Talk:Atheism/Archive 17

message: The last clause in the mention of kafir is "and is incorrectly applied to non-Islamic theists". Either this isn't very clear; I'm not understanding it; or it isn't very interesting.    The meaning given in the Wikipedia article on [[kafir] is the equivalent to infidel, meaning non-believer or denier, but points out that as "people of the book", Christians and Jews are not considered to be infidels, even though they may be incorrectly called so. In other words, kafir is correctly applied to anyone other than a Christian, Jew, or Muslim -- for example, a Hindu, or  a pagan.  However, that does not seem to be equivalent to "atheist", and I'm not sure why it is relevant in the article. --BM 19:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: no, have a look at shirk (idolatry). The term for a Hindu would be shirk. Kafir is (a) equivalent to "atheism" and also (b) equivalent to "excommunication" and (c) "apostasy". It is relevant for the article because it sheds light how the concepts discussed here are dealt with in another religious system: I think it is helpful to understand the problems discussed in the disputes about the definition of atheism. It also drives home the point that atheism is a negative concept, i.e. you cannot define atheism without defining theism first. dab (ᛏ) 19:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: the fact that the same word is used for atheism as well as for apostasy and excommunication is interesting; but your text in the article doesn't make that clear at all.   --BM 20:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope I have improved it now. dab (ᛏ) 20:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: you might want to run your eye over the kafir article and make sure we are in sync. Nice job. --BM 20:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  kafir 

message: I am really impressed with the quality of the article lately, especially the way the "God is not a god" issue has been handled. The new section describing a non-theistic definition of God really clarifies the issue. After Sam explained the difference in detail, it was good to see it get integrated. It would be nice if certain people could be less hostile about it, but oh well we've muddled through.
Please note that anons continue to make unhelpful edits. I think being hardasses toward non-consensus changes is a valid response, simply because of the frequency with which such edits are made to this article.
Specifically, the relegation of atheism-as-disbelief-of-MY-god to a paragraph in "Types of atheism" is appropriate, well-done, and most importantly, likely to be a target for vandalism. The consensus is pretty clear right now, and the way it has been reflected in the article is gratifying.--Yath 06:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup it is now a good article, it will however need a goodly few stout hearts to keep it on their watchlist and be prepared to spend an inordinate amount of time and effort to prevent agenda driven POV pushers such as Sam Spade who clearly has a personal agenda against atheism, degrading the quality of the article as I have no doubt, based upon his history here, that he will attempt to do. Probably after a suitable period of calm hoping that he can sneak his poisoned agenda in after it has scrolled off folks radar. There surely should be a better way that would allow good folk to spread their efforts more constructively for the betterment of Wikipedia rather than the archives of this article and its talk pages show.  --Nick-in-South-Africa 07:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article 

message: An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Atheism article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add  to this page. — LinkBot 10:35, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Atheism|Link suggestions]] 

message: I did a websearch, and it seems the only person Calvin has burned was Michael Servetus (a Unitarian Christian), and that was for heresy. I don't want to paint Calvin in more mellow tones than he deserves, and he was a hardcore fundamentalist, but I think statements like "he favoured burning for impiety" (a) suggests that he actually ordered such burnings, which does not seem to be the case, and (b) if he only expressed his favour of such burnings at some point, some sort of reference would be in order. I am afraid I am sceptical because of the other 'burning' related exaggerations I found in this article earlier. dab (ᛏ) 21:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Calvin

message: I am no expert on 16th century french orthography, so forgive my asking: why the “ in athŽ“sme. It's not like French has a musical accent... And we risk that any French speaker passing by will instinctively change it to i. dab (ᛏ) 20:11, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. That was someone's typo.  Mine or yours?   Anyway, fixed.  --BM 21:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I only brought it up because I had fixed it before, and was reverted. dab (ᛏ) 11:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: french

message: I recently posted three links to former notable atheists who became theists. These were promply reverted by BM. I've since done some looking at the practice on other pages of various isms, idealogies, and the persons associated with them. I find that links to opposition are quite fashionable on Wikipedia, but tend to be applied rather unequally. Pages dealing with Christianity seem to have the most links to opposition, and this seems to be in proportion to how conservative and how contemporary. Someone should do a statistical study of the verious pro and con links on Wikipedia to see if a neutral point of view really does prevail, or if there is a pronounced bias. My cursory survey points to the latter at this point.
At any rate there seems to be anti-links on many of the philosophy and religion pages, and I see no reason why this should be different here. These three persons were all respected leaders who were atheistic in outlook as adults who were converted to theism, and said that they were converted by the evidence. I did not elaborate this on the page; I simply gave links to the people involved. The question comes to mind: BM, what are you afraid of?  I am going to replace the links and see what happens. Pollinator 22:06, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
The problem with this kind of link is that it rapidly turns a controversial article into a race between POV's to create the longest list of converters from and to the position, in order to put the position in a good or bad light (depending on the POV). It is not impossible that the lists come to dominate the rest of the article.   Just because other controversial articles have these type of lists does not make it a good thing.  I don't think this article, or any article, benefits from such lists.  If the fact that some notable person converted, and the details of the conversion, from or to the philosophy/view are important for an understanding of the view or its history, that is different, and it should be dealt with in the article.  But just lists of celebrities who converted or de-converted, doesn't seem to me to be useful, and it can be misleading since it doesn't seem NPOV unless an effort is made to keep the lists reflecting the general situation.   NPOV shouldn't depend on how energetic each POV is in adding links to the lists of proponents, opponents in the article.   If the point is, "more famous atheists have converted to theism than the other way round", and this is an important fact about atheism in your view, then state it in the article, but be prepared to prove it.  If you feel Wikipedia benefits from having such a list of atheists, create a "List of Atheists who Converted" article. However, be prepared to defend it on VfD because the administrators who hang out there are pretty fed up with dumb "List" articles.  If you think the lists of such links on the Christianity article (etc) are biased, then go fight that battle.   Don't start sliming other articles in order to make a point.  I plan to remove attempts to create such a list of links in this article..  --BM 22:21, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Links opposing atheism

message: Rather than removing it, BM, can you help me make it not as POV? It's a valid point of view that needs to be in this article. It should be mentioned as the counterpoint to the accusation that atheists are not as moral as theists. For those reading this that aren't BM, here's the paragraph in question:
It is the view of some atheists that they have a higher breed of morality, i.e. atheists are in some ways more moral than theists. Those who espouse this view argue that being motivated to practice ethical behavior for its own sake, without requiring the implicit threat of retribution present in many religious systems to keep them moral, is a more noble and honest form of morality. The argument is often accompanied by an analogy: when asked why it is bad to speed when driving an automobile, some answer that it is dangerous, while others answer that they are afraid of getting a speeding ticket. Those who support the view that atheists have a higher morality see atheists as analogous to the first answer, with theists analogous to the second answer. Andre (talk)  23:42, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Sure, I like the basic point.  To make it less POV, it would be good if we actually provided a source for this view, and put it into the mouth of the person who made this argument, if possible, rather than attribute it to "atheists".  I don't know how many atheists would stake claim to a "higher breed of morality".    Maybe a quote.  Do you have that?   Even better would be to state some of the responses.  --BM 23:48, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speeding ticket paragraph 

message: let me say that, in spite of the sad state of civility on the Talk page, I find the article itself is quite good, and improving. I am very glad we have added some historical depth, and I also like BM's intro, although it is by no means final, of course, and while Communism certainly deserves to be mentioned, it may be better to point out that there is no inherent connection between atheism and communism (there were even theist attempts at communism (Jesuits in Brazil?) and atheist attempts at imperialism (post-French revolution). dab (ᛏ) 11:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: btw, we need some extra-European references. Mainly Buddhism I suppose (Confucianism?). dab (ᛏ) 11:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: good

message: I suggest to delete that sentence about Socrates. The accussation of atheism against him was made because of political reasons and, I think it should be placed in the Socrates article rather than here. He was accused to be atheist, according to Meletos, because he researched the celestial and terrenal objects (the research of nature, what's called in German: Naturwissenschaft). --Neigel von Teighen 17:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is not absolutely necessary. It is also not completely offtopic: It serves to illustrate the notion of "atheos" in ancient Athens. dab (ᛏ) 20:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, in fact one of the occurrences of atheos in classical writings is precisely in Plato's Apology, where Socrates defends himself from the charge of atheism, and indeed this is one of the instances in classical writings where atheos is now usually translated as "atheism".   I think the sentence is clear that Socrates was not in fact an atheist, and his trial is indeed a very good example of one of the main ways in which "atheism" has been conceived down through history -- as an accusation against people who did not actually deny all deities but who were perceived as denying the gods of the established religion.  --BM 20:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then we shall leave it and, maybe add something about the relationship with 'atheos'. I won't do any edit in that article's section for fear to an edit-war (I'm an Harmonious editing club member), which can begin with a very little edit as surely you know :) --Neigel von Teighen 21:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I think that particular paragraph is probably safe.  Edit-warring seems confined to the first sentence, at present. --BM 22:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you like the rearrangement I did? Feel free to post any comment on it. --Neigel von Teighen 22:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: The Socrates example may illustrate a shift in meaning of "atheism". What was then considered atheism would in the 19th C have been called "infidelity". I'm not sure
there is a word for this now - that is, a disbelief or skepticism about the "state" or
"official" gods, since in most countries religious toleration is present and one
can choose to follow a minority religion without serious penalties. It also
shows the close relationship between religion and politics - religious persecutions
often have a political dimension. 
Exile 20:20, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socrates 

