who's involved in this discussion, I'm sure everyone knows that. Thus, the point is, it's different sources that need to be found before changing the sentence is considered. Then we must determine the validity of the sources (both as accepted belief, properly "reviewed" material, from someone acknowledged as an expert in the required fields, etc). Not the other way around. Changing the sentence and finding a source creates a POV issue where we create a POV with our chosen/desired wording, and then try to find a source to fit that POV. In all actuality, there may not be an equal quality or better quality source that support a different sentence - though I for one am open to suggestions. But lacking the ability to find an equal or better source, then there is no problem, and the sentence should stand as written, regardless of your/my/anyone else's opinions on the matter. Hopefully that clarifies the true problem here. ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 20:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

And I quote (to show what I am saying): "a more adequate characterization of atheism... (snip) is to be someone who rejects belief in God". We cannot WP:SYNTH either. The cites say what they do, not necessarily what we want - thus, so must the article, sans equal/better sources that say differently (in which case, each should be given appropriate weight - other equally valid sources saying something different is still not license for simply removing a sentence that's not liked, otherwise we end up inserting BIAS, POV, etc, etc. ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 20:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing can ever resolve debates like this, because they aren't debates about facts but about the definitions of terms. The term Atheism, like most terms outside math and science, has a family of related definitions that cannot be coalesced. The article does its best not to prefer any one definition to the disparagement of the others, and to give each definition a fair hearing expressed from that definition's viewpoint. No other approach can achieve NPOV. Can we not settle for that? How many atheists belong on the point of a pin? Ornithikos (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It depends on who you ask. From a social science perspective all atheists "reject" belief in religion. You will not find a self-identifying atheist who does not reject belief in religion him/herself even if they believe others are "weaker" atheists than they are. From some atheist perspectives anyone who doesn't affirmatively hold a theistic position in an atheist (i.e. "lacks" belief in gods). So who do you want to do the counting? IMO, for our purposes I'd rather have a sociologist do the counting, but clearly some here don't agree. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"How many atheists belong on the point of a pin?" meant "Let us avoid emulating the fruitless disputations of medieval philosophers." Obviously that technique didn't work. I will hereafter avoid asking rhetorical questions. Ornithikos (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ornithikos, the problem is, there shouldn't be a debate. It does not matter who here is atheist or not, or how they identify or not. All that matters is what the reliable sources say, which is accurately portrayed in the lede. So, I really am not sure why anyone is debating anything. I am sure no one is suggestiong we introduce our own WP:OR or WP:SYNTH or wp:POV - and any attempt to change that sentence without both (a) finding a suitable source, and (b) giving due weight to the current "perspective" and the new one would be just that. I really am not sure why this conversation is even occurring. The source says one thing. The article says the same thing with no mischaracterization... and most of what I see above is "I think this" and "I don't like this term" with not one attempt at finding a source to support their feelings - to which I say (no offense to anyone), I don't care - and neither should anyone else. Using such as a reason is not valid here.

This discussion is entirely pointless until someone finds a disputing source and has the willingness to give both proper weight. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 22:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think every such "I dont like..."/"I believe..." should be able to be responded to with a template that basically says "Sorry, your opinion is irrelevant. Please find a reliable source and get back to us". ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 23:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you read what I actually wrote? Its point was, as you say, "there shouldn't be a debate." I wrote: "Nothing can ever resolve debates like this" ... "The article does its best" ... "to give each definition a fair hearing" ... "Can we not settle for that?" followed by an allusion that meant, to use your words, "This discussion is entirely pointless". I thought the backhanded reference to angels dancing on the head of a pin would be obvious, and might even get a chuckle while yet making its point. I didn't say "I dont like..." or "I believe..." anything, yet you seem to present your statements as a rejoinder to me. Please let me off the hook! Can't you tell an ally when you see one? Ornithikos (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't directed at you. I understood what you were saying. It was directed at those who keep bringing this up, over and over again, etc, etc, etc... guess you can consider it an agreement through venting with an addendum to those who keep bringing it up what my response will be each time in the future. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 00:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

An interesting article on atheist studies

"One problem of atheism research is that we simply can't agree on a unified terminology," notes Kosmin. "Every researcher thinks he is Linnaeus and invents his own labels." Couldn't this source be used to add the concept to the lead sentence that the definition of atheism has flexibility and disagreements over usage and scope even amongst researchers? It would satisfy the various POV's here and maybe quell some of this debate if we state clearly that some aspects of the definition are not agreed upon. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Only a small portion of secularists are as radical as the "strong atheists" championed by British evolutionary biologist and author Richard Dawkins. The majority are more likely to be indifferent to religion or mildly agnostic, according to Kosmin's analysis. There are also secular humanists, free thinkers and many other factions. "One problem of atheism research is that we simply can't agree on a unified terminology," notes Kosmin. "Every researcher thinks he is Linnaeus and invents his own labels."

Then he tells of a meeting of secular groups last year in Washington. They were planning a big demonstration. "But they couldn't even agree on a motto," he says. "It was like herding cats, straight out of a Monty Python sketch." In the end, the march was called off. (I especially liked this last paragraph.)

Secularists make up some 15 percent of the global population, or about 1 billion people. As a group, this puts them third in size behind Christians (2.3 billion) and Muslims (1.6 billion). An interesting factoid. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

How is "Secularist" being defined?! --Dannyno (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I want to add worldwide empirical research on the beliefs, cultural developments, and rationality approaches in atheism

Here is what I wish to publish on this page. please give me suggestions:

A recent set of studies that collected empirical data on the beliefs, attitudes, customs, and religious groups of atheists from all over the world (Atheism and Secularity, Phil Zuckerman) gives a detailed glimpse of atheism and atheists from a global perspective. This was completed by late 2009 and published. In one of the articles on the first volume, Jack David Eller, an anthropologist of religion, mentions "Surprisingly, atheism is not the opposite or lack, let alone the enemy, of religion but is the most common form of religion." and "However, some atheists call themselves "spiritual", and as we have shown above, atheism in its broadest sense does not preclude other religious concepts like nature spirits, dead ancestors, and supernatural forces." By definition, atheism is just about the question of god, not religion or the rest of the supernatural. In this same first volume, empirical details on the how atheists believe what they believe is summarized by Gregory Paul ("Atheism and Secularity" (2 vol.) Phil Zuckerman)

"Nor is it likely that most atheists and agnostics base their decision to not believe in the gods on a careful, rational analysis of the pertinent philosophical and scientific arguments. As noted earlier Europeans score about as poorly on tests of scientific knowledge as do the more religious American population. The common perplexment of rationalists that so many people are superstitious is psychosociologically naive, most people do not care all that much about scientific rationalism, which explains why three quarters of Americans and many other Westerners believe in something paranormal aside from gods. A growing body of research indicates that humans are not a predominantly rational species; intuitive thinking based on on inadequate information being the norm..."

• • • • • (I wrote the following on the Religiosity and intelligence page)

Evidence, showing what Gregory Paul mentions, that the American population, which is considered religious, and secular western populations have very similar scores and knowledge when it comes to mathematics and science, is available from Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) for the years 1999, 2003, 2007. This is an international research program from the US Department of Education in collaboration with many other countries on data on 4th and 8th graders. Data on understanding of math and science and young age is relevant since this is a time where religious influences may shape a child's intellectual abilities to solve problems and thus be relevant to intelligence. Also, since mathematics and science are more universal then this may show the truer reality between religious belief and intelligence. Objections such as racial bias and cultural bias, which are sometimes raised in other tests on intelligence, are reduced greatly. Furthermore, a research paper on scientific literacy in adults in the US and comparing to other nations, states (The Surprising Effectiveness of College Scientific Literacy Courses, Art Hobson, The Physics Teacher (peer reviewed journal), 46 (7) 2008)

"Research by Jon Miller, professor of Interdisciplinary Studies and director of the International Center for Scientific Literacy at Michigan State University, shows that the U.S. scientific literacy course requirements for nonscience college students pull the United States into second place in international rankings of adult scientific literacy. This despite the poor science scores of U.S. primary and secondary school students as compared with other nations. The far lower adult scientific literacy rankings of most European nations and other industrialized nations appear to be due to the lack of any such college scientific literacy requirement in those nations."

Intelligence and level of rationality seems to not be based on one's belief in theism or atheism at all since most atheists in the US and Europe come genetically, culturally, and historically from theistic parents and cultures.

• • • • end my requote

Having mentioned the common and normative mindset among atheists world wide, superstitious thought can be found among "convinced atheists" as well. Data from the Netherlands from people who classified themselves as "convinced atheists": 41.1% of them believed in telepathy, 21.1% believed in reincarnation, 13.3% believed in life after death, and 1.6% believed in heaven. These percentages on telepathy and reincarnation were similar to the percentages of "religious people". Loek Halman, the author of this section, correctly claims, "Thus, despite the fact that they claim to be convinced atheists and the majority deny the existence of a personal god, a rather large minority of the Dutch convinced atheists believe in a supernatural power!" This is quite common since most atheists such as Buddhists, Taoists, etc. believe in supernatural things. Further data on many atheist cultures such as Japanese atheism being a supernaturlistic atheism, British atheism as an indifferent atheism, atheism in Netherlands as a subjective atheism, etc. can be found in Atheism and Secularity.

