Talk:Atheism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Atheism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56Auto-archiving period: 21 days  |
 | 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 have often led to previous arguments being restated, especially about the definition in the first paragraph. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting on this topic. |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | Atheism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 8, 2007. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When editing this article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve it, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Gnostic atheism/-ists = debunkers of personhooded aseity who promote physical self-causation from logical possibility itself, they do exist
The article is biased and exclusively elaborates on majority/dominant atheism: from the intro: Nonbelievers contend that atheism is a more parsimonious position than theism and that everyone is born without beliefs in deities; therefore, they argue that the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of gods but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism.
Gnostic atheists who rigorously debunk the self-causation of Brodmannian (Brodmann-areas-like) personhood for various reasons do exist. One reason is that even in logical pluralism which accepts infinite logical contextualisations, any logical system has restrictions. The exocausality and exologic of the supernatural make its foundations not only unknowable, but also inexistent because without specific logic relationships, interactions and procedures, no axiomatization criteria are met for self-caused/autocaused specific experience (atautoticity = without identity = absolute inexistence without logical foundations). A topological brain still would require a topological space, and logical operations produce thermodynamic entropy. Informational entropy and thermodynamic entropy are related in the physical foundations. The aphysical supernatural foundations is a non-theory; a mistake without any specific foundational claims (doctrine only defines wished ideas without rigorous justification).
Gnostic atheists (those who specifically debunk the self-caused cosmogonic person) are harassed by majority atheists as it happens in this article (they're not even mentioned) and many times are deliberately confused with the positive atheists (most positive atheists are sure God doesn't exist, but they don't necessarily care or study how to specifically debunk the self-caused cosmogonic person and not only claim that stupid ideas have to be debunked by the stupid others who aren't us). 2.84.215.66 (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- tl;dr — propose a change in the "change X to Y" format or "add X after Y" format, and list here published works which may be referenced in support of such a change. —Alalch E. 23:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- I tried to Google on Gnostic Atheism a bit and I am not sure whether it differs substantially from "Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities." which is the 2nd line of the article. Also your post is very long and does not suggest an actionable action to take (as Alalch E indicates). The post is also excessively difficult to grasp in particular the title and the 2nd paragraph. The latter contains (at best) very uncommon words some of which Google does not even know (e.g. atautoticity https://www.google.com/search?q=atautoticity+&sca_esv=b0a6a50bf49897c6&sxsrf=AE3TifOZue9bOTJ102K-KrSo1wnHaJSCrQ%3A1750572388772&source=hp&ei=ZJ1XaKG5LPTm7_UPkt3FqQg&iflsig=AOw8s4IAAAAAaFerdNAP9lXPUssPQOcX9_oEXKejWgQ3) which makes it very hard to understand what you want to say. Arnoutf (talk) 06:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- A "gnostic something" requires specific knowledge on something as in gnostic atheism: Landauer's principle (data-thermodynamic), the impossibility and un-identity of exo-logic (supernatural), the impossibility of free will even in logical pluralism because every system has foundational and high-order restrictions, etc. People who debunk "gnostic atheism" never attack "gnostic atheism" (knowledge-based atheism). They only attack strong atheism because they confuse knowledge rigorously explained with strong belief. Even the majority of people who claim they are gnostic atheists (knowledge-based atheists) are actually strong atheists. Few typical atheists have some rigorous explanations on the rejection of the supernatural (the low-probability claims aren't canceling the supernatural; the impossible axiomatization of physics with magical gaps / missing procedures/ human-ethics-based unfounded foundations of existence... this becomes part of true knowledge-based (gnostic) atheism, but it misses the rigorous and specific rejection of personhood as part of the first order foundations, it misses the rejection of free will (any system has limitations; even gradience of freedom doesn't guarantee full free will), Landauer's data-processing thermodynamic entropy, etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8B1A:7F00:8472:591B:C0C:E533 (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- The typical enemies of gnostic atheism (but because gnostic atheism is confused with strong atheism we must see if the specific thinkers we examine misuse the terms/jargon/terminology) claim that "knowledge of debunking an anti-foundationalistic self-caused mereological complex erroneously presented as a mereological simple; which has data-processing entropy and logicosystemic unfreewill limitations cannon exist". Actually the enemies of gnostic atheism immediately reject gnostic atheism without rigorously examining any specific knowledge. And false gnostic atheists (strong atheists who pretend they are gnostic atheists but they have too many thought-gaps to be fully-fledged gnostic atheists) help maintain the very derpy image of what people erroneously believe gnostic atheism is. 2A02:2149:8B18:3A00:8846:40C2:75B6:12B0 (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- I sure wouldn't have gotten "without identity" from 'atautocity'. I'd've figured it meant something like non-tautological-ness. Dictionary.com and M-w.com don't know that word either. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- A "gnostic something" requires specific knowledge on something as in gnostic atheism: Landauer's principle (data-thermodynamic), the impossibility and un-identity of exo-logic (supernatural), the impossibility of free will even in logical pluralism because every system has foundational and high-order restrictions, etc. People who debunk "gnostic atheism" never attack "gnostic atheism" (knowledge-based atheism). They only attack strong atheism because they confuse knowledge rigorously explained with strong belief. Even the majority of people who claim they are gnostic atheists (knowledge-based atheists) are actually strong atheists. Few typical atheists have some rigorous explanations on the rejection of the supernatural (the low-probability claims aren't canceling the supernatural; the impossible axiomatization of physics with magical gaps / missing procedures/ human-ethics-based unfounded foundations of existence... this becomes part of true knowledge-based (gnostic) atheism, but it misses the rigorous and specific rejection of personhood as part of the first order foundations, it misses the rejection of free will (any system has limitations; even gradience of freedom doesn't guarantee full free will), Landauer's data-processing thermodynamic entropy, etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8B1A:7F00:8472:591B:C0C:E533 (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Gnostic atheism is distorted by the vast majority of non-gnostic atheists. Arguments exist. Most people present the harassment of the "majority atheists" who harass the gnostic atheists. For example infinite axiomatic systems and logical systems are possible (see: experimental axiomatic systems and logical pluralism) but they aren't part of a single system due to mutual exclusions. Thus an all knowing God is innately impossible and the single unified everything is impossible as a single entity. = This is a gnostic double argument (in includes the refutation of the supernatural). Gnostic atheists are harassed by lay atheists and distorted. Knowledge isn't tautological to strong opinion. If you delete one's arguments you aren't a superior philosopher but a mere bully.
Some people reject long and combined arguments because they understand simplicity. Even atheists are humans and have biases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-12410-21 (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Criticism section
A criticism section was added. I removed it pending further discussion and agreement as I have several issues with the section.
(1) The entire section is based on a single source and the first lines with allegations of lacking morals for atheists is even not sourced at all (2) The single source is a non-peer reviewed opinion piece by a professor of information systems (ie not a philosopher, theologist or one of the disciplines looking at the origin of the universe or life (such as biology, astronomics, physics etc). This seems to me a source with problematic relevance and reliability (to say the least) (3) The text claims that scientific atheists claim that lack of evidence of a God is a belief and not neutral in itself. This seems a classical straw man argument - and is any case not true. Even Dawkins has repeatedly claimed that if undeniable empirical evidence for God would be produced he would change his position. Hence the text puts scientific atheists in an untrue stereotypical light leading to conclusions that make no sense. (4) In general criticism sections are not preferred. These are just the most glaring issues with the text as was now that must be solved before we should even considering adding such section. Arnoutf (talk) 07:52, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- There's already a separate criticism page, so yeah that makes sense to remove. ~2025-37694-26 (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
"Symbol" of athiesm
Putting that organizations symbol first thing, blown up in that way just makes this article look like an organization, or religion, or cult page. It belongs farther down into the article, perhaps below the section directly below it, or below the one after it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-20764-09 (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've got to agree with this. The image isn't a symbol of atheism, it's a symbol originating from one particular atheist advocacy organisation. Unless someone can provide strong evidence that it is widely recognised as a symbol for atheism in general, it should not be used in this context. For what it's worth, I've been an atheist for half a century at least, and can't recall ever seeing it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- Should be removed. There is currently a source, but it does not say anything about the symbol. I do not think it belongs in the article currently either without any content about symbols. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- There have been other attempts (first, second) to do this, both by the same editor, and I have reverted them. No image is necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think there should be an image as the main header of the article. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- The atheism side bar already has a symbol on it. Very similar to the one you were trying to put in. That is probably good enough. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
-- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)"...not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." — MOS:LEADIMAGE
- I think there should be an image as the main header of the article. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- There have been other attempts (first, second) to do this, both by the same editor, and I have reverted them. No image is necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
add the paragraph (it's fundamental to atheism + it's important to have a dedicated page): Non-universal fundationality of the unit (1)
Number one isn't a non-contextual non-procedural self-caused ontology. This is important in theistic monism and in the mereological simple soul and divine essence.
The mathematical construction of numbers starts from the empty set ∅ and is built progressively through Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory (ZFC). Each number system (natural, integer, rational, real) is defined as a specific set that inherits the properties of the previous one.
The answer at a glance:
Natural numbers are constructed as sets of empty sets (von Neumann), integers as equivalence classes of pairs of naturals, rationals as equivalence classes of pairs of integers, and reals via Dedekind cuts.
Infinite logical axiomatizations are possible. There are infinite extra-axiomatic mathematical constructions (Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem) but they are integrated as new axioms, new axiomatic systems, or new logical systems; if there is no logical description, they are not considered logical systems but rather errors [infeasibility and non-identity] (note: not all logical systems are physical).
There is no universal axiomatic system. Proof systems (mathematics) are not identical to systems of substance (universes) because they have different grounding criteria (e.g., physical self-executability, circularity in physical grounding, entropic mechanisms in physical grounding, etc.). ~2026-38931-84 (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Conclusion
The number 1 may be rigorously adopted as a primitive element of an axiomatic system, and such a system can be mathematically equivalent to more conventional foundations beginning with 0 or other primitives. This choice is a matter of formal design rather than logical necessity.
No accepted theorem establishes the number 1 as the absolute foundation of mathematics, and no universally accepted axiomatic system compels such a conclusion. Likewise, the number 1 is a mathematical object, not a physical ontology. While it may serve as a symbol of unity or as a primitive constant in formal theories, these roles do not confer metaphysical priority.
The concept of fundamentality therefore depends on context. Within mathematics it is relative to an axiomatic framework; within metaphysics it concerns the nature of reality. The former is a matter of formal definition, whereas the latter remains a subject of philosophical and scientific investigation rather than mathematical proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-39132-36 (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
- There's no consensus in the philosophy of mathematics. There are schools of thought which sneer at each other. And the same holds for metaphysics. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
- Can some editor tell me what the exact proposal is here (just adding an unsourced paragraph at a nonspecified place is not actionable edit suggestion).
- In that proposal the paragraph (and the explanation thereof in this talk should (1) Provide a sourced and compelling narrative why mathematics is at all relevant to atheism (atheism is about the lack of belief, mathematics about a formal system so this is nontrivial) (2) Even if mathematics is relevant a reliably sourced argument why this specific view is relevant (3) A version of the proposed idea without any mathematical jargon or notation so that it is in fact readable. Arnoutf (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- Some religionists suggest that the fact that mathematics can so "perfectly describe the universe" it must be evidence of a grand designer, but apart from that nonsensical argument I cannot see what mathematics has to do with atheism. Moreover, the original poster doesn't seem to be making that argument anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Question on first paragraph under Secular Ethics
"Sociologist Phil Zuckerman analyzed previous social science research on secularity and non-belief and concluded that societal well-being is positively correlated with irreligion. He found that there are much lower concentrations of atheism and secularity in poorer, less developed nations (particularly in Africa and South America) than in the richer industrialized democracies. His findings relating specifically to atheism in the US were that compared to religious people in the US, "atheists and secular people" are less nationalistic, prejudiced, antisemitic, racist, dogmatic, ethnocentric, closed-minded, and authoritarian, and in US states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious states, the murder rate is higher than average."
I'm mostly just questioning the last part, "in US states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious states, the murder rate is higher than average."
Is this true for Utah as well?
One more very important thing, is the murder done by the religious people of the state, or is it done by non-religious people? Just a few years ago, two construction workers (Neither Theists) got in a conflict of sorts, and one ended up shooting (and killing) the other just a few houses down from where I live now in Utah.
(Another, more well known example of what I'm asking about: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/what-we-know-about-the-deadly-shooting-at-a-michigan-mormon-church)
I'm not saying that is should be changed, because that is what Phil Zuckerman found, but rather that a subsequent sentence or short paragraph be added clarifying things. Ypzdetv (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- Please read WP:NOTFORUM. This talk page is for discussions regarding article content. Article content is based on what published reliable sources say. It isn't a platform for asking hypothetical questions, and we don't base articles on anecdotal evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2026 (UTC)