Misplaced Pages

Talk:Atheism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:08, 1 May 2024 editScjessey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,021 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2024: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:48, 22 December 2024 edit undoCinadon36 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,658 edits →create page: empirical atheism = nonempirical atheism: re 
(244 intermediate revisions by 38 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{notice|The '''definition of atheism''' has been repeatedly argued on this talk page. Before suggesting substantial changes, please make sure that your view is entirely supported by ] and has a ].}} {{notice|The '''definition of atheism''' has been repeatedly argued on this talk page. Before suggesting substantial changes, please make sure that your view is entirely supported by ] and has a ].}}
{{Round in circles|topic=the '''definition in the first paragraph'''}} {{Round in circles|topic=the '''definition in the first paragraph'''}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header|archive_age=3|archive_units=weeks|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}
<!----- // ADD NEW DISCUSSIONS TO THE *BOTTOM* OF THE PAGE // -----> <!----- // ADD NEW DISCUSSIONS TO THE *BOTTOM* OF THE PAGE // ----->
{{Article history {{Article history
Line 42: Line 42:
{{to do}} {{to do}}
__TOC__ __TOC__
<!-- Force table of contents to appear- it refuses to otherwise --> <!-- Force the table of contents to appear- it refuses to otherwise -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
Line 68: Line 68:
{{hab}} {{hab}}


== Atheist Symbols ==
== Why academics correctly define atheism in academic contexts as one who denies the proposition that God exists, and what that means for the definition section ==


I've no problem with this atheist symbol in the Demographics section where it currently is, just not in the lead per ]. ] (]) 16:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
There are two types of definition: stipulative definitions, which are what one personally finds applies to a topic. Obviously, stipulatively, atheism can be defined however one wishes. However, as a reportative definition, a definition as "absence of belief" is silly (in formal contexts) as all it defines is a psychological characteristic. Personally, I believe the definition section ought to explain why the academic religion is as it is, and note that in formal contexts, that is the reason why the definition of atheism as "denial of the existence of God" is used. That would eliminate the confusion over the definition section at the top of the lede. ] (]) 03:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
:There's no confusion. The introduction to the article has been carefully crafted after being extensively and exhaustively debated. The article seeks to examine atheism in ''all'' its forms, and so your dismissive use of "silly" to describe some of this considered work is unreasonable. Relying on what you call "formal contexts" will also introduce ]. -- ] (]) 20:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
::I agree with Phil, you can’t have an “absence in belief” And any type of philosophical idea, it’s just laziness. ] (]) 10:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Misplaced Pages relies on ], which is what the current status quo is supported by, and not personal opinions. ] (]) 11:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
::::@] Interesting that you are focussed on atheism as a philosophical position. But it is also a lifestyle choice. Atheism is the opposite of religiousity. I don't think many religious believers would say their belief is just philosophical, though it is that, but more importantly, it is also about "walking the walk". So if atheism is the polar opposite, it's not just about "there is no god in my world-view", it is also about "there is no god in my life". Reducing it to a formal logical position is too narrow. ] (]) 19:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
:Atheism is not the denial of the existence of god. It can either be "I do not believe in god," which would be considered a "Weak" atheist, or "I believe there are no gods," or "Strong" atheism. defining atheism exclusively as the statement "denial of the existence of god" first sounds negative, as denial often is used in a manner of being incorrect (he was in denial of x) makes you think that x is real, and he refuses to accept that it is. It also only covers strong atheists, whereas absence of belief covers both strong and weak atheists. You completely miss the difference between strong and weak atheists, and assume all atheists are strong. ] (]) 15:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


== The third definition in the opening ==
== the '''Positive vs. negative''' paragraph is incomplete and ''']ed''' ==
Even positive atheism is negation based. Atheism has a Greek etymology. In English it would be non-godism which is a negation based term; and Richard Dawkins and many neoatheists overfocus on atheism as an affirmative negation; but it is not a purely affirmative term like ]. If you hate something and you are self-aware your fist term for self-definition isn't anti-so-and-so/ anti-what-I-hate. A conscious evolved worldview becomes affirmative. The deepest atheistic synonym is '''metaphysical logicism''' which means '''the fundamental principles of substantiality/existence = metaphysics is logic''' = the axiomatics of actual existence (not of mythology and mistakes) is logic/ logical procedures/ logical causal connectome without logical gaps ] of the future, because now we have many things we don't know... and the physical axiomatics seems to be an open axiomatic system but still quantum foundations can evolve as A LOGICAL AFFIRMATIVE IMPERSONAL = GODLESS field of study.


I have not read this article or the preceding Talk comments, so, if what I write here is redundant, then I apologize. But the third definition -- "the position that there are no deities" -- is ambiguous. On the one hand, a person who takes that position might insist on the truth of a negative, but to do that requires an act of faith, and few atheists are foolish enough to do that. After all, atheists are generally people who do not believe things on faith. On the other hand, I take the position that there are no deities, not as an act of faith, but because no evidence of them is known to exist. Therefore, my taking of that position is provisional, because, if evidence were discovered, I would consider altering my position. ] (]) 00:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The article on '''atheism''' focuses ONLY on atheism as an affirmative negation = positive atheism, but isn't at all analytical on ] and on ]/logicalism . Mathematics is a proof system (see: John Stillwell on proof) and physics is a substantiality system. The quantum foundations doesn't have to be a system handy for general proofs of logic like mathematics which is a general proof tool. Mathematics is compatible to physics due to logic, but they do NOT have the same axiomatics/ Physics/the universe has to exist/ be substantial, thus the axiomatic prerequisites for creating a spacetime are not tautological to mathematics which is a tool of logic for general proofs. Infinite different universes with different foundations are logically possible. But mathematics is supposed to be a general tool for proofs. Mathematics doesn't have to exist. The fact that some mathematical formulas are compatible with natural phenomena doesn't mean they have the same deep = axiomatic causes. You cannot have mathematics without it's axiomatics. And you cannot have physics without its own foundations. ] is the superior thinker on analyzing these deep causes and on understanding the conditions which are the causal basis of the logical phenomena.
:It does ''seem'' a little ambiguous, but I can assure you it reflects the body of scholarly work on the subject. -- ] (]) 16:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
::The sources states that in a narrow sense it is a position. It does not matter how people come to that position as there is no one path to reach it, any more than for theism (faith, reason, evidence etc are not unique, but universal).] (]) 05:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
::Hi, 'believing in God' and 'believin in the existence of God' are 2 different things. Cf. my comment below. ] (]) 01:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:It is not ambiguous. The below statement is a statement of opinion, not fact. In order to make this statement, you would have needed to review all of the evidence, which you certainly have not, and correctly interpreted it. You're a human being capable of misinterpreting evidence. It is also a statement of faith, you're putting your faith exclusively in your own five senses since you personally have not experienced a deity with those senses.
:"I take the position that there are no deities, not as an act of faith, but because no evidence of them is known to exist." ] (]) 17:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::Hello,
::Believers do not believe in god because they think there is compelling evidence that god or gods exist. That's not what 'believing in god' (or gods) mean.
::I noticed that dictionary definitions sometimes defined atheism as the lack of belief in the existence of God and others as the lack of belief in the existence of god of Gods.
::The 'existence'-definition is misleading. The belief is not in the existence but 'in god'.
::I keep reading sterile exchanges between theists and atheists about whether god exists or not, with atheists coming up with the no-evidence argument. These debates are restricted to the US to my knowledge. In the rest of the world we know that you don't convince someone into believing in god or stop believing in god. You don't talk someone into being in love or stop being love.
::What you can show the person is that their claim that they are in love is fake.
::Not a believer myself, not preaching my relgion. ] (]) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
{{hat|reason=Collapsing off-topic discussion per ]}}
::I am not interested in editing this article, so feel free to ignore this comment, but the third definition ''is'' ambiguous, for the reason I stated; it doesn't merely ''seem'' ambiguous. And it is unequivocally ambiguous, not just "a little ambiguous." If the body of scholarly work on the subject overlooks or writes off this ambiguity (if that's what you mean), then so much the worse for the body of scholarly work on the subject. ] (]) 16:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
:::The third definition is strong or ] as in "there is no ] and no divinity either". It is true it can be provisional, as in "there is no divinity unless one becomes evident". Nevertheless, positive atheism is notable hence its inclusion in the lede. Also the degree it's provisional or not largely depends on context and individual assessments which falls a bit outside its scope, although I am reminded of Richard Dawkins' ]. ] (]) 18:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I agree with everything you say here, but I want to emphasize that the difference between a strong atheist (in Dawkins' terms) and a provisional one is crucial, because the former, like a strong theist, believes irrationally, as a matter of faith, and deserves no more respect a strong theist who claims to know that a god exists.
::::I disagree with Dawkins' description of the strongest atheist after that a "strong atheist." It is "''De facto'' atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. 'I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'" I consider myself a stronger atheist than that, without being a "strong atheist" in Dawkins' sense. That is because I would not say that I don't know for certain that a god doesn't exist. I would say that nobody ''can'' know for certain. But I have no more doubt about the non-existence of a god than I do about the non-existence of flying pigs, while I acknowledge that I can't "know" the non-existence of either.
::::I concede that I may be conflating logic and feelings here. Logically, I acknowledge the possibility that a god exists, but I do not ''feel'' that there is any possibility. The person who uses Dawkins' phrase, "I don't know for certain," sounds as though he ''feels'' that there is a possibility, however close to zero, that a god exists. How's that for nitpicking? ] (]) 02:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::See ]. It makes a clear distinction between knowing (we do not or cannot know) and not believing because we do not have a belief in a god (or a divinity) and we may believe there is no god (provisionally on account of one's agnosticism). ] (]) 04:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== Removal of sadness/happiness from the citation. ==

The headline of the citation is "Are atheists sadder but wiser?" Why would one aspect of the article be included but not the studies related to religious people are happier? It is cherry-picking from sources.


https://skepticalinquirer.org/2020/03/are-atheists-sadder-but-wiser/
By rejecting or not analyzing ] and ] many old in age neoatheists harm the purely affirmative versions of atheism.


The health benefits of religious belief is well-documented. I don't understand why it would be scrubbed from this article.
'''Metaphysical logicism''' = logicalism (blend of logicism + physicalism) is important as a term, because many (but not all) old logicists (basic logicism is '''mathematical logicism''') erroneously and without good or any explanation claim that the axiomatics = open list of axioms of mathematics is tautological to the ] which by no means is tautological. '''Metaphysical logicism''' is important as a term because it focuses on metaphysics = the fundamental principles of substantiality = wider contextual existence = spacetime = cosmos = wider existence able to be a system like the universe.


https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2024/03/23/religion-effect-on-happiness/#:~:text=In%20the%20analysis%20in%20this,while%20only%201%25%20reported%20that ] (]) 12:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
'''Metaphysical logicists''' are 100% atheists/antisupernaturalists/antitranscendentalists. Personhood is the result of many impersonal data-processing modalities (Brodmann-like areas) which yield a personhooded biological, digital, program-based or hybrid ]. Personhood isn't a ] but it's a mereological complex. The ] and the ] are final results and not the logical axiomatic foundations. The brain requires space to have a ] and spatiotemporal entropy = time to exhibit data-processing; thus spacetime is a prerequisite for the mind. Personhood isn't cosmogonic nor a fundamental axiom. According to ] irreversible data-processing transforms the lost data into heat. ] isn't possible to function without both forms of entropy, ] and ]. The supernatural isn't only unreachable, but it is fundamentally impossible, because it doesn't meet logical axiomatic criteria being exological; and without specific identity it cannot exist as something specific; and as something existent (the axiomatic prerequisites of the physical foundations cannot ever be something exological without causal and logical relations; any logical foundations is NOT supernatural). The supernatural for the metaphysical logicist = metaphysical naturalist = physicalist = methodological rationalist = atheist is an impossibility.


:The study says there is a statistically significant (in otherwords, big enough to be measurable) correlation between religious belief and self-reported happiness. The study does ''not'' say atheists are sadder, which is merely the ] title. I guarantee the study did not ask atheists how sad they were, which means it would be incorrect to make that claim in this article. -- ] (]) 13:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Mistakes, mental illness and dis-semantics are logically possible as errors, but these errors do not violate logic (they are unoptimal missemantics; due to functional and structural erroneous semantic connectomes) and they are not the physical foundations. According to metaphysical logicism = metaphysical naturalism = physicalism = methodological rationalism = atheism = antisupernaturalism = antitranscendentalism, the supernatural (and religion) are nonfundamental logical errors; erroneous opinions (there are two ways to prove things: empirically via methodological observation and fundamentally via axiomatic logic without causal gaps).
::Sure. We can make it “less happy” or “not as happy.” ] (]) 22:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::You are missing the point entirely. While it positively states people with religious belief are happier, it does '''''not''''' positively state that atheists are less happy or not as happy. That would technically be ].
:::Imagine a report that stated two people (persons A and B) held 100 oranges between them, but person A held 51 of those oranges. What you want to do is say that person B had 49 oranges ''but the report does not explicitly state that'' and it would be original research to do so. You and I know that person B had 49 oranges, but we cannot say so. Person A's Misplaced Pages article can confidently state "person A had 51 oranges" and provide a citation, but because the reference does not say person B had 49 oranges you ''cannot even mention it'' in person B's Misplaced Pages article. Do you see what I'm getting at? It doesn't belong in this article. -- ] (]) 15:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Then the converse would be true and the whole citation should be taken out. That's cherry picking the data. ] (]) 18:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
::::<s>It's a pity that there had to be an edit-war before this discussion started.</s> I think that ] is taking an extreme view here. Of course we can say in the example that person B had 49 oranges - that's simple arithmetic, not any kind of research, original or not. Whether religious people or atheists are sadder than the others has no connection to the truth value of any statements that they make. ] (]) 13:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::The Skeptical Inquirer citation relied upon by the OP's addition is behind a paywall and has thus far not been explicitly quoted here in support of the addition. Nor is it clear whether it is a single study under consideration or whether it is one of many and what the sampled population(s) are and any caveats, such as confounding variables to consider such as the fact that often agnostic atheists do not even identify as atheists due to stigmatization and discrimination in some communities. Also, Caleb Henshaw's piece compares ] or nonreligious nones to the religious, which is a problem for there are far fewer irreligious atheists than the many irreligious theists, thus it's not at all specific enough to whether atheists are less happy. Perhaps that may not matter, but I don't know. ] (]) 15:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::@] It absolutely ''is'' original research when you extrapolate, whether or not it is simple arithmetic. And I haven't been part of any edit war. -- ] (]) 18:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::See ], part of ]. And I did not say that you were involved in edit warring - that comment was directed at {{U|PerseusMeredith}} and whoever I thought he was edit-warring against - but I see now that I was wrong so withdraw that sentence. ] (]) 19:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It still fails ] because it is not a "routine" calculation. The survey claims a percentage level of happiness, but "sadness" is not the opposite of "happiness" just as "cold" is not the opposite of "hot" because other states exists, so any calculation is unsupported and ''certainly'' doesn't have a consensus agreement. -- ] (]) 15:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::You are putting words into my mouth. I made no claim about sadness or happiness, but only about your example, which was a bad one. ] (]) 15:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Nevertheless, you still my interpretation of ] as "extreme" simply because I was trying to come up with an easy-to-understand example of why the original poster's point wasn't valid. That does not seem like an assumption of good faith. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that the OP was trying to claim a study saying religious people are happier automatically meant that atheists are sadder. Despite the click-baity title of the reference that clearly isn't the case; therefore, the source wasn't used as described. -- ] (]) 12:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::"So, according to the evidence, atheism appears to be a choice to be sadder but wiser, but, in fact, we are not justified in drawing that conclusion. It is important to recognize that all the evidence cited in this column is correlational, which means we cannot identify what causes any of these relationships—only that certain variables travel together."
::::::::::It's not just a "click bait" title. It's the premise of the whole article. The data clearly shows the more frequently you attend religious services, the more likely you are to indicate you are happy. The basic logic that the author utilizes is that atheists, generally speaking, aren't going to be as likely to attend weekly church services.
::::::::::You can't have it both ways. The whole thing should come out since it is correlational or the second part of the article should be included. ] (]) 20:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{tq2|So, according to the evidence, atheism appears to be a choice to be sadder but wiser, but, in fact, we are not justified in drawing that conclusion.}}
:::::::::::It literally says in the article that "we are not justified in drawing that conclusion." The article is being used as a secondary source for information about a primary source metastudy, but there are also several other sources being used to provide references for the prose. None of them use the "sadder" or "not happy" narrative that you seem awfully eager to shove into the article. If it makes you feel better, strip out the objectional reference but leave the prose alone because it is already adequately sourced. -- ] (]) 17:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)


== Possible image? ==
== Modern atheistic affirmativisms (many exist): Variational logicism = variant logicism = variable logicism; because even ] is single-logic biased ==


Per other language wikis and the ], would ] be good for illustrating the article? ] (]) 08:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
please create a disambiguation page about/on: ] ("atheistic affirmativisms" is the second option, but if the term atheistic is used they're not affirmativisms; it's correct as a synonym though) (include: metaphysical naturalism, physicalism, metaphysical variable logicism, etc.)


:Have added that image to the Etymology section ] (]) 21:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
about/on: '''Variational logicism = variant logicism = variable logicism'''; because even ] is single-logic biased


== create page: ] = ] ==
Variational logicism (or variant logicism) means that infinite logical foundations are possible. It's based on the term variety and not on the mathematical term variational but it doesn't exclude it. The axiomatic system of all axiomatic systems doesn't exist because mutually exclusive axiomatic systems are logically possible (the omniaxiomatics doesn't exist = the universal axiomatics doesn't exist). Also the set of all sets doesn't exist (if we accepted a stationary = set pseudoomniaxiomaticity = a set of all axiomatic systems which doesn't actively engage their logic as a true axiomatic system). Neologicists supposedly wanted to remove the biases of logicists, but actually most of them erroneously claim that a single fundamental/foundational logic is possible; which is proven to be wrong, because logic is always axiomatic and contextual, but infinite axiomatic systems are logically possible (list-based, algorithmic, programs and hybrid axiomatics) and infinite logical contexts. Variational logicism accepts the fact that logic is rule-based, but the rules can vary per axiomatic system or other logical context. Infinite axiomatic systems are logically possible. We can experiment by creating axiomatic systems. Most axiomatic systems are weird and useless. Some axiomatic systems are allomathematics = mathematics (proof systems) of different axiomaticity/ axiomatic foundations. Some axiomatic systems are substantiality axiomatics = physioaxiomatics = physical axiomatics = physical foundations (the quantum foundations is the foundations of our universe). The physical axiomatics have to be more logically coherent = with more self-engaged foundations than the proof-system axiomatics, but they don't have to be as crystal clear as the proof-system (mathematical) axiomatics. The axioms of mathematics don't originate from a single logical kernel and according to the foundations of mathematics they aren't maximally coherent (they are eclectic; see: eclecticism). The axioms of mathematics aren't a physical foundations; they would disperse without causing a universe. Proof systems and universes don't have the same foundations. Both 1. mathematics and the infinite allomathematics and 2. the infinite universes are logical systems based on logical foundations, but that doesn't mean they have the same foundations. Informational entropy and thermodynamic entropy are intertwined in the physical foundations. The "axiomatic prerequisites of the physical foundations" is a field of study hypernymic/hypernymous/superordinate to the quantum foundations which is about our own universe. The infinite alternative physical foundations of the infinite logically achievable universes don't have strictly common rules because the axiomatic system of all axiomatic systems doesn't exist, but still we can postulate some basic prerequisites. ] (]) 06:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


* ] = ]: Atheism based only on the lack of empirical methodologal proof (only ]: scientific observation and scientific experiments are safe for conclusions ).
== Obviously Incorrect Data ==


Not all atheists are '''empirical atheists'''. Some accept axiomatic foundations (see: ], ], ] , see also: ]). Some atheists accept the ], etc.
In the first paragraph of 'Ontological arguments,' the paragraph cites a citing of data about the percentages of academic philosophers and their beliefs. However the two values stated add up to about 106% which is not possible under these circumstances. I just wanted to point this out because it's an obvious mistake. ] (]) 01:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


see: ] (see academic documents on all possible methods of proof).
:They don't add up to 100% because they're answers to different questions on the survey. I think it's freely accessible so you should be able to click through from the citation, go into survey results, and search for naturalism (the questions are next to each other) if you want to check for yourself. ] (]) 07:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


Not all methods of proof are formal. But those who have rigorous logical foundations are used by atheists who debunk the personhooded self-axiomatization, teleology and religious cosmogony. Logical monism is wrong (see: experimental logical foundations . ] has many arguments: separation of personhood per brain, Everettism = many-worlds interpretation, logical, axiomatic and cosmological pluralism, etc.
== Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2024 ==


Not all atheists have the exact same views. Atheist popularizers like many new atheists, attack religion with merged forces but usually avoid to elaborate to the different atheistic movements. ] (]) 03:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Edit semi-protected|Atheism|answered=yes}}
"Please change '''Atheism''', in the broadest sense, is an absence of ] .... to ..... '''Atheism''', in the broadest sense, is a position of skepticism towards a ]" ] (]) 08:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> <code><nowiki>''']'''<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki></code> (]<nowiki>|</nowiki>]) 09:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
::You appear to be confusing ] with ] - as an atheist, I am not "sceptical", I am "sure" there is nothing to believe in. - ] (]) 09:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
:::That is not accurate either. An "absence of belief" does not equate to being ''sure'' there is nothing to believe in. For example, a newborn infant has no concept of a belief system and therefore has an absence of belief. -- ] (]) 15:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
::::Bringing newborns into this debate is a argument based on a reductio ad absurdum. If one makes a claim based on a belief that "there is no XYZ or XYZ does not exist" then one inherits the burden of proof to prove the negative just as those that makes a claim based on a belief "there is XYZ or XYZ exists" have the burden of proof to prove the positive. However in the God debate the proposition that there is "no god" can be as unfalsifiable as the proposition that "there is a god" depending of the definition of "god". In any case a good skeptic keeps and open mind. Furthermore atheism is on a scale as noted in several other articles in Misplaced Pages and I am trying to capture the broadness of that scale in what atheism covers to highlight atheism itself comes under the umbrella of skepticism. Here is a comment I recently made on reddit = ] (]) 04:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::@] Atheism does not necessarily involve the claim "God definitely does not exist". More usually it involves saying something like "God-claims seem implausible, there is no good reason to accept them, there are compelling reasons to doubt them, I will live my life on the assumption they are not true." ] (]) 12:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::Agreed. ] appears to be ignoring ]. -- ] (]) 18:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::My mention of "there is no XYZ or XYZ does not exist" was only a warning concerning the burden of proof and not about atheism. Sorry is that has taken you all off topic. Anyway back to topic, atheism is a position of skepticism / doubt to the claim that a god exists. Please keep in mind that we all start life as newborns with a virtual mental blank slate from which point we are then subject to both nature and nurture. Newborns are neither atheist nor theists (or religious believers). It is how newborns are nurtured to maturity that can lead them either way. Please keep in mind that atheists can be converted to theists (or religious believers) just as theists (or religious believers) can be converted to atheists. Therefore there is NO implicit atheism in the human mind and as such "implicit atheism" is a ridiculous term that simply describes someone doubling down into that skepticism / doubt towards the claim that a god exists. Also keep in mind that for thousands of years of human history we humans have invented some version of a god or a divine mystery so as to give purpose to our lives. Why? Because we recognize our impermanence and the death that awaits. THAT recognition is more implicit than atheism. ] (]) 04:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Further to my above comment ... as I said in my reddit post, not all atheists are nihilists. ] (]) 04:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Rejection/skepticism regarding theistic beliefs is not its broadest definition. There are several definitions of atheism and the article, per Misplaced Pages's ] policies, includes them appropriately. The current consensus can be found in this talkpage archives and the lede's citations were . ] (]) 13:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I'm sorry, Redsparks2025, but you are narrowing the meaning of ''atheism'' with your opinion. Your view is not supported by the preponderance of the reliable sources on the subject. The existing first paragraph has been carefully worked out after extensive and exhausted debate over many years, and is now effectively locked from changes unless something dramatic happens. -- ] (]) 14:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Your "argument from authority" has been noted an rejected. "Belief" is an inherent feature of all humans and to say atheists have an "absence" of belief is to imply that atheist are somehow psychologically or mentally impaired. A human can have a disbelief or a lack of belief towards XYZ but an absence of belief towards XYZ makes no sense except for a newborn as I noted above. Atheists definitely have opinions towards the claim that a god exists and those opinions are based on skepticism and not an absence of belief. ] (]) 09:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::You have no idea what's in my pockets, however we all agree the belief/position definitions of the term ''atheism '' are narrower. Again, since sources differ the article reflects their differences.. ] (]) 11:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tq2| "Belief" is an inherent feature of all humans and to say atheists have an "absence" of belief is to imply that atheist are somehow psychologically or mentally impaired.}}
:::::::::This is complete nonsense. An ''absence'' of belief occurs when a person is unaware of the concept. For example, there are probably "micro religions" around the world that I am completely unware of and are thus covered under my implicit atheism. While this differs from the explicit atheism I have towards well-known religions, they are both forms of atheism and the former does not imply I am "mentally impaired" in some way. The introduction to this article intends to capture ''all'' forms of atheism, not just the forms '''you''' believe in, Redsparks2025. -- ] (]) 13:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, I too found that nonsensical, and also deeply offensive. People who disagree with you are not mentally impaired. Religious belief is not an inherent feature of all humans, and there is nothing deficient about people who lack such beliefs. Depending on how you define the word "believe", atheists may believe in other things, like people or love or their own integrity. But that is a different sort of belief, so I don't think atheists have just transferred belief from one thing to another. Religious belief is something you can happily do without. ] (]) 19:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::As your say "An ''absence'' of belief occurs when a person is unaware of the concept". Yes that is correct, such as in a newborn. However atheism is defined in opposition to theism. To be an atheist you have to be aware that there is a concept of a god/God so as to oppose that concept otherwise what are atheists doing? Shouting into the void? Atheism in the broadest sense is a position of skepticism / doubt towards the claim that a god/God exists. Skepticism / doubt towards the concept of a god/God existed before "atheism" became a word. That word was created to define a specific type of skepticism / doubt that only had to do with matters relating to a god/God. ] (]) 11:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::BTW Scjessey your incredulity towards my comment has been noted and rejected. There is absolutely nothing special about atheism or being an atheist. It's just an ordinary human that is skeptical / doubts that a god/God exists. ] (]) 11:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
{{od|:::::::::::}} {{tq2|To be an atheist you have to be aware that there is a concept of a god/God|Redsparks2025}}
:This is not true at all. Only ''some'' atheists fall into that category. Please read and inwardly digest ] before you insult any of us again. Remember that this article seeks to describe the extremely broad topic of ''atheism'' in all its forms. If you are seeking the currently-accepted definitions of ''atheist'' (which may help you understand what we are all saying), you are in the ]. -- ] (]) 13:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


