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

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)

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).

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)

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)