Talk:Atheism

Question on first paragraph under Secular Ethics

"Sociologist Phil Zuckerman analyzed previous social science research on secularity and non-belief and concluded that societal well-being is positively correlated with irreligion. He found that there are much lower concentrations of atheism and secularity in poorer, less developed nations (particularly in Africa and South America) than in the richer industrialized democracies. His findings relating specifically to atheism in the US were that compared to religious people in the US, "atheists and secular people" are less nationalistic, prejudiced, antisemitic, racist, dogmatic, ethnocentric, closed-minded, and authoritarian, and in US states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious states, the murder rate is higher than average."

I'm mostly just questioning the last part, "in US states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious states, the murder rate is higher than average."

Is this true for Utah as well?

One more very important thing, is the murder done by the religious people of the state, or is it done by non-religious people? Just a few years ago, two construction workers (Neither Theists) got in a conflict of sorts, and one ended up shooting (and killing) the other just a few houses down from where I live now in Utah.

(Another, more well known example of what I'm asking about: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/what-we-know-about-the-deadly-shooting-at-a-michigan-mormon-church)

I'm not saying that is should be changed, because that is what Phil Zuckerman found, but rather that a subsequent sentence or short paragraph be added clarifying things. Ypzdetv (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM. This talk page is for discussions regarding article content. Article content is based on what published reliable sources say. It isn't a platform for asking hypothetical questions, and we don't base articles on anecdotal evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

You should go to the reference desk for these kind of questions. I'm sure they'd be able to help. ~2026-48794-08 (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

the "Intralocus Conflict Dilemma"

Very serious proof that God does not exist (there is no reason to be this useless—apologetics do not cover such fundamental incompetence).

Can the ideal male face and ideal female face be produced by the exact same autosomal DNA, with only the sex chromosomes differing?

No, the ideal male and female faces cannot share the exact same autosomal DNA, as autosomal genes establish a fixed baseline for bone structure and density. This biological reality creates intralocus sexual conflict, where shared DNA forces a structural compromise. A genome optimized for a rugged, wide masculine jaw leaves a female clone with a heavy face. Conversely, DNA set for a delicate feminine V-shape deprives a male clone of structural mass. Hormones manipulate soft tissue and bone (until a range) but cannot override these skeletal limits. Perfect dual beauty requires separate autosomal adjustments. (95% beauty is achievable.)

Apologetics:

This thought experiment—which we can call the "Intralocus Conflict Dilemma"—uses biological trade-offs to challenge the concept of an all-powerful, all-loving Intelligent Designer.

Here is a rigorous breakdown of Christian apologetics addressing this flaw, followed by direct, evidence-based counterarguments (debunkings) utilizing evolutionary biology, economics, and theological consistency.

---

Argument 1: The Pragmatic Indifference Claim

• Apologetic: God is a spiritual being concerned with the soul, holiness, and moral character ("Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart"). Physical beauty is a fleeting, superficial earthly construct that does not impact a creature's ultimate purpose or salvation.
• Debunking: This claim ignores biological reality. Beauty is not a superficial cultural construct; it is a measurable, highly functional currency in human nature. High facial symmetry and optimal jaw structures are indicators of strong immune systems and genetic health. Furthermore, sociology and economics prove the existence of the "beauty premium"—attractive individuals secure better jobs, earn higher wages, form wider social networks, and experience lower rates of depression. If a designer intentionally hardcoded a system where autosomal conflict prevents dual-sex perfection, that designer actively created a system of systemic disadvantage and unnecessary social friction for its creatures.

Argument 2: The Spiritual Aesthetic Apology

• Apologetic: Human architecture (like beautiful churches) is physical because humans need physical structures to experience awe. God does not need to maximize biological beauty because true beauty is reflected in human relationships, sacrificial love, and the spiritual "Body of Christ."
• Debunking: This reveals a massive double standard in design. Humans, using limited intellect and flawed tools, can build a cathedral that is both structurally flawless and universally beautiful from every angle. Yet, an omnipotent deity allegedly designed a genetic "Lego system" where optimizing a brother’s face automatically degrades his twin sister's face. If human engineers can achieve multi-functional aesthetic perfection in material designs, a supreme designer's failure to do so in living tissue implies structural incompetence rather than intentionality.

Argument 3: The Broken World / Fall of Man Defense

• Apologetic: God's original creation was geometrically perfect and lacked genetic friction. Intralocus sexual conflict, genetic compromises, and suboptimal bone development are the direct results of the Fall of Man (Genesis 3), which introduced corruption, mutations, and biological decay into the genome.
• Debunking: This defense collapses under biological mechanics. Intralocus sexual conflict is not a "corruption" or a disease like cancer or a point mutation; it is the fundamental, structural bedrock of sexually dimorphic life. For the Fall to have caused this, God would have had to completely re-engineer the entire laws of population genetics, autosomal inheritance, and skeletal mechanics after the bite of an apple. A design where a single moral failure forces a total genetic downgrade that locks siblings into permanent architectural compromises is either the work of a deeply vindictive designer or a chaotic, unguided evolutionary process.

