Talk:Atheism/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Added information on atheist symbols

I couldn't find information on atheist symbols on any other wikipedia article, so I added it here. Other articles discuss individual symbols, but there was no compilation of symbols relating to atheism. I'm new to wikipedia, so hopefully I'm not offending anyone by messing with an important page. The information seems to fit here and add something to the article.by doovie 06:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the symbols do add to the article. I particularly like our good friend The Flying Spaghetti Monster! FriendlyRiverOtter 08:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the entire section. With the exception of the atom, which is specific to American Atheists, all the symbols described are actually mocking theistic symbols. This problem has been previously discussed (see the archive), and it was thought best not to mention any symbols at all. -- Scjessey 13:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you are trying to keep this article as non-confrontational as possible, but information about atheist symbology is relevant. If not in this article, then I would welcome a suggestion as to where. I have tried to wade through the archives to find the related discussion, but I can't seem to find it. The reason I added this section is because I came here specifically looking for a list of symbols that various atheist groups identify with. I found articles related to individual symbols, but no clear list of these symbols. The question should not be "are the symbols offensive to someone," but rather, "is this information relevant to a discussion of atheism." Also, a certain portion of atheist thought IS mocking theist beliefs. I am not trying to introduce POV here, just to report something.

I could write an article on atheist symbols and then link to it in the "See also" section. The only problem is that there currently is no "See also" section.by doovie 06:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You have to understand that there are no atheist symbols. There are only the symbols of certain atheist organizations, and the symbols and characters that mock theists. Atheism is not a movement or a religion, so it doesn't have the necessary "branding" that such things require. It would be a bit like having a symbol for "not being a pilot", or "not being a person who likes cheese". Any symbol for atheism would have to be negative image to represent the absence of (or the opposition to) belief. The symbols you are looking for belong on the articles for the organizations or movements they belong to. -- Scjessey 11:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Scjessey, that's ridiculous. Atheists are much more unified and motivated by their status than say, people who are not pilots. For most people, not being a pilot is not an intellectual position, and there is no social animosity towards not being a pilot. Atheism is a much more significant status than not being a pilot (significant enough to have an encyclopedia article, for instance). And also, you acknowledge yourself that there are major groups of atheists. All of this unwinds your assertion that atheists are not identified as a group. The symbols should be in the article. --JmalcolmG 17:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so my analogy doesn't work in that context. That doesn't alter the fact that there are no "atheist symbols". Any symnbols used relate to particular atheist groups, and so are only appropriate in the articles that cover those groups. There is no generic symbol for atheism, nor should there be. The symbols should not be in the article. -- Scjessey 18:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly asserting that there are no atheist symbols does not mean that there are no atheist symbols. For example, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs symbol for atheists' headstones can be found here: "Available Emblems of Belief for Placement on Government Headstones and Markers." I'd say that's a pretty clear example of an "atheist symbol," and as such should be perfectly acceptable in the article. I don't know why you'd assert that there should be no generic symbol for atheism either. The question isn't whether there should or shouldn't be one anyways, the question is whether there is one or more notable ones, and that example seems notable. -- HiEv 03:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

About two months ago, I went to a talk on evolution vs. ‘intelligent design.’ Afterwards there was a conversation between an atheist and a creationist, in which I participated a little bit, but mainly just listened to, for it was a fascinating conversation. And the Flying Spaghetti Monster did come up. I thought it was maybe something they had made up previously, or something a philosopher or critic had said on TV, similar to the invisible (and non-active!) gardener example I had read in a philosophy book years ago. I had no idea there was actually a picture of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that the whole thing had gotten so much traction! So, yeah, I learned something and I’m glad it was in our article.

Furthermore, an article like this is going to tend to be analytic, logical, left-brain. I think it’s perfectly okay to add some fun and frolic and right-brain. It makes for a fuller, richer, better article. FriendlyRiverOtter 04:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the article on antitheism is the place to mention satire and satirical symbols aimed at theism. These are part of the recent rise of antitheism activism that is beginning to be documented. _Modocc 06:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that an extensive discussion of these things is not required here - there needs to be a sentence that mentions at least the flying spag monster and the invisible purple unicorn. These are rapidly becoming places of refuge for atheists in an increasingly (for them) hostile religious world. These are organisations created by and for the use of atheists. It's a mistake to omit them. However, I can quite understand the desire to postpone such changes until the hoopla over FA and front page status dies down. Great work though - and congratulations to those who pushed the article to this degree of polish - I know how hard it is! SteveBaker 00:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I still maintain that atheist symbols do exist, and there is such a thing as an atheist movement and an atheist community. An accepted dogma is not required to form a community. All that is required is that people identify themselves as a community. I'm not trying to start an argument here. I think I'll take some time this weekend to write a real article about atheist symbology. It is a more interesting topic than I initially thought, and there is a little bit of history there. You guys can check it out and decide if it warrants a link on the main atheism article.by doovie 09:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the section on symbols to our main article. I included the qualifier "Even though many (most?) individual atheists belong to no official organizations, and even though the active organizations tend to be on the small side . . ." I hope this addresses the main issues. FriendlyRiverOtter 08:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that, of the symbols suggested, only the American Atheists logo and the Invisible Pink Unicorn (a parody of religions in general) are "atheist". The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parody related to the "Intelligent Design" movement (opposed my many who are not atheists), and the Darwin Fish is an "evolutionist" symbol (again, not specifically atheistic). --Robert Stevens 13:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No sources, poorly written, nothing in the way of detailed information (basically a list in sentence form), biased toward the last few years and the internet only, and these aren't even atheist symbols, they're parodies of religion/creationism. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-13 13:27Z

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a direct frontal attack on religion, much more so than I am comfortable with. Yeah, it may have started out as a parody of “intelligent design,” but boy, has it blossomed. It has a name (Pastafarianism), followers (Pastafarians), a gospel, a version of heaven and hell, the eight “I’d Rather You Didn’ts,” the quirky belief of pirates being good guys, and on and on. How much more do you want? And at one point, the founder is saying “If there is a god and he's intelligent, then I would guess he has a sense of humor." Now, the founder is also saying that he doesn’t have a problem with religion, but sometimes things take on a life of their own. And it certainly seems to have in this case.

And this is the whole debate. The argument from design, and the presence of a human conscience, are the two arguments that really resonate with people. The other arguments for a deity make might for interesting philosophical discussions, but I don’t really see them carrying much weight with people.

And, as far as how I’d like to see us win people over, if we can help build nonauthoritarian schools that respect the fact that students have different learning styles and paces. Do the same for work places, address the shrinking middle class in American society (and elsewhere?), channel economic growth so that it also preserves a healthy and appealing (and beautiful!) environment, build a foreign policy that is genuinely democratic and humanistic, etc, etc, then people will say, ‘Wow, those atheists are pretty practical people . . .” Yes, indeed, we certainly can be.

And about the section being poorly written, hmm? You mean it’s . . . not formal? FriendlyRiverOtter 05:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Symbols parodying religion != symbols for philosophical views against belief in God; there is a difference between organized religion and theistic belief; there is also a difference between opposing X and supporting Y. As for the rest of your rambling, this is an encyclopedia, not a blog; you're not even describing atheism - atheism has nothing to do with politics, economy, etc - you're describing your set of beliefs (which seems to simply be a series of popular catch-phrases devoid of any underlying content), one of which is atheism. You still have provided no sources, and the section lacks anything in the way of content. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-14 15:58Z

Now, besides all that, is there any area that is an area of disagreement between us?  ;)

Actually, I kind of agree with you. I’m just skimming across the surface, right? And that’s how I feel about many wiki articles, that we’re not really getting in depth on anything, that I’m not really learning anything. Now, I am kind of laying out my big three, I do kind of have in mind the advice Democrats often receive these days of responding to wedge issues in a matter-of-fact way and then bringing the conversation back to the bread-and-butter economic issues (and we atheists ought to do the same, except with a considerably broader range of practical ethical issues), and I wish non-authoritarianism was widely enough known and agreed with that it could be called a popular catch-phrase (but it just isn’t!).

What we really need is a longish quote from someone who has actually done something to make the world a better place, and is explaining the whys, wherefores, and/or hows, and perhaps only in passing says that they are not a believer in religion and/or a hypothesized God. Maybe a quote from Bertrand Russell talking about his protest of his government’s participation in the First World War. But I’m thinking of something even more practical, for in speaking out against a governmental policy, you’re never quite sure whether you’re accomplishing anything at all. So, I’m thinking of maybe someone who has directly helped the conditions of poor people, or built a progressive business, something like that.

A teenager comes to our site considering and exploring whether he or she might be an atheist. Let’s have something to offer.

An older person who used to be involved with a free thought organization is considering getting re-involved and wants to know what has been happening. Let’s have something to offer.

So, longish quotes, yes, a variety of them, and I think at least five different ones. But also some of the fun stuff, which is where I include the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But that’s not the biggest thing, and it certainly isn’t the only thing. I’d almost rather have a good Bertrand Russell quote, and he did have an absolutely delicious sense of humor. Maybe something from "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish.”

And in general, I want to see us take more chances. For example, I’ve been a member of three different free thought organizations and I’ve been vaguely disappointed with each one. If that is talked about somewhere on the web (or off the web!) that might be extremely valuable to include. It might be legitimately helpful to people who come to this site with a new or returning interest, helpful in that people could then have more realistic expectations. In that and in many other ways, more chances please.

Like so many wiki articles, it’s as if we’ve built the skeleton and connective tissue of a good screenplay, but we haven’t yet added the really good stuff. Let’s don’t merely mention that people such as Sam Harris find that religion promotes authoritarianism. Let’s include a juicy quote. Or two, or three! FriendlyRiverOtter 09:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not an advocacy forum. Atheism by itself has nothing to do with politics, and trying to say what "we atheists" collectively believe about anything but the existence of a higher power doesn't make any sense. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-27 12:53Z

I'm sorry, but there is a world of difference between atheism (which the article is about) and antitheism (which is what Sam Harris is about). All the "juicy" stuff is better suited to Criticism of religion, if anywhere at all. Too many articles of this nature suffer from a sort of "scope creep" where the addition of extra material actually weakens the article. -- Scjessey 12:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Antitheism is distinct from atheism. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

To me, antitheism is just a terrible name, clumsy, clunky, directly negative. I’m going to go with my gut on this one, and my gut tells me to stick with the term ‘Atheism,’ which also has the advantage of having a nice long history.

Now, I do agree with Brian that “we atheists” do not collectively believe anything. And I also agree with Scjessey that “scope creep” is a risk. However, I think it’s a risk worth running and I would like to see our article include a variety of views from a variety of different atheists!

The only limitation I see is that our article must be downloadable for people with slow speed. That is, they get the text pretty quick, and they get the photos one by one, and as long as they can see visible progress being made that’s acceptable.

And, regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster, just like we can argue philosophically that the “first cause” argument does not necessarily lead to a deity, well, Flying Spag is just another kind of argument, instead of a step-by-step logical argument, it's more of a story argument, or a whole picture conceptual argument (a right brain argument, if you will) taking the position--showing the position!--that religion is ridiculous. FriendlyRiverOtter 05:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I found a symbol and an explanation of its symbolism, that seems to represent the views of atheists of most kinds:

The American Atheists Symbol

The same symbol is the only one allowed on American government headstones if one wants an atheistic symbol. It is number 16 on their official list:

Available Emblems of Belief for Placement on Government Headstones and Markers

Should we mention and show a picture of this symbol, and add the two references I mentioned in this comment, to the article? Tommy 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This symbol is too American-centric, and only represents one particularly-organized, secular-ideals-promoting form of atheism. I suspect the reason that the government uses this symbol is because there is nothing better, they'd prefer to have something unified, and they don't want to be accused of discriminating. johnpseudo 02:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the adoption of that symbol as an option was almost certainly made only in response to a direct petition from the American Atheists organization.--Pharos 06:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins has recently started The Out Campaign, and there is a red letter "A" symbol that seems to represent it. Do you think the campaign, and the symbol, warrant inclusion? Talkie Toaster 13:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The symbol for the IPU deserves special note. Not too many atheistic symbols have people using them for tattoos!

HavenBastion 07:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

creator god

If one reads the tipitaka, one would see that all gods in Buddhism are actually personal. But none are a creator god such as Allah or christian god-concept. THe following is a book written by a buddhist monk on this issue: Buddhism and the God-idea. Of course there are people who say tht Buddhism says there are no gods. You have to go to the traditions though, to see what Buddhism teaches. Not to individual western atheists. Greetings, Sacca 08:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to echo Sacca's concern (I just attempted to tweak the language in the intro)- the "atheistic" character of Buddhism tends to be over-depicted in the West, often by Westerners who are fans of Buddhism but would prefer to sweep it's "supernatural" features under the rug. Gods with fully developed personalities abound in the Pali Canon (which features some of the best candidates for the title of 'earliest Buddhist scripture'), and a wide variety of deities and spirits abound in popular Buddhist practice, including the deities of the Vedic pantheon (Indra, Brahma, etc.), various Vajrayana tutelary and protective deities (Tara, Dorje Drakden, etc.), and a variety of others. So while the introduction is correct to note that Buddhism is sometimes characterized as atheistic, that characterization typically is either using atheistic in a narrower form (as in, deities are not the ultimate goal of the religion, regardless of statements regarding their existence) or is depicting a subset of Buddhist belief and practice as representative of its entirety. --Clay Collier 12:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted that last edit because it completely changes the meaning of the sentence. Buddhism is being used an example only, so the altered version "breaks" the definition. If the use of Buddhism as an example is incorrect, it needs to be replaced with an alternative example. -- Scjessey 12:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that may be best- providing the qualifications necessary to make the remark about Buddhism factually correct might unduly burden the intro. There are versions or interpretations of Buddhism that don't believe in a personal deity, but to say that is true of Buddhism as a whole is an incorrect generalization. I would tend to say that Buddhism is called an atheistic religion based on the views of Buddhism embraced by the person calling it that, which, as they say, would look lousy on a billboard. The about.com citation, by the way, is built almost entirely off of a blog posting. I'm tempted to offer Philosophical Taoism as a better example, but I have very little understanding about the relationship of Taoism to the traditional Chinese pantheon. Maybe the better thing would be just to state that Buddhism and the like are sometimes called atheist, and then discuss why in a separate section --Clay Collier 12:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted 'creator' back to 'personal' a while back because I was thinking of Deism, which has also been called atheistic, but which holds that god did create the universe, although a 'personal' relationship with god is not possible/meaningful. I don't know enough about Buddhism to know if it is an appropriate example. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that either term can apply for both- Deism clearly has a creator but no god with which a personal relatioship is possible, while Buddhism includes the possibility of chatting with Indra but declines to comment on the existence of a creator. --Clay Collier 12:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Scjessey, you say, if the use of Buddhism as an example is incorrect, it needs to be replaced with an alternative example -- but it's hardly the responsibility of the Buddhist experts who are pointing out the problem here to provide the alternative example! The example is incorrect or, at least, extremely ambiguous as currently worded. I can't think of a way to phrase it that doesn't litter the sentence with "some"s -- some religions, like Buddhism, of which some sects have sometimes been identified as atheist by some outside observers -- I wouldn't want to make any stronger generalization about Buddhist beliefs (which are extremely diverse) and atheism. This is about the best I can do:

Atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, but need not be; for example, many practicioners of Buddhism might be characterized as atheistic because of a lack of belief in a personal God.

Are there any other examples of religions we might characterize as "atheist" and which might be better examples? bikeable (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, in the meantime the wrong information is still present in the introduction of this article. I think the reference to about.com should be deleted as it refers to a blog-entry. I worked a bit with Bikeable's suggestion:

: Atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, but need not be; for example, some practicioners of Buddhism might be characterized as atheistic because they do not belief in gods, which in Buddhism is not required - even though Buddhism recognizes the existence of many gods. Greetings, Sacca 11:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done. May I play with it some more?

Atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, but need not be. For example, some practicioners of Buddhism might be characterized as atheistic because they do not believe in any gods; while Buddhists in other traditions may recognize the existence of many gods.

bikeable (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that's all very well, but it would be better if it was struck out completely if it is wrong. The article is about atheism, not Buddhism. -- Scjessey 19:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

List of atheists in see also section

I added the List of atheists who support evolutionary theory back to the see also section. It is related topic. Spa toss 03:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed - article doesn't exist. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 07:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it did exist when added. The AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheists who support evolutionary theory. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 07:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

False quote

The view of theism as a political fiction dates at least as far back as Seneca, who wrote in 1st-century Rome that "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful".

Well, looks like it is a meme. Take a look here. Lantios 20:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

False quote removed. Lantios 20:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

infobox

every article is better with an infobox! anyone have any ideas for an infobox for this article? Connör ^(talk) 20:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Something like this? ornis (t) 12:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That is perfect. Im going to put that infobox in pace of the first pic. Connör ^(talk) 20:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the organization section from this infobox. It's a joke. Rational Response Squad? Sure, they get a lot of hits on YouTube, but they are minor still. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-06 14:26Z

Someone took it out. yeah, i didnt notice the organization section, i was just so happy that someone finally made an infobox for the article that i overlooked that. Connör ^(talk) 22:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit I took something of a kitchen sink, approach to making it. Aside from the orgs how's everyone like it? Should I apply it to some more articles? ornis (t) 22:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I normally hate these AdSense like templates, but this one looks very nice, perhaps this is because you have got two things right:

1. It is narrowed down to only the most relevant topics.
2. It is small enough to avoid disrupting the flow of images.

Well done! I hope it remains focused and non-intrusive. --Merzul 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Religion?

Why is Atheism marked by the WikiProject "Religion"? It's not a religion by definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.141.162 (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Because while atheism is not, itself, a religion (any more than being bald is a hair color) it does address issues of religion and religious belief. That puts it firmly within the purview of the Religion WikiProject. TechBear 13:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Atheism may not be an entire religion, just as theism is not an entire religon; however, it is a religious concept and a religious belief. In fact there are many "atheist religions" (such as Raelianism). If you don't believe a God exists, you still believe something. --RucasHost 06:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

False. Atheism is the absence of religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.26.225 (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's the absence of god-belief. There's a difference. --Knight of BAAWA 13:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed ad infinitum. Atheism is most definitely not a religion, but it is (at the very least) a philosophical point of view that takes religion into account. Personally, I consider atheism to be a "default position" for all people, and religion is something that is indoctrinated after birth. However, if religion did not exist there would be no need for the word atheism at all. -- Scjessey 13:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are many people who do not look to the roots of the word and think that atheism is a lack of religion. So while it's been discussed to death, that doesn't help those who refuse to do any research. --Knight of BAAWA 15:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

However, since religion does exist, even those versions of atheism that are not religious (which I'd argue accounts for most atheists, but that's not really important here) can be seen as a comparison to theistic religions. Therefore, atheism is relevant to the Religion WikiProject. (Not that you disagree with that – I noticed you didn't state either way whether it belonged in the project.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are right. I didn't really make my point very well, did I? Because atheism is a position with respect to religion, it absolutely belongs in the project (although not to the exclusion of other projects, of course). -- Scjessey 14:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Lets put it simply. A religion is a belief system. What do athiests believe in? Well they might not have a 'system' but they do have a belief of nothing. (e.g You believe that I'm writing this here therefore, you are a Storkianist, your system is your literacy skills) etc..... thats a rhetorical example but that's basically my point of why it is a religion. --• Storkian • 03:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

What a rotten example. Religion is far more than "just a belief system". Either way it doesn't really matter much, since your "rhetorical example" isn't a reliable source.  –  ornis⚙ 06:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

So first you define religion as a belief system - then you acknowledge that atheism isn't a belief system. Hence, not a religion by your own terms.

I don't have a belief "of nothing", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Having said that, I don't care if people want to include the article in WikiProject Religion - as the article does cover religious issues, and it doesn't affect what readers seen on the page.

Actually, now that we're on this topic, I'm more curious about the "Belief systems" template, and what people think of that being here? (Though I see this is also being discussed at Template_talk:Belief_systems). Mdwh 13:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite it not being a belief system, it is definitely of interest relative to belief systems. I think it's appropriate. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel there's a difference between what WikiProject it goes in (which is just something editors use to keep track of articles), and what we put on the main page. For example, although I'm fine with it being in WikiProject Religion, I would disagree with putting it in Category:Religion - Category:Philosophy of religion on the other hand is fine. As discussed on Template_talk:Belief_systems, a name change may be the best thing here. Mdwh 01:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I removed the following two external links without much thought! If anyone thinks they should be re-added. Please do so.

• The Demand for Religion - A study on the demographics of Atheism by Wolfgang Jagodzinski (University of Cologne) and Andrew Greeley (University of Chicago and University of Arizona).

• Why won't God heal amputees? - Secular opinion on religious miracles.

Teapotgeorge 10:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Definitely keep them out. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-11 14:54Z
• I agree. Although there are times I wish there was a place in Wikipedia to stash a bunch of links, Wikipedia policy on this seems clear. Only the most relevant external links should be kept. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Scroll bar for references

Should there be a scroll bar as shown in this edit, or should we keep the article scroll bar free.

In my opinion, there should be a scroll bar since the notes and references section is becoming a large eye sore. selfworm^Talk) 05:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this was already discussed before (check in the archives). The scroll function has many disadvantages, not the least of which is the inability to print all the refs. Aaron Bowen 15:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Raelianism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was no consensus to add raelians to the lead. ornis (t) 22:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Good day fellow rationalists!

I have added Raelianism to the article as an example of an atheist religion. I think it fits perfectly because both it's leader (Rael), it's followers, and it's critics consider it to be an "atheist religion", and there are tons of references affirming this fact (eg. Time magazine).

It's important for people to understand that there are atheist religons.

Many people make the misconception that atheism is either a religion in itself (which it is not) or that it is the complete lack of religion (which it is also not). Atheism is a belief (just like it's opposite theism), and those who believe it can follow any number of religions (or none at all as commonly assumed).

--RucasHost 07:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Your disruption, point making and soapboxing has become chronic. I suggest you stop immediately. ornis (t) 07:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The way you have been harrassing me, making false sock-puppetry accusations, trying to get my articles deleted, and reverting my edits without reason is what is "chronic". I have reported you to the admins. --RucasHost 07:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Too bad you didn't read the instructions. And who said anything about sockpuppetry? I haven't mentioned it since it was closed. If you'll remember I said I would abide by the closing admin's decision, and I have. None of that changes the fact, that you appear to be on a crusade against athesim, and that such behaviour is disruptive. As for "reverting [your] edits without reason", this is clearly untrue, as every time I've given good reason to rollback your edits, largely because, they either add nothing, violate NPOV, are blatant point making, introduce unnecessary weasel words and qualifiers, or in a couple of cases are just obviously spurious. ornis (t) 07:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead sentences have to reflect the majority view in a small space. Removing one of the worlds oldest religion/philosophies with around 250-500 million adherents and replacing that with a reference (which quotes primary sources only) to some minor sect with a weird focus on ufology that was created a few years ago and boasts just 40k members is clearly giving undue weight to a minor view. Stick it further in the article in context if you want. Ttiotsw 10:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, that's what I'll do then. I feel it's important that Raelians get the recognition they deserve. They often promote themselves as "the only atheist religion" (even though this isn't completely true) and all the Raelians I know personally seem to be free thinking rational atheists. --RucasHost 05:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That makes me doubt even more that Raelianism belong here. It Raelians are free thinkers then it's doubtful that Raelianism even qualifies as a religion. Just look at the related article Freethought to see how it's almost completely incompatible with religion. If Raelians are just one more group of athiests among many then they are even less notable. A real athiest religion would be interesting, but a free thinking group of people pretending to have a religion seems pointless. -- Lilwik 06:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if they are an atheist religion, it still doesn't address the weight issues, really with so few of them worldwide, there's no reason to mention them in this article at all, let alone in the lead. ornis (t) 06:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not exactly fair. The number of people involved is not the only measure of importance. Some people are considered important even though they are mere individuals, like Abraham Lincoln, for example. I think an athiest religion might deserve mention, if such a thing really exists, no matter how few people follow it. -- Lilwik 06:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The weight issues are key else minor views will unbalance an article. With an article you have to ask how 'x' contributes to the article subject, in this case how does "Raelianism" contribute to "Atheism". From the Raelianism article this isn't clear at all. We simply infer atheism due to claims of "no gods" but an inference does not advance the subject of atheism. For comparison, the inclusion of d'Holbach, Flew, Martin, Smith, Dawkins et al is valid because even though they are just a few, it is clear how they advance "Atheism". Show us how Raelianism advances the discussion on atheism first. Ttiotsw 08:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Raelianism but hypothetically, if it is an atheist religion, then Raelianism illustrates that a religion can be atheistic. That's something that some people would not expect and so the revelation of that fact advances people's understanding of atheism. On the other hand, I have my doubts that Raelianism should properly be called a religion, given previous comments about it. If it's not a religion then I can't see any value to this article. -- Lilwik 09:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism is a more representative example if an example is needed and it is unquestionably considered to be a religion globally. Beyond examples of atheistic religions it is unclear how Raelianism advances knowledge on defining atheism. Raëlian beliefs and practices is in the Category:Atheism but that need not mean it should be in article on Atheism. Now if Raelianism primarily promoted Atheism then it may fit somewhere but they seem to promote a mix of UFOs, cloning, nanotech, advanced alien beings, world governments and sex. I could be wrong; they may have produced screeds of stuff on Atheism - if so then find that but primarily find the secondary sources that say what you have found in the primary sources is notable material on Atheism. Ttiotsw 09:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, none of Raelianism's crazy teachings have any relevance to this article. This article isn't about Raelianism, we are just talking about using Raelianism as an example. -- Lilwik 10:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In the same that that the Lord's Resistance Army is an example of the use of the Ten Commandments ?. No, a minor view when used as an example can unbalance an article as the minor view is usually very semantically overloaded (i.e. it has baggage). The Raëlians have whole saucers of "baggage". Ttiotsw 10:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

lol. In anycase they're not what most would think of as typical either of atheism or religion. If anything they're a pretty atypical example of either position. Really it would be better to stick to "..some varieties of buddhism.." or similar, rather than citing an evergrowing list of potentially atheistic religions. ornis (t) 11:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Raelianism does not belong in this article. Its so-called "atheism" is only a matter of definition. Raelians believe, based on faith, that their living leader has had contacts with dead leaders of extant religions. The creator(s) of the world is referred to as an "extraterrestrials" rather than a god. Rather than using "magic" the "superior being" created the world with "science." Any faith-based cosmological explanations rooted in religion/beliefs/legends belongs to the realm of "religion" and is a far removed from rationalism as flat-earthers. Raelians can try to convince the public that their gods are not gods, but superior beings that created the world; however, superior beings that create worlds are still gods. It's merely twisting of words and perversion of definitions. I strongly recommend that Raelianism is not mentioned in this article. DrippingGoofball 01:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you may be failing to be objective in your analysis of this issue. Please don't take offense at that, it can be very hard to remain objective even for the best editors. In this case, I think you are equating atheism with rationalism. Just because theism is irrational does not mean that atheism must be rational. It is perfectly possible to be an atheist and be crazy. In this case, space aliens are not gods no matter how much they are worshipped. They are physical beings which one could put onto a autopsy table and cut apart, very much unlike gods. Atheism is a very acceptable belief for people who believe in space aliens, no matter how irrational they are. So rationalism is not important in this article. -- Lilwik 04:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

this whole topic of "atheist religions" should be treated at nontheism, since we already have that article. "nontheism" is a term specifically coined to include more "mellow" positions that are not theist. Raelianism can get a brief note there (not in the lead, of course). --dab (𒁳) 12:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooh... are you suggesting chopping out the sentence all together? I'd certainly support that, if there's consensus to do so. ornis (t) 12:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, remove the sentence. --Statsone 17:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

alright with me, but nontheism should remain linked from the lead as long it is a separate article. Since it is mostly discussing the term itself, I am doubtful it it should really remain separate, but there is nothing wrong with that as long as atheism and nontheism prominently link one another. dab (𒁳) 17:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove the sentence, for it is valid and very relevant to atheism. Irreligion and atheism differ and this should be pointed out. Views on theism can differ substantially from the many views on our natural laws. Modocc 20:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Raelians are a very small cult that have embraced ridiculously untenable beliefs. Even if they are considered atheists by theists, there is nothing notable about them or their delusions that warrant inclusion. Modocc 02:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Their particular delusions or the size of their group has nothing to do with this. There is never going to be a detailed list of their beliefs in this article, so we can ignore what they believe or don't believe, except for the one interesting thing: They are vaguely religious people who believe that gods don't exist. They might not be notable in general, but in an article about atheism they are very relevant just for being what they are. -- Lilwik 02:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Their beliefs and notability do matter. First, we already mention notable religious groups. Second, we will have to disagree with respect to the validity of the Raelian aliens are not gods proposition. The Raelian aliens have inexplicable powers. Gods and demigods usually do. Modocc 03:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Aliens vs. Gods

I have to agree with DrippingGoofball above. What the Raelians practice is a religion, simply couched in the terms of aliens instead of gods. At best, it can be called a nontheistic religion, but it's not atheism. They place all their faith in these alien beings and assume dogma from the "communications" their leader recieves. -- Kesh 01:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you must be wrong about that. Raelianism seems pretty clearly to be atheistic. Aliens are not gods, but Raelians seem to pretty clearly have put aliens in the place of gods so that you can't have both. I find it very unlikely that any Raelian would not be an atheist. Don't we have references where Raelians claim to have an atheistic religion? What more do we need to prove that they are atheists? -- Lilwik 02:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As you said yourself, they simply replace "god" with "alien." They may be a non-theistic religion, but they're not atheistic since they do practice their faith in reverence to these beings. At most, they might deserve one or two lines about how they claim to be "an atheistic religion," but they don't really fit the definition of atheists. If I worshipped my left foot while claiming gods don't exist, it wouldn't make my faith atheistic: I've just traded the word "god" for the words "my left foot." -- Kesh 02:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to suggest that you haven't read this article, but atheism is about gods, not feet or space aliens. If you believe that gods don't exist and you worship your foot, then you are a crazy atheist, but still an atheist. Anyone who believes that gods don't exist is an atheist by definition, no matter what else they believe or don't believe or how religious they are. I hate to think where this article might go if we haven't even got that clear! -- Lilwik 02:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. While the blunt definition of atheism is "without gods," modern atheism denies the supernatural entirely. That's because, like you said, to the Raelianists the "aliens" are just a substitute for "gods." They're the same thing. It's a supernatural being given attribution for our existence and the way the world works. All they've done is give their gods a new paint job and said that they don't believe in other gods. While they may call themselves atheists, they still worship gods, which pretty much disqualifies them right out the gate. -- Kesh 04:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So now there is a serious suggestion that space aliens might be gods? They have inexplicable powers, but they are living, mortal lifeforms that reside somewhere in space. Given a spaceship with enough power, you could even go have a conversation with a space alien. If you took a gun with you, you could kill one. Space aliens are not gods, and atheism is not belief that space aliens do not exist. -- Lilwik 04:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying that space aliens and gods are the same is like saying vampires and werewolves are the same, except the distinction is less subtle. -- Lilwik 05:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

They're both exactly the same in the most crucial manner: they cannot be shown to exist. Further, your "kill a god" point is moot, as many traditional religions involved gods being killed (either by other gods or by mortal beings). Let's face it, there is no discernible difference between what the Raelians call "aliens" and what another religion would call their "gods." -- Kesh 18:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You may think that believing in things that don't exist is silly, but don't let that bias effect your judgement in editing this article! Atheism isn't a club for people who think clearly; it's a club for people who don't believe in gods. Whether they actually exist or not is completely irrelevant. It's a fact that gods and space aliens are very different things and I think if you look at this objectively you'll see that. -- Lilwik 22:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) I never called their beliefs "silly," nor implied such. And I am remaining objective. Please do not let whatever you imagine are my beliefs to color your own view of my comments.

It is not a "fact" that gods and Raelian aliens are very different. As the Raelians paint them, they're effectively the same: great powerful beings that created us and seek to guide us towards their own purpose. They cannot be shown to exist. They are proxy-gods. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Just because they call their gods "aliens" it doesn't make them any less gods. -- Kesh 14:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the key points to consider here are that a) they have no evidence for the existence of these aliens, b) they rely wholly on the revelations of a prophet figure, and c) they accept the existence of these putative beings as an article of faith. Arguments over matters such as whether or not these beings are mortal, are interesting and all, but don't override those three points when determining whether raelianism is really atheist or just a modern form of polytheism. ornis (t) 14:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Raelians can call them what they like; in the end WP:NPOV#Undue_weight is key....

"Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." (my italic and bold).

Compared to others in the field of Atheism in particular and religion in general, Raelians are a tiny minority. Ttiotsw 17:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

People have brought this up before, but it's totally irrelevant. You are completely misusing NPOV. The Raelian POV is never going to be in this article; that's not even being debated. No one wants that. The issue here is whether we will use Raelianism as an example of an atheist religion. The fact that they are an atheist religion is the POV of far more than just Raelians and it's not a minority view. People have made it crystal clear that Raelianism is a religion, and since they don't worship gods then it's clearly an atheist religion. (And the fact that they are crazy about their aliens like some theists are crazy about gods doesn't make them theists). -- Lilwik 20:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Many Buddhists variations make a far better example. I see no reason to mention Raelianism. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? I'd heard that the idea of the atheist Buddhist is exaggerated and that Buddhism has a significant supernatural content. Wasn't using Buddhism as an example of atheist religion debated a while ago? I agree that if we can use Buddhism and example then it's far better than Raelianism, but I worry that Buddhist atheism might be much more debatable than Raelian atheism. -- Lilwik 01:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I know there are many Buddhist atheists, but I can't say for sure that the size is not exaggerated. I would say that one can believe in the supernatural (e.g., reincarnation) without believing in a god or gods. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, but it seems that some forms of Buddhism elevate Buddhas to the status of gods. That's what I read in Buddhism#Eastern (East Asian) Buddhism. Another important article might be God in Buddhism. I'm afraid this will have to be left to people with more expertise than myself, but it looks like Buddhism might be atheistic from a certain perspective, while Raelianism is atheistic from a different perspective. They should probably both be included in the article along with a paragraph about ways that atheism can happen in religion. -- Lilwik 05:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this being debated at all? We don't decide what to label groups. We look at what reliable sources are labelling groups, and use those same labels. There's no point in any of this discussion. This isn't a message board. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-18 20:03Z

I agree. I think the issue here is that people are confusing the mention of Raelianism with the inclusion of the Raelian POV and therefore violation of NPOV. The debate serves no purpose but to clear up a minor misconception about policy for some editors. It doesn't really help the article directly, but needs to be done, I guess. -- Lilwik 20:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Don't we have references where Raelians claim to have an atheistic religion? What more do we need to prove that they are atheists?" Yes Raelians make the claim, but that is not adequate, for it is their POV. Reliable sources that are supportive of that viewpoint are needed. Even then there is likely to be some divergence of opinion. As for not believing in a single god they might qualify, however a long time ago Newsweek did take note of the divine nature of their aliens. I also don't think we need to mention every atheist organization. Modocc 00:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No one is suggesting we mention every atheist organization. The only reason anyone is suggesting that we mention these atheists is because they are religious atheists, which is a rare and notable thing. I was thinking if they call themselves atheists that should be enough to convince everyone that it is true. I mean, can someone say, "I believe that gods don't exist" and leave any doubt about being an atheist? If it's really true that we can't find enough reliable references to confirm that they are atheists, then so be it, but I seriously doubt that's the case. -- Lilwik 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There's plenty of doubt that they're atheists, because they worship gods they call aliens. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. -- Kesh 18:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"sufficiently far-fetched science-fiction is indistinguishable from religion" :o) --dab (𒁳) 20:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

there's a slippery slope here, though. On similar grounds, Maoism is a religion, simply with "God" replaced by chairman Mao, and football is a religion, simply with the pantheon replaced by the team of your choice, postmodernism is a religion, simply with gods replaced by Derrida et al., etc. --dab (𒁳) 20:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this will end the debate! -- Scjessey 20:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That Raelianism is a religion is not in dispute, I think the issue is whether it counts as atheism. If you are saying that aliens are simply a substitute for Gods, then how can it be considered non-theism? If you agree that it is non-theistic at least, then the question seems to be whether atheism simply means non-theism, or whether it means something stronger (which probably comes down to which of the three definitions we pick). Still, I think the way things are currently worded is fine - we don't explictly label Buddhism as atheistic, but we do point out that atheism is not synonymous with irreligion. Mdwh 21:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Raelism says "gods" are "really" aliens. That's really just terminology. Lots of religions say gods are "really" X. If that would make them atheistic, there would harldy be any theism left. This may not be much of an issue, but I am being flamed for "vandalism" on my talkpage by RucasHost (talk · contribs) for removing the "Raelian beliefs" article from the Atheism category. Raelism isn't about atheist thought. Rael may not care about theism, but we do not list under "Atheism" every idea that isn't concerned with God, that's silly. dab (𒁳) 06:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Does Raelism really say that gods are anything, or does it hold that gods are fictions of other religions? It's hard to tell if you are being serious or just trying to make your point. I was under the impression that Raelians don't believe in gods. There is a big difference between giving a definition of gods like Christianity does and describing something in your religion that people who want to call you a theist will later decide is god-like enough to be a god. -- Lilwik 06:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the various articles on Raëlism, especially History of Raëlism. I'd agree with dab's interpretation, considering that the alien who contacted him was "an Eloha" (plural Elohim). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see your point. So the aliens of Raelianism are supposed to be pretending to be Gods, or are creatures that other religions have confused with Gods, especially this Yahweh Elohim. And of course, Jesus is there too and all your favorite biblical figures. So they are indeed saying that God is an alien. However, they still claim to be atheists and I'm pretty sure that they are right. They are essentially saying that God is a fake in all forms that people find him in, including Buddha for those theist Buddhists. If the conquistadors had pretended to be gods with their superior weapons and the Aztecs had worshipped them, that would make the Aztecs theists, but not the Spanish, since the Spanish are in on the trick. Raelians are like the Spanish, they are the only ones in on the trick. -- Lilwik 21:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to chime in here: regardless of the details about Raelism's gods or lack thereof, I hardly think it's relevant to this article, because the group is simple too small and barely-notable to be a good example of anything. I think that it would be a violation of the spirit, at least, of undue weight to use such a fringe group as a prominent example. I don't see that they merit a mention in here at all. Just my 2 cents. bikeable (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not right at all. WP:UNDUE is about points of view, not examples. We are not introducing some strange opinion of atheism from some fringe group. Raelianism isn't a belief about atheism at all; it's a belief about men from outerspace. Therefore WP:UNDUE does not apply in letter or in spirit. If this were an article about space aliens, then there would be an issue. -- Lilwik 21:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jesus article at Wikipedia and Atheism and Christianity

The current article on Jesus states the following: "Very few modern scholars believe that all ancient texts on Jesus' life are either completely accurate or completely inaccurate.[5]" However, the current Jesus article doesn't prominently link to the Jesus myth hypothesis except through that footnoted material which most people probably will not read. Does anyone know much about the issue of the historicity of Jesus Christ and do you think the current Atheism article should have a section on the relationship between "Atheism and Christianity" or at least have a link to an article entitled Atheism and Christianity. I do know that Wikipedia does have an article on Homosexuality and Islam so there is a precedent for an article which examines the relationship between two different issues. HSLBAG 19:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

so? "Jesus myth hypothesis" is the "completely inaccurate" case, which, as you just said, is held by very few (if any) experts. More than you'll ever care to know on the historicity of Jesus is covered at historicity of Jesus. Fwiiw, the question of a historical Jesus isn't more pertinent to atheists than, say, that of a "historical Vissarion". Since current Atheism emerged in the Christian West, our History of Atheism pretty much covers "Atheism and Christianity", but I'm not saying there couldn't be such an article. --dab (𒁳) 19:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I added it to the "See Also" section of the Jesus article. I don't really feel that it belongs here. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Self described" atheists

In this article there are references to "self-described atheists." Why not just say "atheist"? I note that, for example, on the page for Christianity the phrase "self-described Christian" is not used.

I didn't want to make this change without discussion, in that there may be some subtle reason behind it that I am missing. -- Cancilla 22:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly it's because there are many people who will say they don't believe in God, but will say they aren't atheists (OTOH, there are few people who fit the definition of Christianity, whilst saying they aren't Christians). Having said that, I don't see that's really important in the contexts here, and I agree that saying "self-described atheists" seems unnecessary, and that "atheist" would be simpler. Mdwh 22:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Because atheism can be defined as simply a belief and not a "belief system", it is possible to be an atheist without describing yourself as such. Whether or not you share a lot of beliefs with the Christian belief system, however, you cannot be entirely Christian (or any other religion) unless you claim to be. johnpseudo 23:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Atheism is not a belief (except for strong atheism) it is the absence of a belief in gods. For example, newborn babies are implicit atheists because they have no concept of gods (or much else for that matter.) It would be wrong to say that babies have a belief that makes them atheists. -- HiEv 05:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

And, however technically correct it might be, it would also be wrong to list newborn babies as "atheists". Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

In something like a census, sure, for the same reason it would be wrong to call them Christians. But in other contexts it's perfectly appropriate. Ilkali 19:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not perfectly appropriate in this context. It is irrelevant. There are no Christian babies or Atheist babies. These are both views of life. A baby does not understand the question "Do you believe in God?" and therefore does not have an answer to it. This does not mean he or she is Agnostic or Atheist. It means the question is irrelevant to them and therefore their answer is the same to us. If we were to use your same viewpoint, we should also state that cows, chickens, hamsters, et cetera are Atheists. --Xer0 21:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the statement that cows, chickens, and hamsters are atheist? Because there are sources for the idea that babies are atheist. Regardless of whether you accept the implicit/explicit definitions of atheism, the term "self-described atheists" has a clearer meaning than simply referring to "atheists". johnpseudo 21:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I see those sources? --Xer0 23:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

See Atheism#Implicit_vs._explicit. Just because you think the idea of implicit atheism is silly/wrong/whatever, doesn't stop it being one of the definitions, and it should be included here along with the others. But having said that, I'm confused what point relating to the article we are now discussing - there are no lists of babies being described as atheists that I can see, so this point seems hypothetical? Mdwh 00:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Atheism can be defined in more than one way. I take the term 'atheist', when unqualified, to entail at least weak atheism. You apparently take it to entail strong atheism. Babies, cows, chickens and hamsters are (implicit) weak atheists. Ilkali 22:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What I am arguing is that mentioning the atheism of a baby (in the context of this article) is as irrelevant as mentioning the atheism of a hamster, a sequoia or a rock. --Xer0 23:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

To be a bit more clear, Atheism is a philosophical world view. Philosophy implies thinking and arriving at a conclusion. A baby cannot reach the conclusion that he or she does not believe in God. Same for a hamster. But if you want to define Atheism as simply "Anything that is not theist", then we could say that protons are Atheist. Same for hamsters. We are arguing semantics. But I think this article refers to the philosophical viewpoint of Atheism and not the meaning of the word in and of itself. --Xer0 23:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're wrong on a number of points, but since it doesn't seem to pertain to the article, I don't think it's worth discussing here. Ilkali 08:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, there are more than just two types of atheism. I'm a strong atheist—I believe there is no God or gods. Others might be weak (explicit) atheists who do not believe there is a God or gods. Yet others might be implicit atheists who haven't really considered whether there is a God or gods. However, all of these are distinguished from entities who are incapable of even understanding the question. As Xer0 states, to call an infant an atheist is to call a rock an atheist, both of which make as much sense as saying that they're currently undecided in who to vote for in the next election. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

'"To clarify, there are more than just two types of atheism"'. There's more than one axis, which is why strong and weak atheism can be complementary without representing the complete set of atheisms. So what's the necessary condition you're placing on the term? Does atheism entail sentience, or sapience, or just the capacity to believe in a deity? If the third of these, how do you define belief? Do animals have beliefs?

My point isn't that your definition is wrong, but that there's a lot of room for disagreement. Understand that words are intersubjective tools, not independent entities. Ilkali 22:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The use of "self described" is more of a dismissal than anything. Do you use "self described" when talking about christians? Why use it for Atheists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.9.72.250 (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think 'self-described' is necessarily a dismissal. The article refers to the history of the term 'atheist' and its origins as a perjorative epiphet - a term which one would use to describe others, carrying implications of which those others might or might not approve. So the phrase 'self-described' has value in distinguishing between the beliefs of those who call themselves atheists and the implications that 'atheist' may carry when used to describe others (particularly in a given historical context). I'm not sure that 'self-described' is being used that carefully here though, as it appears before the origins of the term 'atheist' are mentioned.OnlyShodan (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As a Religion

As Atheists are also strive to convert others and accept certain dogmas, et cetera, it would be fairly accurate to call Atheism a religion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Your Only Real Friend (talk • contribs) 03:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Not true. Sports teams and political parties strive to convert others and accept certain dogmas. They aren't religions and neither is Athiesm. Debivort 04:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

They do no such thing. And since a religion is a system of worship and rites with a core of tenets, and atheism has none of those, it can't be a religion. Period.--Knight of BAAWA 04:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. If anything atheist's do is trying others to reject their dogmas et cetera - atheists don't have dogmas. --MaxMaxB 11:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry is not a religion even though chemists are constantly trying to "convert" others. --Xer0 21:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? That sounds rather odd. --206.116.168.12 01:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that the definition by David Eller "atheism is the absence of belief in deities" was accurately quoted, while I haven't actually verified it. But anyway I think that the definition would be better this way: "Atheism is the belief in absence of deities." Then it would be symmetrical with this definition of theism: "The belief that gods or deities exist and interact with the universe." 130.230.31.119 01:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

See Weak and strong atheism. Ilkali 07:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Atheism in itself is not a religion, but I see what you're getting at. Atheism is not a religion, but it's a religious belief, just like its opposite theism. I am a theist, but my religion is not theism, my religion is Christianity and theism is a part of Christianity (as well as other religions like Islam, Hinduism, and Sikhism). Likewise, the religion of an atheist is not atheism, but something else (like Secular humanism), and atheism is merely a part of their religion (which could be something else like Scientology, Raelism, or Buddhism).

My point being, atheism and theism alone do no constitute an entire religon; however, both beliefs are inherently religious. --206.116.168.12 01:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The consensus would seem to be that "atheism" and "theism" are not religious, but rather epistemological positions taken on a religious issue.Naturezak 03:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Atheists believe"

If someone wants to change or reword my edit, do so, but try to keep the tone. The presentation as it was before my edit was ridiculous, implying that athiests as a class of people do not have firm beliefs and convert to god with ease. Complete nonsense, so if you change it then at least keep the tone. -124.254.82.64 7 Feb2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.82.64 (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sillyrabbit deleted it. I undid his and no doubt he will undo that again. Fine. But at least fix the implication that athiests lack conviction. That is absurd and offensive. I'm sure the religious would be equally infuriated at the presentation of such 'anonymous assertions' on their Theist articles. So do whatever the hell you want...but at least fix that assertion. It's just simply absurd and usually made as a cheap shot by religious types. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.82.64 (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get the implication that atheists lack conviction. The article presents the "no atheists in foxholes" meme, as it should. Until your edit, it did so in rather NPOV language, and then went on to give the atheist rebuttal to the challenge. Inserting blatant POV language such as "this absurd claim" does not improve the article in the interest of maintaining a neutral point of view. However, I take your point that the statement of "no atheists in foxholes" is unattributed, and will find a decent attribution. By the way, there is a Wikipedia policy against personal attacks, as you did on my talk page, and I would like to warn you not to do that again. Silly rabbit (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

come on, let's file this under WP:DFTT and move on. --dab (𒁳) 14:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not sure where you get the implication that atheists lack conviction." ----Where it said, "It is also asserted that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis" That's POV and anonymous. You don't get similar wild claims on the Theist article, about how frail the belief of theists are based on a phrase like "No athiests in foxholes" (that is absurd. no matter how you much you claim it to be POV, the phrase is NOT a fact or even credible. I could assert the same for theists, does that make it true?). The phrase "No athiests in foxholes" is nothing more than an interesting oddity that reflects on the period of it's creation. Delete my comments here once this issue is settled. I probably won't be back to monitor any changes.

---

The last anonymous edit (which I reverted) changed the text of the article to reflect that atheists have some sort of belief. As has previously been discussed, many atheists have no beliefs at all. The anonymous editor also deleted a segment on practical atheism. -- Scjessey 18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree the current (non-IP-edited) version is better, but I don't get the "self described" but. I know it's discussed a bit above, but it just seems a bit odd to me. --h2g2bob (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You should also check something else - under section Atheism, religion and morality there is a sentence Although people who self-identify as atheists are usually assumed to be irreligious, some sects within major religions have atheistic beliefs, and even reject the existence of a personal, creator deity. I tried to change that to don't have theistic beliefs but VanTucky undid my revision without an explanation. Atheists don't have any beliefs - that's the core of atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief - could anyone name a single belief (and it states "beliefs" in article!) that atheists hold? No, you can't. You could say "they believe that god does not exist" but that's not atheistic belief - that's a belief of a strong atheist and not atheists in general. So, that should be changed. Or let someone create a page "atheistic beliefs" and lists them and explains them to us! LOL --MaxMaxB 11:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's particularly confusing in that in then follows up with "and even reject the existence of a personal, creator deity." - so what are these "atheistic beliefs" being referred to, if it's something other than rejecting the existence of a personal, creator diety? Mdwh 13:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned with the misunderstanding here. Is there any sense at all in the claim that atheism isn't a belief? Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Therefore it is in fact a belief. Furthermore, Atheism is a religious belief because it is a belief about a question of religion. Nontheism is also a belief. It is a belief in the irrelevance of that same religious question (and so may be called a nonreligious belief). In all cases, one can formulate a statement in the form of a complete sentence beginning with a capital letter, and ending in a period which describes a claim about the truth of this world, and which if believed by a person, makes them an adherent of whatever -ism you are talking about. "There does not exist a real god." is the belief of an atheist. "The existence or nonexistence of god is completely irrelevant." is the belief of a nontheist. Pontiff Greg Bard 11:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That misunderstanding mainly comes from teists. It is not true that atheism in general is the belief that there is no god - quote from the article: When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism. Only strong/explicit atheists hold belief (singular, no plural) that there is no god or any kind of deity. "The existence or nonexistence of god is completely irrelevant." - that is something an agnostic (or agnostic/implicit atheist) would have said. For more information read this article: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/beliefdisbelief.htm --MaxMaxB 13:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the introduction. Atheism is either the view that Gods don't exist, or a rejection of the belief that Gods do exist, or an absence of belief. You are only talking about the former. And I think you are confusing nontheism with something like ignosticism. Nontheism is not a belief, by definition. Mdwh 13:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This is insane. Nontheism and atheism are obviously both beliefs, they are just certain kinds of belief. Please understand that it's not the absence of belief AT ALL. It is the belief in the negation of another belief. You don't have any sensible claim that it just isn't a belief at that point. That really is a big misunderstanding.

Listen, I am an atheist. I happen to believe that I know that there is no god. However, I am not so intellectually dishonest to claim that, in fact, I KNOW that there is no god. You cannot prove a negative. To make that leap is, in fact, a religious belief, to believe without proof. Nontheism doesn't have the intellectual baggage that atheism does. There is not the same negative claim. Nontheism is not a religious belief because it sets out specifically to avoid the religious question (a question which cannot be answered with certainty, and intellectual honesty at the same time) entirely.

The understanding in the article and in this section are problematic. Greg Bard 20:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying the lead is wrong where it says "When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism."?

To be clear: atheism is, in fact, the absence of belief in deities. There is no doubt about that! You understand that this necessarily means a belief (that is, the person assigns a "T" rather than an "F") to the sentence "There do not exist any deities.", correct? If you say you believe P, it does not make sense to say: Hey, I didn't say I believed not-not-P! That is the way logic and belief works. However, it is NOT accurate to call nontheism an alternate term for atheism. There is a significant distinction.

And what about the definition as a rejection of belief? We've been over this again and again in Talk - it's very unlikely you will get consensus to change the lead to only support the "strong" atheism position.

That is why I'm on this talk page. I am very concerned that people have it wrong here. For what it's worth, I have studied a substantial amout of logic, and I recently contributed the doxastic logic article. That is the subject concerned about reasonable belief.

The rejection of a belief is also a belief. That is the history of Philosophy for over 2000 years. One philosopher has a belief, later philosophers reject the belief, and a new -ism is born. Where does the idea that it just ceases to be a belief ever come from? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Claiming that atheism is not a belief will earn deserved ridicule from theists. So I am not too happy about this.

