Jump to content

Talk:Atheism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Jesspiper (talk | contribs)
90 edits
Undid revision 1260836964 by B ThatNerdyGuy (talk): WP:NOTAFORUM
 
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 [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] and has a [[wp:npov|neutral point of view]].}}
{{Round in circles|topic=the '''definition in the first paragraph'''}}
{{Round in circles|topic=the '''definition in the first paragraph'''}}
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes}}
{{Talk header}}
<!----- // ADD NEW DISCUSSIONS TO THE *BOTTOM* OF THE PAGE // ----->
<!----- // ADD NEW DISCUSSIONS TO THE *BOTTOM* OF THE PAGE // ----->
{{Article history
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
|action1=FAC
|action1date=31 May 2006
|action1date=31 May 2006
Line 21: Line 22:
|action3oldid=126689566
|action3oldid=126689566


|action4 = FAR
|currentstatus=FA
|action4date = 2022-11-26
|maindate=2007-06-08
|action4link = Wikipedia:Featured article review/Atheism/archive1
|action4result = demoted
|action4oldid = 1123028232

|currentstatus=FFA
|maindate=8 June 2007
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Religion|class=FA|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Atheism|class=FA|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Atheism|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|class=FA|importance=High|religion=yes}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|religion=yes}}
{{WikiProject Theology|class=FA|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Theology|importance=Top}}
{{WP1.0|v0.7=pass|class=FA|category=Philrelig|VA=yes|WPCD=yes|small=yes}}
}}
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Atheism}}
{{Controversial-issues}}
{{Controversial-issues}}
{{Calm talk}}
{{Calm}}
{{American English}}
{{notice|The '''definition of atheism''' has been repeatedly argued on this talk page. The current revision attempts to put forward all definitions without favoring any particular definition.
Before suggesting substantial changes, please make sure that your view is entirely supported by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] and [[WP:NPOV|respects others' views]].}}
{{to do}}
{{to do}}
__TOC__
{{archives |auto=short |search=yes |index=/Archive index |bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month }}
__FORCETOC__ <!-- 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 = 49
|counter = 55
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(21d)
|algo = old(21d)
|archive = Talk:Atheism/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Atheism/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Atheism/Archive index
|target=Talk:Atheism/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Atheism/Archive <#>
|mask=Talk:Atheism/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
|indexhere=yes
}}{{bots|deny=Yobot}}
}}

<!----- // DISCUSSION TOPICS START BELOW // ----->
<!----- // DISCUSSION TOPICS START BELOW // ----->


{{hat|This talk page is for discussion of how to improve the article. It is [[WP:NOTAFORUM|not a forum]] for general discussion.}}
== Ambiguity in first sentence ==
===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])
OK. To clarify my question to the IP editor in the section above, I suggested the first sentence in the article might be ambiguous. To illustrate that point, consider the following --
* 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)
‘Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities’ could be interpreted to mean:
===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)
a) it is the belief that is rejected, perhaps in the form of scepticism that anyone actually believes in deities as opposed to saying they do;
b) it is the existence of deities (as opposed to a single one) that is rejected;
c) it is professed belief in deities (but not necessarily their existence) that is rejected, perhaps as a matter of avoiding sacrilege or taboo;
d) both the existence of deities, and of any belief system demanding faith in deities is rejected; and

e) that it is a personal conversion of rejecting a former belief to now not believing in deities (I think that is what the IP editor was alluding to).

It seems to me that a difficulty arises from the words ‘reject’, ‘belief’, and ‘faith’ because one cannot objectively contradict the statements ‘I reject’ or ‘I believe’, but one can doubt sincerity, and therefore the matter of actual as distinct from professed faith. Ergo, it seems to me that the opening is ambiguous and could benefit from a clearer exposition if one can be found. What about: ‘In its broadest sense, atheism is the absence of faith in the existence of deities’?

Does this treatment of ambiguity cover your concerns, IP editor?

Regards, <span style="color: #366; font-family: serif; text-shadow: 1px 1px 1px #000;">[[user:Peterstrempel|<font color="#366" >Peter S Strempel</font>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[user_talk:Peterstrempel|<font color="#366">Talk</font>]]</span> 17:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

:Peter, some of the above options are not semantically possible. "The rejection of ''belief'' ..." is not the rejection of deities, or the rejection of the "existence of deities" it is the rejection of '''belief'''. So b and d are simply not legitimate possibilities. c has similar problems, because it is explicitly the "belief ''in the existence of deities''" that is being rejected. So how does one get from this explicit rejection of belief in their existence to "but not necessarily their existence?" One simply doesn't because it isn't semantically viable. a is extremely far-fetched because the lead doesn't say, "the rejection of the idea that others actually have beliefs in the existence of deities." Without that kind of specificity it is understood that we're talking about this type of belief in the abstract, general sense. That leaves e, which I'd say exactly what said about a to. Without the specificity we are meant to assume the abstract, general principle of rejecting all such beliefs. This is basic comprehension of the English language in context and by way of convention. What I don't understand Peter, is how you missed the one meaning that the clause has to 99% of readers, and is meant to have. Instead you offer 3 impossible meanings, and 2 wildly out there ones. Cheers.[[User:Griswaldo|Griswaldo]] ([[User talk:Griswaldo|talk]]) 18:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
::Just to interject here - These are by far the most discussed/debated/contested several lines that I have ever, ever seen in an article... I don't see why we can't just RfC this and be done with it. [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 18:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
:::I wish it were that simple. It will remain an issue as long as there are atheists promoting the absence definition as a piece of convenient rhetoric, which is what it is used for. "Look we are all born atheists ... " then add whatever the particular argument they are trying to make after that. Of course religion is a social construct, but you don't need to make ridiculous claims about babies being atheists to make that argument. Ugh. This will continue until the rhetorical fad that is currently ongoing dies down. Cheers.[[User:Griswaldo|Griswaldo]] ([[User talk:Griswaldo|talk]]) 19:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Oh I wish. Its not even that simple. Shiver, because its not entirely a fad. The suffix of -ism can simply define a state or condition and not only simply a belief or position. I think this is why we can talk about non-theism and have an article on [[nontheism]]. Under the umbrella of non-theism, babies are non-theists. Thus, all that has to happen is for atheism to become more widely understood to mean non-theism. So when anyone says babies are atheists, its understood that ALL they are saying is that the babes are without belief, or are non-theists, nothing more and nothing less. Historically, various untenable idols, myths and even entire religions have become obscured by disbelief, and its possible that the terms theism and atheism might one day not even register on most people's radar. In the meantime, there will be an ever-present ongoing struggle on how the term can be understood. --[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 19:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
:(again, after edit conflicts):That suggestion is simply a restatement of the article's third sentence, or third definition and it is contrary to the Britannica's definition, the source that is cited. I and others have discussed the weight issues of these different definitions many times over. As for the possible ambiguities, there is nothing ambiguous about not accepting a religion because you don't accept everything they espouse hook, line and sinker. There are [[Christian atheism|Christian atheists]], and nothing in the definition implies otherwise. You don't have to reject your own belief, so there is no ambiguity there. There is nothing special about God such that we have to denote a singular god. If this was about reindeer, we wouldn't write that we do not believe in "Rudolph" or "Rudolph or flying reindeer", unless we taught one to fly a hang-glider of course. Similarly, "that there are no unicorns" does not normally require us to write "that there is no unicorn or unicorns". BTW, you did not address this ambiguity with your suggestion and most editors have agreed before that its not significant. We are defining an -ism, so why would the reader not see the definition and its analogues as a refusal to accept a belief as their own? That has nothing to do with conversion and I think that a mistaken reading of "insincere belief" is also a considerable stretch here. --[[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 18:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
{{od}} I appreciate all the input, but I'm seeking clarification of the IP editor's input, not everyone else's certainty about their own. On that topic, please don't misrepresent my inquiry as a concrete position on any one possible interpretation. Don't tell me that I cannot read into a sentence the meanings I can plainly read into it. Would you respond at all if there was no doubt? Is the intended end product of your response more than censorship? Prove it with wording for the article that removes ambiguity.

Regards <span style="color: #366; font-family: serif; text-shadow: 1px 1px 1px #000;">[[user:Peterstrempel|<font color="#366" >Peter S Strempel</font>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[user_talk:Peterstrempel|<font color="#366">Talk</font>]]</span> 03:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
:You are welcome to read whatever meanings you want into whatever piece of text you want, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to point out that you're wrong when you claim that your strange "reading" is in any way meaningful to this discussion. If you tell me that "my dog eats garbage" could actually be understood to mean "some dogs drink brandy" I'm going to tell you that's not possible. Cheers.[[User:Griswaldo|Griswaldo]] ([[User talk:Griswaldo|talk]]) 03:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation to comment. Reading through the following comments, I am left with an empty feeling that there is no desire to actually come to much of an agreement here because ulterior motives seem to be seen behind each and every edit proposal. The comment "as long as there are atheists promoting the absence definition as a piece of convenient rhetoric" surprised me in how naked this attitude has become. The topic of how people define themselves is always going to stray into areas where opinions conflict. Griswaldo and Modocc, have you considered that some people have an interest in how the definitions are used because of how they identify themselves rather than it being a mere pushing against others who identify themselves differently? In its broadest sense atheism has been used to describe the absence of belief. Many people use such a definition merely because they themselves associate with this sentiment, not because they wish to cast a net over babies. If we incorporate the concepts of usage, and recognise that this also intrinsically relates to self-identification then it is important to reflect how people understand atheism as it relates to their own positions, not merely as a comparison with others.
To answer you Peter, yes I do find the wording of the definition lends itself to each of these interpretations. I think the wording has undergone a number of transitions which has lead to ambiguity, though at times ambiguity has been the point. Regardless of the ordering of the definitions, one definition must relate to the assertion that there are no deities. The current wording strays into areas which can lead to inappropriate interpretations, I see no good reason for this awkward wording. What is wrong with the sentence "Atheism is the position that deities do not exist"?[[Special:Contributions/137.111.13.200|137.111.13.200]] ([[User talk:137.111.13.200|talk]]) 03:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

::Perfect. I have struggled with the wording but your rendition cuts all the crap while containing the essence. I move to replace the first and all paragraphs in the introduction with that sentence. Thank you. <span style="color: #366; font-family: serif; text-shadow: 1px 1px 1px #000;">[[user:Peterstrempel|<font color="#366" >Peter S Strempel</font>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[user_talk:Peterstrempel|<font color="#366">Talk</font>]]</span> 03:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

:::I actually would have no problem with that personally. I'm not sure why so much fuss has been made over the implicit definition in that case though. Cheers.[[User:Griswaldo|Griswaldo]] ([[User talk:Griswaldo|talk]]) 04:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

:And many Christians self-identify as Christian with the concomitant understanding that Christianity is the "one true faith" and the only path to salvation. Should we add that as a definition of [[Christianity]]? "Christianity is a monotheistic religion[1] based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings ''or'' the one true faith and the only means to human salvation." Sound about right? Cheers.[[User:Griswaldo|Griswaldo]] ([[User talk:Griswaldo|talk]]) 03:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
::I'm actually in agreement myself. [[User:Danielkueh|mezzaninelounge]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 04:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Given the length and complexity of the discussion here, I'm not sure I understand what we are talking about now. So, sorry, please bear with me. Are we talking about replacing the first paragraph of the lead with the single sentence: "Atheism is the position that deities do not exist." (with the subsequent paragraphs of the lead as is)? Would we then modify the existing first paragraph to be, in effect, a new second paragraph outlining the three forms, or would we drop it entirely? I'm receptive to a short-and-sweet first sentence, so long as the lead section, as a whole, goes on to cover the three definitions of long standing. But I suspect that other editors may object. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

{{od}}Tryptofish, my initial ambit was to try to understand the IP editor (a Macquarie University IP in Australia, I think, that that may actually have been more than one person) without the noise of interjections about semantics. On reflection, I would strongly favour the removal of all but the first paragraph from the introduction; the content in those paragraphs belongs in the main body of the article. What would be missing then is a different second paragraph outlining the approach taken in the article to discussing the topic.

I would favour wording along the lines of :

::Broadly speaking atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities (gods), most simply expressed as the position that there are no deities, or the explicit rejection of belief in deities. Atheism contrasts with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

::This article explains a range of prominent philosophical and religious positions on atheism, and traces a history of thought on atheism to contemporary debates and factors, including those about morality, social dynamics, and demographics. Links are given to separate articles about specific aspects of atheism offering more detailed explanations.

It has always been my view that an article introduction should require no references because all assertions made there should be contained in the body of the article, and therefore referenced there (which is WP policy on introductions). But I know that significant disagreements about that exist, and I'm not particularly attached to my wording, except to say I prefer it to the clumsy catch-all that is the current introduction.

Tryptofish, I'm not gonna argue or bicker about the introduction too much right now because I think the main game in Wikipedia's coverage is actually on the atheism sub-pages, where some sort of covert war is being fought to legitimise conspiracy theories about atheism, opposition to atheism, and the existence of shadowy 'movements'. But I hope this addresses your question, which appears to have been ignored by everyone else.

