text:
Talk:Christian

Roll
Rolled back anonymous IP seemingly POV edit. This is a definition of the word, and ways the word is used; not an attestation to the truthfulness of that usage. --Connel MacKenzie 05:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Antonyms
wth no antonyms? User:75.118.149.244 21:55, 11 October 2008
 * The antonym would probably be something like 'nonchristian' or 'achristian' similar to nontheist or atheist are to theist, however I am not familiar with anything in wide use referring to this. Ty 05:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Definition
Definition 2 for the noun talks of "Jesus Christ", but this is surely begging the question? A Christian adheres to Jesus's teaching because he or she believes that Jesus is the Christ. Is it this belief, rather than the Jesus actually being the Christ that defines a Christian, surely? User:Morosoph 02:59, 18 February 2009 - Just some loud thinking (based on my memory): Given that there are so very many claimants to be Messiahs, or have been Messiahs, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants and also given that the word "Christ" has been defined as meaning "Messiah" (see the proper noun) at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Christ ..... Is it, therefore, correct to define the word "Christian" as a person who follows a Christ and his lifestyle on the understanding that not only Jesus, but any of the listed messiah claimants would be meant? That apparently very many, including clergy, who claim to be Christians are NOT Christians, while many who actually follow(ed) anyone claiming to be a Messiah and his or her lifestyle is a Christian as defined? QUITTNER, 02:29 PM, 5 April 2011 -

ianos?
This is mentioned as the end meaning 'slave of' or something. I can't find anything for -ianos though, have we studied the etymology of this suffix yet? Ty 05:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's appropriate to post this in the page yet, but this is an issue where there's a lack of reference. In particular, this IANOS issue isn't present at all on the Christianity page, yet it's here. Ty 22:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

RFV 1

 * Kind, charitable, or generous.
 * Righteous, ethical or moral

I disagree with both definitions because other religions say the same thing. We would have to modify Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Baha'i, Zoroastrian, Eckist, Raëlian, etc. Pass a Method (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This challenge isn't very Christian of you. ;-).
 * Your disagreement is simply immaterial. Either there is usage supporting some definitions like those or there isn't.
 * I'd say that the first one has widespread use, certainly in the US, but we should have citations because of the inevitable controversy. We also should establish the usage context. Is it just Christians or a subgrouping thereof talking among themselves or is it the population as a whole? I think citations for the first sense or a combined sense should be easy to find. I'm not sure that it would be at all easy to find citations that support the second as distinct from the first. DCDuring TALK 20:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

 * But this isn't an opinion, saying "Christianity is kind and righteous": it is a definition, and it is how the word has been used (in a dated way); I doubt you could find any citation for e.g. "a thoroughly Muslim act" (of kindness). I checked Chambers and it has something similar: "(noun) ... a follower of Christ; a person whose behaviour is considered becoming to a follower of Christ; often a vague term of approbation, a decent, respectable, kindly, charitably-minded person; a human being; (adjective) relating to Christ or His religion; in the spirit of Christ". Equinox ◑ 21:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

 * The predominant religion in the English-speaking world is Christianity so obviously it will be MUCH easier to find Christian refs. But Wiktionary as an international website should be balanced in its coverage of religion instead of giving one privileged/special treatment. The most practical thing to do is treat them the same. Pass a Method (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

 * You don't seem to have understood what I said: the word Christian really used to mean "good, charitable, etc." and not merely "related to Christianity"; that is not true in English (the language we are documenting) regarding the other religion-words you suggested as examples. I've added some citations now. Equinox ◑ 21:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

 * P.S. As far as "balanced coverage" goes, I don't suppose I'm the only person who's seen you methodically editing many religious topics, both here and on Wikipedia, to add your own personal biases. Equinox ◑ 21:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

 * If you think this usage of the word Christian is biased, all you need to do is find a time machine and convince every single English-speaker across time not to write it in durable material. Until then, they are cited. — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Other dictionaries (e.g. Chambers) have only one 'approbative' sense. I don't think the citations which have been added support keeping the two senses 'kind' and 'ethical' distinct; I favour merging them, as DCDuring suggested, to something like "kind, charitable; moral". Of the citations currently under the 'ethical' sense: the 1828 one is more likely using 'Christian' to mean 'relating to Christianity' than either other sense, the 1859 one doesn't convey 'ethical' as distinct from 'kind' and it's debatable whether the 1867 conveys a meaning really distinct from either 'Christianity-related' or 'kind'. - -sche (discuss) 22:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There might be some citations that reflect what was sometimes called "muscular" Christianity that emphasized effortful moral behavior. Give it a little time yet. DCDuring TALK 22:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll give it all the time in the world. Or, if popular understanding of the Mayan calendar turns out to be wrong, I'll give it till January. ;b - -sche (discuss) 22:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

 * IMO, "muscularly Christian Milton" conveys that Milton 'muscularly' adhered to / practised Christianity (and its specific ethics), not broad ethics. The 2010 citation is easy to read the same way, and the 2009 citation is unclear. - -sche (discuss) 23:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably. We should probably reword the second challenged definition to exclude almost all explicit specific virtues. Perhaps that could get clear citations distinct from the kind/charitable/generous sense. Or perhaps in the fullness of 30 days and 30 nights someone more familiar with Christian literature than I could find citations for the sense as it is now worded. DCDuring TALK 23:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure some of the citations are great; this does have the problem of making a distinction between (behaving in a Christian manner) and (behaving in a moral fashion). It's complex to find an example that clearly makes the distinction, since it's basically only used by those who conflate the two. The 2010 cite I think is clearly the first sense, IMO; he's saying the times were Christian, not moral.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a more NPOV definition would be something like "#Displaying virtues believed by Christians to be embodied by Jesus: ## Kind, charitable, or generous ## Righteous, ethical or moral" Chuck Entz (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't even think you need to mention Jesus. Just "Displaying virtues valued by Christianity: [+subsenses]". --WikiTiki89 13:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that "Jesus" is redundant. The subsense presentation seems good and it clarifies the issue. But I'm not sure that we can actually cite the second subsense or an evolution of that subsense, rather than the main sense and the other subsense. DCDuring TALK 14:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of you about the mention of Jesus. It was just the first wording that came to mind. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

 * I have combined the senses, following the above discussion, like [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Christian&diff=19479830&oldid=19439817 this]. - -sche (discuss) 08:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

RFV 2
RFV-sense: "An individual who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." What, like, his BFF Pete? Or how is this distinct from the two preceding senses? - -sche (discuss) 08:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd just remove it. It's basically worthless as a definition. —Angr 16:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Really not an RfV issue - easily verified, but redundant to definition 1, since belief in the existence of such a relationship is an aspect of belief in the religion as a whole. Otherwise, we might as well add other senses for "An individual who believes the New Testament is true", "An individual who believes in the resurrection of Jesus Christ", etc. bd2412 T 17:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I've removed it. - -sche (discuss) 18:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Princess Alice of Battenberg at one point believed she was having a sexual relationship with Jesus Christ. Perhaps that's what the definition is referring to. Only kidding! But for all the sense the definition makes, I might as well be serious. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am so delighted to learn this, I'm actually looking forward to the next time a Christian tells me they have a relationship, not a religion. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Creationist
As far as I know (and that may very well be quite regionalistic), most Christians consider creationists to be, ehh, less educated. Even the Roman Catholic church accepts evolution. --80.114.178.7 02:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The account which reverted me without comment, hasn't answered yet. This time, I'll just remove creationist. --80.114.178.7 01:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

RFV discussion (3)
Rfv-sense: "One born in a Christian country or of Christian parents, and who has not definitely becomes [sic] an adherent of an opposing system." If you work out the logic of this statement, it says that you can be a Christian by inheritance, and that furthermore, your inheritance is inherited by your children and so on. So basically, this definition says that people who have been agnostic or atheist for generations are nonetheless Christian if all of their ancestors were. I find that a bit ridiculous... 01:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I think it might mean born of Christian(sense 1) parents, rather than the recursion you imply. Think of old books that talk about "all good Christian men", meaning basically well-behaved Britons etc. rather than specifically religious people. Equinox ◑ 01:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I don't think those are examples of authors using "Christian" in a new sense. I think those are either examples of authors assuming that (all/most/many) Britons are and disregarding the existence of non-Christian (and non-good) Britons, and/or examples of adjective sense 2, "kind, charitable; moral; a term of approbation". ("All good Christian men" does seem to be using an adjective rather than a noun.) - -sche (discuss) 02:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think cultural Christian is the concept the definition is trying (and failing) to describe. —Angr 09:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Many so-called "Muslims" in Srebrenica and/or Bosnia and Herzegovina at large, had been agnostic or atheist for generations; that didn't save them. The Nazis didn't separate religious Jews from atheist Jews either. Why should that other Abrahamist sect be treated differently? --80.114.178.7 22:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an unsurprising definition. Christians, Muslims, and a few other evangelical faiths are strongly motivated to inflate their numbers for marketing purposes, and so are quick to count among their numbers those who ignore or reject their beliefs but who live in communities dominated by those beliefs. DeistCosmos (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Failed. — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for Quote
Perhaps if someone could find some quotes for the second noun definition (an individual who seeks to live ...). I believe that this would help differentiate it from the first definition. If I recall correctly, there are some quotes by Thomas Jefferson using that definition. Zombiedude347 (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Possible missing sense
Chambers 1908 has "(colloquial) a human being". I could imagine it being used something like "soul" (the ship went down with all Christians on board?). Seeing three RFVs here I guess I won't risk adding it. Equinox ◑ 10:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

 * It would be tricky, but probably possible if the sense is real, to find citations where that could be distinguished from an assumption that all the people on the ship or whatever were of Christian faith (probably a common assumption in older texts about European ships where there probably weren't Buddhists etc onboard). The third RFV was for a somewhat similar sense. - -sche (discuss) 17:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Christian


text:
Talk:atheist

Rolling back a POV edit
Rolled back edit of 68.55.75.208, as it seems to be a POV edit. (If not, please defend here before repeating edit.) This is a definition of how the word is used, not an decree that that use is or is not based on truth. --Connel MacKenzie 06:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3rd definition
WTF is the deal with the 3rd definition of atheist? I don't see that as a distinct definition that identifies a particular kind of atheist. Plenty of atheists who fall into one of the first two categories will fall into the third. Furthermore there are "believers" who think that organized religion and other people's ideas of god are fictional might easily fit category 3, but would not self identify with atheism.

Ok, worse yet, definition 2 is a small subset of the first definition. If you don't have a belief in a deity, then that is a consequence of also having a belief of no deity. I will offer as reference the following video, which explains things clearly:

spam stricken

I endorse and accept his definition (or the spirit of it) and therefore propose the following:

Atheism:

A person who does not have a belief that one or more deities or gods exist.

That's it. You can make some kind of footnote about "strong atheist" if you like, however the above definition is *inclusive* of the "strong atheist" definition, and therefore is not appropriately labelled as "weak atheist". Its just atheism. I don't think there is such a thing as a weak atheist, except possibly as an atheist who is not a strong atheist. The third definition is utter nonsense; just get rid of it.

If nobody does anything about this, I will change the definition myself.

Qed 10:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Nevermind, I just went ahead and decided to "be bold" like they taught me over in Wikipedia. Qed 10:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Suitability of "weak" atheist definitions
There is no dictionary definition that supports the "weak" Atheist or Atheism definitions. In fact, the references, under Atheism, contradict the definition someone wrote, here, in Wiktionary.

The root word is Atheos (No God, or Without God). The -ist suffix (Believer In, or One Who Believes In) and -ism suffix (Belief In, or Belief System) are then attached to that word. An Atheist is A Believer In No God, or One Who Believes In No God. Atheism is the Belief In No God, or A Belief System Without God.

The "weak" definition wrongly adds the prefix A- to the word Theist, or Theism, instead. "Weak" Atheist are likely Agnostics, or Non-Theists.

--3DJay 19:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the article from the passive lack of belief "A person who does not believe that deities exist" to the active denial of existence "A person who believes that deities do not exist". Based on the etymology listed by 3DJay and the related Wikipedia article, it appears that an denial of existence is the correct definition. This usage is also supported by the Oxford English & Merriam-Webster dictionaries. If you have evidence support a wide acceptance of Atheist meaning a lack of belief, then add it in as a secondary definition. Don't replace the definition - it appears clear that at this time the primary should be denial of existence, not lack of belief -- expat editor 10:20, 04 Sep 2007 (JST)

Dmol, Rodasmith added a quote showing your addition is appropriate, but why should we remove what appears to be the commonly accepted definition and usage? Key policy #4 (Avoid bias. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all usages fairly and sympathetically.) seems to indicate that the common usage should be included. -- expat editor 18:45, 07 Sep 2007 (JST)

 * Webster's provides this definition: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.. This is the definition which I am more familiar with. To be more precise, one can deny or disbelieve the existence of *A* supreme being (such as Zeus) while believing in the existence of another supreme being (such as the Christian God) in order to qualify, literally, as an atheist. 75.199.110.145 14:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merriam-Webster no longer uses that biased definition. I think this video sums it up nicely, e.g. the general bias that so common with many old dictionaries or non-neutral onces (Note that I'm not the creator of that video nor in any way involved with it). --130.208.247.2 12:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Suitability of a sense of irregilious person
I added a third definition of how I often hear atheism used. I was removed, so I'm adding it back with the following justification: "A person who lacks any religious belief, though not necessarily lacking superstition; an irreligious person" This is how I often hear the word used. It refers to the demographic of non-religious people in the West. This is a less formal definition than the other two definitions. --King Mir
 * Who removed it, and why? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer, we already have it. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I just removed the third definition before I realised it was being disussed here at the moment. However, I can't see any reason to keep it, as it was identical to the first definition.--Dmol 23:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is totally different. Being irreligious is not the same thing as not believing in God. A Buddhist is atheist by the first definition, but not the third. Putting it back in. At the very least, better to be redundant than incomplete --King Mir
 * That's the second definition, not the first one. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Under Both definitions, Buddhists would be considered atheists. The way I often hear the word used, Buddhists would not be considered so. For instance a sentence like: "atheists argue that religious texts are not a good source of truth". That's a true statement, but it's only referring to irreligious atheists.--King Mir
 * Hmm this is true. It's more a question of how 1 & 2 are different. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For that, see the Usage Notes.--King Mir 01:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Adjective
Isn't this also an adjective? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

lacks / free of
What is worded now as "lacks belief in the existence of any god" could also be written as "is free of religious faiths". In my opinion, both push a point of view: In my opinion (but English is only my fourth language), "doesn't believe in any god" or "doesn't believe in a god" is a more neutral description ("believe" isn't a neutral word, but "atheist" isn't neutral either). --Erik Warmelink 19:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * to not have a certain belief, doesn't necessarily mean one misses it; one doesn't lack belief in the gods one hasn't heard of.
 * the belief in god(s) isn't necessarily a burden; one isn't free of friends.

RFC result
First two definitions:

 * 1) A person without a belief in, or one who lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods.
 * 2) A person who believes that no gods or deities exist.

They seem to the same, perhaps nuances of one, better written definition. The usage notes below don't seem valid either. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I feel the same. Not sure these nuances are important. You asked if it's an adjective on the talk page, yes, I think it is. --Anatoli 01:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The nuances are important, because when atheists use the definition, they usually mean the first, and when theists use the word, they usually mean the second. And many would go to a dictionary to clear up the discrepancy. So it is necessary to mention both definitions, and the difference between them. Having two definition is a simple and clear way to do this, but perhaps a well worded single definition can communicate this distinction clearly enough. Maybe subdefintions? --King Mir 00:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If users find we don't support the distinction, they might go to one of the dictionaries that do have exactly the distinction made (MWOnline, AHD, and RHU), though not the learners' dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 00:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * One definition would do - it's the attitude to atheists, rather than the actual difference in senses. Not believing that a god exists (but others do exist?) doesn't make one an atheist, not if you believe that any god exists. The first definition is somewhat ambiguous. The 2nd shorter definition seems the correct and the only one needed. --Anatoli 00:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's actually a case for rewording the first definition. The key difference is between non-belief and belief in a negative, not between what is not believed. Perhaps "of a god or gods" should be changed to "of any God or gods", or something similar. --King Mir 05:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * These are very different, and while rewording may (or may not) be a good idea, merging is definitely not. An atheist under the former definition is one who is not taking a position on the existence of G-d (or god or gods or whatnot). An atheist under the latter definition is one who has taken a position. (See Negative and positive atheism.) The first group has almost as much in common with "believers" as it does with the second group. —Ruakh TALK 00:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I see, it's a bit complicated but 1) IMHO, the translations are the same for weak/strong atheists, with or without positions, 2) explaining the differences in concepts could be referred to Wikipedia, possibly with more than one link. A dictionary definition: "Someone who denies the existence of god" is sufficient for most cases, is well understood, the details should be outside the dictionary to make its search and usage simpler. --Anatoli 01:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * In Russian "атеист" (borrowed word), "безбожник" (lit.: a godless person), "неверующий" (non-believer) are used slightly differently but all fit atheist. An expanded version could be "Someone who denies the existence of god, doesn't believe in god or has no religious faith". We could add a usage note from Wikipedia: Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists. --Anatoli 01:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't know Russian, but in English these senses are distinct, in that they have distinct synonyms: the first sense is roughly synonymous with (or at least hyperonymous to), while the latter is not. If necessary, we can have a usage note explaining that some speakers don't really draw this distinction, but we definitely shouldn't merge the senses. —Ruakh TALK 02:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * If you are have a very strong opinion about this difference, then perhaps you're right. To me an atheist is an atheist - weak or strong or someone who just doesn't care about gods. Not sure what the best way to resolve this is. --Anatoli 05:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ruakh, "atheist" meaning "someone who does not believe in a god or gods" and "atheist" meaning "someone who believes there is not a god or gods" are distinct senses, the latter having a belief the former not. Someone who doesn't care whether there is a god or gods is usually termed an agnostic: (although this can also mean people who do care but just don't' believe either way), but the first defintion of "atheist" also covers them. The second definition of "atheist" covers people who do care about the (non)-existence of a god or god - sometimes militantly so. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I should clarify an error in my above comments: I wrote them as though sense 1 denoted a negative atheist (one without a position on the existence of G-d or gods) and sense 2 denoted a positive atheist (one who believe in the non-existence of G-d or gods); but in fact, sense 1 denotes a member of either group (one who doesn't believe in the existence of G-d or gods, either because (s)he believes the reverse, or because (s)he does not believe one way or the other), and sense 2 denotes a positive atheist. This is as it should be: is sometimes used to include both (hence the more specific  and ), and sometimes to include only the latter (the former then being designated ), but I don't think it's ever used to include only the former. In this light, the comments in favor of merging the senses are basically taking the position that they only use sense 1 (apparently because they don't draw the distinction between a negative and a positive atheist, so can't understand the motivation for using  to describe only the latter), so sense 2 is unnecessary. The best solution, then, is to add citations that demonstrate the distinctness of sense 2. I'll do so shortly. —Ruakh TALK 01:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I've now added three such citations. Please take them into account in any rewrite you might undertake. —Ruakh TALK 02:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 * May I make a suggestion? How about "A person that rejects the belief in the existence of one or more gods."

