Talk:Atheism

Gnostic atheism/-ists = debunkers of personhooded aseity who promote physical self-causation from logical possibility itself, they do exist

The article is biased and exclusively elaborates on majority/dominant atheism: from the intro: Nonbelievers contend that atheism is a more parsimonious position than theism and that everyone is born without beliefs in deities; therefore, they argue that the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of gods but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism.

Gnostic atheists who rigorously debunk the self-causation of Brodmannian (Brodmann-areas-like) personhood for various reasons do exist. One reason is that even in logical pluralism which accepts infinite logical contextualisations, any logical system has restrictions. The exocausality and exologic of the supernatural make its foundations not only unknowable, but also inexistent because without specific logic relationships, interactions and procedures, no axiomatization criteria are met for self-caused/autocaused specific experience (atautoticity = without identity = absolute inexistence without logical foundations). A topological brain still would require a topological space, and logical operations produce thermodynamic entropy. Informational entropy and thermodynamic entropy are related in the physical foundations. The aphysical supernatural foundations is a non-theory; a mistake without any specific foundational claims (doctrine only defines wished ideas without rigorous justification).

Gnostic atheists (those who specifically debunk the self-caused cosmogonic person) are harassed by majority atheists as it happens in this article (they're not even mentioned) and many times are deliberately confused with the positive atheists (most positive atheists are sure God doesn't exist, but they don't necessarily care or study how to specifically debunk the self-caused cosmogonic person and not only claim that stupid ideas have to be debunked by the stupid others who aren't us). 2.84.215.66 (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

tl;dr — propose a change in the "change X to Y" format or "add X after Y" format, and list here published works which may be referenced in support of such a change. —Alalch E. 23:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I tried to Google on Gnostic Atheism a bit and I am not sure whether it differs substantially from "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." which is the 2nd line of the article. Also your post is very long and does not suggest an actionable action to take (as Alalch E indicates). The post is also excessively difficult to grasp in particular the title and the 2nd paragraph. The latter contains (at best) very uncommon words some of which Google does not even know (e.g. atautoticity https://www.google.com/search?q=atautoticity+&sca_esv=b0a6a50bf49897c6&sxsrf=AE3TifOZue9bOTJ102K-KrSo1wnHaJSCrQ%3A1750572388772&source=hp&ei=ZJ1XaKG5LPTm7_UPkt3FqQg&iflsig=AOw8s4IAAAAAaFerdNAP9lXPUssPQOcX9_oEXKejWgQ3) which makes it very hard to understand what you want to say. Arnoutf (talk) 06:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

A "gnostic something" requires specific knowledge on something as in gnostic atheism: Landauer's principle (data-thermodynamic), the impossibility and un-identity of exo-logic (supernatural), the impossibility of free will even in logical pluralism because every system has foundational and high-order restrictions, etc. People who debunk "gnostic atheism" never attack "gnostic atheism" (knowledge-based atheism). They only attack strong atheism because they confuse knowledge rigorously explained with strong belief. Even the majority of people who claim they are gnostic atheists (knowledge-based atheists) are actually strong atheists. Few typical atheists have some rigorous explanations on the rejection of the supernatural (the low-probability claims aren't canceling the supernatural; the impossible axiomatization of physics with magical gaps / missing procedures/ human-ethics-based unfounded foundations of existence... this becomes part of true knowledge-based (gnostic) atheism, but it misses the rigorous and specific rejection of personhood as part of the first order foundations, it misses the rejection of free will (any system has limitations; even gradience of freedom doesn't guarantee full free will), Landauer's data-processing thermodynamic entropy, etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8B1A:7F00:8472:591B:C0C:E533 (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The typical enemies of gnostic atheism (but because gnostic atheism is confused with strong atheism we must see if the specific thinkers we examine misuse the terms/jargon/terminology) claim that "knowledge of debunking an anti-foundationalistic self-caused mereological complex erroneously presented as a mereological simple; which has data-processing entropy and logicosystemic unfreewill limitations cannon exist". Actually the enemies of gnostic atheism immediately reject gnostic atheism without rigorously examining any specific knowledge. And false gnostic atheists (strong atheists who pretend they are gnostic atheists but they have too many thought-gaps to be fully-fledged gnostic atheists) help maintain the very derpy image of what people erroneously believe gnostic atheism is. 2A02:2149:8B18:3A00:8846:40C2:75B6:12B0 (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

