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

The third definition in the opening

I have not read this article or the preceding Talk comments, so, if what I write here is redundant, then I apologize. But the third definition -- "the position that there are no deities" -- is ambiguous. On the one hand, a person who takes that position might insist on the truth of a negative, but to do that requires an act of faith, and few atheists are foolish enough to do that. After all, atheists are generally people who do not believe things on faith. On the other hand, I take the position that there are no deities, not as an act of faith, but because no evidence of them is known to exist. Therefore, my taking of that position is provisional, because, if evidence were discovered, I would consider altering my position. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It does seem a little ambiguous, but I can assure you it reflects the body of scholarly work on the subject. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources states that in a narrow sense it is a position. It does not matter how people come to that position as there is no one path to reach it, any more than for theism (faith, reason, evidence etc are not unique, but universal). Ramos1990 (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, 'believing in God' and 'believin in the existence of God' are 2 different things. Cf. my comment below. Leaving Neveland (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not ambiguous. The below statement is a statement of opinion, not fact. In order to make this statement, you would have needed to review all of the evidence, which you certainly have not, and correctly interpreted it. You're a human being capable of misinterpreting evidence. It is also a statement of faith, you're putting your faith exclusively in your own five senses since you personally have not experienced a deity with those senses.

"I take the position that there are no deities, not as an act of faith, but because no evidence of them is known to exist." PerseusMeredith (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

Believers do not believe in god because they think there is compelling evidence that god or gods exist. That's not what 'believing in god' (or gods) mean.

I noticed that dictionary definitions sometimes defined atheism as the lack of belief in the existence of God and others as the lack of belief in the existence of god of Gods.

The 'existence'-definition is misleading. The belief is not in the existence but 'in god'.

I keep reading sterile exchanges between theists and atheists about whether god exists or not, with atheists coming up with the no-evidence argument. These debates are restricted to the US to my knowledge. In the rest of the world we know that you don't convince someone into believing in god or stop believing in god. You don't talk someone into being in love or stop being love.

What you can show the person is that their claim that they are in love is fake.

Not a believer myself, not preaching my relgion. 2A04:EE41:80:7290:E468:AFEA:FBB2:7A4E (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Collapsing off-topic discussion per WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am not interested in editing this article, so feel free to ignore this comment, but the third definition is ambiguous, for the reason I stated; it doesn't merely seem ambiguous. And it is unequivocally ambiguous, not just "a little ambiguous." If the body of scholarly work on the subject overlooks or writes off this ambiguity (if that's what you mean), then so much the worse for the body of scholarly work on the subject. Maurice Magnus (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC) The third definition is strong or positive atheism as in "there is no Thor and no divinity either". It is true it can be provisional, as in "there is no divinity unless one becomes evident". Nevertheless, positive atheism is notable hence its inclusion in the lede. Also the degree it's provisional or not largely depends on context and individual assessments which falls a bit outside its scope, although I am reminded of Richard Dawkins' spectrum of theistic probability. Modocc (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I agree with everything you say here, but I want to emphasize that the difference between a strong atheist (in Dawkins' terms) and a provisional one is crucial, because the former, like a strong theist, believes irrationally, as a matter of faith, and deserves no more respect a strong theist who claims to know that a god exists. I disagree with Dawkins' description of the strongest atheist after that a "strong atheist." It is "De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. 'I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'" I consider myself a stronger atheist than that, without being a "strong atheist" in Dawkins' sense. That is because I would not say that I don't know for certain that a god doesn't exist. I would say that nobody can know for certain. But I have no more doubt about the non-existence of a god than I do about the non-existence of flying pigs, while I acknowledge that I can't "know" the non-existence of either. I concede that I may be conflating logic and feelings here. Logically, I acknowledge the possibility that a god exists, but I do not feel that there is any possibility. The person who uses Dawkins' phrase, "I don't know for certain," sounds as though he feels that there is a possibility, however close to zero, that a god exists. How's that for nitpicking? Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC) See Agnostic atheism. It makes a clear distinction between knowing (we do not or cannot know) and not believing because we do not have a belief in a god (or a divinity) and we may believe there is no god (provisionally on account of one's agnosticism). Modocc (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Possible image?

Per other language wikis and the Wikidata item for Atheism, would this image be good for illustrating the article? Quilt Phase (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Have added that image to the Etymology section Quilt Phase (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

create page: empirical atheism = nonempirical atheism

• empirical atheism = nonempirical atheism: Atheism based only on the lack of empirical methodologal proof (only methodological empiricism: scientific observation and scientific experiments are safe for conclusions [hallucination isn't for example]).

Not all atheists are empirical atheists. Some accept axiomatic foundations (see: axiomatic system, axiomatization of physics, relation between mathematics and physics [physics needs a program-like axiomatization; infinite logical systems are possible, not only mathematics], see also: constructor theory). Some atheists accept the proof by contradiction, etc.

see: methods of proof (see academic documents on all possible methods of proof).

Not all methods of proof are formal. But those who have rigorous logical foundations are used by atheists who debunk the personhooded self-axiomatization, teleology and religious cosmogony. Logical monism is wrong (see: experimental logical foundations [alternative logical foundations don't have to be useful, experimental axiomatic systems, etc.]. Pluralistic physicalism has many arguments: separation of personhood per brain, Everettism = many-worlds interpretation, logical, axiomatic and cosmological pluralism, etc.

Not all atheists have the exact same views. Atheist popularizers like many new atheists, attack religion with merged forces but usually avoid to elaborate to the different atheistic movements. 2A02:2149:8BAC:EA00:8051:85ED:CC45:DCE2 (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of your claim. (which sounds reasonable)Cinadon36 07:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Atheism in the purest sense of the word

Atheism comes from the Greek word atheos (without god/s), up to that we all agree, the problem is that then each person opts for one or another meaning, making this "-ism" very confusing.

If it is not too much to ask, I would like another meaning to be added that I see is not in the article (since the page is protected I cannot do it myself), being an atheist because even though the gods exist, they do not deserve worship or their worship is not necessary. Two great examples would be Diagoras of Melos the Atheist and the emperor-philosopher Marcus Aurelius:

• Diagoras was an atheist because he did not believe that the gods deserved worship;
• Marcus Aurelius was "atheist" because he believed that the good gods did not care whether they were worshipped or not, only whether you were good to yourself and your neighbor, while the bad gods did not deserve worship.

The "non-worship" or atheism of evil gods is represented in popular culture with Dungeons & Dragons, gods exist but there are mortals who are atheists due to the fact that they do not believe that gods deserve any kind of worship.

Also, I don't see it is discussed that, for example, christians are "atheists when it comes to Satan", but wouldn't fear or hatred of him be a form of worship even if it was from a negative perspective?

83.58.144.190 (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This case would seem to fall under other articles, such as dystheism, misotheism and, well, theism. What you are seeking to add is no longer considered a form of atheism, as evidenced by the fact it is not reflected in the reliable sources we have drawn from. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, I have to disagree with your take, I never said the meaning I posted is or must be the main meaning of the "-ism", I just said it should be added as another meaning alongside the rest that already appear. Maybe as a part of the "Etymology" section or the "History" one, or an independent one as "Popular culture" (in reference to D&D).

And about "is no longer considered a form of atheism", depends on the person you ask, there are many atheists that are atheists no because they know 100% there are no gods, but because even if the gods exist (good, neutral or evil ones), there is no point in worshipping them.

This article is not about what form of atheism is correct (this is not religion where there's an orthodox view and the rest of meanings are heresies), but what atheism means, and not adding the most essential meaning of the word atheos (lit. "without god/s") is a little ridiculous.

And about the other "-isms" you mentionated, they explain about point of view from the perspective of the relationship between god/s and humankind, not from the lack of relationship, in othe words, atheism.

83.58.144.190 (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you and "many atheists" believe in the existence of one or more gods, even if those gods are not worthy of worship or don't need it, then you are all theists, not atheists. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe in gods, so I'm an atheist in the mainstream meaning of the word. But you're wrong, atheist came from atheos, without god/s, therefore (again) even if gods exist, you are an atheist if you don't worship them.

Atheist also was used for people that were proper believers but were forsaken by their gods, using (again) the original meaning of the word: "without god/s".

This article is about Atheism, all meanings of the word should appear, don't matter if they're modern or not.

83.58.144.190 (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I think your point is not without merit. In practice, I like many atheists understand the word "atheism" to mean both "there are no gods in my world-view" and "there are no gods in my life", and the second part of that is possibly the more important part. Many atheists will say they are not interested in debates about the theoretical possibility that there is a god out there somewhere, because even if one does exist, it would make no difference to their lives. Now you are imagining a person who actively believes there is a god, but gives it no place in their life - Scjessey is right that atheism is not the best word to describe that, but if you tone down the active belief to a "dunno", that is actually where many atheists would position themselves. Doric Loon (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

(But to be clear, I am agreeing with Scjessey that this doesn't belong in the current article unless you have reliable sources showing that a significant body of informed opinion uses the word in this way. I am agreeing with you that atheism can have as much to do with a lifestyle choice as with an intellectual opinion, but if your characterization of Diagoras of Melos and Marcus Aurelius is correct, they are at best tangential to what atheism is today.) Doric Loon (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I would argue the section on etymology fully explains how the meaning of the word has evolved to the one we use today, so the construct posited above is already adequately covered. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)