Please provide evidence of your claim. (which sounds reasonable)]] 07:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:Your use of "some" is the key word as to why all oppose my change. You and everyone in opposition to me has not understood I am requesting changed to the "'''broadest'''" meaning of atheism as noted in the paragraph. So stop dragging my request down "into the weeds" about all the different subcategories of atheism. ] (]) 08:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
:Your use of "some" is the key word as to why all oppose my change. You and everyone in opposition to me has not understood I am requesting changed to the "'''broadest'''" meaning of atheism as noted in the paragraph. So stop dragging my request down "into the weeds" about all the different subcategories of atheism ] (]) 08:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
::How can it be the ''broadest'' sense if you want to limit it to skeptics and exclude people with an absence of belief? You know what ''broadest'' means, right? -- ] (]) 14:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:48, 22 December 2024

The definition of atheism has been repeatedly argued on this talk page. Before suggesting substantial changes, please make sure that your view is entirely supported by reliable sources and has a neutral point of view.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about the definition in the first paragraph. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting on that topic.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Atheism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55Auto-archiving period: 21 days 
Former featured articleAtheism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 8, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 31, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 29, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
April 28, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
November 26, 2022Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article
This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconReligion Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAtheism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
For more information and how you can help, click the link opposite:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page.

Quick help

Recent activity

To do

Join WikiProject atheism and be bold.

Be consistent

  • Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles).
  • Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
  • Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether ] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

Maintenance, etc.

Articles to improve

Create

  • Articles on notable atheists


Expand

Immediate attention

  • State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
  • False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
  • Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes.
  • Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Religion High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of religion
WikiProject iconTheology Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

To-do list for Atheism: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2016-08-04


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Other : Add an FAQ to this talk page to curtail future edit-warring and give information to new editors

This talk page is for discussion of how to improve the article. It is not a forum for general discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Differences

  • atheism is personocratic (it is non-personocratic, but studies the "personocratic criterion" and in philosophy and not only; categories are grouped with the hypernymic criterion of focus) (focused on the denial of the supposed precosmic cosmogonic person); naturalism is physiocratic/naturocratic (it is the pure metaphysics of physics; without a personocratic bias )
  • atheism is a negation; naturalism not
  • atheism as a term is famous nowadays; naturalism is not and doesn't have enough followers (it's not self-evident on philosophical doctrines people to easily move from one idea to a better defined)

Similarities

  • usually (but according to Pew Reseach, Robert Sapolsky and many others) they both accept only science (partially won't do, because theists do the same; partiality here is a bad criterion for categorization)

older comments in Greek, more analytical

Atheist Symbols

I've no problem with this atheist symbol in the Demographics section where it currently is, just not in the lead per wp:undue. Modocc (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The third definition in the opening