It would not be deserved, and does it really matter what would some group think if it's correct (and it is)? You've just made a logicall fallacy Argumentum ad populum --MaxMaxB 18:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Atheism is not a belief in the same way that balness is not a hairstyle. The ridicule of people with hair does not change this. TechBear 19:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(A) That is not universally true, as it depends on your definition of atheism. I am an atheist who definitely holds religious beliefs that there is no God or gods. (That it doesn't hold universally works both ways, however.) (B) It also depends on which (of many) definitions of "belief" you're referring to, as previously pointed out. Atheists are quite capable of believing that it will rain tomorrow, for example. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as an atheist myself, I would say that while atheists might hold beliefs, atheistm itself is defined more by the absense of belief than by the presence of belief. Then again, I would say that atheists are not a monolithic group, but I'm sure there are atheists who would argue that point as well. TechBear 19:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Any atheist who argued that atheists were a monolithic group would look kind of silly arguing against atheists who claimed they weren't! That we're not monolithic was exactly why I included the fact that the lack of universality works both ways. That said, it seems that some atheists shun the word "belief" even when it is used in non-religious manners (as in my previous comment about it raining). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(A) Belief that there is no God or gods definitely is not a religious belief! If it's anything, it's absence of religious belief. And then again, that makes you strong atheist - and has nothing to do with weak atheism. (B) First of all - those beliefs you mentioned are not relevant to atheism. Second - you can't name a single belief that all atheists hold. Absence of belief is not belief - you cannot disprove that. --MaxMaxB 20:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying absence of belief is belief. I'm saying belief of absence is belief. Yes, I'm a strong atheist, and I realize there's a distinction. I thought I made that point quite clear already. Perhaps I was wrong. My point is that it is possible for atheists to have religious beliefs, but not required. Additionally, I would argue it's impossible to go through life without some sort of non-religious beliefs (as in the "I believe it will rain" variety), but that's not necessarily relevant to this article—unless editors get a little carried away in censoring all uses of the word "belief". (I'm not saying that's the case here. The original edit is lost in the mists of time for me.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Belief of absence of... What? --MaxMaxB 20:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your second paragraph. You say that atheism is a religious belief, but that you don't have this religious belief - but you also say you are an athiest? I am also confused as to how you are definining nontheism - it's a belief, but not a religious belief?

Ok, your not understanding is a result of the fact that you are assuming again that atheism isn't a belief. I think I have made it clear above that it is. In that light, it it perfectly understandable that: I am an atheist. This is my belief. My atheist belief is a positive statement that THERE IS NO GOD, even though I know that we cannot prove a negative. I have no proof (even though there is plenty of justification) of this belief. Belief without proof is faith. Therefore, atheism is a religious belief. I usually refer to atheism as something we can have reasonable faith in.

Ok, you have a "positive" belief that there is no god. But you don't have a positive belief that there is god! This is what makes you an atheist - an absence of belief that there is god! You are a strong atheist. I don't have belief that there is no god - I don't understand a concept of god, it's not in my "mental universum". Therefor I don't see the point of disputing god - I can't claim that something that is not familiar to me does not exist. That makes me a weak (agnostic) atheist. So I don't see any problems. So you see - there is no beliefs that are common to all atheists - there is only one possible positive belief that is common only to strong atheists. And you also need to understand something else - you don't neceserrely say that god doesn't exist - you say that god in the way is described to you by theists does not exist. --MaxMaxB 17:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nontheism is completely reasonable. There is no positive leap (similar to abduction) involved. I would say we can have reasonable faith that god does not exist. I say we can know through reason alone that the question of the existence of god is irrelevant. Therefore, nontheism is not a religious belief.

It would be perfectly appropriate (and preferable!) for the US Congress to pass a resolution declaring the US to be a nontheist nation. However, declaring the nonexistence of god would not be the appropriate province of the congress.

Do you have sources for these definitions? Mdwh 21:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I usually wait until after the level of analysis goes beyond our simple common sense understanding of things to break out the sources. Atheism is a belief. It would seem to be the least thing that we know for sure about atheism. At some point I will gather up the appropriate sources If I had them at hand, I wouldn't be on the talk page with this. I think it would be wonderful if a member of the swarm of editors monitoring this article made the corrections before I do.

"To be clear: atheism is, in fact, the absence of belief in deities. There is no doubt about that! You understand that this necessarily means a belief (that is, the person assigns a "T" rather than an "F") to the sentence "There do not exist any deities.", correct? "

No, it's just that - an absence of belief. Only some atheists (strong atheists) state that there do not exist any deities. An absence of belief is an absence of belief - it is not a religious belief. And why doesn't this logic apply to nontheism - surely that should be a religious belief too, if all absence of beliefs are also beliefs?

"That is why I'm on this talk page. I am very concerned that people have it wrong here."

This is not about what we think is right or wrong, it is about what the sources say. We list the three definitions supported by sources. If the reader wishes to conlude they are equivalent, that is up to him.

"I am an atheist. This is my belief. My atheist belief is a positive statement that THERE IS NO GOD"

Then you are a strong atheist. Not all atheists share your stance. I've reverted your change as you do not explain how nontheism is different to an absence of belief in dieties, and the idea that atheism is a positive belief needs to get some consensus on the Talk page. Please see the archives where we've discussed this over and over. Mdwh 01:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem with the introduction as it is currently worded. Atheism is basically an umbrella term that covers lack of belief, disbelief, and outright rejection of deities/gods/God. Strong atheism, weak atheism, explicit atheism and implicit atheism should all be included in the article because they are all forms of atheism. This has been extensively discussed already (see enormous archive). Any attempt to restrict the meaning to fit someone's personal view will most likely be met with fierce opposition from the army of dedicated Wikipedians who edit this article :-) -- Scjessey 22:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not about a personal view. Logicians, analytic philosophers, have worked to clarify the meanings of these terms. I'm sure you get frustrated at the common ignorant statement "...but evolution is JUST A THEORY, so that means its NOT TRUE...(nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah)." Well we atheist are supposed to understand these kind of terms. We know, for instance, that theories are not true or false, but rather more or less justified. We also know that we have this belief about the answer to the question: "Is there a god?" Do we not? -- The previous unsigned comment was added by User:Gregbard, who needs to sign when he speaks, please. -- Scjessey 11:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I continue to maintain that this article is meaningless unless it is placed in a category; is it about science? religion (but atheism is not religion)? Philosophy? Culture? Without specifying, no factual statement can be made, because the correct statements are different, depending on what category the article is included under.

69.181.184.38 22:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is about all of those things, and it is about none of those things. I.e., for some atheists, one or more of those topics can be used to describe their approach towards atheism. Well, arguably, one of those topics can be used to describe any atheists approach towards atheism, but it wouldn't be the same category for different atheists. Implicit atheists are the hardest to "pigeonhole". If anything, "culture" comes closest to describing them as they haven't really given it much thought (if I understand their POV). However, for many explicit atheists (such as myself), their culture is pretty much anathema to their belief structure. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to point out that a lot of the arguments can be eliminated by creating categories. If this is a scientific article, then there is no dispute - science is by nature atheistic, since if one can not produce proof of something, it is assumed not to exist, just as "dark matter" was only an hypothesis until someone came up with an experiment that showed evidence it was there - but it's still not a sure thing.

I continue to maintain that nothing can be said definitely in the atheism article unless it is classified, as you suggest maybe it should be "culture". But there are too many disparate things in this one article, and they don't all belong together if you are trying to say something scientific, as opposed to something cultural. The "facts" can not be written without knowing under what rubric you are writing.

69.181.184.38 (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(no) atheists in foxholes

File:Foxholememorial clr.jpg

Atheists In Foxholes Monument, Lake Hypatia Alabama, USA. Image from the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

sheesh, how can there be a bona fide dispute over sources confirming that the position has been forwarded that "there are no atheists in foxholes" (atheists revert to theism when in distress)? We have an entire atheists in foxholes artice, with a photograph of a bleeding monument designed to counter that allegation. Now what part of all this is at all controversial? Some people say theism is ingrained and that when in severe distress, people will hallucinate a god. Some people agree (even atheists, it makes good sense in terms of anthropology of religion: if there is any evolutionary benefit in religion, this is it). Some people disagree, saying some atheists have been strong enough to override their "god gene" by rationality. The obvious flaw in the "no atheists in foxholes" argument is that it implies that you will see what people "really" believe when they have the shit scared out of them, rather than when they are at ease to deliberate and make up their mind in peace. That's really a modern version of the attitude that you will learn if someone is "really" a heretic if you torture them long enough. dab (𒁳) 14:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah...this is partly what i'm talking about. This is how backward this Athiest article is when it accepts the silly premise about this foxhole nonsense. Torture a theist and they will become a heretic, therefore it is asserted that theists are changeable and lack conviction when pressed on their beliefs!" Put that in the theist article and you will have some kind of fairness. Or correctly describe the foxhole phrase as an oddity. It certainly is not a credible description of an atheist! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.82.64 (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Often the only thing you find in a foxhole is a dead religionist. War is the ultimate proof that belief doesn't buy you much when your gut tries to stop a grenade or bullet. Pray all you want but theists die the same as atheists in war. And the whole "there are no atheists in foxholes" implies all atheists are cowards when facing death and thus convert in order to gain favor of some imaginary deity. Simple observation proves that wrong. Angry Christian (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a quote I love of Gregory House (wikiquote) that is almost the opposite of the "no atheists in foxholes" argument:

"You can have all the faith you want in spirits, and the afterlife, and heaven and hell, but when it comes to this world, don't be an idiot. Cause you can tell me you put your faith in God to get you through the day, but when it comes time to cross the street, I know you look both ways."

-- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Hello. Nontheism and List of nontheists have been nominated for deletion. Most of the arguments offered for deletion seem to revolve around the contention that nontheism and atheism are synonyms, and there is also the implicit claim that nontheism is a neologism, so it doesn't deserve an article. I thought the editors here would be able to offer some informed views, pro or con. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nontheists. Thanks. Nick Graves 19:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the AfD nominations ended and the results for both was keep. -- HiEv 19:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Atheist Jew

What do people think about including atheist jew here? The thing to remember is that "Jew" refers to both followers of the religion, and members of the Jewish _race_. My understanding is that atheist Jews are people who atheists who still identify as being part of the same race (which yes, may include taking part in cultural practices, but who do not believe in Judaism the religion (taking part in your culture doesn't imply following a religion - I still give presents at Christmas, but that doesn't make me an Atheist Christian).

Thus, this is not an example of someone who is religious and atheist (anymore than say, Atheist Frenchman would be). We already list Humanist Judaism, which is an example of an atheist religion. Can someone supply sources that atheist Jews are followers of a religion, and explain how it is distinct from Humanist Judaism?

The article Atheist Jew also agrees with me, saying an "Jewish atheist is a person of Jewish heritage". Any change to include atheist Jew here as a religion would require consensus on that article too. Mdwh 11:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh... are we reading the same article?

Many Jewish atheists feel comfortable within any of the four major Jewish denominations (Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist). Again, this presents less of a contradiction than might first seem apparent given even traditional Judaism's emphasis on practice over belief. Much recent Jewish theology makes few if any metaphysical claims and is thus compatible with atheism on an ontological level. The founder of the Reconstructionist movement, Mordechai Kaplan, espoused a naturalistic definition of God, while some post-Holocaust theology has also eschewed a personal God.

That sounds very much to me like a description of a religious tradition compatible with atheism, in much the same way varieties of buddhism are. – ornis⚙ 11:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The article appears to describe both types of people. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I would never have thought to check out Judaism to find an atheist religion, but there it is. Nice find! -- Lilwik 20:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Early Modern Period (Jean Meslier)

"The first openly atheistic thinkers, such as Baron d'Holbach, appeared in the late 18th century, when expressing disbelief in God became a less dangerous position." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Early_Modern_Period)

This is not quite true, because Jean Meslier, who is arguably the first to bluntly deny God's existence in modern times, already died in 1729. His posthumously published work known as his "Testament" was written between 1723 (or already some years earlier, but not earlier than 1719) and 1729. Meslier definitely deserves to be mentioned as the first radical, i.e. positive atheist:

"That so-called infinitely perfect being which is called God by our believers is but a figment of the imagination."

(Testament, ch. 64) [my transl. from the German transl.]

See: Michel Onfray: Jean Meslier and "The Gentle Inclination of Nature" (http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue40/Onfray40.htm)

"It is for Meslier to announce for the first time philosophically the death of God."

"Meslier is an atheist, the first to affirm so clearly, radically, and markedly that God does not exist, that religion depends on fraud, and that a post-Christian philosophy is needed."

"MESLIER PROPOSES the first atheist thinking in Western history. Too often people take atheism for what it is not. Protagoras' conclusions about gods lead us to say nothing about them, neither whether they exist, nor whether they don't exist. That is agnostic, not atheist. Epicurus, Lucretius, and the Epicureans affirm multiple gods, established in a subtle manner, situated in the between-worlds. That is polytheism, not atheism; Spinoza maintains the coincidence of God with Nature. (Lucilio) Vanini and (Giordano) Bruno think the same. That is pantheism, not atheism. (Pierre) Charron, (Francois de)La Mothe Le Vayer, (Charles de) Saint Evremond, and other baroque libertines believe sacrificing to the Catholic religion is necessary because that is the religion of their country; they avoid dwelling on the nature of God, but do they believe in Him? That is a Christianity turned Epicurean, heterodox with regard to the Vatican, surely, but not atheism; Voltaire cries out the useful and indispensable character of a Great Watchmaker in view of the superb mechanism of Nature: Rousseau agrees with that. That is deism, not atheism. An atheist denies clearly the existence of God; he does not refine definitions."

—Editorius 15:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for your information:

The following is not Meslier's real book but Holbach's work called "Le Bon-Sens" from 1772, which was published under the pseudonym "Jean Meslier" by Holbach:

"Superstition In All Ages"/"Common Sense": http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/17607

Unfortunately, there is no English translation of Meslier's original "Testament" yet.

(See: http://www.ftarchives.net/holbach/good/gsabout.htm)

Editorius 16:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

See also

We seem to be suffering from "See also scope creep" a bit. A growing list of atheist organizations has appeared, and I believe it can only get worse. Any ideas on how this can be abbreviated? -- Scjessey 12:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the list isn't so long as to be objectionable, and it provides useful links. Moreover, there are longer lists there, e.g., further reading. IMHO, it's not a problem. Motorrad-67 14:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to include one atheist organization, you need to include them all. Otherwise you risk letting the article drift toward the typical systemic bias Wikipedia is trying to avoid. Also, the external links section includes a link to the Open Directory Project ({{dmoz|Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Atheism/|Atheism}}) where a list of organizations can easily be found. I just don't see how these additions are adding value to the article. -- Scjessey 15:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a list of atheist organizations could be created with these See Also links rolled into it and then replaced with a link to that list. Thoughts from any/all editors? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't agree with you very often Mr. Hocking, but you are correct here. WP:LINK explicitly states that Wikipedia should not be an assemblage of links. And of course, there are some who will say that Wikipedia itself is an atheist organization.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

With such a ringing endorsement, I decided to be bold and start the list myself. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you part of Wikipedia Orangemarlin, because you are clearly an atheist, and have opposed a fair view of creationism. This atheism page is featured as a premiere article, but never has a page that explains the short comings of atheism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.133.12.108 (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What information would you like to see added to the article? Ilkali (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The List of atheist organizations lists many local, non-notable groups. Should a list on Wikipedia include local college organizations that do not have any substantial, independent coverage in reliable sources? I don't think so. I think the editors here should take a look at the list as it currently stands and weigh in on how they think the inclusion criteria should be defined, and how the article can be improved. Without editors bringing this list into compliance with WP policies and guidelines, I believe the article will be a prime candidate for deletion. Nick Graves 21:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree on having that discussion, although I believe you'll find most of those groups have been covered by reliable sources—including the college ones. I won't say anymore here, as the discussion is best had where you've directed us to have it. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• For the record, we reached a consensus to delete the list of "atheist organizations" on this page back in April here, per the discussion in Archive #31 here and a FAC suggestion here. I was initially opposed to the idea, but for one, I think most of these "atheist" organizations are anti-theist and/or pro-separation, and two I just think it's a slippery slope to start naming them without any regard to their notability in reference to the philosophical subject matter itself. In the grand scheme of things, I would hardly consider any recently-organized, modestly-sized group notable with respect to the entire history and scope of atheism. johnpseudo 01:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Religiosity and Intelligence"

Anyone want to tell me what this has to do with "Demographics of Atheism"? Oh wait...nothing. Good luck justifying this one. Wikipedia, you've done it again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.151.231 (talk • contribs) 2007-10-14

And your POV is showing in your edits. Please explain them before editing further. You have even gone so far as to change a quotation. That's unacceptable. =Axlq 00:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It might also be useful to report the relationship between atheism and fertility rates. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Why ? - wouldn't life expectancy and Infant Mortality Rates be more relevant ?. Infant mortality is inversely related to per capita GDP. High GDP countries are generally those with high levels of non-religion. Phil Zuckerman has essentially reduced the correlation between the irreligious in 1st world nations with ".... handgun control, anti-corporal punishment and anti-bullying policies, rehabilitative rather than punitive incarceration, intensive sex education that emphasizes condom use, reduced socio-economic disparity via tax and welfare systems combined with comprehensive health care, increased leisure time that can be dedicated to family needs and stress reduction, and so forth.". The growth of Atheism has been dramatic but it is correlated with improving standards of living rather than say the growth of Islam through "unprotected sex" (cites Phillip Longman's "The Return of the Patriarchy" ). Ttiotsw 01:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether improved standards of living are correlated with genetic, as distinct from individual, survival remains to be seen. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is protected, but I found new information to add to the end of the "Demographics" section. It should read something like ..." However, Jews tend to have high educational achievement rates in the United States [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmasyean (talk • contribs) 03:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I think that the first editor in this section shows his POV pretty clearly I also agree with him that the lest sentence of the Demographics section does not deserve to be included ("Fundamentalist Christians, especially women, tend to acquire fewer years of education than others do"). The first source quoted I cant access and the second is about why MORE religious people are going to university. I also think that it is irrelevant to the Atheist article that fewer (or more) Christians go to university. So I have removed this sentence. I hope that no one disagrees with this, if so please feel free to say.

CaptinJohn (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sprotected

I have sprotected this for a while, due to heavy IP. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it was coming under some heavy attacks. -Icewedge 03:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Letter from a Christian Citizen

This work is about Christianity, not atheism: ("America, the freest country in the history of the world, could only have been birthed and sustained through a Christian worldview" — Amazon). Is it appropriate to list it here? If it should be included, it is out of list order at present. --Old Moonraker 09:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's gone.--Old Moonraker 23:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Logical and evidential arguments - Lewatkins

(Comment moved here from above)
I am proposing that the following paragraph be added to the end of the "Logical and evidential arguments" section, which seems to be the appropriate place for its inclusion.

Paragraph removed, diff can be viewed here: [2]
—Preceding comment was added at 17:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to find justification for this paragraph being in the Atheism article, or even anywhere on Wikipedia. The style is inappropriate, the POV is non-neutral and it's clearly just a plug of a belief you hold and/or a website you are involved in. Ilkali 17:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The links included in the edit lead to a website promoting the book (with links to bookseller Amazon), itself promoting religion: "THE UNIVERSAL FATHER is the God of all creation, the First Source and Center of all things and beings." It has no place here, partly through lack of relevance to Atheism, partly because of WP:EL#Links normally to avoided but particularly because of POV pushing. I support the editors who have already deleted the addition from the article page. Old Moonraker 17:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Atheism is not only a philosophy

It is also a religion. Sorry to be a party pooper, but it is the truth. Religion, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary is: "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices".

Beliefes which may or may not include a god or the existence or unexistence of a god or gods.

And religious means: "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity".

The Ultimate Reality, which may or may not include a god or gods.

So, sorry guys. I think it's beautiful to worship nature and science, and knowledge. I just want to know why exactly some people say atheism is not a religion.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Religion

• Um, because atheism is in no way a set of institutionalised beliefs, attitudes or practices, let alone religious ones. It is a loose collection of philosophical viewpoints with various definitions. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 18:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Atheism is organized in several organizations: CV Atheists and American Atheists are organizations, with beliefs and attitudes towards life and the world.66.201.167.205 (talk)

Thus socialism, environmentalism, conservatism, liberalism, vegetarianism, materialism, nihilism and any other philosophy, worldview or belief which has been expressed through organisations is a religion? No thanks. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 07:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• All you have shown is that people use words in different ways. By saying "sorry, atheism is a religion", you are essentially attempting to use a broader, less common definition of the word "religion" to imply that atheism is no different from other religions. These other religions, however, are more commonly referenced according to a narrower definition that does not encompass atheism. This is nothing more than linguistic trickery - sophistry. As for definitions: OED, the god of dictionaries, says the word "religion" is currently used in the following ways (the 4th definition being the most common):
  1. A state of life bound by monastic vows
  2. Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please, a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this.
  3. A particular system of faith and worship.
  4. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-12 18:26Z
  • No, all I have shown is what the dictionary says. You are the one who uses words differently. But, I wont become a troll. Bye.66.201.167.205 (talk)
    • So it goes. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-12 21:15Z

• I appreciate the "common" definitions of religion; however, we aren't looking for common definitions, but we are looking for necessary definitions. Establishment is not necessary to relgion, although it is common. Religions don't become non-religions by disestablishment. I offer world view and Paul Tillich's "ultimate concern" for fair definitions. Both can be found on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.26.96 (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, atheism isn't a religion any more than baldness is a hair color. I know it is hard for you to accept that not everyone is a member of a religion, but it is the truth. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Atheism / Atheist article distinction?

I wonder why there are not separate articles for Atheism and Atheist? Obviously they are related, would have some (minimal) overlap and link to each other, but I think it would help keep things more focussed. Coming to this article looking for information on atheism, I find a lot of the article about atheists. To give an example 1/3 of the lead (the entire second paragraph) is about atheists. To give some what related examples of article distinctions on wikipedia, there are seperate articles for Muslim/Islam , Christian/Christianity etc. --99.247.120.178 (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice that those articles are mostly about the term itself so the article would really just be the Etymology section. Compare atheism to the christianity or islam pages. Pay special attention to the "Part of a series on..." bit. The christianity and islam series look like they are simply larger than the atheism page, thus it may be more practical to have more articles and split sections up more. If anyone really wants to develop an atheist page and move some content I will not have any strong objections but it doesn't really seem worthwhile.JamesStewart7 (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Religion: Atheist

Hi All.

I have a quick question that I was wondering if you could comment on so I know if I’m out on a limb or about right: Is it ok to put Atheist in the religion box for a bio article?

I am NOT saying that atheism is a religion (I suggested changing the info box structure to something like religious views) but putting "none" seems to me to be dancing around the issue (especially as it is then linked to atheist). If the person is an atheist then it should say that and be definite not something like "None" or "Non Applicable". Opinions?

Thanks

CaptinJohn (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If a person doesn't have a religion then the appropriate value for his 'religion' field is 'none'. If the infobox needs to be able to represent different varieties of irreligion then the field should be changed. Ilkali (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Bias

This article is biased, because it only gives arguments for atheism without giving any arguments against it. 70.129.186.44 (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is about athiesm, neither for nor against it. If you have specific instances, please mention them so we can talk them over. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

See Criticism of atheism. Also see Existence_of_God#Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God and the many pages linked from that. Is there something specific that should be mentioned here? Mdwh (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The arguments in the article are not arguements for or against atheism. They are the types of atheism broken down by the basis for beleiving in atheism. CaptinJohn (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Parting shots

I propose we remove the last 2 sentences until a more BALANCED treatment of the topic is offered.

Theists have made very similar arguments, however, against atheists based on the state atheism of communist states.According to the popular historians Will and Ariel Durant, "There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion."

The last 2 sentences seem to be sniper attacks tacked on to the end of the article, leaving the final comments as negative. Neither sentence is well-developed, nor clear, nor even clearly on the same topic. I believe the topic is actually quite separate - such as whether a society can survive unless the society fosters in its members a belief in cosmic justice - that every good deed will be rewarded and every bad one punished.

The comments of Washington & deToqueville would also be appropriate

according to Alexis de Tocqueville, Americans shared a conviction that religion was indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions.< ref>de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America, Vol. 1, Ch. 17. The greatest part of British America was peopled by men who, after having shaken off the authority of the Pope, acknowledged no other religious supremacy: they brought with them into the New World a form of Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling it a democratic and republican religion. This contributed powerfully to the establishment of a republic and a democracy in public affairs; and from the beginning, politics and religion contracted an alliance which has never been dissolved. ...
The sects that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God. If it be of the highest importance to man, as an individual, that his religion should be true, it is not so to society. Society has no future life to hope for or to fear; and provided the citizens profess a religion, the peculiar tenets of that religion are of little importance to its interests. Moreover, all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same.
Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...
I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion--for who can search the human heart?--but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.</ref>

Washington was a firm believer in the importance of religion for republican government. While he declined suggested versions< ref>Library of Congress - see Farewell Address section</ref> of his 1796 Farewell Address that would have included statements that there could be no morality without religion, the final version remarked that it was unrealistic to expect that a whole nation, whatever might be said of minds of peculiar structure, could long be moral without religion, that national morality is necessary for good government, and that politicians should cherish religion's support of national morality:

“ Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

”

I have to wonder about the appropriateness of allowing a quote to end an article just because it is from a reliable source. The Durants were known to have an agenda in their work, and I believe they also focussed more on Western Civilization, than Eastern. If we take their quote at face value, they are saying that China & the Soviet Union, since they did not "have" the aid of religion, could "not successfully maintain moral life". I am not aware of any consensus of authors that maintain the USSR collapsed because they could not successfully maintain moral life. And China seems to be flourishing, with moral problems not particularly any more abundant than in Western countries.

The US separation of church & state was also an experiment. Up to that point, there had been no society that successfully maintaining moral life without having an *established religion*. A less speculative and more relevant quote from the Durants would be one that says "societies that have not supported religion, have failed because morality cannot exist without religion." Absent that, the quote is just a parting attack as the article ends.

On the other hand, there are plenty of examples of societies that did support religion, that did NOT maintain what we would now call "morality".

I propose we remove the last 2 sentences until a more BALANCED treatment of the topic is offered. --JimWae (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence's refs do not even seem to support the ill-formed statement it seems to want to make. The word "communism" cannot even found in search of article --JimWae (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the statements seem completely out of context and given undue weight. Snowfire51 (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree, after a nicely balanced article these give the parting feeling Atheism is Bad. Arnoutf (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, some countries do very well with a ~90% non-religious society (most notably Switzerland, Sweden, and Estonia). The fact that religion permeates every society does not mean society couldn't exist without religion. -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk &#149; contribs)} 14:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

An editor has written new last lines, again giving a negative feeling about Atheism. These lines run: According to the popular historians Will and Ariel Durant, "There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion."[117].
I cannot check the (old - 1968) source, but to be honest I think there is a problem with the statement I can see without reading it. My problems is that I would challenge anyone to provide us with an example of any society that has lived without any kind of religion. If there is none, the line is essentially hollow (ie the line could simply run: society successfully maintainging moral life without the aid of religion is in that case fully exchangable with "There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society without religion."). Or another criticism: a similar counterargument can be made - is there a civilisation in history that maintained a moral life untill its end with the aid of religion? (We should only count civilisations that have ended of course). Also how popular are Will and Ariel Durant this time, the book is out of print; and even if they are popular, this is not a relevant credential, Erich von Däniken is also popular (mark my words, I do not want to shed doubt on the quality of the Durants, only on the phrase as used in the article). So my suggestion would be to remove these lines as well. Arnoutf (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that Will and Ariel Durant are both themselves Humanists. The quote in question does have a broader context then the "Atheism=bad" sentiment that it seems to be used to communicate. Specifically, Will Durant in the February 1977 issue of The Humanist was concerned with the difficulties in cultivating a "natural ethic strong enough to maintain moral restraint and social order without the support of supernatural consolations, hopes, and fears." This could conceivably be incorporated into the article, but to lift the quote from its intended context is disingenuous. Silly rabbit (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

---

The Lessons of History Will Durant Ariel Durant The Story of Philosophy

They also bring an unabashedly moral framework to their accounts, constantly stressing the repetition of the "dominance of strong over the weak, the clever over the simple." The Story of Civilization is the most successful historiographical series in history. It has been said that the series "put Simon and Schuster on the map" as a publishing house

For Rousseau and Revolution, (1967), the 10th volume of The Story of Civilization, they were awarded the Pulitzer Prize for literature; later followed the highest award granted by the United States government to civilians, the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Ford in 1977.

They followed Rousseau and Revolution with a slender volume of observations called The Lessons of History; which was both synopsis of the series as well as analysis. Though they had intended to carry the work into the 20th century, they simply ran out of time and had expected the 10th volume to be their last. However, they went on to published a final volume, their 11th, The Age of Napoleon in 1975. They also left behind notes for a twelfth volume, The Age of Darwin, and an outline for a thirteenth, The Age of Einstein, which would have taken The Story of Civilization through to 1945.

--JimWae (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

More of quote - more requested

“ Does history warrant the conclusion that religion is necessary to morality -- that a natural ethic is too weak to withstand the savagery that lurks under civilization and emerges in our dreams, crimes, and wars? ... There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion. ”

What it says is that there is no precedent that succeeded, it does not say it has been tried & failed. I have to wonder why in 1968, they did not have more to say about USSR & China. Relevant also are the many socieites that did support religion & both failed AND would also be considered by many to have been less moral --JimWae (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That (ie not-tried&failed as well as religious-done&failed) is basically why I doubted the relevance of this quote; thanks for wording, and supporting it much better then I could. Arnoutf (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

==Let me try this again. Perhaps this time there will be more tolerance== This got removed from the atheist talk page. NO the quote does NOT conclude that religion is necessary for morality. The quote says religion is an AID to morality. From what I have learned from my own limited curiousity and experience all human wisdom, whether in ethics, religion, science, mathematics, etc. is subject to fallibility and modification. Sometimes you get things right. (Example: Natural Selection) Sometimes you get things wrong. (Example: Curing the mentally ill by keeping them totally immoble) Not everyone has the same level of intelligence or compassion. That is just how it is.Kazuba (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Here is another quote from Durant, "As long as there is poverty there will be Gods."Kazuba (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Most religious scholars do not consider atheism to be a religion. Its not really up for dispute. The dictionary does not make atheism a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewCanada (talk • contribs) 02:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Symbols?

Sorry if this has been covered before. I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia. I've noticed that the Atheism related topics use the Atom Atheist symbol. I've never really encountered that symbol before until using Wikipedia. I know there is no 'official' symbol as no one can speak for all the atheists. I've done some editing about the Scarlet A from the Out Campaign. It's a pretty new project and I'm already starting to see the 'A' everywhere on the web to represent atheism. I believe the Out Campaign lists somewhere near 400 people using it to self identify themselves as atheists on the web. It got me wondering if perhaps the symbols used in Wikipedia to represent atheism should be changed to the scarlet 'A' instead? Just seemed like a good idea as it seems more like a 'defacto' standard symbol than the atom, invisible unicorn, etc. Dylanpack (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• That image was added 2 days ago to the template {{atheism2}}, with the explanation "every template needs an image" (not sure where that reasoning comes from...). That symbol stands for nothing except the American Atheists group. I've removed it from the template. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-08 14:11Z
• I've never encountered the Scarlet A before, and have only seen the atom symbol on Wikipedia. If there ever were a symbol representing pragmatic atheism, I wonder how they would advertise it... I would just avoid them altogether. Atheism is not a worldview by itself. Different worldviews have their own symbols, but the individual beliefs within the worldviews do not. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-08 14:14Z

My main point I guess is that since Wikipedia uses a symbol on the Atheist pages, categories, etc and uses the Atomic symbol it might make more sense to change them all to a Scarlet A as it would make more sense and already is quite popular and more known than the atomic atheist symbolDylanpack (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Don't use any symbol. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-09 04:02Z
  • I like the no image idea. Atheism has no strong symbol and we should not add a symbol for symbols sake. If we agree on no symbol we can add a comment in the template that we agree no image should be placed on top. Arnoutf (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • To be clear, there was no symbol used in this article until 3 days ago. Before that the article went along fine through hundreds of edits, without a symbol. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-09 14:25Z

I know, I just wanted to support the 3 days ago status quo (ie no symbol) Arnoutf (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I also support the no-symbol side. The scarlet A is virtually unknown to the world outside the US, as is the atom logotype.129.16.53.223 (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)