message: I e-mailed Walter Burkert and the following is his response to the current etymology section:
----
The entry 'atheism' is basically correct, but I do not see what my name has to do there, 
in relation to quite simple statements (for 5th century, see, e.g., Sophocles King Oedipus 
1360 on the one side, and Diagoras 'ho atheos' on the other); instead of 'coined anew' I 
would prefer 'got a new  function' or 'got a new, pointed signification'...
The French word is not 'perhaps', but clearly derived from the ancient tradition.
Cicero had transscribed atheos into Latin, and Greek philosophical texts were generally 
translated and studied since the Renaissance; the discussion about 'atheoi' had been especially 
prominent between early Christians and pagans.
Happy holydays;
Walter
----
Likewise, Walter. Adraeus 22:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea to ask his opinion, and amazingly nice of so eminent a person to respond.  I'm glad we got the etymology pretty much right, and its nice to have his confirmation. --BM 23:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: great job, Adraeus! I suppose we put WB's name there because there seemed to be some dispute, and we wanted to give a reference. But since what we say is apparently correct and undisputed, I suppose it now sounds like name-dropping, and it's okay to remove it. dab (ᛏ) 09:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burkert & Etymology 

message: Most Wikipedia articles have short introductions summarizing the article, and not just a one sentence dic def.  I made the intro a summary of the "Types of Atheism" section (the first sentence), and the "History" section (the other three sentences).  These represent the bulk of the article.    I don't like the first sentence as a summary of the "Types" section; it is just a dictionary defition.  But Adraeus seems to own that sentence and changing it or expanding it to be a better summary of "Types of Atheism" invites an edit war.   But if you don't like the introduction, please add to, or edit, the one we have rather than moving it.  And Keep in mind that the intro should be relatively short.  --BM 11:23, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the intro is quite ok at the moment. A. obviously doesn't own any part of it, but I think most of his edits are arguable (I still think the "and alternatively" is crap, no matter how much semantics OR rhetorics he throws at it, but I don't care enough to touch it). Just to let you know we are in consensus. dab (ᛏ) 11:37, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I apologize. You have seemed to express possessive feelings towards the first sentence before, but I did not follow the intricacies of the dispute. I did not want to attack you personally, and I rephrase my statement to "obviously, nobody 'owns' the first sentence". dab (ᛏ) 13:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need for apologies here. I do not own any part of the article nor have I expressed any so-called "possessive feelings" about the first sentence. Seriously, if I wanted to claim ownership of some part of the article, do you really think I'd stop at the first sentence!?!? Moreover, you don't own any part of the article either so I interpreted your statement as a statement of fact rather than as one of the many simple-minded ad hominem attacks you've launched at me in the past. Good day. Thank you and goodbye. Adraeus 14:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: and a merry Christmas to you too, Adraeus. I agree there was no need to apologize. dab (ᛏ) 07:46, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: In my wanderings on Wikipedia I stumbled across the "consensus reality" article, and it seems a perfect example of what early atheists were struggling against, a consensus reality of a religious universe. Given that this is such a controversial topic and that I've read in pervious comments here that consensus is the means to edit this article (Wikipedia:Be bold in editing pages notwithstanding), is this an acceptable addition to "Strong atheism"?
:Strong atheism, also known as explicit atheism or positive atheism, is the position... also be based on a psychological understanding of the nature of faith and belief in a religious or spiritual context. Strong atheists reject the "consensus reality" of a religious or supernatural universe.
Or is this too POV? --kudz75 04:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus reality