Talk:Atheism

Atheism is a religion

@7kingis: Hope you don't mind -- I've moved your comment from my talk page here, since it's something that would need to be discussed here (and between "red tree faeces" (?) and "Rhododendrite's" in the third person, I'm unsure if you intended it to be here in the first place. I'll respond after pasting. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi red tree faeces, (is that right?) Discussion of academic criticism of atheism. You ask for compelling reason to add academic criticism of atheism. (I note that most atheistic contributors deploy lengthy criticisms on each page which they disagree with). But 'compelling' would indicate a point of view, wouldn't it? By compelling, you mean, 'from my point of view, it has to persuade me'. Clearly you have a different point of view from the authors of the books I have cited, which is why we have a discussion. But the points of view are the nature of the discourse: As an atheist you are demanding to be convinced that criticisms of atheism should be 'allowed'. I say that you are an interested party and therefore are not suitable to decide. These types of pages should have an editor of atheist and non-atheist persuasion.

It is an objective fact that academic criticism of atheism exists, has been published and widely read. Rhododendrite's refusal to acknowledge this is likely to be construed as religious bias. 7kingis (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

You ask for compelling reason to add academic criticism of atheism I did not ask for that. I said we need a compelling reason to add a primary source such as the one you added. The existence of a line of thought doesn't mean we include it. When it receives coverage within the massive body of literature on this subject such that WP:WEIGHT is established, we may be able to include it (and this presumes the coverage is from reliable sources).

But 'compelling' would indicate a point of view, wouldn't it? This is not how I intended it, no. Just "very good reason".

As an atheist you are demanding to be convinced that criticisms of atheism should be 'allowed'. Lots of new editors convince themselves that if someone reverts your edits, it is because they are biased, when in fact it's just the way Wikipedia works. You may want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, perhaps starting with WP:AGF.

It is an objective fact that academic criticism of atheism exists, has been published and widely read. Rhododendrite's refusal to acknowledge this is likely to be construed as religious bias. This is silliness. See criticism of atheism. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Rhododendrites. I read the essay used as source and I think there is a fundamental flaw to the reasoning. The author does his utmost best to fit atheism into the dimensions of religion and uses some very liberal redefinitions of those to manage to do that. However, by taking these liberties the argument loses all specificity and with the same liberties you could easily make the case all human institutions (economics, democracy, schools, nationalities) are religions since they share origins (i.e. narrative) lead some fulfilment in involved people (experience) has to do with interaction between people (social) is based on assumptions how the world should operate (doctrinal) adopts some kind of morality (ethical) follows procedures and rules (ritual) and relates in some way to the material world or possessions (material). That makes the arguments in the source dissatisfactory. In addition the source is from a site called creation.com which in its own statement claims to "see the Lord Jesus Christ honoured as Creator and Savious of the world" - that is a very strong indication the source is not neutral on the topic shedding doubt on reliability at worst and making their opinions primary at best. Arnoutf (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Attempting to misrepresent the lack of belief in deities as a religion is an old argument attempting to create false balance (we have the related policy explanation WP:FALSEBALANCE). The false balance can then be used with other fallacies in order to dismiss much of reality including well established scientific knowledge. Wikipedia does have a bias for correctly representing mainstream science, by WP:YESPOV the scientific consensus can even be represented in Wikipedia's voice without attribution. What is acceptable however is to describe these reactionary arguments and apologetics in their relevant articles when they are notable, with attribution and presenting them as they are, religious arguments. As was previously pointed out, we have Criticism of atheism#Atheism as faith. —PaleoNeonate – 07:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

7kingis's edit summary claiming that I advised him to add criticism about atheism isn't a religion does not reflect what I wrote on his talk page, which was "Put your money where your mouth is. Change the article Atheism to state that it's a religion. Until then, please stop pretending it is." That's not what he did. He's still insisting on that any scientist who is using the word 'miracle' must be religious as they must be using it in a supernatural sense. Doug Weller talk 10:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm just comfortable with the definition of Atheism as lack of any religion at all, and thus not a religion itself. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Atheism also involves belief, that is belief in the absence of God. But it is disguised as "Absence of belief in God". -Polytope4D (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Gambling also involves belief, that is belief in winning more than you put in. That does not make gambling a religion. Arnoutf (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Polytope4d and Arnoutf: - This is not a forum for discussing personal philosophical beliefs. NickCT (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

History of atheism section needs more contemporary events

The history of atheism section needs more contemporary events - particularly in the last 5-10 years.

