Talk:Atheism

message: In the first paragraph of 'Ontological arguments,' the paragraph cites a citing of data about the percentages of academic philosophers and their beliefs. However the two values stated add up to about 106% which is not possible under these circumstances. I just wanted to point this out because it's an obvious mistake. 74.137.21.162 (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't add up to 100% because they're answers to different questions on the survey. I think it's freely accessible so you should be able to click through from the citation, go into survey results, and search for naturalism (the questions are next to each other) if you want to check for yourself. Shapeyness (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obviously Incorrect Data 

message: The last section references links to atheism and intelligence, however IQ is used and I don't think that's correct. 1. IQ is generally agreed to be an unreliable number. 2. None of the references I was able to view (one is a paywalled) mention IQ, rather they talk about education/intellectualism.  Lindsey40186 (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The inline citation  shows that atheism correlates with the g factor (psychometrics), AKA IQ. Modocc (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to IQ 

message: 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)
Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I’ll do this tomorrow Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 :
*: 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) : 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".
*:Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on definitions