Talk:Atheism

Why is the atheism definition different?

Sources: Any dictionary amoral: LACK of moral sensibility apathy: LACK of feeling or emotion atheism: ? Why is this definition so different BlushNine (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Atheism has different definitions. Note that the article's lead includes the definition for absence (or lack) of belief in deities, although the sources either do not consider it the primary definition in use, or ignore it. This talkpage is not a forum for discussing why this is the case though, but for discussing improvements of this article on the topic. See wp:forum.--Modocc (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, using “absence” makes the sentence more neutral, since “lack” connotes a deficiency. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTDICT. The topic should not be set by a dictionary but by a current major usage, other meanings are covered by disambiguation. Dmcq (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Dmcq (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Atheism is the specific belief that no deities exist. It is not just a lack of belief, that is agnosticism. The article is not neutral. --41.51.183.182 (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What part of "Atheism has different definitions" is not clear to you? Powers ^T 13:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section

There should probably be a genuine criticism of atheism section that summarizes the contents of the criticism of atheism article. The Atheism, religion, and morality section links to the criticism of atheism article, but the section itself contains little critical commentary towards atheism, rather it starts out with a defense of atheism from a demographic perspective. -Stevertigo (t | c) 06:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism sections are bad style, See the style manuals etc. Criticisms are discussed in the relevant sections. Also note that you added a link to the criticism article, it's already linked to 3 times in the article (it's even very prominent on the atheism template at the start of the article). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I fear that it would become another battleground, and we certainly don't need that. I don't think the page currently soft-sells it, but I'd be open to arguments about the current organization about the atheism-religion-morality section. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism sections have been debated, and there is no solid consensus on the matter one way or the other. We still have plenty of sections and articles dedicated to a critical point of view. The criticism of atheism article is an example. Criticism sections and articles serve an important function in allowing critical material to exist within an article when otherwise such material would tend to be removed. This article appears to be such an example. Criticism sections can be written in accord with NPOV and thus dont violate that policy or WEIGHT, in fact such sections help an article comply with WEIGHT by giving due concern to critical issues. Regards,-Stevertigo (t | c) 04:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If your issue is one of lack of critical material then it is better to simplify address the specifics in their relevant sections. There is no need for a criticism section which would simply be a troll magnet. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that hits the nail on the head, for me. Criticism: of course – criticism section: not as helpful. I'd be fine with adding more critical points of view to the sections in which they would be relevant. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Plus one. Criticism: yes; corralled into a separate section: no. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Im only speaking based on ten years of editing here. Criticism sections solve a problem. They aren't perfect, merely functional. Now, why does this article not summarize the criticism of atheism article? -Stevertigo (t | c) 09:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You appear to wish a criticism section for the sake of it rather than for any perceived benefit. You have already stated that there is no consensus on them being required. Therefore the question should be the reverse as you wish to change the article. Why should there be a criticism section rather than having criticism intregrated into the relevant sections? What problem do criticism sections solve? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

They solve the essential problem that critical material tends to be either removed from the article by proponents, or it is simply hard to find by readers. There is a criticism of atheism article. It no doubt started as criticism section at this article. There should be some linkage between this article and that one. Along with this linkage, there should be some summarizing of that article's content. Standard procedure. Regards,-Stevertigo (t | c) 21:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The first 'essential' problem is vandalism by those proponents, however vandalism by some cannot be the sole reason for adding sections. The second reason, would (if extrapolated to the absurd) mean that each and every article in Wikipedia should have each and every section that some reader may look for. This would make all article extremely long and utterly useless. That each article referring to a top level article should have a section in that top level article is not true; for example the United States and state terrorism is not mentioned anywhere in the top level USA article (let alone have a section of its own). If anything, the standard procedure would be to integrate criticism in the texts per WP:CRITICISM. Arnoutf (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism of criticism sections is manageable. WP:CRITICISM is an essay. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Odd I cant find the old talk about this - but yes the above editor is right " criticism sections" was moved to its own article long ago. At that time it was determined a whole section is not a good way to go...instead we should incorporate this type of material into appropriate sections with a nice link to the main article. A whole section is a bit much when we have an article already. Almost every topic will have some criticism and it should be intertwined into the article for flow. All that said way back when there was mention of criticism in the proper sections but this has slowly been removed over the years over to the main artile.Moxy (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in articles where the subject matter has proponents and opponents, the proponents tend to remove critical information. Crit sections serve to keep such information where it belongs, on the article, per WP:WEIGHT. In this case, a short summary section appears to be needed. It can be just one or two short paragraphs outlining one or two of the basic criticisms of atheism. One such criticism that comes to mind is this one: Atheism rejects divine judgment, hence atheism rejects the idea of divine consequence. In an environment where atheism has influence, there is an idea that anything goes - inconsequentialism if you will. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Your example of divine judgment would go into the morality section. I think changing the article to avoid vandalism is not a great reason for the change, particularly considering that this is a featured article. Criticism can still be added to relevant sections. I don't think there has been a tendency to remove critical content by editors of this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add my voice to those who do not like the idea of a criticism section. Criticism sections are always magnets for trolls. And to answer a specific point raised by Stevertigo, if a user is seeking to find criticism of atheism, they will search for "criticism of atheism". I reject the notion that it is "hard to find". -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Seeing how most editors here dislike the idea of a separate criticism section, and seeing how Stevertigo sees the critical editorial matter as being to briefly cover just a few major criticisms, I think we should identify those major criticisms and sources, and then identify where they could best be fit within the existing organization of the page. That should not be difficult. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism sections are magnets for topic bashers (Troll or not). The example by Stevertigo "In an environment where atheism has influence, there is an idea that anything goes - inconsequentialism if you will." does not reassure me at all, as moral psychology has shown repeatedly that this is not the case. Arnoutf (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Scjessey wrote: "Criticism sections are always magnets for trolls." Arnoutf wrote: "Criticism sections are magnets for topic bashers (Troll or not)". I don't see much evidence for this idea that criticism sections 'attract trolls.' What I do see evidence of is that some articles are overrun by proponents. For example if this article were overrun by proponents, it would be largely under the control of atheists, who sanitize the article according to their POV. I'm not saying this is the case, but the lack of critical material, other than an isolated link to the criticism of atheism article, suggests this article needs some protection - not from so-called "trolls", but from so-called "proponents." Note there is a criticism of religion section, which sumarrizes the criticism of religion article, and properly links to that article. Why summarize that and not the other? -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This article did have a criticism section which was integrated into the article with this edit, back in May 2007, just prior to it becoming featured, thus the suggestion that "the lack of critical material, other than an isolated link to the criticism of atheism, suggests..." isn't correct. --Modocc (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You claim there is no criticism in the article and yet you have been invited to add relevant criticism to the relevant section but have not done so. You have shown no evidence of removal by "proponents". Seriously, referring to the article being "under the control of atheists" sounds like borderline WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. When I have time I will cobble together a short treatment. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

PS: Its interesting to note, though, that most of those who have responded in opposition to a criticism of atheism section have indicated some connection to atheism on their userpage. Am I at fault for making such an observation? -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are at fault for that, as it does not assume good faith. So to speak. de Bivort 02:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Its just an observation, and an interesting one. I do not assume bad faith. Its probably only natural that this topic attracts atheists. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Seemed like transparent insinuation to me. de Bivort 05:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "just an observation" when discussing religion.Jasonnewyork (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Back on topic... why is there a need for a specific criticism section when there's already an entire article on criticism of atheism, and even that article is more like "criticism of specific high-profile individuals". How much criticism is really warranted? The major criticisms are all already in the article, what purpose would pulling them out into one section be? eldamorie (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no need here (As the majority believe from above) - We have to be careful not to confuse bigotry with criticism. We must be-carefull not to confuse religious views over scientific data. Like mentioned above that "Atheism" lacks morality - this is not scientific just guess work by the religious right. We would have to specify were sources come from.. To suggest that morality only steams from religion is way off and an uneducated guess - we must say were the info comes from to give it proper weight.Moxy (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Eldamorie wrote: "why is there a need for a specific criticism section when there's already an entire article on criticism of atheism.." - It is standard form to introduce subtopic articles on the main article page via a simple summary section. This is standard for major subtopic articles like criticism of atheism. Moxy wrote: "We have to be careful not to confuse bigotry with criticism. We must be-carefull not to confuse religious views over scientific data. Like mentioned above that "Atheism" lacks morality - this is not scientific just guess work by the religious right.." - Its important to represent the views of the relevant people without trying to qualify those views as "scientific" or not. That's not an NPOV way of representing different views. I have the fortune of seeing things from both sides, and think its possible to write in a neutral way about this. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I am 100% against this idea. Criticism sections suck, regardless of which article they are in, and they are never necessary. I can guarantee that any such section will be abused. And quite frankly, criticism of atheism is poorly-conceived POV fork because atheism is more or less above criticism insofar as it is a non thing (as in "not theism"). It is akin to having a criticism of happiness article. I can totally understand having articles that are critical of the actions of certain atheists or antitheists, but not atheism itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey. Atheism is the rejection of dogma, of deities. There are no tenets of atheism, thus there is nothing to criticize. You can't look at the book of Whoflooberty and say it contradicts the teachings of Gloobernon (like you can with an actual religion). It's like trying to give a dye job to a bald guy. There's nothing there to work with. A criticism section for atheism just turns into a way to target individual atheists and imply that their perspective is universal, which is certainly unfounded. Either that or it becomes a pious rant about how morality only comes from one god. And if you want to make that argument, then imagine what would happen if all the other religions went to the criticism of Christianity page and started saying, "Christians are morally flawed because true morality only comes from my god, __________." (fill in the blank with any number of gods) Because there are citations for that type of stuff.Jasonnewyork (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The criticism of atheism article is already linked to, and fairly prominently - it's the third article listed in the navbox on the right. So I'm unsure as to why we need a separate section, since all of the material that would be in it is already present in the article, which, according to WP:CRIT(Yes, I know, it's "only" an essay) is the ideal way to deal with criticism. eldamorie (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Jason wrote: Atheism is the rejection of dogma, of deities. There are no tenets of atheism, thus there is nothing to criticize. - No, atheism is the dogmatic rejection of deities. Scjessey: atheism is more or less above criticism insofar as it is a non thing (as in "not theism"). - Atheism is "above criticism?" Is there anyone here who can separate their own feelings of moral superiority from their editing? -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Atheism and religion can both be dogmatic (and often are). Atheism is not above criticism, but that in itself is no reason for making a separate criticism section; especially since there is an article on the topic, and criticisms are embedded in the text.

This discussion, however, is going nowhere. Stevertigo, please accept you have a minority position here, which makes a consensus for adding a criticism section unlikely (at best). Arnoutf (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well said, arnoutf. de Bivort 19:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Arnoutf, you say that criticisms are "embedded in the text" of this article, but I only find one, under the Atheist philosophies section:

"One of the most common criticisms of atheism has been to the contrary—that denying the existence of a god leads to moral relativism, leaving one with no moral or ethical foundation,[55] or renders life meaningless and miserable.[56]"

Are there any other criticisms embedded in the text which I may have missed? The scarcity of criticisms in this article would seem to go against the notion that criticisms can be (and have been) embedded rather than put into a separate section. Note that the section that contains the link to the criticism of atheism article doesn't itself mention any such criticisms. This goes against standard policy, which requires that such sections contain relevant summaries. -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't suppose that a call to adhere to a Wikipedia guideline (it doesn't have the status of a firm policy) on the subject will be an end to the matter, but it might be worth reading: it starts "Integrate negative material into sections that cover all viewpoints" and continues in the same vein for the next section: "Avoid sections and articles focusing on "criticisms" or "controversies" (emphasis as original). Wikipedia:NOCRIT gives the link. —Old Moonraker (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry: I missed the post, above, where User:Arnoutf already made a similar point and, no, it didn't put and end to anything. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Since Stevertigo is nowhere near establishing consensus on this, I hope that he/she follows the reasonable procedure already outlined - rather than complain about a lack of criticism integrated into the text, propose new integrations of criticisms, and see how people respond. de Bivort 02:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that you linked to an essay and not a policy or guideline. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

True, an essay is a suggestion and not a policy or guideline; which does not mean an essay is without value altogether. On the other hand while Stevertigo refers to this article "....goes against standard policy" no actual standard policy page is linked to. So it appears that in this case we have an essay and lack of consensus against adding a criticism section; and an unknown/unproven standard policy in favour. Arnoutf (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Besides, with the possible exception of WP:BLP all policies are trumped by consensus, which we clearly have here. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. It's time to move on. But, as noted earlier, it is still quite reasonable to consider adding further criticisms within the existing sections, so long as they are adequately sourced. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Bracketing the referent

I am concerned that these misunderstandings precipitated this edit which seems to be unjustified. The removed text can of course be sourced directly to EB2011, as the source excerpt should make clear. I have reverted the edit to reflect RS material. un☯mi 06:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Misleadingly inserting “Atheism is contrasted ... with agnosticism, which leaves the matter of existence open.” into the lead contradicts the nuanced definition which precedes it, and would give readers a false impression that atheism doesn’t leave the matter open. You’d’ve gone less awry if you’d used the clunky but more accurate wording suggested in that archived discussion you linked to, “It is also distinguished from but not incompatible with agnosticism, the view that the existence of a deity is unknown or unknowable.” ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, there isn't a single definition of what atheism is and it isn't necessarily incompatible with agnosticism. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Can I also suggest people stop inserting the text, get consensus first per WP:BRD. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• There was a consensus for the edit at the time, obtained via DR. Please do remember that article text should reflect the weight of RS, are you arguing that EB2011 is not a solid RS in this matter? Also, which RS are you relying on for the conclusion that excluding the EB2011 lead material is appropriate? un☯mi 16:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Previously ... To the best of my knowledge the last DR discussion is at WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_16#Atheism - reading through the comments indicates to me that the balance of editors, both long-term of this article as well previously uninvolved agreed that the contrast with agnosticism reflected the sources and improved our article. There is of course also an archive of voluminous and vociferous debate to be had in [1] and [2]. un☯mi 19:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This source discusses the uncertainty over the definitions [3], this source Smith, George H (1979). Atheism: The Case Against God. p. 10-11 used in agnostic atheism which discusses an overlap. And no, there was no consensus at DRN. There has never been consensus for this text. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Absolutely no consensus for this odd inclusion. The overlap of atheism and agnosticism is well known and citable, so it would be peculiar to have anything in the article that essentially says there is no overlap. I assume this is another one of those situations where the author is referring only to the narrower subset of atheism which does not encompass agnosticism. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• So, it seems that Encyclopedia Britannica 2011 is not considered an RS by IRWolfie and Scjessy, is that right? Instead the preferred source is the very excerpt that Theodore Drange uses as an exemplar of faulty reasoning:

“ According to this usage, people would be "atheists" even if they answer the question whether it is true that God exists with "no one knows." This is a departure from the most common use of the word "atheist" in ordinary language, which is in itself an important reason to avoid it. Another reason is that infants and fetuses have no belief in God, yet it would be perverse to say that they are all atheists. ”

un☯mi 23:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just as a comment about clarity, and not the substance of it, I feel as though "Atheism is regarded as compatible with agnosticism, with which it is generally contrasted" just sounds confusing. The first half of the sentence sounds like atheism and agnosticism are similar, whereas the second half of the sentence sounds like they are different. Is there a clearer way to word it? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That is however a fair comment - how about reverting to the previous wording for that section in entirety? un☯mi 23:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The previous version would appear to be not having it in the article at all. I don't see a problem with that. What are we trying to solve with this addition? Is the article not already sufficiently clear on the various definitions of atheism? It would be helpful if the edit warring stopped in the interim; either remove it entirely or leave it as it is. The most recent addition claims that agnosticism is incompatible, except "it has been argued" to be compatible, which is not consistent with our sources or our already-stated definitions.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• not consistent with our sources - could you clarify just which sources you are referring to?
• our already-stated definitions - as you are referring exactly to the definition section this statement seems to stem from a misconception, could you clarify just what you are referring to?
• un☯mi 07:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Within the first 3 sentences, we have set up 3 different definitions for atheism. Two of those three are clearly compatible with agnosticism. To say "at times it has been argued that [agnosticism is compatible with atheism]" is to entirely disregard those 2 definitions. This appears to be what you'd like to do anyway, given your postings here and at the threads you linked at DRN. However, we have strong sourcing to indicate that atheism is more than simply belief in the nonexistence of the "Judeo-Christian God", as you proposed, and we cannot so strongly prefer one source over the plethora of others in such a way. I do not see that you have consensus for the addition at this time, so it would seem to make sense for you to present new sources, or make a new proposal, in order to sway consensus, or let the issue drop. I'm happy to read new sources if you'd like to present them.   — Jess· Δ♥ 08:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Within the first 3 sentences Wait, are you referring to the text in the lead? The text in the lead can only be there by virtue of being supported by what is in the body of the article. The text that you reinstated with this edit states "Atheism is regarded as compatible with agnosticism " - could you please tell me which sources that you find nullify EB2011 to that extent? The sources there are:

1. "In common understanding, agnosticism is contrasted with atheism. In the popular sense an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves that God exists, while an atheist disbelieves that God exists. However, this common contrast of agnosticism with atheism will hold only if one assumes that atheism means positive atheism. In the popular sense, agnosticism is compatible with negative atheism. Since negative atheism by definition simply means not holding any concept of God, it is compatible with neither believing nor disbelieving in God." - (emphasis mine) Not only does the text itself state the general state of affairs, but is also in fact seeking to argue against current consensus on the basis of a conception that is peculiar to a minority of scholars and a certain class of Theist polemicists, as EB2011 is a testament to and as Martin himself concedes.

2. "On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion." - Could you please indicate if you think that this text supports "Atheism is regarded as compatible with agnosticism " ?

3. ^ Besant, Annie (1884). "Why Should Atheists Be Persecuted?". The Atheistic Platform. London: Freethought Publishing. pp. 185-186. "The Atheist waits for proof of God. Till that proof comes he remains, as his name implies, without God. His mind is open to every new truth, after it has passed the warder Reason at the gate." - Seriously? As a source for explicitly the history of thought fine, but as a counter to EB2011? I really don't think so.

4. ^ Holyoake, George Jacob (1842). "Mr. Mackintosh's New God". The Oracle of Reason, Or, Philosophy Vindicated 1 (23): 186. "On the contrary, I, as an Atheist, simply profess that I do not see sufficient reason to believe that there is a god. I do not pretend to know that there is no god. The whole question of god's existence, belief or disbelief, a question of probability or of improbability, not knowledge." - again, a text from 1842 is not really something that wikipedia editors are expected to be presenting against Encyclopedia Britannica 2011, with good reason.

Please do see WP:WEIGHT and consider if you that is adequately adhered to for the text in question. un☯mi 09:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Unomi you are going about things the wrong way. If you want a quotation from the source text you can add a {{request quotation}} tag next to the relevant citation. But I think Unomi has a point, and I think his addition adds some degree of nuance and clarity to the passage (revert diff). His point seems to be that stating agnosticism to be "compatible" with atheism is an overstatement of some kind. This appears to depend on what we mean when we say "compatible." His language: "Atheism is generally contrasted with agnosticism, though at times it has been argued that they are compatible" seems more accurate than just stating obtusely that "atheism is regarded as compatible with agnosticism, with which it is generally contrasted." In fact the latter sounds rather convoluted and poorly worded. -Stevertigo (t | c) 09:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

To me, Unomi's "at times" clause seems backward. Atheism was ever compatible with agnosticism; at times opponents pushing an agenda attempt to argue that it isn't, despite the fact that most atheists are agnostics. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain how you square Atheism was ever compatible with agnosticism with EB2011? Or opponents pushing an agenda attempt to argue that it isn't when sources indicate that it was Theist polemicists that wanted to spin them as compatible? un☯mi 12:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Are we to consider EB2011 as the One True Source™ now? We don't need to reconcile one source with another, but rather simply reflect what the preponderance of reliable sources say without resorting to any kind of synthesis. It's clear that agnosticism and atheism overlap (see agnostic atheism), so the article should reflect that. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No, but it would be nice if you would start considering it, period. Please stop saying 'preponderance' and other absurdities - especially when the next thing you do is point to an article that has 4 sources, 2 from before 1904, 1 which doesn't mention agnosticism at all and the last which is the exact text that Theodore Drange said of: "This is a departure from the most common use of the word "atheist" in ordinary language, which is in itself an important reason to avoid it.". Do you have any idea how delusional you appear to people who aren't wrapped up in your brand of magical thinking? Swap out fossil specimens with sources and I could swear I was dealing with a creationist. Name concrete sources or gtfo. un☯mi 13:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Try and be civil thanks. [4] explicitly deals with the ambiguities and specifically says I would suggest that if Philo estimates the various plausibilities to be such that on the evidence before him the probability of theism comes out near to one he should describe himself as a theist and if it comes out near zero he should call himself an atheist, and if it comes out somewhere in the middle he should call himself an agnostic. There are no strict rules about this classification because the borderlines are vague. You appear to be trying to explicitly state a particular viewpoint on an issue that is inherently vague. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It may well be that JJC Smart considers the borderlines vague, but I am not really sure why you bring this source up at all since it states fairly clearly: ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. and Perhaps such a logical positivist(the agnostic) should be classified as neither a theist nor an atheist, but her view would be just as objectionable to a theist. - the borderlines he is referring to seems to be in relation to whether Philo might hold a given probability to be 0.24 or 0.26 - he does not seem to argue that they are not discrete states. In my personal and irrelevant opinion I would say that he is too busy focusing on utilitarianism to be of much use. un☯mi 14:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

