Talk:History of atheism

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 articles

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

Recent activity

To do

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.

Archives

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Juliaattie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article in general

Reads very much like an opinion piece of varied peoples with defined objectives, the least of which is a rational look at the HISTORY of Atheism. Mostly appears written from the viewpoint of someone trying to compare it to their preferred definition of life. Compare the length of the "State atheism" entry verses any article which shows a neutral/positive lite about atheism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.8.174 (talk) 06:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related to the point above; The introduction defines atheism such that non-positivist atheists would not be termed atheists. Half of the sources listed disagree with this description.

Atheist persecuting

"Christians in Rome were also considered subversive to the state religion and prosecuted as atheists." Requires citation around that part. Faro0485 (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"New atheists"

The nascent "new atheism" article was awful, and I think redirecting it here was the right thing to do, but I do think the "21st century" section should mention the term. Even though it's generally only a pejorative used by theists, it does have some currency in the American and British media as does the "four horsemen" of Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet, and Harris. --LDC (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and merged what I could. I agree, just a mention of the term should be fine. Artichoker^[talk] 16:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should new atheist have a sub heading? I'd say that it's becoming a movement on par with other social/political entities we have articles for. Kode (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a subheading is appropriate for content that is only a sentence long. Artichoker^[talk] 00:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New atheism does in fact need its own article. It does in fact describe an emerging trend, vastly documented and reported upon, of a more outspoken, more organized atheism. Redirecting an article for lack of quality doesn't make sense. Marking the article as needing improvement is more appropriate. Benplowman (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

I was editing the footnotes to include more info and I noticed one of the pages referenced is 404, specifically http://www3.niu.edu/univ_press/books/257-5.htm can anyone find a replacement source? I'll let you know here if any more go missing. Kode (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a new reference and added it to the article. Artichoker^[talk] 00:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest known atheist text

User:Techbear deleted my edit on the text Theophrastus redivivus, which is being perceived as the oldest known atheist text. I think it is better to first investigate the issue, instead of immediately lazily deleting an edit. Only Google would be appropriate to see that there are enough sources supporting my claim.Daanschr (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a brief search which appears to support that the article could be useful. However, I see Techbear's point: the article is currently just a single (unsourced) paragraph. It may not need to even exist as a separate article. Once some sources are brought in, we can see about either expanding the article, or putting its content into this one. Oh, and it's generally frowned upon to call another editor's actions "lazy." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a web search for the document. I found plenty of references, which is why I did not immediately flag the new article for deletion. However, the article needs a great deal of work before it meets the encyclopedic standards of the Wikipedia, and I do not believe it would be proper to begin cross-linking it to other articles until it has been fleshed out. This would require adding more text and some verifiable references from reliable sources. I was willing to extend an assumption of good faith when I deleted your link; please do me the courtesy of the same. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 18:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been around on Wikipedia for 4 years and this is new for me. I leave it with this. Perhaps someone wants to continue editing.Daanschr (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the addition and viewed the article. It seems kinda pointless to include a link to one sentence in the See Also section. That seems to me to be almost like WP:TRIVIA. I agree that the article in question should be expanded before it is relinked per WP:COMMON. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin

How can there be no mention of Charles Darwin and "The Origin of Species"? Surely its publication was one of the key events in the evolution (sorry) of atheism. By suggesting a process for the diversity of life that did not require a God Darwin hammered the final nail into God's coffin.

Almost every debate today on theism/atheism consists at least half on the theory of evolution and the theists objections to it.

This article is not complete without a big section on Darwin. Not to mention the 150 years of science since that have confirmed his theory and made atheism more obvious and acceptable to more people than ever in human history.

96.54.55.67 (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not semi-protected, feel free to contribute :). AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin wasn't publically an atheist, didn't advocate atheism, didn't link The Origin of Species to atheism, didn't write about atheism and didn't contribute to atheist philosophy so I'm not sure what role you see for him in a discussion of the history of atheism? JackAidley (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution being so inherently atheistic seems to be a modern abberation, though it's understandable given the state of things today. In the mainstream media, creationist debates get quite a bit of attention. Nonetheless if you look through the history of evolutionary thought you'll see that evolutionary thought was active in a theistic atmosphere. I don't think Darwin played that much of a key role in the rise of atheism. It was already a growing movement, so it's alright to mention him, though I disagree with having a big section. --173.250.188.75 (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"New Atheism" again.

Bricaniwi brought to my attention that a new article on New Atheism has been created. First, I think we may need to bring in an admin for a history-merge between this new article, and the old article that was at New atheism (small "a"). That small-a article was merged & redirected here nearly a year ago (Jul 2009), and I moved its Talk page to an archive of this page (see above). A history-merge might be best, so we can keep track of what's happened between the redirect to here (History of atheism) and the creation of the new article. Second, it may be time to have another discussion on whether the new article passes WP:NEO. In the intervening time, the term has been used quite a bit more, but I'm not entirely sure the argument has any more weight. That debate might be best taken up on Talk:New Atheism, though, so we can have full input of the current editors there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

confucianism?

would it make sense to mention it as an atheist tradition? don't know enough to claim this, but I thought it was basically atheist or at least with little emphasis on the supernatural? Aryah (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern religions are so complicated, they don't fall neatly into western categories for spirituality. Regardless, anything we say needs to be backed up by reliable sources, and I don't think any consider confucianism an "atheist tradition." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you raise an important point, which is that this article seems to focus on atheism much more from a Western, rather than Eastern, perspective. If you can find some information about the relationship between Confucianism and atheism then don't hesitate to include it in the article. Confucianism is hugely influential in Asia, particularly in China and Korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.249.92 (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism for political reasons

This article focuses on the philosophical history of atheism, mostly from a Western perspective. I think it would benefit from the inclusion of some political history, such as some information on political regimes which have imposed atheism on the masses. China used to have atheism as its state "religion". I believe Russia may have been the same. That's 1/4 of the world's population right there. Anybody with any specialist knowledge on this topic able to contribute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.249.92 (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From History_of_atheism#20th_century:

The 20th century also saw the political advancement of atheism, spurred on by interpretation of the works of Marx and Engels. State support of atheism and opposition to organized religion was made policy in all communist states, including the People's Republic of China and the former Soviet Union.

AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

definition of God

This article suffers from a most serious flaw: there is no definition of God or gods or goddesses; so insightful readers are left at a loss on what God or gods or goddesses the article is dealing with. in regard to atheism as the at least lack of any belief in God, or gods, or goddesses whatever.

112.198.79.223 (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism existed before the 18th century

In the start of the article it says that ther were no open admission to atheism before the 18th century, but in the Presocratic philosophy section, Euripides is said to have said "Doth some one say that there be gods above? There are not; no, there are not. Let no fool, Led by the old false fable, thus deceive you." and Aristophanes is said to have said "Shrines! Shrines! Surely you don't believe in the gods. What's your argument? Where's your proof?". These quotes are clearly open admission to atheism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.20.190 (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference for this part of the article, footnote 24 in the New York Times says nothing of the definition of the word atheist. Rollsofjoy (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primitive atheism

I find this subject fascinating, especially given its counterintuitiveness and power to refute the idea that religion is a cultural universal, and wish the article could include more on this, if possible. Enggano Island also describes the indigenous ethnic group as (formerly) atheistic, and the Pirahã people are described as not believing in deities, as well, though as both seem to believe, or have believed, in evil spirits at least (check the source cited for the Enggano atheism), their cases are not as striking as those of the African pygmy groups and Vedda described in the lede. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epicureanism

How about this modified version of the Epicurean section? "Also important in the history of atheism was Epicurus (c. 300 BCE). Drawing on the ideas of Democritus and the Atomists, he espoused a materialistic philosophy according to which the universe was governed by the laws of chance without the need for divine intervention. Although he stated that deities existed, he believed that they were uninterested in human existence. The aim of the Epicureans was to attain peace of mind and one important way of doing this was by exposing fear of divine wrath as irrational. The Epicureans also denied the existence of an afterlife and the need to fear divine punishment after death. ^[1]" I think this covers all the key historical stuff and has a solid academic source without going on to tangential ground. BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/

BAD article

In one sentence it says these systems didn't believe in a "god" but then go on to deify nature, or some "spirit". Magic entities that manipulate or populate nature for eternity are gods. Christ >_>

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.171.162 (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What in the article, specifically, are you concerned with? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Communism/Fascism == 'atheism'?