History/politics go hand and hand so that could be a good place to start. Another good place to start would be various conflicts within the atheist movement (left-wing atheism vs. right-wing atheism and battles related to feminism).Knox490 (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Respect the English language!

Write first the famous term atheism, but write next to it: or ungodness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8410:2400:BCDD:C9EF:2569:22F2 (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

If qwertyness were a common term for atheism, we would include it here. However, like "ungodness", the term doesn't seem to be widely used. The few results on Google seem to be from people who meant "ungodliness", but didn't know the word. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This isn't Anglish Wikipedia. PepperBeast (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021065544/http://www.wingia.com/web/files/news/14/file/14.pdf to http://www.wingia.com/web/files/news/14/file/14.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825005955/http://www.wingia.com/en/news/win_gallup_international_ae_religiosity_and_atheism_index_ao_reveals_atheists_are_a_small_minority_in_the_early_years_of_21st_century/14 to http://www.wingia.com/en/news/win_gallup_international_ae_religiosity_and_atheism_index_ao_reveals_atheists_are_a_small_minority_in_the_early_years_of_21st_century/14/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Greek atheism comment, because someone there rules the page

hard-nosed atheism / ο αθεϊσμός των ξεροκέφαλων πραγματιστών ή ο αντίλογος της ανθρωπικής αρχής

Αρχικά η ανθρωπική αρχή ήταν το Ιερό Δισκοπότηρο της θρησκείας.
Πλέον οι πιθανότητες που γεννά διαμέλισαν το πρόσωπο του προσωπικού θεού. Δίνεται έμφαση στην μηχανική της πολυκοσμογονίας.[1]

For those that don't read Greek, a translation via Google Translate:

Originally the anthropic principle was the Holy Grail of religion. Now the chances that it generates distract the face of the personal god. Emphasis is placed on the mechanics of multicompression.

να αναλυθούν

• η αρχαϊκή - θρησκευτική ερμηνεία ανθρωπικής αρχής
• η πολυσυμπαντική ερμηνεία που σκοτώνει μαζί θεό και τελική θεωρία των πάντων

  σαφέστατα η υπερσυμμετρία σκοτώνει την θεωρία των πάντων, διότι θεωρεί πως

υπάρχουν και διαφορετικές συμπαντοοικογένειες διαφορετικών τοπολογικών αλγορίθμων - δεν γεννάται μία ενιαία θεωρία, ούτε όμως μία από αυτές είναι πλήρης στο μεταλογικό (βλ. metalogic) επίπεδο χωρίς την επίγνωση περί άλλων τοπολογικών οικογενειών (όμως η ανθρώπινη γνώση θα είναι πάντα ατελής, διότι η περιγραφή της θεωρίας των πάντων απαιτεί άπειρο χαρτί και μελάνι, διότι δεν μπορούν να γενικευθούν όλα τα τοπολογικώς βάσιμα και εφικτά σύμπαντα)

The anthropic principle

analyze

1. the anthropic principle as the Holy Grail of religion
2. as a means to fragment annihilatively the face of the anthropomorphic god but also of the theory of everything (infinite more algorithmic families of megaverses can exist, having a different set of topological mechanics - one system of universal families cannot describe the other universal algorithmofamilies - also one universal family, isn't thoroughly explainable at the metalogical level if we aren't aware of the æternoverse [eternoverse - infinite times larger than the Susskindian megaverse)

And how will this improve the English Wikipedia article? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 21:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)