 * No. That would make Christians atheists because they reject Kali. Equinox ◑ 08:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Theism
I was thinking of removing the meaning "belief that no god exists" because, really, it's a biased etymology. It would make more sense as the meaning for anti-theism. GabSte1989 16:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Not only are the quotations insulting they're also disingenuous - they're just a handful of writers giving their personal opinions. At the very least it should be flagged as "dated". If "theist" means "one who believes in the existence of a god" or "one who believes in a personal god" then "atheist" should simply mean "one who does NOT believe". GabSte1989 16:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a question of if you like the definition, but if people actually use it that way. Same applies for the citations; whether you like them or not, they are citations of the word atheist in use, and thus shouldn't be removed. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I think people use it incorrectly, should we not try and clear this up a little. I apologize for the "insulting" bit, it was out of place. GabSte1989 16:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, how is your opinion on how people use the word relevant here? BTW I also disagree that the 'insulting' bit was out of place, you are entitled to an opinion. Words like 'insulting' are always subjective - something can only be insulting to someone, not just in general 'insulting' as there will always be people who are not insulted by it. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not. I'm used to more social forums. GabSte1989 17:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

RFD result
Listing recently added sense, (re-added after being removed once) that seems identical to others. Sense given is - A person who lacks any religious belief, though not necessarily lacking superstition; an irreligious person -which to me is identical to-A person without a belief in, or one who lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods. There's no difference. Being superstition does not make you believe in God.--Dmol 00:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See the talk page. A Buddhist is an atheist by the other definitions, but not by this one. --King Mir 05:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep, since religions can be atheist, per above. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Atheist primarily means no belief in gods. This does not have any implication for any other belief in principle. Therefore, anytime it DOES imply further beliefs, it is clearly a secondary sense worth listing. —CodeCat 09:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is the most common use, almost always pejorative. This sense does not have any nuanced concern with the specifics of a person's belief or lack thereof. DCDuring TALK 17:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it pejorative exactly? I don't think any atheist resents being called an atheist? —CodeCat 20:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was an insult. It is used as a pejorative label by others. I don't think I would necessarily give it the pejorative context label because, as you point out, it is not inherently pejorative. But I think much usage in US public discourse is pejorative. I think surveys in the US say that voters would rather have a gay president than an atheistic one. DCDuring TALK 22:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up. So, which one of these applies to a Buddhist atheist? DAVilla 04:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Tagged was removed months ago. Kept, would be insanity to do anything else. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of "lack"
"Lack" is from the point of view of those with religion and so a POV edit. "does not have" is without influence of the person making the statement and so is not a point of view POV. If anyone can offer a logical argument against this then changing from this definition is by cause of reason, if it is done without a counter argument then it can only be defined as a POV edit.David H Doyle 14:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edit looks like an improvement to me : "does not have" sounds more neutral than "lacks". But I am a non-native. --Dan Polansky 14:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. "Lack" can be neutral, but it typically carries some implications that aren't desirable here. —Ruakh TALK 00:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Lack implies that something is missing that should be there.--Dmol 10:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

long RFV discussion
A long RFV discussion of this word and atheism is on Talk:atheism. - -sche (discuss) 02:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Definition Number 2
2. (broadly) A person who does not believe that any deities exist, but who does not necessarily believe that no deities exist.

Is this not the definition of an agnostic? 90.198.9.122 21:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 21:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It does read that way, doesn't it? I've modified it now. —Ruakh TALK 21:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not exactly; an agnostic is one who does not know whether any deities exist, whether or not they believe in them. Fideists like Martin Gardner would be agnostic believers. ~ Robin (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're cheating a bit. In common usage, "agnostics" certainly does refer to "negative atheists" (those who do not have a belief one way or the other). —Ruakh TALK</i > 23:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Four definitions?
What a confusing mess... Equinox ◑ 09:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To avoid confusion, you can use more specific terms to signify which you mean; frex, sense 1 atheists are sometimes called strong atheists or hard atheists, and a sense 2 atheist would be an explicit atheist. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You (and Widsith in the above discussions) see confusion, I (and Robin and others in the above threads) see precision. Widsith correctly observed that many authors use the term vaguely... but vague use can be covered by a precise entry. And (as others observed, and as the citations show) many authors do use the term with one or another of several specific senses: an entry that had only one vague sense ("a person who, uh, doesn't believe in stuff") wouldn't cover those uses. In the end, there may be no way to make both of us happy... except, perhaps, by using subsenses? If we made the first two or three senses subsenses of a vague "person who does not believe gods exist, or who believes no gods exist" sense, would that clear things up, or make them worse? (Compare gender-free.) - -sche (discuss) 20:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To me, it depends on whether you treat the noun as a word or a term. I would expect this kind of precision in a term glossary or an encyclopedia, but not (necessarily) in a dictionary. (As you can imagine, there is probably a large number of pages other than atheist/-ism and gender-free where single broad definitions are found rather than multiple specific ones, despite the various specific meanings the words may have.) I don't think it's too difficult to incorporate multiple definitions in one, especially not since there is a reference to the more in-depth Wikipedia page on atheism. 81.236.201.128 18:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

2011 Tea room discussion
On the number of senses, see also Special:PermanentLink/24549098, which has over 7800 words. For citations collected during that dicussion, see Citations:atheist. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Having just made some changes to atheism:, including merging definitions together, I went to check out atheist: too. The talk page is an interesting read: one RFC and one RFD debate have looked at the wisdom of merging definitions together here too, but have not ultimately done so. I think this is crazy. An atheist can be defined quite simply as someone who does not believe in a god or gods. The fact that some atheists assert that god does not exist, while others claim no certain knowledge on the subject, is best left to Usage Notes. Why? Because a word like this is necessarily somewhat nebulous and has a lot of different definitions for different people: it is not only unnecessary but unhelpful to try and unpick them all in a series of graded definitions whose distinctness, in my view, cannot be demonstrated by the citation evidence. Otherwise why not have 200 definitions for Christian: depending on what denomination you subscribe to? So tell me, am I convincing anyone or have I just taken leave of my senses. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ</> 09:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Personally, I like your treatment of atheism, but there has been previous discussion of the separate meaning on the talk page of atheist, and Richard Dawkins (for one) seems to use the term differently. <i style="font-family:verdana"> D b f i r s </i> 09:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

 * I think keeping the senses separated is better. One of the senses of "atheist" subsumes both strong atheists and agnostics, while the other one does not. Similarly, I think it is better to have two sense lines of "cat": a domesticated cat, and any cat including tigers. Interestingly, Merriam-Webster Online has only the strong version of atheism in "atheist", as does MacMillan. I don't think the word is by necessity nebulous; to the contrary, there are speakers who use "atheist" with the clear intention to refer to the strong version that does not include "agnostic" as a subclass. A use in a particular sentence that is clear and intentionally restricts the scope of the term is poorly captured in the dictionary if the dictionary only offers a vague and broad sense. --Dan Polansky 12:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

