[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

They are not the same thing. I'll be the example. I am not convinced either way about the existence of God or Gods. By wikipedia's definition, I am atheist. By the other three, I am not. If there is going to be a discussion about something like this, there should be at least a common definition of what you're actually talking about. Wikipedia confounds that in my example.

What are you talking about?

A narrower definition includes only those who believe that deities do not exist, and excludes those who hold no position on the question (see agnostics and other non-theists).

That part appears to relate directly to the dictionary definitions you list.
The statement "I am not convinced either way about the existence of God or Gods" would, in my opinion, put that person in the Agnostic category, which is also noted.

I posted the articles because I didn't agree with the description Devlis' Advocate was using. I looked at M-W but posted Wikipedia because it had more explanation and I wanted as inclusive of a definition as I could find.

Did you miss the part at the top of the article?

Because of recent vandalism or other disruption, editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled. Such users may discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account.

That would imply to me that at least some consideration has been put into the content of the article.

I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a reference in a published article. Then again, this is an internet message board. If you're coming here expecting reference level material on ANY subject, you probably have larger problems than the source of a definition of Atheist.


Incidentally, Nature did a comparison between Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica Online. link

One of the extraordinary stories of the Internet age is that of Wikipedia, a free online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. This radical and rapidly growing publication, which includes close to 4 million entries, is now a much-used resource. But it is also controversial: if anyone can edit entries, how do users know if Wikipedia is as accurate as established sources such as Encyclopaedia Britannica?

The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.