Atheism is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	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
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated 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 Template:WP1.0

Template:Calm talk

Bloody ridiculous. This article needs some serious rehabilitation. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence has gotten at least 70% of the total attention paid to this article by editors. Seven is way too many references for one sentence, but if that's what it takes to keep the article stable it's worth it. johnpseudo 13:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Lead fixation. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article body, and does not need to present any references itself. --dab (𒁳) 17:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this article is that it is not being written in accordance with wikipedia rules, but in accordance with what the majority of people here want to see in it. In this particular example it is not the lead which summarizes the article body, it is article body which refers to lead (see Atheism#Implicit vs. explicit - "As noted in the introduction above, ..."). And you really need to have a strong will to argue alot to get a small chance to get things moving. --windyhead (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:LEADCITE for more complete style guidelines re citations in lede --JimWae (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ateismy.net - Russian site against atheism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.173.141.125 (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So? Arnoutf (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad arguments against it doesn't mean that Atheism doesn't exist.--74.234.134.142 (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Russian atheist, however many atheists in Russia back Eastern Orthodox church and take part in some ceremonies associated with it. It is not at all uncommon for a non-religious person to become a godfather/mother to his friend's child. Ceremonial religious weddings are also held sometimes by non-believers as a part of cultural heritage. I realize this is original research, but if someone want's to look up information in that direction, there are likely lots of viable sources available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.99.140 (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would (true, traditional) Buddists really be considered atheists, based on the primary doctrine that they "belive in nothing"? 76.110.198.70 (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, what do you mean by saying they "believe in nothing"? So far as I know most Buddhists believe in plenty of things, such for example as karma, suffering, rebirth and so on.

And secondly, if they do believe in nothing then they surely disbelieve in god(s) and are therefore atheists? Olaf Davis | Talk 22:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are deities of a sort in Buddhism; see Asura (Buddhism). In the sense that Buddhists lack deities to worship, they could technically be considered atheist, but the religion is still highly spiritual.

The "belief in nothing" misconception probably arises from layman's misunderstandings about a type of Buddhism known as Zen, which includes exercises to mentally disengage from reality. =Axlq 00:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Buddhism is apatheist: it does not reject the existence of gods; rather, it holds that veneration of anything, including gods, is an attachment. The Pali Canon has a number of stories about how various Vedic gods anxiously awaited the Buddha's enlightenment, because they, too, were caught up in samsara. This apatheism is most notable in Theravada Buddhism, but also present to some degree in the Mahayana school, where many previous gods were transformed into bodhisattvas. A number of schools derived from Mahayana (such as Vajrayana) do retain an organized concept of deities and spirits, but even there, the gods are respected as one would respect a king or are appeased as one would appease an angry warlord, but not worshipped in the way that gods are worshipped in Hinduism, Christianity and other religions. TechBear (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Theravada and some sects of Zen are apatheist. Other sects of Buddhism are virtually theistic in their adoption of celestial Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and even gods, because believers appeal to them for help and teach that those noncorporeal beings have control over the "real world", regardless of their semantics that pretend otherwise. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TALK please -- there is a reason this talkpage has 40 archives... --dab (𒁳) 17:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious to know what mainstream atheists think about the possibility of life on other planets. While this perception may vary from one person to another, has there been any analysis or research done onto what most atheists think of life on other planets. Do most accept the possiblilty or reject it altogether? thanks to whom ever answers Ninevite (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking because you think it should be included in the article, or for interest? If the former, I'm not sure that the subject is sufficiently notable compared to, say, atheists' opinions on dieting or architecture to warrant inclusion (though as ever sources could change my mind). If the latter, the Reference Desk is probably what you want, not an article talk page. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That really doesn't have much to do with religion, does it? 24.164.184.94 (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject matter is of interest to you then try the Abiogenesis article. Dbnull (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that no atheist here can speak on behalf of any atheist. Since many atheists reject theism on the grounds that they cannot support a falsifiable theory of God, then many would demand such stringent conditions for proving aliens. Gabr-el 05:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The falsifiable hypothesis is easy. The Null-Hypothesis = There are no Aliens. If we find a single alien, ever, the null hypothesis is falsified. (BTW the same goes for a God, and there is no atheist who will not start to believe in a God if there is objective and undeniable evidence of the existence of one). Arnoutf (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aliens... more plausible than god in my opinion, as the conditions for life could quiet possibly exist in other places in the universe... our chances of coming into contact with one... maybe in the future when fast interstellar travel isn't a practical implausibility. (82.34.244.60 (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Just a quick observation. I don't have the source to refer to myself, but under the section Atheism#Practical_atheism one of the 'forms' of atheism is described as "Ignorance—lacking any idea of gods.' I'm not sure that 'ignorance' is the best term to use. Most atheists do not believe in god because there is no actual evidence to show he/she/it exists. To be ignorant of something is not to understand something which is known to be true; there is a popular antitheistic argument that basically states 'ignorance is not proof', i.e. that just because mankind doesn't understand something it doesn't automatically point to a supernatural entity. Atheism opens the door to understanding the world, and reducing our ignorance. The same section of the article also states 'individuals live as if there are no gods', which seems to imply that there are Gods. A more neutral statement might be that indiviuals do not believe in any divine entity.

In any case, I believe that this information has been taken from a bias source. Atheism can't really be grouped into set 'forms' as it is by its nature individualistic, with as many forms as there are atheists. It is my opinion that the section should be removed or edited. Monkeymox (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Most atheists do not believe...' Yes, but the 'ignorance' form does not claim to represent most atheists. To be ignorant of something means simply to be unaware of it, there is no stipulation about the thing being true - it is entirely possible that someone raised in, say, a remote tribe with no religion might never have conceived of God and thus would be an atheist by virtue of ignorance of the concept of God. Plus, just because atheism is individualistic does not mean that the resulting positions cannot be grouped. (In other words, I strongly object to removing or editing the section as you suggested!) Hadrian89 (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hadrian89 that the listing should not be deleted, but I also agree with Monkeymox that some readers may construe the word "ignorance" as pejorative, even if it is not meant that way. I've modified the wording to incorporate the idea, above, of unfamiliarity, as a way of at least partially addressing that concern. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]