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 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.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion 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.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism 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 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 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.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy 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.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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]

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]

• empirical atheism = nonempirical atheism: Atheism based only on the lack of empirical methodologal proof (only methodological empiricism: scientific observation and scientific experiments are safe for conclusions [hallucination isn't for example]).

Not all atheists are empirical atheists. Some accept axiomatic foundations (see: axiomatic system, axiomatization of physics, relation between mathematics and physics [physics needs a program-like axiomatization; infinite logical systems are possible, not only mathematics], see also: constructor theory). Some atheists accept the proof by contradiction, etc.

see: methods of proof (see academic documents on all possible methods of proof).

Not all methods of proof are formal. But those who have rigorous logical foundations are used by atheists who debunk the personhooded self-axiomatization, teleology and religious cosmogony. Logical monism is wrong (see: experimental logical foundations [alternative logical foundations don't have to be useful, experimental axiomatic systems, etc.]. Pluralistic physicalism has many arguments: separation of personhood per brain, Everettism = many-worlds interpretation, logical, axiomatic and cosmological pluralism, etc.

Not all atheists have the exact same views. Atheist popularizers like many new atheists, attack religion with merged forces but usually avoid to elaborate to the different atheistic movements. 2A02:2149:8BAC:EA00:8051:85ED:CC45:DCE2 (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence of your claim. (which sounds reasonable)Cinadon36 07:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism comes from the Greek word atheos (without god/s), up to that we all agree, the problem is that then each person opts for one or another meaning, making this "-ism" very confusing.

If it is not too much to ask, I would like another meaning to be added that I see is not in the article (since the page is protected I cannot do it myself), being an atheist because even though the gods exist, they do not deserve worship or their worship is not necessary. Two great examples would be Diagoras of Melos the Atheist and the emperor-philosopher Marcus Aurelius:

• Diagoras was an atheist because he did not believe that the gods deserved worship;
• Marcus Aurelius was "atheist" because he believed that the good gods did not care whether they were worshipped or not, only whether you were good to yourself and your neighbor, while the bad gods did not deserve worship.

The "non-worship" or atheism of evil gods is represented in popular culture with Dungeons & Dragons, gods exist but there are mortals who are atheists due to the fact that they do not believe that gods deserve any kind of worship.

Also, I don't see it is discussed that, for example, christians are "atheists when it comes to Satan", but wouldn't fear or hatred of him be a form of worship even if it was from a negative perspective?

83.58.144.190 (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This case would seem to fall under other articles, such as dystheism, misotheism and, well, theism. What you are seeking to add is no longer considered a form of atheism, as evidenced by the fact it is not reflected in the reliable sources we have drawn from. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have to disagree with your take, I never said the meaning I posted is or must be the main meaning of the "-ism", I just said it should be added as another meaning alongside the rest that already appear. Maybe as a part of the "Etymology" section or the "History" one, or an independent one as "Popular culture" (in reference to D&D).

And about "is no longer considered a form of atheism", depends on the person you ask, there are many atheists that are atheists no because they know 100% there are no gods, but because even if the gods exist (good, neutral or evil ones), there is no point in worshipping them.

This article is not about what form of atheism is correct (this is not religion where there's an orthodox view and the rest of meanings are heresies), but what atheism means, and not adding the most essential meaning of the word atheos (lit. "without god/s") is a little ridiculous.

And about the other "-isms" you mentionated, they explain about point of view from the perspective of the relationship between god/s and humankind, not from the lack of relationship, in othe words, atheism.

83.58.144.190 (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but if you and "many atheists" believe in the existence of one or more gods, even if those gods are not worthy of worship or don't need it, then you are all theists, not atheists. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe in gods, so I'm an atheist in the mainstream meaning of the word. But you're wrong, atheist came from atheos, without god/s, therefore (again) even if gods exist, you are an atheist if you don't worship them.

Atheist also was used for people that were proper believers but were forsaken by their gods, using (again) the original meaning of the word: "without god/s".

This article is about Atheism, all meanings of the word should appear, don't matter if they're modern or not.

83.58.144.190 (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your point is not without merit. In practice, I like many atheists understand the word "atheism" to mean both "there are no gods in my world-view" and "there are no gods in my life", and the second part of that is possibly the more important part. Many atheists will say they are not interested in debates about the theoretical possibility that there is a god out there somewhere, because even if one does exist, it would make no difference to their lives. Now you are imagining a person who actively believes there is a god, but gives it no place in their life - Scjessey is right that atheism is not the best word to describe that, but if you tone down the active belief to a "dunno", that is actually where many atheists would position themselves. Doric Loon (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(But to be clear, I am agreeing with Scjessey that this doesn't belong in the current article unless you have reliable sources showing that a significant body of informed opinion uses the word in this way. I am agreeing with you that atheism can have as much to do with a lifestyle choice as with an intellectual opinion, but if your characterization of Diagoras of Melos and Marcus Aurelius is correct, they are at best tangential to what atheism is today.) Doric Loon (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue the section on etymology fully explains how the meaning of the word has evolved to the one we use today, so the construct posited above is already adequately covered. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point is the section of etymology is incomplete, that's my point.

Also, Doric Loon, your sentence "Now you are imagining a person who actively believes there is a god, but gives it no place in their life" is the whole point of Alatrism, which was the point of view of Pythagoreans and Neo-Pythagoreans.

Alatrism could be described as an "atheistic deism", therefore there is a Creator (Deus -> deism), but once the Creator had finish his creation and gave it the laws (like the relativity, etc.), he no longer intervines (no god -> atheos -> atheism). 83.58.144.190 (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there sources mentioning this? It seems a bit like WP:COATRACK. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but since the article page is protected, I can't add them. 83.58.144.190 (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was vague. Are there sources saying this is a common view among scholars of atheism? If so, can you mention them? It seems this fits better in the articles Scjessey mentioned. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like metaphysical naturalism and pluralistic physicalism (pluralistic due to Everettism, logical pluralism, inexistence of the universal axiomatic system, inexistence of the universal logical system, inexistence of the single universe or the single multiverse etc.).

Affirmativist rationalists are atheists = non-God-ists, but primarily focus on affirmativist theories of logic and naturalism. Mainstream atheism overemphasizes the debunking of the magical/ecologically created person who caused the Monistic Wholeness. According to surveys not all atheists are antisupernaturalists. The term antisupernaturalist is hyperNYmic/hyPERnymous to atheism, but still remains a negationism = ideology of negation; whilst metaphysical naturalism and pluralistic physicalism are affirmativisms = ideological affirmations. All ideologies include affirmations and negations/rejections but they don't hierarchically order them equally.

Nowadays atheism is a minority metaphysical worldview (atheism isn't a religion because it's not teleological supernaturalism). The affirmativisms of naturalism are subminority views. Most atheists have positive views about affirmativist rationalist approaches (axiomatization of physics, quantum foundations, chemical abiogenesis of life, neuroscience, Brodmannian digital brains, etc.), but (the majority of atheists) don't truly care enough about affirmativist rationalism as their first priority according to their actual habits.

Mainstream atheists consider God (the self-caused ideal cosmogonic person of the monistic wholeness) a very stupid idea, which is pointless to get debunked. Gnostic atheists are hated by the mainstream atheists; factually = for example in recorded debates with mainstream atheists. Not all those who claim to be gnostic atheists meet the criteria to be gnostic atheists = knowably non-God-ists. Gnostic atheists fully debunk God. The mainstream logic is mathematical logic; philosophical logics aren't formal to be self-sustained without other logics. Any logical system - including alternative ones - are axiomatically restricted. The axioms can be lists, algorithms or programs. Any logical system has restrictions. If God is logical, being systemically restricted he has no free will (theists speak like lawyers; they diffuse the topics without truly rigorous thinking in order to cheat the judge = the thinker). If God is beyond logic/ exological/ supernatural, then he has no specific properties (he's atautotic[al]/ αταυτοτικός = without identity). The supernatural doesn't meet any foundations criteria (see/create: the impossibility of the supernatural). The relationship between mathematics and physics is very important (mainstream atheists don't care about it). The systems of proof (the mathematics, the infinite experimental allomathematics, the infinite geometries) are good for general proof solutions, logical simulations and descriptions but they don't create a framework of coexistence of the phenomena like spacetime (why only the three dimensions are substantializable to the observer; even though higher dimensions can contribute to the physical foundations).

Mainstream atheists have conflicts with minority atheists like affirmativist rationalists because they have different hierarchies/priorities and interests.

New atheists usually are disrespectful towards the views of the full spectrum of atheists and want to present merged larger numbers/ a big atheopopulation. But this merger makes atheism less rich and with a smaller scope. Many new atheists are anti-woke wokeists. Woke people demand indiscriminately for rights without judgment, and they want to extend their rights without judgment. Many supposedly antiwoke atheists are woke paeudopurists about atheism, in a manner they oppress minority views and interests within atheism. And it is wokeism, because these neoatheists use the popular term "atheism" as their God-word, which means non-God-ism, thus they accept a rejected term as their primary self-definition simply because they invested too much on it and not because the rejection of something fake is more fundamental than the understanding of how things are = what affirmativist rationalists set as their first principle and self-definition. Neoatheists don't fight against the hypernymization of religion, because they are primarily religious negationist and they don't want to lose their identity. Affirmativist rationalists promote the term metaphysical worldview as the hypernym of all metaphysical worldviews; because not all metaphysical worldviews are teleological supernaturalisms. 2A02:587:4F06:B600:E8E3:AB9E:C0E2:6ED (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a point to this screed? Article talk pages are meant to be used to discuss ways to improve the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:NOTFORUM. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]