Ramos1990 (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I need to comment here, as I relied only on my necessarily terse edit summary at Religiosity and intelligence ‎ .

From MOS:HEAD: headings should be "natural, precise...concise".

Try to stick closely to the article topic; some of the material seems digressive. More at WP:TOPIC.

You seem to open with some original research, reporting "a research project... a more realistic view of atheism and atheists from a global perspective". For this to stick you would need to offer both the source of the information about the project (Zuckermann and Paul) and a further reliable commentator who has commented on the project in those terms.

Try to integrate the material into the article, rather than present it in essay-style chunks; more at Misplaced Pages:BETTER#Integrate_changes.

Use your own words, rather than extensive quoting. This will help the reader because the narrative will flow more easily. More at WP:NPS.

Finally: please don't let grumpy editors get you down. A lot of work has gone into your edits and other editors' responses on Religiosity and intelligence must have been discouraging.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep another grumpy editor here, but don't be put off! Saying something you found gives 'a more realistic view' or 'and correctly emphasizes' indicate a problem with dispassionate evaluation of the source. I can see how editors in that other article would have problems also with sticking in an article about knowledge of science and mathematics which has nothing in it about religion and then drawing ones own conclusions about religion. Dmcq (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We have an article on Religiosity and intelligence???? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of these issues seem to be "easily" resolvable by taking off some phrases and that have been suggested by the watchdogs of this article. Just take away "correctly states" and "The first research project that collected empirical data on the beliefs, attitudes, customs, and religious groups of atheists from all over the world" and stuff like this. (I edited some of it). Whatever, I don't mind. If anyone cares to synthesize this information in a better manner and in their own interpretation then its ok too. I only really care for the references and citations. Nothing more. Furthermore a professional review of "Atheism and Secularity" by a Graduate Student of Nonreligion (Christopher Corter. Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review, Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2011, pp. 176-180(5)) found in

http://edinburgh.academia.edu/ChristopherCotter/Papers/614290/Review_of_Atheism_and_Secularity_edited_by_Phil_Zuckerman_

offers good criticism of the volumes in terms of conceptual inconsistency such as terms being inconsistently used or even redundantly used and bias against "religion" (usually theism specifically). I have noted this elsewhere on another other site reviewing the volumes. I think this makes the volumes more powerful, however, because the bias against "religion" by the contributors of the volumes and the fact they still end up admitting much convergence and overlap between "secular" and "religious" people is worth looking into "Atheism and Secularity". Finally, the impressive wealth of data such as tables and graphs that were compiled offer the first inner look from a multitude of cultures on the religious beliefs and realities on normative, not superior, rationalities that atheists exhibit constantly. This detailed data deserves mention on both wikipedia articles previously mentioned by the watchdog editors.

Data on prayer and even church attendance by American atheists found in "Atheism and Secularity" should be mentioned somewhere including writings on atheism as religion such as from "Journal of Liberal Religion" :

http://meadville.edu/LL_JLR_v8_n1_Pomeroy.htm

Examples of organizations that exhibit the same characteristics as any other religions group include (Taoism, Buddhism, Church of Satan, Skeptics Society, Minnesota Atheists, American Atheists, Humanism, Freedom From Religion Inc., Unitarian Universalists, UFO religions like Realianism, etc.) Of course, some of these try to deny that they are "religions" or "religious groups" but the characteristics of many aspects of religions such as ritual and communities based on atheistic worldview are found among them (i.e. books like "Funerals Without God: A Practical Guide to Non-Religious Funerals", "A Humanist Wedding Service", and "Raising Freethinkers: A Practical Guide for Parenting Beyond Belief") Even chaplains for atheists in universities and the military are being pushed and found even in the US:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/27atheists.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17558400

Greg Epstein is a notable chaplain for non-theists who is well known.

I have many other valuable references available from my years of investigating the dynamics and nature of atheists and monitoring some activities and even joining some of these organizations mentioned. I even have collected some data including violence and genocide committed by atheists worldwide("Death By Government" for example), but I think this all should suffice for what its worth.

Its no wonder Christel Manning writes "We are beginning to see some hopeful signs that secular worldviews are being recognized as religious equivalents" in "Atheism and Secularity".

On the Religiosity and intelligence page, I had

_______

states,

"Research by Jon Miller, professor of Interdisciplinary Studies and director of the International Center for Scientific Literacy at Michigan State University, shows that the U.S. scientific literacy course requirements for nonscience college students pull the United States into second place in international rankings of adult scientific literacy. This despite the poor science scores of U.S. primary and secondary school students as compared with other nations. The far lower adult scientific literacy rankings of most European nations and other industrialized nations appear to be due to the lack of any such college scientific literacy requirement in those nations."

Jon Miller's data from 1998 shows this in

Intelligence seems to not be based on one's belief in theism or atheism at all since most atheists in the US and Europe come genetically, culturally, and historically from theistic parents and cultures. Cultural influences and personal drive seem to impact intellectual development more than personal beliefs overall.

The history of science shows that atheistic societies and theistic societies are at times very intelligent and at times not so intelligent since theistic societies like Christian, Greek, Roman, Arab have all advanced much of the science and mathematics we see today. Atheistic societies such as China and Japan have done their fair share on scientific developments also.

See "The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West" by Toby Huff for some perspective.

________

Say what you will about this section, but if the Religiosity and intelligence page is really about any data on religiosity and intelligence, then ANY data from science and math scores from international comparative studies such as Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) or Jon Miller's data on math, science, and religiosity IS relevant to the discourse. America is seen and has been polled to be as a "very religious" and theistic country and Scandanavia, Norway, Sweden have seen and polled as a "very secular" and atheistic countries (Phil Zuckerman. Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment, NYU Press. 2008).

If some citations like (Lynn, Richard; John Harvey and Helmuth Nyborg. "Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations". Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.004. Retrieved 2008-06-27.) and (Nyborg, Helmuth (2008-03). "The intelligence–religiosity nexus: A representative study of white adolescent Americans". doi:10.1016/j.intell.2008.08.003. Retrieved 2008-10-17.) are allowed on wikipedia to be shown (might as well add - Satoshi Kanazawa, Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent, Social Psychology Quarterly March 2010 vol. 73 no. 1 33-57- to this article) then why can't raw data such as TIMSS and Jon Miller's data and Phil Zuckerman's data be used or at least referenced for people to see that results from much of the citations Nyborg, Lynn, Kanazawa are not visible in science and math scores for children in "religious" (US) and "secular" (Europe) countries or international adult scientific literacy tests. The "religious" and the "secular" children all score about the same in math and science (TIMSS) despite these other articles claiming higher intelligence for "secular, liberal, and atheist" people and societies. Asian countries scoring better than both the US and Europe seem to be due to rigorousness of educational programs, not belief or disbelief in the supernatural or theism since "Atheism and Secularity" shows that Asians display supernatural beliefs constantly such as Japanese atheism. Many times in the form of Buddhism and other religious beliefs. Art Hobson's references on Jon Miller's research cite US adults as having higher scientific literacy since 1988 over Europeans adults. Art's article finds college course requirements, not religious stance, as a definitive marker on scientific literacy even though he mentions that religiosity was measured to see if it impacted scientific literacy among other factors. As mentioned earlier, science and math are usually thought of when people think of intelligence, though other part of intelligence do exist. Also science and math are useful markers of cognitive abilities. Many times people are interested in religiosity and ability to understand science and math as an indicator for intelligence and rationality.

summarizes recent research on religiosity, higher education, and mentions that religiosity is increasing among US universities - contrary to many secularization theories that are popular and available.

I understand that some of this may be actual "original research" but all of these references I have cited deserve to be cited somewhere in the articles on Religiosity and intelligence and Atheism or Demographics of atheism or elsewhere.

That last sentence pretty much summarizes my position and ultimate hope. I wanted to just publish some of these references somewhere for people to look and have available. All else is worthless to me since I usually never trust anything written on wikipedia. I usually just skip to the references and ignore the whole article since I know that many of these pages change considerably daily and are thus , not reliable to base much of my faith in. The raw references on the other hand are probably the only valuable part of wikipedia, in my opinion. This is my opinion based on my experience here thus far and from before I got an account here.

I am personally not that interested in making contributions to wikipedia anymore. Its very much pointless and my time spent on gathering this information for both pages has been futile, if not wasted. Whoever reads my previous comments, there are the sources for further research and data. All the claims made by me can be edited to be more "neutral" wherever needed - if anyone cares.

Thanks to those who have given me some support, but perhaps I am better off contributing to peer reviewed articles in research journals like I did before. This may be my final post. If I post again it will most likely be just references to encourage further research to whoever cares.

Ramos1990 (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

1. ^ Zuckerman, Phil (2009). Atheism and Secularity (2 Volumes). Praeger. ISBN 978-0313351815.
2. Hobson, Art (2008). "The Surprising Effectiveness of College Scientific Literacy Courses". The Physics Teacher. 46 (7). {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• FA-Class Atheism articles
• Top-importance Atheism articles
• FA-Class Philosophy articles
• High-importance Philosophy articles
• FA-Class philosophy of religion articles
• High-importance philosophy of religion articles
• Philosophy of religion task force articles
• FA-Class Theology articles
• Top-importance Theology articles
• WikiProject Theology articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists