The definition of atheism has been repeatedly argued on this talk page. Before suggesting substantial changes, please make sure that your view is entirely supported by reliable sources and has a neutral point of view.
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.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Atheism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Atheism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia'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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. 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 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 [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.
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).
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. 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 articles
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 Wikipedia'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. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
atheism is personocratic (it is non-personocratic, but studies the "personocratic criterion" and in philosophy and not only; categories are grouped with the hypernymic criterion of focus) (focused on the denial of the supposed precosmic cosmogonic person); naturalism is physiocratic/naturocratic (it is the pure metaphysics of physics; without a personocratic bias [it is impersonal but it's not that its main point])
atheism is a negation; naturalism not
atheism as a term is famous nowadays; naturalism is not and doesn't have enough followers (it's not self-evident on philosophical doctrines people to easily move from one idea to a better defined)
usually (but according to Pew Reseach, Robert Sapolsky and many others) they both accept only science (partially won't do, because theists do the same; partiality here is a bad criterion for categorization)
Latest comment: 2 months ago57 comments15 people in discussion
On the order, wording, and framing of the three definitions in the first paragraph of the lede, which currently is:
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
It has been stipulated that the middling definition is more commonly found in dictionaries and among the general population and should have primacy, and that the status quo gives the broad definition WP:Undue weight, however the broad definition is supported by a plurality of recent academia and its primacy allows for a natural procession into narrower definitions.
An alternative might be:
Atheism is the absence of or rejection of belief in the existence of a god or gods. In a narrower sense, atheism is the position or belief that there are no deities. (needs to be edited slightly)
Simply here to help guide you..... have no vested interest in the article. Can we get an example of the changes.... As in now and text to be..... and a few sources of academic caliber. .... Feel free to erase this comment at will. Moxy🍁 22:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment. I don't like the muddling. The definition of atheism is, by the very word itself, "not theism"—anything but an affirmative answer to the question "Do you believe one or more gods exist?". So, the definition is the first one; the other two are subsets of atheism, not definitions of it. Certainly, people who reject such claims or affirmatively assert that no gods exist are indeed atheists, but they are not the only types of atheists. So, just use the actual definition (an absence of belief in the existence of deities) as the definition, and then the rest of the article can cover various subcategories and subsets of that. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Surely this is an exception as tertiary academic sources aimed at defining atheism provide an overview of the material, which is what is useful when deciding on something like this Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) Which dictionaries? I just tried Merriam-Webster ([1]), which gives a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods, Cambridge ([2]) the fact of not believing in any god or gods, or the belief that no god or gods exist:, dictionary.com ([3]) disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or a supreme being or beings.. I'd have to go to the library to look at the OED, but I imagine it's similar. But certainly those three all give the "lack of belief" definition. SeraphimbladeTalk to me23:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Here's some dictionary definitions:
Cambridge dictionary: the fact of not believing in any god or gods, or the belief that no god or gods exist
Collins dictionary: Atheism is the belief that there is no God
Oxford learners dictionary: the belief that God or gods do not exist
Merriam webster: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
OED: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of a God
Chambers: the belief that there is no god
Brittanica: a person who believes that God does not exist
Well, the OED one really doesn't work well at all, being incomplete. Those are a subset of atheists, but not the whole. Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, etc., encapsulate the whole thing. So, we should start with the complete definition of the entire thing, and then drill down into subsets as the article continues. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I disagree because the broad definition is less common, especially among the general population, and giving it primacy would be giving it WP:Undue weight. We should prioritise focussing on representing the popularity of academic definitions as accurately as we can, and then secondly making it flow, or summarise the article Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure what the fact that a term is sometimes, or even commonly, misused, has anything to do with what the article should read at all. We don't say "literal" means "figurative but meant really strongly" just because a lot of people misuse it like that. If a lot of people misunderstand what something means, that makes it all the more important that the article describe it accurately. SeraphimbladeTalk to me09:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
? There is no actual meaning, dictionaries are the authority on what a word means and they alter or differ on their definitions often. I think you view reality as overly absolutist and totally independent of perception. Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agree [that "they alter or differ on their definitions often"]. I was raised in a university town, the home of UNC. The few dictionaries my school and town's libraries had in the 60s and 70s listed only the active disbelief definitions. The first time I encountered the broadest "not believing" definition was with Smith's book Atheism: The Case Against God (1974). Even today if an elderly preacher here were to inform me that his "atheist grandson" needs to be saved I would certainly assume he means a rebellious grandson who is not a toddler. Modocc (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think disbelief is a good word that sits in the middle of passive and active. I'd be okay with moving rejection to the second sentence to be honest. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
As I have said before (and not to be redundant but I repeat here for the benefit of others) the broadest definition that is adopted by The Oxford Handbook of Atheism (2013) is "Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of a God or gods" (page 4). Stephen Bullivant its co-editor writes that "...the great utility of this definition [the broadest], and its pervasive – although not universal (see Baggini 2003: 3; Cliteur 2009; Eller 2010) – deployment in recent scholarship on contemporary atheism, more than support its usage." Of course, these other definitions are not as broad, but Wikipedia has included it in the lede since day one. [4]. Modocc (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The currently lede is super clunky and unclear. The second and third sentences are saying the same thing as each other.