Argument 4: The Diversity and Non-Standardization Claim

• Apologetic: An "absolute 100% textbook ideal" face is a human mathematical abstraction. God is an artist who values infinite diversity over rigid, standardized templates. What humans call "suboptimal" bone structure is simply God creating a vast tapestry of unique, diverse facial features.
• Debunking: This conflates "diversity" with "structural friction." The issue is not that faces look different; the issue is that the same genetic code cannot produce optimal results for both sexes due to fixed skeletal constraints. Evolution explains this perfectly: natural selection settles for "good enough to reproduce," leaving behind sloppy, compromised genetic relics (like the human lower jaw or the lower back). A real designer aiming for healthy diversity would create distinct, optimized gene sets for males and females to prevent structural degradation. Leaving them to fight over the same autosomal blocks is the hallmark of blind evolutionary trial-and-error.

~2026-41111-19 (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Proposal to create a separate “Atheist” article

Hello Wikipedia editors and administrators,

I would like to raise an issue concerning the Atheist page and its relationship with the Atheism article, and I would appreciate guidance from Wikipedia editors and administrators on how to proceed in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies and procedures.

When I search for Atheist on English Wikipedia and open the corresponding result, I am currently redirected to the Atheism article. This indicates that Atheist previously existed as a separate page and was later redirected to Atheism.

According to the page history, the previous version of Atheist had substantial content overlap with existing material in Atheism and was considered redundant. The page was ultimately redirected to Atheism.

I would like to propose that, given the different scopes of these two subjects, Atheist and Atheism be covered in separate encyclopedic articles.

Atheism concerns the lack of belief in the existence of God as a worldview, position, or concept, whereas Atheist can specifically focus on people who are atheists.

To address the overlap that existed in the previous version, I have prepared a new, independent article specifically focused on people who are atheists. In the article I have written, the content of Atheism is not repeated. I have focused exclusively on the subject of people who are atheists in order to keep it distinct from the existing Atheism article.

However, because the Atheist page currently redirects to Atheism, I do not have access to a dedicated page where I can submit the article for review.

I would therefore appreciate your guidance on how and where I should submit the completed article for review. I would also like to know what steps I should follow if the article is considered suitable for publication at the dedicated Atheist URL.

I also suggest that, if the creation of a separate article about atheists is approved, the possibility of protecting the page be considered in order to prevent content overlap with Atheism from recurring. This would, of course, be subject to such protection being consistent with Wikipedia’s policies and appropriate for the circumstances of the page.

My goal is for us to clearly distinguish the two articles and ensure that content specifically concerning people who are atheists is not subsequently merged into or unnecessarily duplicated in the Atheism article. I will leave the type and level of protection for each page entirely to the judgment of Wikipedia’s editors and administrators and the applicable Wikipedia policies.

If creating an independent article with this scope is not appropriate under the policies and standards of English Wikipedia, I would appreciate it if you could explain what alternative structure or solution you would recommend for distinguishing these two subjects.

My intention is to have this matter considered through discussion and consensus and fully in accordance with the policies and standards of English Wikipedia before making any changes.

Thank you for your consideration. I would appreciate any guidance on how best to proceed. Mahan.saleh (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure where you want to go with this. There is are already several Lists of atheists focused on people who are atheists. In my view your article may have either (too much) overlap with those existing lists, or when describing atheists in general terms in their adoption of atheism (too much) overlap with the current article. So I think before you progress with this idea it would be very important that you find a position for the new article that has limited overlap and in addition also does not invite the creation of such overlap in future edits by other editors. To be frank I doubt that is feasible.

If you want to take this idea further nevertheless, you may consider to create a sandbox subpage to your user page (see Wikipedia:About the sandbox) and set up a draft there. If you gain support from others they may help you find a way to propose it. You could also look for suggestion through Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism although that seems to not (very) active at the moment. Arnoutf (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. Following your suggestion, I have created a draft of the proposed "Atheist" article in my user sandbox: User.saleh/Draft.

I have tried to keep the scope focused specifically on atheists as people and to avoid unnecessary overlap with the existing "Atheism" article. The draft is ready, and I would appreciate any further comments, suggestions, or help with its scope and structure. Mahan.saleh (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

We use plural for articles about people, so it should be "Atheists" (just like Christians and Muslims). Your draft currently has much overlap with this article. I think this article currently does a good job in its overview of atheists, so I do not think another article about the same topic is necessary. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I see some potential for a sub-article to the Atheism article that deals with atheism from the perspective of psychology and the social sciences. The title 'Atheists' would be concise and cover various phenomena, such as religious perspectives on atheism. Some text could be moved from the main article to the subarticle. In my opinion, the Demographics section, for example, could be condensed. In particular, the subsection 'Wealth, education, and reasoning style' does not seem to be fully up to date. The themes addressed in this section may be too detailed for the main article. For instance, the relationship between atheism and intelligence can be a difficult thing to measure, with varying research findings. --Thi (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

For demographics, there is already Demographics of atheism. One can try to create a sub-article, but I will not be convinced about its merits until I see the proposed content for such an article. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback and suggestions.

I agree that the proposed article should be titled Atheists.

In addition, I will apply the requested changes and further develop the existing sections based on the points raised in this discussion. I will then present the revised draft for further discussion. Mahan.saleh (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

This whole idea makes no sense to me at all. We have an article about Brussels sprouts but we don't have an article about people who don't like them. It certainly makes sense to have an article about atheism, but it seems weird to have an article about a group of people who are not something. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Apparently defining "atheists" is a bit easier than "atheism". Consider this dialogue: "Do you believe in my god?" No. "Ok, so you are an atheist. Why?" Your god is not divine. "God is divine." God cannot be divine. Such a god doesn't exist. "But people are happy and making money believing the divine exists." Define divine. "I can't." What's the point? "Making babies and being happy, therefore the divine exists!" That wasn't what I had in mind. But have a nice day. "Thanks. Have a good day too." Obviously, everyone and every creature has some kind of relation with reality: whether people believe in nonexistent things or not... But my deeper point is that the divine God or "god(s)" of believers is often far more narrow in scope than what religions and philosophers define and teach. Am I digressing into irrelevancy? Not really. For I observe that the proposed article regarding "Atheists" is duplicative of the same material this article covers. Moreover, most religious perspectives of the various theists' positions in how they regard their nonbelievers, really belongs in their respective articles. That said, diverse notable atheists are listed here under "People" in the sidebar. Modocc (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Fallatical Statements in the Introduction Paragraphs

In the introduction paragraphs there are three main sentences with illogical, generalistic conclusions.

Firstly, "Atheist organizations have defended the autonomy of science, freedom of thought, secularism, and secular ethics." The fallacies this statement depends upon follows:

1. Circular Reasoning / Begging the question: "free thought" is redefined as a means that must conclude in atheism, and that free thought (and the defense of it) is only available through secular means, to secular ends. The conclusion of this is smuggled in that Atheism is correct, and the only valid result and symptom of free thought.
2. Equivocation: "Free thought" shifts meaning from 'Unconstrained reasoning in general' to 'thought that ends in atheistic conclusions'.
3. Genetic Fallacy: After the circular reasoning defines any valid attempt at 'free thought' must terminate in atheistic ends, and religious based reasoning gets defined as 'not free thought', their conclusions are redefined as an attack on free thought itself.
4. Loaded language: The most trivial but, 'defended' is doing unjustified work against a strawman 'attacker' that has again, been defined by fallactical logic, as not 'really free thought'. This assumes that atheism is a minority that is under siege from an assumed religious 'attacking' school of thought.

Secondly, ""atheism is a more parsimonious position than theism and that everyone is born without beliefs in deities; therefore... the burden of proof lies not on the atheist... but on the theist"

1. Is-ought problem / Naturalistic Fallacy : "born without belief" is a physcholigcal/developmental fact. Such things that would be disproved from this logic would be the presence of the electron, zoning laws, a disbelief in Leprauchans, or a belief in basic germ theory.
2. Advocacy based: these statements (before, this, and the one ensuing) are attempting to solve a debate that has not been solved for three millenia, and I doubt it will on a wikipedia page, much less should it try. See WP:NOTADVOCACY.

Lastly, same quote as the last one, just evidence based. lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of god[(s)] but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism."

1. Occam's Razor and the Burden of Proof: This sentence is veiled in hedging and yet still does not cite the counter case against this burden of proof. The language should be kept in third person, not mixed in third person hedging with a thesis statement in plain dictionary speaking.
2. One sided argument: Really a continuation of the previous point, but there is no case made for the religious side. A hedged article for one side is still only one side.
3. Grammatical note: gods (was original, I changed it in quote) and should be changed to 'gods (or God)' to include both monotheistic and polytheistic religions.

Firelane98 (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

1. "Fallatical" is not a word.
2. Religion has been directly responsible for the supression of free thought, but atheism has not.
3. You quote "...atheism is a more parsimonious position than theism and that everyone is born without beliefs in deities" has conveniently missed out the key clause in the sentence. It actually reads "Nonbelievers contend that atheism is a more parsimonious position than theism and that everyone is born without beliefs in deities," which is not advocacy in any sense of the word.
4. There is no "counter case" for the burden of proof when it comes to atheism. Theists make fantastic claims with no proof whatsoever, but atheists do no such thing. Therefore, the burden of proof must fall upon the people making fantastic claims.
5. The singular form of "gods" is "god," not "God," which implies a specific god. Whether a person believes in a specific god or many gods is of no consequence to this article.

-- Scjessey (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect info in intro

"Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities." That's anti-theism, not atheism. ~2026-53133-15 (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

no it is not. Antitheism is against belief in a deity (even if that belief is by someone else). The position there are no deities can be personal without necessarily opposing that others belief in a deity. Arnoutf (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2026 (UTC)