Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Atheism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of Atheism.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Requests: Gay Atheists League of America;

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism page.
Archives: 1, 2
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Category:The Great American God Out

A new user has created this article / category. I am wondering if the article portion is worth salvaging? --George100 (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated the category for deletion, on the basis of it containing only a single article. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 10. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What to believe

<removed>

I have re-inserted this inadvertently amusing piece, not because of any intrinsic merit beyond the ability to misquote Einstein, but because Wikipedia is not censored. Larklight (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
While Wikipedia isn't a sopabox, this is a ban on adding content such as the above (and more expressly, banning its addition to article pages. While it justifies removing any overt flaxing from articles (and indeed anything not in line with NPOV), it does not justify or allow its removal from talk pages. Please do not remove it again Larklight (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


I haven't overlooked any of it. But no-where does it allow you to remove content from talk pages. In good faith I'm going to avoid revetring this time, but if you can't find a section of policy which allows you to remove content from talk pages, I will. Not feeding the trolls means ignoring them, not blanking themLarklight (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:DENY, which admittedly is only an essay, might be seen as applying. John Carter (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
That discusses ignoring vandalism, and is mainly refering to article pages. Unless you (or Geroge100) can come up with a reference justifing the removal of other editors content from talk pages, I will have no hoice byut to continue to revert you. On this matter you need specific justification- general things that vandalism is bad is not enough. Additionally, you are giving far more attention to trolls than I am- I would simply ignore, and possibly leave a message on their talkpage (if it wasn't already fulll of them, I'm uncertain as to what to do at that stage) Larklight (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Hesen re-insereted Larklight (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Talk pages are meant to discuss their articles. In this case, this talk page is here in order to discuss the Wikiproject, and only that. Wikipedia is not a forum\message board, and these talk pages are no place to preach or discuss topics in such a manner. The above remarks should be removed, not on the grounds of censorship or anything like that, but solely because it is not relevant to the Wikiproject. — Kieff | Talk 18:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, for the love of God -- pardon the expression -- I've provided TWO: namely WP:SOAP and the honking big notice at the top of this very page, which reads, "This is not a forum for general discussion of Atheism. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to the suggestions on how to improve the content of this article." I could throw in number three Do Not Feed the Trolls -- toss in a fourth -- namely the track record of the single-purpose account who added this here and anywhere else he could. Finally, there is a fifth reason you've overlooked when you adopted your air of moral superiority about trolls, namely that you don't ignore trolls by NOT reverting them nor by giving them a platform: you've forgotten that all-important first step from the "Revert Block Ignore". --Calton | Talk 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Appologies- you are indeed right, as the message on the top of the page shows. Removal is entirely justifiable, but only after making reference to that, the only section to justify removal- which you hadn't preveously.Larklight (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism a WP:Atheism page

Why? Buddhism can be nontheistic - but that doesn't mean that it is completely atheistic. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, Buddhists can be either theist or atheist. The atheistic segments would qualify it for this project, IMO. Aleta (Sing) 18:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The articles relating to atheistic Buddhism would clearly fall within the scope of this project, given their atheistic content. But, I guess in general, except for those articles, it probably wouldn't be particularly useful to tag Buddhism articles with the Atheism project, as their content wouldn't necessarily relate to the subject. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2 WikiProject Tags

As there are 2 wikiproject tags, I figured it would be best to use one that is most developed and most widely used. Any objections on me adding a notice on the wiki template Template:Wpa2 (with out the class parameter) saying to use the other wiki template Template:Wpa? The former one conveniently had only 2 articles tagged by it and I already changed them to the newer version so adding the noticeboard wont cause any problems I think? If there are any objections, please feel free to revert. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't see that the other even links anywhere. Feel free to turn it into a redirect, if you want. John Carter (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If it's not at all in use, should we just delete it? Aleta (Sing) 18:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religious stance: Atheist?

The Francis Crick article says (in the infobox) "Religious stance None". Someone edited it to say "Religious stance Atheist". I reverted that, but now I'm wondering. Is there a consensus on this? --RenniePet (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The article says he described himself as an agnostic leaning toward atheism, so I would guess agnostic would probably be the best term to use here. John Carter (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, my question was a more principle one: Is it OK to call Atheism a "religious stance"? We object to people calling Atheism a religion.
Adding to the confusion is that the infobox template says "religion =", not "religious_stance =", even though it generates the text "religious stance". --RenniePet (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I would say that, if relevant, either "agnosticism" or "atheism" could be used in that box, if that information is verifiable. "Atheism" might not be the best possible input, as until recently someone called an "atheist" by one group might actually be basically an adherent of a philosophy more specifically known elsewhere, and there may be a question when an individual becomes an atheist being potentially relevant. My guess answer would still be "yes", but it might be useful to ask for input at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography page. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of atheists

Hello. I am interested in getting some different perspectives on the introduction wording and inclusion criteria for the List of atheists. These are periodically causes of some controversy, and I just want to make sure that whatever the intro and inclusion criteria are, they have the support of wider consensus. Thanks. Nick Graves (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I have some concerns

Hey gang I am not sure where to put this so here goes...

I just took a look at state atheism and was astonished. It's like the entire article is one big fundamental attribution error. The examples given are communist China, communist Soviet Union, communist North Korea, totalist Albania, etc. Yet the communism thread is overlooked and instead atheism is front and center.

Then they go on to document "persecution under communist regimes" yet the reader is lead to believe these instances of real persecution are the result of atheism. What the heck? By conflating communism and totalism with atheism the reader mistakenly is lead to believe that atheism is somehow related to totalism and communism. Linking "I do not believe in god" to "I am going to enslave you and kill you if you don't like it" is a hell of a stretch.

Atheism is nothing more than the rejection of a theism. The fact these are atheist states is a footnote to communism and/or totalism. Atheists murdering theists is not an example of atheism, it is an example of murder, or totalism, or genocide. Atheism is not a morality or code of conduct or a political belief. Atheism does not include the belief you can oppress and or muder those you do not agree with. That's totalism. It is nothing more than the rejection of theism (i.e. "I do not believe in any god(s)", or "belief in god is not for me" or even "god does not exist". Even if a government professes "we hate religion and want to kill all religionists" that would not be an example of an atheists government. It would be an example of a bunchg of assholes who don't believe in god. Atheism has no philosophy, no worldview so how can you have an atheist state? Unless of course a part of atheism includes a view of law, government, economics, justice etc.

Criticism of atheism is just as bad. They conflate atheism and totalism so the reader is lead to believe atheism caused Pol Pot to murder millions. How can that be? Atheism is not a belief that your political opponents should be murdered. Atheism does not include murdering religionists. Again, I am under the impression atheism is the rejection of theism which has nothing to do with genocide, totalism or communism or murder for that matter. The criticism of atheism article even has pornographic violence (a torture victim) to make sure the reader gets a full-on in your face biased experience of atheism. That is insulting and cheap propaganda.

At best I think state atheism and criticism of atheism are nothing more than glaring examples of an attribution error in the form of an article. At worst these two perpetuate a profound ignorance on many levels while also promoting a hideous bias that is bibically based ("atheists are bad mmmkay"). That state atheism article should be called state communism or state totalism or be deleted. The criticism of atheism should be deleted in view of there is nothing to criticize about rejecting theism, unless of course it's ok to promote bibical biases in the form of a Wiki article. The ONLY argument against atheism is bibically based and basically says those who reject god are really bad (evil) people and they will go to hell. Do we really want to promote that kind of logic and bias here is my question.

Angry Christian (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, this is not a hit-and-run bitch fest. I am seeking opinions and want to be a part of the solution if one can be found. Angry Christian (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

All of the problems you point out are justifications for improving the articles, not deleting them. State atheism as a term has a long history of use, and there are plenty of real-world examples of state atheism that ought to be covered under an article of this title. It just happens that most countries with state atheism were also communist countries. And yes, these countries did some awful things to people in the name of state atheism. That's a fact, and a legitimate area of coverage for such an article. Criticism of atheism is another legitimate subject of an article. That many of the criticisms of atheism are way off the mark does not mean that they shouldn't be covered. It's our job to present the major points of view neutrally. Such would take the form of "Many critics of atheism say that it leads to X, a claim that defenders counter by saying Y." Nick Graves (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Nick Graves. I agree with your (Angry Christian) analysis that the articles are in a sorry state, but not that the article should not exist. Arnoutf (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read just about every online dictionary I can find for a definition of atheism and none mentioned genocide, murder or brutality. I also checked the 3 book dictionaries in my home. None even mentioned genocide, murder or brutality. I also looked up the genocide and none mentioned atheism.

Furthermore, I looked could you or anyone else provide a definition of atheism that included the belief that one has the right to brutalize others or commit genocide?

The criticism of atheism 1

It's worth noting Christianity condemns atheism for no other reason than atheists reject the Christian scheme and are therefore portrayed as immoral and doomed to eternal damnation by God himself. And I can't help but note the primary "critic" of atheism is a devout Christian who makes these baseless claims:

"Christian writer Dinesh D'Souza writes that "The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth."[18] He also contends "And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a 'new man' and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist."

So his "argument is "who can deny my opinion?" Is that encyclopedic, to get a biased, partisan view that does not provide any analysis at all and instead simply conflates atheisms with atrocities against mankind. This is not a criticism of atheism it's a smear job. Garden variety character assassination. And following that sort of nonsense with an atheist rebuttal is absurd.

This kind of ignorance and conflation of atheism and crimes against humanity is exactly what i would expect from Pat Robertson, or the 700 Club, or CBN or from Ferry Falwell, so seeing this sort of propaganda at Wikidepia is a bit startling to me. The fact that there are tons of sources who will conflate atheism with all sorts of bad stuff does not mean Wikipedia should perpetuate this sort of nonsense.

The article reads like a Ben Stein movie. "Atheism = Pol Pot = genocide" yet not a single explanation for this tenuous relationship is given. All that's given is a really bad Christian writer gives his personal, snotty opinion. This is encyclopedic?

And even the title is misleading. The article does not criticize atheism at all. It criticizes brutality. And I cannot help but notice that there is no criticism of Isaac Asimov's atheist contribution to American culture, there is no criticism of Sam Harris's atheist ideas, nor do we see any criticism of Ernest Hemingway, Kurt Vonnegut, Noam Chomsky who had quite a bit to say about theism, John Leslie Mackie, where is the criticism of John Stuart Mill's contribution to philosophy? Why is there no criticism of Richard Dawkins and his atheist viewpoint in this article? And for crying out loud Albert Ellis, the grandfather of cognitive-behavioral psychology who was voted the second most influential psychologist in history is not even mentioned. Where is the criticism of his atheist model for treating treating mental health issues? This is why I am saying the article is nothing more than anti-atheism propaganda. You might as well have a Criticism of Judaism article and do nothing but quote Adolph Hitler (and call that encyclopedic).

And it's most difficult to improve an article that is not even close to being encyclopedic. It's like asking someone to try and "improve" The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (the actual book, not the Wiki article). What would the point be? I think it should either be deleted or hidden until a version that is not so offensive to the senses can be drawn up. And if you're going to criticize atheism then criticize atheism and don't redefine atheism and then smear it.

Opinions? Angry Christian (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There are existing "criticism of" articles for every belief system out there, including atheism. There is no particular reason to delete just the one article relating to atheism, as you seem to be proposing. And it isn't really the place of any editor to say, as you seem to basically do above, "I don't think the article can be improved, so delete it." If we did that, I think we might have maybe 5000 articles, not 2.3 or whatever million articles. I acknowledge that the existing articles are weak, but that is not cause for their deletion. Most of the points you raised above are good ones. I would disagree to a degree about the lack of content regarding questions regarding the belief systems of individual atheists, however, because those individuals do not have any sort of "official" proponents of atheism. As there is, in effect, no "atheist" church, there are no official dogmas, policies and guidelines of that body, and as a result no such policies or guidelines of atheism as a whole which can be criticized. Criticism of Asimov's atheism is certainly not the same as Criticism of Buddhism, even though Buddhism is officially regarded as "atheistic". The only cases when atheism has ever been "officially recognized" is by the communist governments, so, in effect, those are the only instances when there has been any sort of "official" atheism to criticize. Having said that, I can and do think that the content in the articles can and should be changed. The problems arise regarding matters of WP:Undue weight and the like. Feel free to propose any changes you see fit in the articles themselves though, preferably on the talk pages of those articles, and provide links to those discussions here if you see fit. John Carter (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
John Carter, thanks for chiming in. How is atheism a "system"? Again, going by every single dictionary I have been able to find, atheism is a singular belief and not a system. And yes we agree there is no atheist bible, code, etc. which strngthens my points. And I would describe Soviet Union as a communist/marxist/stalinist governement that was also atheistic, but portraying it as an atheist state is misleading. They were anti-religion which is very distinct from atheism. And claiming Soviet Union is an "official" version of atheism is quite frankly disturbing. It ignores virtually everything they stood for in favor of blaiming it on their atheism. John Carter, can you provide a reliable (and non-partisan) source that defines atheism as a system of beliefs, or related to anti-religion? Angry Christian (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It is technically only a single belief, admittedly. However, that belief tends to be have an impact on other beliefs of the adhering individuals, often in regard to those activities which are counted as "religious virtues", so, in effect, given its carry-over into other segments of activity and belief, it is to a degree a system, although, as Buddhism falls within that scope as well, a far from homogenous one. And I did not make the statement you quoted above. I do not believe that the Soviet Union was an official version of atheism. However, it was an officially atheist body. As such, it is one of the few out there which can be discussed in a general sense regarding atheism. Should it be included in that article? Well, unless you can point toward other officially atheist bodies, it probably should be at least mentioned. Should the bulk of the existing content be there? Probably not. Should content on officially Buddhist states be included? Probably, although that would almost certainly be counted as being just as misleading in that way as mention of the Soviet Union is, and already has I think such content elsewhere. And your personal opinion, while not discounted, of what the Soviet Union was probably qualifies as a POV, which, as per that page, is not really what we go by.
Several individuals have criticized the Soviet Union on the basis of its ideological atheism and expliciting linked the Soviet Union and atheism/irreligion, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn among them, so it is a valid, recognized view as per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY. And, if, as you indicated above, atheism is to be counted only as a single belief in a single idea, the same could be said about Christianity as well, given the wide disagreement over time over what qualifies as "Christian".
What it seems to me you are arguing is, in effect, a minimalist view of atheism which does not particularly enhance the prospects of really writing anything about the subject, as your position seems to be to limit it to the single belief you specified. Little if anything can be said on that subject, other than "some people believe it, including Z, and others, like X, disagree."
Also, you appear to draw a line between atheism and opposition to religion. In all honesty, while I acknowledge the fact of the difference, it is a comparatively small one. How could a religious person be opposed to religion? There are clearly difficulties in trying to do so, so, in effect, the field is somewhat functionally limited to atheists, although not necessarily including all of them. And even Richard Dawkins, one of the other names you mentioned, has explicitly said religious belief is a delusion, which can be seen as being anti-religious. On that basis, differentiating atheism and anti-religious movements can be a bit difficult.
I can't know this, but what I think may have happened in the past is that, officially or unofficially, people may have either merged articles relating to different subjects or unofficially joined content on what you think are unrelated subjects in the belief that they are related. This happens a lot, particularly in content relating to religious beliefs, if any. Again, if you have specific concerns about specific articles, it's probably best to raise them on the talk pages of those individual articles, and maybe providing links to those discussions here and to any other projects which might be relevant to the articles. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
John Carter, thanks again for your well thought out reply. You said "atheism is to be counted only as a single belief in a single idea, the same could be said about Christianity" Christianity has a bible, a code of conduct, a rule set (commandments) a history, and dogma. It makes sense to criticize Christianity. There is something there to hang your hat on. Atheism lacks all these. And I hope I have never suggested we should hide the fact that the Soviet Union is atheistic, but it's atheism is not what lead it to violence against it;s own people. Stalin/Lenin murdered atheist too. They killed or imprisoned anyone who threatened their power. Not a peep of this is in either article. The reader is lead to believe that Pol Pot's atheism caused the genocide. If you take the time to actually read the Pol Pot article (which seems like a very good article FYI) it becomes clear his murderous ways were the results of a bigger politital belief system and he too murdered anyone who threatened his power or represented a threat to his objectives. John Carter, when you have time would you do me a favor and read the Pol Pot article and then look at the blub about him in the state atheism article? In most cases Pol Pots victims included religionists but not just because they believed in god. Read that article and then read what is written about him in State atheism and tell me something here does not add up. The reader is lead to believe atheism caused the genocide. As a reader this oversimplification and conflation of cause - effect is disturbing.
Also, you said "How could a religious person be opposed to religion?" Have you seen the Middle East lately? Religionists have been murdering religionists since the beginning of time. You also said "Also, you appear to draw a line between atheism and opposition to religion. In all honesty, while I acknowledge the fact of the difference, it is a comparatively small one." This is an important distinction. it is a huge difference as not all atheists hate or are opposed to religios belief yet the articles I have mentioned would lead the reader to belive otherwise. Rejecting theism does not mean being anti-religious. To say "I don't believe in any god(s) is not equal to "I hate religion" or I am against religion or theism.
The reason I have brought this to the project page is I need to know if the project codones articles like this. If it does then obviously I need to spend my efforts elsewhere. If conflating athiesm with genocide is considered encyclopedic then I'll fold my hand. But again, that is the sort of thing I expect from conservapedia and not Wikipedia. At least conservapedia uses the phrase "militant atheism" to make a distinction. Don't get me wrong, their article is mostly crap. And thought Richard Dawkins views religion as a delusion, does that mean he wants to see religion wiped off the map? Does he call for the imprisonment of religionists? Does he think belief in god should be outlawed. When I read him I get the sense he thinks religion is nonsense and that no thinking person would adopt it. I don't see him advocating genocide, or suggesting people should not be allowed to believe in gods. Angry Christian (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Angry Christian, I too was concerned about the assumption of a lot of people who seem to connect communism and totalitarianism to atheism. However, I also considered the massive amounts of effort that would be needed to separate the two... which is something I really wouldn't want to undertake. I generally tend to stay away from controversial articles, as I find the arguing and politics necessary to edit them tedious and a waste of time. The fact remains that people will connect communist atrocities with atheists, as people will connect religious atrocities (such as the crusades) with christians. It is a slippery slope when you start talking about people's motivations, intentions, and reasonings behind such atrocities, and whether or not they were "true" atheists or christians. So if I must accept the conflation of atheists with communists in order to accept the conflation of religious people with atrocities such as religious wars, abortion doctor killings, and cult suicides (which I do)... then so be it. What concerns me right now is the apparent bias of Criticism of Christianity, which gives absolutely no mention of christian atrocities, and currently reads like a christian apologetics article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spiritual Atheism

I came across Spiritual Atheism, and noticed it was new, only edited by one primary editor, and not incorporated with the existing series of articles on atheism. Just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention, in case you were unaware of it. What you do with this knowledge is now in your hands;) (crossposted to the main Atheism article) -Andrew c [talk] 15:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, a new user created Category:Criticism of atheism which had a ton of irrelevant articles in it. Things related to abortion and evolution, yet didn't mention atheism anywhere. I haven't finished going through it to clean it up, so I'd appreciate another pair of eyes.-Andrew c [talk] 15:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never dealt with category deletion before - is there any reason not to nominate this? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
As per the conversation just above this one, there is no reason to delete notable topics (or categories) simply because they were poorly maintained. Is there a category similar to Category:Criticism of atheism already, because if there isn't I think this should stay and could certainly get populated with relevant entries. I haven't looked at the other entry yet, but I wanted to weigh in on the category.PelleSmith (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
There are quite a few similar categories, actually. See the categories and articles in the Category:Criticism of religion. John Carter (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does the term 'weak atheism' push a POV?

I've been in discussion with an editor over whether the term weak atheism should be used in articles. His stance (if I've interpreted him correctly) is that use of the term constitutes a POV violation, as it tacitly asserts that the broad definition of atheism is the 'correct' one. He reasons that for a person to be described as a weak atheist, he must also be an atheist, and many people wouldn't consider weak atheists as atheists.

I disagree with him. The meaning of weak atheist isn't a straightforward combination of the meanings of weak and atheist - it's a conceptual whole that has to be learned, either from definition or from context. We see this all the time in language. Nobody objects to Christian science, despite that it's not science by any standard definition. Nobody objects to pro-life, despite that it's far more specific than its composition would suggest. The whole point of a term like weak atheism is to avoid having to take a stance on what atheism means, and while I can see that it's sometimes better to describe the stance in full rather than use a potentially unfamiliar term, I don't think there's any neutrality issue with its use.

Could anyone comment? It's gotten to the point where a third opinion would be pretty useful. Ilkali (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can give a blanket answer on this issue. So weak atheist can be used in many cases to include agnostics, for example, agnostic philosopher Anthony Kenny uses the term weak atheist (or was it negative atheist) in precisely the meaning you want here. So although Kenny has written essays like "Why I'm not an atheist" he has no problems with these composite terms. On the other hand, it really depends on the context. On biographies of people, we should go by self-identification, or only use the narrow definition that is universally accepted.
So while I don't think the term is POV-pushing as such, it is much preferable to use whatever words people use about themselves, or other authoritative people use about them. Not sure if this helps, Merzul (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, identifying people as weak atheists is a whole can of worms that I'm trying not to open right now. One step at a time, etc. The editor's position is apparently that any use of the term weak atheist (presumably outside of the article defining it) constitutes an NPOV violation, and I'm hoping to get that dispute resolved before anything else. Ilkali (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, in that case, my personal opinion is that you need not desperately avoid the term, if for example, you are paraphrasing a source that uses it. Perhaps also, when you are writing an article on a topic, where many notable experts do use the term, you can probably use it when discussing their work, arguments, or positions. I would, however, strictly refrain from introducing this term myself in any context where the sources do not use it. Much more opinions are needed on this, but mine is clearly that not all uses automatically constitute NPOV-violations. Merzul (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Ilkali misunderstood my position. I did not advocate avoiding the term altogether, though I opposed adopting the term in preference to the alternative POV that the position to which it is meant to refer is not atheism at all. In particular, I opposed applying the term weak atheist to persons who merely lack belief in deities (and are not otherwise reliably identified as atheists), as there is significant disagreement as to whether this position is a type of atheism at all. If a person calls themselves a weak atheist, then I consider that adequate for including them on the list, and use of the term to describe them is perfectly appropriate, and not POV.
Thank you, Merzul, for your input on the List of atheists talk page. Input from other members of this WikiProject is needed now more than ever, as there are many changes brewing, including a campaign for featured list status, and a possible merger with the agnostics, humanists, and other secularists lists. Nick Graves (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
"In particular, I opposed applying the term weak atheist to persons who merely lack belief in deities". That's what a weak atheist is, Nick! Any instance of weak atheist denotes people who merely lack belief in deities, because that's what the term means. It seems you want to rob it of that meaning and define it as 'a person who identifies as a weak atheist'. Ilkali (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the page of weak and strong atheism could use a lot of work, so I would personally try to avoid using the term too much. Most people, including me, do not find it particularly immediately understandable, and such statements which inhibit understanding should be avoided. If however the term is explicitly applied to people in reliable sources, or possibly as a self description, then that would be a different matter. But I would avoid the term in any other instances. Other, clearer, terms are generally available, and when they aren't perhaps a more detailed description would be useful. John Carter (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Dutch atheists

In intend to create a list of all notable Dutch atheists. The List of atheists article is way too long and yet very incomplete. That's why I want to create this list. I am Dutch myself and have access to sufficient reliable sources. I think I could list at least 100 notable dutchmen. When finished, it might look like another list of mine, List of Dutch vegetarians. My idea is to use a table with four columns: Name, Dates, Very Short Bio, Quote confirming atheism and note to reference. If anyone has a suggestion, I'd very much like to hear it. Kind Regards, Baldrick90 (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Your list of Dutch vegetarians is very nice! Have you looked at Talk:List of atheists, where discussions of layout and possible options are being considered. In the end, we don't even need to be consistent, that's the nice thing about Wikipedia. I'd much rather you give us such a nice list rather than spending years agreeing on exact technical detail, but on the other hand some discussion on that page might be useful before setting out. Nice work, Merzul (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your reaction. I have added a reaction on the topic 'what to do with the List of atheists article' (See [1]) and after thinking it through I am not sure If I'm gonna continue, at least for now. I reached the conclusion a list of atheists by nationality is problematic, so I guess I'll wait it out and see whatever consensus we may reach. Do you have an idea? Greetings, Baldrick90 (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Barnstar

I want a Wikiproject barnstar to award User:Oolon Colluphid for his enthusiastic work on the list of atheists, but we don't have one. I created something that looks like this:

The Invisible Pink Barnstar
Here is my first crude version, the image needs to be made more pink I think, but my skills with transparency effects are not that good.


Can someone help make this nicer, or are there other ideas for a WikiProject barnstar/award? Merzul (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks fine as is. I'm also pleased that you chose a reference to the original and genuine atheist deity (MPBUHNFAE), instead of this false new idol called the flying spaghetti monster. Nick Graves (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Input

If I could get some input at Talk:H._L._Mencken#Contradiction_2, it'd be much appreciated. Leaving this note as Atheism was identified as one of the Wikiprojects in the article's scope. Daniel (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox nominated

User:Hexagon1/Imagfriend, my atheist userbox, has been recently nominated for deletion. I would sincerely appreciate any input at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hexagon1/Imagfriend. Thank you, +Hexagon1 (t) 08:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)