 * But then what do you do with all the uses which are not restricted in meaning (in my opinion, 90% of them)? < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ</> 12:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Those uses that do not restrict the meaning belong to the broad sense. When designing a slicing of a term into senses in a dictionary, your task is to find all sentences that use the term, and classify the uses of the term in these sentences by the meaning of the term. For those sentences that use the term in a narrow sense, you need a sense line that fits this use. For those sentences that use the term in a broad sense, you need another sense line that fits this use. Sometimes, you join these two senses on one sense line, using the formula "A such that B, especially when C" or the like, where the part "especially when C" is there for the narrow sense. But then you still have two senses, just packed on one sense line. Again, it is much similar to "cat", which has a narrow sense that is a subset of the broad sense. You have the option to say that cat is "An animal of the family Felidae, especially the domestic subspecies", but it is unclear whether you serve the readers well by using one sense line instead of two. Again, the sentence "I am an atheist rather than an agnostic" does not work with the broad sense. --Dan Polansky 12:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your number 90% seems odd to me. An atheist (in the broad sense) that is at the same time an agnostic has to admit this: "I believe that maybe there is God" or the like, a stance that I doubt most self-described atheists have. --Dan Polansky 12:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * cat: meant Felis domesticus for a thousand years before it was ever applied as a broad term for the genus. The senses there seem obviously distinct in usage historically as well as practically. atheist:, by contrast, has always stood for a considerable continuum of specifics. And by the way, your idea of atheists' belief is not correct: the vast majority of atheists do not say for certain that god does not exist, they merely say that in the absence of proof they do not believe so. Some do go further, but in general the idea of atheists claiming to know that there is no god is a straw man put up by opponents. Anyway, the fact that we have to discuss these fine details at all is more evidence to my mind that our definition should be broad enough to cover this whole range, as almost everyone who uses the term seems to have a slightly different view of it. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ</> 12:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The important point is this: Your proposal to have no specific sense in the dictionary does not do justice to those sentences that use the term in a narrow sense. Even if only 10% of sentences used the term "atheist" in the narrow sense, this sense should be documented in the dictionary, or else the dictionary is incomplete.
 * The paragraphs that follow are less imporant.
 * I do not know much about what the majority of self-described atheists believe. You speak of 90%, but provide no evidence or references. I find the stance of "there is neither God nor gods" natural and simple enough to be naively held, while the stance of "maybe there is God; I don't know; I don't hold the belief that there is God" seems an artificial augmentation against some objections. But, again, I do not know in any reliable manner anything about what most self-described atheists think. My bet is that most self-described atheists are strong atheists, but that is merely a guess.
 * The need to discuss this is no evidence for the necessity of having only the broad sense in the dictionary.
 * Re: "everyone who uses the term seems to have a slightly different view of it": How unlikely. So far, we have been discussing two senses of the term, one narrow and one broad. --Dan Polansky 13:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree with Dan; I strongly support having separate sense lines for the separate senses. The words "atheism" and "atheist" can be used broadly, in a way that applies to those who believe no gods exist and those who do not believe gods exist — and even those who believe certain gods (but not the "right" ones) do exist. The Romans are said to have considered the Christians atheists, at first, because the Christians did not believe in the Roman gods, and I have seen Christians today refer to Hindus as atheists, because the Hindus do not believe in the Christian gods. We certainly need a broad sense that captures this broad use: "a person who does not believe that a particular god or gods exist(s)". However, we also need senses or subsenses that capture narrower uses of the term: one by which Christians and Hindus are not atheists, but agnostics are ("a person who does not believe that any god(s) exist(s)"), and another by which Christians, Hindus and agnostics are all not atheists ("a person who believes no gods exist"). It would be very misleading to have only the broadest attested sense. It is easy to find authors who use narrow senses: find authors who write "A is a Hindu, B is an agnostic, C is an atheist" as though these are different things. I would treat "Christian" similarly: if there are authors who write *"A is a Christian, whereas B is a Protestant", we certainly should add *"(in Catholicism) specifically, a Catholic" as a subsense of Christian. - -sche (discuss) 20:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. That seems like a recipe for a huge proliferation of senses to me, since different groups of Christians have very different ideas about who else gets to use the label (just look at the current arguments in the US about whether or not Mormons are Christians). People always argue about the application of religious and political labels, it's the nature of it. Solving this by making everyone right for a given separate definition seem misleading to me. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ</> 05:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, consider how other lexicographers have dealt with this situation. The OED, Chambers, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Macmillan, Cambridge Learners – in fact every dictionary I can find has one single definition for atheist:. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ</> 05:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right that almost all or all dictionaries have only a single definition line, but the definition line that they have is often for the strong version of atheism: Merriam and Webster online, MacMillan, Cambridge dictionaries online. --Dan Polansky 06:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dude, I'm sorry but you're wrong. "Someone who believes there is no god" is weak atheism. Strong is asserting that there is definitely no god; this is actually rather rare, and not, I would argue, a truly different sense of the word. See e.g. . < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ</> 08:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Someone who believes there is no god" is "someone who asserts there is no god" in the dictionaries' parlance; contrast the dictionaries' definitions of "agnostic" and of eg "Christian" ("one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ"). Negative and positive atheism says that only in the parlance of "a few" people is "believing there are no gods" contrasted with "knowing there are no gods" and used to convey uncertainty. - -sche (discuss) 08:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Widsith: My use of "strong" could have been uncustomary. What I meant by "strong" is the stance "I believe there is neither God nor gods" or simply "there is no god" rather than "I do not hold any belief as to whether there is or there is not God or gods". What I am saying is that the stance of "I believe there is neither God nor gods" should have a separate sense. Any more inclusive or weaker stance can be included as a difference sense, if it can be attested.
 * Now look at what you have entered into "atheism": 'The absence of belief in the existence of a god or deity; sometimes more strongly, the assertion that a god or gods do not exist'. Clearly, "I believe there is neither God nor gods" is more specific (or logically "strong", a proposition is stronger if it says more, aka rules more cases out, aka is more narrow) than the sense that you have entered into "atheism". And you yourself have written "sometimes more strongly" in your definition, so my use of the phrase "strong version" was in line with the phrasing chosen by you. The word "strong" does not matter, anyway; what matters is that you want agnosticism to be included in the only sense of "atheist" that Wiktionary would have, whereas I want to have a sense for "atheist" from which agnosticism is excluded.
 * For past discussions, I highlight Talk:atheist from July 2010, in which Mglovesfun proposed merger of the more broad and more narrow sense (agnostic-inclusive and agnostic-exclusive sense), Anatoli agreed, and Ruakh opposed. --Dan Polansky 09:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The OED has two definition lines: "One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God." and "One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.", each with cites spanning hundreds of years. <i style="font-family:verdana"> D b f i r s </i> 07:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right of course, and I agree that's a separate sense, but that is nothing to do with the three senses we currently have, all of which are part of the OED's sense 1. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ</> 08:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

