Talk:Atheism

Ambiguity in first sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And many Christians self-identify as Christian with the concomitant understanding that Christianity is the "one true faith" and the only path to salvation. Should we add that as a definition of Christianity? "Christianity is a monotheistic religion[1] based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings or the one true faith and the only means to human salvation." Sound about right? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

I would favour wording along the lines of :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the re-writing of the opening paragraph. There are some problems with the term 'rejection', to reject a claim you have to first be presented with it and be able to consider it, for example babies are atheists which would not meet this criteria, a baby doesn't reject belief but simply lacks belief. 'Absence of belief' is a better general term to use. The first sentence should probably read something like this:

'Atheism in the broad sense is the absence of belief in deities.'

The following sentence can then be removed from the opening paragraph as it doesn't make much sense anyway since the broad sense of something is surely the most inclusive.

'Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.17.155 (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Atheism is actually a 'non'-religious moment ie a belief. The initial statement should read along the lines of 'Atheism is a belief in the non-existence of deities etc' - not a 'non-belief' as it states. Non-belief in something is just denying its existence, if one were to just deny an existence of something that would be the end of it - one would not need to pursue it further eg atheists are guilty of preaching to the 'unconverted', just like many religious practioners, accusing un-unbelievers to be stupid etc. Therefore if this is the case, and atheists wish to join together under the banner of atheism (which is appears they do as a collective), then atheism is little different to many religions or clubs etc. Ergo Atheism should be defined as a non-religious religion. Chris of England — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.125.50 (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No, under some definitions of the word, even people who have never considered the existence of deities -- young children, for instance -- are considered atheists. Powers ^T 12:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. And the statement "non-belief in something is just denying its existence" is flawed, because it assumes that "something" exists to deny. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Having some trouble defining atheism?

The problem with defining atheism is that it doesn't exist. There is no -ism in atheist.

ism (zm) n. Informal A distinctive doctrine, system, or theory. [1]

An Atheist is someone who rejects the theist claim. Nothing more.

If you really want an accurate description of atheism you should inform people of the fact that there is no atheism. ResidentAtheist (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not any grounds to do anything about the article. See WP:SYNTH about making your own deductions rather than summarizing what reliable sources have said. Dmcq (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Atheistic Morality

This talk page is for discussions regarding improving the article, and isn't a soapbox: see WP:NOTFORUM

I believe we should have a paragraph on what Vaishnavism has to say about atheism and atheistic moarlity. Someone is preventing me from editing the ethics section. I want justification. I agree I should not add the second paragraph. But the following paragraph should remain. After all it is an opinion. (But atheists: Please examine your own hearts. You will find a lot of truth. If you don't believe in morality, that's another thing) Vaishnavism strongly opposes atheism and points out what it believes to be serious flaws in "atheistic morality": Pushed by their own selfish desires, people may act morally for some time, but when they think it over, they will eventually sin. They will say to themselves: "O my brother, don't stay away from sense pleasures. Enjoy sense pleasures as you like, as long as others do not know of them. Why not? I do not think the world will collapse because of them. There is no God, an all-seeing God who gives to us the results of our actions. What have you to fear? Just be a little careful, so no one will know. If they learn of it, then you will lose your good reputation, and perhaps the government or bad people will make trouble for you. If that happens neither you nor others will be happy." Know for certain that if the hearts of the preachers of atheistic morality were examined, these thoughts would be found.Yottamaster (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC) That someone was me. Please read WP:NOR. If you can find reliable secondary sources that are independent of Vaishnavism, that indicate that these issues are important to the subject of atheism, then we may have something to discuss here. Otherwise, there is no reason to weigh down the page with every theist, deist, and anti-atheist view of atheism. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC) I'm in complete agreement with Tryptofish on this. Unless a preponderance of verified reliable sources specifically state that Vaishnavism is of profound significance to atheism, it is inappropriate to have that kind of screed in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Vaishnavism is theistic, establishing the supremacy of a single God, and is based on very sound and highly complete logical arguments and it strongly opposes atheism. Atheism cannot appreciate Vaishnavism, because Atheism is highly motivated by self interest. If you are interested in sincerely searching for truth, you have to examine every statement you read very scrutinizingly. You can't just depend on "reliable sources". So I do not wish to add anything to that section. But just to remind you: Atheism also requires faith—unreasonable faith that there is no God. Yottamaster (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC) See WP:NOTFORUM: Please take your soapboxing elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC) I'm Sorry.Yottamaster (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC) (after 2 edit conflicts) - Wikipedia is really not a good place to engage in proselytism, or for disparaging Wikipedia editors. If you aren't prepared to accept Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and original research, you'd better find some other website to do your thing. This talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not for discussing the subject of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Discussion of the subject of the article is necessary for improvement of it. Though these comments were clearly out of line.167.171.195.39 (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Er... no. Discussion about the article is necessary for improvement, but not discussion about the subject of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC) I agree I should not add things which have "no reliable sources" to Wikipedia articles, but I fail to understand, how we can improve an article without discussion about the "subject" of the article. There are many things which are not liked by people with a bias.Yottamaster (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not to say that the subject shouldn't be discussed in general! It's just that this is not the place for it...this Talk page has a specific function, and general discussion or discussion of our personal views on a subject are not part of that function. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.246 (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Major glossing over of history.