EB2011 has a misleading, poorly written lead (which Concise's condensed version worsens to the point of besmirching Britannica’s reliability). However, its later section on Kai’s “comprehensive definition of atheism” corrects misconceptions its lead promotes. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a pretty extraordinary claim, EB has had plenty of feedback regarding it's wording and the text is by Kai Nielsen. Could you please cite where the later section with the “comprehensive definition of atheism” gives you the impression that agnosticism and atheism are not in contrast to each other? un☯mi 00:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I shall be withdrawing from this discussion after Unomi's disgraceful "GTFO" comment above. I can be recalled if Unomi posts a grovelling apology on my talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Is being likened to a creationist the height of insults here? I thought it was rather funny, given I can see things from Unomi's point of view a bit. -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC) PS: Ah, now I see the GTFO comment. Yeah I think that was a bit over the line, Smokey. -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Was it? These talkpages are for improving the article in line with WPs aspirations and principles, a task that is impossible to do unless discussions are grounded by WP:RS. My comment was Name concrete sources or gtfo. - this is in fact a somewhat more blunt restatement of existing Talkpage guidelines. Personally I find that scjesseys contribution was much more insulting. un☯mi 00:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, if you don't want to be civil then go elsewhere. You are poisoning the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidently EB did not receive nearly enough feedback, to publish an article on atheism so wide of the mark, and so lacking in historical perspective that it glaringly omits any mention of the history of persecution of atheists. And all three parts of Kai’s “comprehensive definition of atheism” describe stances which could be taken by an agnostic atheist. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to open a discussion on WP:RSN, explaining the contemporary conception of atheism doesn't require a full treatment of historical artifacts - this is the reason why we have a history of atheism and the article here. un☯mi 22:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just because we have history of atheism doesn't mean this article concerns only contemporary atheism. This is the parent article for the whole atheism topic. Neither history of religion nor history of India limit the scope of their parent articles to current events either. We need to treat the entire topic of atheism in this article, which includes a variety of definitions. That said, even the contemporary definition is substantially varied.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

EB2011 is one of the best sources that we have for the contemporary understanding of atheism. Certainly sources dating from before 1910 are not relevant to such a discussion. I am not arguing that we shouldn't be touching on historic aspects, but that those historic aspects are not necessarily relevant to presenting the modern conception of atheism. un☯mi 21:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

So re my criticism of Britannica 2011 for lacking treatment of history, you suggest I open a discussion to argue we should remove treatment of history from our article? You must’ve misunderstood; in my opinion, that was a unencyclopedic failure on Britannica’s part. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• I am saying that it doesn't matter how EB2011 decides to treat the history of atheism, as the article is on the contemporary understanding of it, not the historic one. Your opinion on whether that focus on their part renders the encyclopedia "unencyclopedic" is irrelevant, and such a discussion would be more appropriate on WP:RSN. un☯mi 21:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You just implied above that we should only be "touching" on the history of atheism, and here you've said "the article is on the contemporary understanding of it, not the historic one". You still have the wrong impression of the scope of this article. We treat the entirety of the concept here, which includes the history. We don't just "touch on" the history. This isn't modern atheism or new atheism or atheism in the 21st century, where "touching" on atheism might be relevant for context. This is Atheism, the whole thing. You've proposed wording which says, without any ambiguity, that atheism is incompatible with agnosticism, and you're holding up a single source (which admittedly lacks historical treatment) to support it, while throwing out all our other sources which say the opposite. We just can't do that. I feel like I'm repeating myself at this point, so unless the discussion changes quite dramatically, I'm going to back out and let others comment as necessary. I think you've gotten a fair amount of input that the original text was not appropriate, so it may be most productive at this point to discuss another proposal, such as, perhaps, how to best word the content we do have now. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Reading comprehension is a minimum requirement for partaking in these discussions. You will probably find better results if you consider context.

1. I opened this discussion with the sole focus on how we present the contemporary conception of atheism. I don't see the need for expanding that discussion here.

2. When I said I am saying that it doesn't matter how EB2011 decides to treat the history of atheism, as the article is on the contemporary understanding of it, not the historic one. - Then I intended the article to refer to the subject of the sentence, as in it doesn't matter how EB2011 decides to treat the history of atheism, as the EB2011 article is on the contemporary understanding of it, not the historic one.

3. Which sources did I throw out please be specific.

4. I never intended to say that we shouldn't touch on historic conceptions in this article, but I think that we should agree that historic conceptions aren't the main focus of our atheism article, and we shouldn't allow the reader to be confused regarding how the weight of WP:RS present the contemporary conception. un☯mi 22:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Further, you've proposed wording which says, without any ambiguity, that atheism is incompatible with agnosticism, and you're holding up a single source (which admittedly lacks historical treatment) to support it - No, I believe that the majority of available sources support stating clearly that atheism is incompatible with agnosticism, that they are discrete and separate positions within the context of theological positions. I have however chosen to focus on what I believe is the strongest source first, Encyclopaedia Britannica. EB2011 is not only recent, but it is also the kind of source that I believe Wikipedia itself strives to be and seeks to emulate in terms of structure and focus. un☯mi 00:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You write, “it doesn't matter how EB2011 decides to treat the history of atheism, as the EB2011 article is on the contemporary understanding of it, not the historic one”. And that’s why Britannica’s atheism article fails to be an encyclopedic treatment. We should strive not to emulate Britannica where we can do better.

Any sources you may have which claim that atheism is incompatible with agnosticism put themselves at odds with real life, where a majority of atheists are agnostic atheists. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to try to make the case the EB2011 should not be considered an WP:RS then please go ahead, but this is not the appropriate forum - please take it to WP:RSN. Furthermore, in general, please anchor your arguments in sources, and by that I mean Reliable Sources. Claims such as regarding what the majority of atheists are or aren't need to be sourced in order to be taken seriously. un☯mi 02:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources and Weight

Unomi, Smith and Martin are respected contemporary sources and they echo the older sources, thus I agree with the other editors that the proposed addition is inadequately written due to its lack of comprehensiveness regarding this article's content. Modocc (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Being contemporary is only one part of the equation, as an example, creationism or timecube are both contemporary but we don't present them on equal footing with other conceptions of reality, the reason for that is down to considering relative reception of those perspectives in the field as a whole. While I can agree that neither Martin nor Smith are on the level of TimeCube, we do have to look at how their peers treat their arguments. What sources do we have in that regard? Theodore Drange has responded to the texts of both authors in a very critical fashion, Kai Nielsen seems to have considered their arguments not worth presenting at all in EB2011. Besides the reception in the field as a whole, please consider that Martin himself expressly acknowledges that his preferred conception of atheism does not enjoy wide support.

Currently our text seems to present "compatible with" and "contrasted with" on equal footing, do you believe that this adequately captures available sources? un☯mi 03:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Among others whose opinions Kai Nielsen “seems to have considered not worth presenting at all”:

Clark Adams Richard Carrier Richard Dawkins Daniel Dennett

Margaret Downey Theodore Drange Sam Harris Christopher Hitchens

George Holyoake Robert Ingersoll Madalyn Murray O'Hair Thomas Paine

Bertrand Russell Carl Sagan Michael Shermer Nicolas Walter

Only once does Kai Nielsen even approach citing the thoughts of a famous atheist:

The second characterization of atheism does not distinguish a fideistic believer (a Blaise Pascal or a Soren Kierkegaard) or an agnostic (a T.H. Huxley or a Sir Leslie Stephen) from an atheist such as Baron d’Holbach. All believe that “there is a God” and “God protects humankind,” however emotionally important they may be, are speculative hypotheses of an extremely low order of probability.

Perhaps Kai Nielsen’s narrow, misleading, woefully incomplete, and far from encyclopedic article wouldn’t be so lacking in merit and usefulness, if he had cited fewer theologians, and included any eminent atheists at all.

When it comes to perspectives in the field, your metric of “people whose opinions Kai Nielsen considers worth presenting” seems extremely deficient. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

For starters, could you please reduce the list to scholars in the field? It would also be illuminating if you then split them up into which you would consider contemporary vs non-contemporary. un☯mi 06:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Both Martin and Drange are published scholars, but I view Martin as having had a greater impact, nevertheless any sourcing argument that you might want to develop here has a steep hurdle to overcome in that it dances around the fact that there are plenty examples of significant overlaps in the usage of the terms atheism and agnosticism. For example, you can find that this is the case with this Oxford source. Its of course obvious that with their broadest senses, nontheism and atheism are synonyms that would include anyone having or having had the capacity to be a theist, but are not considered a theist for whatever reason. Consequently, this is clearly an example of the pitfalls of the etymological_fallacy such that when it comes to comparing sources, the differing views and actual usages do matter, with due weight of course, which current sources do establish. --Modocc (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no question in my mind that Martin is an accomplished and well-respected scholar in the field, he has been the editor for a slew of university oriented books and besides that he has also been prolific in forwarding defenses of atheism. The reason that I make a distinction between those 2 activities is because the differences between the bodies of work are significant, as should be clear from looking at them.

When addressing a scholarly audience he clearly identifies the modern understanding of atheism:

The section on the meaning of atheism is also of particular interest, primarily for showing that in the past many atheists have not meant by atheism what is meant by that term today. Stein makes it clear in his introduction that, although today the has come to mean the belief that God does not exist, for many thinkers atheism has merely meant the absence of belief in God. In this older sense atheism is compatible both agnosticism and skepticism.

— Martin, Michael. "Michael Martin's Review of Gordon Stein, ed., AN ANTHOLOGY OF ATHEISM AND RATIONALISM". Teaching Philosophy 9:1 (October 1986): 90-91.

If you read the full review you will see that Martin is overall not impressed with the scholarship of the work. That doesn't stop Martin from citing Stein when trying to argue for acceptance of negative atheism in A Philosophical Justification, if only as an author who also managed to construe atheism unusually ( to paraphrase Flew ). That the etymological fallacy that Drange points out when he considers A Philosophical Justification is not an example of a pitfall is made clear by Martin himself in the first line:

If you look up "atheism" in a dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God.

— Martin, Michael. "Appendix. Atheism Defined and Contrasted". ATHEISM. A Philosophical Justification.

and crystal by Antony Flew:

The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter.

The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage.[2] 'Whyever', it could be asked, 'don't you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?' It is too soon to attempt a full answer to this challenge and this suggestion. My justification for introducing the notion of negative atheism will be found in the whole development of the present chapter.

— Martin, Michael. "The Presumption of Atheism". ATHEISM. A Philosophical Justification.

It should be clear that the negative / positive conception is presented by both Martin and Flew as not enjoying wide contemporary support.

It should also be noted that there seems little evidence that the conception has picked up support in scholarly circles since then, witness the following passages from a text that had Martin as an editor:

Concerning the gods I am unable to discover whether they exist or not, or what they are like in form; for there are many hindrances to knowledge, the obscurity of the subject and the brevity of human life.9 It is clear from this quote that Protagoras was an agnostic rather than an atheist, as Cicero in his De natura deorum (I.1.2) still recognised. ... [Prodicus] maintained ‘that the gods of popular belief do not exist nor do they know, but primitive man, [out of admiration, deified] the fruits of the earth and virtually everything that contributed to his existence’. The highly stylised character of the language suggests that this passage reflects rather closely Prodicus’ very words.23 But what did Prodicus actually mean? ... In addition to Prodicus, the only other fifth-century intellectuals in whose work clear atheistic statements can be found are Euripides and Critias.

— "Atheism in Antiquity by Jan N. Bremmer" (PDF). The Cambridge Companion to Atheism Ed. Michael Martin.

And yes, the text is in the book. This is clear evidence that atheism and agnosticism are treated as contrasting rather than compatible positions in serious works. un☯mi 21:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the text about Protagorashe, the context of the usage there makes a difference, considering the sensitivities involved with categorizing people. Martin included negative atheism with this piece where he acknowledges it is not the primary sense, but he in no way implies that this broader sense has little or no support. Although narrower unambiguous usage has been and can be employed, the topic area and pitfalls because of actual, verifiable and current usage are still applicable. --Modocc (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, I am not suggesting that no one has used negative atheism, indeed just above I included 3 different sources that did just that, but those sources are all attempts at justifying that usage, and the scholarly consensus seems to reflect a usage of atheism and agnosticism that does not render them compatible, as our most recent and most mainstream source in EB2011 renders clear in the time that it spends on discussing it. Note as an aside that the contributor on the Greek period in atheism in antiquity is very clear in maintaining a contrast between the 2, and I find it likely that he has a fair grasp on a-theos. I don't see a reason to not discuss negative / positive conceptions in its own section, but I fail to see why we should be giving equal weight to something which seems to see little treatment by quality sources. It is quite possible that EB2013 will be all about negative / positive atheism and agnostic atheism etc. but this is not the place to right great wrongs in that regard. un☯mi 22:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Please, I am not proposing to give equal weight in the summary. But I do object to giving all the weight to just one conception of the relationship and none to the other, because to do so fails to acknowledge the broadest and, arguably, broader atheist concepts given there. At this time, I've other pressing things to do, so I'm leaving for now. Modocc (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Complementary contrasts

I am happy that we can agree on not giving them equal weight, and to be honest I also feel that I could have been spending my time more constructively elsewhere, but I am now a bit more optimistic that we can get this sorted out now. How do you feel about: Lead:

Proposed Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that no deities exist,[3][4] distinguished from agnosticism, which makes no claim regarding to knowledge regarding existence.[agnosticism-contrast] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[7][8] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[8][9]

Current Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[7][8] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[8][9]

Any objections? un☯mi 01:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There probably will be objections. I'm not sure what the proposal is. Please post the current and proposed versions side-by-side, or indicate by using some sort of markup above what the changes would be. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

To throw in my two cents on a slightly related issue, I think there is a significant problem with the lead but this is a problem that can be overcome relatively easily. The problem is the use of the word 'is'. Atheism is treated throughout the lead as a thing (object, theory, phenomena, belief system or whatever) that has certain characteristics and the three senses of atheism in the opening line make it sound like these are three different senses of the same thing and that there is some single atheism that encompasses all three (the language of breadth, narrowness and inclusivity emphasises this impression as does the contrast with theism, which is described as a belief). What we really want, I think, is to shift the language a bit to make it clear that what is being described in this way is the word 'atheism' and not some single theoretical construct (even if there is a theoretical construct that takes in all these senses this is still not the only meaning of atheism). Changing 'is' to 'means' would go a long way towards shifting the sense from a description of the being of some thing (X is Y) to the meaning of a word (X means Y). BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: Change the opening sentences to read something along the lines of: "The word 'Atheism' is used to describe a number of different positions that do not include the theistic belief that at least one deity exists. Most narrowly, 'atheism' can refer to the claim that there are no deities. Some thinkers have used the word more inclusively to describe any position that rejects the belief that one or more deities exists, regardless of whether or not the position involves holding a positive belief that no deities exist. Most inclusively, atheism can mean simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

And perhaps add on the end: "While the latter two senses of the word can be used to describe agnostic views, which reject both the affirmation and denial of the existence of deities, the narrowest sense is inconsistent with agnosticism." BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion is very accurate (I'm not sure about only "some thinkers" see wp:weasel for words to avoid) and perhaps we can take this approach or incorporate it or parts of it somehow, but previously, referring to the term with language of this sort, such as using "has been defined as" was rejected as only being about the term and not about the topic as a whole. I'm ambivalent to this objection though, but as I understand our article guidelines at wp:lede, the lede defines and delimit the article's topic, for which this term's varied usages are central, and this article's topic is primarily about how these concepts, embodied by the term's specific meanings that have contrasted with theism, have been treated, such as being inclusive of prominent atheists. There has been extensive previous discussions, see the large talkpage archives above for these, but the lede has evolved over the years because of such suggestions, :-). Modocc (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I understand the issue with referring to meanings but the current lead already goes down this road by using 'in this sense ... in another sense' type language, so we are already talking about the different meanings of the word. I'm not sure that it is possible to avoid this. WP:Lede says that the first sentence should be a definition of the topic area if there is one but in this particular case we run into a problem, since the only way of providing a single definition of atheism is to privilege an inclusive account, even if this is neither the most popular (it isn't) or the one with the greatest academic support (not sure on this but quite possibly not). In this case I suspect that openly acknowledging that the only way to unify the various atheisms into a single topic is to treat atheism as a single word rather than a single thing will do more good than harm. There is also quite a real sense in which the article is about the various ways in which the word has been and is used. Perhaps there might be a way forward in following the approach taken by George I. Mavrodes in the opening sentence to the entry on Atheism and Agnosticism in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy: "Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God" (my emphasis). I note that the Stanford Encyclopedia also avoids a direct 'is' statement, going with: "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." If the professionals are avoiding straightforward definitions and/or starting from the meaning of the word then we should probably follow their lead.

Re: the weasel words, the guide does say of the 'some X say' formulations that: "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution." I think we would be ok with this in the current article as those who say X or Y are specified later on.BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Many editors, but not all, have objected to privileging the narrowest definition, but fewer have objected to paraphrasing of the introductory sentence of Kia Nielen's Britianica article since it inclusive of Nielson's more comprehensive definition. I'm not sure we can do much better than this though. --Modocc (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Here, we are getting into one of the reasons for that screaming red notice at the top of this talk page. I remember discussions, now long-archived, about whether the lead sentence should refer to "the word atheism", and the consensus then, after very long and very heated discussion, was that we are not writing about the word, but about the concept. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair point but the archive is over 50 pages long. Consensus is formed between the editors currently editing an article, so could you summarise the stuff that you think is relevant to the current discussion please? My problem with the notion that we are writing about 'the concept' is a) that there is no single concept and b) that insofar as the current opening is about a single concept it is not really coherent as concepts don't have 'senses', words do. A concept is a concept but what we currently have are descriptions of three different concepts shoehorned into a single concept box in a way that assumes that they are compatible but different dimensions of the same thing rather than three discrete positions that share some conceptual overlap without being the same concept. So, that's one way of putting the problem I have. But what are the issues with either letting 'the word' lead or using an equivocal definition as Mavrodes does?BothHandsBlack (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTDICT, I oppose writing the lead sentence in terms of "the word". And per long-standing consensus, I see no reason to abandon a carefully crafted lead for the Mavrodes source, at least not without a thorough discussion. Really, it's close to being a solution in search of a problem. There's a reason those archives are so long: try to change the lead and things explode. I know from experience that anything that anyone comes up with for the lead will end up with someone else finding nitpicks with it, but I just don't think that the problem you identify is a big deal, nor that the proposed changes are that much of an improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Just type "the word atheism" (with quotes) into the handy-dandy "search the archives" box upstairs and you'll find PLENTY of past discussions. There really is no need to reinvent the wheel. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies but neither of you appear to have addressed any of the concerns I have raised. The talk page is for discussion. Please discuss rather than dictate. BothHandsBlack (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Sorry, 'dictate' is too strong a word. My point is, I'm not interested in forging a consensus with an unresponsive archive. If there are relevant arguments already there that you agree with then please direct me to those specifically. I'm sure you can understand it is a bit frustrating just being waved towards an archive when I don't know which bits of it represent the views you currently hold. BothHandsBlack (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, using that search function was good advice. Here: [5]. I assure you that nobody is meaning to be unresponsive, but you really are trying to reinvent the wheel here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

@BothHandsBlack: No offense, but the archives exist for several reasons, one of which is to prevent constant rehashing of the same old arguments over and over again. If you intend to edit an article, and most particularly a controversial article, it is your responsibility to take the time to familiarize yourself with the archives to figure out what the general consensus is and to avoid wasting other editors time explaning the same stuff again and again. You'll also get to know your fellow editors and better understand where they are coming from. It's part of the learning process, and it'll do you a whole bunch of good. And it's been made a whole lot easier with the search bar. Personally, I read the talk pages of the articles I was interested in editing for several months before I made my first edits. Dive in, and have fun! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed text

Note that the removed text here [6] was sourced and is relevant to the history of atheism. The start of the antiquity section sums things up: Western atheism has its roots in pre-Socratic Greek philosophy, but did not emerge as a distinct world-view until the late Enlightenment, I think it is clear then that this section is not implying Socrates etc were atheists (as well as text saying so: Although he disputed the accusation that he was a "complete atheist") but that they influenced western atheism. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see that you had started a section here so I outlined my concerns in the section below. Could you point me to the source that states that Socrates et al influenced western atheism? My concerns here are two-fold.

1) we could equally well say that Plato, the Academy, Aristotle and pretty much any Greek philosopher you care to name 'influenced western atheism' if we mean just that they provided philosophical resources on which later atheists were to draw. At no point does the current text indicate in what way Socrates was supposed to have been influential. The mere fact that a non-atheist was accused of atheism does not seem sufficient to justify their prominent inclusion in a history of atheism and it is also worth noting that the dispute over him being a 'complete atheist' is not directly related to the charges brought against him but, rather, the fact that he manages to bait Meletus into saying something stupid in the Apology. The actual charge against him was not that of atheism as it is understood in this article.

2) The text is currently phrased in such a way as to leave unclear the most important point re: atheism, which is that Socrates and the Epicureans explicitly believed in god. The phrasing around Epicurus is particularly problematic: "[Epicurus] did not rule out the existence of gods, he believed that if they did exist ...". This just isn't right. He didn't believe that if they existed then certain things followed; he believed that they did exist and certain things followed from this. To describe someone who explicitly holds that the gods exist as 'not ruling out the existence of gods' seems highly misleading. The Pope also does not rule out the existence of god but the equivocal formulation makes it sound as if there is some question over the matter when there is not (actually, there may be some interesting things to say about Epicurus and his presentation by Cicero in De Natura Deorum but I'll leave that aside until the current stuff is sorted out).

