From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Featured article Atheism is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 8, 2007.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 31, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
December 29, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
April 28, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Atheism:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Other : Add an FAQ to this talk page to curtail future edit-warring and give information to new editors

Definition does not make sense[edit]

"The absence of belief in the existence of deities" needs to change, because by logic:

  • If I don't believe that deities exist, and also I don't believe that deities doesn't exist, am I an atheist? How can I be labeled something when I take a neutral point of view? Arguments like "you're atheist/socialist/anarchist whether you like it or not" is clearly a fallacy.
  • If I know that deities exist, then I am an atheist according to the definition. (Note: How I know is a different question, for example if science found evidence for that)

We cannot get around that there is some sense of belief in atheism, and the definition should reflect that to make sense.

Please refute both points with a logical argumentation when you answer.

As110 (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@As110: I think I'll just invoke WP:NOTFORUM here. The talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article. Improving this article is hard because it covers a contentious topic and the current wording has been arrived at through a consensus process. You are welcome to propose improved wording here, but – as you've seen – unilateral changes to the text of the definition in the article itself will most likely be speedily reverted. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 15:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Consensus beats logic, another nail in the wiki-coffin... I'm glad I have better things to do than argue here, adieu. As110 (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
You don't get it. Talk page is about actionable changes supported by reliable sources. Self created logical arguments are not based on reliable sources and can therefore not result in changes. Finding support or refutation of logic is something to do on a forum site, which Wikipedia is not (hence the reference to WP:NOTFORUM). (By the way both your statements are critically flawed so can be easily refuted). Arnoutf (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The strengths and weaknesses of the divergent typologies of atheism are not for Wikipedia to pass judgement on. Our job is to reflect the most prominent schools of thought in the literature, and there is indeed a prominent school of definitional thought that says that the atheist label can be applied to any person who does not have a theistic belief. It doesn't matter whether you or I agree with that or not. Dannyno (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Antitheism is the activist movement of atheism[edit]

WP:NOTFORUM – does not appear to be a suggestion on how to improve the article

Antitheism is texts and actions against god. Atheism does also include and scientific theories that explain difficult to grape things as 1. the megaverse (Leonard Susskind) as the causal field of Big Bang (at some regional phase-invertion of it), 2. the Wilczekian (Frank Wilczek) grid of all particles etc. (of course many other theories exist)

Be more analytical please about the non-theistic atheism. I mean we have to be more analytical about the unapologetic scientific atheism that doesn't care much about religious terms and cares about learning, NOT subduing theism. The whole article here is extremely apologetic, not atheistic in context and theistic in thought. Negation isn't enough to change one's dictionary. To change one's dictionary is more important than using the old list of words and simply adding "no". An innately atheist, is primarily a seeker of scientific knowledge and method, not an apologetic.

the Antitheist: I pray to nothing, I prey on god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4112:2B00:1832:FC09:ED75:38B5 (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm collapsing this. See WP:NOTFORUM. To contribute on this page, you need to make a more specific suggestion on how to improve the article. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


Skepticism cat is for things like Cartesian Skepticism or Global skepticism. Not Scienific skepticism. Even if you believe that is what cat is for doesnt it still make sense to be more specific?Apollo The Logician (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Skepticism (American English) or scepticism (British English) is generally any questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief. It is often directed at domains, such as morality (moral skepticism), religion (skepticism about the existence of God), or knowledge (skepticism about the possibility of knowledge, or of certainty). Formally, skepticism as a topic occurs in the context of philosophy, particularly epistemology, although it can be applied to any topic such as politics, religion, and pseudoscience.
Cartesian skepticism, Scientific skepticism, etc., are indeed more specific sub-categories related to Skepticism, as are Pyrrhonism, Agnosticism, Atheism, etc. Specificity in categorizing can be a good thing when the article is about a very narrow subject, but a subject such as atheism - which entails many of the subcategories of Category:Skepticism - should not be pigeonholed into just one arbitrarily selected subcategory when many are equally applicable. (See WP:DIFFUSE for more information on this.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Xenophrenic on this. Atheism fits into many flavors of skepticism and so I prefer to more generic categorization. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I add to the page?[edit]

There is no edit button. Did some idiot forget to add one? The facebook atheists group is an awesome source of recent news and should be included within the external links section. Can somebody please take care of this. I saw some errors on the page which also needed attention but like I said some twit forgot to add an edit button so maybe one of you could bring this to the attention of the admins. Thanks. (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected which prevents unregistered users from editing the page directly, but you can make edit requests here. Also, external websites like Facebook that require registration goes against the current content guidelines, see WP:ELREG. --Modocc (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
moved to correct part of page. Please put new text under old text, as is required in the guidelines at the top of this talk page. There's no need to add Facebook links to any Wikipedia page. wp:el, as mentioned above is a guide to what information is suitable for inclusion in the external links section. I can see from your talk page that similar edits you have made have been reverted by bots. Thanks for your contributions, but please take a moment to familiarize yourself with some basic wp practices and create an account for a wider range of editing options and resources. Many thanks Edaham (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)