In regards to the History portion of this article, why is there such gross glossing over of the brutal persecutions carried out against the religious populations of the atheist regimes of the 20th century? There isn't a single mention of any persecution...just glossed over vocabulary such as "opposed" or the use of the sentence "campaigns to persuade people to abandon religion". Killing people and destroying their religious buildings isn't persuasion, it is persecution. Where is the intellectual honesty and reason that Atheists so often champion? It certainly isn't anywhere to be found in the 1900's section. I'm not asking for paragraphs here, but a single sentence stating that the religious were violently persecuted under atheist regimes should be added. It's not a flawless worldview with a spotless history, no mattter how badly dishonest people want it to be. There is an entire Violence section on the main Religion article, as there should be, but not a single sentence about the violent persecution carried out by atheist regimes here. It's simply ridiculous.--Jesspiper (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Examples? References? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

For examples I would suggest the numerous Bishops and thousand or so Orhtohox Priests executed in the USSR in the attempt to eradicate religion, or the demolishing of the Cathedral of Christ The Saviour (one out of many destroyed churches/mosques/synagoges) as well as numerous religious people being sent to mental hospitals, prison camps and labour camps. The confiscation of all Orthodox Church property and subsequent near annihilation of the Orthodox Church would be another. Outside the Soviet Union, perhaps the murder of thousands of Roman Catholic clergy during the Spanish Red Terror. Or the executions of priests and monks in the Killing Fields of the Khmer Rouge. The list is long and several pages on Wikipedia are dedicated to all of these events carried out by atheist organizations, with corresponding references; you don't have to look far. The Rage Against God by Peter Hitchens (yes, brother to Christopher) is a good place to start. It shouldn't be too hard to add a single sentence to this article when there are pages upon pages devoted to the subject elsewhere on Wikipedia.--Jesspiper (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The content you're looking for should be summarized in the sectionAtheism#Since_1900. I agree that the content presented there is sparse and choppy. One obvious way to handle this would be to write a simple 2-3 paragraph summary of state atheism, which could then be inserted in the article as it's own section. You're welcome to give that a go, or offer up another alternative. aprock (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The above works for me. I see you added "See: State Atheism". That is a huge step to improve this article. A quick mention of the violent persecutions against the religious populations, particularily clergy, of said atheist regimes is all that is necessary, in my opinion. It should be short and factual. Basically that there were atheist regimes and they at times violently persecuted their religious populations and clergy. If people want more they can follow the links.--Jesspiper (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Few atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism (the Khmer Rouge being the notable exception). Stalin was an atheist, but the brutal acts of his regime where not committed because of this fact. Jesspiper is overstating these "persecutions" to a considerable degree. It's also important to note that they pale in comparison to contemporary religious atrocities. Also significant is that religious atrocities continue to this day, whereas there are no atheist atrocities taking place. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The distinctions you make are all reasonable, and are welcome in the article. Some sort of coherent summary of state atheism should be in the history section. aprock (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, what really need to happen is for Atheism#History and History of atheism to be properly synched, then replacing the content in Atheism#History with a summary of History of atheism, maybe 3-5 paragraphs in length. aprock (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No present day atheist atrocities taking place? I'm afraid you're gravely mistaken. Being a Christian is synonymous with a death sentence in present day North Korea under its current atheist regime. Thousands of Christians in North Korea must practice in secret or else it's off to concentration camp and/or execution. And furthermore, what "name" an atrocity is committed in is a superficial thing. The atheist atrocities discussed were in the name of "progress". The cause of said atrocities, however, is another matter. Especially when it comes to demolishing churches and slaughtering clergy. What worldview often considers religion to be a thing of the past and in need of removal? What worldview considers it backwards and contrary to progress? Stop fooling yourself. The answer is obvious. Every single atheist regime in the 20th century attempting to stamp out religion once and for all is no coincidence. "Not in the name of" is the biggest dodge out there. And to say they pale compared to today's religious atrocities is simply a gross ignorance of history. The regimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the rest slaughtered more people than all of the religious wars across history combined, let alone the current tribal flare ups. In the name of or cause is irrelevant to the article anyways, as it is a fact that these were atheist regimes and they all slaughtered millions of their own people, with the religious and clergy as specific targets. Let the reader determin why/cause/correlation etc. --Jesspiper (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

@Jess: with respect to North Korea, if you have sources, by all means introduce them. Content correctly sourced to reliable secondary sources is always welcome. However, if all the sources say the atrocities were committed in the name of "progress", it's not up to us to reinterpret that as actually meaning "atheism". Cheers, and please do return with relevant sources for that and any of the other specific issues you mention. aprock (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a useless pissing contest and it is not relevant to the entry. I would please ask that all personal opinions about which ideology has caused more death than other ideologies be left in user space. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I never brought up anything about body counts, causes, "in the name of" etc in the first place. You can thank Scjessey for that. I just want the fact that it happened at all mentioned, because right now it's just being hidden.--Jesspiper (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is hidden. Regimes like the one in North Korea oppose Christianity because any organization which introduces outside views is a threat to the regime—it has nothing to do with atheism. You might find a source saying that a regime promoted atheism, but atheism has nothing to do with persecution—such persecution is an attempt by a totalitarian regime to ensure that there is no group which does not accept its authority. As noted above, reliable sources are needed for any assertions in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not overly concerned with giving the list of who did (or continues to do) what, where, when and why. Atheist regimes have and continue to persecute their people, particularily their religious people and clergy. Period. Johnuniq certainly has an opinion as to why, as do I and others. But as aprock said, it's neither here nor there to say why. But there is no indication of any of this in the article. None. One notable and recent source for this persecution is The Rage Against God by Peter Hitchens. --Jesspiper (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you would like there to be an indication, then you're going to have to bring some mainstream secondary sources to the table. aprock (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Jesspiper has got his coatrack about the horror that is atheism in the sorry excuse for an article named State atheism. But it should stay there, and not spread into the main article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears that I have a wikipedia stalker. How cute. Anyways, for those that asked for sources/references, here is a varied list: http://www.opendoorsuk.org/resources/persecution.php?country=north_korea http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2007/90140.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide4.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide9.htm http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rory-fitzgerald/richard-dawkins-should-be_b_541387.html The Rage Against God by Peter Hitchens: Chapters 12- Fake Miracles and Grotesque Relics and 13- Provoking a Bloody War with the Church. The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day: Chapter 13 - The Red Hand of Atheism. --Jesspiper (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing your first source, we have what appears to be a self published web page which makes no connection between the atrocities of North Korea and it's main religion, Atheism. It appears that you are reasoning that because the word "atheism" appears on the page, the atrocities should be mentioned on Atheism. I posit that you'll have just as much luck getting this sort of content included on the page million. You might have better luck at Communism, but you could also consider trying dictatorship and christian as well. If you acknowledge that first source is bogus by removing it, I'll take a look at the next one. aprock (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The front section of this article is in shambles

Wow, that first paragraph is a mess. It's basically impenetrable. Just as an example, what is "broad" about the first definition? What the hell does broad refer to here? I am an atheist, and was a philosophy major, and I have no idea. How, then, could this possibly capture the Wikipedia goal of being a general interest encyclopedia—that is, if it is actually somehow technically correct, as murky as it is, and is not just a nonsense statement. The article has some very good content (I have a few criticisms as to other parts, but nothing like the front section). It really is awful. Now, I know that it easy to come and just complain and not suggest an alternative, but I get the feeling from looking at a bit of the article's history that I would need to first get some agreement that there is a problem before delving into replacement material.--108.54.26.7 (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There has been plenty of discussions (see the archives) about the available references, especially those provided in the article. Please refer to those references, or to other references that would be appropriate to use in their place when making suggestions. Doing this will help maintain the verifiability of what is added or changed. For instance, the first sentence's use of "in a broad sense" paraphrases the Britannica's use of "in general" for this one definition. The most inclusive definition possible which as a viewpoint is included per wp:NPOV is given significantly less weight per wp:due in the third sentence because of the Britannica and other encyclopedias ignoring it. --Modocc (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)