Regards, <span style="color: #366; font-family: serif; text-shadow: 1px 1px 1px #000;">[[user:Peterstrempel|<font color="#366" >Peter S Strempel</font>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[user_talk:Peterstrempel|<font color="#366">Talk</font>]]</span> 13:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:Peterstrempel, I really like your suggested substitute. [[User:Danielkueh|mezzaninelounge]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 14:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:Understood, thanks. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::Peter please do not treat any part of Wikipedia as a "game." If people are pushing a POV on atheism related entries please help to keep those entries NPOV, but let's not play games. I do not agree with your suggestion since it puts UNDUE emphasis on a disputed definition of "atheism," namely the absence definition. Cheers.[[User:Griswaldo|Griswaldo]] ([[User talk:Griswaldo|talk]]) 20:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Peter, your proposed introduction looks just fine to me, with one proviso. Please be advised that a sentence that begins "This article explains a range of . . ." is a violation of [[WP:SELFREF]]. If you're willing to modify it to read "There are a range of . . ." you would thereby eliminate that problem. Also, the second sentence of that graf should be deleted for the same reason.--[[User:Steven J. Anderson|Steven J. Anderson]] ([[User talk:Steven J. Anderson|talk]]) 01:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
::::It seems to me that we are discussing two entirely different things here, and I have low enthusiasm for the two of them, taken together. One is to rewrite the opening paragraph of the lead, in a manner that ignores all of the previous discussion of it. The second is to change the lead into something very short, presumably moving everything else in the lead into the main text. Perhaps this second idea has promise, but I'd like to see a clearer and more completely thought out plan for where the information would go. And I would oppose simply cutting it. I also agree with Steven about the selfref problem. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

::::The trouble with "Atheism is the position that deities do not exist" is that although the position that deities do not exist is atheism, so is the position that a belief that deities exist cannot be justified. --[[User:Dannyno|Dannyno]] ([[User talk:Dannyno|talk]]) 07:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the re-writing of the opening paragraph. There are some problems with the term 'rejection', to reject a claim you have to first be presented with it and be able to consider it, for example babies are atheists which would not meet this criteria, a baby doesn't reject belief but simply lacks belief. 'Absence of belief' is a better general term to use. The first sentence should probably read something like this:


[https://web.archive.org/web/20201011205746/https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A3%CF%85%CE%B6%CE%AE%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7:%CE%A6%CF%85%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%B1 older comments in Greek, more analytical]
'Atheism in the broad sense is the absence of belief in deities.'
{{hab}}


== Atheist Symbols ==
The following sentence can then be removed from the opening paragraph as it doesn't make much sense anyway since the broad sense of something is surely the most inclusive.


I've no problem with this atheist symbol in the Demographics section where it currently is, just not in the lead per [[wp:undue]]. [[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 16:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
'Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.' <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.2.17.155|82.2.17.155]] ([[User talk:82.2.17.155|talk]]) 11:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== The third definition in the opening ==
Atheism is actually a 'non'-religious moment ie a belief. The initial statement should read along the lines of 'Atheism is a belief in the non-existence of deities etc' - not a 'non-belief' as it states. Non-belief in something is just denying its existence, if one were to just deny an existence of something that would be the end of it - one would not need to pursue it further eg atheists are guilty of preaching to the 'unconverted', just like many religious practioners, accusing un-unbelievers to be stupid etc. Therefore if this is the case, and atheists wish to join together under the banner of atheism (which is appears they do as a collective), then atheism is little different to many religions or clubs etc. Ergo Atheism should be defined as a non-religious religion. [[User:Chris of England|Chris of England]] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.12.125.50|84.12.125.50]] ([[User talk:84.12.125.50|talk]]) 12:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:No, under some definitions of the word, even people who have never considered the existence of deities -- young children, for instance -- are considered atheists. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 12:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
::Indeed. And the statement "non-belief in something is just denying its existence" is flawed, because it assumes that "something" exists to deny. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 13:12, 20 September 2011 (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. [[User:Maurice Magnus|Maurice Magnus]] ([[User talk:Maurice Magnus|talk]]) 00:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
== Having some trouble defining atheism? ==
:It does ''seem'' a little ambiguous, but I can assure you it reflects the body of scholarly work on the subject. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk: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).[[User:Ramos1990|&#32;Ramos1990]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Leaving Neveland|Leaving Neveland]] ([[User talk: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." [[User:PerseusMeredith|PerseusMeredith]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/2A04:EE41:80:7290:E468:AFEA:FBB2:7A4E|2A04:EE41:80:7290:E468:AFEA:FBB2:7A4E]] ([[User talk:2A04:EE41:80:7290:E468:AFEA:FBB2:7A4E|talk]]) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
{{hat|reason=Collapsing off-topic discussion per [[WP:NOTFORUM]]}}
::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. [[User:Maurice Magnus|Maurice Magnus]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Maurice Magnus|Maurice Magnus]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 04:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}


== Removal of sadness/happiness from the citation. ==
The problem with defining atheism is that it doesn't exist. There is no -ism in atheist.


The headline of the citation is "Are atheists sadder but wiser?" Why would one aspect of the article be included but not the studies related to religious people are happier? It is cherry-picking from sources.
''ism (zm)
n. Informal
A distinctive doctrine, system, or theory.''
[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ism]


https://skepticalinquirer.org/2020/03/are-atheists-sadder-but-wiser/
An Atheist is someone who rejects the theist claim. Nothing more.


The health benefits of religious belief is well-documented. I don't understand why it would be scrubbed from this article.
If you really want an accurate description of atheism you should inform people of the fact that there is no atheism.
[[User:ResidentAtheist|ResidentAtheist]] ([[User talk:ResidentAtheist|talk]]) 08:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2024/03/23/religion-effect-on-happiness/#:~:text=In%20the%20analysis%20in%20this,while%20only%201%25%20reported%20that [[User:PerseusMeredith|PerseusMeredith]] ([[User talk:PerseusMeredith|talk]]) 12:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:Not any grounds to do anything about the article. See [[WP:SYNTH]] about making your own deductions rather than summarizing what reliable sources have said. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 08:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


:The study says there is a statistically significant (in otherwords, big enough to be measurable) correlation between religious belief and self-reported happiness. The study does ''not'' say atheists are sadder, which is merely the [[clickbait]] title. I guarantee the study did not ask atheists how sad they were, which means it would be incorrect to make that claim in this article. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 13:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
== Atheistic Morality ==
::Sure. We can make it “less happy” or “not as happy.” [[User:PerseusMeredith|PerseusMeredith]] ([[User talk:PerseusMeredith|talk]]) 22:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::You are missing the point entirely. While it positively states people with religious belief are happier, it does '''''not''''' positively state that atheists are less happy or not as happy. That would technically be [[WP:OR|original research]].
:::Imagine a report that stated two people (persons A and B) held 100 oranges between them, but person A held 51 of those oranges. What you want to do is say that person B had 49 oranges ''but the report does not explicitly state that'' and it would be original research to do so. You and I know that person B had 49 oranges, but we cannot say so. Person A's Wikipedia article can confidently state "person A had 51 oranges" and provide a citation, but because the reference does not say person B had 49 oranges you ''cannot even mention it'' in person B's Wikipedia article. Do you see what I'm getting at? It doesn't belong in this article. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Then the converse would be true and the whole citation should be taken out. That's cherry picking the data. [[User:PerseusMeredith|PerseusMeredith]] ([[User talk:PerseusMeredith|talk]]) 18:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
::::<s>It's a pity that there had to be an edit-war before this discussion started.</s> I think that [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] is taking an extreme view here. Of course we can say in the example that person B had 49 oranges - that's simple arithmetic, not any kind of research, original or not. Whether religious people or atheists are sadder than the others has no connection to the truth value of any statements that they make. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 13:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::The Skeptical Inquirer citation relied upon by the OP's addition is behind a paywall and has thus far not been explicitly quoted here in support of the addition. Nor is it clear whether it is a single study under consideration or whether it is one of many and what the sampled population(s) are and any caveats, such as confounding variables to consider such as the fact that often agnostic atheists do not even identify as atheists due to stigmatization and discrimination in some communities. Also, Caleb Henshaw's piece compares [[irreligion]] or nonreligious nones to the religious, which is a problem for there are far fewer irreligious atheists than the many irreligious theists, thus it's not at all specific enough to whether atheists are less happy. Perhaps that may not matter, but I don't know. [[User:Modocc|Modocc]] ([[User talk:Modocc|talk]]) 15:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] It absolutely ''is'' original research when you extrapolate, whether or not it is simple arithmetic. And I haven't been part of any edit war. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 18:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::See [[WP:CALC]], part of [[WP:OR]]. And I did not say that you were involved in edit warring - that comment was directed at {{U|PerseusMeredith}} and whoever I thought he was edit-warring against - but I see now that I was wrong so withdraw that sentence. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 19:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It still fails [[WP:CALC]] because it is not a "routine" calculation. The survey claims a percentage level of happiness, but "sadness" is not the opposite of "happiness" just as "cold" is not the opposite of "hot" because other states exists, so any calculation is unsupported and ''certainly'' doesn't have a consensus agreement. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::You are putting words into my mouth. I made no claim about sadness or happiness, but only about your example, which was a bad one. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 15:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Nevertheless, you still [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAtheism&diff=1244830551&oldid=1244207452 described] my interpretation of [[WP:OR|original research]] as "extreme" simply because I was trying to come up with an easy-to-understand example of why the original poster's point wasn't valid. That does not seem like an assumption of good faith. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that the OP was trying to claim a study saying religious people are happier automatically meant that atheists are sadder. Despite the click-baity title of the reference that clearly isn't the case; therefore, the source wasn't used as described. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 12:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::"So, according to the evidence, atheism appears to be a choice to be sadder but wiser, but, in fact, we are not justified in drawing that conclusion. It is important to recognize that all the evidence cited in this column is correlational, which means we cannot identify what causes any of these relationships—only that certain variables travel together."
::::::::::It's not just a "click bait" title. It's the premise of the whole article. The data clearly shows the more frequently you attend religious services, the more likely you are to indicate you are happy. The basic logic that the author utilizes is that atheists, generally speaking, aren't going to be as likely to attend weekly church services.
::::::::::You can't have it both ways. The whole thing should come out since it is correlational or the second part of the article should be included. [[User:PerseusMeredith|PerseusMeredith]] ([[User talk:PerseusMeredith|talk]]) 20:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{tq2|So, according to the evidence, atheism appears to be a choice to be sadder but wiser, but, in fact, we are not justified in drawing that conclusion.}}
:::::::::::It literally says in the article that "we are not justified in drawing that conclusion." The article is being used as a secondary source for information about a primary source metastudy, but there are also several other sources being used to provide references for the prose. None of them use the "sadder" or "not happy" narrative that you seem awfully eager to shove into the article. If it makes you feel better, strip out the objectional reference but leave the prose alone because it is already adequately sourced. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 17:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)


== Possible image? ==
{{Collapse top|This talk page is for discussions regarding improving the article, and isn't a soapbox: see [[WP:NOTFORUM]]}}
I believe we should have a paragraph on what Vaishnavism has to say about atheism and atheistic moarlity. Someone is preventing me from editing the ethics section. I want justification. I agree I should not add the second paragraph. But the following paragraph should remain. After all it is an opinion. (But atheists: Please examine your own hearts. You will find a lot of truth. If you don't believe in morality, that's another thing)
[[Vaishnavism]] strongly opposes atheism and points out what it believes to be serious flaws in "atheistic morality": Pushed by their own selfish desires, people may act morally for some time, but when they think it over, they will eventually sin. They will say to themselves: "O my brother, don't stay away from sense pleasures. Enjoy sense pleasures as you like, as long as others do not know of them. Why not? I do not think the world will collapse because of them. There is no God, an all-seeing God who gives to us the results of our actions. What have you to fear? Just be a little careful, so no one will know. If they learn of it, then you will lose your good reputation, and perhaps the government or bad people will make trouble for you. If that happens neither you nor others will be happy." Know for certain that if the hearts of the preachers of atheistic morality were examined, these thoughts would be found.[[User:Yottamaster|Yottamaster]] ([[User talk:Yottamaster|talk]]) 18:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
:That someone was me. Please read [[WP:NOR]]. If you can find [[WP:RS|reliable]] [[WP:PSTS|secondary sources]] that are independent of Vaishnavism, that indicate that these issues are important to the subject of atheism, then we may have something to discuss here. Otherwise, there is no reason to weigh down the page with every theist, deist, and anti-atheist view of atheism. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
::I'm in complete agreement with Tryptofish on this. Unless a preponderance of verified reliable sources specifically state that Vaishnavism is of profound significance to atheism, it is inappropriate to have that kind of screed in this article. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 19:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Vaishnavism is theistic, establishing the supremacy of a single God, and is based on very sound and highly complete logical arguments and it strongly opposes atheism. Atheism cannot appreciate Vaishnavism, because Atheism is highly motivated by self interest. If you are interested in sincerely searching for truth, you have to examine every statement you read very scrutinizingly. You can't just depend on "reliable sources". So I do not wish to add anything to that section. But just to remind you: Atheism also requires ''faith''—unreasonable faith that there is no God. [[User:Yottamaster|Yottamaster]] ([[User talk:Yottamaster|talk]]) 19:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
::::See [[WP:NOTFORUM]]: Please take your soapboxing elsewhere. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 19:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::I'm Sorry.[[User:Yottamaster|Yottamaster]] ([[User talk:Yottamaster|talk]]) 19:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::(after 2 edit conflicts) - Wikipedia is really not a good place to engage in [[proselytism]], or for disparaging Wikipedia editors. If you aren't prepared to accept Wikipedia's policies on [[WP:RS|sourcing]] and [[WP:OR|original research]], you'd better find some other website to do your thing. This talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not for discussing the subject of the article. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 19:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Discussion of the subject of the article is necessary for improvement of it. Though these comments were clearly out of line.[[Special:Contributions/167.171.195.39|167.171.195.39]] ([[User talk:167.171.195.39|talk]]) 07:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Er... no. Discussion about the article is necessary for improvement, but not discussion about the ''subject'' of the article. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 14:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::I agree I should not add things which have "no reliable sources" to Wikipedia articles, but I fail to understand, how we can improve an article without discussion about the "subject" of the article. There are many things which are not liked by people with a bias.[[User:Yottamaster|Yottamaster]] ([[User talk:Yottamaster|talk]]) 15:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


Per other language wikis and the [[wikidata:Q7066|Wikidata item for Atheism]], would [[:File:Ephesians 2,12 - Greek atheos.jpg|this image]] be good for illustrating the article? [[User:Quilt Phase|Quilt Phase]] ([[User talk:Quilt Phase|talk]]) 08:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
== Major glossing over of history. ==


:Have added that image to the Etymology section [[User:Quilt Phase|Quilt Phase]] ([[User talk:Quilt Phase|talk]]) 21:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
In regards to the History portion of this article, why is there such gross glossing over of the brutal persecutions carried out against the religious populations of the atheist regimes of the 20th century? There isn't a single mention of any persecution...just glossed over vocabulary such as "opposed" or the use of the sentence "campaigns to persuade people to abandon religion". Killing people and destroying their religious buildings isn't persuasion, it is persecution. Where is the intellectual honesty and reason that Atheists so often champion? It certainly isn't anywhere to be found in the 1900's section. I'm not asking for paragraphs here, but a single sentence stating that the religious were violently persecuted under atheist regimes should be added. It's not a flawless worldview with a spotless history, no mattter how badly dishonest people want it to be. There is an entire Violence section on the main Religion article, as there should be, but not a single sentence about the violent persecution carried out by atheist regimes here. It's simply ridiculous.--[[User:Jesspiper|Jesspiper]] ([[User talk:Jesspiper|talk]]) 00:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
:Examples? References? -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 00:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
:: For examples I would suggest the numerous Bishops and thousand or so Orhtohox Priests executed in the USSR in the attempt to eradicate religion, or the demolishing of the Cathedral of Christ The Saviour (one out of many destroyed churches/mosques/synagoges) as well as numerous religious people being sent to mental hospitals, prison camps and labour camps. The confiscation of all Orthodox Church property and subsequent near annihilation of the Orthodox Church would be another. Outside the Soviet Union, perhaps the murder of thousands of Roman Catholic clergy during the Spanish Red Terror. Or the executions of priests and monks in the Killing Fields of the Khmer Rouge. The list is long and several pages on Wikipedia are dedicated to all of these events carried out by atheist organizations, with corresponding references; you don't have to look far. The Rage Against God by Peter Hitchens (yes, brother to Christopher) is a good place to start. It shouldn't be too hard to add a single sentence to this article when there are pages upon pages devoted to the subject elsewhere on Wikipedia.--[[User:Jesspiper|Jesspiper]] ([[User talk:Jesspiper|talk]]) 01:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
:::The content you're looking for should be summarized in the section[[Atheism#Since_1900]]. I agree that the content presented there is sparse and choppy. One obvious way to handle this would be to write a simple 2-3 paragraph summary of [[state atheism]], which could then be inserted in the article as it's own section. You're welcome to give that a go, or offer up another alternative. [[User:Aprock|aprock]] ([[User talk:Aprock|talk]]) 02:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
:::: The above works for me. I see you added "See: State Atheism". That is a huge step to improve this article. A quick mention of the violent persecutions against the religious populations, particularily clergy, of said atheist regimes is all that is necessary, in my opinion. It should be short and factual. Basically that there were atheist regimes and they at times violently persecuted their religious populations and clergy. If people want more they can follow the links.--[[User:Jesspiper|Jesspiper]] ([[User talk:Jesspiper|talk]]) 02:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:36, 2 December 2024

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

Atheist Symbols

[edit]

I've no problem with this atheist symbol in the Demographics section where it currently is, just not in the lead per wp:undue. Modocc (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The third definition in the opening

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Removal of sadness/happiness from the citation.

[edit]

The headline of the citation is "Are atheists sadder but wiser?" Why would one aspect of the article be included but not the studies related to religious people are happier? It is cherry-picking from sources.

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2020/03/are-atheists-sadder-but-wiser/

The health benefits of religious belief is well-documented. I don't understand why it would be scrubbed from this article.

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2024/03/23/religion-effect-on-happiness/#:~:text=In%20the%20analysis%20in%20this,while%20only%201%25%20reported%20that PerseusMeredith (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The study says there is a statistically significant (in otherwords, big enough to be measurable) correlation between religious belief and self-reported happiness. The study does not say atheists are sadder, which is merely the clickbait title. I guarantee the study did not ask atheists how sad they were, which means it would be incorrect to make that claim in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. We can make it “less happy” or “not as happy.” PerseusMeredith (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point entirely. While it positively states people with religious belief are happier, it does not positively state that atheists are less happy or not as happy. That would technically be original research.
Imagine a report that stated two people (persons A and B) held 100 oranges between them, but person A held 51 of those oranges. What you want to do is say that person B had 49 oranges but the report does not explicitly state that and it would be original research to do so. You and I know that person B had 49 oranges, but we cannot say so. Person A's Wikipedia article can confidently state "person A had 51 oranges" and provide a citation, but because the reference does not say person B had 49 oranges you cannot even mention it in person B's Wikipedia article. Do you see what I'm getting at? It doesn't belong in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then the converse would be true and the whole citation should be taken out. That's cherry picking the data. PerseusMeredith (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pity that there had to be an edit-war before this discussion started. I think that Scjessey is taking an extreme view here. Of course we can say in the example that person B had 49 oranges - that's simple arithmetic, not any kind of research, original or not. Whether religious people or atheists are sadder than the others has no connection to the truth value of any statements that they make. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Skeptical Inquirer citation relied upon by the OP's addition is behind a paywall and has thus far not been explicitly quoted here in support of the addition. Nor is it clear whether it is a single study under consideration or whether it is one of many and what the sampled population(s) are and any caveats, such as confounding variables to consider such as the fact that often agnostic atheists do not even identify as atheists due to stigmatization and discrimination in some communities. Also, Caleb Henshaw's piece compares irreligion or nonreligious nones to the religious, which is a problem for there are far fewer irreligious atheists than the many irreligious theists, thus it's not at all specific enough to whether atheists are less happy. Perhaps that may not matter, but I don't know. Modocc (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger It absolutely is original research when you extrapolate, whether or not it is simple arithmetic. And I haven't been part of any edit war. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CALC, part of WP:OR. And I did not say that you were involved in edit warring - that comment was directed at PerseusMeredith and whoever I thought he was edit-warring against - but I see now that I was wrong so withdraw that sentence. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It still fails WP:CALC because it is not a "routine" calculation. The survey claims a percentage level of happiness, but "sadness" is not the opposite of "happiness" just as "cold" is not the opposite of "hot" because other states exists, so any calculation is unsupported and certainly doesn't have a consensus agreement. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are putting words into my mouth. I made no claim about sadness or happiness, but only about your example, which was a bad one. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, you still described my interpretation of original research as "extreme" simply because I was trying to come up with an easy-to-understand example of why the original poster's point wasn't valid. That does not seem like an assumption of good faith. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that the OP was trying to claim a study saying religious people are happier automatically meant that atheists are sadder. Despite the click-baity title of the reference that clearly isn't the case; therefore, the source wasn't used as described. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"So, according to the evidence, atheism appears to be a choice to be sadder but wiser, but, in fact, we are not justified in drawing that conclusion. It is important to recognize that all the evidence cited in this column is correlational, which means we cannot identify what causes any of these relationships—only that certain variables travel together."
It's not just a "click bait" title. It's the premise of the whole article. The data clearly shows the more frequently you attend religious services, the more likely you are to indicate you are happy. The basic logic that the author utilizes is that atheists, generally speaking, aren't going to be as likely to attend weekly church services.
You can't have it both ways. The whole thing should come out since it is correlational or the second part of the article should be included. PerseusMeredith (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to the evidence, atheism appears to be a choice to be sadder but wiser, but, in fact, we are not justified in drawing that conclusion.

It literally says in the article that "we are not justified in drawing that conclusion." The article is being used as a secondary source for information about a primary source metastudy, but there are also several other sources being used to provide references for the prose. None of them use the "sadder" or "not happy" narrative that you seem awfully eager to shove into the article. If it makes you feel better, strip out the objectional reference but leave the prose alone because it is already adequately sourced. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible image?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Have added that image to the Etymology section Quilt Phase (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism&oldid=1260845221"