The 'state atheism' (what is this, even?) section is ~huge~, and filled with the acts of communist/fascist regimes that sought to suppress religion to replace it with their own ideology... communism and fascism are not "atheism", and only the most extreme christian fundamentalists dare to make this fanciful and unreferencable claim.

What brought my attention here was our work on the Atheism article, where the offending 'communism/fascism==atheism' section was removed and reduced, as consensus approves so far, to a single sentence that will be reinserted at the end of an existing section once consensus is complete. I think the same criteria should apply here, but as the section concerned is quite lengthy, I'd like to get the aprroval of other contributors first.

Rather than filling this page with a needless repetition of overly-lengthy Talk:Atheism discussions, I'd refer you there if you would like to know more about this. Thanks, and cheers. THEPROMENADER 10:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for the primitive atheism claims?

The Veda claim and the African pygmy claim are both frustratingly uncited.

The "Vedas of Ceylon" appear to refer to the Veddas in Sri Lanka, but they were animists. I can't find any information about these African pygmies and Will Durant is more of a popularist than an authority.

If no citation can be found could we remove these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.32.238.180 (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indian history in lead

103.205.135.13 attempted to add the sentence As a doctrine, atheism emerged in India in the sixth century BCE. to the lead and was subsequently reverted by User:Editor2020. I think there is justification for including the earlier Indian history in the lead, if not with exactly these words or exactly in this place. Can we discuss that here? jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about what I just did? Is that OK? Editor2020 (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, it looks perfect. Nice job, Editor2020. Thanks. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of 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:

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) 09:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism in Middle Ages Europe

Quoting online post I saw relating to the topic, for addition in the woefully scant and tenuous section of the current article concerning Christian Europe during the medieval era:

"There is written evidence for "unbelief," at least. John Arnold's 2005 book Belief and Unbelief in Medieval Europereviews much of it. Arnold argues there are various levels of "unbelief," from heresies, to indifference, to possible atheism. I assume that last form is what you're most interested in, so let me quote a small sample from the book that reviews some of the documentary evidence regarding medieval "atheism": "Around 1200, a prior of Holy Trinity, Aldgate wrote that 'there are many people who do not believe that God exists. They consider that the universe has always been as it is now and is ruled by chance rather than by Providence. Many people consider only what they can see and do not believe in good or bad angels, nor do they think that the human soul lives on after the death of the body.' Later that century, the Dominican preacher Remigio de' Girolami preached to Florentines that 'the fool, taking leave of his senses, obliviousness of the name of God, says in his heart "there is no God"' (Pss.14:1, 53:1). Other of his compatriots agreed that this was a problem with the laity of the city (though they may have been interpreting the implications of Florentine citizens' actions rather than reporting explicit unbeliefs)." (226)"

Feel free to comment, or revise, or adapt to the article whatever.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 00:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:I also found issue with the limitations of Atheism in the Middle Ages. Hoping to make some edits for a class soon, and will probably use John Arnold's Book. Juliaattie (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes - July 2017

It seems to me that recent changes in this article have the effect of using a different, perhaps narrower, definition of Atheism for this page than that used on the main Atheism article. I'm aware that the definition there has been contentious in the past, but for consistency's sake, I would expect this article to reflect the consensus at the parent article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the bold changes made just today, not only because of the shift in focus to the narrower definition, but also because of some wording that crossed NPOV standards. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The rather bold edits used this article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as justification but that article actually seems to argue against the euphemistic or expansive use of "agnosticism" that the IP editor wanted to make in his edit summaries. The Stanford article's author may arguably see a false dichotomy between believing in God and disbelieving (which I'm sure he has reasons for if so), but clearly no one with authority believes that agnosticism is the lack of belief in a God or the correct label for the middle ground. The IP editor also made, for example, the highly questionable change of "probably the most explicitly atheist school of philosophy in the region" to "the only explicitly atheist school of philosophy" - in the world I guess! Bold indeed. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of 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:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 01:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism.

Despite what a lot of atheists and Westerners, and non-South Asians claim or believe, Buddhists, Jains, and Hindus are NOT atheist. Depending on how religious they are, they may not be as focused on a god/goddess, as people in other religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are.100.34.143.131 (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Atheism

Could use some attention. I've done a bit but editors have been adding material that seems irrelevant and in the case of Edward Feser a huge quote that wasn't very useful IMHO and his mentions of other anti-atheists (no idea if they discuss the New Atheism. If anyone has the knowledge (which I lack) and time could they take a look? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vedas

The article in the beginning states: "The Vedas in the Indian subcontinent admitted only the possibility that deities might exist but went no further. Neither prayers nor sacrifices were suggested in any way by the tribes."

This is wholly inaccurate. If you actually read the Rig Veda, it is very clear in the belief in deities. In one part it names several deities and asks "to whom shall we offer our oblation?" Meaning they believe in so many deities, which one is most worthy? The oblation is a ritual sacrifice to a deity, usually to Agni, the fire deity. The Vedic religion is far from atheistic. They have a few creation stories as well which talk about Brahman etc. Whoever wrote this has no idea what they're talking about. The Vedic religion is polytheistic and it is quite a stretch, even dishonest, to claim otherwise. Now Buddhism is another story.

Then there is a quote from the Nasadiya Sukta yet it conveniently leaves out the ending which talks about the creator. What does that have to do with atheism and its history? I have no idea. I know that it is easy to read our own biases into the Vedas. People assume the Vedic folks believed in reincarnation yet many say otherwise, it first appeared in the Upanishads. Anyways. Let's remove this irrelevant Veda stuff. Chau.DivineReality (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed need for support of lack of belief

This edit caught my eye. Looking back, I see here that "atheists have supported their lack of belief ..." in the lead used to be "atheists have arrived at their point of view ...". both assertions being unsupported, and that earlier version came from this unsupported insertion. It occurs to me to wonder why lack of belief in something is presumed in the lead to need support, and I don't see how lack of belief in something (perhaps something for which a possible need for belief never became a recognized issue to the prospective believer) is considered to be a POV (does lack of a view about something necessarily have a point? if there's nothing to view, where is the point in relation to that nothing?) I have WP:BOLDly removed this sentence from the lead. Possibly this should be replaced by a body section headed something like Belief vs. non-belief which explains, with cited sources, circumstances in which that becomes an issue and how that issue has been handled when it has surfaced. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The History of Civilization by Will and Ariel Durant

This source is used in a few places (one of which, about African pygmies I just removed) But it doesn’t seem like a good source. The books don’t include sources for the claims in it and covers such a large topic I don’t see how it could be reliable. It’s out of date and I’m sure better sources could be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.36.208 (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of edit by Armando AZ

To explain my reversion of this edit by Armando AZ ("Already during the French Revolution there was a strong campaign to de-Christianize the country. Later, communist leaders repressed religion and established state atheism. In reaction,") :

Mention of the French Revolution has already been made under 'Nineteenth century' and is out of place here.
It is not clear what "communist [sic] leaders" refers to - leaders (who?) in France, or elsewhere (where?).
No RS is provided for the added statements.

-- Jmc (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered that on your talk page Armando AZ (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jmc user does not respect the Three revert rule

You have deleted my edit 3 times, the reasons for this are on your talk page (you can't leave the link). Please help me with this Armando AZ (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the user (if I don't put another link) -> Jmc Armando AZ (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for restructuring of 'Modern history' section

I've demoted the headings 'State atheism' and 'Other developments' to subheads of 'Twentieth century' and reworded them 'State atheism in the twentieth century' and 'Other developments in the twentieth century' to conform to the logical and chronological structure of the main sections, as so:

7 Modern history

7.1 Nineteenth century

7.2 Twentieth century

7.2.1 State atheism in the twentieth century

7.2.2 Other developments in the twentieth century

7.3 Twenty-first century

-- Jmc (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

PeriyarEVRStamp.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioning the affirmative nouns for atheism is mere biasing

The fact that you don't care or you don't like some views doesn't mean they don't exist. Be fair. 46.246.158.104 (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing a bunch of unsourced gibberish/word salad in the middle of the lede isn’t improving the article. Hy Brasil (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/

[1]