 * (after some edit conflict) Random House has two senses of "atheist" (1. absence of belief that any gods exist, 2. belief that no gods exist), and Merriam-Webster has a full set of three, including the now-less-common vague sense which Dbfirs finds that the OED also has. Their version of it, "ungodliness, wickedness", is broader than what I wrote at [[atheist]], "absence of a particular religion"; what I wrote as definition number 1 needs to be broadened.
 * With three senses, we are being descriptive. Many deviations from standard religious practice are "atheism" in books, particularly older books. Many, many people (who I presume have written books and Usenet posts) lump all "those who do not believe in god(s)" (including agnostics) together as "atheists". Many, many other books (including almost all modern books that describe one person as an agnostic and another as an atheist) use "atheists" to refer only to those who believe no gods exist.
 * As Ruakh said in the old RFV debate: "the comments in favor of merging the senses are basically taking the position that they [...] don't draw the distinction between a negative and a positive atheist, so can't understand the motivation for using to describe only the latter"... but as Dan said, "A use in a particular sentence that is clear and intentionally restricts the scope of the term is poorly captured in the dictionary if the dictionary only offers a vague and broad sense." As has been discussed at length on the talk page, our senses 2 and 3 are clearly distinct: "Those who do not believe in gods" are defined by not having a particular kind of belief (namely, religious belief); they may think that others' beliefs (in gods) could be correct — but "those who believe no gods exist" are defined by having an active belief which necessarily holds that other beliefs (in gods) are wrong. The senses are furthermore clearly used distinctly: as I have written, almost every book that describes one person as an agnostic and another as an atheist uses "atheist" in a way that excludes agnostics. That other books use the term in a way that includes agnostics cannot cause the first definition not to exist, but a second, broader definition must be added to account for the laxer literature. - -sche (discuss) 08:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I disagree with your analysis. To draw a distinction between those who do not believe in god and those who believe there is no god is to base the definitions on the slightest of semantic quibbles, a difference in meaning which I simply do not see evidenced in the citations. I am not saying some people don't draw the distinction. They do. But many don't, and many citations are ambiguous for the simple reason that in reality the word's meaning is not very specific. I believe, contrary to Dan, that in that situation it is more useful to combine these two definitions on one line: "someone who does not believe in a god or gods, or who believes they do not exist". I come back to a comparison with Christian:. Do we need separate definitions for every sect's idea of who is and is not a Christian? It would be possible to find citations which use the word very restrictively. But surely it's more useful to identify the idea all these uses are getting at. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ</> 11:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Butting in, in a way: The distinction is evidenced in quotations, contrary to your assertion. It is evidenced in the quotations already present in the entry in Wiktionary: "I would rather have the pews full of angry atheists and questioning agnostics than [...]"; "If you're not an atheist, what are you? I'm an agnostic. [...]"; "Many have wondered why Freud called himself an atheist and not an agnostic". Furthermore, the distinction is not "the slightest of semantic quibbles"; it is a distinction that leads people to saying such things as "I am not an atheist but rather an agnostic", a sentence that is false if the place of "atheist" is substituted with a broad sense. I see no analogy to denomination of Christians; I do not see what quotations would attest a use of "Christian" that refers only to a particular denomination. --Dan Polansky
 * Nonsense, those quotes work perfectly well with the "broad" sense, of someone who doesn't believe in god. What such people do believe is actually irrelevant to the meaning of these citations: the point is what they DON'T believe, and that is exactly the essense of the word atheism:. As for your last statement, a few seconds' Googling will demonstrate that many Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christians, many Evangelicals do not consider Catholics to be Christians, etc etc. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ</> 13:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, a reader must know what atheists do believe to understand the quotations. It is also necessary to know what agnostics do and do not believe. Plug in the suggested broad, all-inclusive definitions of "atheist" and of "agnostic" (the ones that only account for what such people do not believe), and see: "If you're not [someone who does not believe gods exist, but does not necessarily believe they do not exist], what are you? I'm [someone who does not believe gods exist, but also does not believe they do not exist]." "Many have wondered why Freud called himself [someone who does not believe gods exist, but does not necessarily believe they do not exist] and not [someone who does not believe gods exist, but also does not believe they do not exist]." Such a broad definition strips the citations of their meaning. Consider especially citations like
 * 2004 Mark E. Moore, Mark Scott, A Humble Defense: Evidence for the Christian Faith, page 10:
 * Ravi Zacharias reminds us, "Atheism is not merely a passive unbelief in God but an assertive denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism; atheism contradicts belief in God with a positive affirmation of matter as ultimate reality.
 * 2007, William Sims Bainbridge, Across the secular abyss: from faith to wisdom, page 10:
 * Atheism is not merely a passive lack of faith, but active disbelief in the supernatural. It is more common among men and among better educated people, but until recently we lacked data to probe its sources further.
 * Plug the broad, all-inclusive definition into those lines:
 * "[Unbelief in God] is not merely a passive unbelief in God..." (huh?)
 * "[Lack of faith] is not merely a passive lack of faith..." (what?)
 * If you don't see the distinction, I think you should defer to those in this discussion and the previous discussions who can see it. - -sche (discuss) 08:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi -sche, thanks for this but you misrepresent my position on what the word means. I do not say that it means "someone who does not believe gods exist, but does not necessarily believe they do not exist", that is exactly what I dispute. I say it means merely "someone who does not believe gods exist", where the position on what else they do or do not believe is variable and irrelevant. If you plug that into the citations we were discussing you will see that they make perfect sense. The two others you include at the end do indeed use the word in a much more specific way, but I maintain that this is not the essence of the word. Hopefully you and I can agree that we could both go off and find very restrictive ideas of what Christian:, democrat:, Socialist: etc. SHOULD mean but writing 20 definitions for them all is a poor response. This is not an argument about what distinctions I cannot see -- of course I see exactly the distinction you are trying to draw, but this is a discussion about how a dictionary responds to politically charged words which have had a variety of restrictive definitions imposed on them by interested parties: I do not think it is helpful (or even sustainable from citations) to split them all up according to fine distinctions. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ</> 09:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, if you examine the matter carefully, you will see that the broad sense is incompatible with "I am not an atheist but an agnostic". This sentence is incompatible with "atheist" as "a person who does not believe in God": if the person is not an atheist and thus not a person who does not believe in God, then the person does believe in God, and is at the same time an agnostic, which is a contradiction. --Dan Polansky 15:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave up this fight in exhaustion long ago, but I'll just examine this argument. I don't understand your logic. Are you arguing for a separate narrow sense of atheist meaning "someone who believes positively that no gods exist"? If so, the double negative you raise still applies. If the person is not an atheist and therefore not someone who believes no gods exist, then the person does believe some gods exist, and is at the same time an agnostic, which is a contradiction. In actual fact, if someone says ‘I'm not an atheist but an agnostic’, most people would interpret that as ‘I wouldn't say I don't believe in god, I'd say I haven't decided’. Again, the key point about the word ‘atheist’ is what they don't believe, not what they do believe. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ</> 20:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If the person is not "someone who believes positively that no gods exist", the person can still have no belief as to whether God does or does not exist, so your 5th sentence is wrong. Put differently, if it is not true of person P that "person P believes that A", it does not yet follow that "person P believes that not A"; it may still be that "person P has no belief as to whether A or not A holds". --Dan Polansky 20:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Ƿidsiþ -- I'm with Dan here: not being an atheist does not rule out being an agnostic. You've got two propositions here, but appear to be linking them erroneously.  Abstracting, we have:
 * (A == B)
 * (C == B || !B)
 * Therefore (!A == !C)... which is not a conclusion that follows from the two propositions above.
 * Filling in with the terms of this discussion, we have:
 * (Atheist == NoGod)
 * (Agnostic == NoGod || God)
 * Therefore (!Atheist == !Agnostic)... except this does not follow, which is the point that Dan makes.
 * And, FWIW, I've always understood atheism: to mean "a belief that no gods exist", such that the labels atheist: and agnostic: are mutually exclusive. In a nutshell, in answer to the question "is there a god?", the religious person would say "yes," the atheist would say "no," and the agnostic would say "maybe."  This is how I've always heard the terms used, and I assumed that the terms were formed as they are in order to make this distinction: no: + god: + -ism: and no: + knowing: + -ism:.  -- HTH, Eiríkr Útlendi │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">Tala við mig 23:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (Enter, With extreme weariness) For the record, I do not disagree with you, I only disagree with Dan's original proposition. On a point of fact, in answer to the question ‘Is there a god?’, almost all atheists would say ‘I don't know for certain’. In answer to the question ‘Do you believe in the existence of a god?’, they would answer "no". However, that is not the point. As I have tried to make clear, I am not denying that people use atheist: in slightly different ways, what I am saying is that citations are not sufficiently distinct to justify us in assuming that these are separate definitions: it makes far more sense, in my view, to combine them in one definition along the lines of ‘someone who has no belief in, or who denies the existence of, a god or gods’. That is my point. All citations fit this definition; many (most) citations do not fit obviously into the two more specific definitions. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ</> 07:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Ƿidsiþ: You are apparently taking the view that atheist belongs to a category of "politically charged words which have had a variety of restrictive definitions imposed on them by interested parties", but I don't see any evidence of that. The cites in the entry demonstrate that a variety of people, including self-described "atheists", self-described "agnostics", and neither-of-the-aboves, have all drawn the same, consistent distinction between the terms "atheist" and "agnostic", using them in roughly the same way that others use the terms "strong atheist" and "weak atheist", or "positive atheist" and "negative atheist". —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 17:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A distinction between "atheist" and "agnostic" I fully accept, what I don't see is a convincing distinction between the two senses of "atheist". Different people have tried to define the word to answer the question of what kind of atheist, exactly, are you – meaning, what exactly do you believe? But my contention is simply that the answer to that question is irrelevant to the word atheist:, which is specifically and only concerned with describing what someone doesn't believe. To put it another way, I don't deny some citations fit both of these definitions; what I say is that all of them would fit a wider definition and would be less misleading given the multitude of citations which don't clearly fit into either specific def because they simply refer to ‘someone who doesn't believe in god(s)’. Do you think it would be useful to split agnostic: up similarly? ‘Someone who thinks there might be a god but isn't sure’ and ‘someone who thinks there isn't a god but isn't sure’? Citations could be found to support both, but what is the point and is that really the essence of the word? Do you see what I'm getting at..? < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ</> 20:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A late chime-in here --
 * I think some of the confusion here might stem from the same issue that tripped me up as I read through this thread -- the ambiguity inherent in saying "A does not believe in B". As I first read it, this meant the same thing to me as "A believes that B does not exist" -- and I think this is how Ƿidsiþ is interpreting the phrase in his immediately preceding post, and possibly in his edit to the atheism definitions.  Here, "A does not believe in B" cannot apply to agnosticism:.
 * However, I think Dan, Ruakh, -sche, and the others are interpreting the phrase "A does not believe in B" to mean "A makes no positive affirmation that B exists, but is open to the possibility that B exists". Here, "A does not believe in B" can apply to agnosticism:.
 * Whichever the case with regard to this discussion, the current definitions given at atheism: strike me as confusing -- I can find no meaningful distinction between senses 1 and 3:
 * <ol><li>The rejection of belief that any deities exist.</li> The stance that deities do not exist (gnostic atheism).</li></ol>
 * To me, and I suspect to at least a few others, "a rejection of belief in X" is effectively the same thing as "a stance that X does not exist". I'm not even sure what difference was intended.  Perhaps the wording could be changed to clarify?  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">Tala við mig 16:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Actually, I read "A does not believe in B" the same way that you do. When I say that we should keep both a narrower "strong/positive atheist" sense and a broader "strong/positive or weak/negative atheist" sense, I do not mean to argue for the specific wording that was very recently put in the entry, which seems to try to use "does not believe" to mean something like "does not have an active belief". (Sorry, : I think you dropped the ball in that edit!)
 * As for sense three — yeah, it's confusing, but if you look at the cites I think you'll see what it's getting at. Putatively, that sense of "atheist" includes anyone who doesn't believe in some specific deity, even if they do believe in a different deity. (Gibbon writes of "atheists" who reject the Roman religion in favor of Christianity; Dawkins would say that I am an "atheist about Zeus", even though I believe in G-d.)
 * —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 17:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ruakh. Hmm, then, should sense 3 be reworded to something like "a stance that specific deities do not exist"?  This would highlight the difference with sense 1.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">Tala við mig 17:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Just to make sure we're on the same figurative and literal page(s): [[atheism]] has three senses (the first two written by JimWae, the last written before 2011), [[atheist]] has three senses (written or modified by me); Jim's first and second senses of [[atheism]] are compatible with my first and second senses of [[atheist]], but my third definition of [[atheist]] ("a person who does not have a particular religious belief, even if (s)he has other religious beliefs... a person who disregards moral obligation...") is not compatible with the third definition of [[atheism]] ("the stance that deities do not exist, gnostic atheism"). I agree with Eirikr (and Ruakh?) that [[atheism]]'s sense 3 is not clearly distinct from its sense 1; the proposed change brings it into line with [[atheist]]'s sense 3. Regarding the other senses: I thought it was clear to juxtapose "who does not believe that any god(s) exist(s) [...] but who does not necessarily believe that no god(s) exist(s)", but if you can formulate it clearer, please do! I'm concerned "who does not have an active belief" carries as many erroneous implications as "does not believe", though: "does not believe in X" leads some people to think "believes X does not exist", but "does not have an active belief" implies "has a passive belief". Perhaps "does not have a belief that X exists", juxtaposed with "but may not have a belief that X does not exist"? - -sche (discuss) 19:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If the definitions at atheism: are so clearly distinct in scope, as the editor who reversed my edit claimed, then can someone kindly tell me which of the definitions the four citations should be filed under? It seems an impossible task to me. Instead of working from preconceived ideas about definitions backwards, why not look at the citations and go from there? < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ</> 20:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it: as if we were still a descriptive dictionary. The premise may be contrafactual, but it could be a useful fiction. DCDuring TALK 21:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As Lillian Hellman said, ‘cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth’. You old cynic you. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ</> 07:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

 * First of all, I apologise for saying above that you (Widsith) don't see the distinction between the senses; what I should have said is that you don't think the distinction is being made by the citations. (Right?)
 * That's the impasse we don't seem to be moving from: I do think some citations use sense 1, some use sense 2, and some use sense 3. I think it clear that McGrath, for example, uses [[atheism]] to mean the "positive"/"affirmative" belief that god is not: McGrath rightly considers that to be "faith" (because it cannot be logically proven that no god exists in any form, even though specific religious claims like "woman was created from man's rib" can be proven to be true or false), and McGrath contrasts this which agnosticism. Sense 2 includes things that McGrath doesn’t include in his use of the term.
 * It's actually more difficult for me to find citations that clearly use sense 2 (which includes not only the phenomenon described by sense 1, but also agnosticism), but we all seem to agree (right?) that the second sense exists — we may not all agree on the wording, but I should note that I consider my wording to be an attempt at the same "broad" definition Widsith proposed we have as the only definition (if my wording isn't good, let's improve it). I haven't read the whole of his work to make sure, but Paul Henry Thiry seems to use [[atheist]] in sense 2; he says "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God": children are not born believing either that god is or that god is not, so children are born sense-2-atheists.
 * Meanwhile, I expect that other citations can be found that clearly use sense 3; that is, which use [[atheism]] as a generic term for any "wickedness" (as the OED puts in) or failure to adhere to the standard religion (regardless of any belief in its god, or in some other god). It's actually possible that a distinction between "wickedness" and "failure to believe in a specific god" may be supported by citations! Dawkins certainly uses [[atheist]] not to mean a wicked person, but to mean a person who does not believe in some god — even if (s)he believes in some other god. Meanwhile, Dbfirs says the OED has citations of atheism being used to mean disregard of moral obligation, wickedness — and I certainly would expect old works might use it in this way.
 * In other words, I think it is descriptive (DCDuring!) to have three senses. My understanding of the previous discussion is that Dan and Ruakh (and Eirikr?) also think that citations support three senses, or that they think the citations support senses 1 and 2 and they haven't commented on sense 3. - -sche (discuss) 00:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

