| Revision as of 09:39, 1 May 2024 editCanonNi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,420 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2024: fix outdent← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:49, 5 January 2025 edit undoScjessey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,030 edits →Atheism in the purest sense of the word |
| (254 intermediate revisions by 40 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{notice|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 ] and has a ].}} |
|
{{notice|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 ] and has a ].}} |
|
{{Round in circles|topic=the '''definition in the first paragraph'''}} |
|
{{Round in circles|topic=the '''definition in the first paragraph'''}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header|archive_age=3|archive_units=weeks|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|
|
<!----- // ADD NEW DISCUSSIONS TO THE *BOTTOM* OF THE PAGE // -----> |
|
<!----- // ADD NEW DISCUSSIONS TO THE *BOTTOM* OF THE PAGE // -----> |
|
{{Article history |
|
{{Article history |
| Line 42: |
Line 42: |
|
{{to do}} |
|
{{to do}} |
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
<!-- Force table of contents to appear- it refuses to otherwise --> |
|
<!-- Force the table of contents to appear- it refuses to otherwise --> |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|counter = 55 |
|
|counter = 56 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|algo = old(21d) |
|
|algo = old(21d) |
| Line 68: |
Line 68: |
|
{{hab}} |
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The third definition in the opening == |
|
== 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 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. ] (]) 00:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
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. ] (]) 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 ]. -- ] (]) 20:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
:It does ''seem'' a little ambiguous, but I can assure you it reflects the body of scholarly work on the subject. -- ] (]) 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).] (]) 05:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
::I agree with Phil, you can’t have an “absence in belief” And any type of philosophical idea, it’s just laziness. ] (]) 10:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Misplaced Pages relies on ], which is what the current status quo is supported by, and not personal opinions. ] (]) 11:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Hi, 'believing in God' and 'believin in the existence of God' are 2 different things. Cf. my comment below. ] (]) 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. |
|
::::@] 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. ] (]) 19:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:"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." ] (]) 17:37, 5 September 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. ] (]) 15:48, 27 February 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. ] (]) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hat|reason=Collapsing off-topic discussion per ]}} |
|
|
::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. ] (]) 16:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The third definition is strong or ] as in "there is no ] 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' ]. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 02:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::See ]. 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). ] (]) 04:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Possible image? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per other language wikis and the ], would ] be good for illustrating the article? ] (]) 08:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
== the '''Positive vs. negative''' paragraph is incomplete and ''']ed''' == |
|
|
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 ]. 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 ] of the future, because now we have many things we don't know... and the physical axiomatics seems to be an open axiomatic system but still quantum foundations can evolve as A LOGICAL AFFIRMATIVE IMPERSONAL = GODLESS field of study. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Have added that image to the Etymology section ] (]) 21:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
The article on '''atheism''' focuses ONLY on atheism as an affirmative negation = positive atheism, but isn't at all analytical on ] and on ]/logicalism . 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. ] is the superior thinker on analyzing these deep causes and on understanding the conditions which are the causal basis of the logical phenomena. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== create page: ] = ] == |
|
By rejecting or not analyzing ] and ] many old in age neoatheists harm the purely affirmative versions of atheism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ] = ]: Atheism based only on the lack of empirical methodologal proof (only ]: scientific observation and scientific experiments are safe for conclusions ). |
|
'''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 ] 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not all atheists are '''empirical atheists'''. Some accept axiomatic foundations (see: ], ], ] , see also: ]). Some atheists accept the ], etc. |
|
'''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 ]. Personhood isn't a ] but it's a mereological complex. The ] and the ] are final results and not the logical axiomatic foundations. The brain requires space to have a ] 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 ] irreversible data-processing transforms the lost data into heat. ] isn't possible to function without both forms of entropy, ] and ]. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
see: ] (see academic documents on all possible methods of proof). |
|
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 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). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 . ] has many arguments: separation of personhood per brain, Everettism = many-worlds interpretation, logical, axiomatic and cosmological pluralism, etc. |
|
== Modern atheistic affirmativisms (many exist): Variational logicism = variant logicism = variable logicism; because even ] is single-logic biased == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. ] (]) 03:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
please create a disambiguation page about/on: ] ("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.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please provide evidence of your claim. (which sounds reasonable)]] 07:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
about/on: '''Variational logicism = variant logicism = variable logicism'''; because even ] is single-logic biased |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Atheism in the purest sense of the word == |
|
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. ] (]) 06:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
== Obviously Incorrect Data == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 ] '''the Atheist''' and the emperor-philosopher ]: |
|
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. ] (]) 01:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Diagoras was an atheist because he did not believe that the gods deserved worship; |
|
: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. ] (]) 07:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* 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 ], 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. |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? |
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Atheism|answered=yes}} |
|
|
"Please change '''Atheism''', in the broadest sense, is an absence of ] .... to ..... '''Atheism''', in the broadest sense, is a position of skepticism towards a ]" ] (]) 08:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> <code><nowiki>''']'''<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki></code> (]<nowiki>|</nowiki>]) 09:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::You appear to be confusing ] with ] - as an atheist, I am not "sceptical", I am "sure" there is nothing to believe in. - ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 = ] (]) 04:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::@] 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." ] (]) 12:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Agreed. ] appears to be ignoring ]. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 04:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Further to my above comment ... as I said in my reddit post, not all atheists are nihilists. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages's ] policies, includes them appropriately. The current consensus can be found in this talkpage archives and the lede's citations were . ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.. ] (]) 11:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::{{tq2| "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. -- ] (]) 13:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Yes, I too found that nonsensical, and also deeply offensive. People who disagree with you are not mentally impaired. Religious belief is not an inherent feature of all humans, and there is nothing deficient about people who lack such beliefs. Depending on how you define the word "believe", atheists may believe in other things, like people or love or their own integrity. But that is a different sort of belief, so I don't think atheists have just transferred belief from one thing to another. Religious belief is something you can happily do without. ] (]) 19:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::As your say "An ''absence'' of belief occurs when a person is unaware of the concept". Yes that is correct, such as in a newborn. However atheism is defined in opposition to theism. To be an atheist you have to be aware that there is a concept of a god/God so as to oppose that concept otherwise what are atheists doing? Shouting into the void? Atheism in the broadest sense is a position of skepticism / doubt towards the claim that a god/God exists. Skepticism / doubt towards the concept of a god/God existed before "atheism" became a word. That word was created to define a specific type of skepticism / doubt that only had to do with matters relating to a god/God. ] (]) 11:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::BTW Scjessey your incredulity towards my comment has been noted and rejected. There is absolutely nothing special about atheism or being an atheist. It's just an ordinary human that is skeptical / doubts that a god/God exists. ] (]) 11:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od|:::::::::::}} {{tq2|To be an atheist you have to be aware that there is a concept of a god/God|Redsparks2025}} |
|
|
:This is not true at all. Only ''some'' atheists fall into that category. Please read and inwardly digest ] before you insult any of us again. Remember that this article seeks to describe the extremely broad topic of ''atheism'' in all its forms. If you are seeking the currently-accepted definitions of ''atheist'' (which may help you understand what we are all saying), you are in the ]. -- ] (]) 13:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 17:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:Your use of "some" is the key word as to why all oppose my change. You and everyone in opposition to me has not understood I am requesting changed to the "'''broadest'''" meaning of atheism as noted in the paragraph. So stop dragging my request down "into the weeds" about all the different subcategories of atheism. ] (]) 08:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Your use of "some" is the key word as to why all oppose my change. You and everyone in opposition to me has not understood I am requesting changed to the "'''broadest'''" meaning of atheism as noted in the paragraph. So stop dragging my request down "into the weeds" about all the different subcategories of atheism ] (]) 08:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
:This case would seem to fall under other articles, such as ], ] and, well, ]. 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. -- ] (]) 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. |
|
|
::] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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. |
|
|
::::] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.) ] (]) 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I would argue the section on ] 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. -- ] (]) 19:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC) |
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)
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 . Pluralistic physicalism has many arguments: separation of personhood per brain, Everettism = many-worlds interpretation, logical, axiomatic and cosmological pluralism, etc.
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:
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?
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
