Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is the denial of the existence of any God.

but when you follow the first citation the Stanford Encyclopaedia says:

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism. The tribal gods of the early inhabitants of Palestine are of little or no philosophical interest.

The Stanford encyclopaedia is clear it’s only talking about a small subset of beliefs in Gods, which is relevant to the history of Western Philosophy. Else it would be arguing that Hindus were atheists. Which would be an… um… impressive definition.

I think it started as a project for homeschooled Christian(tm) kids, which explains why so many of the entries are awful.

Ha. Yeah, I used to think that too. More and more I realize that such a thing simply does not happen. Only differences are that mores change, technology advances, cultures change, but ultimately human society does not fundamentally change. One irrational prejudice is replaced by another. New technology gives us new, faster, more effective ways to do the things we always have done — gossip, lie, control, kill, travel, sell, distract. Scope and speed changes, but humanity does not advance. Ancient Rome is not that different functionally from any modern government or society: it had corruption, prejudice, vice, aggression, and so forth. Before that, Egypt had the same problems, and before that, Mesopotamia.

A man once said “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

Sounds like you missed the fun over at Conservapedia back in February. They’ve apparently cleaned things up since then, so think about what you see now and imagine what it used to be.

On the other hand, how can you not love an arboreal octopus? That’s so good it has to be true.