I support Modocc's suggestion from The Oxford Handbook of Atheism, i.e. "Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of a God or gods" for the lede. With the exception of going with 'a deity or deities' instead of "God or gods" as it avoids the theologically difficult issue of capitalising "God".
As with every subject in every humanities discipline, there is no one single right answer, which the editors of the handbook point out. However we have to start somewhere, and this definition is simple clear and succinct, which is what the lede should be.
Further distinctions between the kinds of atheists, the common misunderstanding of the difference between atheism and agnosticism etc. can be elucidated in the body of the article with appropriate sources. Morgan Leigh | Talk03:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Er, the rejection of believing that something is true is not the same as believing its negation. Is there a card in my wallet, yes or no? Perhaps most days there is, but you can reject that belief without believing there is no card. Dictionaries, Smith and other reliable sources distinguish between them too. See also the Wiktionary entry). Because of this, I favor keeping the status quo, especially since this talkpage has been relatively quiet the past 8 years with it given this newer source material. Modocc (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
That Wiktionary definition for atheism is actually incorrect as it includes "a belief that there is insufficient evidence to believe in a god." which is actually agnosticism, see Wiktionary entry agnosticism "The view that absolute truth or ultimate certainty is unattainable, especially regarding knowledge not based on experience or perceivable phenomena." and "The view that the existence of God or of all deities is unknown, unknowable, unproven, or unprovable."
In this context "the rejection of believing that something is true" is agnosticism whereas "believing its negation." is atheism.
Comment - this article covers the entire topic of atheism, which necessarily spans thousands of years of history. During that time, the definition of atheism has expanded, contracted and evolved over time. But the definition of the word is a matter for dictionaries, not encyclopedias. The introductory paragraph of this article has been discussed extensively and exhaustively on many separate occasions, as a perusal through the talk page archive will reveal, and in each and every case the consensus has affirmed the current arrangement of introducing atheism by its widest scope and ending with its narrowest (and least used). This approach is well supported by scholarly sources, which is why it came about in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I really don't get this point, the function of the first sentence/paragraph per WP:Lede is to define the topic. Are you saying we shouldn't prioritise including an accurate definition? Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The words topic (an encyclopedia thing) and definition (a dictionary thing) are not interchangeable, and it is my view that the topic is much broader than just the definition of the word. The reason for the structure of the introduction has already been explained to you above, mulitple times. You have already stated your opposition to my point of view and you do not need to restate that opposition in the RfC. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm amazed you don't think an accurate definition or series of definitions should be prioritised. The reasoning for the structure of the introduction is purely just aesthetics, and should come secondary to putting an accurate definition. Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to apologise for my conduct on this page, I've been too combative and adversarial from the start, as well as mindless. Whilst I still think the first paragraph can be improved upon, this wasn't the right way to go about it. I do think the paragraph could do with being rewritten to ensure more clarity for the reader, such as having a broad academic definition, and then going into its popular associations as scepticism, personal rejection of religious belief, and absolute rejection of religious belief on an academic level. I think this should be able to be done in one sentence following the broad definition. Regardless, I'll unwatch this page and leave it to people more knowledgeable than me on the topic. Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sources:
Oxford Handbook of Atheism (2013), Defining atheism [5]:
The precise definition of atheism is both a vexed and vexatious issue ... Etymologically, atheism is derived from the classical Greek a- (normally meaning 'not' or 'without') and theos ('god') ... there is no clear, academic consensus on how exactly the term should be used ... a study of over 700 students found ... the most popular choice was "A person who believes there is no God, or gods" The chapter argues for the broad definition
Malik (2018): Defining Atheism and the Burden of Proof [6]:
In this paper I demonstrate how certain contemporary atheists have problematically conflated atheism with agnosticism (knowingly or unknowingly). The first type of conflation is semantic fusion, where the lack of belief in God is combined with the outright denial of God, under the single label of ‘atheism’... Conflating these positions under the single term ‘atheism’ mischaracterises agnostics and inflates the territory of atheists. I don't have access to the article
Cliteur (2009) [7]: argues for the broad definition
Atheism in the sense coined above seems also a defensible position. The only problem is that hardly anybody follows the semantic convention that I have proposed. In popular parlance, atheism is associated with all kinds of negative ideas and attitudes, especially with the way it can be defended. Atheists have a reputation for being arrogant, militant, missionary, zealous, and also impolite if not rude. For that very reason George Jacob Holyoake coined the word “secularism".
Oppose change, Keep Status quo. I think the ideal way to phrase it is the current structure of the first paragraph of the lede, which goes from the broadest historical sense to the most specific. The proposed change muddies the water for no clear benefit. Psychastes (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
the current definition is wholly accurate, and despite writing quite a lot on this talk page, you've laid out no coherent argument to the contrary. Psychastes (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
You haven't read much then. When I say accurate, I mean the emphasis placed on each represents their popularity/frequency of use. So putting the broad one first despite not being the popular definition, nor the agreed upon scholarly one gives it WP:Undue weight. Does that make sense? Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
your argument defeats itself, by the very source you quoted, there is no clear, academic consensus on how exactly the term should be used. hence, incoherent. Psychastes (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
That makes no sense, I'm not saying there should only be one definition. Never have I said that, you've just ignored or not understood what I wrote above. Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Though I know over all topic I found the discussion like WP:TLDR, hence did not participate. May be synopsis of previous discussion would have helped? Bookku (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I did try to put my argument in the RfC post but obv not clear enough (not saying I’m right, just saying it hasn’t really been addressed) Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose change, for the lede is accurate and it reflects, with due weight, the various academic source descriptions of what atheism is. Bullivant's assertion that the broadest definition has gained academic weight amongst many scholars justifies their present order. Before that, the ubiquitous disbelief/rejection definitions were considered to be more befitting of rational thought than the other two definitions. Prior to that, dictionaries tended to favor the narrowest definition, but now many have changed so as to be inclusive of the broadest definition. Modocc (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Summary - there appears to be strong consensus for the status quo as of now
Comment - I have the impression that most atheists use the broad definition, but that the narrow definition is preferred by Christian apologists. I suspect the reason for this is that missionary-minded religious institutions want to make a distinction between those non-believers who are reachable (characterized as "hungry for the truth" or "ripe for evangelism") and those whose ideas are so fixed that they won't be convinced by an evangelizer and might even get the better of him in an argument (characterized as hostile, angry and dangerous, driven by a desire to be free to sin). The latter group are called atheists to make this distinction. My own journey out of Evangelicalism means that I know this thinking very well. For what it's worth, today I understand my atheism to mean: "There is no god in my worldview and no god in my life, and I feel no desire for one, and I've already invested the time to give religion a chance, and I'm not going to do it again because I have a life to live." Now I realize that that is very personal and subjective, but I talk regularly to people in exvangelical circles, and generally speaking, people who self-identify as atheists are saying something like that. Doric Loon (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
It wasn't my intention to air my views so much as to share my experience on the question under discussion. I know it is anecdotal and way short of an RS, but it is relevant to what goes into the article. Doric Loon (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose the proposed alternative. I think there's some room to improve the current text - having three very similar definitions in the lead is not ideal - but Atheism is the absence of or rejection of belief in the existence of a God is obviously not acceptable because it's written from a weirdly monotheistic perspective, both in terms of a god, singular, and in terms of capitalizing the first letter of "god", which makes it seem like it's referring to a specific deity or somesuch. No rationale has been presented for why we would move away from "deities", plural, which is present in all three definitions currently used and which is more neutral because