Talk:Atheism/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Comments

Adraeus You are trying to run this like a project and I dont think this is at all realistic, you could of course distribute a gant chart :) --Nick-in-South-Africa 10:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC).
Agreed. Managing an article in this way is not the wiki model, the wiki model is a much more evolutionary one. A timeframe like this is a waterfall model, which doesn't work in software, and I don't think is most effective here. Shane King 10:13, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Nick: This is a project. Adraeus 00:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Knowing the history of this article and Talk page, literally no progress in 10 months due to obstructionism of one form or another, I can see why Adraeus proposes this method. The current process in play here is a recipe for more of the same. I would support moving to this process for this instance if a majority of the other participants agree.--FeloniousMonk 18:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Shane: There is no "wiki model"; currently, our efforts are not organized and are thus ineffective at producing results. This article has suffered a failed dispute resolution, a failed attempt to acquire arbitration, and an indefinite protected status. Now is time to try something new, more professional, and more focused. By the way, research evolution because your "wiki model" is certainly not evolutionary. Also, research the waterfall model, which is consistently used in product development successfully. I should know since providing strategic branding solutions is my business. Learn about project management too. Adraeus 00:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion, looking at the edit history, that's due to people getting into edit wars (sometimes over what really amounts to next to nothing) far too often. I think the only way to counter that is to be more, not less, liberal in assuming good faith, and letting things develop wiki style. Instead of edit warring when something disagreeable to someone appears on the page, how about we take a policy of leaving it alone for a while and seeing how it plays out in the long run?
Trying to do things the way they're supposed to be done on a wiki is so crazy it just might work! ;) Shane King 23:22, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
The ignorance of the critics of this procedure is sickening. If anyone is interested in actually completing this article, please contact me. Adraeus 00:08, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Adraeus I am critical of it and I'm sorry that my 'ignorance' is 'sickening' for you :) however I don’t feel at all obliged not to disagree with you just because it may be sickening for you, so I apologize in advance for any resulting nausea.
Putting the emotional and distinctly unsavory tone aside for a moment. If you want to change the Wikipedia MO I suspect you would have a better chance motivating for this at a Meta level or possibly starting a proof of concept afresh with another article on a different topic rather than doing so on an existing article in the middle of a dispute. Your model requires a collaborative team and an appointed or de-facto co-ordinator. Such a model has been used to develop the topic of Buddhism in Wikipedia but not with the detailed Project plan approach that you propose which I think simply unrealistic. Regardless I for one would not accept you as the co-ordinator or project manager, simply because of your confrontational tone--Nick-in-South-Africa 08:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia M.O.? M.O.? What M.O.? There is no M.O. Your critique is unsubstantiated; thus, irrelevant. You believe that projects shouldn't be organized. Without organization, nothing will result from this discussion. FeloniousMonk made the problem clear, there has been literally no progress in 10 months. Now is time for a change in the way we're working. I realize that you disdain change and label anything you don't like unrealistic but let's set aside your petty grievances and finish the article collaboratively. If not, then the article will remain protected for as long as there exists dispute on this page.
By the way, tone is how you perceive it. You must have a sixth sense if you can hear my tone by reading plain text. Adraeus 08:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Adreus, I do indeed percieive your tone to be unecessarily abrassive simply because that's how it was written and as long as you keep it up I will keep pointing it out to you until you tap back and are a tad more civil in your interraction. Your tone is to me and dare I say others a barrier to communication and militates against 'good faith'. A little civility even in disagreement helps folks get along and consensus is more likely, more this is Wiki policy to which we are all subject.
Re The achievement in the last 10 Months it has simply been a blocking exercise preventing POV Theists such as Sam Spade imposing their agenda and bias on the article. Re Wiki MO you are right there is no hard and fast MO it's a development by chaos model, that is the MO! Your comment that "I realise you distain change" is a massive generalisation completely without any kind of support. As for your charge that I label anything I don’t like as "unrealistic", again your charge was a massive generalisation easy given the lie by scrolling back and reading what I've written. The unrealistic comment was simply a considered view on a specific issue and was made as such, nothing more and this view is as legitimate as yours. Please take a little more care with your debating technique specifically your use of unfounded generalisation and sweeping statements, this sort of thing is more than abrasive it’s not intellectually honest --Nick-in-South-Africa 09:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  1. No, Sam Spade has not been this article's primary troubles.
  2. This article's primary troubles are caused by those whom rely on subjective and fanciful ideas about atheism and ignore academic research.
  3. I certainly did not suppose a "massive" and "unfounded generalization" and I did not write any "intellectually dishonest and more-than-abrasive sweeping statements." Your opposition to change is readily apparent to anyone with a clear mind whom cares to look.
  4. Explain how the proposed structure for atheism's collaborative methodology is "unrealistic." Explain. EXPLAIN. If you continue to dance around your responsibility to provide evidence to support your opposition and if you continue to lecture me regarding policy and how you think I should write, I'll merely deem your opinions unworthy of my consideration. Adraeus 10:32, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  1. Iused Sam as an example, not the only case so I suspect that we are in agreement here
  2. Agreed and Id expand that to include common usage
  3. I beg to differ but I’m quite happy to drop it however feel free to cite specific examples of my ubiquitous opposition to change
  4. No I will not "EXPLAIN" futher than I have done thus far because I am not your subordinate and I do not appreciate the command imperative (this point has been made before by Jwrosenzweig) secondly the lofty tone in "I'll merely deem you opinions unworthy of my consideration" is absolutely fine by me.....feel free go for it. Myself, I reserve the right to judge each case, point and argument on it's merit and react as I see fit --Nick-in-South-Africa 11:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Explain further than you have done? You haven't explained at all. You made a quick, substanceless statement, "You are trying to run this like a project and I dont think this is at all realistic..." I replied, "This is a project." You did not explain how a process such as my proposal is unrealistic. I'll demonstrate the amibiguous style: Nick, your disagreement is faulty. Adraeus 21:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Adraeus Your confrontational, highly abrasive style has been explicitly commented on by 3 here so far, it was initially pointed out to you extremely politely by Jwrosensweig. He bent over backwards to do this in a way that gave your ego ample consideration. I started off pointing it out gently and directly after this when you carried on with the abrasive style. Now it seems you are becoming more rather than less confrontational and are seemingly letting your emotions get the better of you and upping the ante rather than gently taking on board the message and adjusting your style in subsequent messages to be a tad more considerate and civil to others. This is all of course taking us off the issue in question even though it seems on the subject matter - the definition of 'atheism' you and I are in broad agreement. I for one would much appreciate it if you were more civil in your style this would I posit greatly help in generating a productive and co-operative atmosphere. You can of course respond to this message by further upping the ante and come back 'belching fire'. Before you do please give thought if this is a good use of time or will help. If you do come back 'belching fire' as per Wikipedia policy of asking for help, by way of pre-emption I humbly request that others, even if they disagree with me on the subject matter of the description of atheism to support me here on the specific matter of Adraeus' abrasive tone. --Nick-in-South-Africa 11:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nick: I'm not going to bother commenting as I prefer not to be baited into a flame war. Good day. Adraeus 21:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There is no "standard wiki approach." Wiki is merely software that creates a medium within which users may collaborate. There is no "wiki model." Adraeus 01:36, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I believe there exists a community that use the software, not just the software itself. That community has formed policies (eg Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Be bold, Wikipedia:Three revert rule, etc) that guide how editing is to be done. Beyond that, there are also customs and conventions, although not set in stone as official policy, that are generally followed. When I say "wiki model", I mean the model in use here at wikipedia. Other wikis differ somewhat, but I thought the fact I was referring to this site was implicit - I'm sorry if it wasn't obvious, I will make

a greater effort not to assume in the future. Shane King 02:01, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

There is no "wiki model" that describes how articles should be constructed. Wikipedia leaves the responsibility to organize in the hands of users. Adraeus 08:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Instead of calling people's ignorance sickening, can we try to be constructive here? Why do you feel the procedure would be better than the standard wiki approach? Please, aim to inform us, I'd like to hear why you think this way. Shane King 01:31, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Instead of posting irrelevant and factually ignorant opinions, can you try to be constructive? Why do you feel the chaotic so-called "hit-and-run"-wiki-approach is better than an organized system designed for intense focus and efficiency? Please, aim to inform us, I'd like... well, actually, I don't care why you think this way. Practice what you preach. Adraeus 08:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Adraeus, My you really do have a notably abrasive tone! This barrier to communication aside, the chaotic hit and run approach is how Wikipedia has been built thus far and its done pretty well. I do take issue with some of the policy and aim to motivate at a Meta level. Remember most folks here are doing this for interest and fun and many valuable and knowledgeable contributors would not want to be marshaled thus. --Nick-in-South-Africa 08:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I take issue with your confrontational style. I'm not the only one asking you to tone it down here. I don't think we can make progress unless we try to build common ground rather than being in each other's face. I really don't think calling other people ignorant is helping that. As Nick states, wikipedia has worked thus far based on the chaotic model. It may seem counter intuitive, but it's worked remarkably well. I see no reason to abandon that model, in fact as I've already stated I think this page's failure to move forward is mostly due to not following the ideals closely enough.
If you think policy is wrong, I respect that: I think most of us disagree with at least some part of it. However, choosing to unilaterally take it into you own hands to change policy is not the way things are usually done: see Wikipedia:How to create policy.
Keep in mind that we're all trying to do the same thing: create a good encyclopedia article. We have our differences in opinion as to what that article might look like, but that's helpful: a good article needs those differences of opinion to become really strong. So I suggest that we assume good faith and try to work together on the article, rather than resorting to personal attacks. Shane King 09:17, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  1. Calling someone ignorant and describing someone's opinions as ignorant are different. Don't twist my words to suit your agenda.
  2. Wikimedia built the MediaWiki (Wikipedia) software using software development methodologies.
  3. Many featured articles may have been constructed without a focused method; however, many featured articles are not nearly as complex as atheism.
  4. The typical hit-and-run contributive style clearly isn't working for atheism. Again, now is time to alter the way we work in order to complete this article.
  5. Policy is irrelevant to the organizational structure I've proposed. Policy does not dictate how articles should be composed. There is no "wiki model." There is no attempt to change policy.
  6. The organizational structure I've proposed will facilitate collaboration.
  7. Again, don't twist my words to suit your agenda! I have not personally attacked you. Quite frankly, I'm tired of you claiming so. Adraeus 10:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You've told me on this very page "The ignorance of the critics of this procedure is sickening.", "After all, an argument with a believer cannot be won.", "further explanation isn't required for a rational person to comprehend.", "Perhaps you're better suited for a theistic worldview.", "I think it's unfortunate that you learned nothing in our roundabout discussions which is apparently indicative that you have faith in your misperceptions and are therefore not subject to change.", and so on. If these do not qualify as personal attacks, I have no idea what does.
But at the end of the day, there's plenty of things I'd rather be doing that talking about an article. Like editing articles and actually getting somewhere. My personal philosophy on wikipedia is that you should discuss things, but if you can't change someone's mind, just give up and let them do what they want to do. Three things can happen:
  1. They do a good job and you're pleasantly surprised,
  2. They do a bad job, in which case everyone sees it and the author loses credibility, or
  3. They tire of the idea and don't actually follow through on it, in which case it all didn't matter anyway.
So I give up and hope what you want to do manages to fit into category 1. If not, I'm confident the wikipedia process will ensure a good result is obtained in the end anyway. In any event, I wish you the best of luck, and look forward to reading whatever gets produced. Shane King 10:44, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  1. "The ignorance [of the critics] of this procedure is sickening." Hardly a personal attack unless you consider knowing that you lack basic knowledge of this procedure offensive.
  2. "After all, an argument with a believer cannot be won." True statement. Have you ever tried to convince a priest that his faith is irrational? Have you ever tried to convince Sam Spade that his opinions about atheism are incorrect and extremely theistic?
  3. "Perhaps you're better suited for a theistic worldview." Perhaps you are and perhaps you are not. A person subject to belief is subject to any belief.
  4. "Further explanation isn't required for a rational person to comprehend." True statement. I've shown our discussions and this article to many eminent philosophers, scientists and activists in the atheist community. What commonly binds them is that they agree with me.
  5. "I think it's unfortunate..." I do. I really do. If that's ad hominem, I'm St. John. Adraeus 21:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'll rejoin this debate when Adraeus leaves. He's just too abrasive for me. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 12:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What debate, Noisy? Thus far, we've achieved nothing--a neverending discussion of the same topics of weeks and months ago--ten months of riding a Merry-Go-Round. Debate? Certainly not. I proposed a process that would facilitate collaboration at the highest level of efficiency with the goal of producing a article worthy of being featured. I received brash and hasty criticism complete with factual errors and logically fallacious claims. I'm definitely not the problem. I left for a week and still nothing was accomplished. You are at a dead-end and you don't realize it yet. Now is time to turn back and try another route, not attack members of the group because you can't find a way through the granite wall in front of you. Adraeus 21:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've reset the tabs because it's really getting painful to read. Plus I haven't been here as long as other people have, so I hope that I don't get any false impressions. I will make several conclusions:

  1. What has happened is Adreus has proposed a new model for this article in order to get it out of it's stagnation. This has resulted in large amounts of objection from other members, and inflamed into an argument of it's own: Is a Waterfall Model more suitable than a Chaos Model? Both sides have produced many arguments, although:
  2. Adreus has given other members the impression that he is too abrasive. This has diluted the argument with many comments that he ought to cool down.

I believe these are the two main arguments that have stemmed in this Comments section. It's really not a comments section, it's more of an argument for Adreus's waterfall approach. What have both sides produced?

Pro-Waterfall

  • Chaos hasn't worked for this article, this is a new approach
  • Lack of organization from Chaos is main reason for failure, therefore Waterfall is the correct way to reapproach problem
  • Waterfall has worked in many external environments
  • Main reason for opposition is resistance to change

Pro-Chaos

  • Chaos actually will work if we let it run long enough.
  • Main problem is the POV Theists, not organization
  • Chaos has worked for rest of Wikipedia (including other controversial topics), so why not here?
  • Follow Wikipedia MO guidelines

And one Pro-Chaos reason that really isn't a reason, Adreus is too abrasive. Such a recurring theme. I think everyone is too abrasive, but I'm not going to say that because then I'd get flamed or something.

I think we're arguing about the wrong things. Both sides agree that the indefinite block is unacceptable. Adreus has presented us a way to unblock Atheism and get it working again. If this proposal is unacceptable, then let us find another proposal: Unblock Atheism and let it run its natural course. Do not argue against Adreus' proposal, argue for your proposal.

I am so going to get flamed for this attempt at diplomacy. Oh well. :-) Have a nice day. Ambush Commander 20:22, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are many "models" for the evolution of wiki articles and for the resolution of a dispute.
However, the "model" of this article seems to be that one person (Adreus) and a sysop have combined, using the sysop's power to mark the article as "protected", to take control of an article, and to dictate the terms on which the article will evolve.
The freeze needs to come off immediately, and the procedures for editing this article need to revert to Wikipedia norms. Who is the article being "protected" from? BM 14:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The most recent protection comes of a dispute on whether or not a "Controversial" header versus an "Attention" and "POV + Factuality Dispute" header was appropriate (basically a petty revert war). Somehow, I don't think that was the real dispute. I'm looking into the other page changes right now. Ambush Commander 18:33, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
If you're going to speak ill of me, at least spell my username correctly!! By the way, the article was being protected from the POV Warriors. Looks like I'll have to come back now to defend the article from the likes of Sam Spade. Adraeus 15:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Implicit Atheism

I just noticed that some asshole had deleted the title of a comment section that I started earlier on this talk page called "Implicit Atheism." I'm assuming that person's POV conflicted with the term implicit atheism and he/she wanted to remove it from the table of contents so that people wouldn't notice it. Being that there is a large new thread on babies without a single mention of the term "implicit atheism," I'm a bit peeved.

It was deleted by somebody with IP address "198.54.202.115". Here is the diff of the vandalism: [1]

Allowing editing by folks not signed on makes this sort of thing rather inevitable, given the amount of vandalism I think this policy should be re-considered and only signed on users allowed to make edits--Nick-in-South-Africa 07:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It was you wasn't it Nick! The IP address traces back to a South African ISP ([2]). Also, many of the edits done by "198.54.202.115" were edits on stuff that you had already signed: [3] [4] [5] [6] Plus here is one edit by "198.54.202.115" with your name signed in the edit: [7]. Why did you do that? UVwarning 03:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Im not sure if or what I am being accused of but let me make clear My name is not, I dont know the fellow. My name really is Nick, yes I am really in South Africa, no I do not vandalise articles, as it happens I agree with the etymological broad encompassing the weak/ passive definition of the term 'atheism' everything I've written is consistent with that.--Nick-in-South-Africa 09:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The somebody is [[]], kind enough to author a vanity page on WP which links to his website. Try a traceroute. ([[]])

[8] Is pretty conclusive evidence. (20040302 11:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Not conclusive but compelling. If I did do this it was by accident and I have no idea of how it occurred, no content was removed only a title and if anything this mitigates against my position which should tend to support the fact that there was no ill will. The reason it is not conclusive is that I do have a dynamically allocated IP address so it will tend to be different every time I bounce my DSL modem and somebody else could have picked up the same IP address at the same exchange. I don’t know how Roy Blumenthal was dragged into this, that most certainly is not me.--Nick-in-South-Africa 17:38, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
20040302 thought that it was b/c someone with your IP edited the wikipedia article on (Most likely you). I have no reason to believe that you removed the implicit atheism title on purpose. You have shown no motivation for that, so it seems reasonable to assume that it was an accident. No hard feelings. In the future I would suggest posting only while logged on. That would help avoid confusions like these. UVwarning 18:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I didnt kwow existed and most definitely hadnt visited the Wiki Article on him. I suspect that this was as a result of the dynamic IP address thing, he is probably on the same exchange as he is so Geographically close. I agree that I should only post when signed on, I pretty much always do this, only when Ive been timed out without realising it does this go astray sometimes. Also I suggest jumping to conclussions and throwing words like 'asshole' around too hastily is similarly perhaps not the best policy. Sure no hard feelings. --Nick-in-South-Africa 18:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You're right. I was upset obviously, but that was perhaps not the best policy. My appologies. UVwarning 19:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here is the important info copied (this is from alt.atheism FAQ):

Notes:*On Weak Atheism
"This is often understood as simply lacking the belief in the existence of gods. But it is different from implicit atheism in the respect that the weak atheist calls him- or herself an atheist. The weak atheist does have an attitude towards theism, namely a sceptical one: he or she questions the validity and possibility of theistic claims."

Various types of atheism.

  • Atheist: one who lacks belief in the existence of gods
  1. Implicit atheist: one who hasn't heard of theism
  2. Explicit atheist: one who knows that he is an atheist
    1. Weak (or negative) atheist: one who is sceptical about the belief in gods.
    2. Strong (or positive) atheist: one who actively rejects the existence of gods. UVwarning 00:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not all people who would fall into the "explicit atheist" category necessarily identify as atheists. -Sean Curtin 04:07, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
That's an important point, plenty of folks who fall within the well supported broad definition of negative or weak atheism would avidly deny this and would not choose to use the term to describe themselves. This is a common phenomenon the fact that an individual does not like a term does not of itself mean it is not an accurate and appropriate term. If the definition can be supported (and the broad definition of atheism has been well supported in these here parts) and one falls within the ambit of that definition then it is applicable whether one likes it or not. Plenty who describe themselves as agnostic and pointedly avoid using the term atheist to self describe are in fact weak atheists, hell plenty of self declared agnostics make it as strong or positive atheists. --Nick-in-South-Africa 10:57, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Is there a difference between implicit atheism and agnosticism? Sextus 22:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes. Agnosticism is a positive assertion, whereas implicit atheism is an absence of a particular belief. In fact, agnosticism isn't even on the same axis as atheism/theism. Whereas "atheism" and "theism" describe the presence or absence of the belief in the existence of gods, "agnosticism" is a completely different subject (i.e. whether it's possible to know). --Yath 22:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Carvaka and Jainism Atheistic?

I wanted to add one point. The major school of atheism that existed in India was Carvaka. Contemporary atheistic religion in India is Jainism, which however affirms an ethical code even though it denies the existence of God. I wanted to add Carvaka to the atheism page but I see the page is protected from editing. Raj2004

We're currently dealing with a dispute, but will add in Carvaka when we solve it. Thanks for the suggestion. Andre (talk) 14:39, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
I have been discussing this on my talk page, and would point out here as well that Jainism is in no way atheistic. See User_talk:Sam_Spade#Carvaka. Sam [Spade] 01:56, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sam's definition of atheism is that he only accepts the positive definition despite ample evidence and the the etymology that supports the validity of the wider negative definition; this very point is under dispute. He is also is on record of stating that " I revile atheism," (User_talk:Jwrosenzweig#Anger toward God / Jesus). Given this and in the context of his failure to accept sources and his sending private an abusive and obscene e-mail to Felonious Monk directly following disagreement on this topic I think any reasonable person would accept that Sam's ability to be dispassionate on this topic is at best highly questionable--Nick-in-South-Africa 13:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC).
What bearing do your ad hominem's have on the particulars? Do you dispute my interpretation of Jainism's stance on God? Please review [9], and get a clue. Sam [Spade] 14:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Re Ad hominem, the ad hominem was specifically bringing into question your ability to be dispassionate on the topic of atheism, given your track record. An ad hominem isn't always a fallacy if the point raised is germane to the issue in question as is clear in this case. If your definition is skewed you are not best placed to make a call if something could be considered atheistic or not.
Re Jainism being athistic. This pivots on the meaning of the term atheism in the context of the Jain Dharma (teaching) if one takes the broad negative definition there is a strong argument that Jainism is indeed atheistic, much of Buddhism is the same, indeed many modern followers of Buddhism are positive atheists.
A-theism as in– without god, just like a-moral – without morals, a-symmetrical. without symmetry. In this vein if Jainism’s teachings have no deity it is a-theistic.
With regards Jainism the existing Wikipedia article as it currently stands details Jainism as atheistic. Perhaps you’d like to seek out and change in Wikipedia all atheistic references that square with the broad or negative definition and do not square with your narrow positive atheist view.
Personally I think with regards Jainism the case is far from clear. My personal view is I would rather hedge my bets either way rather than say "Jainism is in no Way atheistic," that’s putting it way, way too strongly. Some credible sources do rindeed egard Jainism as atheistic


  1. From the BBC [10]
  2. From the India Tourist Portal "Jainism did not spread much outside India. Instead it continued to thrive in west India and has left a large amount of architectural heritage. As it was a small minority group it followed Buddhism and Hinduism in its architectural style, but in the 11 -15th century it developed remarkably in west India. As Jainism was a religion opposing Brahmanism, it was originally atheistic religion. It is not Gods but 24 Saviours called Tirthankaras that are worshiped in the temples. It is said that the 24th and the last Tirthankara was Mahavira."[11].
  3. Burton Stein who was Professional Research associate in History at the School of Oriental and African Studies London at his death in 1996, previously holding professorships at the Universities of Hawaii and Minnosota describes Jainism as Atheistic in his work ‘A History of India’ on page 65.
I have a direct question for you Sam – why in addition to the positive definition which you accept do you not accept the myriad references and etymology that support the negative view of atheism?--Nick-in-South-Africa 17:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the matter at hand I provided enough information. Since you have no shame for your rudeness I won't continue to discuss with you however. Sam [Spade] 17:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, Specifically where have I been rude? Was that pointing out the fact that you are on record of stating that you revile atheism, that you send abusive and foul language e mails to FM following him not agreeing with your position, that you wont explain why you will not accept solid references from a number of individuals or that I take the considered view that you are incapable of being dispassionate on the topic of atheism or now that you wont yet again answer a direct question Sam
I ask again for the third time a direct question why wont you accept some of the myriad sources that cite and endorse the fact that the negative definition that squares with the etymology of atheism is in common use? Please answer the question, avoiding questions is specifically detailed as not kosher Wikipedia guidelines, you should know that --Nick-in-South-Africa 17:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That does make sense A-theism as in– without god, just like a-moral – without morals, a-symmetrical. without symmetry. In this vein if Jainism’s teachings have no deity it is a-theistic. As that, I would be willing to accept the broad definition of Atheism. Which would make me one. However, if you call me a "weak" or "negative" atheist, I will call you immature and biggoted. It is a perjurative term to call your fellow atheists weak or negative, I won't stand for it. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 04:19, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I know plenty of atheists who self-identify as "weak" (although I would say the term "skeptical" is probably a better alternative). Hell, if asked, I'd be as likely as not to call myself a weak atheist, though that does require some explanation that simply saying atheist does not. Nonetheless, I do not view the term as derogatory in the slightest. SS451
I myself am an example of such an atheist. While I agree that the label is not ideal, in that it seems likely to give rise to misleading first impressions, I know of no other term that is both as specific and as widespread as that one to describe my view. Bryan 06:17, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sunborn no slight was intended to anyone who holds passive atheistic views, including yourself if indeed you do. I'm sorry if you took it as such. The 'weak' and 'negative' does not mean the individual is 'weak' or 'negative' it is simply a qualifier on their atheism. The term 'atheist' is also when used neat seen by many as a pejorative, it is no doubt a loaded word to many. --Nick-in-South-Africa 06:49, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't care what it is meant as, it is still not very nice. It would be like Protestants calling Catholics "weak" Christians. Many probably do, however, as an insulting way. This in no way any worse than the theist explanation on the lack of belief. I will reject an form that defines any group of people less than any other, weak or otherwise. You insult me by your definition just as the theists perjure you. --The Sunborn
Sunborn me thinks you are, dare I say taking untoward umbrage and seeing slight where there is none whatsoever. No pejorative is implied by the term 'weak atheism', firstly I for one did not use it to describe you either directly or by implication, the attachement to it is yours and yours alone. Secondly the term 'weak atheist' is not a term that one could reasonably describe as "less than any other," and from a value point of view I have not implied or suggested or nor do I tacitly hold the view that the term "Strong Atheist" has any more intrinsic value or merit than the term "passive" or "weak" atheist. The term pertains to the respective views on atheism, it is a techical term and is in no way a value judgement. I humbly suggest that you are getting hung up on the terms 'weak' and 'strong' based upon their day to day usage and imposing on yourself a completely unnecessary Equivocation. Please Sunborn understand that I am in no way having a dig at you or those who hold your views either directly or implicitly .--Nick-in-South-Africa 20:16, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Jewish Views on Atheism

A link which should be cited, IMO (but I can't add it as the page is protected):

It has statistics for percentages of people who identify as members of various religions but also identify as not believing in a god. --L33tminion | (talk)

This section is innaccurate, see amalek. Sam [Spade] 12:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, it's pretty accurate, at least as far as Jews are concerned. Orthodox Jews (those who are described in amalek) are a minority among Jews in general - there are far more Reform and Conservative Jews, and many many of those are also atheists. I'm one, in fact. Andre (talk) 20:48, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
I cant say I know that much of Judaism other than it is one of the 4 best known 'brands' of monotheism along with hundreds of sects of Christianity, 2 major sects of Islam and of course Sikhism. It is my observation that there it is particularly noticeable that in the real World Judaism seems to be as much about cultural identity as religious dogma. There seems to be a phenomenon of the atheistic Jew or secular cultural Jew (for those that find the Word atheist hard to swallow). That is to say those born of Jewish parents who still identify culturally with the Jewish Diaspora, indeed I understand that Israel - created as a Jewish state, has a higher proportion of atheists than most courtiers (but I don’t have the numbers to hand). I could discuss why this ‘culturally Jewish but atheist’ phenomenon is so noticable, but this is not a discussion board......On the point visa vis atheism it thus seems reasonable to include a section on Jewish atheism and I for one wouldn’t resist it.--Nick-in-South-Africa 17:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

An atheist Jew makes no sense, if you ascribe to the concept that Judaism is a religion, and not a race. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

False dichotomy. There is a Jewish culture (or rather cultures) and there is arguably a Jewish ethnicity. There is also the theory that Jews, at least those of European origin, are a "people-class". AndyL 21:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Out of those I accept only "ethnicity", which is very different from religion, and would be in sharp contrast to the views of many on this subject, who insist that Judaism is a religion alone. I take no stand, I only point out the contradiction of a common opinion, that Judaism is a religion only, not a race or ethnicity. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 22:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You'reSomeone's wrong, Sam. Just plain wrong. There are many who define themselves as Jewish culturally and atheists religiously; I'm one of them. Jews have their own cuisine, language, customs, and traditions. I was born of Jewish parents; I light the menorah every Chanukah; I eat knishes, challah, latkes, and kugels; I can read Hebrew and I know some words of Yiddish (though my grandmother is more fluent); I was Bar Mitzvahed; I wear a yarmulke for special occasions; and I intend to get married and have a Jewish wedding when the time is right. How can you say that Jewish atheists can't exist? Would you somehow try to contend that I am not Jewish? I refer you to Reconstructionist Judaism and/or Reform Judaism (though I haven't checked out these articles for POV). Andre (talk) 15:42, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
I repeat I take no stand. I was merely iterating a POV I have often heard. I ment no offense, and don't intend to personally take a stand on the subject, other than clarifying a common POV. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 16:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Mea culpa. The point is, whoever's POV it is, it's completely incorrect and should not be present in any articles. Judaism is a religion, a culture, and an ethnicity. Andre (talk) 21:45, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, let's find some evidence for the prevalance of this POV and then write a section of the article that discusses this POV and why it is wrong or right or neither. Okay?????? Ambush Commander 21:45, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
That would probably be better on the Jew or Judaism articles. Indeed I assume such content is already there. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From Category:Atheism

The following was added to Category:Atheism by user:152.228.2.129 rather than to this protected page.

Two related articles by an atheist growing up Christian: Hope is the Bait http://www.textfiles.com/occult/notcrst1.txt

Fear is the Trap http://www.textfiles.com/occult/notcrst2.txt

Sean Curtin 04:59, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the relevance of this lot to the article? That aside, they are particularly bad links to showcase as the font is really difficult to read.--Nick-in-South-Africa 16:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not really relevant, but I'd rather leave the link in a talk page than yank it completely. -Sean Curtin 02:06, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, after we get this dispute resolved, we'll probably have to change the short definition accompanying atheism on the Category page. Ambush Commander 20:33, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Or perhaps you'll finially accept that is a correct summary, and place it on this article as well. That would be much better. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sam an assertion does not an argument make, especially given the backdrop of the content of these talk pages--Nick-in-South-Africa 11:36, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That too. Ambush Commander 15:23, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Language in society isn't defined by a single person or even just a small group of people, the language representative of the entire society and how they use the word. Even if a group of people feel that a word is using incorrectly, if it generally accepted, then it is the language. In Atheism's case, there are so many usages of the word that we have to go over all of them. Ambush Commander 00:43, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

That is correct. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 20:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wrong. We only need to cover the major definitions. If we needed to cover every fringe definition of "atheism," Spade's existence here would be purposeful; however, we do not. Adraeus 15:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wait, I'm confused. What views dows Sam Spade have? Ambush Commander 18:34, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
That atheists are evil manipulative thugs trying to impose their will on Wikipedia and corrupt the minds of sane God-fearing men. Don't believe me? Check the history and the comments he left on other editors' namespaces. Adraeus 15:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Short Definition versus Long Definition

After looking at the page history, I realized that one of the primary disputes was which definition was more appropriate, the short, one sentence one, or the long paragraph one. Let's compromise.

Atheism' is the condition of lacking theistic belief.

However, Add longer definition here, going over all the extra things. Ambush Commander 18:37, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

And just what is this "longer definition"? I reject modification of the single-lined and generally applicable definition of atheism as a condition of being. A "longer definition" is located below it which further evaluates the topic with clarity. Adraeus 15:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)