Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Atheism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism page.

Contents

[edit] Goal

I think one of our goals should be to try to open people's minds about Atheists and Atheism. Not to "convert" people, but more to teach people about it. I think too many people have a very negative view of the subject, and this wikiproject can probably go a long way to change that. --Kbdank71 10:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So how does one help out here? I'm interested in helping as much as I can, but I haven't found the todo list.Crystalattice 18:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this project should do either open people's minds as such or jion people to convert, this is an encyclopedia, we should inform be creating good articles that become featured. By doing this we show sence of things and a contrast in belief. JMcD 13:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How To Help

For one, we need a template to put on all atheism-related articles. For example, we need something like this:

This page is part of WikiProject Userboxes. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as part of the userboxes system. WikiProject Userboxes itself is an attempt to improve, grow and standardize Wikipedia's articles and templates related to the userbox system, used on many users' pages. We need all your help, so join in today!

, except it needs to be for Wikiproject Atheism. Thanks! Hezzy 02:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in: Can I recommend changing the icon for the user box. It's pretty tacky. I'll post if I can think of something better. --Jade 04:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

How about the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or one of those bad boys as the logo. Something easily recognizable by both atheists and many theists.--Jade 09:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My Vote goes for the Flying Spaghetti monster, i have been touched by his noodely appendage--Goatan 10:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong vote against the FSM or Unicorn or similar: these are parody religions intended to be (at least somewhat) humorous. Atheism is not in this category. There's enough misunderstanding about atheism in the world already - let's not add to it. -- Writtenonsand 15:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Participation

Is anyone free to join this project? Also, might I suggest the inclusion of Secular ethics on the related article list? Starghost (talk | contribs) 05:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

After taking a look, I say go for it. Looks totally fitting to me. I took the liberty of adding an atheism link and the atheism category to the Secular Ethics page. --Jade 09:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC) * Hmm, I just noticed your sort of that pages parent. Hope I didn't step on any toes. :) --Jade 09:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, in fact, I wanted people to help write the article since I ran out of ideas long ago, which is also one of the reasons I nominated it for AID. Anyway, thanks. Starghost (talk | contribs) 16:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Unicorn - v - other "religions"

I noticed the Invisible Pink Unicorn as an Article on Atheism. I wonder if we want to go so far as to list all other related "Religions" or if it would be preferable to list the categories instead: Category:Fictional deities, & Category:Joke religions. Thoughts? --Jade 09:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanx whoever added the pink unicorn user box, I like that one better than the red/black A, put it on my talk page. Thanx again. --Jade 04:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image choice

Very, very poor job selecting an image to represent the WikiProject. The no symbol currently in use is a horrific and bizarre misrepresentation of what atheism means, and propagates the misconception that atheism amounts to antitheism (opposition to God). A black "X" in place of the no symbol, or a variety of other images, would be vastly preferable.

I'm also surprised by the choice to use the ominous color arrangement of an apocalyptic red A on a midnight-black background for the "Atheism WikiProject member" userbox; the sort of coloration in use on {{atheism}} and

ath This user is an atheist.


is much less potentially offensive or provocative (and also much prettier-looking), though this is obviously a less pressing issue than the inflammatory image. -Silence 14:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Loved it. I support its addition to the project templates Starghost (talk | contribs) 16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I concur, although I don't think the black X is an improvement. PLEASE lets change the image. I would be mortified to have that image on my personal page and don't care to see it on any I visit. --Jade 22:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I found two that we can consider. The first is simply a black circle, which seems to have some circulation and semi-prevalent use. The other is an atom with an A inside of it, or just an atom. I'm not sure if the A/Atom is 'owned' by anyone. Therefore I vote for the simple black circle. Links: Circle and Atheist Symbol search where you can see various forms of the atom image --Jade 00:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The atom symbol represents American Atheists, let's not use it. They seem overly militant. Gary 00:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I kind of like the circle on that website, but it says it is a Wiccan symbol. Maybe we could go with a fatter circle, like a donut? Here's an MSPaint example I whipped up:

http://imagesocket.com/view/atheismcircle2c6.png Gary 01:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, well a circle is a pretty prolific shape. But I feel that the way in which it is being displayed is as important as the shape itself. The plain black circle on the plain white background is not a symbol used, at least commonly, in any witchcraft related religion. Circles will be in use everywhere we look, but crosses are used by more than just Christians, and pentagrams by more than just Wiccans. It's largely how it's used and what it looks like. I prefer the thinner lined circle, I think it's esthetically nicer and since it is already in use by the Atheist community it is preferable. But I think the thicker circle has merit too. --Jade 22:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I may be in the minority here, but I'm ok with the no symbol and the red/black color scheme. I saw that pink thing and even after reading the talk page, I still couldn't tell what it was. The no symbol and "god" is a no nonsense descriptor of our beliefs. I'm also ok with the Atom symbol. I use that in my atheist userbox. I don't think there's a problem with it representing American Atheists, because the text says "This user is an Atheist", not "This user is a member of American Atheists." Just my two cents. --Kbdank71 19:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I vote for the atom symbol. I know the American Atheists are rather militant, but their sybol gives a recognizable representation of atheism. Hezzy 18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
But atheists are already one of the most distrusted of all minorities in the United States. It makes things worse to use a symbol that lumps them together with an organization as annoying as American Atheists.
I guess this discussion started with a symbol with a no sign over the word "GOD". I haven't seen that one yet, it would be helpful if someone posted it. I have another idea, though. How about we modify it to use the word "GODS" instead? This shows that atheists believe in no gods at all, rather than implying disbelief solely in the Christian God.
Here's my MSPaint example: http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/4347/nogods2xw0.png
Gary 21:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's another possibility: A Times New Roman asterisk, as suggested here: http://intepid.com/2005/05/ Gary 21:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
What about using a stylized version of the Humanist symbol, but using an "A" instead? I know not all athiests are Humanists and vice versa, but many people equate them as the same. Crystalattice 17:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Could you maybe draw an example? The whole idea behind the humanist symbol is that it looks like a human and the letter H. I think a similar atheist symbol would look like someone with no arms. Gary 13:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I think "GODS" might be more palatable to most than "GOD". With the plural, we aren't singling out the reader's faith. Then again, I'm ok with an "A" also. --Kbdank71 13:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
god(s) would be better than gods, as christians, for example, don't believe in gods either, they believe in a god.Tuesday42 14:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
If a lot of people like my idea, maybe someone skilled in graphic design could make a more polished image. Mine looks kind of crappy. Gary 18:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's my new version of the "No Gods" logo. I think this looks much better than the MSPaint version I made earlier. I think I should have made it bigger though, this one is 200x200 pixels. ::::::http://www.imagesocket.com/view/nogods995.png
I'm tempted to make something like the Ghostbusters logo, except with Thor or Zeus or someone in place of the ghost. Gary 15:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article requests

  • I have been slowly adding citations to List of atheists, and have requested help on the article's talk page but it simply has stalled. If every member above just added 3 references we would have a sourced list in no time. A list of this nature without sources is useless as a source of information. Any help greatly appreciated. Just googling the name of and entry in quotes with the word atheist will often find a good source.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiccan Atheism = Atheist Witchcraft

Just a peep-peep to note that I moved (renamed) the Wiccan Atheism page and added further details. If anyone has an interest in the subject, please update what I've done, but it's about 5 times bigger than it was yesterday and it's now listed under a term used by the general population when they discuss the topic. So I consider it successful.--Jade 08:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] joining

How do I join? Do I just sign in?Tuesday42 16:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Tuesday42

  • Just sign the list and start helping out. Thanky you! Hezzy 18:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

A question. A previous post here states: "I think one of our goals should be to try to open people's minds about Atheists and Atheism. Not to "convert" people, but more to teach people about it. I think too many people have a very negative view of the subject, and this wikiproject can probably go a long way to change that." How are these goals being achieved, and how does one take part? JBIdF 08:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, informing people about things is the purpose of Wikipedia.Tuesday42 17:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
People who have found their way to Wikipedia and who are interested in learning more about atheism will go to atheism. Read that article, and if you see anything wrong, anything that needs clarification, or anything that's confusing to people unfamiliar with the subject, edit it and fix it. The page on atheism should be the biggest focus of this project, but it should lead people to other areas that they may become curious about. Right now, it is a very good article, but I'm sure you can find some way to improve it.
Once the atheism page is to your satisfaction, go to some other page related to atheism, and work on that. I've noticed that a lot of philosophical concepts on Wikipedia are difficult for people unfamiliar with philosophy, myself included, to wrap their minds around. Maybe you could work on a plain English explanation for something you find. Gary 19:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joan of Arc

Hi, I'd like to ask some editors from this project to evaluate Joan of Arc and its talk page, particularly the Visions section. This FA has come under criticism from a particular editor who thinks it is religiously biased. In the interest of fairness I'm seeking input from both Catholics and atheists. No specific expertise about Joan of Arc is necessary - just seeking fresh eyes and general impressions. Please leave reactions on the article talk page. Thank you. Durova 02:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evil Atheist Conspiracy?

68.5.175.227 06:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC) PLEASE UNDELETE THIS ARTICLE. This article helps to soften the razor sharp blow of atheist rationalism to the wavering believers. Satire is very relevant in areas that provoke controversy. And believe me (pun intended) atheists need all the satirical help they can get. 68.5.175.227 06:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the article on the Evil Atheist Conspiracy worth keeping? Looks like an inside joke from a usenet newsgroup...any objections if I nominate it for deletion? SnaX 01:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I say we keep it, altough I don't feel all that strongly about it.Tuesday42 02:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm for deletion but don't feel too strongly about it either. Doesn't seem noteworthy to me; Wikipedia is not a huge pile of junk. I might be wrong though; how do you legitimately quantify "significance" of internet phenomena? Nonetheless, my vote is to delete. More discussion is always appreciated (: Rashad9607 19:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mission complete. Reporting for new orders sir. SnaX 17:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call me pedantic but

I'm not sure that nihilism belong's in Wikiproject atheism. There are religious forms of nihilism and nihilism related work ( in the old testament for example in Ecclesiates and in eastern religion) so it's not clear that atheism has any real link to nihilism. Further more why should we take the bad rap associated with nihilism when we don't have to? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.105.111.91 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

I know nothing on nihilism and it's relationship with atheism, but must say that I don't think avoiding a "bad rap" is a legitimate excuse for changing Wikipedia. Strive for factual accuracy and objectivity, things I unfortunately cannot help you with on this topic. Rashad9607 19:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't yet looked at the article on nihilism, but I can make a few relevant points immediately, and I will then read and edit the article:
Nihilism is, roughly, (and at least in modern philosophy), a belief that nothing is of any value, or, alternately, that value is an intangible concept. Nihilism does, indeed, categorically eliminate any deity from its worldview via an argument that certain things which make a God a God-- i.e., that it is the "supreme being", etc.-- are impossible because, in that particular example, supremacy itself is impossible.
However, atheism does not by any means imply or require nihilism; there are perfectly valid systems of valuation, ethics, et cetera, which do not rely upon the existence of any supernatural entity: Nietzsche attempted such a "revaluation of all values" in his The Will to Power, and others have written works similar to it in that respect: Nietzsche, an ardent atheist, fought throughout his work against nihilism.
So, in summary, nihilism more or less does imply atheism, but atheism does not imply nihilism. As I say, I haven't yet read this article, but if it does associate nihilism with atheism inappropriately then this should certainly be changed; many-- (indeed, I believe, most)-- atheists aren't nihilists. I will be checking the article and editing it accordingly and including appropriate citations of Nietzsche and others if this is necessary.

Tastyummy 20:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

How do you respond to my argument that there are religious forms of what are, almost certainly, nihilism ( i.e in places in the old testament).

Timothy J Scriven 03:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A specific response would call for an analysis of the specific places in the Old Testament showing a "religious nihilism". Nihilism is not simply extreme immorality or even amorality, but the negation of valuation in general, at least as it relates philosophically to its negative and often-erroneous association with atheism. If by religious you mean, for example, influenced by religion as opposed to characteristic of some example of religion, then it is true that virtually any Western nihilist could be considered as exhibiting a "religious nihilism", but if nihilism is to be examined historically and philosophically, then it seems to me more appropriate that it be characterised as necessarily atheistic.
We are left with a dilemma: are we to leave "nihilism" in wikiproject:atheism, and perhaps also to modify the article on nihilism to clearly reflect the fact that as the term is often used by moralists it can be held from a philosophical perspective-- which is, after all, an appropriate one here, as nihilism is primarily considered as a philosophical position-- to be used erroneously, or are we to categorise atheism and nihilism as both non-religious and influenced by religion (since, for example, atheism, when explicitly stated as a position, necessarily is influenced by religion to the extent that it refers to it in negating it)?
Again, very generally, it is most certainly not true that all atheists are nihilists, but nihilism as a stated philosophical position implies atheism. Please clarify what you mean by "religious nihilism" and cite passages illustrating it in the Old Testament.
For now, I propose that we leave "nihilism" under wikiproject atheism, simply because more precisely characterising atheism as not implying nihilism by editing the nihilism article in order to reflect this fact when necessary would help to clarify Wikipedia's treatment of atheism by removing erroneous references to atheism in general as nihilistic.
Tastyummy 06:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adevism

Gosh golly I can't seem to find an e-descriptions of Adevism that isn't a citation of Britannica (as is the single-line Wikipedia article), or that isn't a citation of the wiki stub itself. I'll try and find more, hopefully a text of Müller himself. But based on what I see of Adevism, it doesn't seem to earn it's own article. Rather, it seems merely like atheism targeted against Hinduism. Delete and add material to Atheism? And relevant Vedanta article, perhaps? Rashad9607 19:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I was originally going to say merge it with Vedanta, but I don't think it would add anything to that article (and therefore wikipedia as a whole) except "some people disagree with it. here's some info about one, obscure guy with super-sweet sideburns who did!". in other (shorter) words, I think it would be worthless. So, I'm leaning towards delete unless someone can change my mind! SnaX 01:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'd be glad to help out

Hi all. I started an article on Daniel Harbour's book, An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Atheism. A while later, a user (Moon&Nature) invited me to join in with this project. I consider myself a fairly competent atheist as well as somebody who strives for neutrality on all articles, controversial or otherwise. I would be glad to help out in any way I can. -Neural 12:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brights movement

New to the place. Wonder, how is this project related to Brights_movement? I know there are atheist which do believe in ghosts or other supernaturals, but I think we should find a link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eipipuz (talk • contribs).

I am not sure your question makes sense. The brights movement, as I read in the article, has nothing to do with ghosts, and it does seem to have plenty to do with atheism. You should find a link to what now? Sign your comments. Starghost (talk | contribs) 16:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
A bright is a person with a naturalistic worldview with no unsupported beliefs in supernatural explanations. There is no "link" between the being a bright and believing in ghosts. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. A bright would only believe in a ghost if ghosts were well-demonstrated by overwhelming evidence to exist. There is no solid evidence for ghosts, or any credible scientific theory supporting ghosts, and so you will not catch many(any?) brights believing in them. -Neural 15:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Belief Systems"

At the bottom of the atheism and antitheism page there is a link to "belief systems". I'm really sick and tired of explaining to people that Atheism is not a "belief system" it is the lack thereof!. I consider applying the term "belief system" to atheism to be POV-pushing pro-religiousism and that link section should probably be changed. Lordkazan 20:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I see the blue boxes with a number of belief systems, with atheism and antitheism listed among them, and I think that these boxes, with atheism and antitheism included, may be useful for some people. I agree that not all the subjects in the boxes are belief systems, however. Can you suggest a better label to group these subjects under? Gary 18:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
"philosophies and religions" ? Lordkazan 19:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
That would imply that we should add things like Christianity and Islam to the list. Maybe we should just label it "Philosophies"? Gary 20:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps "philosophical positions"? Atheism alone isn't necessarily an "entire" philosophy, although atheism is a position taken by many philosophers and is an important part of their philosophies. "Philosophical positions" wouldn't necessarily have to include things like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, unless we could somehow clarify that, as philosophical positions, these religions are generally (really always, but, here in NPOV-land, "generally) defeated by the fact that they are supported by arguments from authority.
We might be able to get away with "philosophical positions" if we can get away with calling faith an argument from authority, which I think we can, given that the article on faith specifically states that
"In essence, faith must be present in order to know anything[sic]. In other words, one must assume, believe, or have faith in the credibility of a person, place, thing, or idea in order to have a basis for knowledge."
I wholeheartedly agree that atheism is not necessarily a "belief system", but acknowledge that, (and, in my opinion, unfortunately), it sometimes reflects one. I saw a site recently (unfortunately, I don't know its URL) which was run by an atheist who, on one page, expressed his belief in alternatives to supernaturalistic epistemologies, i.e., in the efficacy of science. While I disagree with him and instead hold that the efficacy of science is evidenced in its successful prediction of real phenomena via models and that it thus needn't be the object of any sort of faith, I can't say that he isn't an atheist, since, indeed, he doesn't believe in God: his argument for science is fallacious, but it is, nevertheless, atheistic.
Specifically, atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, but (and, again, unfortunately, as I see it) not always a lack of faith and belief in general.
Tastyummy 19:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief

Does anyone here have any knowledge of Jonathan Miller's documentary series Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief? The article is rather lacklustre and thin on information. It could use some work, preferably by somebody who has the documentary on video. It's a shame the article is so shabby since it was a thoughtful and well-presented series. Unfortunately, it has been a while since I saw it and I don't have it on tape. Compare that article to the one on The Root of All Evil? by Richard Dawkins. It would be nice to get the article to a similar standard. -Neural 23:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critique of atheism

There's a lot going on in the discussion page for the article Critique of atheism, with a couple of Christians joining the discussion and trying to make it more "neutral" by adding criticism and removing responses to them. I think it's a good opportunity to improve that article. I recommend you guys go check it out just in case they overdo it. Starghost (talk | contribs) 02:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The God Delusion

The God Delusion by the brilliant scientist Richard Dawkins is out now. Feel free to track down a copy and help build up a good enyclopedic article about the book. -Neural 14:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Presenting Atheism positively

Words like godless and "lack of belief", are presenting Atheism negatively. It gives fuel to non-atheists to suggest that Atheists are lacking something or deficent. I have heard non-atheists describe Atheists as lacking the ability to believe in god. As an Atheist I am sure that I do not lack a belief, rather I believe in reality. Theists seem to have an endless appitite for painting Atheists negatively, I don't think Atheists should help them do that. Can we change the Atheism related pages so that Atheism is presented in a positive manner? As an example the Theism page describes an Atheist as "Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of gods or deities" I have proposed that the descrition be changed to "Atheism is a belief that god(s) and deities do not exist". There have been two objection one saying that the description should "chime" with the Atheism Wikipedia entry. The, so far short, discussion can be seen on the Theism talk page. Comments?


I wouldn't want it changed because I have disbelief in gods, that's NOT the same as a belief that gods do not exist. --Charlesknight 22:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain your position. In what way do you "disbelief" in gods? What gods do you think exist? Can you add anything else that would support your position?Vamptoo 13:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Atheism is THE lack of belief, it is not a belief, and I find any suggestion that it is "a belief" contradictory to the definition at best - and from some peoples mouths offensive (because they're trying to define it as such to commit to a straw man argument) Lordkazan 14:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I find the term "godless" to be somewhat derogatory, as it implies that a god is missing from an atheist's life when they should believe in one, but I do not find the phrase "lack of belief" derogatory if it is used in a polite manner. Atheism, to me, is a lack of belief in gods. It does not imply a belief that there is no god, or even a belief in reality, though I would suspect all atheists with sound minds believe in reality so far as they can observe and understand it with their senses and mind. The belief that gods do not exist is separate from the lack of belief in gods, because belief that gods do not exist requires a decision to be made, most likely without evidence, whereas a lack of belief in gods does not require a decision to be made.
This semantic difference is often brought up in discussions about atheism, and it leads to people hauling out dictionaries and encyclopedias and separating "strong atheism" from "weak atheism" or "atheist atheism" from "agnostic atheism". These classifications are rather boring to discuss and don't affect much. The common thread which unites all these groups is the lack of belief in gods, not a belief that there are no gods. Gary 17:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
"lack of belief" and "godless" are both used to imply that there is something missing form an Atheist's life, and both are negative terms. An Agnostic is someone who has not made a decision regarding the existence of a god or gods. An Atheist is someone who knows that there are no god(s) or deities. Applying adjectives such as strong and weak could lead to insanity if that concept were applied to all groups of people, as should be done if you are willing to apply adjectives to one group. If you allow "agnostic atheism" (I suppose that is someone who has made a decision, but doesn't know if the decision was made???), then would you allow "christian agnostic atheism"? Someone who lacks belief in god(s) but believes that there are god(s) is not an atheist. You have added alot of twists and turns but you have not addressed the fact "lack of belief" is describing Atheism negatively, and despite what you say you have not united the groups as you suggest. If you are going to insist that Atheists believe that god(s) exist, then what you are doing is sneaking a god in through the back door and even a Theist should be offended by that.166.70.7.181 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I wrote the parent, I apologize for not being logged in.Vamptoo 20:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You got the definition of atheism and agnosticism all mixed up. The latest topic in the Atheism article discussion speaks of this very matter and should be very enlightening to you. It is also where this discussion belongs. Starghost (talk | contribs) 05:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with your statement that atheists are people who know that there are no god(s) or deities. While such people are atheists, I would classify other people who do not believe in gods as atheists as well. Using the first of two defintions given by Wikipedia, "A person who does not believe that at least one god exists," one can even imagine that agnostics, who are unsure about the existence of gods, could be included as a form of atheists, because agnostics must not believe in gods if they are unsure of the gods' existence.
To summarize, atheists either have no belief in the existance of gods or positively assert that there is no god, whereas agnosticism is the position that the existance of god can't be proven. They speak of different matters and are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to have an agnostic atheist as much as an agnostic Christian. Christian atheists are a ridiculous thought though. Hope this helps. Starghost (talk | contribs) 05:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a disgression, so to get to the point we started from, presenting atheism positively, it may be possible to exchange "lack of belief" with "disbelief". More specifically, phrases such as "lack of spiritual beliefs" may be substituted for "lack of spirituality" or "disbelief in a supernatural component of spirituality". The second phrase avoids any negative connotations associated with the word "lack". While the word "lack" when used in descriptions of various characteristics of atheism is not offensive to me, if it bothers others, it wouldn't be much of a problem to change the phrases it is used in, in much the way I have just described. Gary 05:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The term "absence of belief" is used a lot these days as well. I think it's connotation is not as bad as "lack of" Starghost (talk | contribs) 05:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems we are discussing the difference between weak atheism and strong atheism. Weak atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Strong atheism is making an active statement that gods do not exist. I was an agnostic until I realized that agnosticism implies that theism and atheism are equally plausible. But, it is fairly obvious that the two stances are nowhere near equally plausible. So I changed to weak atheism. Since I refute the existence of any deities when asked, some might say I'm a strong atheist. The difference, in practice, is ill-defined. I prefer just to say I'm an atheist because I put God in the same category as unicorns and goblins. Better yet, if you want a positive term --- call yourself a Bright. The Bright movement is atheistic by definition, and it has a more positive ring to it than "atheist". -Neural 13:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Bertrand Russell had a similar problem. He found that when he described himself as an agnostic, most people took that to mean that he thought the existence of a god was unproven, but plausible. If I recall correctly, he called himself an agnostic in academic settings (or when talking to people who would understand the nuance), and called himself an atheist to convey the right idea to the average Joe. Lamont A Cranston 14:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion to add wikipage on Victor J. Stenger.

I'm going at add a wikipage on Victor J. Stenger. You'll probably know him as a skeptic and given he's very much into refuting theistic origins of things so he's very much an active atheist and he says as much. He's still alive and active AFAIK. It's my first new page. It'll take me over the weekend to add the initial content. I think he's notable enough as I'm hitting enough references to him on a number of other articles plus he has a number of books on Amazon. Ttiotsw 01:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, be bold and add as much as you can. You can bet there are a lot of religious people adding a lot less notable stuff to push their view. Starghost (talk | contribs) 19:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - It'll be more than this weekend as I got bogged down on just that issue on the The Quran and science page. Whew - talk about flogging a dead horse. Sometimes I just wonder why I bother keeping with my ideals of religious Pluralism ! But it's coming very very soon and I want it to read right first time as I suspect I'll be watched closely on any page edits. His bibliography and people who have referenced him in their books makes me wonder why he already hasn't a page. Is there something I'm missing here ? I guess I'll find out. Ttiotsw 19:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
My draft is in a sandbox at, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ttiotsw/Sandbox-Test1 Please add stuff as you see fit. Ttiotsw 14:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the article is good enough to be put into a real page where people could make more significant changes. Anyway, good work. Starghost (talk | contribs) 19:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Added in as Victor J. Stenger plus a redirect page at Victor Stenger. Please edit as normal now (and be bold) and when you see Stenger in any stuff (usually physics or cosmology) then please wikilink as you see fit. Ttiotsw 17:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism revamp

I'm currently in the middle of a major revamp to atheism, to attempt to trim down some of the bloated sections, expand some of the stubby ones, and add lots and lots of inline references. As part of this endeavor, I am planning to create a few more daughter articles for atheism so that important information which has been lost since past versions of the article (see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&oldid=64381440) can be included on Wikipedia without bloating atheism, in articles like Implicit and explicit atheism. In line with articles like this and eutheism and dystheism, I would like to know what you all think about the possibility of merging strong atheism and weak atheism into a single article, Strong and weak atheism? My rationale is posted to Talk:Weak atheism. -Silence 18:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nontheism Portal

Hey folks! I have been working to get Portal:Nontheism in shape. I was hoping that if there were some interested people around here, I could get some help filling out the content? More than anything we need an "intro," but we also need help getting our quotes filled in. Of course, we could definitely use help getting more "Did you know?" bits, and future content for bios/articles. Hope to see you folks around! --Wolf530 (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] religioustolerance dot org

I came across over 700 links to this organization, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. The site has a ton of ads but on the other hand, it has content (and a Wikipedia article).

Normally, such an ad-intensive site with so many links gets attention at WikiProject Spam for further investigation. Even if it's not spam, many links may often get deleted as not meeting the external links guideline. I've left a note at WikiProject Spam asking others to look at some of these and see what they think.

Even some non-profit organizations will add dozens of links to Wikipedia since links in Wikipedia are heavily weighted in Google's page ranking systems. (If interested, see the article on Spamdexing for more on this).

You can see all the links by going to this this "Search web links" page. I encourage you to look at Wikipedia's external links guideline then look at the links in the articles you normally watch. Also, if you don't mind, please also weigh in at WikiProject Spam with your opinions. If you see links to pages that you don't think add additional value beyond the content already in an article, feel free to delete them, but please don't go mindlessly deleting dozens of links. (Per WP:EL, links that don't add additional value should be deleted but that doesn't necessarily mean they're "spam").

Thanks for your help and for providing some second opinions. --A. B. 17:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

I added the question "Will you also help prevent atheism-based censorship throughout Wikipedia?" Which was deleted without discussion. Hmm... To be more specific. Atheistic articles (like Richard Dawkins, Russell's Teapot) appear to be protected by a group of atheist editors whose response to any material the appears to be critical of their positions is to delete it. Is Atheism really such a weak creed that it has to supress any criticism? NBeale 00:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly just a minor point regarding WP:No Personal Attacks: Describing editors as "atheist" is talking about the editor not about their contributions. Also, an article cannot be "atheistic" as it is an innanimate object any more than a "rock" is atheistic. It can only be interpreted by an observer as having content which is usualy associated with someone who has an atheistic viewpoint but that doesn't mean it is not neutral. There is a difference. I think you need to be clear if the articles mentioned are not neutral as opposed to your opinion on the actual content. Many articles related to the scientific theory of evolution are vandalised and I'm guessing anyone here thanks you when you correct this. Many watch for vandalism (including bots) and it is best to WP:Assume good faith with any reverts on the part of these editors. If you find any censorship of pages e.g. blanking or other styles of vandalism like innapropriate tags then you can revert this too. If you have examples of vandalism by people then please take that up on the article talk page or with the person on their talk page. To make any more claims regarding so-called censorship you really need to be more specific with which edits else you're just making unsubstantiated accusations of poor faith edits. Ttiotsw 01:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balancing ordinals used Argumentum ad numerum on faith pages.

The issue is that ordinals get used when comparing religions (as in my religion is bigger than your religion - a kind of argumentum ad numerum.) As an example of use of an ordinal is in the Islam page e.g., "Islam is the second largest religion in the United Kingdom, and many other European countries, including France, which has the largest Muslim population in Western Europe.[4][5]". My argument is that the use of the ordinal second in this article is not right as it disregards the very large number of "others". It should thus be "third". If all groupings are included and not just ignored as a population, then secular groupings (see Major_religious_groups for examples), must also be included. In some countries this is a moot point but secular groupings in Europe easily outnumber all other minor non-Christian religions and to disregard this group is disregarding a significant portion of post-Enlightenment European ideas. Is it thus valid for us to tweak these ordinals if the reference cited has a non-religious grouping (whether of not the grouping is considered to be a "faith" or not by other editors or the cite). Ttiotsw 05:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Atheism_bf6f.html"