Talk:Atheism

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 31, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 29, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed April 28, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted November 26, 2022 Featured article review Demoted Current status: Former featured article

This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion Top‑importance Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Atheism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite: If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page. Quick help Project's main talk page Article layout Links to atheism-related information · List of free online resources Writing about religion · Article development Citing sources · Verifying sources · About original research Assume good faith · Be civil Recent activity Core articles the "Atheism" article Articles recently added to Category:Atheism To do edit history watch purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold. Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members. Help with articles. See this month's adopt-an-article. Help out with this to-do list. Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles). Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box) Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it. Maintenance, etc. Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references). Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process). Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly. Always write for an encyclopedia. Articles to improve Agnosticism Create Articles on notable atheists Expand an atheism stub Immediate attention State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments. False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes. Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century. Philosophy: Religion High‑importance Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of religion Theology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Atheism: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2016-08-04 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Other : Add an FAQ to this talk page to curtail future edit-warring and give information to new editors

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• A szerelem valóság, isten csak mese.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the image. The image with lhbtiq+-atheist protesters is only extremely indirectly related to the text it is put next to so I think the image is a bit off for the context here anyway. Arnoutf (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article MAXIMALLY biasedly towards Dawkinsian atheism; to the utter extreme!

Richard Dawkins isn't a gnostic atheist. Gnostic atheists specifically reject Brodmann-like thinkers as the deepest foundations in logic and especially in logical pluralism (no unitary access and unitary everything exists), and (gnostic atheists) study the entropic program-like axiomatization of physics in which atautotic (without foundational identity) exologic/supernatural cannot meet criteria of existence and personhood isn't a spatiotemporal and cosmogonic prerequisite. Data-processing releases heat (Landauer's principle) and reversible computing is impossible to create a standalone physical axiomatic foundations with mutual interactions amongst thermodynamic and informational entropy = which don't lead to reversible computing but to entropic (see: logical pluralistic foundationalism in cosmology).

Occam's razor is very practical but it's not fundamental in logic by itself. Practicality isn't proof of superiority in every single example, and mere practicality isn't a rigorous logic foundations proof. In logical pluralism infinite alternative logical contextualities are possible. Supernatural teleology = religion and specifically the self-caused Brodmannian [see: Brodmann areas] thinker–creator IS attacked by the gnostic atheists in the aforementioned paragraph. Strong atheists are very certain that atheism is correct, but most of them aren't gnostic atheists = those who rigorously and specifically debunk God himself and not indirectly like the majority of atheists. The majority of atheists attack the gnostic atheists because the "filthy" gnostic atheists specifically and rigorously debunk the filthy lowly God. The majority atheists also try to present that the definition of "gnostic atheists" = those who specifically and directly debunk God = the self-caused magic cosmoginic thinker, ... they try to present that this definition doesn't exist, and all atheists are Occam's atheists = indirect debunkers. Also the majority atheists try to distort gnostic atheism and confuse/conflate it with strong atheism. Strong belief and knowledge about a belief aren't tautological but the unethical atheist majority oppress the atheistic minority. 2A02:2149:8BDE:1C00:14DA:D03:ED12:E1A6 (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding such WP:SOAPBOX content to Wikipedia. —Alalch E. 03:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]