Talk:Atheism/Archive 55

Babies are not born atheist?

Background

When children are born, they have no concept of deities. Only with repeated exposure to religion and, usually, some form of indoctrination, do they begin to entertain the notion of deities. Some may ultimately choose to believe in one or more of these deities, but some do not. It is logical to say that without this exposure/inculcation, that belief is very unlikely to happen. It would not be unreasonable to say that implicit atheism is the natural state of all human beings, and the expanded definition of atheism in our article implies this.

To include or not to include

Ramos1990 (talk · contribs) seems eager that the article present the alternative view babies cannot be described as atheists. Wikipedia policy insists our article should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." From the reliable sources I have examined, the view that babies are not implicit atheists does not appear to be very popular, indeed it could easily be referred to as a fringe view with very little coverage in high quality reliable sources. Ramos1990 has cited a newspaper opinion piece by Andrew Brown (notable for detesting "new atheists"), work by Graham Oppy (virtually unknown outside of his native Australia, and largely non-existent in reliable sources), and Ernest Nagel (who wrote hardly anything on the subject of atheism). I submit this view is not a significant viewpoint, and so it should be excluded from the article, per WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe that we should include the aforementioned theory. Oppy's book was published by Cambridge University Press. I understand your reasoning but I believe that a brief mention (a couple of sentences) would be ok. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppy's "book" is, in fact, a 75-page journal that was only published last month. It's hard to know at this early stage if it represents any sort of mainstream view. Right now, sources to support the "babies are not atheists" view are so few and far between, it is hard to imagine it is anything but a fringe opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me that Oppy's POV is next to the mainstream view (or even could be a part of it) and is not antithetical to Smith's statement. Oppy is philosopher of religion at a maistream Uni, publisher is CUP, so I weakly support to include his POV. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Even with the Oppy reference, the other sources are questionable. Two editors have removed this material and it has been restored a third time. I'd like to get the views of other editors. @ThePromenader: Since you were the other editor who challenged this material, would you care to comment? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The initial text spoke of a specific criticism from a specific critic (as per the citation), and adding a rather weasely 'and others' would like to make it seem, in an equally weasel-y way, that the claim-opinion is shared by a wider (and unspecified) group of author-critic-'authority'-whatevers.

Either return the text to its original form and context, or indicate clearly who those 'others' are (and whether they belong to a specific 'camp' - are they 'atheists' themselves? Most likely, not. Do they represent a widely-accepted POV? Certainly not.). But as it is, it's (intentionally, imho) misleading. TP ✎ ✓ 20:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Τζερόνυμο. The reasons provided for removal were ambiguous and unclear, but here some clarity may emerge. This is an encyclopedia. Its job is to carry diverse views from reliable sources on any topic. The article emphasizes both implicit and explicit atheism, not just one. When I wrote 'others', it was with respect to Oppy (though others are found in the article lead too) which I would not mind naming like I originally did. Clearly there are different views on being born into a theological position like atheism and in reality not many sources even make an argument for or against it on the matter at all so to talk about something being fringe is very odd in this context. Only Van Harvey and Victor Stenger are cited for such claims on babies being born in a theological position, sort of. That is, only 2 sources mention something of a claim. On the other hand we already have 3 other reliable sources that argue for alternative views: Oppy, Engels, and Brown. Obviously if we include agnostics on the matter, this issue would be even more complex since their views are more nuanced and seem to hate associating labels. Obviously, it is worth mentioning these diverse views because they are all part of the issue and there is no academic or lay consensus on any one of them. The Van Harvey source only mentions that there are two different definitions (broad and specific) involved and that there are debates between proponents of each.

By the way, interestingly the Van Harvey source states that there are disagreements on the issue and also it explicitly claims that the broad interpretation of atheism is seen as problematic and the public will unlikely adopt it in the end because the broad interpretation associates innocent babies with people with strong theological views: "The proponents of the second definition, by contrast, regard the first definition as too broad because it includes uninformed children along with aggressive and explicit atheists. Consequently, it is unlikely that the public will adopt it." So technically Van Harvey's source can be included for both the broad view and the specific view simultaneously. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This isn’t a Boolean option is it? They “aren’t” or they “are” are both distinct from the third option which is that arguments on the subject have either been inconclusive or non-notable. Rather than chase after equal weight by giving credence to both sides of a debate, it may be better for Wikipedia to confirm the existence of such a debate, mention that disagrements exist (per the Harvey source) and leave it at that. Edaham (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

There’s obviously a lot of talking points to opine on but from what I’ve read quite a lot of it is sophistry, compounded by the fact that not a lot of babies have stepped up to spearhead their viewpoints. Edaham (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed on mentioning that disagreements exist because they do in the professional literature and on the internet. The phrase in the lead is soft - merely stating that disagreements exist - and the only reason to be there is to balance what it says in the sentence before "atheism...that it is the position in which everyone is born" - when clearly disagreements exist in the literature like Van Harvey source mentioned along with Nagel, Brown, and Oppy. If we remove that debatable "born in" part then the debate vanishes because then you won't have to mention that disagreements exist. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The fact that there are different positions on a 'question' (and who is asking it? This must be detailed, too) already demonstrates a disagreement... it is not necessary to muddle the issue with detailed (cherrypicked) spats between individuals, or cherrypicked 'arguments and counter-arguments'... the latter is pure POV-OR, by the way. TP ✎ ✓ 11:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Edaham sums it up quite nicely. Any distraction from or 'muddling' of those points is just further sophistry, and not for Wikipedia. TP ✎ ✓ 05:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Technically that is how the stuff on the lead looks like right now. That looks fine to me as it is since it merely shows different views and leaves it at that, than making it a beauty contest. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

"Technically that is how the stuff on the lead looks like right now." - We're talking about more than the lede, and for the rest, no it doesn't, it looks like a weasel-y, vague 'us = them'. State it explicitly, with explicit context and sources, or not at all. TP ✎ ✓ 11:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I originally wrote a little more on the implicit/explicit section almost verbatim and even had quotes on it - but you reverted it with vague reasons. We can go back to that version if you like on it since Nagel and Graham do take explicit atheism as the true atheism and even explain using where it would not apply on. 5 or 6 sources from the lead use explicit atheism as the def by the way. Per the Van Harvey source, it looks like there may be us-them on the issue to some extent. Attribution should help make the distinctions. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I was not at all vague, and "they do it too" is not an argument. You're completely ignoring the points about the unnecessary (and borderline (if not) POV/OR) 'creating controversy' aspects of your actions. TP ✎ ✓ 04:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Look at your edit summary on it. That was your reason you gave initially - pretty vague stuff. Plus I did not make any major changes aside form adding relevant sources on already existing points. Plus the sources make the claims and debate the claims, not me. Unless you have a POV you are wanting to defend and ignoring the fact that there are different views on the issue. The claims are all controversial - which is why you have a wide range of opinions on it. Most people adopt narrow definitions, like Van Harvey observed. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyone can look at my summary and decide for themselves. Anyone can take any selection of facts, each supported by a selection of sources supporting them, to concoct any story they like, but that does not mean that the result reflects reality... and you are the one 'choosing' the debate and the sources (without mentioning their nature and representation in the greater whole) and insisting on expounding it here. TP ✎ ✓ 07:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyone can come to their own conclusions on all of this. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

So why are you making conclusions 'for' them? TP ✎ ✓ 08:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I've written what I think is a workable third paragraph for the lead with brevity and TMD in mind. I've tried to summarize the points a reader is likely to encounter in the body, without expounding too much. I've also edited the first sentence for brevity in which the two clauses are separated by the synonyms "arguments" and "rationales", where in fact they can be one clause, with a dozen or so words removed from the sentence. I'll leave that on my sandbox for now. feel free to edit at will, but leave a clear summary. Cheers. Edaham (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Had to dig for it... but imho, such 'debates' have no place in the lede definition of 'atheism'. Rather, should they 'have' to be in the article, they should be moved to a subsection of their own where the nature of the proponents (who (from what position) is making the claim, and who is countering it, and what is the consensus (on each side) about it, etc.)... 'slipping' it into the lede where that sort of context isn't possible a) gives it undue importance, b) muddles the rest of the lede and c) misleads the reader, but that is the entire goal here, imho. TP ✎ ✓ 08:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

PS: And the 'debate' itself is a silly one - originating from an Andy Rooney quote, I believe. And in the resulting rather popular 'everyone is born (an) atheist' meme, 'atheist' signifies 'without theism (religion)', but apologists since turned that definition/use into a 'part of the 'sect of atheism' meme-strawman, and even retaliated (against that strawman) with a 'everyone is born believing in (our) god' meme... and the 'debate' is most often between the latter two parties... and a 'retalatory statement' is not a 'debate'. So, there are many reasons why this is not lede material.TP ✎ ✓ 08:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree it doesn’t need to be there. Taking it out seemed a bit drastic. I cut it down a bit. Sorry for making you dig. Here’s that link User:Edaham/sandbox Edaham (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Glad you see that point... and if removal (or displacement) is a rational conclusion, there's nothing 'drastic' about it (otherwise anyone making a fuss would get 'their way', or a 'compromise' with the same - this is a useful tool-tactic for some SOAPBOXers). No worries about the digging ; ) TP ✎ ✓ 16:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that the lead in the article right now (not the sandbox version) without the born stuff: 1) "..that it is the position in which everyone is born" and 2) "However, others have disagreed with the view of being born into such a position" is great. These controversial points about default theological positions are not really useful in the lead, like I mentioned before, so both can be removed from there. I like ThePromenader's option of moving that stuff to a more relevant section. All of the refs on the born (pro or against) stuff can then go on the "Implicit vs. explicit" section since much of the explicit and implicit atheism discussions and what they entail and how far the concept is applicable to agents resides. I just checked the Victor Stenger source by the way and he does not make any claims on people being born into atheism or not. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

So I'll guess that it's okay to remove it from the lede.

If it were just me, I'd eliminate most of the third paragraph, leaving the lede for definitions and frequency; 'arguments for and against' (that require their own defintion of terms) have no place there.TP ✎ ✓ 05:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I hear you on condensing the third paragraph on the lead. I think that would be a good idea like User:Edaham proposed. But I will at least remove the born stuff from the lead and move down some of it to the "implicit vs explicit" section for the time being. It looks better and more to the point. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with either condensing - or removing it. Seems like a consensus Edaham (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Condensing or removing the third paragraph, or are you referring just to this text: Proponents contend that atheism is a more parsimonious position than theism and that it is the position in which everyone is born; therefore, they argue that the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism. However, others have disagreed with the view of being born into such a position. (?) I haven't seen the rationale for removing the summary wording about being born without beliefs, but I definitely see problems with the present "disagreed with the view of being born into such a position" wording. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

To include or not to include … the alternative view babies cannot be described as atheists. - Scjessey

Short answer: Not include. Not based upon the limited sources presently under discussion.

Longer answer: the "babies aren't atheist" assertion is only made after "atheist" is first mis-defined strictly as "someone positively asserting that deities do not exist". Obviously, infants do not yet have the cognitive ability to make this positive assertion. But that is not the encyclopedic, or complete, or even the common definition of "atheist", which is simply someone who does not have a belief in deities. Babies, (and likewise adults who have not yet developed such beliefs) are indeed atheists. So the question being asked here is really: "should we include the view that babies cannot be described as positive atheists?" What would be the utility in doing so? Why would we add the equivalent of "water is wet" or "the sky is blue" by saying "babies don't positively assert the nonexistence of gods"? Let's also look closer at the sources.

So far, I see references made only to Brown, Oppy, Nagel and Harvey.

• Brown's opinion piece in a newspaper is a non-starter, and he disqualifies himself as a usable source for our purposes here when he gives his "two reasons" why there's "no such thing as an atheist baby" and "certainly no agnostic ones". He first wants to consistently define atheism as a positive assertion, and an identity to be consciously embraced, which it of course is not. And second, "science shows that supernaturalism comes naturally to children. It is not just that they believe much of what their parents and the surrounding societies tell them: they show a preference for remembering and transmitting stories that defy scientific rationality," which is an argument that children have a natural affinity for the supernatural stories their parents and society tell them. Babies still need to be taught those supernatural "stories that defy scientific rationality" before they can remember or transmit them.
• Oppy doesn't argue that babies aren't atheists; to the contrary, he actually acknowledges that babies are atheists: "Those who lack the concept of a god are not able to entertain the thought that there are gods. Consider, for example, one-month-old babies. It is very plausible that one-month-old babies lack the concept of a god." In fact, in Oppy's larger work (Arguing about Gods), he frequently refers to atheist children's lack of belief and awareness as key parts of his argumentation (pg. 332 for one example, "there are millions of people -- including millions of children -- who do not so much as understand talk about orthodoxly conceived monotheistic gods: it is beyond belief to suppose that there is good reason to suppose that these people are nontheless believers in orthodoxly conceived monotheistic gods.")
• As for Nagel, he does not (as our article erroneously claims) "contradicts Smith's definition of atheism as merely 'absence of theism', acknowledging only explicit atheism as true 'atheism'." In fact, Nagel never mentions Smith, let alone contradict him; and "absence of theism" isn't Smith's definition, it predates Smith by centuries; and Nagel certainly never claims only explicit atheism as "true" atheism, instead, he explains he is using the narrow explicit 'denial' form of atheism just for that specific paper, because it was to be included in a book about "beliefs" instead of "absence of beliefs" (see his preface to his paper).
• Van A. Harvey, as already noted above, confirms that there are multiple definitions simultaneously in use for atheism, and he also confirms that "absence of belief is the cognitive position in which everyone is born". But most importantly, and this is key, Harvey does not say there is disagreement over whether babies lack a belief in gods. To the contrary, there is agreement there. The only disagreement mentioned by Harvey is whether the word "atheism" should be restricted to mean only "explicit denial of the existence of gods", as favored by theologians and critics of nonbelief, or whether it should reflect its more accurate, historical usage (as does our Wikipedia article). Xenophrenic (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) has articulated my concerns far better than I did. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

You say it more elaborately, but I see your point: the 'babies aren't born atheist' claim is an argument against a strawman. But I concur with all.

But to clarify, my point was simply: the lede is no place for such tit-for-tat. TP ✎ ✓ 18:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Me, ThePromenader, Edaham had already agreed that it was not a worthy claim to make on the lead. So why the Re-add on the lead? Victor Stenger sopurce makes no such claims on babies so that needs to be fixed or removed and Van Harvey comments that both definitions while stating that disagreement between people who hold different definitions of atheism: "The proponents of the second definition, by contrast, regard the first definition as too broad because it includes uninformed children along with aggressive and explicit atheists. Consequently, it is unlikely that the public will adopt it." Clearly he is presenting both options, not arguing for any one of them. So BOTH sources are misrepresented in the lead. Removal is better and moving the stuff to the "implict vs explict" section is wiser.

By the way, the claims of "misidentifying" atheism "someone positively asserting that deities do not exist" are wrong since there are diverse ways of seeing atheism, not just one. In the lead alone we have 5 or 6 refs identifying atheists as making conscious claims on theism to be an atheist, not just being put in this theological position without any knowledge by default. Just to drill the point, these are some defs from the lead:

1. Kai Neilsen: "Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons ... : for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God ... because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent.."

2. Paul Edwards: "On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition."

3. Simon Balckburn: "Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none. Sometimes thought itself to be more dogmatic than mere agnosticism, although atheists retort that everyone is an atheist about most gods, so they merely advance one step further."

4. William Rowe: "As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Another meaning of 'atheism' is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God"

5. J.J. Smart: "The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods)."

6. Van Harvey actually notes two definitions and comments and comments on both: and he explicitly comment on both stating on the explicit theism - "The proponents of the second definition, by contrast, regard the first definition as too broad because it includes uninformed children along with aggressive and explicit atheists. Consequently, it is unlikely that the public will adopt it."

So the claims of atheism being only broad absence of belief in God is incomplete since lots literature and pretty much most people understand atheism to be about making a conscious decision on theism. I have yet to see any atheist organization celebrating babies born to Muslims or babies born to Jews. Looking at the sources again.

• Brown: I had already removed him since we removed the little born position for the lead. But he does argue at the problems with making claims on babies as atheists. It is a reliable source and addresses the born claim in reply to atheist commentary.

• Oppy: Oppy explicitly defines his ideas i provide 3 quotes: 1) "What makes someone an atheist is that they believe that there are no gods. It is merely a consequence of this fundamental commitment that atheists claim that God does not exist." Furthermore, he defines 3 terms (in italics) to make the distinctions: 2) "Atheists believe that there are no gods... Agnostics suspend judgement on the claim that there are no gods... Agnostics are distinguished from innocents, who also neither believe that there are gods nor believe that there are no gods, by the fact that they have given consideration to the question whether there are gods. Innocents are those who have never considered the question whether there are gods. Typically, innocents have never considered the question whether there are gods because they are not able to consider that question. How could that be? Well, in order to consider the question whether there are gods, one must understand what it would mean for something to be a god. That is, one needs to have the concept of a god. Those who lack the concept of a god are not able to entertain the thought that there are gods. Consider, for example, one-month-old babies. It is very plausible that one-month-old babies lack the concept of a god. So it is very plausible that one-month-old babies are innocents. Other plausible cases of innocents include chimpanzees, human beings who have suffered severe traumatic brain injuries, and human beings with advanced dementia." 3) "Atheism is the position adopted by atheists. Atheism is characterized by the claim that there are no gods. Atheistic theories - worldviews, or big pictures - include or entail the claim that there are no gods."

• Engel: "I shall understand by "atheism" a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism ... atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief ... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist – for he is not denying any theistic claims. Similarly in the case of an adult who, if he has withdrawn from the faith of his father without reflection or because of frank indifference to any theological issue, is also not an atheist – for such an adult is not challenging theism and not professing any views on the subject."

Looks pretty clear to me. The fact that the only source to even hint being born is Van Harvey and he notes disagreements between broad and narrow proponents need to be fixed. Removal of all the born stuff and moving it down like we had agreed upon is the only viable fix otherwise explain that even the Van Harvey source observes disagreements between the extent of atheism. For the time being I think the term "default position" would be more appropriate. But removal form the lead and moving it down to the appropriate section is certainly best. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Me, ThePromenader, Edaham had already agreed that it was not a worthy claim to make on the lead. -- Ramos1990

Which "claim" are you talking about? That people are born without beliefs in deities? (Note: Oppy, Nagel, Harvey, Stenger, Smith, et al., do not dispute this.) Or that "atheism" should be defined only as the explicit, considered, positive denial that deities exist? (Note: On this issue, some "philosophers of religion" and most theologians, highly desire this to be the only definition, even against historical precedent, so that they can then criticize it as "asserting something which cannot be proven". But as we know, this is not the only, or even the most prevalent, definition of 'atheist'.) I think (please correct me if I am misunderstanding anyone's position) you three assumed there was actually a dispute over whether babies had beliefs in deities or not, and based upon that misinformation, agreed that it would not be proper to 'debate' that in the lead. But as has been shown after checking the presently cited sources, that 'debate' doesn't exist. If you are instead proposing that the debate over whether or not the word "atheism" should be strictly defined as "explicitly denying the existence of deities", that will require more discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Van Harvey comments that both definitions while stating that disagreement between people who hold different definitions of atheism […] Clearly he is presenting both options, not arguing for any one of them. -- Ramos1990

Your wording is unclear. One thing that is very clear is that Harvey, a theologian (or 'religionist', to use Smith's term) optimistically hopes that "it is unlikely that the public will adopt" the "absence of belief" as the only definition, but the 'public' already has, so that opinion is a non-issue. Harvey also never disputes, nor claims the existence of a dispute, that people are born without a belief in deities. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Van Harvey actually notes two definitions and comments and comments on both: and he explicitly comment on both stating on the explicit theism... -- Ramos 1990

I'd like to request that you re-read what you typed there, then edit it to make sense. "comments and comments on both: and he explicitly comments..." - my head is spinning. You listed 5 other people who strive to clarify and define the "atheism" term, and all of their definitions, whether explicit, implicit, positive, etc., have one common denominator: "the absence of belief in deities". That is atheism at its core. Philosophers prefer to take that definition one step further and define it instead as positive "denial" of the existence of deities, so that they can have something to wrestle with philosophically. Religionists also prefer to define atheism as only the positive denial of the existence of gods, so they can then claim atheism is just an "un-provable belief" just as theism is, and therefore no better. One cannot really "prove a negative" after all. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Brown … does argue at the problems with making claims on babies as atheists.

No, he does not. Re-read his last paragraph please, his conclusion, where he wishes to interpret atheism as only the "state where you can really reflect critically on your own beliefs […] And that is why no one can really be called an atheist or an agnostic until they have grown up." He's not disagreeing with the fact that babies don't have beliefs in supernatural deities. Brown only argues against calling nonbelievers (babies included) "atheists". In his personal (and low-value, as far as Wikipedia is concerned) opinion, the term "atheist" should be reserved only for those who have consciously wrestled (as adults) with the question of magical omnipotent beings in the sky controlling everything. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Only Harvey, Borwn, and Oppy mentions anything explicit about being born into a position. Harvey does it as part of fleshing out the implications of the broad definition and he balances it out with the narrow definition and fleshes it out noting disagreements between proponents. Brown and Oppy mentioned babies in terms of not being in a position of atheism. That is it. Stenger makes no such claims on being born into a position or not so he does not apply here at all. No one else makes any explicit claim about being born into a theological position or not.

That being born without beliefs in stuff is one thing. But stating that "atheism is the position in which everyone is born" when different definitions exist of 'atheism' is certainly controversial - Per Harvey, Oppy, Brown. At the moment, I switched it to "default position" so that Stenger's source can remain since he does not state anything about being born into a particular theological position.

The 5 or 6 refs on explicit atheism I mentioned from the lead are there to show that mere lack of belief in god is not what people only see. They see more to it than just a "common denominator" - That is why you have terms like positive, negative, implicit, explicit, to add detail as to the variant types of atheism, not just one unified one. Even agnosticism emerged as a result of this expansion of concepts.

Either way, this is not really a useful or supportable point for the lead in terms of sources that make any explicit claims on being born or not into a position. Me, ThePromenader, and Edaham recognized that not many sources even made claims on it and at best it is a moot discussion for the lead. So it does not belong there. However, it can be moved down into the "implicit vs explicit" section since there is discussion about how far atheism should be stretched. Holbach, Smith, Oppy, Engels are there on such a discussion - children, babies, and anything which does not have the understanding of what a god is. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

That people are born without beliefs in deities is a rather basic and non-controversial component of atheism, and is suitable information for the lead of this article. This fact is not refuted by any of the sources you've cited above (despite the misleading assertion previously made by our article, which was not supported by the cited source, as it turns out). I fully understand that you would like to see that factoid removed from the lead, and relegated to a subsection of various flavors of atheism, but I disagree. Whether or not TP and Edaham agree or disagree remains to be seen, and I would appreciate hearing their thoughts on the matter. By the way, I found your claim that "not many sources even made claims on it and at best it is a moot discussion for the lead to be incorrect, and I would be happy to provide you with numerous sources explaining that people are born without beliefs in supernatural deities, dating from a few months ago to centuries ago, if you would find that helpful. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The change you made looks good since it is generic. I advocated something like this a while back, but was not successful then. The issue was in the loaded terms position and atheism (has many interpretations) vs lack of belief or absence of belief in deities which is pretty straightforward and attribution was good. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, It makes much more sense like that. The 'counter' (that wasn't) muddled the context of the entire paragraph. TP ✎ ✓ 23:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Atheist Republic

An IP editor added the following:

How do I add information about the biggest online Atheist society? This page seems to be locked. Too many attacks from religious folk? Not surprised. Atheist Republic is constantly under attack from Theists. They had our facebook page shut down numerous times by making false complaints.

Leaving aside the paranoia, the website does exist and claims 12,000 subscribers. They run a forum and appear to be publishing books. Does anyone have any knowledge or secondary references to them? If they are "fringe" let's record the fact here; if they are mainstream perhaps they need a (passing) comment? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Since 'atheism' (for most who would answer to that tag) is the absence of something, I don't even see how any 'atheist organisation' can be 'fringe'.

That aside, is looks as though they've only been around since 2012... but have a Canadian non-profit status, so must be 'legit'. TP ✎ ✓ 18:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

You need to show it's significant, ie discussed in independent reliable sources. They've been in the news a lot. Very unpopular in Malaysia. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"Fringe" isn't really a helpful term here. As Wikipedia uses the term (see WP:FRINGE), it refers to claims which are contrary "mainstream views in its particular field". There is not academic field which has determined there are no gods, are multiple gods or is a single god. Unless there is an organization involved which is based on the unfalsifiable claim that there never has been a "god", it's simply not a question.

Including the organization here would require independent reliable sources discussing atheism in general to include significant discussion of the organization. In other words, we'd need to show not only that the organization is notable but that it is a significant aspect of atheism.

For example: Nixon in China is a notable opera (it has a Wikipedia article). Richard Nixon is clearly a significant aspect of that opera, so he is discussed in that article. However, Richard Nixon does not discuss the opera as it is not a significant enough aspect of the man. It would be surprising to see an article about the opera that does not mention the man. It is not at all surprising to see articles about the man that do not mention the opera.

If you feel Atheist Republic is notable, you can attempt to create an article for it. (Currently, that is just a redirect to Armin_Navabi.) To do so, you will need to find independent reliable sources which provide substantial coverage of the organization. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, Atheist Republic(AR) is not a Fringe but if we are to include them in the WP article, maybe we should create a sub-section in the demographics (i.e. 7.6 Online communities).I think we should wait until AR appears in the work of mainstream philosophers of Religion (or other reliable authors) so we can use high-quality material. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You are answering the wrong question. WP:FRINGE has nothing to do with it.

To include anything about the group here, we would need substantial coverage about the group in independent reliable sources. We do not have that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Jainism

Vyason Shirdi (talk · contribs) added additional material about Jainism to the article. The first time it was added, Cinadon36 (talk · contribs) reverted the addition without giving an edit summary; however, the extremely poor source of an Angelfire-hosted blog would be a sufficient reason. Vyason Shirdi then restored their edit, and then an additional source. I reverted these edits on the basis that (a) this article about atheism does not need to dive more deeply into Jainism, which already has its own article, and (b) the unsupported claim within the added text that a religious text is "famous" for including a quote from Carl Sagan, which seems extremely unlikely. The quote might be famous, but not the use of the quote. Vyason Shirdi again restored the material, ignoring the fact it had been challenged by two separate editors. To avoid edit warring, I would like to get the opinion of other editors. Is the feeling that this material, which I would consider to be both superfluous and poorly sourced, worthy of inclusion? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

"extremely poor source of an Angelfire-hosted blog would be a sufficient reason". That was the reason. Even if it was too obvious I should have written something in the edit summary. Anyways, I agree that Vyason Shirdi's addition on Jainism is UNDUE and still poorly sourced. I reverted the edit one more time (hopefully the last). Cinadon36 (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree that the addition of that much text on Jainism is WP:UNDUE. See God in Jainism for more information. Denial of the validity of belief in a creator God seems to go along with belief in godliness manifesting in humans who cultivate it properly, if I may paraphrase it that way without too much error. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Trying to add http://www.AtheistRepublic,Org to external links

Editing appears to be switched off. What gives? I thought Wikipedia was an open encyclopedia anyone could edit. Is it actually run by some sort of Cabal like everyone is saying? I thought that was just BS. How do I add http://www.atheistrepublic,org if new edits are being censored? Must I submit it to some biased page dictator now who spent a few months correcting people's spelling and now gets to be a Wiki Elite figure? This sucks. No doubt you'll delete this paragraph on some nonsense grounds too. I thought wikipedia was better than this. I thought it was different to a lot of the other biased websites out there. Clearly I was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.59.12 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Oops. That should be .Org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.59.12 (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

We discussed this at #Atheist_Republic (see Archive) when you asked this question in June 2018.[1] - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Institutional atheism

Aritcle should deal with the kind of defacto atheism which comes with institutions; like in medicine where all visons are automatically hallucinations, in history where all scripture is literature, in philosophy where all right thought is atheistic, and all theistic thought is faked or flawed. Consider the field of psychology, where it supposes all visons are hallucinations, and even though it has no real knowledge of the mind's quantum basis, presupposes that there is some chemical or physiological root for these hallucinations. -Inowen (nlfte) 02:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles report what independent reliable sources say about a subject. To add discussion of anything we need discussion in independent reliable sources. Do you have any discussing "defacto institutional atheism"? - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There's an improper premise here which makes it pretty pointless to discuss. Medicine does not claim all visions are hallucinations, history (not an institution) doesn't have universal views on scripture being literature, and the same clearly goes for the Philosophy of religion where you find many believers as well as non-believers - see also Religious philosophy. But I'm not saying that there aren't sources for the phrase, although meanings may differ. José Ortega y Gasset uses it, eg[2] "a curious institutional atheism" (14) — that is, the use of structures and institutions without believing in them. The paradigm is the atheist who swears "by God;" or Galileo's legendary "Eppure si muovi!" However, I'm not sure it would belong in this article which is about absence of belief in deities. Doug Weller talk 10:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

On the one side, religious belief is not a delusion, on the other side, there is an insistence upon proof of spirituality where barring such proof one claiming a religious experience is declared something malformed. A big idea of spreading atheism is the institution of ways to handle the religious as delusional, hence institutionalized handling. -Inowen (nlfte) 10:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so far as I can tell you seem to be pushing some ideas of yours, and as you were told about another type of talk page, this is not a forum or a soapbox for discussion of the subject. If you have reliable sources discussing "institutional atheism" relating to atheism as the lackof a belief in a deity or deities do bring them here. Otherwise this discussion needs to stop. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Atheism and personhood

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
atheist: A person who doesn't believe that personhood is enough to generate a Universe. Why? Because the most important criterion of personhood is the intellect / the ability to think. Thought requires components as memories, transfer of informational chunks and interaction of data. Materialism and immaterialism do not change that. Thought isn't the arbirtariness/the pure randomness. Thought is a process (and yes, randomness is one out of its many components / ingredients). Information theory is the means to study the idealized mathematical models of thought, their mechanisms, and if they have entropy. Artificial neural networks is beneficial to be mentioned, but information theory is better for "weighing" the informational qualities. Metalogically nothing is a simple (philosophy). Everything has more fundamental components, and the supposedly ultimate fundamental components, being phenomena/processes (not idealized objects) they interact at a range of orders of magnitude. If god has more fundamental components, then he is no god. If god hasn't any components (for example immaterial memories), then he isn't able to think, thus isn't the person-god, and god is a misnomer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4117:AA00:CC05:32B:99E1:869C (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2019

Please add a new section on the psychological features (especially well-being effects) of endorsing atheism Rudi Thurman (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please provide the text you wish to be added, complete with reliable sources. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 01:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Most atheists claim that personhood is gradually shaped within an environment and has informational components being not a philosophical simple

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That is an issue of population statistics. Some atheists don't care about philosophy. That is an extremely important issue - a meta-analysis of atheism. It will not do justice to throng it here; we can mention it though. The Personhood of God (make page) and the Personphile nature of Tao (being not a person itself, but if well managed beneficial towards persons, via psychicism (soul-belief)/beyond scientific reasoning) are important philosophical issues of themselves, and deserve separate pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4101:5200:F048:8E95:BCAD:F553 (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC) This WP:NOTAFORUM PepperBeast (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

New Atheism

Could use some attention. I've done a bit but editors have been adding material that seems irrelevant and in the case of Edward Feser a huge quote that wasn't very useful IMHO and his mentions of other anit-atheists (no idea if they discuss the New Atheism. If anyone has the knowledge (which I lack) and time could they take a look? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

It's terribly one-sided - Eagleton's criticism, for example, should be there and others. Several Philosophers have accused them of a straw man fallacy and Midgely suggested they were creating a new religion called Scientism. I'll try and find some time to add that in -----Snowded ^TALK 18:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

If your interested in the Feser article, Richard Carrier wrote a review of one of his books last year which isn't mentioned.[3] Doug Weller talk 18:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2019

Grammar mistake in Definitions and types > Definition as impossible or impermanent

Text: There have. however. been examples to the contrary, among them examples of literal "atheists in foxholes".

How it should be written: There have, however, been examples to the contrary, among them examples of literal "atheists in foxholes". 69.244.33.49 (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Done PepperBeast (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Atheism and it's effect on public health

A new section should be added on atheism and public health, such as how it impacts the lives of atheists. For example a study from Columbia University (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10943-009-9248-8) finds that atheism and agnostic beliefs result in suicidal thoughts. Atheist doctors and non-religious hospitals also were more likely to recommend suicide to their patients. This also can be included in the part about atheism and morality.

Another paper from the University of Oslo, Norway (http://www.journals.uio.no/index.php/suicidologi/article/viewFile/2330/2193) finds that atheists have the highest rates of suicide in the world.

A paper from Brigham Young University and Washington University finds that atheism is linked with highest rates of drug abuse (https://www.jstor.org/stable/353639)

I would like editing privileges to add some of these results in to make this article a bit more neutral and show both sides of things seeing that this page lacks a "criticism" section as well

TipsFedoraMaiLady (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The Columbia University link points to the Journal of Religion and Health. Since it is behind a paywall I can't look more closely, but the name might indicate a certain bias. The Norwegian paper does not claim that "atheists have the highest rates of suicide in the world", it is referring to "atheist states" eg China and Albania, and specifically states that "Certainly, these findings do not take personal levels of religiosity into consideration" before again stressing "prevalence of a religion in a country" as the next phrase in the same sentence. I'd always be a bit suspicious of Brigham Young University on this subject, but the paper is again hidden behind a paywall so cannot be seen. It is perhaps unfortunate that because of past vandalism and POV-pushing the article is semi-protected. If you want to add this information you need to assemble the suggested paragraph here with suitable citations and wait for a more experienced editor to add it for you. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Two points here:

• "seeing that this page lacks a "criticism" section as well" We have the spin-off article Criticism of atheism.
• ""atheist states" eg China and Albania" Atheist Albania? See Religion in Albania. It is a secular state, but 58.79% of the populations adheres to Islam, and 16.99% to Christianity. I am only personally familiar with Albanian expatriates in Greece, but some of these family "friends" have been pestering me about converting to Christianity, and they are rather typical religious conservatives. Dimadick (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, the exact wording is "countries where religious observances had been prohibited for a long period of time (e.g. Albania)". Your figures though could indicate that the key factor is the culture and not the personal religion. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Correlation does not imply causation. Nothing more really needs to be said about this rather peculiar proposal. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If we focus on statistics, it's not a particular belief that is superior or inferior. It is extremely important different organizations to evolve, and to compare their effects. Atheists don't have enough different unions; alternative unions on the same city as other metaphysicalists (which is a hypernym of theists according to the academic definition of metaphysics). Many atheists focus on saying stuff against the supposed precosmic personhood of the demiurge. A wiser subdogma would focus on the polularization of science to everyone; even to non-atheists, as it happens in the church; but only the atheists would teach. To accept the other doesn't mean to personally die. They should help the poor; but mainly focus on scientific popularization. For example before the big bang possible scientific theories; evolution; astrobiology but even standard science. The core of science is proven science. It's not atheism itself that it's bad. People should have different unions to select; and should evolve positive agenda without the stress of merely fighting the cosmological personocrats / personocentrists (theists). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8291:9500:244E:591A:23EF:8391 (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

You are replying to an old post. But also, please note that this talk page is not a forum for discussion of the topic; the focus should be on the selection of sources and how to represent them, to improve the article (WP:NOTFORUM, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:RS). —PaleoNeonate – 22:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I realise it is an old post, but in reference to User:Martin of Sheffield I do have access to the journal. They include euthanasia and physicians assisted suicide in their definition of suicide; both (at least in my country legal) procedures are generally not accepted by religions, so at least it seems part (if not all) of the effect is due to definitions/religious law making people adhering to specific Churches refrain from ending their life (however miserable and however close to a natural death) rather than an actual effect on the mental state of atheists. Arnoutf (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that. In effect you are saying that religious belief causes a willingness to extend suffering not through personal desire, but through a fear of punishment in the afterlife. I don't see this as a public or mental health issue for atheism as TipsFedoraMaiLady apparently wanted to add. Indeed, at the risk of moving off topic, perhaps this near masochism is a mental health issue for religion? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

you may be making it a bit overly black and white / stereotypical antireligious, but I agree with the gist of what you are saying. In any case these sources should be interpreted with care given definition of suicide (to include e.g. euthanasia), hence they should not be interpreted in favour of the proposed mental health issue against atheism; with that I fully agree. Arnoutf (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

What is this matter that atheists are being considered as terrorist?

Recently I came to know a spine chilling news that atheists are being considered as terrorists in Arab. Whats the matter? And such a serious matter should be immediately entered in Wikipedia. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-declares-all-atheists-are-terrorists-in-new-law-to-crack-down-on-political-dissidents-9228389.html 2405:204:4313:D858:9C42:A500:6274:3CED (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Atheism as a "Belief System"

If we look at the Merriam-Webster definition #2 of Atheism: it is "a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods". In broader sense, by definition (Oxford Lexico), it is a belief system ("a set of principles or tenets which together form the basis of a religion, philosophy, or moral code") --HSukePup (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Saying "I don't believe there is a god" is the same as saying "the universe has no god". That in itself is a belief system because it is the basis for a philosophical view of the universe. --HSukePup (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

To be even more pedantic, note that believing that Santa Clause exists or that UFOs exist, in itself, is not a belief system. But believing that Santa Clause exists to provide Christmas gifts, or that UFOs are here to abduct human beings is a belief system. A belief system must say something philosophical, religious, or moral. In its broadest sense, atheism is the philosophical (not necessarily religious) belief system that the rules of the world don't follow a religious system where a god(s) exists. --HSukePup (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a recommendation for improving the article, or are you just making a point here? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm half making a point; half responding to the topics directly above and below this one. I think it's Undue Weight to mention it directly in the article because it's too obvious and frivolous. On the other hand, I've read the entire history of this Talk, and the topic has been mentioned so many times since the early 2000s ... and then deleted every time. I think it deserves a permanent discussion on the Talk page, or at least its strongest points. In the broadest sense, Atheism is a belief system that the universe is governed not by anything in religion but by the natural laws of physics. That's simply inductive reasoning based on its main definition. And that satisfies the Lexico/Oxford definition for "Belief System". If that's not good enough, there's the Merriam-Webster definition of Atheism I mentioned earlier. --HSukePup (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Saying "I don't believe there is a god" is the same as saying "the universe has no god".

Those two statements are not equivalent. Absence of belief is not belief; claiming otherwise is logically absurd.

Using dictionary definitions to support an argument carries the risk of mistaking the map for the territory. Specifically and briefly, do you have a suggestion for improving the article? Just plain Bill (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a non-starter. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Hypernym common to atheism and religion?

Discussion closed. This talk page is not a forum.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What is the common hypernym of atheism and religion? (religion isn't its own hypernym; atheism doesn't accept anti-physics in cosmogony and during the lifespan of the universe) Personal belief is extremely wide/superior hypernym (it includes political views) Please add it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2149:8476:6000:f1fd:189d:eb5a:3444 (talk • contribs) 04:02, August 1, 2019 (UTC) That's quite the title. If the hypernym was common, you would know it. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC) I refactored the title. I suspect that editor 2a02:2149:8476... means "common" in the sense of "shared". While "belief" or "practice" may be hypernyms of religion, they do not necessarily cover atheism in all the ways it is variously construed. Apatheism, in particular, is an attitude which entails neither belief nor practice. I just went through a rabbit hole of modal logic, leading to epistemic logic, doxastic logic, and relevance logic, without noticing anything useful turning up. Glancing tangentially at non-overlapping magisteria, I suspect there may not be such a hypernym, at least not one of robust general applicability. Even terms as broad as "viewpoint" or "position" might not stretch to cover the sort of atheists who do not care one way or another. With that in mind, I do not believe this topic is ready to be included in the article. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC) Mister Bill your nouns might not be selected for esthetic reasons, but you totally got the point being intelligent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8407:4B00:7903:9973:E897:7FE2 (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC) I think the hypernyms are theology and philosophy of spirituality. 2405:204:4313:D858:9C42:A500:6274:3CED (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC) You think erroneously and not enough. Theology is a field of study of theism and sometimes non-theism in respect to the notion of theós = person-god. Also the philosophy of spirituality is about: 1. spirituality, 2. rarely non-spirituality with explanations why spirituality is wrong but still being the fucus of the debate. You are biased. You erroneusly claim that all people are spiritualists, or non-spiritualists who focus on giving explanations on why spirituality is wrong, but still having it as their main focus. That is a lie. A hypernym should be wide. You are biased. You claim that any metaphysical worldview is focusing in an affirmative or non-affirmative way towards spirituality. A hypernym has to be wide. No hypernym is perfect, because always some people don't care about it, and claiming that they are non-hypernymously interested people is biased because it's not the only thing they don't care about. The fields of study of set theory, semantic cladology and set theory are by definition imperfect (not because of human error). But we can do better. For example non-Roman-Catholic-but-sometimes-yes is a biased hypernym. That is obvious. "Theistic and spiritual" will also create many non-hypernymously-identified people simply because it's a biased choice. Use your brain. Do you actually believe that "theist and spiritualist" is the best hypernym you can find? You use generically the terms "theology and spirituality" to hide the many non-identified-under-that-biased-hypernym but you change nothing. Select as your hypernym the one which creates the least non-subscribing-themselves-to-the-particular-hypernym-chosen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8407:4B00:7903:9973:E897:7FE2 (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add a map and statistics of of hatred against atheists in different places of world

Kindly add maps and stats for

1. Violence against atheists. 2. General oppression and social rejection against atheists 3. Excluding political atheism or forced atheism; what is the status of social oppression and hatred against people who are generally disbeliever of cultural ideologies. 2405:204:4313:D858:9C42:A500:6274:3CED (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

This already exists at Discrimination against atheists. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank for reply @Scjessey. 2409:4060:2089:3FF4:0:0:9B4:60A5 (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Exploration on the Method of Demonstrating Atheism

Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss new ideas. Material needs to be in a reliable source. Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Exploration on the Method of Demonstrating Atheism Basic logic We first assume that a human soul exists, and under the influence of certain external conditions or after death, it can leave the human body and then become a ghost or a god-this is a process in which a soul detaches from the body and enters other dimensions or spaces.Method 1 and Method 2 separately discuss the influence of external factors (natural factors) on this process, so as to achieve the purpose of demonstrating atheism. Method one It can be known from the butterfly effect that the movement, change and development of anything will trigger a series of uncertain chain reactions. For example: a butterfly located in South America, and after flapping its wings, it can set off a tornado in North America two weeks later-this may be confusing to many people (after all, if this is the case, Then the world will be flooded with tornadoes) The author was also puzzled at first(I feel very mysterious: from another perspective, can human beings achieve everything and do whatever they want with only their minds?), but later I found out that my understanding was wrong: There is actually no necessary connection between "Tornado appears" and "Butterfly flapping its wings"."Tornado appears" is just one of many possible outcomes after "Butterfly flapping its wings". Why are there so many possible outcomes? Because in the process of the chain reaction will encounter a variety of established things and interference factors(this is very important, because "a little error" often leads to "a large discrepancy") Since a butterfly can't exactly set off a tornado by flapping its wings, is it possible for human beings to achieve everything and do whatever they want with only their minds?The answer is clearly no: after leaving the body, human brain waves can only affect the world in the form of chaos, so it is impossible to build things like heaven and hell. Method two Suppose Zhang San got on a train in Beijing, and after sleeping for one night, he arrived in Shanghai-ah! Man is still alive, and the soul is still there: In an unconscious (sleeping) state, the human soul (regardless of which form it exists in) travels more than a thousand kilometers with the body. This shows that there is some kind of "force" interaction between the body and the soul, so that they are not separated by the train. Since the body can affect the human soul, let alone the cruel nature, that is, after leaving the body, the human soul will be affected by nature and then exist in the world in the form of chaos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpk121 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The definition is not impartial

I think that describing atheism as an absence of belief- Does not respect the values of atheism. It would be much more impartial if the article would commence that way: “atheism is a belief in global values rather than religious ideologies”. Although technically atheism is an absence of belief- it feels like using that definition does not represent the whole ideology of atheism. I know some might claim that my definition is impartial as well- but I think that when we mention a collection of ideas (no matter what kind [except for cases where the subject is not really controversial like vaccinations]), the opening paragraph should explain its values first. if essential, there is an option to add a section for criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.239.255.108 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) This has been discussed many times. By giving three "onion shells" of definition all bases are covered, the definition is a neutral description. Before you introduce phrases such as "the values of atheism" and "a belief in global values" you'd better find reliable sources which define what these values and beliefs are. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

For a non-religious ideology or set of values, take a look at secular humanism. Tammbeck (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok! Thank you for your detailed answer:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.239.255.112 (talk) 08:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph 1 Brother to a Grammar Nazi

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

This is just a rephrasing of the same sentence in order to get a clearer definition. It does not narrow the definition, it only more clearly defines it. A possible version would be: "Atheism is the absence or rejection of the belief that any deities exist." 2603:9001:2704:7500:6184:B035:CAFA:CC52 (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. These three definitions are quite distinct from one another. Let me give you examples so you can see what I mean:

1. I have no opinion on the existence of deities.
2. I do not believe in the existence of deities.
3. Deities do not exist.

The first view is of a person who hasn't really given the matter any thought, or is incapable of such thought. Someone who has not previously been exposed to the concept of deities would be a good example. The second view is from a person who has thought about the matter, but does not have any evidence to support the theory that deities exist and consequently believes they do not. The third view is of an atheist who specifically believes deities do not exist. There is extensive and exhaustive discussion on these definitions in the archive of this talk page, and the existing wording reflects a consensus carefully worked out over many months by a large number of editors. While it is true consensus can change, editors here are unlikely to support any change without extensive discussion and a compelling reason. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I also think that the phrasing of the current lead is off. Like Scjessey stated above, it is three different definitions, and should be presented accordingly and not as narrower versions of each other. I would propose something like this:

Atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist or, in a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. In a broader sense, it is also an absence of belief in the existence of deities.

We can of course argue about the exact wording, and should definitely keep the contents of the original version; my point is about the structure. --Yhdwww (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

That seems to me as ordering it B, C, A whereas the current lead has been carefully crafted to be A, B, C. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. I don't think it is A, B and C, contentwise. --Yhdwww (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The lead uses the order widest > median > narrowest. You seem to be suggesting median > narrowest > widest which to my mind is a trifle illogical. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Martin is correct. The three definitions demonstrate different scope, with the first definition having the widest possible scope and the last definition having (arguably) the narrowest. It's somewhat fluid, but believe me when I say arriving at the current language was a non-trivial thing that took a lot of thought and debate. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I can imagine the kind of debates, and we don't have to rush any changes. I just think that it sounds kind of unencyclopedic the way it is. The first sentence of my suggested version was actually just copied from the definition for atheism used in the Irreligion article, and to me it sounds more natural than the three-step version. Regards --Yhdwww (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Frederick II Hohenstaufen

On atheism in the Middle Ages he will have to add Frederick II Hohenstaufen, taking into account that he was not a mere ruler, but a holy emperor and philosopher. 2A02:2E02:27CF:6500:4D3F:435E:5B70:E9D3 (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Oversourcing

Don't you think that the first paragraph is a bit oversourced? Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

For most other articles I would agree with you, however given the past fights over this I think the sourcing is justified. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Lazarus of Bethany and Raising of Lazarus

Hello all- I have recently made additions to these two pages concerning the atheist and agnostic perspective on the resurrection of Lazarus from the dead after four days lying dead in a tomb. Before I made my additions, the atheist/agnostic/etc perspective did not seem to be represented at all on those pages. I think more material is needed so that we can have a clear understanding the perspective of atheists/agnostics/etc on these issues. Of course it would seem obvious- "dead people don't resurrect man"- but I'm trying to find sourcable quotes about validity or impossibility of the Lazarus story of John 11 specifically from famous atheists/agnostics/etc like I found from Ingersoll. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Er... I can't imagine you will find any reliable sources offering an atheistic/agnostic perspective of resurrection. It would be like asking a prominent atheist for an opinion on the existence of the tooth fairy. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Hey- I just saw your post here. I did after all happen to find two direct comments on the Raising of Lazarus from prominent skeptics- one from Richard Dawkins (he says Jesus did not raise Lazarus) and one from Robert Ingersoll (makes various comments about implausible things). If you are interested, please review that page. I think it's important to know how the skeptical community addresses this claimed miracle event because the raising of Lazarus (after four days in the tomb) is one of the core things that all New Testament believing people will know about for sure, regardless of age, sex, nationality or the time period in which they lived/are living/will be living. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

(I know it may seem silly for the modern man to discuss the resurrection of a normal human's rotting four day old corpse in AD 33, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other religious documents from the 20th and 21st centuries say that they believe that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, so I think that the issue is actually extremely important to address from all perspectives. I would personally like to see some historical context to the medical understanding of brain death and corpse decomposition added to that page so that we can understand how plausible a 1st/2nd/3rd century audience would have seen the raising of Lazarus to be.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries, not just a cut-and-paste copy of your edit. This last edit could have been phrased as "Still in the Catechism of the Catholic Church", and the previous one as "Raising of Lazarus - skeptical community's opinions". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I think this is silly. The point of this article is not to provide an atheist perspective on various tales from various religions. We'd be here all day, and never get to anything that matters. PepperBeast (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. See tooth fairy comment. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Also agreed. Debating whether a piece of mythology is physically possible is pointless. See 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria'. 79.75.249.41 (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

British/American English

A recent edit converted some British English stuff into American English, but it was reverted. Currently, this talk page states the article is to be written in American English. I went back into the history of the article to check which it should be. The very first version of the article did not have any words or formatting that would indicate which version of English should be used, although double-spacing after each sentence hints it was British English. The first definitive example of American English was in the article's very first edit, which added "ostracized" to the text. It is for this reason that I think the American English conventions should be used per WP:DATERET. Therefore, I am restoring the reverted edit. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Two points:

1. BRD means Bold, Revert, Discuss. It never means Bold, Revert, I'm right so there, Discuss. See WP:BRD, specifically "Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting".
2. Before your edits the flags at the top of the page indicated that is used American English, but that the dates were in DMY format: {{use American English|date=September 2019}} and {{use dmy dates|date=September 2019}} respectively. For the dates MOS:DATERET applies. It contains three points, the second of which concerns us here:

   The date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article (i.e., the first non-stub version) should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.

There are no "strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page", therefore there is no "reason to change it" and so "The date format ... should continue to be used". You will note that there is linkage between MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:DATERET at either location. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it is clear this article is historically written in American English, and early citations also used American English dates (largely because one of the big early contributors was Larry Sanger). To have American English with British English date formats would be strange. Clearly it makes sense for it to all be in American English, much as it galls me as an Englishman. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the first non-stub version of the article, which was established by this edit on 3 Dec 2006. This version was written in American English, evidenced by "skeptical", "institutionalized" and "behaviors" in the lead. The date format used for referencing is Y-M-D. Tammbeck (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

All those years ago, there was something of a convention for accessdate parameters to be written as Y-M-D, but date parameters to be written in British or American English standard formats. That convention has long since expired. The non-stub version you identified did not use the date parameters at all, largely because it did not use Template:Cite. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mazewaxie: Pinging the original editor for their opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry for causing this mess. I switched to MDY because using DMY on an article written in American English doesn't make a lot of sense IMO. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no logic to having a different date format from the language style. I don't even really care which, as long as they match. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is doubting that the article is written in American English; that's actually irrelevant according to MOS. The question is do we wish to establish a consensus for change of the date format from the status quo to Mazewaxie's preferred style? Ideally this should have been proposed here and left for maybe a week to see what other editors thought, not just changed on a whim. Let's do just that (I don't think we need to go as far as a formal RfC) and see what the general consensus is Thursday next. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support changing the dates to the American format to match the American English language. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose changing the article's dates to the MDY format. If there is any change, it should be to the YMD used in the first post-stub revision. Tammbeck (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Irreligion

Neither Bard nor Söderqvist are philosophers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papidamn (talk • contribs)

Actually, they both are. Söderqvist apparently has a B.A. in philosophy and Alexander Bard is credited as being one. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

2 interesting drafts in need of support

I came across two interesting draft concepts regarding atheism Draft:Atheization and Draft:Atheism Day. These article seem to be in need of adoption for expansion. Any one interested may have a look at them and contribute.

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Rfc: Soft censoring of Ex-Muslim Articles

Hi,

Request for comment discussion has been initiated @ Talk:List of former Muslims#Rfc: Soft censoring of Ex-Muslim Articles and has reference to this article there in.

Those interested can express their views there in.

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Some neopagans are atheotenous (adherents of atheoteny; but do not admit it)

This talk page is not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
atheoteny: to have atheistic tendencies without being an atheist; to believe in non-central, non-cosmogonic, non-omnipotent gods, or even being open to the possibility only part of their essence still remains Some neopagans are differentiated from the dogmas they mimic. Many don't focus extremely on the specific gods but neither on their power but on the overall archaic system of the divine. These people aren't atheists. They are atheotenous. The believe in some gods which are not central in the cosmos (noncosmogenic), but also are ancillary to the dogma and not the core of it. Atheoteny in religion is obvious when: gods are defined as vague spirits, not necessarily fulfilling all the criteria for personhood for neopaganism; atheoteny is obvious via the comparison of ancient vs modern definitions - If the modern god(s) are vaguer and weaker that is an indication of atheoteny. If 1. is the case (less criteria for personhood met) then atheoteny is certain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4105:1056:9997:B9B5:B791:D418 (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Requesting help in article expansion

Hi,

Greetings, Requesting you to have a look at

• Superstitions in Muslim societies and also Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies

Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.

Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 08:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

This talk page is not a forum.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
However, Atheism has some serious problems. Since it is based solely on the physical and material things it can not explain the simplest real things, such as numbers. Everyone obviously knows numbers are real, yet they are not physical or material, and can not be explained within those terms. 208.58.122.99 (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC) Not done as no request was made. Please don't use article talk pages like a forum for your personal views. Also, huh? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Superstitions in Muslim societies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Superstitions in Muslim societies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstitions in Muslim societies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Bookku (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

First three sentences

The first three sentences state the exact same thing, could they be removed?

Thanks, Rosefeather of WindClan (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

No, they say three different things. The difference is subtle, but significant. They are the product of very extensive and exhaustive discussion on this talk page, which you can find by perusing the archives, and represent a strong consensus amongst regular editors of this page. Please leave it as is. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I find it difficult to understnad the difference between the second and third sentence. Is there wiggle room for clarifying? Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Without introducing any new terms or jargon (which is diverse and may add even more unnecessary confusion to the lede) perhaps adding a link to the article Negative and positive atheism will suffice. For example: "In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities". Modocc (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The difference seems pretty clear to me. The three statements essentially mean:

1. The default position: never acquired a belief in deities and/or consider the idea essentially meaningless, so don't even think about it. A good example would be a newborn baby, or someone who grew up not being exposed to religion at all.
2. Doesn't believe in deities, absence of any proof to the contrary. Fairly common atheist position.
3. Has firm conviction that deities do not exist and believe the concept to be absurd.

As I said above, the paragraph was exhaustively and extensively discussed over a period of years and there was a strong consensus that these concepts were well represented by the text that was decided upon. I think any attempt at revising such carefully worked out text would need to be a deliberative process that probably involves pinging the editors who originally worked on it and perhaps doing an RfC. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

FA concerns

Hi editors, I am concerned that this article does not meet the featured article criteria anymore. I see on this talk page that this is a controversial topic, but I'm hoping that the popularity of this topic will bring positive edits to this article. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

• There is some citation overkill, with "Atheism has been regarded as compatible with agnosticism" using 7 footnotes, among other examples. Can we limit citations to two per sentence?
• There are some places that need a citation, which I have marked with {{citation needed}}
• Multiple sections are underdeveloped and should have more information, including "Pragmatic atheism" and the "Asia" and "Australasia" sections of the demographics section.
• Sometimes books are listed in the notes section, and sometimes they use a {{sfn}} and are listed in the references section. Can we standardise this?