No. We don't have gnostic string theoreticians, we don't have gnostic evolutionists and we don't have people who are gnostic about vaccination. This isn't how language works. Reasonable educated people assume that when one person has an opinion or position or something it is based upon evidence and when faced with new credible evidence the position will change. This applies to all belief systems. It is insulting to atheists to add a qualifier which is functionally useless and introduces no new information. If someone is unsure or doesn't know if dieties exist they are agnostic - this is the accepted definition in every dictionary. If someone believes there is enough evidence to say dieties don't exist they are an atheist. Once again - the silly term 'agnostic atheist' is not used in peer reviewed papers or journals in any discipline because it is not only redundant but categorically incorrect blending words which have different meanings in philosophy and theology for no benefit whatsoever and only confusing the educated. Dogmatic Quibbler (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I sure wouldn't have gotten "without identity" from 'atautocity'. I'd've figured it meant something like non-tautological-ness. Dictionary.com and M-w.com don't know that word either. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The term "gnostic atheist" is nonsense. It conflates a philosphical definition of gnostic (as pertaining to etymological knowledge) with the commonly understood and theological term of gnostic (being the ability to a deity without an intercessor or middleman). Further the definition is functionally useless - all atheists are 'gnostic atheists' because no atheist believes any god exists - this is the literal definition of atheism. Unless we are going to have 'gnostic string theorists', 'gnostic evolutionists' and 'gnostic' everything the addition of the word provides no clarity. It is assumed that all reasonable educated adults when faced with evidence that surpasses a certain threshold will change their beliefs - the idea that atheists must 'declare' their basic rationality is an apologist one that has been embraced only by 'Reddit atheists'. Not a single serious published academic paper by a respected anthropologist, sociologist, philosopher or other academician uses this, frankly idiotic term, which is redundant and only serves to confuse rather than clarify. Further this term appears in no published academic general, philosophical or theological dictionary. Lets end this stupidity and learn the correct terms. Dogmatic Quibbler (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Gnostic atheism is distorted by the vast majority of non-gnostic atheists. Arguments exist. Most people present the harassment of the "majority atheists" who harass the gnostic atheists. For example infinite axiomatic systems and logical systems are possible (see: experimental axiomatic systems and logical pluralism) but they aren't part of a single system due to mutual exclusions. Thus an all knowing God is innately impossible and the single unified everything is impossible as a single entity. = This is a gnostic double argument (in includes the refutation of the supernatural). Gnostic atheists are harassed by lay atheists and distorted. Knowledge isn't tautological to strong opinion. If you delete one's arguments you aren't a superior philosopher but a mere bully.

Some people reject long and combined arguments because they understand simplicity. Even atheists are humans and have biases.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-12410-21 (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Unless someone can give a clear, explicit, properly-sourced and Wikipedia-policy-compliant proposal for a change to the existing article, I propose we close this thread per WP:NOTFORUM. We aren't the slightest bit interested in conducing debates about gnosticism, or anything else here, that isn't the purpose of article talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

add the paragraph (it's fundamental to atheism + it's important to have a dedicated page): Non-universal fundationality of the unit (1)

Number one isn't a non-contextual non-procedural self-caused ontology. This is important in theistic monism and in the mereological simple soul and divine essence.

The mathematical construction of numbers starts from the empty set ∅ and is built progressively through Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory (ZFC). Each number system (natural, integer, rational, real) is defined as a specific set that inherits the properties of the previous one.

The answer at a glance:

Natural numbers are constructed as sets of empty sets (von Neumann), integers as equivalence classes of pairs of naturals, rationals as equivalence classes of pairs of integers, and reals via Dedekind cuts.

Infinite logical axiomatizations are possible. There are infinite extra-axiomatic mathematical constructions (Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem) but they are integrated as new axioms, new axiomatic systems, or new logical systems; if there is no logical description, they are not considered logical systems but rather errors [infeasibility and non-identity] (note: not all logical systems are physical).

There is no universal axiomatic system. Proof systems (mathematics) are not identical to systems of substance (universes) because they have different grounding criteria (e.g., physical self-executability, circularity in physical grounding, entropic mechanisms in physical grounding, etc.). ~2026-38931-84 (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

tl;dr -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Conclusion

The number 1 may be rigorously adopted as a primitive element of an axiomatic system, and such a system can be mathematically equivalent to more conventional foundations beginning with 0 or other primitives. This choice is a matter of formal design rather than logical necessity.

No accepted theorem establishes the number 1 as the absolute foundation of mathematics, and no universally accepted axiomatic system compels such a conclusion. Likewise, the number 1 is a mathematical object, not a physical ontology. While it may serve as a symbol of unity or as a primitive constant in formal theories, these roles do not confer metaphysical priority.

The concept of fundamentality therefore depends on context. Within mathematics it is relative to an axiomatic framework; within metaphysics it concerns the nature of reality. The former is a matter of formal definition, whereas the latter remains a subject of philosophical and scientific investigation rather than mathematical proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-39132-36 (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

There's no consensus in the philosophy of mathematics. There are schools of thought which sneer at each other. And the same holds for metaphysics. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Can some editor tell me what the exact proposal is here (just adding an unsourced paragraph at a nonspecified place is not actionable edit suggestion).

In that proposal the paragraph (and the explanation thereof in this talk should (1) Provide a sourced and compelling narrative why mathematics is at all relevant to atheism (atheism is about the lack of belief, mathematics about a formal system so this is nontrivial) (2) Even if mathematics is relevant a reliably sourced argument why this specific view is relevant (3) A version of the proposed idea without any mathematical jargon or notation so that it is in fact readable. Arnoutf (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Some religionists suggest that the fact that mathematics can so "perfectly describe the universe" it must be evidence of a grand designer, but apart from that nonsensical argument I cannot see what mathematics has to do with atheism. Moreover, the original poster doesn't seem to be making that argument anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)