Talk:Atheism

Definitions and Distinctions

The last sentence in this sections reads:

There are various terms atheists use to self-describe, including humanist, skeptic, agnostic, bright, nontheist, secularist, freethinker, nonbeliever, and rationalist.[36]

The reference link on the page leads to a personal blog of which the original text reads:

Consider the multitude of other ways to describe a non-believer: Agnostic, Atheist, Bright, Ethical Culturalist, Freethinker, Humanist, Infidel, Naturalist, Nihilist, Non-believer,Non-theist, Objectivist, Realist, Rationalist, Secular Humanist, Secularist, Skeptic, Transhumanist....

So not only is the reference an unreliable source, the reference material has been manipulated to the editors liking and is, in my opinion, not neutral. I would suggest removal and would like to hear opinions. -Percelle (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Not having looked at the ref at all, I'd just have to point out that it seems likely we'd be able to find other references to support that statement even if it turns out our current sourcing is sub-par. I think it's likely these terms are occasionally used to refer to the same thing in some reliable sources. If I get a chance, I'll look over the current source and, if necessary, see if I can suggest alternatives. In the meantime, I don't think outright removing the sentence without first looking for better sources is the best step forward. Feel free to disagree, obviously :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that sentence was just added very recently, and I'm not convinced that it helps that much. (WP:NOTDICT, and all that.) I don't feel very strongly, but I'd kind of lean towards just deleting it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the language is very "weasely." Perhaps suggesting that those particular groups are atheists, when in reality they can be distinctive. That is at least how I perceived it. I'd also agree trypto that it doesn't add much. I think the related concepts section covers that pretty well. Would like to hear more. :) -207.119.115.145 (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way, so don't let my opposition stand in the way. If consensus is to cut it out, then go for it. Personally, I think if we have a strong source which says that atheists sometimes self-describe in this way, then that would belong in the Atheism article. Then again, until we have a strong source, that point is moot.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I just added a source. Pass a Method talk 09:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The source link doesn't display the book page. Can we verify that the source supports the material? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if one source said it, how authoritative is it? The phrase is unnecessary and misleading, since these words all cover different concepts. This blog post by the same author [1] makes me think that this guy likes to lump all atheists together, and that is exactly what that phrase is.--Jules.LT (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand, I don't think we need to set a very high standard for simply sourcing the fact that various terms are used; that, in itself, is not a big deal. I agree with your point that it is a bigger deal to imply that all atheists can be placed into a single group (cf our famous lead sentence!), although I suppose we could word the passage to indicate that the terms are not all used interchangeably. But, on the other hand, I'm not really convinced that we need to have a thesaurus list in this article at all, regardless of the sourcing. Again, WP:NOTDICT. I'm not sold on it being sufficiently encyclopedic to include it at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I just re-deleted it, and I think it should stay deleted. It was cited to a page that doesn't exist in the book. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that the first two sentences are unclear, in that they seem to almost define atheism the same way twice (first the broad way, defined as 'rejecting', and then the narrow way, 'believing theism to be false', which is essentially just 'rejecting' again). Shouldn't it be "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the lack* of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities" instead? Related reading: http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/LackBeliefGod.htm (i.e. the god claim is an assertion, atheist is defined in the same way as asexual or apolitical, one who is not a theist in the broad sense. A lack of belief in the theistic assertion, not belief in another assertion of there being no god, which most atheists also deride as non-scientific from what I've seen on the largest atheism web forums). AnOnlineHandle (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There have been roughly eleventy-billion discussions about this already (see talk page archive) and the only thing we could all agree on is that nobody agrees with each other. All I can say is that the existing language is from a consensus formed from exhaustive debate and discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a real shame if that's where it ends up, because it describes 'atheism' as an assertion, when by grammatical definition, and by practical implementation (there's no scripture etc), it's the lack of a common assertion (akin to asexual or apolitical). AnOnlineHandle (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"Lack" implies a deficiency. One definition (included in the lede) is simple "absence" (rather than "lack"). In my opinion, defining atheism in terms of absence is a howler, since (lacking further qualification) it would include mathematics and music as forms of atheism, and brain-dead people, ants, cabbages - and even rocks - as atheists. Regrettably, that howler gets to be kept in our article because it appears in the literature from reliable sources. Reliable sources also clearly contain a distinction between rejecting belief in the existence of X and asserting the non-existence of X, even if some minds lack the distinction. Also, 1>the narrow def is not presented as "believing theism to be false", and 2> see etymological fallacy. If a person is an explicit atheist (as it seems you are), then such a person has heard about deities and has made a determination that belief in deities is not for them, i.e. has rejected such belief. ----JimWae (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I was more so concerned about that other people (trying to insist that 'atheist' is a positive assertion or a faith) won't bother to differentiate between the first and second definition, as the first does lend itself to an equivocation in my opinion (using the word 'reject') if one wanted to be pigheaded about straw manning 'atheists' (broadly) as something which we are not. "Absence" would be fine. To be honest, I have used the argument that atheism describes all who are without theism, including rocks/trees/etc, only to point out that it's possible to not be a theist without claiming that theism is wrong (obviously it's a confusing argument, and I've decided that it's better to just stick to examples such as people who have never heard of a given religion's claims, or those who don't accept say alien life as being definitively true, but don't say that it is untrue, ruling out the 'necessary dichotomy' mode of thought). AnOnlineHandle (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Huh, I thought "atheist rocks" was a theist's straw man, but apparently at least one atheist does claim that rocks are atheists. Me, I'd never include inanimate objects, defining an atheist as "someone who has no belief in deities", not "something that has no belief in deities". ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Two definitions of atheism are widely used: "absence of belief in deities" and "belief in the nonexistence of deities". "Rejection of belief" is just an unclear, awkwardly worded compromise. Let's remove that last one and push "Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist." to the first place --Jules.LT (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's an awkwardly worded compromise. However, I strongly suggest that no one attempt to forge another compromise without realizing beforehand just how awkward such an effort will become. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me word out my proposal of rearrangement of the existing opening definitions (as opposed to outright changing them):

"Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7]; in a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5]"

--Jules.LT (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way to word that, that would start with "Atheism is...", instead of "Most inclusively,", and that would avoid saying "is simply" so early in the sequence, where it sounds sort of apologetic? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

From the top of the article:

The 3 definitions presented in the first paragraph were arrived at after extensive debate and searches of existing sources. It has been the consensus since April 2007 to present all three of these definitions in the first paragraph, and it was in that manner that the article achieved FA status.

If we are going to start discussing which of the three to remove, I am sure there would be points raised against all 3. Personally, I think the absence def is a howler - and there are reliable sources that agree. The rejection def (which covers ALL explicit atheists) is the only one of the three for which there are no reliable sources opposing it. Three definitions exist, and it is not our place to decide which to remove.--JimWae (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

After some research, I'm afraid that the statu quo seems best for now. Although it is definitely our place as contributors to change whatever we feel makes Wikipedia better. It's just that sometimes you need a wider consensus to do it.--Jules.LT (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It is, indeed, very difficult to get consensus on this one. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand: Schwadel's study

In the article in the demographic section I read that "Sociologist Philip Schwadel found that higher levels of education correlate with greater tolerance for atheists' public opposition to religion, greater skepticism of religious leaders, and a reconsideration of "the role of religion in secular society" (Schwadel, Philip (2011). "The Effects of Education on Americans’ Religious Practices, Beliefs, and Affiliations". Review of Religious Research 53).
It seems to me that Schwadel's study is reported in a strange or selective way as in the abstract of this article we can read: "I challenge the scholarly contention that increases in education uniformly lead to declines in religious participation, belief, and affiliation. I argue that education influences strategies of action, and these strategies of action are relevant to some religious beliefs and activities but not others. Analysis of survey data shows that (1) education negatively affects exclusivist religious viewpoints and biblical literalism but not belief in God or the afterlife; (2) education positively affects religious participation, devotional activities, and emphasizing the importance of religion in daily life; (3) education positively affects switching religious affiliations, particularly to a mainline Protestant denomination, but not disaffiliation; (4) education is positively associated with questioning the role of religion in secular society but not with support for curbing the public opinions of religious leaders; and (5) the effects of education on religious beliefs and participation vary across religious traditions. Education does influence Americans’ religious beliefs and activities, but the effects of education on religion are complex. KeywordsEducation–Social class–Culture–Religious tradition"[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.136.58 (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked, and that is indeed what the source abstract says. However, I think that "higher levels of education correlate with greater tolerance for atheists' public opposition to religion" (from our page) may be consistent with "education negatively affects exclusivist religious viewpoints and biblical literalism" (the source), and "greater skepticism of religious leaders" (page) with "education is positively associated with questioning the role of religion in secular society" (source). I guess the question comes down to where the source follows each point with a qualifying "but", and our summary leaves that out, in a manner that may alter the emphasis. Should we revise it? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

1) "consistent"? but this proves that the sentences are a bit ambiguous if you have to interpret them in order to find a consistency. WP should be more clear. I propose to quote as written in the abstract so there are no problems. 2) Why is not reported that Schwadel challenges that increases in education uniformly lead to declines in religious participation, belief, and affiliation?--2.40.151.148 (talk) 08:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We should be able to do better than to simply quote verbatim and at length from the source. I'm not arguing that anyone needs to interpret anything. What I'm saying is that the sentences on the page correctly report what seems to be the main points of the source, but leave out what the source says after the qualifying "but"s. And I'm not disagreeing with making what we say reflect that part of what the source says. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

TMHO, this hereabove jesuitical "ballet" about correctly reporting or interpreting, and hard-fighting on each and every single sentence in an abstract of a source... reveals the never-ending try, by quibbling believers, to entangle any discussion as soon as it deals with matters like faith (or non-faith), the role of the church, etc...

BTW : has anyone actually read the original Schwadel article "The Effects of Education on Americans’ Religious Practices, Beliefs, and Affiliations" ??? And has it been checked if the disputed "abstract" faithfully reflects the contents of the article ? The funny thing would be that the quibbled-upon abstract didn't "correctly report" the real text ! lol...

--Mezzkal (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

All one has to do, to read the full article, is to click on the DOI link in the citation on the page. Anyway, I've made a revision to the sentence in question, and I think it now accurately reflects the source. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Mezzkal, I was not disputing the abstract but as Schwadel's article was summarized in WP: for example was omitted all the point about the level of education and religiosity. Of course the abstract reflects the content of the article! Anyway, thanks Tryptofish, I think that now WP text reflects all the points of Schwadel's paper as we can read in the abstract. --2.40.168.110 (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I hit SpringerLink's paywall: USD 34.95 for the article. Ouch! The UNC-CH library has this journal, but I've not visited there in awhile, but plan to. -Modocc (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Demographics.. and up-to-date world dynamics of atheism

I had edited the Atheism article in order to include the new (august 22, 2012) world survey on people self-statements of being "religious", "no religion", or "declared atheists", produced by an undisputably reliable source, Gallup-International.

This was meant to complete the Demography section dedicated to "how many atheists are there in the world now".

In fact, this section, as it stands up today,

1) revolves mostly about "how many atheists are there in the States --and Canada--, and eventually in Western Europe ;

2) don't rely on studies... more recent than 2004-2005 ! ! !

Not only the Gallup study (conducted on 51,927 men and women from 57 countries) concerns the entire world, but it offers, for the first time as far as it seems, the invaluable possibility to see the evolution of the percentages, from 2005 up to 2012 !

IRWolfie, without coming on this talk page to expose why he disagreed about the adding of that world study, erased it only minutes after i posted it.

It seems (a posteriori) that his argument is that this adding must be included inside the "Demographics of atheism" article. The problem is that this said-article deals more 1) with the difficulties to get precise figures about deep-thinkings of faith followers and/or "shy" atheists ; 2) the second part merely distributes the informations... country by country...

Which is not at all the aim of the Gallup study, as it mainly shows ---not the static repartition of atheists in the world today (which is the legitimate purpose of the other article), but the global dynamics on these topics, objectively observed during the last 7 years !

That's why i really think it has more it's place in "Atheism".

That's why i reverted the previous --and abrupt-- blanking. (I abandoned the idea to do a whole new section out of it, and included it in the existing one).

I invite IRWolfie to come to this talk page and discuss the point, before erasing these paragraphs again.

--Mezzkal (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Support inclusion of the material you tried to add on the survey. I checked the BBC and the press release sources and they appear to be legit. I would like to suggest to other editors here that they refrain from revert warring when someone tries to improve this article by adding content. There is no requirement for editors to "first obtain consensus" before adding properly sourced, new material to an article. There is, however, a prohibition on revert-warring. Cla68 (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD it is fully normal to revert bold changes to an article pending consensus; it is not ok to restore it without discussion. Atheism is a featured article and the material needs to be trimmed down and some work and needs to be done on it to integrate it in. We need to reach a consensus on what should be included first. Much of the information added should be presented in a table in the Demographics of atheism article, with a short summary of the main findings in this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

[Thanx for your support, Cla68...]

[to IRWolfie] : What do you mean... "bold changes" ? First, you didn't even mention this argument as an "explanation" for you deletion, when you did it.. I'm amazed that you bring it up here for the first time (i.e.: after the discussion started on this talk page..) ; second : to transcribe new statistical figures concerning the main topic of an article isn't really what one would call "a bold change", is it ? We're not talking, here, about a dramatic new concept which would revolutionize atheism, aren't we ??? And anyway, no one had the slightest objection about the content of these new paragraphs... not even you, AFAIK ??

Also : in case you didn't know, the "WP:BRD" to which you refer, claiming that, according to it, "it is fully normal to revert bold changes"... is just an essay... In no way, it is part of an "official" WP guideline. It even starts by saying : "BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow."

By the way ---as you refer to that BRD---, I attract your attention to the fact that it says : "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense".

So... eventhough "your" BRD required it, you didn't even begin to answer my argumentation about why this abstract of the Gallup study has more its place in the Demographics section of Atheism, with a short résumé in the other article, rather than the way 'round, as you keep saying without bringing any new support to your point...

--Mezzkal (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• I want to comment on two parts of the editing that has gone on here.
  • About the issues raised by Mezzkal, I don't see any compelling reasons to argue, in this case, about where BRD does or does not apply. I accept that Mezzkal has found some material that is reliably sourced, and is potentially appropriate to add to the article. However, I also find quite reasonable the concerns that I think led IRWolfie to revert. First, the amount of text was very long, relative to the amount of text this page devotes to other demographic studies. Consequently, I think that concerns about WP:UNDUE, completely separate from any issues of "is it true?" or "is it reliably sourced?", are valid. That would mean that this is a matter of stating the material more concisely, and I'm sure we can do that with some discussion. Also, the material began by saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that this new study showed that the author of a previous study was wrong. Unless we can point to somewhere in the new source that says that their major finding was that Schwadel was wrong, this would violate WP:SYNTH, as well as being needlessly polemic. So I see nothing wrong with sorting these problems out in talk.
  • Subsequently, there has been some back-and-forth about the sentence on Schwadel's study. I've restored the sentence, because the RfC cited as a basis for its removal, here, was actually about different material, if you look at it closely, and that material already was removed. The sentence in question now has recently been discussed just above, here, and I'm not aware of any discussion favoring its deletion.
• --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Too much emphasis was given to the recent study. It should not refute in Wikipedia's voice any previous study. It should not say anything about irreligion—that's a different article. It should give a brief summary of numbers of declared atheists per country, and over time where that data is available. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, when an editor makes a good faith attempt to add new information to an article, reverting it in its entirety is unhelpful and hostile. The two editors who reverted Mezzkal didn't even bother to start a discussion thread about it here on the talk page, they just made drive-by reverts. Not good. Instead, if an editor disagrees with the addition, they should start a discussion and say, like Tryptofish and Binksternet did above, what they agree with and what they don't agree with in the new addition, then the interested parties can work from there. I think that's a much more productive approach. Cla68 (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

And in my opinion, it's not a big deal whether we discuss it with the material on the page, or with the material temporarily reverted, pending discussion. Anyway, it's really time to move on, to how to rewrite it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

To Tryptofish : Thanks for your intervention. Now... What do we do about this ?

You're talking about "we should do this with the "material...", or "the "material" shouldn't state that..." etc.

Unfortunately ---thanx to the sense of "ethical behaviour" of IRWolfie, then of DVobisdu---, we're merely talking about Godot, as... the aforementioned "material" isn't available, anyway, to any good-willing contributor to examine it !

My question is : what do you propose, concretely ?

--Mezzkal (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome! I guess what I'm proposing is that someone, anyone, take a stab at writing, here in talk, a shorter version that reflects what I and Binksternet said. (It's easy to find the previous version in the edit history.) And then we can take it from there. I was hoping that someone else, not me, would take the time to draft it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Cla68, I left Mezzkal a personal message on his user talkpage when I reverted explaining why I did it. I hardly think that is inappropriate. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Error in the article

The article includes this line: "In the US, in states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious US states, the murder rate is higher than average." However, the linked article states, "the states with the highest murder rates tend to be highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon". A state being more or less religious is different than a state having more or less Atheists percentage. Additionally, the difference in percentages may not be statistically significant, depending upon the standard deviations amongst the various states. As such, until more accurate information is located and referenced, the statement should probably be removed. Xuinkrbin. (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC) xuinkrbin.

Maybe we should indeed change "percentages of atheists" to wording based instead on high or low religiousity, if that's all the source says (I didn't look). But as for statistical significance, it would be WP:OR for us to conclude that, unless the source actually says something about statistics. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If the data tracks the lack of religiosity then the proper article for it is irreligion. The only way we can include it here is if it charts atheism. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point; we should probably go through the statements in the Demographics section with that consideration in mind. The particular sentence discussed here is in Atheism#Association with world views and social behaviors, and is sourced to a long source by Phil Zuckermann. I'm not going to read the whole thing now, but the study, overall, is specifically about atheism, so I think we would have to make sure that Zuckermann really was only talking about irreligion in this instance. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It does have some relevance to this article as well considering that atheism is a subset of irreligion. We just need to be careful that we don't say they are exactly the same thing, or equate a rise in irreligion with a rise in atheism. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 October 2012

I looked at the page and I immediately thought of the most atheistic region in the world, Scandinavia.

I therefore tried to find a reliable source of how many atheists there really are.

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Ath-Chap-under-7000.pdf

There are huge spans here in which I think the most problem is the difference between atheist and agnostic, but I think Scandinavia is at least worth mentioning because of its high concentration of atheists in the industrialized world.,even if you don't find this source reliable enough.

Interestedman (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Sort of already included in the article in the Demographics section. If you have a specific statement you want included you need to indicate where you wish it included, the precise statement, and appropriate sourcing. Sailsbystars (talk) 06:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Inline citations in the lead

There is an excessive number of inline citations in the lead, contrary to the rules set out in WP:Lead. I can do some editing myself at a later date but is anyone available to take on this work? Thanks --Titanis Walleri (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEADCITE carefully:

"The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."

--JimWae (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree there should be some inline citation in this lead, I just think its use is excessive here. Also, the last two paragraphs of the lead should be dropped, in my opinion, as one deals with religion/irreligion (very seperate topics from atheism/theism) and the other quotes 'atheist percentages' of a random half a dozen countries out of a possible 250! Also, the source for these percentages is misrepresented in this article. Titanis Walleri (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)