I have not read this article or the preceding Talk comments, so, if what I write here is redundant, then I apologize. But the third definition -- "the position that there are no deities" -- is ambiguous. On the one hand, a person who takes that position might insist on the truth of a negative, but to do that requires an act of faith, and few atheists are foolish enough to do that. After all, atheists are generally people who do not believe things on faith. On the other hand, I take the position that there are no deities, not as an act of faith, but because no evidence of them is known to exist. Therefore, my taking of that position is provisional, because, if evidence were discovered, I would consider altering my position. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It does seem a little ambiguous, but I can assure you it reflects the body of scholarly work on the subject. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The sources states that in a narrow sense it is a position. It does not matter how people come to that position as there is no one path to reach it, any more than for theism (faith, reason, evidence etc are not unique, but universal). Ramos1990 (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi, 'believing in God' and 'believin in the existence of God' are 2 different things. Cf. my comment below. Leaving Neveland (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
It is not ambiguous. The below statement is a statement of opinion, not fact. In order to make this statement, you would have needed to review all of the evidence, which you certainly have not, and correctly interpreted it. You're a human being capable of misinterpreting evidence. It is also a statement of faith, you're putting your faith exclusively in your own five senses since you personally have not experienced a deity with those senses.
"I take the position that there are no deities, not as an act of faith, but because no evidence of them is known to exist." PerseusMeredith (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
Believers do not believe in god because they think there is compelling evidence that god or gods exist. That's not what 'believing in god' (or gods) mean.
I noticed that dictionary definitions sometimes defined atheism as the lack of belief in the existence of God and others as the lack of belief in the existence of god of Gods.
The 'existence'-definition is misleading. The belief is not in the existence but 'in god'.
I keep reading sterile exchanges between theists and atheists about whether god exists or not, with atheists coming up with the no-evidence argument. These debates are restricted to the US to my knowledge. In the rest of the world we know that you don't convince someone into believing in god or stop believing in god. You don't talk someone into being in love or stop being love.
What you can show the person is that their claim that they are in love is fake.
Not a believer myself, not preaching my relgion. 2A04:EE41:80:7290:E468:AFEA:FBB2:7A4E (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Collapsing off-topic discussion per WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am not interested in editing this article, so feel free to ignore this comment, but the third definition is ambiguous, for the reason I stated; it doesn't merely seem ambiguous. And it is unequivocally ambiguous, not just "a little ambiguous." If the body of scholarly work on the subject overlooks or writes off this ambiguity (if that's what you mean), then so much the worse for the body of scholarly work on the subject. Maurice Magnus (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The third definition is strong or positive atheism as in "there is no Thor and no divinity either". It is true it can be provisional, as in "there is no divinity unless one becomes evident". Nevertheless, positive atheism is notable hence its inclusion in the lede. Also the degree it's provisional or not largely depends on context and individual assessments which falls a bit outside its scope, although I am reminded of Richard Dawkins' spectrum of theistic probability. Modocc (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with everything you say here, but I want to emphasize that the difference between a strong atheist (in Dawkins' terms) and a provisional one is crucial, because the former, like a strong theist, believes irrationally, as a matter of faith, and deserves no more respect a strong theist who claims to know that a god exists.
I disagree with Dawkins' description of the strongest atheist after that a "strong atheist." It is "De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. 'I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'" I consider myself a stronger atheist than that, without being a "strong atheist" in Dawkins' sense. That is because I would not say that I don't know for certain that a god doesn't exist. I would say that nobody can know for certain. But I have no more doubt about the non-existence of a god than I do about the non-existence of flying pigs, while I acknowledge that I can't "know" the non-existence of either.
I concede that I may be conflating logic and feelings here. Logically, I acknowledge the possibility that a god exists, but I do not feel that there is any possibility. The person who uses Dawkins' phrase, "I don't know for certain," sounds as though he feels that there is a possibility, however close to zero, that a god exists. How's that for nitpicking? Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
See Agnostic atheism. It makes a clear distinction between knowing (we do not or cannot know) and not believing because we do not have a belief in a god (or a divinity) and we may believe there is no god (provisionally on account of one's agnosticism). Modocc (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sadness/happiness from the citation.

The headline of the citation is "Are atheists sadder but wiser?" Why would one aspect of the article be included but not the studies related to religious people are happier? It is cherry-picking from sources.

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2020/03/are-atheists-sadder-but-wiser/

The health benefits of religious belief is well-documented. I don't understand why it would be scrubbed from this article.

