Misplaced Pages

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

	Atheism 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.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 8, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 31, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 29, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed April 28, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted November 26, 2022 Featured article review Demoted 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:

Religion Top‑importance This 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Atheism Top‑importance This 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 Top This 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 Project's main talk page Article layout Links to atheism-related information · List of free online resources Writing about religion · Article development Citing sources · Verifying sources · About original research Assume good faith · Be civil Recent activity Core articles the "Atheism" article Articles recently added to Category:Atheism To do edit history watch purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold. Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members. Help with articles. See this month's adopt-an-article. Help out with this to-do list. 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. Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references). Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process). Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly. Always write for an encyclopedia. Articles to improve Agnosticism Create Articles on notable atheists Expand an atheism stub 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. Philosophy: Religion High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of religion Theology Top‑importance This 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 Top This 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.

Please 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

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)

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

• empirical atheism = nonempirical atheism: Atheism based only on the lack of empirical methodologal proof (only methodological empiricism: scientific observation and scientific experiments are safe for conclusions ).

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)

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• B-Class level-3 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-3 vital articles in Philosophy and religion
• B-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion
• B-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Atheism articles
• Top-importance Atheism articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• High-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class philosophy of religion articles
• High-importance philosophy of religion articles
• Philosophy of religion task force articles
• B-Class Theology articles
• Top-importance Theology articles
• WikiProject Theology articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists