Talk:Antitheism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Antitheism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 12 months

Other talk page banners

Atheism High‑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

High

This article has been rated as High-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.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Antiagnosticism (we don't have the page) has two major subcategories (and many smaller academic)

criticism by metaphysical naturalists/atheists
criticism by theists
(that's problematic as a separate "extras" because it's used by 1. and 2.)
Problems in definition, selection of focus, selection of range of topics to analyze, selection of significance (or specifically statistical significance of picking as a "measure" one bias over infinite others) of topics to analyze, etc.

We have antitheism, but we don't have antiagnosticism in Wikipedia.

Greek antitheist posters

Greek antitheist posters (actually analytical impersonal cosmogonology [cosmogonology (= comparing a list of cosmogonic theories): based on atheistic cosmogonic theories: Max Tegmark's, David Deutsch's, Andrei Linde's, Alexander Vilenkin's etc.]) (not all posters are analytical on what they propose to replace god)

the theist is a superphysicalist personocrat (personocrat: personhood-centric; or adherent of a dominant person) - Greek atheoposter

Add "Part of a series on Discrimination" in Article

Antitheism is the hatred of religious people, which is why it should be apart of Discrimination and therefore should have the template. Discussing because my edit was reverted. @GreenLipstickLesbian DotesConks (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'm sure you'll have no problem finding good quality academic sources that refer to it in such a manner. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 23:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian I find that you may have a bias here.

Definition of anti:

Opposed to; against

Definition of Theism:

Religion; belief in a god.

Antitheism:

Opposed to religion

That is discriminatory.

Nonetheless I still have sources:

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/03/hatred-basis-religion-or-belief-must-be-addressed-holistically-un-expert

and a PDF that talked about antitheism here: https://assets.gov.ie/238159/47bf485c-1cbc-4fa7-a288-f57f8aa41f08.pdf. DotesConks (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you "find that [I] may have a bias"?

Also, I think if you read those sources, the first is talking about discrimination based on identification with a specific religion, often by people of other religious groups. The second is a report for Atheist Ireland talking about hate crime laws in Ireland. In section three, it's specifically advocating that anti-discrimination laws not outlaw criticism of religion, because the authors find the concepts distinct. Did you mean to link those sources? GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 20:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian Yes, you are correct. That was my mistake, that was for another discrimination article. These are the sources I intended to put in:

https://www.abebooks.com/9781137477675/New-Atheist-Denial-History-Painter-1137477679/plp

https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Handbook-Atheism-Handbooks/dp/0198745079

The books talk about New Atheism and Antitheism and how it is harmful to our society. DotesConks (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those appear to be talking about New Atheism specifically, not anti-theism as a whole. Are those the sources you meant?

Also, I have to insist - you accused me of bias, and have not (as of yet) provided any evidence or clarification. Please do so. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 20:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian Antitheism is referenced multiple times in both books, I've seen previews of it. Therefore it counts. Also I said "you MAY" not that you have one. I don't think you have one now. DotesConks (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination against atheists. PsyWoman (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the discrimination sidebar or navigation footer should not be added to this page unless a majority of reliable sources can be shown to consider antitheism a form of discrimination. This is not about one editor considering the topic and making a sweeping conclusion on their own. It's about summarizing the literature that has been published about the topic. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the belief that a worldview or ideology is harmful, is by definition discriminatory, then every ideology on the planet should be "Part of a series on Discrimination". Placing this article in the series is a fallacy of composition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

Under the same fallacy of composition, we should also add the article on Feminism to the "series on discrimination", for example.

The discrimination sidebar or navigation footer should be removed from this page. The user who added it did so out of a clear and obvious bias. I concur with @PsyWoman and @Binksternet 84.203.148.96 (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction in Etymology

A term in documented use in 1788 was not "likely coined" by a man who was born in 1809. Downstrike (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of discrimination sidebar

I am aware there was a previous discussion about if it should be added or not, however it does not seem to have had consensus. However, in light of recent vandalism, I feel it's appropriate to re open this discussion, especially since it seems to have been added already in spite of a lack of consensus. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 18:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a consensus needs to be reached to stop the constant edit warring. In my opinion the discrimination part should be removed as ideologically opposing something is not the same as discrimination, otherwise basically any political opinion that seeks to assert itself would be discriminatory. The article on Religious persecution already features the discrimination bar and makes much more sense and the similar topic Antireligion doesn't feature it so I feel it would be best to remove it. TheSilentWombat (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]