Are there editors interested in fixing up this article? Z1720 (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: I took care of the CN-tags (one of them was unnecessary though). I have also removed the pragmatic atheism section which isn't even a thing, and lead to a dead-linked source. This whole concept does not exist at all after extensive research in books that I have read, google books, google scholar, journals and articles. Even the Wikipedia article about Pragmaticism does not mention this non-existent thing. Regarding the book listing, I will fix it now. Wretchskull (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Wretchskull for your prompt response and for fixing up this article. This review was done as part of Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 and I'm happy that there's an editor willing to improve the article. After the above are addressed I'll take a more detailed look to see if anything else needs to be done. Hopefully, we can mark this article as "satisfactory" without bringing it to an official FAR. Z1720 (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Cheers, though sorry, I meant that I took care of some CN-tags. Also, I just realized what you mean with the references. The article uses short citations, which essentially is a way of adding multiple citations of the same book and bundling them into one link that leads to the full reference. So now that these points are out of the process, I will take care of the rest of the issues. Wretchskull (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: For books, I prefer short citations because it's a cleaner look. My concern is that, for book sources, the article sometimes uses short citations and sometimes uses a full citation. One style should be picked and used throughout the article. Also, can you ping me when you are finished your changes so I know when to continue the review? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

"Attitudes" section

The editor who removed my contribution clearly didn't read the article I referenced. A study was directly linked in the article. I'm going to add my section back using the study itself as a source. I'm using the talk page to explain myself in an attempt to avoid an edit war. Jwarlock (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies! I didn't properly look at the sources; the text is back. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Minor typo at the end of the paragraph on irreligion.

Philosophers such as Alain de Botton[126] and Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist,[127] have argued that atheists should reclaim useful components of religionin secular society.[128]

There should be a space between religion and in, just as in reality there should be space between religion and secular society :) 194.204.50.9 (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed; thanks! Just plain Bill (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Consensus about FA concerns

Some editors have pointed out that this article has lagged behind in terms of FA standards recently. Most issues (addressed in the section above) have pointed out the most important ones, but there are other concerns.

• Sometimes, short citations do not include page numbers
• There are some citation needed templates
• Occasionally, citations use lengthy quotations despite their page number being noted, is this necessary? If not, I will remove the quotations. If it should stay, a Notes-section would probably be necessary.
• The article mixes sfn-templates with full citations, not to mention that the article places all refgroups in the citations-section when there should only be a reflist.

For the last bullet, I will convert all full book citations into sfn to prevent WP:CITEVAR violations. However, I need consensus on removing refgroups at the end of the Citations-section, cleanup of lengthy quotations (or complete removal if page numbers are noted), and perhaps addition of a Notes-section for explanations and clarifications.

Pinging FA nominator Brian0918 and recent reviewer @Z1720: I predict that most aforementioned concerns could be amended within a week or so. Wretchskull (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wretchskull, thank you for improving the article. I have seen your work on my watchlist and your edits have been amazing. I support removing ref groups from the citation section, as converting the refs to sfn templates take away the need for these groups. Also, I support removing quotes from the references; quotes in references has become unpopular and unnecessary in FA articles. A complete citation, including a page number, is usually sufficient for verifying the information. If a quote is necessary it should be integrated into the article or used as a note.

When the above concerns are addressed, please ping me and I will take another look. Would you also like a more experienced FA reviewer to assess the article and provide notes? I know many reviewers who will be excited that an editor is improving this article and would love to help. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Thank you for your quick response! Judging from the previous section, you seem very competent in reviewing. I will make sure to ping you as soon as I finish. If you know some helpful editors who are enthusiastic in improving this this article that would be brilliant. Cheers! Wretchskull (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I will ask around and see if there's religion/philosophy editors who are willing to help. Z1720 (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I may be very good (or at least very motivated) in researching atheism/religions but im not very good at formating sources i apologize.Foorgood (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Foorgood don't worry about formatting sources; other editors can fix it. Right now, I think it's more important to add information from high-quality sources to the article so that we can expand the sections that are too short or missing. Once the information is there we can fix up the prose/formatting. Let us know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest contacting Midnightblueowl for assistance—he is the most experienced editor on religious subjects I'm aware of. Aza24 (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I was pinged and asked to come here and contribute, so I hope everyone is okay with that even though I am completely new to this article. I find the sections on epistemological and metaphysical arguments for atheism don't really contain any actual arguments, they are more descriptions and definitions, so I think that should be fixed, and I have been working on those sections in my sandbox. I would be happy to post here what I will write when I am done before actually adding it to the article if anyone wants that. I have done that before, and that way everyone can kibbitz before anything is published. (And change my referencing style if it is not consistent with the rest of the article.) Let me know what you want, and I will cooperate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Replace epistemological arguments section

The current section has errors – on the doctrine of immanence, claims Kant was an agnostic, miscasts the Enlightenment as only believing in rationalism and leaving out empiricism – offers no actual arguments for atheism yet begins the second paragraph with Other arguments. So I think it should be replaced - the first paragraph at least - and am posting this here for all to see and comment on as a possible replacement. I understand it is longer than what is there. It needed to be longer. I hope everyone likes this but if not, that's okay, anything can be adjusted. Critique away!!

• === Epistemological arguments ===

Philosopher Graham Oppy references a PhilPapers survey that says 72.8% of philosophers in academics lean toward atheism; 35% of those philosophers believe accurate knowledge is possible for humans through empiricism, while 27.8% believe rationalism indicates knowing is through rational, or logical, reflection on innate ideas. In epistemology, one of rationalism's core tenets is the belief that the senses are unreliable sources of information since they often deceive us. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge" rather than innate ideas.

According to David Hay and Richard Brock, knowledge is a familiarity or understanding of someone or something. Epistemic states of knowing are propositional knowledge: a knowledge of facts expressed in the clause of a sentence following the word ‘that’ such as, ‘I know that whales are mammals’; skills (called procedural knowledge); or knowledge of objects (acquaintance knowledge). Skepticism, based on the ideas of Hume, asserts that certainty about anything is impossible, so one can never know for sure whether or not a god exists. Hume, however, held that such unobservable metaphysical concepts should be rejected as "sophistry and illusion". The allocation of agnosticism to atheism is disputed; it can also be regarded as an independent, basic worldview.

There are three main conditions of epistemology: truth, belief and justification. Michael Martin argues that atheism is a justified and rational true belief, but offers no extended epistemological justification because current theories are in a state of controversy. Martin instead argues for "mid-level principles of justification that are in accord with our ordinary and scientific rational practice."

John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Beale explain that "epistemology is concerned with what we can know; ontology [metaphysics] is concerned with what is actually the case... The philosophical stance that seeks to align [them] as closely as possible is called realism. Scientists are instinctively realists". According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, realism is the view that "our best scientific theories give true, or approximately true, descriptions of observable and unobservable aspects of a mind-independent world". Realism is the position that there is a world external to us, and that we can know things about it. Philosopher Julian Willard from King’s College, University of London, writes that belief that an external world exists (externalism) offers the best account of warrant, Alvin Plantinga's epistemological justification for belief. Nick Bostrom argues against realism and externalism saying that humans are living in a computer simulation that cannot be fully known or understood.

Other arguments for atheism that can be classified as epistemological or ontological, including ignosticism, assert the meaninglessness or unintelligibility of basic terms such as "God" and statements such as "God is all-powerful." Theological noncognitivism holds that the statement "God exists" does not express a proposition, but is nonsensical or cognitively meaningless. It has been argued both ways as to whether such individuals can be classified into some form of atheism or agnosticism. Philosophers A.J. Ayer and Theodore M. Drange reject both categories, stating that both camps accept "God exists" as a proposition; they instead place noncognitivism in its own category.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• No response here so I went ahead and published the changes.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• @Jenhawk777: Thank you for your changes! I didn't have time to be on Wikipedia for too long last week so I couldn't see the comment on my watchlist. If there is anything else that you are willing to add while following guidelines, feel free to do so. Wretchskull (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Hello Wretchskull, good to hear from you. Glad you like the changes, and of course you are most welcome. Since this article is FA I need someone to change my reference style to what I think is the Harvard style already here??? I use the cite tool and rp and that is not what's here - whatever is here. Can you do that? I hope someone will, otherwise I have just created a new problem. :-( Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @Jenhawk777: Don't worry, I will take care of it as soon as I can. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Wretchskull A thousand blessings upon you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent reversions by Modocc

Modocc Your first revert [4] was a sentence by Graham Oppy, a staunch advocate of atheism, yet your reason for the revert was your personal reaction that if this quote is anything more meaningful than a rhetorical flourish mocking atheism, his rational for this will need to be supported (and without undue weight of couse)). This is completely off base. Oppy does not mock atheism, ever. He is an atheist, and a professional philosopher, so what he does do is give an honest and well reasoned evaluation of all the various arguments concerning it.

If you check the source, you will find that Ayer made the assertion 'theism is meaningless' back in 1936, and as Oppy says, it is hard to find any philosopher past 1990 who endorses this claim. Let me quote: "Ayer's argument depends upon a controversial verificationist theory of meaning. While there are still some holdouts (e.g. Wright 1989), there are many who suppose that verificationism has been decisively refuted". Oppy's argument is sound, and it represents the current consensus. If you have a source that says otherwise, I request that you post it here. Otherwise you are in the wrong for reverting a good faith edit based entirely on your personal feelings. If you don't want to replace the sentence, then rewrite the paragraph with more accuracy, or remove the paragraph altogether. Do not present this as a current or successful argument for atheism. That is false.

Your second revert [5] removed an entire paragraph based, again, on your personal dislike of one sentence: A cosmic computer simulation does not necessarily justify either belief or nonbelief.. and it appears that externalism, in general, does not either, and this isn't the place for promulgating Willard's theism. There was no promulgation of any theism; it is a discussion of some of the current issues in epistemology that impact atheism, but why not just remove the sentence? Why the whole paragraph?

Your third revert [6] gives as your reasoning Why is a philosophy primer regarding types of knowledge acquisition needed here? Certainly not an epistemological argument) yet you kept skepticism - which is just a definition and not an argument - and Hume's views - which is a narrative description and also not an 'epistemological argument'.

Why not discuss the removal of good faith edits on the Talk page before reverting?