Basically, what are the criteria for inclusion in this section? At the moment it looks like it is just a grab-bag of names and doctrines that may be indirectly associated with some aspect of thought that has been adopted by modern atheist thinking. I would think that the place for such associations would be in the discussion of the later atheists who adapt said doctrines to actual atheist positions. BothHandsBlack (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the broader 'History of Atheism' article is much better re: classical antiquity. It deals far more succinctly with Socrates and locates him more clearly in relation to the relevant issues, so I would suggest we adopt this text instead of the present, far more problematic one: "Historically, any person who did not believe in any deity supported by the state was fair game to accusations of atheism, a capital crime. For political reasons, Socrates in Athens (399 BCE) was accused of being 'atheos' ("refusing to acknowledge the gods recognized by the state"). Despite the charges, he claimed inspiration from a divine voice (Daimon)." It might also be worth mentioning that he claimed he received his philosophical mission from the Delphic oracle of Apollo.

The section here on Epicureanism is also far more appropriate, so I would suggest we adopt this as well: "Also important in the history of atheism was Epicurus (c. 300 BCE). Drawing on the ideas of Democritus and the Atomists, he espoused a materialistic philosophy where the universe was governed by the laws of chance without the need for divine intervention. Although he stated that deities existed, he believed that they were uninterested in human existence. The aim of the Epicureans was to attain peace of mind by exposing fear of divine wrath as irrational. One of the most eloquent expressions of Epicurean thought is Lucretius' On the Nature of Things (first century BCE). The Epicureans also denied the existence of an afterlife.[22] Epicureans were not persecuted, but their teachings were controversial." This makes it clear exactly how Epicureanism was significant to the history of atheism without the dubious language being used to avoid simply stating that he believed in gods.

BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to argue against, and I wont. Agree. un☯mi 12:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that will be fodder for the sockpuppet conspiracy theorists over in the IP topic area :-) BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Funnily enough "You can't defend the indefensible" is what drives me in both topics, can't say I have the time or stomach for IP at the moment though. un☯mi 12:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Erm, the suggestion is completely absent of any sources. The sourcing does place importance on Epicurus, for example the wording is very faithful to the source [7]. Also note rather than pulling a large amount of content from a featured article it is better to give some time to fix the sourcing. Add verification failed to sources which you think don't verify the text. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The sourcing can be fixed easily enough if we can agree on a text. The problem may be that you are treating a BBC website as an RS for issues of classical philosophy where we should be turning to scholarly sources. I'm happy to provide the scholarly stuff but whether or not the current text matches what the BBC says or not, it does not match up with either the primary sources or scholarly discussions.BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

From the chapter on Theology (by Jaap Mansfeld) in the Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy (1999): "In the Epicurean system the gods play a dual role. they are important in the context of ethics, their blessedness and immortality in fact being the paradigm of what may be attained by mortal men, whereas their role in the context of Epicurean natural philosophy is entirely different from that attributed to them by other philosophers. Epicurus' primary aim is to establish that thhe gods cannot, consistently with their blessed state, be in any way involved in what happens in nature, let alone in what happens to humans." (p. 463) Note that the equivocation over the existence of the gods in the BBC source is not in any way replicated here and, in my experience, this is pretty much standard across the scholarship. There is an interesting argument to be had about whether the Epicurean theology was taken seriously by the Epicureans, a point jokingly made by Cotta, Cicero's Academic spokesman in De Natura Deorum, but bar that all the primary evidence is pretty consistent. The gods do exist, they just play no role in the ordering of the world. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue with relying on an editors experience with the topic is the WP:OR. The current text can be consistent with the above source by changing it from While Epicureanism did not rule out the existence of gods, he believed that if they did exist, they were unconcerned with humanity to Epicurus believed that if the Gods did exist, they were uninvolved with humanity or nature. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not planning on engaging in any OR (too much work!), I'm just trying to tell you what the RSs say. The version you give here may be consistent with the BBC website but it is not consistent with the scholarship. Inserting 'if' when there is no 'if' about it is simply inaccurate. Here's a secondary source that is pretty much standard in the subject area - the commentary from Long and Sedley's The Hellenistic Philosophers, vol. 1 (p. 147) : "We now come to a major stumbling block. If the above interpretation of Epicurean gods as our own instinctive thought-constructs is correct [this is a rather controversial view, by the way], was Epicurus not an atheist? That inference was indeed frequently drawn by his critics, but both Epicurus himself and his followers vehemently denied it, and in source H Epicurus is reported to have been pointedly rude about three of his predecessors standardly listed as 'atheists'. Moreover, while some later Epicureans adhered to the interpretation advanced above ..., many others represented his gods as real living beings. Most modern scholars have accepted this latter interpretation as correct." Admittedly this goes back to 1985 but things don't move terribly quickly in this field and the book is still a standard text, and the report of the scholarly consensus is still accurate. Do you have an RS that backs up the equivocations in the BBC source? BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That is the opposite way that things should be done, we get the sourcing first then the text. If we agree on the text beforehand it will be pure OR and then backup up with cherry picked sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not currently supported by a reliable source in any case. What I mean by finding the sources is that I work in this area professionally and can find the sources to support all elements of the text I have given pretty quickly because it is a fair representation of current views on the subject (in a way that the BBC source is not - contrast it to Mansfeld quoted below). What I want to know is whether there are elements here that you don't think need to be included or whether you think that there are elements missing or some nuance that needs to be emphasised. If I know that then I can find everything in one go rather than wasting time sourcing stuff that doesn't need to be there. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with changing it to Epicurus believed that the Gods did exist but that they were uninvolved with humanity or nature. if that is what you are suggesting? The other pieces on Epicurus can be discussed separately when the sources are present.IRWolfie- (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion for the Epicurus paragraph is as follows:

Also important in the history of atheism was Epicurus (c. 300 BCE). Drawing on the ideas of Democritus and the Atomists, he espoused a materialistic philosophy where the universe was governed by the laws of chance without the need for divine intervention. Although he stated that deities existed, he believed that they were uninterested in human existence. The aim of the Epicureans was to attain peace of mind and one important way of doing this was by exposing fear of divine wrath as irrational. The Epicureans also denied the existence of an afterlife and the need to fear divine punishment after death.

I've only put in one source as this material is all covered in the Stanford encyclopedia article. Does that work for you? BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

How about this for Socrates? "Socrates (c. 471–399 BCE) was associated in the Athenian public mind with the trends in pre-Socratic philosophy towards naturalistic inquiry and the rejection of divine explanations for phenomena. Although such an interpretation misrepresents his thought he was portrayed in such a way in Aristophanes’ comic play Clouds and was later to be tried and executed for impiety and corrupting the young. At his trial Socrates is reported as vehemently denying that he was an atheist and contemporary scholarship provides little reason to doubt this claim." (Jan Bremmer 2007, ‘Atheism in Antiquity’, Cambridge Companion to Atheism, p. 14-19)BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If the source verfies the text then I think the proposal is fine. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

On looking at the source I notice it says that socrates was considered to be something like an atheist. (I don't have access to pages 16-17, google preview). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

P.19? If so, that is in connection to Aristophanes' portrayal of him in the Clouds. The play was performed during Socrates' life and he refers to it in the Apology as being a major source for the reputation that led to the charges against him. He is not actually portrayed as an atheist there but, rather, as being a kind of hybrid between a naturalist pre-Socratic and a nihilist sophist. He is presented, there, as making various natural phenomena his gods (a cosmic whorl, if memory serves) and is associated with Anaxagoras. I think it's fair to say that this presentation is 'something like an atheist' but this is more based on an interest in physical principles than a denial of, or suspension of judgement about, god (see also the stuff on p.14). It's also an interpretation of his thought that was fitted for something approximating a comedy show where Socrates stands in as the spokesman for all socially dangerous philosophy in Athens at the time, since he was the most prominent thinker of the period. But it is a view of himself that he directly rejects in the Apology so it is more interesting as a source for what it tells us about Athenian concerns with the new learning than as a source for Socrates himself. I wouldn't have a problem with adding a little more emphasis to the 'public perception' dimension but I would be wary of going too far as it already outweighs his actual thought and I'm not sure how important the public Athenian perception of Socrates was to the history of atheism other than making some people a little more cautious about expressing non-traditional views in public (Plato is one who has sometimes been said to have actually been an esotoric atheist/agnostic). By the way, if you are only missing 16-17 you have all the stuff on Socrates - those two pages are mainly concerned with Critias. BothHandsBlack (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

if possible it might be good to mention the public perception so as to correct it. By the looks of it, that correction has due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The first two of the three sentences are already concerned entirely with the public perception. Do you want to suggest an alternative version? BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood, rejection of divine explanations for phenomena is different than being an atheist. One could be both a theist and reject divine explanations for phenomena. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's exactly the point. Socrates wasn't an atheist but at that time natural philosophers who sought non-divine causal explanations were regarded with suspicion by some and treated as 'something like atheists'. It is just as threatening to the social order to say that the gods are not responsible for these elements in our experience as it is to say that the gods do not exist. So when Bremmer says that Socrates was thought of as something like an atheist he is indicating these elements in the public perception of his views. He is not suggesting that the public perception was that he didn't believe in gods at all (although its possible at least some people might have thought this, the idea that it was a common belief is unlikely or it would have appeared on the charge sheet against him at his trial) but that he supplanted traditional divinity-based explanations for some phenomena with rational explanations or with explanations based on his own understanding of the divine. BothHandsBlack (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's just that your suggested text says that Socrates rejected that his views were the rejection of divine explanations for phenomena. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That's right. The public perception of him as some kind of naturalistic pre-Socratic is wrong. So the public view of him as 'something like an atheist' is an inaccurate view of him (which is why it shouldn't be given too much weight). According to our more reliable sources it does not reflect his actual thought (in the Phaedo Plato has his Socrates say that he very briefly played with physical explanations as a youth before turning to ethics and focussing on teleology, something that physics was unable to adequately cover) but is, rather, a caricature of his views that quite likely came about because Aristophanes used a character called 'Socrates' to stand in for all the new intellectual views in Athens when he wrote the Clouds. So, we have two things: a) Socrates' actual views - definitely not an atheist and also not a natural philosopher; and b) the incorrect public perception of Socrates - not actually an atheist but something like an atheist because he is thought to be interested in natural explanations that may supplant divine explanations and thus diminish the status of the gods. BothHandsBlack (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The proposed text is fine by me. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Also on Socrates, I don't see how you can say that Socrates is irrelevant. the section is discussing the history of atheism in particular with respect to ancient greece, the well sourced sentencing to death of a highly notable historical figure accused of atheism is very relevant to the history. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The thing is the formal charges against him weren't of atheism as we understand it now but of impiety (including the introduction of new gods) and corrupting the youth. At one point (Apology 26c if memory serves) Socrates tricks his accuser Meletus into saying that Socrates doesn't believe in any gods but this is just to show that Meletus is not a serious disputant as he has charged Socrates with introducing new gods and is thus shown to be inconsistent with himself in the manner typical of discussions in Plato's 'early' Socratic dialogues. That particular claim is never actually a formal charge against Socrates and is not something he is found guilty of; it is just an inconsistent mistake that Meletus makes when being cross-examined by Socrates. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

On to Protagoras then. This one strikes me as a bit tricky. My initial reaction was to remove Protagoras because he was an agnostic rather than an atheist and also because his relativism demands that if someone else believes in the gods then that belief will be true for them. But I've since become aware of the long-running discussion here as to the relationship between atheism and agnosticism. Given this, I'm not sure what the best way to approach him is because, whilst this article has a broad understanding of atheism my memory of most of the secondary sources on this topic is that atheism and agnosticism are presented as opposed. In the Bremmer piece, for instance, we read "It is clear from this quote that Protagoras was an agnostic rather than an atheist, as Cicero in his De natura deorum (I.1.2) still recognised" (by the way, I have found a draft of the full text of Bremmer's chapter here http://theol.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2006/Atheism/Bremmer-Atheism.pdf, so I'll refer to this as we both have access to it and then just fix the pagination when finalising things for insertion into the article). In general, scholarship on ancient thought treats the two as quite distinct and frequently opposed notions because atheism was held to be a 'dogmatic' position, as was theism, whilst agnosticism was associated with skeptics or relativists who rejected all the positive views of the dogmatists. So, how do you think we should approach this distinction in our sources in the context of an article that seeks to conflate the two? BothHandsBlack (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that I haven't abandoned the discussion and will have a look at this today or this weekend. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. No hurry. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

How about:

Prodicus made clear atheistic statements in his work, Philodemus noted that Prodicus believed that "the gods of popular belief do not exist". Protagoras has sometimes been taken to be an atheist but rather espoused agnostic views, commenting that Concerning the gods I am unable to discover whether they exist or not, or what they are like in form; for there are many hindrances to knowledge, the obscurity of the subject and the brevity of human life.

reference to, ^ Martin, ed. by Michael (2007). The Cambridge companion to atheism (1. publ. ed.). Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 9780521603676,

I worked off the draft so I'm not sure how faithfully it follows the reviewed version. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. If you want to add it in I'll chase up the page numbers and insert those later today. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Prodicus' quote I think that the whole thing deserves inclusion if possible, it seems a valuable passage imo ‘that the gods of popular belief do not exist nor do they know, but primitive man, [out of admiration, deified] the fruits of the earth and virtually everything that contributed to his existence’ - The 2 quotes seem to present early but strikingly well-developed examples of atheism and agnosticism, respectively. un☯mi 14:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. Missed this earlier. Yes, I think that is a good idea. BothHandsBlack (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Classical Antiquity section

Some problems with the classical antiquity section:

1. Socrates - Why include someone who did not consider himself to be an atheist, is not held to be an atheist by modern scholars, was not held to be an atheist by his contemporaries and was not held to be an atheist (in the sense outlined in the lead) even by his accusers, in a section on the history of atheism? The history intro states: "ideas that would be recognized today as atheistic" appear in classical antiquity but what are these in relation to Socrates? What is the significance of this material for the article?

2. The statement that Protagoras 'probably had atheistic views' is not supported by a source. What are the grounds for this claim?

3. The description of Epicurus and Lucretius as 'not ruling out the possibility' that there are gods is inaccurate. They both state explicitly that there are gods so why are they included in a section on the history of atheism? BothHandsBlack (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Ive gone ahead and restored a passage from this section which BothHandsBlack had removed without comment. -Stevertigo (t | c) 00:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

BothHandsBlack also added a much more detailed passage with his removal of the old passage. The old passage is now redundant to the new one. --Modocc (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies about the lack of an edit summary on that but the new passage was the result of a fairly extensive discussion with IRWolfie above. The material that has been returned is, I think, a bit redundant but if your main interest is in retaining the detailed footnotes it shouldn't be too hard to rework them a little to fit with the new text. BothHandsBlack (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)