The definition of atheism has been repeatedly argued on this talk page. Before suggesting substantial changes, please make sure that your view is entirely supported by reliable sources and has a neutral point of view.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments, especially about the definition in the first paragraph, being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting on that topic.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Atheism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Atheism is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up and guide Wikipedia articles relating to atheism. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
@7kingis: Hope you don't mind -- I've moved your comment from my talk page here, since it's something that would need to be discussed here (and between "red tree faeces" (?) and "Rhododendrite's" in the third person, I'm unsure if you intended it to be here in the first place. I'll respond after pasting. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi red tree faeces, (is that right?) Discussion of academic criticism of atheism. You ask for compelling reason to add academic criticism of atheism. (I note that most atheistic contributors deploy lengthy criticisms on each page which they disagree with). But 'compelling' would indicate a point of view, wouldn't it? By compelling, you mean, 'from my point of view, it has to persuade me'. Clearly you have a different point of view from the authors of the books I have cited, which is why we have a discussion. But the points of view are the nature of the discourse: As an atheist you are demanding to be convinced that criticisms of atheism should be 'allowed'. I say that you are an interested party and therefore are not suitable to decide. These types of pages should have an editor of atheist and non-atheist persuasion.
It is an objective fact that academic criticism of atheism exists, has been published and widely read. Rhododendrite's refusal to acknowledge this is likely to be construed as religious bias. 7kingis (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
You ask for compelling reason to add academic criticism of atheism I did not ask for that. I said we need a compelling reason to add a primary source such as the one you added. The existence of a line of thought doesn't mean we include it. When it receives coverage within the massive body of literature on this subject such that WP:WEIGHT is established, we may be able to include it (and this presumes the coverage is from reliable sources).
But 'compelling' would indicate a point of view, wouldn't it? This is not how I intended it, no. Just "very good reason".
As an atheist you are demanding to be convinced that criticisms of atheism should be 'allowed'. Lots of new editors convince themselves that if someone reverts your edits, it is because they are biased, when in fact it's just the way Wikipedia works. You may want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, perhaps starting with WP:AGF.
It is an objective fact that academic criticism of atheism exists, has been published and widely read. Rhododendrite's refusal to acknowledge this is likely to be construed as religious bias. This is silliness. See criticism of atheism. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Rhododendrites. I read the essay used as source and I think there is a fundamental flaw to the reasoning. The author does his utmost best to fit atheism into the dimensions of religion and uses some very liberal redefinitions of those to manage to do that. However, by taking these liberties the argument loses all specificity and with the same liberties you could easily make the case all human institutions (economics, democracy, schools, nationalities) are religions since they share origins (i.e. narrative) lead some fulfilment in involved people (experience) has to do with interaction between people (social) is based on assumptions how the world should operate (doctrinal) adopts some kind of morality (ethical) follows procedures and rules (ritual) and relates in some way to the material world or possessions (material). That makes the arguments in the source dissatisfactory. In addition the source is from a site called creation.com which in its own statement claims to "see the Lord Jesus Christ honoured as Creator and Savious of the world" - that is a very strong indication the source is not neutral on the topic shedding doubt on reliability at worst and making their opinions primary at best. Arnoutf (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Attempting to misrepresent the lack of belief in deities as a religion is an old argument attempting to create false balance (we have the related policy explanation WP:FALSEBALANCE). The false balance can then be used with other fallacies in order to dismiss much of reality including well established scientific knowledge. Wikipedia does have a bias for correctly representing mainstream science, by WP:YESPOV the scientific consensus can even be represented in Wikipedia's voice without attribution. What is acceptable however is to describe these reactionary arguments and apologetics in their relevant articles when they are notable, with attribution and presenting them as they are, religious arguments. As was previously pointed out, we have Criticism of atheism#Atheism as faith. —PaleoNeonate – 07:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
7kingis's edit summary claiming that I advised him to add criticism about atheism isn't a religion does not reflect what I wrote on his talk page, which was "Put your money where your mouth is. Change the article Atheism to state that it's a religion. Until then, please stop pretending it is." That's not what he did. He's still insisting on that any scientist who is using the word 'miracle' must be religious as they must be using it in a supernatural sense. Doug Wellertalk 10:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm just comfortable with the definition of Atheism as lack of any religion at all, and thus not a religion itself. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Atheism is only about the denial of deities. Lexicographers usually deny longer definitions. If one person denies also anything supersensual or antiscientific, then that person is an ametaphysicalist. Try to submit on Wiktionary that atheist means someone who only follows the scientific method and the data. They immediately delete it and etymologically they're correct. I don't support their strictness though. Also study religious analytical data from US studies. Many atheists believe in the soul and other antiscientific stuff. Not all atheists are ametaphysicalists. I know that most people who visit this page are atheists, and I know that atheists usually don't like the soft atheists of supersensuality, but we aren't supposed to distort facts we don't like! Claiming that the Wikipedia page of Atheism is enough to include Ametaphysics isn't enough!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:844B:600:E865:16E9:EDB6:2449 (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
why then don't you merge these ideas?
why when you try they delete it?
Is gnostic atheism the same as ametaphysics? Colloquially yes, encyclopedically and philosophically certainly not. We cannot merge different terms. Metaphysics as a philosophical notion is the analysis of the fundamental universal properties. That might or might not include religion, but it's definitely about cosmomechanics (deep causation of astrophysical and physical laws), thus it's a wider and different subject than gnostic atheism. Ametaphysics isn't necessarily against the fundamental universal properties, but certainly it's against the ideas which oppose scientific reasoning. Forms of atheism might or might not involve opinions about cosmomechanics. Ametaphysics and metaphysics always do though! --2a02:2149:844b:600:e865:16e9:edb6:2449 Revision as of (talk • contribs) 14:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified 2 external links on Atheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
History of atheism section needs more contemporary events
The history of atheism section needs more contemporary events - particularly in the last 5-10 years.
History/politics go hand and hand so that could be a good place to start. Another good place to start would be various conflicts within the atheist movement (left-wing atheism vs. right-wing atheism and battles related to feminism).Knox490 (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)