[001]
RobinZimm
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'ve been having a discussion with jate88 over PM about which definition of \
to:
I\\\'ve been having a discussion with jate88 over PM about which definition of \\\"atheism\\\" should be endorsed by the page, and this got me thinking about rewriting the introduction of the article a bit. Does anyone have comments on the following introduction? (Most of the text of the current introduction would be preserved -- this goes in front.)
----
The first question to be resolved when discussing atheism is the basic one: what is an atheist?
This is actually a bit trickier than you might suppose. The laziest possible definition would be to say that \\\"an atheist is someone who declares themself to be an atheist\\\", and there is a lot to recommend that definition, but that definition is inadequate in a number of major ways. The most important of these is reflected in [[http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/23/new-pew-survey-21-of-atheists-believe-in-god/ the Pew survey which found 21% of atheists believe in God.]] We \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' go on and claim that 23% of virgins have had sex and 21% of dead people are still alive, but it seems wiser to consider other possibilities.
The second-laziest option is to check a dictionary. The 1913 edition of Webster\\\'s Revised Unabridged Dictionary offers this: \\\"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.\\\" Again, this is a definition with much to recommend it -- but it excludes quite a lot of professed atheists, and not just from the 10% that pray at least once a week, but people like RichardDawkins.
The third-laziest option is to ask members of the atheist community. This has problems of its own, but it shares the advantages of both the previous methods: we are still allowing atheists to define themselves, but with the caveat that the definition must be in some sense rational. The only major disadvantage to keep in mind is that the definition they have come up with is fairly broad, and a goodly number of those included in its span would object to being called \\\"atheists\\\".
----
The first question to be resolved when discussing atheism is the basic one: what is an atheist?
This is actually a bit trickier than you might suppose. The laziest possible definition would be to say that \\\"an atheist is someone who declares themself to be an atheist\\\", and there is a lot to recommend that definition, but that definition is inadequate in a number of major ways. The most important of these is reflected in [[http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/23/new-pew-survey-21-of-atheists-believe-in-god/ the Pew survey which found 21% of atheists believe in God.]] We \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' go on and claim that 23% of virgins have had sex and 21% of dead people are still alive, but it seems wiser to consider other possibilities.
The second-laziest option is to check a dictionary. The 1913 edition of Webster\\\'s Revised Unabridged Dictionary offers this: \\\"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.\\\" Again, this is a definition with much to recommend it -- but it excludes quite a lot of professed atheists, and not just from the 10% that pray at least once a week, but people like RichardDawkins.
The third-laziest option is to ask members of the atheist community. This has problems of its own, but it shares the advantages of both the previous methods: we are still allowing atheists to define themselves, but with the caveat that the definition must be in some sense rational. The only major disadvantage to keep in mind is that the definition they have come up with is fairly broad, and a goodly number of those included in its span would object to being called \\\"atheists\\\".
