The trouble with that 'definition' is that it is not actually a definition ~ i.e. one which will cover all uses of the term ~ but is rather a catalogue of what its compilers regarded as desirable humane attributes or opinions which they trusted many atheists could recognise in themselves without having to postulate any sort of deity or supernatural entity who would be pleased at the idea or the fact of their possessing or holding them. They are all good ones, to be sure; but no recitation of a list of be-it-ne'er-so-many examples, however typical or indicative or worthy, can add up, in any meaningful sense, to a definition.

Mr GUESTconcerned: I see no reason for telepathy to be included in your list of unacceptable postulations, when it is clearly a phenomenon for which a physical cause could well exist, even if we don't know yet what it may be. I had at one time some very limited experience of what I took possibly to be an instance of it, and would certainly not agree that it belongs in the same realm of unlikelihood to the ∞∞° as the deity-concepts.

~M~