You know what? Whatever. Do as you like. Who cares if the encyclopedia tells the truth or accurately represents current scholarship? Apparently, personal views are what matter here. You have effectively run me off. I leave you to it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I left what others had written and reverted your additions in good faith. With respect to many if not most obvious fictions, arguments for taking the position of weak atheism are fine. Cherry-picking a small portion of Oppy's criticism of that doesn't do it justice. You added "Philosopher Julian Willard from King’s College, University of London, writes that belief that an external world exists (externalism) offers the best account of warrant, Alvin Plantinga's epistemological justification for belief" Apparently "warrant" here is jargon established by Plantinga. To the point that faith is knowledge? Moreover "justification for belief"? in a section about nonbelief? Seemed out of place to me. --Modocc (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Question on content

Most books I found on atheism had a section or a chapter on "arguments against atheism" and most of WP's articles on religion have criticism sections; I have added "controversies" and "Differing views" sections to nearly every religious article I have worked on. This article has none of that. Was this discussed and a decision made not to include any of that? Would someone mind telling me why? I am not necessarily advocating for it in this particular article, but I am hoping someone will be willing to take the time to help me understand the reasoning behind the decision if possible. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a regular contributor here and I haven't read through the talk page, but there probably isn't a criticism section because this is covered in the article Criticism of atheism. I would certainly have no objection to a short summary in this article.Tammbeck^talk 17:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Tammbeck I did not know there was an article Criticism of atheism, thank you for telling me! It does seem that there should be at least be a link to it if not a summary. I will go check it out. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh me oh my! I am feeling the need to go work on that one as well. It's still a start class article after 15 years. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems like this has been debated a couple of times: during its FAC, and shortly afterwards in 2007, in 2012, in 2014, and in a couple other places. It seems to have been removed because of POV concerns. I agree with Tammbeck, a "Criticism of atheism" section with a hatnote and short summary of the criticism article would be appropriate, as long as it follows NPOV, and multiple editors reading it and commentating will help ensure this. Perhaps instead of "Criticism of atheism" it can be titled "Responses to atheism"? Z1720 (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Z1720 I thought surely it must have been discussed and there must be a reason, and another article is a good one. I agree that 'Responses' is a better section title as well.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, Jenhawk777. I don't think that a "response" or "criticism" section is necessary. Atheism in and of itself, as Sam Harris says, shouldn't even be a thing, as that would be like having a criticism/response section for a "non-mathematician", etc. But apart from outside input, this has been discussed before too on WP, and the rationales are logical and follow guidelines. I think having parts of theistic arguments with responses below them is great, and as per WP:DUE and POV, articles about a certain thing should be inherently slightly one-sided towards the topic. This is also why there is a criticism of atheism article. Sidenote: I will now start with fixing references and tidying the article. Wretchskull (talk) 09:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added a link to Criticism of atheism in this article's "see also" section. As I said I have no objection to a short summary of its content here if that's the consensus. Personally I absolutely agree with Sam Harris that there's not much point in criticising the absence of a belief - it's up to theists to make a positive case for theism.Tammbeck^talk 10:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Wretchskull Okay, that's reasonable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for addition of a section regarding criticisms of atheism

Hello. I would like to suggest the addition of a criticism section to this page. It seems unbalanced that both sides of the theistic/antitheistic coin has criticisms of each other, and yet there is no section for criticisms of atheism. Thanks you. 2601:644:8D80:AB10:2D88:CFC6:DC7A:2CC (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I took another look, and now see that there is actually a stand-alone page for criticisms of atheisms. Instead of a section on criticisms of atheisms, could we please add a link to the criticisms of atheism page under the "atheistic philosophies" section? Thank you. 2601:644:8D80:AB10:2D88:CFC6:DC7A:2CC (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It is already in there, first para. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Education

Should mention the correlation between education and non-belief in the lead.Moxy- 13:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. There's certainly a correlation between education and non-belief, which is discussed in the article, but correlation is not the same as causation and so it should not be in the lead. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2021

Not to be confused with Nontheism.

Please add the above in the beginning. 106.195.15.76 (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2021

Change //Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.// to //Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed disbelief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.// to make the whole sentence and paragraph consistent. It is about disbelief and not belief.

Change "belief" to "disbelief." Palangkaraya2009 (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: I understand what you mean, but the source states that Atheism was seen as a belief in the disbelief of God. Your preferred sentence goes against the source and doesn't really make sense. Wretchskull (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what does "belief in the disbelief" mean, and I'm not sure if "belief in the disbelief" is different from "disbelief" but if the source says so, let it be that way.

I only think to make it consistent. If it is denoting a disbelief, than it should be a self-avowed disebelief instead of belief. Palangkaraya2009 (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Diagoras of Melos

Later writers have cited Diagoras as the "first atheist",[173][174] but he was probably not an atheist in the modern sense of the word.[170]

I would very much like to know why this is presented as the consensus, rather than the opinion of one scholar (Winiarczyk 2016). In the same year, Tim Whitmarsh argued in "Diagoras, Bellerophon and the Siege of Olympus" that Diagoras was precisely an atheist in the modern sense of the term, i.e. rejecting all deities.

This should be rewritten to reflect a scholarly debate, and not dogma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonnus49 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2021

39.45.186.251 (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

make everyone see the source of this very information so people can believe it easily and i am writing an article so I have to see the source so people could love my article

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DigitalChutney (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant map

The map in Atheism § Attitudes toward atheism section is irrelevant to the concept of "atheism". Blasphemy ≠ atheism, since we cannot say all atheism are blasphemous, and in correlation with our faith (atheism) and our deed (blasphemy). It is very contentious map with stereotypical idea. The Supermind (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course blasphemy ≠ atheism, but a particular society's degree of tolerance or prohibition of blasphemy is an indicator of freedom of belief. (Atheism, by the way, need not be a faith.) I believe the map is useful and relevant in the context of this article, and will restore it. Please see WP:BRD and do not remove it again until there is consensus to do so on this talk page. Thanks, Just plain Bill (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

FA status follow-up

@Wretchskull, Foorgood, and Jenhawk777: I am following up on this conversation from March. A quick glance through the article suggests that some citation needed templates are still present, there is some short sections that can probably be merged together or expanded upon (particularly in "Demographics" and the later sections in "Arguments") and some sources are producing a harv-error, suggesting that the source is no longer used as an inline citation. Are any editors still interested in improving this article? Z1720 (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do later. Wretchskull (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Impartiality

At least attempt to make an impartial article guys. I can easily tell this was written by a religious zealot and a lot of the things said here are completely wack. It's so passive aggressive towards atheism when being directly about atheism. How come we get treated like this when nobody really cares about burden of proof except religious zealots. IMPARTIALITY IS KEY TO INFORMATION SPREADING BECAUSE IT GIVES ACTUAL INFORMATION INSTEAD OF SPREADING BIGOTRY AND HATE. 2603:6011:3E06:BC00:798B:65F3:E7D:CDFB (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific about which sections you think are out of balance or need closer attention? Platonk (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the historical descriptions in the article are accurate in reflecting Atheism having been seen - in those times - as aberrant behaviour, but I winced at the opening sentence which suggests that our shouty friend may have had a point.

It's true that 1,2 and 4 of the cited references use words like "absence" and "lack" (though number 3, Ferm citing Runes, does not appear to support them), but this terminology is based on the assumption that religious belief is the default position. For an Atheist, it is not. Words like "absence" and "lack" are not used for belief in ghosts, fairies or Russell's teapot : for someone with no use for something, that thing not being present is the default position. Belief in it is neither absent nor lacking.

A change to "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is no belief in the existence of deities" would remove something that looks like bias from the opening of the article. InelegantSolution (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll make three points. First of all, the definitions used here are based on the literature, including literature written by atheists. Whether "absence" and "lack" do or do not carry the implicit bias you claim they carry is strictly speaking irrelevant - we can only use the definitions found in the literature. Secondly, the use of "absence" or "lack" has in fact been adopted by pro-atheist writers for philosophical reasons to do with where they argue the burden of proof lies. Anti-atheist definitions tended historically to emphasise malice, hence the use of stronger words with potential theological meaning, like "denial". So your identification of a bias in those words doesn't fit the evolution of the definitions historically, nor the actual history of hostile definitions of atheism. Thirdly, if the bias you claim can be found in the literature, then perhaps there is room for it to be included as a note somewhere. But otherwise its just a debating point. Dannyno (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

A draft take over request

Greetings,

I did rewrite an article Draft: Ex-Muslim activism in Kerala which was not originally mine. I just helped it to my capacity and I will prefer someone else takes over the process of further improvement of the draft.

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Alatrism

I recently found this word, should be added in this page?

Alatrism or alary (Greek: from the privative ἀ- + λατρεία (latreia) = worship) is the recognition of the existence of one or more gods, but with a deliberate lack of worship of any deity. Typically, it includes the belief that religious rituals have no supernatural significance, and that gods ignore all prayers and worship.

Alatrism is not the same as Deism, which holds that one or more gods may exist, but do not intervene. Deism does not exclude worship, and alatrism does not exclude the possibility that gods intervene; alatrists usually believe that any divine intervention occurs only for the deity's/deities' own reasons, unconnected to any encouragement by devotees.

Historical alatrist groups include the Neopythagoreans.

Some of you will say that is not the same as atheism, but if we stay purist to the definition/etymology of the word atheos, means not having gods, be without gods, not worship them. 83.58.29.4 (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

FA concerns 2

Copied from Talk:Atheism/Archive 55#FA concerns SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi editors, I am concerned that this article does not meet the featured article criteria anymore. I see on this talk page that this is a controversial topic, but I'm hoping that the popularity of this topic will bring positive edits to this article. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

• There is some citation overkill, with "Atheism has been regarded as compatible with agnosticism" using 7 footnotes, among other examples. Can we limit citations to two per sentence?
• There are some places that need a citation, which I have marked with {{citation needed}}
• Multiple sections are underdeveloped and should have more information, including "Pragmatic atheism" and the "Asia" and "Australasia" sections of the demographics section.
• Sometimes books are listed in the notes section, and sometimes they use a {{sfn}} and are listed in the references section. Can we standardise this?

Are there editors interested in fixing up this article? Z1720 (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: I took care of the CN-tags (one of them was unnecessary though). I have also removed the pragmatic atheism section which isn't even a thing, and lead to a dead-linked source. This whole concept does not exist at all after extensive research in books that I have read, google books, google scholar, journals and articles. Even the Wikipedia article about Pragmaticism does not mention this non-existent thing. Regarding the book listing, I will fix it now. Wretchskull (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Wretchskull for your prompt response and for fixing up this article. This review was done as part of Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 and I'm happy that there's an editor willing to improve the article. After the above are addressed I'll take a more detailed look to see if anything else needs to be done. Hopefully, we can mark this article as "satisfactory" without bringing it to an official FAR. Z1720 (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Cheers, though sorry, I meant that I took care of some CN-tags. Also, I just realized what you mean with the references. The article uses short citations, which essentially is a way of adding multiple citations of the same book and bundling them into one link that leads to the full reference. So now that these points are out of the process, I will take care of the rest of the issues. Wretchskull (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: For books, I prefer short citations because it's a cleaner look. My concern is that, for book sources, the article sometimes uses short citations and sometimes uses a full citation. One style should be picked and used throughout the article. Also, can you ping me when you are finished your changes so I know when to continue the review? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Citations needed persist after more than a year; escalation to WP:FAR is an option. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2022

Change "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[1][2][7][8] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[9][10] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists." to "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities [and positive atheism|soft atheism].[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities [and positive atheism|hard atheism].[1][2][7][8] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[9][10] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists." Phil Kallahar (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Not done. This requested edit is muddled because the absence of belief definition of atheism is inclusive of both the soft and the hard forms atheism (which is why it's the broadest definition of atheism). Modocc (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

"Protest atheism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Protest atheism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 15 § Protest atheism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

"Atheism/DR" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Atheism/DR and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 15 § Atheism/DR until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

"Atheism and behavior" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Atheism and behavior and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 15 § Atheism and behavior until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

"Nullifidian" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Nullifidian and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 15 § Nullifidian until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

"Devil and atheism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Devil and atheism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 15 § Devil and atheism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

"Fundamentalist Atheist" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Fundamentalist Atheist and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 15 § Fundamentalist Atheist until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

"Pragmatic atheism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pragmatic atheism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 15 § Pragmatic atheism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

"Theoretical atheism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Theoretical atheism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 15 § Theoretical atheism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

First line

„Atheism“ is (in the broadest sense) the absence of belief in … (whatever)

This is clearly nonsense as it would mean that agnostics could be classified as atheists. 2604:3D09:7980:C500:5525:8D3D:C8D1:4B8D (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not nonsense at all. The introduction has been exhaustively debated on this talk page (see the archive) and it is all rigorously backed up by reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Some agnostics are also atheists. The two are not mutually exclusive. The first line speaks well to that and lines up with what actual sources say on the subject. Millahnna (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, the absence of belief sense of atheism is older than Huxley's coinage of agnostic in 1870. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Pseudo-history

I recommend changing the title of the section "Middle Ages to the Renaissance" to something like "Middle Ages to the Early Modern Period". "The Renaissance" was mostly a construct of the 19th Century and is not a valid periodization (it was almost entirely the product of one man's imagination, Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt[7].)

And then there is this old trope:

"the Soviet Union was undeniably an atheist state, and the same applies to Maoist China and Pol Pot's fanatical Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia in the 1970s. That does not, however, show that the atrocities committed by these totalitarian dictatorships were the result of atheist beliefs, carried out in the name of atheism, or caused primarily by the atheistic aspects of the relevant forms of communism."

In the religion culture wars, Christian apologists often claim the Soviet regime was murderous because it was atheistic, while New Atheists counter by claiming atheism had nothing to do with Soviet mass murder. Both sides are distorting history.

Dimitry V. Pospielovsky covers this in Soviet Anti Religious Campaigns and Persecutions: A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice and the Believer Vol 2 [8]. What you will find is that, while not every Soviet atrocity can be blamed on state atheism, there were instances where this was in fact the case. For example,

"Early in 1934 three Orthodox priests and two lay believers were taken out of their special regime Kolyma camp to the local OGPU administration. Each of them was asked to renounce his faith in Jesus. Instead, all of them re-confirmed their faith, although they were warned: ‘If you don’t deny your Christ, [death] awaits you.’ Without any formal charges they were then taken to a freshly dug grave, and four were shot. One of the three priests, however, also without any explanation, was told to bury the dead and was spared." (Pospielovsky, p. 83)

This is one of several unambiguous examples of people being killed for not accepting state-mandated atheism. Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

disagreement over New added info

User:AndyTheGrump has raised objections, however those objections must be reviewed under the criteria of revision not erasion of the whole article. Thanks for your considerations. Ryanxastron (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd strongly advise you to find out how Wikipedia actually works before telling people what 'must' be done. Start by reading Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I have done my readings. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle says "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and only if you cannot immediately refine it. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen." i do not see how all of it, is not an improvement nor whether it is necessary to revert it. as for orginal research concerns, there's not much of it and it can be removed easily if deemed necessary. Ryanxastron (talk) 08:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

'Not much of it' is an opinion. Feel free to ask for the opinions of others actually familiar with Wikipedia policy. Meanwhile, we can wait to see if anyone else comments here - there is no urgency, and disputes over major additions to a significant article with a long and sometimes contentious history are best dealt with at a sensible pace, and involving multiple participants. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

agreed. Ryanxastron (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

For the benefit of others, the content in question was added here. [9] Note that in addition to my WP:OR concerns, the material duplicates that recently added by Ryanxastron to the already-linked Existence of God article. Even if the content were to be seen as valid, rather than WP:OR, it would seem undue emphasis to have one specific subsection dominate so much of this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with AndyTheGrump's reversion. Not only does this represent an undue emphasis, but it was also added using a non-wiki coding style. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Divine Command section removal

I propose an edit to remove the Divine Command section in this article, possibly merging it into the Divine command theory article as one of the semantic objections or included therein. Belonging as it does to meta-ethics, Divine Command theory isn't relevant to atheism itself. If no one objects I will edit the article accordingly. Justanotherjeff (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Belief in reincarnation or vodoo is not atheism

The page's current definition is

> ❞ Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.

If that is the broadest sense then a person believing in voodoo or reincarnation can be an atheist. He or she is not. This definition is some religious bullshit. 77.16.74.79 (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Not at all. The "absence of belief" part includes people for whom belief in the existence of deities has never even occurred to them, either because a person is young or has been brought up in a group where deities are not part of the culture. With this broad definition, for example, the statement "all babies are born atheists" is valid, however much religious people might like to claim otherwise. Your example of voodoo is invalid, because that is a religion (or more properly, a flavor of religions) that includes deities. I would also argue that it is possible for a person to be an atheist and at the same time believe in reincarnation, although I would imagine such a person is rare, if they exist at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, practitioners of voodoo DO have a god and his name is Bondye. Secondly, the OED defines atheism as "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God." So this definition is not "some religious bullshit". Cfrancis325 (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2023

Recommend that citation number 1 be updated/replaced. The data cited is almost 20 years old; the number has likely climbed significantly. Cfrancis325 (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I have added the results of a May 2023 poll that put global atheism at 29%. That equates to roughly 2.3 billion, but we cannot state that number because it would be synthesis. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

State-mandated atheism in the Soviet Union

I raised this issue a month ago (to the sound of crickets) and it still hasn't been corrected:

"the Soviet Union was undeniably an atheist state, and the same applies to Maoist China and Pol Pot's fanatical Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia in the 1970s. That does not, however, show that the atrocities committed by these totalitarian dictatorships were the result of atheist beliefs, carried out in the name of atheism, or caused primarily by the atheistic aspects of the relevant forms of communism."

This is significantly misleading. Stalin reigned in his anti-religious campaigns in 1941, partly because they weren't working, but mostly because he found religion useful in galvanizing Soviets against the Nazi war machine. But prior to '41, there were indeed Soviet anti-religious campaigns in which people were specifically targeted for opposing state-mandated atheism.

In Soviet Anti Religious Campaigns and Persecutions: A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice and the Believer Vol 2 Dimitry V. Pospielovsky cites several examples of Soviet soldiers executing priests for refusing to denounce their belief in God[10]. And in Nathan Johnstone's critique of 'New Atheist' pseudo-history, he shows that in the period from 1922 -1941, the Soviet regime destroyed churches and imprisoned, exiled, tortured and executed thousands of clergy and believers because of their opposition to the atheistic doctrine of the state (p. 185[11]). Historian Victoria Smolkin made the same case in A Sacred Space Is Never Empty: A History of Soviet Atheism[12].

The Christian apologetic argument that "atheism has killed more people than religion", that all Soviet atrocities were linked to atheism and that atheism is inherently violent is total nonsense and something could be said about this in the relevant history section. But the other extreme which claims that none of these atrocities had anything to do with atheism is pseudo-historical and not the sort of impression readers should be given. Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The text you object to is a quote, and is cited properly. The content of the quote may well be misleading, incomplete, etc., but I'd argue this is not the right venue for your complaint. Rather, your complaint seems to be with the author of the quote, not this article or the editor who added it. Justanotherjeff (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, what? The text is not only misleading, but is specifically described in reliable sources (by actual historians) as being misleading. Some pop-philosophy book about "myths about atheism" is not citing a historical claim properly.

But it doesn't look like this text is in the article any longer, so it appears that some editor wisely removed it. Not every Soviet atrocity can be blamed on atheism, but atheism did indeed motivate some of them. When someone's holding a gun to a priest's head and asking "do you believe in God?," and then blowing the priest's brains out when he says "yes," it's kind of hard to pin that on anything else. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Forgive my lack of clarity. First, the perpetrators' actual motives are not the issue. It's about the material itself. For one thing, you are incorrect about the text being deleted. The text is, in fact, still there in the citations (see #90). In fact, it's used in support of the same section (revised). But I digress.

Notably, the substantive claim in the material you object to is a negative one; a refutation of claims you yourself reject (i.e., that atheism has killed more people than religion). The authors make this quite clear writing: "That does not, however, show that X happened because of X." Simply put, the authors do not make a positive claim that the atrocities committed under Communism had no links to atheism. I do not know if they make this claim elsewhere in their book, but this quote does not assert what you said it does.

Furthermore, Wikipedia's standard for reliable sources would seem to include the material quoted (see WP:NOR, WP:NPOV). Moreover, the section containing the quote is on the subject of Criticism of religion, which arguably has slightly more to do with philosophical opinion than detailed accounts of historical events. As such, a passage written by credentialed philosophers from reputable institutions quoted in a book published by a well-known, established publishing house generally known for reliability (Wiley) isn't really out of place, regardless of whether its proper category is "pop philosophy" or not.

In addition, it might just be a matter of opinion, but IMHO neither the article nor this Talk page is the right venue to settle disputes between experts from unrelated fields. If there is a genuine controversy and it is relevant to the section and/or article, include the competing perspectives. You framed the problem as incompatible interpretations of history. If you believed this to be relevant to the section in question, why not edit the section yourself at the time to present the pertinent historian's perspective?

For example, you might've added "Some philosophers claim X..." in front of the material you described as misleading, followed by something like: "In contrast, historian Dimitry V. Pospielovsky in Soviet Anti Religious Campaigns and Persecutions: A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice and the Believer Vol 2, documents several examples of Soviet soldiers, etc., etc.."

Finally, as you note, this discussion is moot thanks to the excellent edits of the subject section. I would like to highlight the fact that the section still presents virtually the same argument, but couched in NPOV, which makes it all better. Justanotherjeff (tallk) 02:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Under Lenin and Stalin, tens of thousands priests were executed (mostly by the secret police Cheka - later NKVD, not Soviet soldiers), why no mention of this at all? Feww2 (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

If you think this adds value to an article about Atheism as a subject, a good place to add it might be in the 20th century section. That section mentions suppression of religion under Lenin & Stalin. Justanotherjeff (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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. Phil of rel (talk) 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 recentism. -- Scjessey (talk) 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. 2601:201:8101:E5E0:3158:3130:1A17:BEDD (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on WP:RS, which is what the current status quo is supported by, and not personal opinions. Wretchskull (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Phil of rel 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. Doric Loon (talk) 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. Explodingtnt30 (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

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

please create a disambiguation page about/on: physicalist fields of study ("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.)

about/on: Variational logicism = variant logicism = variable logicism; because even neologicism is single-logic biased

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. 46.246.145.43 (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

the Positive vs. negative paragraph is incomplete and biased

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 physicalism. 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 [without an arbitrary collage of formulas but with rigorous causal connection; something like the quantum foundations of the future, because now we have many things we don't know... and the physical axiomatics seems to be an open axiomatic system [closed axiomatic systems usually have more inconsistencies] but still quantum foundations can evolve as A LOGICAL AFFIRMATIVE IMPERSONAL = GODLESS field of study.

The article on atheism focuses ONLY on atheism as an affirmative negation = positive atheism, but isn't at all analytical on physicalism and on metaphysical logicism/logicalism [logicism + physicalism]. 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. David Deutsch is the superior thinker on analyzing these deep causes and on understanding the conditions which are the causal basis of the logical phenomena.

By rejecting or not analyzing physicalism and metaphysical logicism many old in age neoatheists harm the purely affirmative versions of atheism.

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 quantum foundations 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.

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 mind. Personhood isn't a mereological simple but it's a mereological complex. The universe and the brain are final results and not the logical axiomatic foundations. The brain requires space to have a connectome 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 Landauer's principle irreversible data-processing transforms the lost data into heat. Reversible computing isn't possible to function without both forms of entropy, thermodynamic entropy and informational entropy. 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.

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 [mistakes] 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).