Former featured articleAtheism 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 8, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 31, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 29, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
April 28, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
November 26, 2022Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

  • 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

State-mandated atheism in the Soviet Union[edit]

I raised this issue a month ago (to the sound of crickets) and it still hasn't been corrected:

"the Soviet Union was undeniably an atheist state, and the same applies to Maoist China and Pol Pot's fanatical Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia in the 1970s. That does not, however, show that the atrocities committed by these totalitarian dictatorships were the result of atheist beliefs, carried out in the name of atheism, or caused primarily by the atheistic aspects of the relevant forms of communism."

This is significantly misleading. Stalin reigned in his anti-religious campaigns in 1941, partly because they weren't working, but mostly because he found religion useful in galvanizing Soviets against the Nazi war machine. But prior to '41, there were indeed Soviet anti-religious campaigns in which people were specifically targeted for opposing state-mandated atheism.

In Soviet Anti Religious Campaigns and Persecutions: A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice and the Believer Vol 2 Dimitry V. Pospielovsky cites several examples of Soviet soldiers executing priests for refusing to denounce their belief in God[1]. And in Nathan Johnstone's critique of 'New Atheist' pseudo-history, he shows that in the period from 1922 -1941, the Soviet regime destroyed churches and imprisoned, exiled, tortured and executed thousands of clergy and believers because of their opposition to the atheistic doctrine of the state (p. 185[2]). Historian Victoria Smolkin made the same case in A Sacred Space Is Never Empty: A History of Soviet Atheism[3].

The Christian apologetic argument that "atheism has killed more people than religion", that all Soviet atrocities were linked to atheism and that atheism is inherently violent is total nonsense and something could be said about this in the relevant history section. But the other extreme which claims that none of these atrocities had anything to do with atheism is pseudo-historical and not the sort of impression readers should be given. Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The text you object to is a quote, and is cited properly. The content of the quote may well be misleading, incomplete, etc., but I'd argue this is not the right venue for your complaint. Rather, your complaint seems to be with the author of the quote, not this article or the editor who added it. Justanotherjeff (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what? The text is not only misleading, but is specifically described in reliable sources (by actual historians) as being misleading. Some pop-philosophy book about "myths about atheism" is not citing a historical claim properly.
But it doesn't look like this text is in the article any longer, so it appears that some editor wisely removed it. Not every Soviet atrocity can be blamed on atheism, but atheism did indeed motivate some of them. When someone's holding a gun to a priest's head and asking "do you believe in God?," and then blowing the priest's brains out when he says "yes," it's kind of hard to pin that on anything else. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my lack of clarity. First, the perpetrators' actual motives are not the issue. It's about the material itself. For one thing, you are incorrect about the text being deleted. The text is, in fact, still there in the citations (see #90). In fact, it's used in support of the same section (revised). But I digress.
Notably, the substantive claim in the material you object to is a negative one; a refutation of claims you yourself reject (i.e., that atheism has killed more people than religion). The authors make this quite clear writing: "That does not, however, show that X happened because of X." Simply put, the authors do not make a positive claim that the atrocities committed under Communism had no links to atheism. I do not know if they make this claim elsewhere in their book, but this quote does not assert what you said it does.
Furthermore, Wikipedia's standard for reliable sources would seem to include the material quoted (see WP:NOR, WP:NPOV). Moreover, the section containing the quote is on the subject of Criticism of religion, which arguably has slightly more to do with philosophical opinion than detailed accounts of historical events. As such, a passage written by credentialed philosophers from reputable institutions quoted in a book published by a well-known, established publishing house generally known for reliability (Wiley) isn't really out of place, regardless of whether its proper category is "pop philosophy" or not.
In addition, it might just be a matter of opinion, but IMHO neither the article nor this Talk page is the right venue to settle disputes between experts from unrelated fields. If there is a genuine controversy and it is relevant to the section and/or article, include the competing perspectives. You framed the problem as incompatible interpretations of history. If you believed this to be relevant to the section in question, why not edit the section yourself at the time to present the pertinent historian's perspective?
For example, you might've added "Some philosophers claim X..." in front of the material you described as misleading, followed by something like: "In contrast, historian Dimitry V. Pospielovsky in Soviet Anti Religious Campaigns and Persecutions: A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice and the Believer Vol 2, documents several examples of Soviet soldiers, etc., etc.."
Finally, as you note, this discussion is moot thanks to the excellent edits of the subject section. I would like to highlight the fact that the section still presents virtually the same argument, but couched in NPOV, which makes it all better. Justanotherjeff (tallk) 02:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under Lenin and Stalin, tens of thousands priests were executed (mostly by the secret police Cheka - later NKVD, not Soviet soldiers), why no mention of this at all? Feww2 (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this adds value to an article about Atheism as a subject, a good place to add it might be in the 20th century section. That section mentions suppression of religion under Lenin & Stalin. Justanotherjeff (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2023[edit]

Recommend that citation number 1 be updated/replaced. The data cited is almost 20 years old; the number has likely climbed significantly. Cfrancis325 (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the results of a May 2023 poll that put global atheism at 29%. That equates to roughly 2.3 billion, but we cannot state that number because it would be synthesis. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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[edit]

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. Phil of rel (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 recentism. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Phil, you can’t have an “absence in belief” And any type of philosophical idea, it’s just laziness. 2601:201:8101:E5E0:3158:3130:1A17:BEDD (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia relies on WP:RS, which is what the current status quo is supported by, and not personal opinions. Wretchskull (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil of rel 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. Doric Loon (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Explodingtnt30 (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the Positive vs. negative paragraph is incomplete and biased[edit]

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 physicalism. 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 [without an arbitrary collage of formulas but with rigorous causal connection; something like the quantum foundations of the future, because now we have many things we don't know... and the physical axiomatics seems to be an open axiomatic system [closed axiomatic systems usually have more inconsistencies] but still quantum foundations can evolve as A LOGICAL AFFIRMATIVE IMPERSONAL = GODLESS field of study.

The article on atheism focuses ONLY on atheism as an affirmative negation = positive atheism, but isn't at all analytical on physicalism and on metaphysical logicism/logicalism [logicism + physicalism]. 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. David Deutsch is the superior thinker on analyzing these deep causes and on understanding the conditions which are the causal basis of the logical phenomena.

By rejecting or not analyzing physicalism and metaphysical logicism many old in age neoatheists harm the purely affirmative versions of atheism.

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 quantum foundations 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.

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 mind. Personhood isn't a mereological simple but it's a mereological complex. The universe and the brain are final results and not the logical axiomatic foundations. The brain requires space to have a connectome 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 Landauer's principle irreversible data-processing transforms the lost data into heat. Reversible computing isn't possible to function without both forms of entropy, thermodynamic entropy and informational entropy. 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.

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 [mistakes] 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).

Modern atheistic affirmativisms (many exist): Variational logicism = variant logicism = variable logicism; because even neologicism is single-logic biased[edit]

please create a disambiguation page about/on: physicalist fields of study ("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.)

about/on: Variational logicism = variant logicism = variable logicism; because even neologicism is single-logic biased

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. 46.246.145.43 (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories