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

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)

Dear Scjessey, there is nothing disruptive about my argument so don't try and threaten me into silence. I have been doing nothing more than debating my position against those who debate against my position. So the conclusion is that you and I have reached the point that most of these online debates reach and that is we agree to disagree. There is nothing I can say to change your mind and there is nothing you can say to change my mind. It will be up to other to decide as you are not the sole judge, jury, and executioner of what happens on this site. Redsparks2025 (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be going nowhere. Major philosophers have debated whether babies and others are atheist or whether active rejection is needed (and as far as I know did not arrive at an unanimous conclusion). The current discussion seems however to be based on personal opinion. The current version (as Scjessey) says above my response is backed by reliable sources, so the onus on anyone wanting to change this would need to provide (extremely) high quality sources, but not only that, but also a clear statement that these sourced represent consensus amongst high level scholars. Without any sources establishing that (which I very much doubt exist) furthering this thread makes no sense. Arnoutf (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Dear Amoutf, since you have said " I very much doubt" then you have proven my point about all humans have the capacity for skepticism. Keep in mind that the sentence that I request to be change is about defining atheism in the broadest sense. Many dictionaries define atheist slightly different to each other but generally they are similar in saying that atheist is about disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. That disbelief or lack of belief is grounded in skepticism. Redsparks2025 (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, further to the above I should have said "all humans except newborns". Redsparks2025 (talk) 00:35, 5 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)

Agreed Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The inline citation shows that atheism correlates with the g factor (psychometrics), AKA IQ. Modocc (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Suggested change to lede

I think the lede should clarify that "the position that there are no deities" is the standard definition of atheism used in academic philosophy.

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

This generates the following definition: atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists. In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ Zarimi (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence is just wrong.

"Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities"

That is Agnosticism, which is different. Atheism is the belief/position that there are no deities.

1. "Atheism [...] is the belief that there is no God or gods" (Baggini 2003:3)
2. "At its core, atheism [...] designates a position (not a "belief") that includes or asserts no god(s)" (Eller 2010:1)
3. "[A]n atheist is someone without a belief in God; he or she need not be someone who believes that God does not exist" (Martin 2007:1)
4. "[A]n atheist does not believe in the god that theism favours" (Cliteur 2009:1)
5. "By "atheist", I mean precisely what the word has always been understood to mean - a principled and informed decision to reject belief in God" (McGrath 2004:175)

The Oxford Handbook of Atheism, Defining atheism pg 11 [1]

An atheist is someone who does not say that a god might exist, in contrast to an agnostic. If this overly broad definition is to be given undue weight, then there needs to be a section on agnosticism as a subset of atheism. Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Per wp:lede: "...it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead." The lede was cited [2]. Modocc (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll edit that out lol Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Even in the citations it does seem that the narrower definition is more prominent, so at the very least, the narrow definition should be first Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I would oppose any attempt to narrow the scope of the introduction, which attempts to describe all forms of atheism, not just atheism as currently understood. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, the article should be on atheism in its current general form, with a section summarising the History of atheism article. I think a good compromise would be:

"Atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In a broader sense, atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of deities, although in modern times this is more commonly termed agnosticism. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

I can find and provide citations for this if people feel it's an improvement, it doesn't narrow the scope of the article. Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Or rather, maybe more logically:

"Atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. In a broader sense, atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of deities, although in modern times this is more commonly termed agnosticism"

Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Many agnostics reject theistic belief(s) too, asserting deities are simply unknowable, so agnosticism is not limited to just unbelief without any rejection. Note also that atheists per the narrowest definition are included within the scope of the broadest definition, it therefore cannot be called agnosticism. The last significant change in consensus occurred 8 years ago with this rather long discussion: Recent edit concern (April 2016) - Lead sentence. All the definitions are current [3] and the lede presently reflects the most recent scholarship. Modocc (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Reject is not the word I'd use. Agnosticism is more passive and indifferent. You're right that an absence of belief in the existence of deities is not the same as the belief that the existence of god is unknowable, that should be removed from my proposal. The order of the definitions does not reflect the most recent scholarship, even in the citations given the narrower definition is given more prominence. Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

My impression is that if a person is secular and respects religion they identify as an agnostic, and if they're secular and don't respect religion they identify as an atheist. The terminology is more descriptive about that person's attitude towards religion. Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alexanderkowal: This is essentially confusing agnosticism with implicit atheism. The two overlap, so it is totally understandable. The current introduction is crafted to reflect the broad scope of atheism in all its forms, and there is no need to narrow its scope to satisfy what is merely the most modern interpretation. Nor is it necessary to invert the introduction so that the most restrictive definition comes first. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything about implicit atheism in academia. I really think this is ridiculous, the modern interpretation is what should be most prominent, and at the very least it should come first. I am not talking about narrowing the scope of the article at all. The status quo is disingenuous and mis-reflects the views of most atheists. Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The editors of The Oxford Handbook of Atheism define atheism in its broadest sense, by default, because it is pervasive (with a few exceptions) amongst recent scholars. Hence we follow in accord with WP: due weight. Modocc (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that it is as pervasive a definition among academics as you say, out of the various definitions the source gives, 3/5 comply with the narrower definition, which is also the popular or public understanding of atheism as is represented in media. I do think undue weight is being given to the broad definition by having it first. Personally I think the popular definition, whatever it is, should be first, and then academic definitions which clarify/represent the diversity of opinion, all in the first paragraph. Alexanderkowal (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Then it is fortunate that Wikipedia gives deference to academia and the preponderance of reliable sources, rather than personal opinions and recentism. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:Recentism applies to historical events and contemporary events, if the meaning of a word changes then it is the contemporary meaning that should be given prominence. I've backed up my proposal with RS but I can add some more Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, academic sources on the definitions of atheism are still just well-informed personal opinions. Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The broadest definition was adopted by The Oxford Handbook of Atheism (2013) (see page 4). Stephen Bullivant its co-editor writes "...the great utility of this definition [the broadest], and its pervasive – although not universal (see Baggini 2003: 3; Cliteur 2009; Eller 2010) – deployment in recent scholarship on contemporary atheism, more than support its usage." It is its pervasiveness amongst these scholars not general usage that matters with regard to due weight. Modocc (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

My bad, I should've read that. I do disagree though, since our readers are just members of the public, the general usage and popular understanding should be more prominent, with academic definitions clarifying.

See:

• [4]: Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings
• [5]: Atheists are people who believe that god or gods (or other supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths and legends or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful.
• [6]: The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.
• [7]: Atheism is the belief that there are no gods.
• [8]: the fact of not believing in any god or gods, or the belief that no god or gods exist

Furthermore, the History of atheism article defines atheism:

Atheism is the rejection of an assertion that a deity exists.

And the simple wikipedia article states:

Atheism is rejecting the belief in a God or gods. Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

On this survey of the first two pages of google "atheism definition", two non academic sources used the broad definition, compared to the five I've put here. Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I think one of these middling ones should be used first, and then the broader and narrower definitions after. Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this one:

Atheism, in general, is the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.

Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

"[...] the general usage and popular understanding should be more prominent..."

That is what dictionaries are for. Encyclopedias seek to fully describe a topic. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:Lede

If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist

Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

We should not mislead the nonspecialist into thinking atheism is not a complex, multilayered topic. Many would argue that the broad description we begin with represents the largest body of atheists, and you dismiss that as less important than the narrow definition you evidently prefer. As has previously been stated, the makeup and order of the introduction has been exhaustively discussed. You'll find the archive of this talk page contains substantial discussion and debate. You have bought nothing new to the discussion to suggest that a shift is necessary. Atheism has been a thing for thousands of years, but you seem to want this article's focus to be the atheism of just the most recent portion of that time. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)