Talk:Atheism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. |
 |
This article is part of the Philosophy WikiProject, an attempt at creating a standardised, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use Philosophy resource. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. |
 |
Atheism is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images. |
 To-do list for Atheism: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
|
|
 |
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
|
‹The template Round In Circles has been proposed for deletion here.›
 |
Discussions here have repeatedly stalled as a result of the same cases, arguments and views being espoused.
It is recomended that you review the latest such discussions and the arguments made within. New views or ideas on the subject are welcome, however if you find that your beliefs on the subject parallel those already made, you might consider the potential value of such an edit. You might want to check out a a different article for now. |
 Archives |
|
|---|---|
Contents |
[edit] Mediation still active?
There is a mediation request here that is still listed as "open". Is mediation still required here or can I close this case? --Ideogram 07:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
No, i think mediation is still required here. There are still massive issues with parts, namely definitions, that are being discussed to extreme lengths. The definiton (in the intro) is constantly undergoing changes. There seems to be little prospect of resolving any of these discussions on the definiton and coming to some conclusion. For the sake of getting an intro that is acceptible i think mediation is required as a starting point. Please dont close the case yet. Jarryd Moore 14:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite
On Nov 5 2006, JimWae posted an minor essay on talk Talk:Atheism/Archive_28#Problems_with_Intro_as_of_Nov_4. There is no support thus far for any of his ideas. JimWae, rather than write a mini-essay which rambles and does not make clear any of your proposed changes, please list a few changes below for discussion, and gain consensus before completely rewriting the article. Your essay had no suggested edits that I saw at all; it seemed to be a bit of a ramble and a rant. That few responded is not surprising. the three responses all used the word "problem" or "problematic". This is far from support. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- You have misread the discussion, which you all too hastily archived. How about addressing the content of the changes - there was NO consensus for Nov4th version --JimWae 14:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to be of the opinion that there is some single correct definition that wikipedia must endorse--JimWae 14:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite by JimWae
Atheism is the opposite of theism, and thus the opposite of belief that at least one deity exists. Atheism has been defined both narrowly and broadly, and most dictionaries use the word disbelief, which has meanings ranging from "lack of belief" to "doubt", "withholding of belief", "rejection of belief", "refusal to believe", and "denial". The narrowest definition of atheism includes as atheists only those who actively deny the existence of deities, and who would be willing to assert "There are no gods at all." A wider definition, explicitly included [1] by several encyclopedia and dictionaries, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] includes as atheists all those without a belief in any deity, though not all would necessarily deny every possibility of the existence of some deity. Though few would describe themselves as such, many agnostics would be included under this wider definition of atheism. Also included would be any belief system (such as some forms of Buddhism) that does not maintain a belief in some god. Some usages exclude from this wider definition, those, such as small children and people in isolated tribes, who have simply never considered the existence of deities. --JimWae 15:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Is "not stamp collecting" the opposite of "stamp collecting"? If anything is the opposite of theism, it is antitheism. It may be more workable without your first sentence, but your conclusions about agnostics are worded poorly and unsubstantiated POV. The opening paragraph in the current article is better than your rewrite. *Spark* 16:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sentence one: Inaccurate, per Spark. Sentence two: rambling and incoherent. Sentence three: poorly phrased, and leaves out the distinction of strong vs. weak atheism, positive and negative atheism, which needs to be clearly delineated. Following that, a mess of dicdefs including a highly inaccurate one from the 1911 Enc. Brit, and one from the 1907 Catholic Enc. - not that I think they might be just a weeeee tad biased on the subject of non-belief in deities, mind you! Must I go on? Rhymezone, you actually used Rhymezone for yet another dicdef. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- For the reasons stated above, I don't consider this a good alternative for the current opening paragraph. Something similar to your last sentence should be included in the article though, if not already.Tuesday42 22:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree about the first sentence - but we could simply remove it. Sentence two could be simlified to be less rambly, but I think it is a good thing to give the various definitions rather than jumping to conclusions about what they mean. I don't see why strong / weak definitions (or explicit / implicit, for that matter) needs to be in the introduction. In fact, I'd argue they should be left to the later section. On that note, as a result of recent edits, the current version has strong and weak defined incorrectly, since "former" now refers to disbelief, and gets labelled "strong", whilst weak is defined as "absence of belief". That's actually the definitions of explicit/implicit. I disbelieve, but I'm certainly not a strong atheist! Mdwh 22:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- It seems the strong/weak misdefinitions were due to a broken edit - I've fixed that now. But I still say that I'm not sure we need to, or should, define strong/weak in the intro. In particular, the entire rest of the paragraph from "The former, narrower usage..." onwards seems to just repeat what's already said using different labels, making the introduction unnecessarily lengthy. I'd be much more willing to favour this version over JimWae's if we simply got rid of that. Mdwh 22:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sentence one: Inaccurate, per Spark. Sentence two: rambling and incoherent. Sentence three: poorly phrased, and leaves out the distinction of strong vs. weak atheism, positive and negative atheism, which needs to be clearly delineated. Following that, a mess of dicdefs including a highly inaccurate one from the 1911 Enc. Brit, and one from the 1907 Catholic Enc. - not that I think they might be just a weeeee tad biased on the subject of non-belief in deities, mind you! Must I go on? Rhymezone, you actually used Rhymezone for yet another dicdef. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Footnotes and citations
- ^ and included by implication in dictionaries that define atheism as disbelief in deities
- ^ The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd edition), 1999, Robert Audi editor: "the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism..." entry by Louis P Pojman
- ^ Dictionary of Philosophy - Peter A Angeles, 1981: 1. the belief that gods do not, or God does not, exist; 2. The disbelief in any kind of supernatural existence that is supposed to affect the universe; 3. the lack of belief in a particular God
- ^ Dictionary of Philosophy - Dagobert D. Runes, 1962 edition: (a) the belief that there is no God; (b) Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic". The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term though widely current in the history of thought - entry by Vergilius Ferm
- ^ http://www.ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/index.html?action=define&ignoreaccents=on&wholewords=on&searchtype=stemming&text=atheism&service=english2english atheism: 1. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. 2. The doctrine or belief that there is no God
- ^ http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?Word=atheism atheism: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods; the doctrine or belief that there is no God
- ^ http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Atheism 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica ATHEISM: literally a system of belief which denies the existence of God. The term as generally used, however, is highly ambiguous... dogmatic atheism is rare compared with the sceptical type, which is identical with agnosticism in so far as it denies the capacity of the mind of man to form any conception of God, but is different from it in so far as the agnostic merely holds his judgment in suspense, though, in practice, agnosticism is apt to result in an attitude towards religion which is hardly distinguishable from a passive and unaggressive atheism.
- ^ http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia Volume II, 1907 ...Thus, defined as a doctrine, or theory, or philosophy formally opposed to theism, atheism can only signify the teaching of those schools, whether cosmological or moral, which do not include God either as a principle or as a conclusion of their reasoning.
[edit] Looking for support
I am looking for support to the idea that religion should not be listed on the biographical entries for every American politician. In federal politicians. To me it's personal information that is irrelevant to our elected officials. There seem to be some users here who have taken it upon themselves to identify the religion of most federal office holders. One place this is evident is on the infoboxes, for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Congressmanelect
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Congressman
Don't know what your opinion on this might be, but looking for some support to try to take religion out of politics.--Utahredrock 21:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see how doing that will have the effect you want. I think any sort of information will help voters make a more informed decision, as religious affiliation is sometimes a good label to know what policies the candidate supports, among those even Separation of Church and State itself. This is specially relevant seeing as how the U.S. seems to consistently put "family values" issues on the ballot. Some people might be willing to vote on a candidate if they find out he comes from a more moderate sect, as opposed to some evangelical fundamentalist. I'm guessing some people on this discussion page might share those sentiments. Starghost (talk | contribs) 22:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Despite separation of church and state, religious beliefs are relevant to biographical articles, including political biographies. -- Ec5618 22:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Which congress web site is it listed ? If it is a variable listed for all members of congress (though it may be optional to fill in) then the template should reflect that. Weird how just that field would be asked for and yet sexual orientation is not an option yet !. I guess one prejudice at a time for such a nation. It would obviously be a brave congressperson who wrote in secular humanist or something like that - but it would probably be the first truthful entry in that field. Ttiotsw 22:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-
