Talk:Post-theism

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia'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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Atheism High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. 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 articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] 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.

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 [[Category:Atheism]] 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.

[Untitled][edit]

It doesn't seem reasonable to suggest merging this page without providing an explanation. Here is why I'm opposed:

The term postchristianity assumes the chauvinistic western perspective that post-theistic means post-christian as if there were no other theistic religion besides christianity and is thus an inappropriate term for what is in fact post-theism.

It might make sense to rename the postchristianity article and merge the two pages, but the reverse is an unacceptable in accordance with WP:NPOV. Mmyotis (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes. you may note that I haven't merely "suggested a merge", I have created this article in the first place. If and which way we should merge here will depend entirely on what sources we can come up with. Merging shouldn't be based on logical hierarchy but on notabilitly. "Post-christian" gets 360,000 google hits while "post-theistic" gets a mere 1,000 google hits, so I suppose if anything is merged, it will be this article here. Your reference to "chauvinism" and NPOV is completely misplaced. The idea of "post-theism" happens to have emerged in "post-Christian" (not "post-Islamic" or "post-Hindu") society, and observing this fact has nothing chauvinistic about it. dab (𒁳) 19:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God is dead movement[edit]

Should there be some mention here of the God is Dead movement? That seems to be post-theism in a nutshell (see God_is_dead#Death_of_God_theological_movement) Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False or Unauthored Assertion[edit]

The assertion 'Post-theism thus recognizes the point made by criticism of atheism that atheism may lead to moral defect' is preposterous and does not follow from the text before, invalidating the consequence exposed here after the word 'thus'. Moreover, it is not clear who claims this to be the case; so I put a 'Citation needed' mark, but I'd be in favor of removing this part if does not represent a particular opinion, since it is clearly not a general consensus. Enric 13:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Hugh Foster[edit]

The article on Frank Hugh Foster makes no mention of him inventing the term "Post theism. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 21:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

The article doesn't make clear whether or not Nietzsche's phrase "God is dead" really relates to post-theism. Does any reliable source assert so? So far, that part is not sourced. The part about a school of hinduism also lacks sources. And no response or criticism of the position is mentioned. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you bother to read the God is dead page, including the context of the phrase in Nietzsche's text, you will see that this is exactly what Nietzsche was discussing. Saying that this is a "related idea" is an extremely weak claim, and hardly justifies the addition of an "original research" warning template. Of course the idea can be built on by importing material from the linked article, but that's just a matter of editorial effort, not of controversy. --dab (𒁳) 13:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samkhya[edit]

I think the mention of Samkhya is undue, because no RS was shown to support a connection between post-theism and Samkhya. So it's basically OR. Not that the paragraph is wrong, but connecting it to the subject of the article, unless supported by a RS, seems like OR. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"post-theism" is just a useful modern term to describe the idea. To cite Samkhya under "history" as an early example of the same line of thought is completely unproblematic imho. But perhaps "post-theism" isn't the best title for this topic anyway, as it seems to be rather rarely used. The content we have so far could be easily incorporated in a section in either "theism" or "nontheism", addressing the "God is dead" idea of "the notion of God is subject to historical development of societies entertaining it, and in some societies, it may end up being rendered obsolete".

Perhaps it is wrong to even cast this in terms of "atheism vs. theism, nontheism and what have you", because these terms are troll magnets and attract ingroup-outgroup behaviour among editors, while "post-theism" is exactly about viewing this entire "controversy" as a phenomenon in itself. As such it is probably more closely related to topics such as Neurotheology, God gene and Evolutionary origin of religions than to "atheism" as suggested by the (territorial behavoir of) slapping of an "atheism" template on it.

People who operate on "tribal ingroup-outgroup" autopilot when contributing to the "theism debate" should really ask themselves why they embrace operating in one irrational mode of human behaviour but reject another. Somehow I have never seen any atheist attacking sexuality or the feeling of being in love with the same arsenal they use to attack theism, although the arguments used would have exactly the same merit. Selective use of arguments, even if they are in themselves completely consistent, is of course irrational behaviour, and it is self-defeating to act irrationally in a debate where one chooses to champion the side of "rationality". --dab (𒁳) 13:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fear the article needs work[edit]

In its current form it has a mention of pessimism with no support, rhyme or reason. It just comes out of the left field with no justification whatsoever.
A contrast to anti-theism is mentioned but not justified nor developed at all.
Some mention of James A. Lindsay's "Everybody Is Wrong About God" book is probably necessary.

Luis Dantas (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Neitzche was, undoubtedly, pessimistic in his take on the proposition. So what needs to beclarifies there is who was a pessimist!! Pandeist (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Post-theism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110814012349/http://cpxbrex.livejournal.com/167943.html to http://cpxbrex.livejournal.com/167943.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]