it encompasses all the various deities of multiple different faiths. I'd strenuously oppose any version that uses "god", singular, in any context, or which uses a capital-g for god in any context. --Aquillion (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment. From reading the discussions before this RFC and the various academic and dictionary sources, editors seem to agree that that the 1st ("broadest") definition (absence of belief) appears less often than the 2nd and 3rd definitions (rejection of belief, or outright belief in the opposite) both within the set of dictionary definitions and within the set of academic definitions. In fact, it appears that some academic papers outright reject the inclusion of the 1st, broadest definition. I wouldn't be opposed to writing that says "atheism is the 2nd and 3rd definition. Less often, atheism also more broadly means the 1st definition." This sentence would most closely describe the current state of literature on this topic. spintheer (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
change
"""
Historically, evidence of atheistic viewpoints can be traced back to classical antiquity and early Indian philosophy. In the Western world, atheism declined as Christianity gained prominence.
"""
to
"""
Historically, evidence of atheistic viewpoints can be traced back to classical antiquity and early Indian philosophy. In the Western world, atheism declined as Christianity gained prominence[citation needed].
""" Jjamesstark (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion
I have not read this article or the preceding Talk comments, so, if what I write here is redundant, then I apologize. But the third definition -- "the position that there are no deities" -- is ambiguous. On the one hand, a person who takes that position might insist on the truth of a negative, but to do that requires an act of faith, and few atheists are foolish enough to do that. After all, atheists are generally people who do not believe things on faith. On the other hand, I take the position that there are no deities, not as an act of faith, but because no evidence of them is known to exist. Therefore, my taking of that position is provisional, because, if evidence were discovered, I would consider altering my position. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
The sources states that in a narrow sense it is a position. It does not matter how people come to that position as there is no one path to reach it, any more than for theism (faith, reason, evidence etc are not unique, but universal). Ramos1990 (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am not interested in editing this article, so feel free to ignore this comment, but the third definition is ambiguous, for the reason I stated; it doesn't merely seem ambiguous. And it is unequivocally ambiguous, not just "a little ambiguous." If the body of scholarly work on the subject overlooks or writes off this ambiguity (if that's what you mean), then so much the worse for the body of scholarly work on the subject. Maurice Magnus (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
The third definition is strong or positive atheism as in "there is no Thor and no divinity either". It is true it can be provisional, as in "there is no divinity unless one becomes evident". Nevertheless, positive atheism is notable hence its inclusion in the lede. Also the degree it's provisional or not largely depends on context and individual assessments which falls a bit outside its scope, although I am reminded of Richard Dawkins' spectrum of theistic probability. Modocc (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with everything you say here, but I want to emphasize that the difference between a strong atheist (in Dawkins' terms) and a provisional one is crucial, because the former, like a strong theist, believes irrationally, as a matter of faith, and deserves no more respect a strong theist who claims to know that a god exists.
I disagree with Dawkins' description of the strongest atheist after that a "strong atheist." It is "De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. 'I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'" I consider myself a stronger atheist than that, without being a "strong atheist" in Dawkins' sense. That is because I would not say that I don't know for certain that a god doesn't exist. I would say that nobody can know for certain. But I have no more doubt about the non-existence of a god than I do about the non-existence of flying pigs, while I acknowledge that I can't "know" the non-existence of either.
I concede that I may be conflating logic and feelings here. Logically, I acknowledge the possibility that a god exists, but I do not feel that there is any possibility. The person who uses Dawkins' phrase, "I don't know for certain," sounds as though he feels that there is a possibility, however close to zero, that a god exists. How's that for nitpicking? Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
See Agnostic atheism. It makes a clear distinction between knowing (we do not or cannot know) and not believing because we do not have a belief in a god (or a divinity) and we may believe there is no god (provisionally on account of one's agnosticism). Modocc (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
