Talk:Atheism/Archive 34

message: The strict philosophical definitions cited are in many respects stances, and not views(in the broad sense),"position that affirms" or "denial". Other than the common belief definition, and the fact that belief does exist, are there current philosophical definitions that also express views/belief and not just stances?  ISMs are belief, but the citations avoid it.  Perhaps we should follow suit? Or is it necessary to wrap every stance with belief.  It seems, to me, that the belief definition is actually not broad enough and too restrictive, since belief->denial, but denial not-> belief.   _Modocc 15:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly support this definition, as the "in the broadest sense" is no longer an afterthought in the definition, but equally one of the 3 definitions we use. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've applied the first version of these, partly due to 81.228.195.119's concerns (below) about use of the word "belief", which this version sidesteps. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd suggest that "but in its broadest definition" becomes "or in its broadest definition", as that definition is just as supported as the others, as far as I can see. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "but" is better and "or" would be confusing, the third def being separate and not being defined "as philosophical" _Modocc 18:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If not all definitions of atheism are philosophical, perhaps we should remove confusion by removing the word "philosophical", or using some phrase like "often philosophical"? While the current version is very good, I'm just not entirely happy at the way that the 3rd definition is made to seem like some sort of afterthought, even if that's not the intention. --h2g2bob (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Including the word "philosophical" as a clarifier for the strong definition was a major step forward.  I strongly object to removal of the word.  What do you mean changing it to "often philosophical"? Give me an example with the change included. johnpseudo 19:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Reading through it again, you're probably right. My concern - that it could be read that the 3rd definition is less accepted - is only a minor one. I can't come up with any way to express it that doesn't raise more significant problems, so for me the current version is good enough. Plus from the philosophical point of view I guess it isn't as well accepted, so it is technically correct. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophical definition: stance or view?

message: Currently, we have this:
Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism; but in its broadest definition, it is the absence of belief in deities, sometimes called "nontheism".
I think that the desire to be technically correct has led to a sentence which is going to be difficult for the layman (the typical Wikipedia reader) to follow. Splitting the sentence will make it easier to understand, so I propose this slightly-tweaked alternative:
Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. A broader definition describes it is the absence of belief in deities, sometimes called "nontheism".
-- Scjessey 20:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Need to change "is" to "as" to be grammatically correct.  Its the broadest definition and not just"broader", thus information is lost.  Also I prefer equal treatment of these definitions, to the greatest extent possible, and with respect to clarity, I don't see a need to break up the sentence when it is unnecessary and when done, can actually cause confusion rather than preventing any.  _Modocc 23:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support per Modocc, with exception that I would support two sentences. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go for it (but change "it is" to "atheism as" or something) --h2g2bob (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I've tweaked it just to split it into two sentences, but maintained the equal treatment status. -- Scjessey 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarified the second sentence. The introduction is easier to read now.  _Modocc 07:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the "but" which began the second sentence as unecessary and, I'm sorry to say, not the best writing style. The second sentence in no way contradicts the first. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first definition of "but" as a conjunctive is "unless" and not contradiction. "Unless" meaning "if it be not that" and this is certainly the case here. The "but" adds the appropriate meaning. Your right, its not absolutely necessary, any more than commas or anything else that matters little. Of course, "if it be not that" is unimportant and unnecessary then who cares?  Certainly the reader.   _Modocc 00:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are correct about the meaning, but KC was correct in removing the word.  No conjuction is necessary in this case.  Now, if we were to combine the two sentences then we would need something, likely a "while" to begin the main clause. •Jim62sch• 13:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory paragraph sentence structure problem 

message: Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. But in its broadest definition, atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods, sometimes called "nontheism". Although atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, some religions, such as Buddhism, have been characterized as atheistic.
Above is an illustration for the main page.  Its a composite image that I made from the public domain images displayed in the article.  I can make changes/improvements to it such as swapping or cropping new images or adding borders.  But this works for me for now. The cropped images are still original size, except for the d'Holbach image which I enlarged before stitching them together. _Modocc 06:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest just using the Greek image (:Image:Ephesians 2,12 - Greek atheos.jpg). It's a cool image, and not cluttered. Plus there's no argument over one atheist being more important than another, and shows a historical perspective. --h2g2bob (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is the one currently proposed at featured article requests. Actually, I'm fine with that image, but its not exactly an attractive image either, as its Greek symbols are hard to discern.  _Modocc 15:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the Greek image, myself. The composite seems cluttered to me, and I cannot help thinking it looks like Epicurus has had a label stuck across his mouth to shut him up. The swirly blue/purple on the "Strong atheism" is distracting to me, as well. Sorry! KillerChihuahua?!? 15:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The "atheoi" image has support(mine for one). In fact, its the only suitable image that is available at present.  The Epicurus rock can go from the proposed illustration and the colors of the diagram image can be changed so they don't clash with the others. _Modocc 23:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Second the opposition to any sort of composite. It's a noble effort, but looks too crowded/confusing. The "atheoi" image is an interesting alternative, but its use does not demonstrate (or even illustrate, for that matter) the concept of atheism. Rather than using any tangentially related picture, why not just let the text stand on its own? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not meant to illustrate the "concept" of atheism. The scope of the atheism topic is broader involving people,ideas,symbols,wars and the like. Hope that clears up some of the confusion. Illustrations can be very subjective, as what one thinks is crowded, another sparse.  But, I am working on this. Moreover, I serious doubt that no image will be used, because the only other article in all of wikipedia that might claim that title would be the God page(which tore down its introductory image) and I certainly don't want this article to share in that fate. _Modocc 00:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no confusion, I don't think that any one of the images featured adequately illustrates the philosophy of atheism. Illustrations are indeed subjective and my comment was based partly on aesthetic preference. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Attempting to illustrate the "concept" of atheism would require (1) original research, which is forbidden by Wikipedia policy; and (2) a POV both on what atheism is and on what  best symbolizes it, which is likewise forbidden by Wikipedia policy. "Atheoi" is one of the only ways to completely circumvent such problems. If you think the images other than "atheoi" have been controversial so far, just imagine the firestorm they'll start when they appear on the main page! Using as simple and literal an image as possible circumvents all that hassle. -Silence 00:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are falsely asserting that the main page image is meant to illustrate atheism. It does not, nor can it.  But, the image can be illustrative of this articleand use the images that come from it. _Modocc 01:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The atheoi image does come from the article. Why are you acting like you're arguing against me when you're repeating the point I just made? Both of us were obviously responding to Anetode's false claim that the image should demonstrate "the concept of atheism". -Silence 01:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake. As the indentation indicated, I now understand what you meant and why; thus retract. Sorry about that. _Modocc 02:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "False claim"? As in "demonstrably false"? Come on, we are all commenting based on editorial opinion. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not meant as a slight to the creator of the image, but I think all examples above are beyond ugly. Please just choose one of the existing images and be done with it. -- Scjessey 01:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. :-) The image is already selected is the proposed "Atheoi".  And, if its completely clear that there is no alternative, then it will have to be used and there is nothing in this thread that should delay a decision on scheduling it.  d'Holbach has a friendly face, but the quality of the painting and the image taken are poor, the "atheoi" image is tattered, and the one diagram in the article looks like something from biology or a candy-wrapper. Together, these aren't going to look significantly better. Still, if possible, it would be completely appropriate for a reader that finds d'Holbach's portrait to be interesting to delve into why he is a part of this article. _Modocc 01:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I wonder how you derived from my comment any desire to illustrate atheism. I agree that any image that attempts to illustrate the concept of atheism is bound to be arbitrary and biased. The "atheoi" image is obviously the least controversial choice, but it is fundamentally inadequate. Yes, I hold the opinion that an image must have more than mere relevance to the subject if it is to accompany the article blurb on the main page. A more interesting question is why there is an apparent requirement to include illustrations for philosophical topics. A neat little thumbnail is next to useless in informing readers of the nature of a philosophical stance. Even the inclusion an image as benign as the "atheoi" rendering comes off as a petty compromise based more on obtuse requirements than any desire to better present the topic of atheism. The English word itself is more aesthetically pleasing than any related image, its beauty lies in simplicity of the prefix "-an". So I reiterate my objection to the forced use of any image to illustrate the article. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Composite images for main page