 * On the other hand, the distinction Jim Wae has made between "The rejection of belief that any deities exist, perhaps without the belief that no deities exist." and "The absence of belief that any god(s) exist(s)." may or may not be supported by citations. - -sche (discuss) 03:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, this is a lesser point, but I don't think that "doesn't believe" is a great choice of wording, since as Eirikr points out above, many speakers take it to be roughly synonymous with "disbelieves". (If I have the terminology right, this is an "implicature" which can be "canceled": something like "I don't believe in it, but I don't not believe in it, either" is fine.) —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 21:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As for concerns about having too many senses, or splitting things too finely: we have 25 senses of [[line]] and 16 or 17 senses of [[water]], many about as distinct as these. As a very good example, we distinguish "An infinitely extending one-dimensional figure that has no curvature; one that has length but not breadth or thickness." from "A line segment; a continuous finite segment of such a figure." If citations make such a distinction, we should (and do). - -sche (discuss) 03:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No arguments there. I am normally a big supporter of splitting definitions in such cases. But what I have found is that most uses of atheist: do not fit obviously into a weak-strong division (let's exclude sense 3, which is about immorality and clearly separate). Doing a quick Guardian search I find phrases like ‘Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Jewish and atheist friends joined together’; ‘an atheist academic’; ‘A century of research has highlighted that atheists tend to be well-educated’; ‘Theology lets us talk about deep and irrational urges. This is seen by some atheists as weakness’; ‘Must I, as an atheist and humanist, eschew these simple pleasures given to me in childhood...?’ Here it is not possible to decide whether "weak" or "strong" atheists are being referred to, nor, I'd suggest, does it matter. We have to account for these citations. My opinion, apparently a minority one, is that in such a situation the best response is to write a definition which accounts for both vague and specific usage: ‘Someone who does not believe in, or denies the existence of, a god or gods.’ < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ</> 07:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm probably just misunderstanding you, but, just to be clear: everyone agrees that we need a definition that accounts for the vague usage. And everyone agrees that we don't need a specific definition for "weak" atheists, because (so far as we know) no-one uses the term atheist to refer specifically to weak atheists. But I don't think that a definition for the vague usage can really adequately account for the cites that do distinguish "atheist" from "agnostic", just as (to recycle Dan Polansky's example) a definition for "cat" that accounts for the sentence "lions and tigers are two kinds of cats" cannot readily account for the sentence "lions and tigers are related to cats, but are much bigger and scarier". You say that the specific sense of "cat" can be justified on historical grounds, and I don't doubt you; but it can also be justified on the basis of current usage, as can a specific sense of "atheist".
 * Note that the definitions given at Wikipedia, in a nutshell, are: an atheist is primarily someone who is not a theist, i. e. does not believe in any deities. This leaves open the possibility that proof could be presented that could change the atheist's mind. An agnostic is someone who does not even consider such proof possible. In fact, that is an even stronger and less flexible position! Hence, agnosticism and atheism are not at all incompatible, but neither are agnosticism and theism. Counter to common usage, an agnostic is someone whose mind cannot be changed by evidence, as proving the existence of deities is considered impossible in the agnostic's opinion. (For example, because they consider the existence of deities an unfalsifiable proposition.) An atheist who is not agnostic, on the other hand, is open towards such evidence, and could be caused to change their mind, in principle. An atheist is simply an unbeliever. Note that belief and unbelief are mutually exclusive; you cannot believe and not believe in something at the same time. Nor is there an intermediate position; belief is an either/or thing. If you have doubts, are not sure, or have not made your mind up, you are an unbeliever. (If you do positively believe that deities do not exist, that is a belief and has not been strictly proved, as has often been pointed out.) These are the academic, and long accepted, definitions of atheism and agnosticism.
 * Now a lot of people have come to associate "atheism" with active rejection of belief (antitheism), or even a caricature of radical, fanatic, wild-eyed preachers violently opposing belief, theism, organised religion, religion in general, or even spirituality – the mirror equivalent to religious fundamentalists. Dawkins and his fellow "New Atheists" are often stereotyped as such. However, as I understand them, they are rather just outspoken about their atheism, refuse to be silent, polite and demure, and are adamant about the use of logic to evaluate religious claims. The "New Atheist" movement, if anything, is a reaction against religious fundamentalism and (sometimes inherent or thoughtless) discrimination against people who are open about their atheism, to say nothing of outspoken unbelievers like them. None of the "New Atheists" wants to outlaw religion Soviet-style, and instate science and rationalism as mandatory "state religion", nor do they want to destroy religion and bomb its adherents, buildings and symbols to oblivion, but they demand that atheists be accorded the same rights, and the same respect, as theists. Moreover, they criticise misconceptions and prejudice concerning atheism (such as the old canard that atheists are necessarily immoral and hedonistic, and less likely to do good or care for the future), and are also insistent in their views critical of (mainly monotheistic) religions, which they keep expounding in their books, but they want to convince, on an intellectual level, and encourage and empower existing atheists, rather than to force anyone to change their private beliefs. If you wish to keep your beliefs, and are really convinced, I'd say you could simply ignore Dawkins and his fellows. Fighting against them only makes you appear unsure about your own beliefs, to my mind.
 * However, the (incorrect) perception of atheism as an intolerant position has led many people to eschew the label "atheist". The seemingly compromising, tolerant, non-committal position they prefer is called agnosticism by them, regardless of the established academic definition. I consider this usage clearly incorrect, but Wiktionary should definitely record it as a secondary meaning, and emphasise the difference between academic and common usages.
 * In fact, I think the perception that Dawkins does not use "atheism" in the "weak" sense arises from a misunderstanding. He seems to criticise the position which tries to placate both sides when he points out that people are not as sensitive about similar beliefs which are not sanctioned by society, such as belief in fairies, elves or unicorns, or new religious movements, such as neopagan beliefs or small sects (usually with charismatic leaders), because these have no lobbies. Nobody cares about the religious feelings of fairy-believers, elf-worshippers, unicorn-lovers, Odinists and sectarians, and feels free to put them down as oddballs, nutcases, weirdos, Neo-Nazis and fanatics, respectively. Political correctness has very striking limits. The point of parody religions such as Pastafarianism is that all religions are equally irrational and ridiculous, and it is opportunistic and hypocritical to respect only those which have powerful, influential lobbies, be they churches, the Anti-Defamation League, or Scientology, while in the case of non-mainstream religions without any political support, nobody doubts their irrationality.
 * I'm sure Dawkins respects every belief, however crazy it may seem to him, but that doesn't mean he can't criticise them. His point is that atheism is no more than not believing in patently irrational things such as fairies or elves (and being atheist just means believing in one fewer deity than a monotheist, given that there are millions of deities that people have believed in historically, and that most people do not even come close to believing in all of these), not that people don't have the right to hold irrational beliefs. But he has, reserves and exercises the same right to criticise those beliefs, and that makes him politically inconvenient. His opponents are no less vocal.
 * Being atheist doesn't mean that you are obliged to be loudly critical of religion, but you are allowed to do so, and you are not required to avoid stepping on anyone's toes or violating people's sensibilities, especially when they don't make any attempt to do the same with you or other views they disagree with, either – notably when it comes to beliefs outside the "establishment". When it comes to denouncing neopagans and occultists, thin-skinned, easily offended Christians and otherwise demonstratively inclusive left-wing activists are the first to act, obviously because those are easy victims – and note that it is impossible not to offend anyone's religious sensibilities, because to fundamentalists, the mere fact that you do not believe the same as them already offends their sensibilities: there is no accommodating them. Political correctness, as in treating people with kid gloves, dancing around controversial issues and walking like on eggshells in the desperate attempt not to offend even unintentionally, is futile, and in their insistence not to offend certain groups, however well-meaning (the way to hell is paved with good intentions, as we all know), PC fanatics will offend others (Yupik Eskimos, Alutiiq and the Siberian Eskimos object to being called Inuit, and no, Inuit-Yupik won't do the trick either, because at least Alutiiq do not consider themselves Yupik: quite a quagmire).
 * Personally, I consider myself atheist and agnostic or even ignostic, and have been so ever since my teenage years, but nevertheless I retain an endless fascination with religion, as a subject of study. Just because I denounce the irrationality of something does not mean I must hate and want to destroy it. A lot of human culture is deeply irrational, but as long as it doesn't affect me personally, I have no reason not to tolerate it. (Hell, I'm irrational in many ways, myself, but I try not to be a jerk about it, or do harm.)
 * In short, the distinction between "weak" and "strong" atheism, and sundry variants, becomes absurd when compared to the fairy (etc.) equivalent of atheism; note that Icelanders are known as retaining a tendency to believe in the reality of elves, a source of great amusement to foreigners. --Florian Blaschke 19:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Hi - this has become quite a hefty read, I am not sure that I can do justice to all the arguments raised. Let me just say that I have found few 'serious' sources that entertain the notion that atheism and agnosticism are not distinct and mutually exclusive, indeed many sources explicitly contrast them. I think that a source of unnecessary confusion has arisen regarding the meaning of "reject", "belief", "disbelief" and "denial" - my understanding is that they are all used to signify knowledge claims. Some sources spell that out when they develop the subject further, such as ( emphasis mine ):

"Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief. Since many different gods have been objects of belief one might be an atheist with respect to one god while believing in the existence of some other god. In the religions of the west - Judaism. Christianity and Islam - the dominant idea of God is of a purely spiritual. supernatural being who is the perfectly good. all-powerful. all-knowing creator of everything other than himself. As used in this entry, in the narrow sense of the term an atheist is anyone who disbelieves in the existence of this being, while in the broader sense an atheist is someone who denies the existence of any sort of divine reality." "atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable."
 * Concise Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy 2000
 * Encyclopedia Britannica Online
 * I think that this misunderstanding regarding what rejection and denial means in this context stems from failing to factor in noncognitivism - which states simply that "God exists" does not express any proposition at all, which I think we should agree does not yield "with or without a belief that no deities exist".
 * This is my first foray into wiktionary, so I am not quite sure on how this works, do we build established sources such as dictionaries, encyclopedias and scholarly work ( with discussion of course ) or do we build from more or less random citations in primary sources? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#720">u</b><b style="color:#619">n</b><b style="color:#519">☯</b><b style="color:#419">m</b><b style="color:#319">i</b></i> 17:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Italian translation
Does anybody know if there is some difference between adjectives "ateo" and "ateista" in Italian? I never heard of the latter before, but now I know that term exists. Fturco (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

RFV discussion: August–September 2016
"(broadly) A person who rejects belief that any deities exist (whether or not that person believes that deities do not exist)." The 1843 cite looks okay, but the 2006 one is not. It says "de-facto atheist", which means something like "as good as atheist [in the more common sense] for our purposes". Equinox ◑ 13:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Someone who reject that belief that any deity exists but that may simultaneously believe that deities exists. That's what it says, isn't it? The citations if anything look like they refer to agnostic. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The parenthetical says "do not", so I think this means someone who does not believe in a deity, but does not actively believe that a deity doesn't exist either. : What do you think of the citations at Citations:atheist? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That page is frankly mystifying. Equinox ◑ 14:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, IMHO, in the section Citations:atheist, the ones from 1842, 1843, 1884, and 1911 look like solid citations of this sense. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do we really need these 3 subsenses? I mean these: "person who believes that no deities exist", "person who rejects belief that any deities exist (whether or not that person believes that deities do not exist)", "person who has no belief in any deities, such as a person who has no concept of deities".
 * Proposal: keep the sense "A person who does not believe in deities." and delete the others.
 * I remember that at some point in 2011 I had created a lot of pointless subsenses for attributes of God: "The deity that judges people", "the deity that does whatever and so and so". This was discussed here: Tea room/2011/June. That was a mistake.
 * Quote from that discussion: "cf. "purple" not having 3 senses just because cars, plums, and flowers can all be purple". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

 * I think we should keep the distinction between "person who believes that deities don't exist" and "person who doesn't believe that deities exist" (see past discussions, especially Talk:atheist and Talk:atheist), but I wouldn't object to combining subsenses 2 and 3. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

 * I wonder whether some of these definitions arise to help someone win a or something. Maybe this group seems to arise from introspection or from some late-night dorm-room philosophizing. The hair-splitting involving one vs. multiple deities and active disbelief vs agnosticism seems unnecessary, even excessive for a dictionary. I'd like to see the unambiguous citations or an artful combination/revision (eg, "God or gods" instead of either alone) of the definitions to reflect real-world usage.
 * Is there a word for being skeptical about the existence of God or gods (or of wood nymphs), but sad about their probable non-existence and/or one's ability to overcome one's skepticism? What about prosyletizing against and denying their existence? I see great opportunity for deploying the word or in such definitions. DCDuring TALK 16:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Maybe this group seems to arise from introspection or from some late-night dorm-room philosophizing." Basically, and (internet) debates, as it makes a difference for the onus probandi. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

 * This has been discussed, and already cited, extensively. There are those who want to combine senses, but there have been more (including me) who point out that because significant distinctions exist and many uses only use one sense or another, and they have distinct hyper- and hyponyms and synonyms, they need to be distinguished. Using subsenses as is currently done seems like a good compromise that handles both the specific citations (which can go under the right subsenses) and any vague citations (which can go under the general sense). - -sche (discuss) 16:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought that's what an encyclopedia is for. Or what late-night dorm-room philosophizing is for. We don't cover the range of probably attestable possibilities very well. In any event this is RfV. DCDuring TALK 17:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how synonyms and, even less, hypernyms, hyponyms, and antonyms should force us to have an excessive number of marginally attestable definitions, any more than the existence of a word in another language.
 * For definition one: cite 2 (1953) depends on a prior definition of atheist one not given in the entry. As stated it seems to refer to only to knowability.
 * For definition two: cite 2 seems to be referring to the phrase ' de facto atheist', not atheist alone.
 * For definition three: only one cite.
 * I think citation has a ways to go. DCDuring TALK 17:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe based on the sample above, that we will find objections to the citations of the citations page on similar grounds. For example, for def. 1, cite 2 on the Citations page refers to an atheists disbelief in a power of God, which would follow not only non-existence, but also from some kind of limitation. DCDuring TALK 17:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

 * ISTR that one of our occasional obsessives (was it PaM?) didn't like the word God and would try to change it to "gods" wherever possible. Equinox ◑ 17:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I find it much less objectionable to substitute God or gods for many uses of God or gods alone. DCDuring TALK 17:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

 * To return to this procedural point, this is cited (and was at the time of the RFV), so I have untagged it. Pinging User:Robin Lionheart, who added the citations, if more are needed for some reason. This is a common lax usage of the term, by which agnostics are lumped in. If anything, 3 and 2 could perhaps be merged (along the lines of "A person who does not believe that deities exist" or "A person who has no belief that deities exist"), but there is a distinction between believing that no deities exist and merely not believing that they exist. - -sche (discuss) 20:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You rang? Sense 2 can be distinct from sense 3, such as when theists object to "we are all born atheists" (sense 3: absence of belief) by insisting that "babies aren't atheists!" (sense 2: conscious rejection). ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We can make many distinctions that a dictionary shouldn't in the sense that we can probably find attestation for many ways that one can be an atheist (or mathematician, or baker, or handyman) that differ in their epistemics (know, be unable to know, know/assert that one can't know, know/assert that no-one can know, etc), modality (intention, wish, frequency, habit), or other aspect (be thought immoral/amoral by others/onself, appear to others to be an insincere atheist, etc). We don't even make the distinctions that Atheism makes. Moreover, by focusing on the person (atheist) rather than the belief (atheism) we add the need to cover the person's stance with respect to the belief. Other OneLook dictionaries, even a philosophy glossary don't spend as much digital ink as we do on this. We are once more wasting our time trying to be a short-attention-span encyclopedia.
 * Are our entries for atheism and atheist in a happy relationship to one another? Are they redundant or inconsistent? They look like they are redundant to me. If we are going to expend effort on this, IMO it should be concentrated on [[atheism]], where our necessarily shallow treatment can be transparently supplemented by external links, eg, to Atheism and Agnostism in the . DCDuring TALK 15:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

RFV discussion: May 2017
Rfv-sense: "(politics) An anti-Shintoist who is anti-monarchist."

Tempted to revert it altogether, but the alleged political nuance sets it aside from the other definitions. Can anyone find a reason not to revert it? --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is RFV; see if there are citations for that sense. If not, it can be removed. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Removed. I had actually already reverted it and the anon readded it. This one is more believable than most, but a cursory search supports my initial instinct that's it's BS. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 08:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

To Equinox
Equinox (talk | contribs). . (11,983 bytes) (-215). . (→Hypernyms: religion is not the same thing as metaphysics)
 * metaphysics is the analysis of all that there is, it is wider, thus ametaphysicalist is a hypernym, because it isn't about the mere and generic metaphysics, but specifically the ametaphysics. Ametaphysics is more atheistic and less generic than metaphysics.

 * also the word of the lemma is "atheist", not religion

 * Source? Sounds like one person's opinion. Equinox ◑ 16:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Among atheists
Some atheists use the term unatheist against atheists who don't express coherent views or if they do opposite or contradicting things towards their philosophy (for example it's used against religious friendly atheists who are friendly for social reasons, votes, money etc.).

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:atheist


text:
Evil One

Proper noun

 * 1)  The Devil; Satan; Lucifer.

Translations

 * Arabic:
 * Russian:
 * Welsh: un drwg

title: Evil One


text: served

title: served


text: formed

title: formed


text:
developed

Adjective

 * 1)  Not primitive; not third-world.
 * 2) Mature.
 * 3) Containing man-made structures such as roads, sewers, electric lines, buildings, and so on.
 * 4) Having useful or necessary infrastructure.
 * 5) Advanced, fully formed.
 * 6)  Processed and fixed; containing a visible negative (or positive for slide film) image
 * 1) Advanced, fully formed.
 * 2)  Processed and fixed; containing a visible negative (or positive for slide film) image
 * 1)  Processed and fixed; containing a visible negative (or positive for slide film) image

Synonyms

 * , ; see also Thesaurus:full-grown
 * , ; see also Thesaurus:full-grown

Antonyms

 * undeveloped

Translations

 * Catalan:
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin: ,
 * Danish: udviklet
 * Finnish:
 * French:
 * German:
 * Hindi:
 * Hungarian:
 * Japanese: ,
 * Latin: prōvectus
 * Norwegian:
 * Bokmål: utviklet
 * Polish:
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian:
 * Spanish:
 * Swedish:
 * Turkish:, inkişaf etmiş
 * Ukrainian: розви́нений, розви́нутий

 * Danish: udviklet, moden
 * Finnish:
 * French:
 * German:
 * Hindi:
 * Polish:
 * Russian: ,
 * Swedish:
 * Turkish:, inkişaf etmiş

title: developed


text:
received

Adjective

 * 1) Generally accepted as correct or true.

title: received


text:
metropolitan

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1)  A bishop empowered to oversee other bishops; an archbishop.
 * 2) The inhabitant of a metropolis.
 * 1) The inhabitant of a metropolis.
 * 1) The inhabitant of a metropolis.
 * 1) The inhabitant of a metropolis.

Translations

 * Arabic: مُطْرَان, مِطْرَان, مَطْرَان
 * Armenian:
 * Belarusian: мітрапалі́т
 * Bulgarian: митрополи́т
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Danish: metropolit
 * Esperanto:
 * Finnish:
 * Italian:
 * Macedonian: митропо́лит
 * Malayalam:
 * Polish:
 * Romanian:
 * Russian:
 * Spanish: metropolitano
 * Swedish:
 * Ukrainian: митрополи́т

Adjective

 * 1)  Pertaining to the see or province of a metropolitan.
 * Of, or pertaining to, a metropolis or other large urban settlement.
 * 1) Of or pertaining to the parent state of a colony or territory, or the home country, e.g. metropolitan France
 * 2) * 2015, Wouter Veenendaal, The Dutch Caribbean municipalities in comparative perspective. Island Studies Journal 10(1): 15–30:
 * the new political status of these islands marks a  definite  break  with  the  traditional  Dutch  colonial  practice  to  keep  its  Caribbean colonies at a distance; and, after 2010, Dutch metropolitan laws and dministrative practices started being implemented on the islands.
 * the new political status of these islands marks a  definite  break  with  the  traditional  Dutch  colonial  practice  to  keep  its  Caribbean colonies at a distance; and, after 2010, Dutch metropolitan laws and dministrative practices started being implemented on the islands.

Translations

 * Syrian Arabic: مطراني

 * Bulgarian:
 * Catalan:
 * Czech: metropolitní
 * Esperanto:
 * Finnish: suurkaupunkilainen
 * French: ,
 * Greek:
 * Irish: uirbeach
 * Italian:
 * Japanese:
 * Latin: metropolitanus
 * Norwegian: metropolitt
 * Polish: ,
 * Portuguese:
 * Russian: ,
 * Spanish: metropolitano

 * Japanese:
 * (だいとしの); referring to large urban ???
 * (ふしゅきょう); Metropolitan bishop in Orthodox Church
 * (しゅとだいしきょう); Metropolitan bishop in Catholic Church

Adjective

 * 1) metropolitan

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  metro, subway, underground

title: metropolitan


text:
User:Prajwal

Lives in Bangalore, India. Knows a few Indian languages, though not a scholar.

title: User:Prajwal


text:
voluntary

Etymology
From, from , from , from , from , present participle of. Displaced native.

Adjective

 * 1) Done, given, or acting of one's own free will.
 * 2) * September 10, 1828,, Sermon delivered in the Chapel of Yale College
 * That sin or guilt pertains exclusively to voluntary action is the true principle of orthodoxy.
 * 1) Done by design or intention; intentional.
 * If a man accidentally kills another by lopping a tree, it is not voluntary manslaughter.
 * 1) Working or done without payment.
 * 2) Endowed with the power of willing.
 * 3) Of or relating to voluntarism.
 * a voluntary church, in distinction from an established or state church
 * 1) Of or relating to voluntarism.
 * a voluntary church, in distinction from an established or state church

Synonyms

 * ,, ; See also Thesaurus:optional
 * ,, see

Antonyms

 * , ; See also Thesaurus:compulsory
 * , ; See also Thesaurus:compulsory

Translations

 * Armenian:
 * Azerbaijani:
 * Bengali:
 * Bulgarian:
 * Catalan:
 * Czech:
 * Dutch:
 * Esperanto: volonta
 * Finnish: omaehtoinen, ,
 * French:
 * Galician:
 * Georgian: ნებაყოფლობითი
 * German:
 * Gothic: 𐍃𐌹𐌻𐌱𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌻𐌾𐌹𐍃
 * Greek:, , ,
 * Ancient: ἑκούσιος
 * Hungarian:
 * Icelandic:
 * Ido: volunta,, voluntanta
 * Indonesian:, , , rela hati
 * Interlingua: voluntari
 * Italian:, , di propria iniziativa
 * Japanese: 志願して
 * Kurdish:
 * Northern Kurdish:
 * Latin: voluntarius
 * Latvian: brīvprātīgs
 * Malayalam:
 * Norman: volontaithe
 * Old English: selfwille
 * Polish:
 * Portuguese:
 * Romanian:
 * Russian:
 * Scottish Gaelic: saor-thoileach
 * Slovene: prostovoljen
 * Spanish:
 * Swedish:
 * Tagalog: pakusa
 * Telugu:
 * Ukrainian: доброві́льний

 * Bulgarian:
 * Finnish: ,
 * Georgian: განზრახული, თვითნებური, შეგნებული
 * Hungarian: ,
 * Italian:, ,
 * Latin: ultrōneus
 * Portuguese:
 * Slovene: nameren

 * Bulgarian:
 * Czech:
 * Finnish:, vapaaehtois- , talkoo-
 * French:
 * Georgian: მოხალისეობრივი
 * German: ohne Bezahlung ,
 * Greek:
 * Hungarian:, fizetés nélküli,
 * Italian: ,
 * Portuguese:
 * Romanian: ,
 * Scottish Gaelic: saor-thoileach
 * Slovene: prostovoljen, prostovoljski

 * Finnish: tahdollinen

 * Finnish: ,
 * Italian:
 * Portuguese:

Adverb

 * 1)  Voluntarily.

Noun

 * 1)  A short piece of music, often having improvisation, played on a solo instrument.
 * 2) A volunteer.
 * 3) A supporter of voluntarism; a voluntarist.

title: voluntary


text:
field restriction

Noun

 * 1)  A rule governing the placement of fielders (within an oval drawn on the pitch) at certain times during the innings of a one-day match.

title: field restriction


text:
restriction

Etymology
From, from , , and their source, , from.

Morphologically.

Noun

 * 1) The act of restricting, or the state of being restricted.
 * 2) A regulation or limitation that restricts.
 * 3)  The mechanism by which a cell degrades foreign DNA material.

Usage notes

 * It is often used with the preposition "on", i.e., "restriction on something".

Translations

 * Arabic: تقييد
 * Belarusian: абмежаванне
 * Bulgarian:
 * Catalan: restricció
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Czech:
 * Dutch:
 * Estonian: piiramine
 * Finnish:
 * French:
 * German: ,
 * Greek:
 * Irish: teorannú
 * Italian:
 * Japanese:
 * Korean:
 * Lithuanian: apribojimas
 * Macedonian: ограничување
 * Russian:
 * Spanish:
 * Ukrainian: обмеження
 * Vietnamese: (限制)

 * Arabic: قيد
 * Belarusian: абмежаванне
 * Bulgarian:
 * Catalan: restricció
 * Czech:
 * Estonian: piirang
 * Finnish: ,
 * German: ,
 * Italian:
 * Lithuanian: apribojimas
 * Macedonian: ограничување
 * Norwegian:
 * Bokmål: restriksjon
 * Nynorsk: restriksjon
 * Polish: ,
 * Romanian:
 * Russian:
 * Sanskrit:
 * Spanish:
 * Swedish: ,
 * Ukrainian: обмеження

 * French:
 * Italian:
 * Portuguese:
 * Spanish:

Etymology
, from, borrowed from , from.

Noun

 * 1)  (limitation; constraint)

Etymology
Borrowed from, from.

Noun

 * 1)  (limitation; constraint)

title: restriction


text:
Black Death

Proper noun

 * 1)  A pandemic outbreak of bubonic plague throughout Europe and most of Asia in the 14th century that killed nearly half the population of Europe and Asia.

Synonyms

 * the
 * the
 * the

Translations

 * Arabic: مَوْت أَسْوَد
 * Breton: bosenn zu
 * Bulgarian: черна смърт
 * Catalan: pesta negra
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Danish: den sorte død
 * Dutch: zwarte dood
 * Esperanto: nigra morto
 * Estonian: must surm
 * Faroese: svartideyði
 * Finnish:
 * French:
 * German:, schwarzer Tod
 * Greek: Μαύρη Πανώλη
 * Hebrew: המוות השחור
 * Hungarian: fekete halál
 * Icelandic:
 * Indonesian: Kematian Hitam
 * Italian: peste nera
 * Japanese:
 * Korean:
 * Latvian: melnā nāve
 * Lithuanian: juodoji mirtis
 * Low German: swart Dood
 * Macedonian: цр́на смрт
 * Mongolian:
 * Cyrillic: хар үхэл
 * Neapolitan: pésta
 * Norwegian:
 * Bokmål:
 * Nynorsk: svartedauden
 * Polish:
 * Portuguese:
 * Romanian: moartea neagră, ,
 * Russian: чёрная смерть, чёрный мор
 * Scottish Gaelic: Bàs Dubh
 * Serbo-Croatian:
 * Cyrillic: доба куге, црна смрт
 * Roman: doba kuge, crna smrt
 * Slovak:
 * Slovene: črna smrt
 * Spanish:
 * Swedish:,  ,
 * Turkish: kara ölüm
 * Vietnamese: Cái Chết Đen
 * Welsh: pla du, haint y nodau

title: Black Death