Talk:Atheism

This talk page is for discussion of how to improve the article. It is not a forum for general discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Differences atheism is personocratic (it is non-personocratic, but studies the "personocratic criterion" and in philosophy and not only; categories are grouped with the hypernymic criterion of focus) (focused on the denial of the supposed precosmic cosmogonic person); naturalism is physiocratic/naturocratic (it is the pure metaphysics of physics; without a personocratic bias [it is impersonal but it's not that its main point]) atheism is a negation; naturalism not atheism as a term is famous nowadays; naturalism is not and doesn't have enough followers (it's not self-evident on philosophical doctrines people to easily move from one idea to a better defined) Similarities usually (but according to Pew Reseach, Robert Sapolsky and many others) they both accept only science (partially won't do, because theists do the same; partiality here is a bad criterion for categorization) older comments in Greek, more analytical

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).

Obviously Incorrect Data

In the first paragraph of 'Ontological arguments,' the paragraph cites a citing of data about the percentages of academic philosophers and their beliefs. However the two values stated add up to about 106% which is not possible under these circumstances. I just wanted to point this out because it's an obvious mistake. 74.137.21.162 (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2024

"Please change Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief .... to ..... Atheism, in the broadest sense, is a position of skepticism towards a belief" Redsparks2025 (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 09:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing Atheism with Agnosticism - as an atheist, I am not "sceptical", I am "sure" there is nothing to believe in. - Arjayay (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

That is not accurate either. An "absence of belief" does not equate to being sure there is nothing to believe in. For example, a newborn infant has no concept of a belief system and therefore has an absence of belief. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Bringing newborns into this debate is a argument based on a reductio ad absurdum. If one makes a claim based on a belief that "there is no XYZ or XYZ does not exist" then one inherits the burden of proof to prove the negative just as those that makes a claim based on a belief "there is XYZ or XYZ exists" have the burden of proof to prove the positive. However in the God debate the proposition that there is "no god" can be as unfalsifiable as the proposition that "there is a god" depending of the definition of "god". In any case a good skeptic keeps and open mind. Furthermore atheism is on a scale as noted in several other articles in Wikipedia and I am trying to capture the broadness of that scale in what atheism covers to highlight atheism itself comes under the umbrella of skepticism. Here is a comment I recently made on reddit = LINK Redsparks2025 (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Redsparks2025 Atheism does not necessarily involve the claim "God definitely does not exist". More usually it involves saying something like "God-claims seem implausible, there is no good reason to accept them, there are compelling reasons to doubt them, I will live my life on the assumption they are not true." Doric Loon (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Redsparks2025 appears to be ignoring implicit atheism. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

My mention of "there is no XYZ or XYZ does not exist" was only a warning concerning the burden of proof and not about atheism. Sorry is that has taken you all off topic. Anyway back to topic, atheism is a position of skepticism / doubt to the claim that a god exists. Please keep in mind that we all start life as newborns with a virtual mental blank slate from which point we are then subject to both nature and nurture. Newborns are neither atheist nor theists (or religious believers). It is how newborns are nurtured to maturity that can lead them either way. Please keep in mind that atheists can be converted to theists (or religious believers) just as theists (or religious believers) can be converted to atheists. Therefore there is NO implicit atheism in the human mind and as such "implicit atheism" is a ridiculous term that simply describes someone doubling down into that skepticism / doubt towards the claim that a god exists. Also keep in mind that for thousands of years of human history we humans have invented some version of a god or a divine mystery so as to give purpose to our lives. Why? Because we recognize our impermanence and the death that awaits. THAT recognition is more implicit than atheism. Redsparks2025 (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Further to my above comment ... as I said in my reddit post, not all atheists are nihilists. Redsparks2025 (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Rejection/skepticism regarding theistic beliefs is not its broadest definition. There are several definitions of atheism and the article, per Wikipedia's wp:NPOV policies, includes them appropriately. The current consensus can be found in this talkpage archives here and the lede's citations were removed last year. Modocc (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Redsparks2025, but you are narrowing the meaning of atheism with your opinion. Your view is not supported by the preponderance of the reliable sources on the subject. The existing first paragraph has been carefully worked out after extensive and exhausted debate over many years, and is now effectively locked from changes unless something dramatic happens. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Your "argument from authority" has been noted an rejected. "Belief" is an inherent feature of all humans and to say atheists have an "absence" of belief is to imply that atheist are somehow psychologically or mentally impaired. A human can have a disbelief or a lack of belief towards XYZ but an absence of belief towards XYZ makes no sense except for a newborn as I noted above. Atheists definitely have opinions towards the claim that a god exists and those opinions are based on skepticism and not an absence of belief. Redsparks2025 (talk) 09:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

You have no idea what's in my pockets, however we all agree the belief/position definitions of the term atheism are narrower. Again, since sources differ the article reflects their differences.. Modocc (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

"Belief" is an inherent feature of all humans and to say atheists have an "absence" of belief is to imply that atheist are somehow psychologically or mentally impaired.

This is complete nonsense. An absence of belief occurs when a person is unaware of the concept. For example, there are probably "micro religions" around the world that I am completely unware of and are thus covered under my implicit atheism. While this differs from the explicit atheism I have towards well-known religions, they are both forms of atheism and the former does not imply I am "mentally impaired" in some way. The introduction to this article intends to capture all forms of atheism, not just the forms you believe in, Redsparks2025. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I too found that nonsensical, and also deeply offensive. People who disagree with you are not mentally impaired. Religious belief is not an inherent feature of all humans, and there is nothing deficient about people who lack such beliefs. Depending on how you define the word "believe", atheists may believe in other things, like people or love or their own integrity. But that is a different sort of belief, so I don't think atheists have just transferred belief from one thing to another. Religious belief is something you can happily do without. Doric Loon (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

As your say "An absence of belief occurs when a person is unaware of the concept". Yes that is correct, such as in a newborn. However atheism is defined in opposition to theism. To be an atheist you have to be aware that there is a concept of a god/God so as to oppose that concept otherwise what are atheists doing? Shouting into the void? Atheism in the broadest sense is a position of skepticism / doubt towards the claim that a god/God exists. Skepticism / doubt towards the concept of a god/God existed before "atheism" became a word. That word was created to define a specific type of skepticism / doubt that only had to do with matters relating to a god/God. Redsparks2025 (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

BTW Scjessey your incredulity towards my comment has been noted and rejected. There is absolutely nothing special about atheism or being an atheist. It's just an ordinary human that is skeptical / doubts that a god/God exists. Redsparks2025 (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

To be an atheist you have to be aware that there is a concept of a god/God
— User:Redsparks2025

This is not true at all. Only some atheists fall into that category. Please read and inwardly digest implicit and explicit atheism before you insult any of us again. Remember that this article seeks to describe the extremely broad topic of atheism in all its forms. If you are seeking the currently-accepted definitions of atheist (which may help you understand what we are all saying), you are in the wrong place. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Your use of "some" is the key word as to why all oppose my change. You and everyone in opposition to me has not understood I am requesting changed to the "broadest" meaning of atheism as noted in the paragraph. So stop dragging my request down "into the weeds" about all the different subcategories of atheism. 114.74.194.146 (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Your use of "some" is the key word as to why all oppose my change. You and everyone in opposition to me has not understood I am requesting changed to the "broadest" meaning of atheism as noted in the paragraph. So stop dragging my request down "into the weeds" about all the different subcategories of atheism Redsparks2025 (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

How can it be the broadest sense if you want to limit it to skeptics and exclude people with an absence of belief? You know what broadest means, right? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As I said absence of belief only occurs in newborns as only their minds are near to a blank slate. However after that as we develop our minds absorb information from our environment and from our social interactions that we eventually develop opinions on that information we absorb. Some of those opinions are based on skepticism which is in itself a negative opinion / negative belief towards some information we encounter, such as the claim that a god/God exists. As a thinking human being - especially as an adult - you are never the blank slate of mind required to have an absence of belief. 114.74.194.146 (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Further to my above comment you may be confusing "absence of belief" with agnosticism, which is not an absence of belief but the view / opinion / belief that some things are unknown or unknowable. This is supported by the issue of falsifiability. 114.74.194.146 (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Further to my above comment an agnostic can still be skeptical towards the claim that a god/God exists but recognizes the practicable limit to verifying such a claim. 114.74.194.146 (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

absence of belief only occurs in newborns

This is wrong. I already answered this in my comment above about "micro religions" but it also holds water in secluded parts of the world where a belief system may never existed, although I would concede that in the modern world this is now extremely unlikely. To bring this to a close, I would remind you that the wording of the introduction has been carefully worked out by a large body of editors over a long period of time, with everything fully supported by cast iron sources. I would suggest any continued argument on the matter would be using a stick. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

You are getting into the weeds. The comment I want to change is about atheism in the BROADEST sense. All humans can be skeptical / have doubts about XYZ and if a human that does not know what a god/God is and then told what a god/God is then that human will have to make some judgement either for or against that new information, including humans in your "micro regions". Redsparks2025 (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I know exactly what you are saying, but what you are trying to do is take the broadest possible definition of atheism and narrow it. Our introductory paragraph must include that broadest possible definition, otherwise the article will fail to capture all forms of atheism. Let me reiterate: having knowledge of theism is not a requirement of atheism. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

NO! Skepticism is a position against a claim that is available in ALL humans including YOU right now being skeptical that atheism in is broadest sense a position of skepticism towards the claim that a god/God exists. Redsparks2025 (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

You can only be skeptical of something if you are aware of it in the first place. If you are not aware of religion, either because you are a newborn or because you have grown up in a society that does not know about religion, you are an atheist. These scenarios are covered by our current wording, and it is supported by the literature. This will be my last reply to what has become a disruptive argument. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

References to IQ

The last section references links to atheism and intelligence, however IQ is used and I don't think that's correct. 1. IQ is generally agreed to be an unreliable number. 2. None of the references I was able to view (one is a paywalled) mention IQ, rather they talk about education/intellectualism. Lindsey40186 (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)