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2024/03/23/religion-effect-on-happiness/#:~:text=In%20the%20analysis%20in%20this,while%20only%201%25%20reported%20that PerseusMeredith (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The study says there is a statistically significant (in otherwords, big enough to be measurable) correlation between religious belief and self-reported happiness. The study does not say atheists are sadder, which is merely the clickbait title. I guarantee the study did not ask atheists how sad they were, which means it would be incorrect to make that claim in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Sure. We can make it “less happy” or “not as happy.” PerseusMeredith (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
You are missing the point entirely. While it positively states people with religious belief are happier, it does not positively state that atheists are less happy or not as happy. That would technically be original research.
Imagine a report that stated two people (persons A and B) held 100 oranges between them, but person A held 51 of those oranges. What you want to do is say that person B had 49 oranges but the report does not explicitly state that and it would be original research to do so. You and I know that person B had 49 oranges, but we cannot say so. Person A's Misplaced Pages article can confidently state "person A had 51 oranges" and provide a citation, but because the reference does not say person B had 49 oranges you cannot even mention it in person B's Misplaced Pages article. Do you see what I'm getting at? It doesn't belong in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Then the converse would be true and the whole citation should be taken out. That's cherry picking the data. PerseusMeredith (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
It's a pity that there had to be an edit-war before this discussion started. I think that Scjessey is taking an extreme view here. Of course we can say in the example that person B had 49 oranges - that's simple arithmetic, not any kind of research, original or not. Whether religious people or atheists are sadder than the others has no connection to the truth value of any statements that they make. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
The Skeptical Inquirer citation relied upon by the OP's addition is behind a paywall and has thus far not been explicitly quoted here in support of the addition. Nor is it clear whether it is a single study under consideration or whether it is one of many and what the sampled population(s) are and any caveats, such as confounding variables to consider such as the fact that often agnostic atheists do not even identify as atheists due to stigmatization and discrimination in some communities. Also, Caleb Henshaw's piece compares irreligion or nonreligious nones to the religious, which is a problem for there are far fewer irreligious atheists than the many irreligious theists, thus it's not at all specific enough to whether atheists are less happy. Perhaps that may not matter, but I don't know. Modocc (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
@Phil Bridger It absolutely is original research when you extrapolate, whether or not it is simple arithmetic. And I haven't been part of any edit war. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
See WP:CALC, part of WP:OR. And I did not say that you were involved in edit warring - that comment was directed at PerseusMeredith and whoever I thought he was edit-warring against - but I see now that I was wrong so withdraw that sentence. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
It still fails WP:CALC because it is not a "routine" calculation. The survey claims a percentage level of happiness, but "sadness" is not the opposite of "happiness" just as "cold" is not the opposite of "hot" because other states exists, so any calculation is unsupported and certainly doesn't have a consensus agreement. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
You are putting words into my mouth. I made no claim about sadness or happiness, but only about your example, which was a bad one. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Nevertheless, you still described my interpretation of original research as "extreme" simply because I was trying to come up with an easy-to-understand example of why the original poster's point wasn't valid. That does not seem like an assumption of good faith. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that the OP was trying to claim a study saying religious people are happier automatically meant that atheists are sadder. Despite the click-baity title of the reference that clearly isn't the case; therefore, the source wasn't used as described. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
"So, according to the evidence, atheism appears to be a choice to be sadder but wiser, but, in fact, we are not justified in drawing that conclusion. It is important to recognize that all the evidence cited in this column is correlational, which means we cannot identify what causes any of these relationships—only that certain variables travel together."
It's not just a "click bait" title. It's the premise of the whole article. The data clearly shows the more frequently you attend religious services, the more likely you are to indicate you are happy. The basic logic that the author utilizes is that atheists, generally speaking, aren't going to be as likely to attend weekly church services.
You can't have it both ways. The whole thing should come out since it is correlational or the second part of the article should be included. PerseusMeredith (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

So, according to the evidence, atheism appears to be a choice to be sadder but wiser, but, in fact, we are not justified in drawing that conclusion.

It literally says in the article that "we are not justified in drawing that conclusion." The article is being used as a secondary source for information about a primary source metastudy, but there are also several other sources being used to provide references for the prose. None of them use the "sadder" or "not happy" narrative that you seem awfully eager to shove into the article. If it makes you feel better, strip out the objectional reference but leave the prose alone because it is already adequately sourced. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Possible image?

Per other language wikis and the Wikidata item for Atheism, would this image be good for illustrating the article? Quilt Phase (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Have added that image to the Etymology section Quilt Phase (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

create page: empirical atheism = nonempirical atheism

Not all atheists are empirical atheists. Some accept axiomatic foundations (see: axiomatic system, axiomatization of physics, relation between mathematics and physics , see also: constructor theory). Some atheists accept the proof by contradiction, etc.

see: methods of proof (see academic documents on all possible methods of proof).

Not all methods of proof are formal. But those who have rigorous logical foundations are used by atheists who debunk the personhooded self-axiomatization, teleology and religious cosmogony. Logical monism is wrong (see: experimental logical foundations . Pluralistic physicalism has many arguments: separation of personhood per brain, Everettism = many-worlds interpretation, logical, axiomatic and cosmological pluralism, etc.

Not all atheists have the exact same views. Atheist popularizers like many new atheists, attack religion with merged forces but usually avoid to elaborate to the different atheistic movements. 2A02:2149:8BAC:EA00:8051:85ED:CC45:DCE2 (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of your claim. (which sounds reasonable)Cinadon36 07:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: