Talk:Atheism/Archive 28

message: Some contend that atheistic philosophies inevitably lead to nihilism. Atheists do not share a comprehensive moral code, and few atheists would claim that the entire body of moral decisions they make are absolute and true for everyone. Many atheists, however, have developed moral principles based on secular philosophies such as utilitarianism, deontological ethics, and virtue ethics. On the other hand, Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil argues that these newly developed moral systems have no basis and are totally arbitrary; they are one person's idea of what rules he wants everyone to follow.
This is not grammatically correct, which we have already changed for you. You do not introduce a subject; nihilism, then give the opposing view, then give a counter argument to that. for 1, that's not NPOV and 2, it makes little sense to support the original claim only after the opposing view has been stated. You are giving a claim, that comes first.
:: There is no real grammatical problem with it, and you should really stop talking about grammar since it took you until now to be able to spell it correctly.  If there are any problems in coherency, then blame those who hacked up what I originally wrote. 67.187.9.149 01:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already stated numerous times that the citation IS Nietsche.  Your supposed citation was incorrect as that was not the work in which Nietsche argued what I am talking about.  And again, there is NO such thing as a "neutral point of view", not even in the world of scholarship (since people seem to want to appeal to authority...  You can find a scholar for just about any position you wish to support.).67.187.9.149 01:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nietsche did not state what you write.  Please read him and then maybe we'll have something to talk about.  I do not like it when people act as if they know a subject when they do not.  67.187.9.149 01:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You may have tried to reason, but you failed miserably.  You are awfully good at being hypocritical when you tell me that my writing stinks.  You address the issues instead of avoiding them and not reading the necessary sources. 67.187.9.149 12:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This is pure bull.  It is in Nietzsche as I have said over and over and over again and you refuse to go read it.  The links you have supposedly provided were irrelevant. 67.187.9.149 12:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You are not trying to help anyone.  If you were trying to help, you wouldn't post stupidity on my Talk page in order to get me banned.  You wouldn't have reverted my changes like a coward after you knew I had been banned and couldn't do anything.  Finally, you would have read the source and left my good information alone. 67.187.9.149 12:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have read what you provided and I have commented on it.  I can do little to help you understand.  That must come from your own enlightenment.  67.187.9.149 12:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand. How is it that Atheism inevitably leads to Nihilism? I, myself, have been an Atheist for some time now and uphold a set of strong moral principles. On a similar note, simply because I am an Atheist, in no way does that mean I don't have spiritual beliefs. I think it's being terribly biased to say that Atheism leads to Nihilism... 68.42.37.75 22:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I believe this discussion should be happening on a wiki page about Nietzsche. This page is about Atheism, if it is insisted that Neitzsche's comments about Atheism be mentioned, they can be directed to the wikipage, which is where the issue of citing him should be resolved.--Edy52285 02:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism on atheism 

message: I see nothing about this coming from Beyond Good and Evil or On the Genealogy of Morals, which is a revised version of the latter:
On the other hand, Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil argues that these newly developed moral systems have no basis and are totally arbitrary; they are one person's idea of what rules he wants everyone to follow.
This is a controversial statement, which is why we need an exact source where we can find this, like a scholarly essay or quote. coming up with your own meanings and paraphrasing does not substantiate a proper citation, especially in the context you are affording it. Simply stating "well, Nietzsche said it!" is not a good enough counter argument, nor is telling somebody they should know more about philosophy; because thats the whole point of proper citation! You have done original research, and wether you're right or wrong is irrelevant. It needs better citation. 
I would love to include something like this as a critism, however it is controversial and it gives no opportunity to the reader to look up your source. This also does not forward the argument that atheism ultimately leads to Nihilism, which was the purpose of it. It simply states that morals are subjective, which does not lead to nihilism. If this is not changed in 24 hours I will edit it myself. Somerset219 04:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never seen two more obstinate people who refuse to look at the sources before simply eliminated good information.  Of course, apologists will do such things in order to make their own beliefs look good.  In addition to that, you both go and whine to high heaven on my Talk page in order to get me banned.  Talk about unfair mob rule and unreasonableness.  Well, since neither one of you had the brains to go look anything up, allow me to spoon feed you just a few relevant quotes from Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, Article 5:  "All the philosophers, with a pedantic and ridiculous seriousness, demanded of themselves something very much higher, more pretentious, and ceremonious, when they concerned themselves with morality as a science:  they wanted to give a basis to morality - and every philosopher hitherto has believed that he has given it a bases; morality itself, however, has been regarded as something 'given'.  ....It was precisely because moral philosophers knew the moral facts imperfectly, in an arbitrary epitome, or an accidental abridgement - perhaps as the morality of their environment, their position, their church, their Zeitgeist, their climate and zone - it was precisely because they were badly instructed with regard to nations, eras, and past ages, and were by no means eager to know about these matters, that they did not even come in sight of the real problems of morals - problems which only disclose themselves by a comparison of many kinds of morality.  ....What philosophers called "giving a basis to morality," and endeavored to realize, has, when seen in a right light, proved merely a learned form of good faith in prevailing morality, a new means of its expression, consequently just another symptom of a given morality, indeed, in its ultimate motive, a sort of denial that it is lawful for this morality to be called into question - and in any case the reverse of the testing, analyzing, doubting, and vivisecting of this very faith.  ....There are systems of morals that are meant to justify their author in the eyes of other people; other systems of morals are meant to tranquillize him, and humble himself; with others he wishes to take revenge; with others to conceal himself; with others to glorify himself and gain superiority and distinction - this system of morals helps its author to forget that system makes him, or something of him, forgotten; many a moralist would like to exercise power and creative arbitrariness over mankind, perhaps Kant especially, gives us to understand by his system that "what is estimable in me is that I know how to obey - and with you it shall not be otherwise than with me!  67.187.9.149 12:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you have been thoroughly shamed, I hope that you will put my good information back.  I can see that if I attempt to, the mob will rule the day.  If you still don't see it, there are yet more quotes from Nietzsche and philosophy books that will demonstrate that you are simply rewriting philosophy.  However, because of the very reasons Nietzsche mentioned above, I rather doubt that you will recognize that your morals are quite arbitrary, as I wrote.  You will still probably not understand that the law itself is arbitrary, so why should you take it as a "moral" guide?  If you wanted to speed, would you break the law because it was impeding what you desire?  Uh, huh.  If you wanted to do pot for happiness and don't consider it any worse than alcohol, would you break the law because it was impeding what you desire?  Likely.  Do you guys really not get it?  Atheism leads to nihilism, not the belief but the unavoidable fact. Oh well, I don't have time to explain the intricacies of your unthoughtout beliefs and faith, I can only hope that you'll continue to investigate for yourself now that you are perhaps a bit more enlightened.  Of course, I feel that you should put my good information back and stop your mob rule tactics, but I will obviously not be able to make that happen as one lone voice of enlightenment.  So, you do what you like.  At least you have some of the information you wouldn't bother to find on your own.  67.187.9.149 12:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the Genealogy of Morals 

message: I no longer can find any discussion in article on religions that are atheistic, nor on atheists who are still religious. Much has been removed on these topics recently--JimWae 05:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User Somerset believes that Atheism vs. Religion already has a subcategory, but did not stated where they are nor why they were really removed. I'll wait for his words to make clear of this deletion of some sections before any/no actions is to be taken. Monkey Brain(untalk) 06:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Atheist Spiritual person is a someone who does not believe in the existence of God/gods or rejects the notion of God/gods. Nor worship them, nor worship anyother person/thing. They may simply be living a spiritual life (to understand nature/yourself). That is loosely defined as a "religious." And please understand that Atheism is not a system of beliefs, it is simply the rejection of the notion of the existence God/gods/dieties. So there you have it, a religious atheist. :) Monkey Brain(untalk) 21:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there we almost have it.  What exactly is meant by "spiritual" here? siafu 21:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spiritual, here, is defined as notion of understanding nature/yourself. Monkey Brain(untalk) 21:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a reasonable stretch to call that "religious" as stated, though.  Do you mean a supernatural understanding of nature, or one based on faith alone? siafu 22:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither. Not supernaturalistic(unseeable to the normal eye) nor faith(dogma). Monkey Brain(untalk) 22:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in that case, there's no reason to label this outlook as "religious". siafu 22:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But then not everyone would be happy (from both sides(either from ignorance or from what they believe to be harmful to their POV)) because "spiritualist"(as defined) can/do also follow some religion (for example, Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism) that does not require(or in some cases reject the usefulness(or uses) of ) faith, supernatural stuffs, (either rejects or rejects the notion of the existence of) God/gods, immortal soul, and some more unlisted. And as a note:These religion are sometimes associated with spiritualism(aka asian spiritualism in the Atheism article) because they do not endorse the normal religious views held by western theology. Monkey Brain(untalk) 22:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It shouldn't be too hard to understand the apparent contradiction - one can believe in a spirit, or immortal soul, or supernatural beings without worshiping them or believing they are "gods." I'm sure there are plenty of New Agers out there who are spiritual but technically are atheists. MFNickster 22:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You must, understand that "living a spiritual life(to understand nature/yourself" is not attributed to atheism, but to the spiritual atheist. Therefore the Spiritual Atheist/Atheist Spiritual. Monkey Brain(untalk) 21:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hm.. Are you suggesting materialism, naturalism, and humanism have aspects of religion? But from my pov, they are belief systems and not spiritualism/religion. Monkey Brain(untalk) 22:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Right, they are ideologies which is a "belief" system, and are not religious. Hence why I stated them. It sounded as though you were attributing "spirituality" as atheistic, which it isn't. As you said [ideologies] are belief systems and not spiritualism/religion. which is right. The debate was about stating that religions are atheistic, which they aren't. Somerset219 01:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But at the same time, you can't say that all religions are not atheistic. If what you're talking about is theistic religions, then by all means, you are correct. (theistic)Religions are not atheistic. Monkey Brain(untalk) 03:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Reading the above conversation again, it seems that people disagree over the definitions of "religious" and "spiritual".  It's not really necessary to make broad judgements about what "counts" for either of these terms, though we could present some arguments from famous writers by way of introducing the controversy.  We are already doing what I think is the best way to handle this sort of situation, which is to talk about specific traditions by name, and use appropriate terminology for each. -- Beland 02:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious atheists 

message: So does anyone know the process of archiving talk pages? This talk page is too long, about 228+ kb.  Monkey Brain(untalk) 22:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Create a sub-page called Talk:Atheism/Archive01, copy over the text to archive and then leave a link at the top of this page so people can view the archive. I belive WP:ARCHIVE has tips as well. ---J.S (t|c) 22:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it would be "Talk:Atheism/Archive_27" to stick with the current format.  See the box at the top of the page. ---J.S (t|c) 23:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving...

message: This article is currently 72k, and there have been recent complaints (which I agree with) that this is too long.  One easy partial solution would be to create a subarticle, "Demographics of atheism", move that huge demographic section there, and leave behind a summary. -- Beland 01:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll move the the relations between atheism and religon/spiritualism to a new article. And the demographics too. That will reduce the size to about 1/2.  Monkey Brain(untalk) 01:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, 42 kb is not too bad I guess. Monkey Brain(untalk) 02:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are important topics, so we'll want one-paragraph summaries for each.  Working on that now. -- Beland 21:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I finished a quick first pass at that. -- Beland 18:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to make subarticles? 

message: We have two sets of references, one of which has pointers to and from the places in the text that need them, and the other of which doesn't.  It would be considerably easier to read and edit the article if all the references were matched up.  We don't want to miss any that need to be moved or copied to subarticles, and we don't want unneeded references from piling up. -- Beland 01:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References cleanup 

message: Ive been waiting for this, never knew how to do it. good job guys! Somerset219 02:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AWESOME! 

message: example:
The historical context of how each theistic sect has defined and dealt with atheism is significant and although atheism is often accompanied by a total lack of spiritual beliefs, this is not an aspect, or even a necessary consequence, of an atheist's attitude of beliefs. Indeed, there are many atheists who do not believe in a spiritual realm and share an attitude of skepticism towards the supernatural. However, others may or may not belong to any religious group but do believe in the supernatural, and are common in some sects of Buddhism and Taoism, in which theism is not a doctrine. 
yours:
Although atheism is very often accompanied by a total lack of spiritual beliefs, this is not an aspect, or even a necessary consequence, of atheism. Indeed, some atheists do believe in a spiritual or supernatural realm, even in an afterlife. While many of these religious atheists do not belong to any religious group, they are also to be found in some sects of Buddhism and Taoism in which theism is not a doctrine, and even in some religions which are overwhelmingly theistic. The historical context of how each theistic sect has defined and dealt with atheism is also significant. --JimWae 05:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  religion atheism 

message: This section is very poor. Bullet point 4 duplicates bullet 1, and bullet 3 is completely illiterate.
Perhaps someone could improve it. Or I will have a go.
:Go for it! Be bold! Somerset219 19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: criticisms of atheism section

message: I realize the term can be googled, but it was apparently not coined by a 'gnoramus'. It is an ad-hoc back-formation of "agnostic atheism", it would seem by people with limited lexical competence. The actual counterpart of "agnostic atheism" would be "positive atheism". Unless a notable author can be quoted as using the term, I see no reason to list it.  20:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree Somerset219 04:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "gnostic atheism"

message: The article currently includes this text, in reference to Blaise Pascal's argument that without a God, life would be meaningless and miserable:
Being an atheist isn't usually associated with depression, however, suggesting that this doesn't apply to most people who are atheists, although it is possible that most people who would be affected this way chose not to be atheists.
I am concerned that this may constitute original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. It's not a bad point, though. A rewrite may be in order. Any thoughts? -- Ec5618 22:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote that, but I agree, it should be rewritten.Tuesday42 23:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave it a shot. -- Beland 03:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's better.Tuesday42 14:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Is Pascal's argument that an atheist life is meaningless and miserable actually equivalent to claiming that atheism is nihilistic?  If not, then the criticism should be described in the specific terms that Pascal uses "Criticism: atheism is meaningless and miserable" or something, rather than imposing the "nihilistic" label on him. --Dannyno 07:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so; feel free to check Pascal's original text. In any case, it seems POV to list as a critisism "That atheism leadds to nihilism", since that clearly implies that nihilism is in everybody's mind a Bad Thing. I have removed the reference to nihilism for these reasons. Mglg 23:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes no sense.  A criticism of atheism for allegedly being X, Y or Z does not involve any illegitimate POV stance at all with regard to whether X, Y, or Z are inherently Bad.  It's a matter of opinion. After all, the main criticism of atheism is that it rejects belief in God.  Is that POV?  Not everyone thinks that rejecting belief in God is a Bad Thing.  The issue is whether, faced with the allegation of nihilism, atheists have rejected the allegation or have defended nihilism against the attack.  --Dannyno 09:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of atheism: nihilism 

message: why were the following sentences recently deleted from this section: "Without being able to disprove the existence of god, it is necessary to accept the possibility of god. Atheism is irrational." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.82.1 (talk • contribs).
:Your wording was a little biased. You're basically talking about Pascal's Wager as though it is valid. -- Ec5618 09:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's also not specific enough, since not all atheists would say that the existence of a God is impossible. They might only hold that the existence of God is improbable. --Dannyno 07:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Russell's teapot --Andrew Ross-Parker 20:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Without being able to completely disprove the existence of Hitlers magic powers and pet tooth fairy, it is necessary to accept the possibility that Hitler may indeed be magical and possessing of fairy pets. Thus, any belief in the non-existence of Hitlers magical abilities and pet fairies is irrational." I dont see that in the Hitler article, so why should your sentence be blighting the Atheism article? --203.59.166.123 17:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of atheism: Nihilism (removal)

message: Since atheism is neither a religion nor a political position, I see no reason whatsoever why it should need an emblem, any more than relativism or idealism (or, indeed, theism itself). Particular atheist associations may of course have a desire to choose a logo representing their organisation. If this article is perceived as lacking images, I suggest that portraits of notable atheist thinkers or book covers are added. There might also be a section for atheist organisations or movements, where thumbnails of logos may be presented. (ᛎ) qɐp 14:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, is atheism not a philisophical position? I have always seen and used the cut atom symbol as a symbol for atheism, as a marking of my core "belief." That is, my stance on the god concept is represented by that same symbol. WarringSerenity 02:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In addition, I have also seen the circle as a symbol for atheism. WarringSerenity 02:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: emblems etc.

message: I've not waded through the 27 pages of archives, but hopefully this factual correction won't spark a flame war - 'officially' the constitutions of the USSR and most of its bloc promised freedom of religion. Duncan Keith 21:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted reference to USSR being 'officially atheist'

message: Is there any data on the ratio of male:female atheists? Can we assume it's about 1:1? --Burbster 02:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't know.. when I was younger I always was under the impression that women were more religious than men, just from personal expirience, but as I got into my late teens and college age I saw more religious men as well (much to my chagrin - i'm antireligious as I see irrationality at that level harming society everyday).  I really don't know.  I have a feeling if there is a difference it's somewhere between 50% men:50% women and 60% men:40% women  (remember women are 54-56% of the population) Lordkazan 02:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One data point that I happen to have handy: New Zealand's 2001 Census showed 53% of those saying they had "No religion" (which could include some agnostics) were male, compared to 48% of the population. -- Avenue 08:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Males and females 

message: A section should be added to speak about certain religions that are technically atheist, such as Bhuddism. Bhuddism is a religion with many philosophical beliefs, but most forms do not assert the belief in a god, and it is therefore and atheist religion.
: Feel free to add useful sections to any article. Xiner 21:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose section for Bhuddism etc. 

message: Is it safe to remove this text from the criticisms of atheism section?
:"The pessimistic response that the human race is so prone to poor decision-making, especially in large groups, that the entire species would have driven itself to extinction in a fairly short time (no more than two centuries) without some form of (admittedly subtle) intervention by an external intelligence."
It seems biased, starts with weasel words, and assumes that humans are idiots( if this were true, did this intervention also help every other animal of lower intelligence humans survive.)
Originally I was just going to deleete it, but I figured I should take it to the talk page. It at least needs a rewording. Any thoughts? Tuesday42 20:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pessimistic response 

message: The criticisms of atheism section is somewhat biased, mainly the "poor ethics" part. It seems a criticism is prevented and then excessively shot down (I know I'm guilty of said crime.)
I'd like people to look through it and see what they think. It could be that NPOV seems supportive of atheism here.< That last sentence seems pretty arrogant, I know.Tuesday42 21:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess what you are trying to say is that there is undue weight in the article. As far as the article about atheism goes, I think the emphasis to criticism should be left to the Critique of atheism article. All the same, about keeping balance, if there are indeed excessive arguments against said criticisms, they should be presented as such, as you wouldn't want to present them with more validity than they actually hold outside the encyclopedia. Personally, I'm fine with it the way it is. I commend your attitude though, feel free to keep probing on the subject and looking for more input, I am liking your edits and consider the article to be improving. Starghost (talk | contribs) 16:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'd say my main issue is that in the "poor ethics" portion it seems like the same point is said multiple times with the major difference being the source.Tuesday42 20:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in criticisms of atheism section 

message: Removed "This applies to the broader definition of atheism given above. The narrower definition of atheism is a particular belief, not a lack of belief" from "Lack of reason or default position" paragraph, which explains its point well enough IMO. That this conforms with weak atheism can be inferred. Xiner 23:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed passage 

message: In addition to the points made in the section called "Atheism and Science" I would like to add to it reasons that an atheist would have for preferring scientific explanations and thus ignoring any given supernatural explanation that would be provided by a supernatural religion.
As an atheist one may observe that: 
1) there is a universe.
And as an atheist one might also observe:
2) there are many that desire to explain it.
And one might also notice that:
3) there are many and varied explanations, including but not limited to those proffered by supernatural religions.
If one looks at the human enterprise called Science one notices that over the course of history many explanations have been presented for the same phenomenon. And that eventually the explanation that did the best at predicting before the fact new phenomenon that could be and were eventually found were preferred over other explanations. That when science began to use this particular preference for one explanation over another over time the explanations improved.
It is not that supernatural religion is relegated to "the-god-of-the-gaps" but that it has not withstood the test of time as a source of good explanations of the universe. That using the criteria of preference for the explanation which works better the scientific explantions have replaced the supernatural explantions for just about everything but comfort from fear of death.
Also I would like to remind theist critics of this point of view that "god" is an explanation of the universe.
Somebody  65.41.3.49 00:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheism and Science 

message: I am not an historian but I have heard that in the very early years of Christianity, Christians were referred to as atheists by Romans. Supposedly Romans of the time referred to anyone that would not accept their gods as heritics or atheists. Does anyone have any references on this to source historical documents?
Somebody  65.41.3.49 00:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Some recent edits were made based on "people cite wikipedia as evidence that you can't be an atheist without _claiming_ to be an atheist".
I won't revert Wiploc's edits as I think it doesn't matter which way we say it, but I'd note that if people are doing this, they simply weren't reading Wikipedia correctly. Claiming/asserting that God doesn't exist isn't the same thing as claiming/asserting that you are an atheist. "(Strong) Atheist" is the label given to people who claim God doesn't exist - it doesn't logically follow from that statement that an atheist has to assert that he is an atheist. Mdwh 22:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, just like you don't have to assert (or even agree) that you are a vertebrate to be a vertebrate.  In fact, I can strenuously deny being an athiest, but if I believe no gods exist, then I am in fact an athiest, and my denials are irrelevant.  Leeborkman 04:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An atheist is only someone who claims to be an atheist? 

message: I was about to add Joss Whedon to the list of famous atheists, but stopped when I saw that the current list is already dominated by Americans. I confess to knowing too little about the topic, and thus would like to ask, does the current list deserve to be there and are there missing ones that do? Xiner 02:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you miss the .en?  This is an english wiki, after all.  Nothing wrong with putting in Americans imo.  --Karafias 03:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he was worried about a certain guideline that says that some viewpoints are underrepresented in the wiki. However, I dont see a problem with adding that man, the way to solve that would be to add other famous international atheists. However, if the case is that there are more famous american atheists than in the rest of the world, there isn't much else that can be done. Denying people information is not a valid way to keep balance imho. On the other matter, I don't see why the list wouldn't deserve to be there? Unless you meant the small list, as it appears to favor a dozen atheists over the hundreds of others for no apparent reason, then I can see where you are coming from. Starghost (talk | contribs) 15:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That is exactly what I meant by my earlier comment, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I agree with dropping the smaller list since defining who is the most famous is too subjective. Starghost (talk | contribs) 17:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that mini-list isn't particlularly useful or appropriate here, I think. And there's the unnecessary risk of POV in keeping it trimmed down to just a handful of entries, too. The link to list of atheists in "see also" should suffice. I say remove the section entirely. Bryan 18:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you guys have ironed out a solution to my concerns, whether they were presented as well as I could've. I think the argument for removing the list is the best suggestion so far. Xiner 22:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of famous atheists (or not) 

message: On the Humanities Reference Desk we got a question entitled ["All muslims are atheists"] in which the reader was confused over the defenition at the top of the page.  It should be reworded to make it easier to understand for the layman.  Second of all, the italicized accent should be on truthfully, not "can" and "cannot" IMO.  The can/cannot part doesn't need the emphasis.  I know it will clutter the defintion, but maybe break reword it into "A person who can truthfully assert they do not believe in either a God or gods."  I dunno.
:Hi, can someone explain how the current definition could be construed as meaning that all muslims are athiests?  If you can explain this, then would would be in a better position to fix the problem.  Thanks.  Leeborkman 01:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, how about this, which is the simplest, clearest version I can make that that doesn't have the annoying mono/poly problem:
An "athiest" can be defined as either:
* A person who could truthfully assert "I believe that no gods exist"; or
* A person who could not truthfully assert "I believe that at least one god exists".  Leeborkman 02:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, but I don't think assertion has anything to do with it. It just adds a layer of needless complexity (Occam's Razor anyone?). Why not leave it as a matter of belief, where it belongs? MFNickster 02:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, is that the problem?  In that case, how about:
An "athiest" can be defined as either:
* A person who believes that no gods exist; or
* A person who does not believe that at least one god exists.  Leeborkman 02:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Done! Leeborkman 02:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommended Rewording of Atheist Definition 

message: There is a bad link in the Atheist gatherings section, "Godless March on Washington".
There is a page Godless_Americans_March_on_Washington and at least two redirect links point to that page namely; Godless_March and Godless_American_March_on_Washington (no "s" in American(s)). I suppose "Godless March on Washington" would also be a useful redirect or should the link be changed? As an aside the Brights Movement page also has a link to "Godless March on Washington"
Vamptoo 05:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that "Godless Americans March on Washington" was the proper name for the event, so I think the links should be updated to reflect that.  Urania3 10:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is fixed now, thank you.Vamptoo 01:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad link - Godless March on Washington 

message: Well there is something wrong with the title, since the names cited would have to be famous because they are atheists.. It is fishy, we are not talking about footballers here. But even if it was the case, as a fellow atheist, I only recognize one of the names on the list, is this a joke?? Isn't Karl Marx, Engels, Jean Paul Sartre much more famous atheists?? They were pretty much famous because they were atheists by the way.. What is the rationale for excluding them and including these people (who are nearly exclusively all American btw)?? Baristarim 08:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see #List of famous atheists (or not) above. -- Ec5618 09:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I had just come across this article, I wasn't aware that there was a discussion beforehand, my bad.. :)) Baristarim 16:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: famous atheists??

message: Why nothing about discrimination against atheists in the USA?
:See Discrimination of atheists. I've added a link to the article. Mdwh 19:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrimination of atheists 

message: *The conscious mind is self-aware in the individual. It is arguable that the existence of a self-aware conscious mind points to the existence (or strong possibly thereof) of a greater consciousness which either scientifically or spiritually gives each individual this capacity. A logical argument can be made that the universe itself is far more complex than an individual human, and the complexities (whether discovered or not) dwarf the capacity of humans to comprehend. Because of this, the fact each individual is aware of their existence even if explained purely as a byproduct of physics and biology gives reason to suspect that a greater existence and consciousness functions, whether or not it is (or they are) bound by the laws of science. 
Even if it is not worded clearly enough, the ideas are clear. Each of us, each of you are consciously aware, (yet are not aware of the minds of the others). This attribute, this fundamental function of the human mind, whether caused purely by physical and chemical reactions or not, is an indicator that the universe itself has this capacity. The greater complexity of the universe lends credence that a greater consciousness functions from it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, that makes about as much sense as this.  It's entirely POV, and not a very rational one at that.  Too opinionated and too abstract/nebulous to be relevant to this article.  --Karafias Talk • Contributions 04:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Your doing a non-sequitor. How about you explain your position against it. the concept of God or any Being is related to the capacity of consciousness. If we ourselves recognize our own consciousness, and if athiests regard it as purely the result of physics, how then can that attribute not be possible in a greater capacity of the universe? I am not stating an argument in such a way to discredit this article, but an argument worthy of adding to the section. It certainly has more philosophical merit than "That atheism doesn't exist." or the obvioulsy idiotic "That atheism makes life meaningless and miserable.", which merits your link to the mouse and pancake. In fact, i think you know where I'm coming from, but your drawn more to having your position than seeking some philosophical continuity. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you have a source for this argument? This is not the place for Original Research. This is not a place for people to list their 101 pet flawed arguments for God, instead it's to list notable criticisms that many people have made. This talk page should be for discussions on the article, not discussions about trying to prove the existence of God. Mdwh 14:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I added this in the arguments section. 

message: Under the section heading "Types of Atheism", agnosticism, ignosticism and some others are included. It seems that this section is intended as a "clarifying distinctions between different but similar idealogies" but it seems to suggest that, for instance, agnosticism is a form of atheism which it strictly is not.
Even if the view taken is that agnosticism is a refusal to give assent to any proposition which we don not know (roughly what Huxley had in mind) then it still raises the question of whether or not "God exists" (or some likewise varient) is a known proposition. As such is not strictly incompatible with either theism or atheism and so should not be classified as a "type" of atheism. It's possible for an agnostic to also be a theist in this context but here the agnostic believes himself to have sufficient reason or justification for believing in God's existence (or what have you) and so classifies as a thiest.
Other definitions of agnosticism (such as "one who does not know if God exists) are also compatible with theism. One can "not know" something but at the same time believe or give assent to that proposition. So it's possible to have "agnostic theists" in this context as others have argued elsewhere and as such it seems confusing to list agnosticism as a type of atheism.
:Yeah, I agree a section describing agnostic atheism specifically would be a better idea. Starghost (talk | contribs) 17:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To the extent that an agnostic lacks a belief in a god, they are certainly an atheist under the broadest definition of atheism.  Some agnostics would also qualify as *rejecting* belief in god. It all depends on what you mean by "agnostic" and what you mean by "atheist". If the article doesn't make this clear, then it should.  "Agnostic atheism" as a label, of course, has a pedigree stretching back to the nineteenth century. --Dannyno 20:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of Atheism: Agnosticism, etc 

message: Uh guys, do we really want one of the definitions of atheist to include almost every person on the planet?  An atheist needs to not believe in only at least one god!?  A little too broad don't you think?  Atheism... without god... I don't think of a person who believes in 1000 gods but lacks belief in one to be an atheist.  [User: Some dude] October 11 2006
:the person is an atheist inreguards to that religion, its all perspective. Just like people don't like the concept of evolution because of what is supposes our ancestors to be. It is broad, because it's taking the broader, or default, stance. It is the stance of not recognizing the claim of a deity. 
:If a person believes in 1000 gods, and it's acknowledged w/o bias, then he/she is not atheist. However, if you believe there is only and can only be one god, and he/she doesnt believe in that god, then anything else they believe is irrelevant, and they are an atheist. Just like I can say, "I'm awesome at soccer", but not "I'm awesome at professional soccer." Somerset219 00:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you saying something like Christians should be called atheists by Muslims and vice versa because of perspective? A person might believe in 1000 gods, but as long as one of them is not the Muslim god, Muslims would call this person an atheist? "A person who does not believe that at least one god exists;" Well, a christian doesn't believe the Muslim god exists, is he an atheist? I don't know if the definition of atheists should be that inclusive. It sounds more like atheists can believe in god, but they are only atheists if they don't believe in "your" god. I can see how Some dude might be raising a point here. Starghost (talk | contribs) 17:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my not so humble opinion, anyone who believes in any god is not an atheist.  An atheist is someone who does not have any belief in any god.  --BostonMA talk 17:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you agree that the way it is phrased could lead to an interpretation that would be wrong by your opinion (which I share by the way)?Starghost (talk | contribs) 05:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It took me a while to figure out what you guys were talking about here, but I think I understand you now.  If I believe that Allah does not exist, then I believe that at least one god does not exist and so I am an Atheist.  Is that right?  Okay, that being the case, I have amended the definitions, placing quotes around the phrase "At least one god exists" to identify it as the atomic, indivisible proposition that a person believes or does not believe.  That should eliminate the interpretation that was bothering you.  Does that work for you? THanks. Leeborkman 05:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Precisely. And thank YOU.Starghost (talk | contribs) 05:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: atheist definition

message: I've noticed a rather odd thing about many of these Atheism, Agnosticism, or Theism type articles, for some weird reason, they almost always mention each other over and over in each article, not often drawing connections with each other either. I've been looking at, for instance, the Theism article, and right now it lists the Theism part, then defines Atheism, (albiet poorly, but i'm not willing to edit war over it) then defines Agnosticism, without drawing any connection to the topic of Theism. It's just also looking at the Atheism article here, the Agnosticism section seems ill placed, because it doesn't seem to show how exactly you learn more about the topic of Atheism itself, just Agnosticism alone. Then, the Agnosticism article only deals with Agnosticism, so really, i'm just rather confused as to why these articles aren't consistant with each other like this, and i've only started editing the Theism article much recently, so I just wanted to know, is there a reason for this i'm not getting? Homestarmy 19:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would read just a few sections above, you would see that we already mentioned a couple of things about the agnosticism section on this page and how it should deal with Agnostic-atheism instead. I don't think there is a particular reason or conspiracy for it to be the way you see, if that's what you're implying. Starghost (talk | contribs) 05:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I have a question about direction for all these articles

message: Currently 
 an "atheist" can be defined as either:
 A person who does not believe the proposition "At least one god exists"; or 
 A person who believes the proposition "No god or gods exist".
should it not also include
 A person who holds no beliefs about the existence of god or gods.
'having no beliefs' subltly not being the same as 'not believing' which would be / can be interpreted as conciously holding the contra belief
JohnShep 13:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume you are drawing a distinction between implicit and explicit (as described later in the article). If we do, I think we need a clearer way to word it than "no beliefs about" versus "doesn't believe in any". Mdwh 14:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting aspect of atheism. If we believe that god/gods and the nature of what is deemed a supernatural is simply cultural then any people who are ignorant of that culture for whatever reason must be deemed atheist too as opposed to only describing those who have not been deluded by religion. We can thus make the statement that all children are atheists until they are taught the words for god or supernatural entity and the doctrines involved with a specific religion that advertises that particular god or supernatural entity. We could also make the statement that all people are atheists unless they have learnt the name for a god and do not question what it is that they have been taught. The basis for this is what Dawkins says about child abuse and religion. This would be a way of introducing someone notable as a owner for this definition, else it would just be WP:OR on our part. I've only just ordered a copy of The God Delusion where I think this is presented in more depth. Ttiotsw 20:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about an atheist is a person who lacks belief in the existence of god or gods I think this covers both bases JohnShep 22:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Just found an article  which states  active disbelief is strong atheism and no belief is weak atheism - I quite like these definitions, since we now have a reference for them can they be used in the introduction ? JohnShep 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  I absolutly agree that there should be some mention of what silence seems to be describing a subculture of atheism. Silence, if you can find some balanced sources (since I expect most of the references to such a "movement" would likely be from the opposing side and sharply slanted), I would certainly like to see that added. However you seem to suggest that some of the existing definitions for atheism be moved to nontheism. I disagree, thats trying to redefine existing terminoligy, and its not what were doing here.--Edy52285 07:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition 

message: There is no section that discusses or looks at Atheism's links to the notion that it is impossible to prove a nagative. Many Athiests, including myself rely heavily on this notion in asserting their position as an Athiest, and shifting the burden of proof the theist. This can often form a major part of Athiesm, especially when considering it as a neutral state of belief. Should this be included? and if so, should it be a section unto itself or incorperated into one or more other sections? Jarryd Moore 07:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a strange notion to think that there is any burden of proof on anyone in such a discussion!  Why do any of us need to prove or even persuade?  Are we some weird sect looking for converts?  No burden of proof!... that's my motto.  Scepticism is an attitude, and if you happen to adopt that attitude, then atheism is a likely result.  Belief or unbelief is not a matter that comes under the Rules of Debate ;-) Leeborkman 08:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And on a purely pedantic philosophical note, it is not necessarily impossible to prove a negative or more specifically to prove that seomething does not exist.  It is, for example, simple to prove that "There is no rational number that when multipled by itself gives 2".  The trick in such a proof is to prove that the existence of whatever leads to a logical impossibility.  Easy to do for many classes of negative assertion, but probably not possible in the case of "there are no gods".  In other words, you can get yourself into philosophical hot water and lose debating points if you self-righteously proclaim "it is impossible to prove a negative". All good fun though ;-) Leeborkman 08:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jarryd, there used to be a section that linked to Russell's teapot and the IPU to make this point. maybe put these back. Poujeaux 17:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheism and the notion of the impossibility to prove a negative 

message: The first openly atheistic thinkers, such as Baron d'Holbach, appeared in the late 18th century,...
Quite true but it might be interesting to talk of the first enlightment atheist(s) who couldn't reveal their opinions or philosophy at the time for fear of direct sanctions. Holbach was particularly influenced by Jean Meslier, a priest who was the first of the French renaissance to state unequivocaly his atheism and to demonstrate it. Jean Meslier (1664-1729) was a priest (hurray!) from the north of France who left two volumes of writings to be published after his death that have been pivotal in the formalisation of atheism in the 18th C. Usually know as the Testament of Abbot Meslier it demonstrates point by point the fallacy of all religions and why God(s) cannot exist (his opinion). He is the first of that era to positively state the fundamental non-exitence of God(s). The full title of his Testament contains the whole program:  << Memorandum of the thoughts and feelings of Jean Meslier, priest of the parish of Étrépigny and Balaives, on some of the errors and abuses of human behavior and government where can be seen clear and obvious demonstrations of the vanity and fakeness of all divinities and religions of the world, to be adressed to his parishioners after his death, and to serve them as a testimony of truth, to them and all fellow men >>
Many clandestine copies circulated before any 'official' edition between the proponents of french enlightment notably Voltaire, Holbach, Frederic II, Rousseau, Diderot, Alembert and all the encyclopedists. The first edition of extracts of the text sanctionned by the censoring authorities was made by Voltaire in 1762 but he severely changed the content so that it lost its radical atheism.
I don't know what kind of mention it could be made of that fundamental text in the article on atheism. I have never yet participated in the Wikipedia project appart from being an avid user.
here is a picture of him:
http://monsite.orange.fr/meslier/images/0-picture.jpg?0.06378708517722886
here is picture of the first page of the manuscript:
http://monsite.orange.fr/meslier/images/1-picture1.gif?0.24138339041531376
I don't know if there is an english edition of this text.
--Keria 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/17607 for Superstition In All Ages (1732) by Jean Meslier. The fact that the Gutenberg project has it scanned in makes it as notable as any other thing in this weird realm of faith verses reason. Ttiotsw 15:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds like valuable information. All or most of it would probably be a fantastic addition to History of atheism. I'm not sure, though, of whether it merits inclusion in the top-level Atheism article, and if so it could only get a very brief mention, since we have to keep the section in question in strict summary-style. -Silence 16:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "Memorandum on the thoughts and feelings of Jean Meslier, priest of the parish of Étrépigny and Balaives, on some of the errors and abuses of human behavior and government where can be seen clear and obvious demonstrations of the vanity and fallacy of all divinities and religions of the world, to be adressed to his parishioners after his death, and to serve them as a testimony of truth, to them and all their fellow men."
What came to be know as The Testament of Priest Meslier circulated in underground circles of thinkers and had a huge influence notably on Voltaire, d'Holbach, Emperor Frederic II, Rousseau, Diderot, d'Alembert and all the encyclopedists. Baron d'Holbach summarized the priest's dense and sometime confused arguments in Superstition in All ages.
There isn't any quotes but I have a lot of them, all in french. I'm not sure how to reference quotes that might not have been published in English. I can translate them though.
English is not my first language so any correction would be appreciated. It still reads a bit quirky. Also I'm not yet familliar with Wikipedia's use of punctuation so any advice on that is welcome too.
I'm not sure how to add alink to the Project Gutenberg edition  of "Superstition in all ages"
User:Keria 08:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Jean Meslier? 

message: The wording of the etymology section might be misread as suggesting that the origin of self avowed disbelief in gods is to be found in late 18th century Europe.
:Originally simply used as a slur for "godlessness", atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Judeo-Christian God.
Encyclopedia Brittanica notwithstanding, it might be more correct to say that the practice of self-awowed disbelievers referring to themselves as atheists began in late 18th century Europe.  I have my doubts about even this more restricted assertion.  Perhaps even more accurate, but perhaps less flowing, 
:the earliest attestation available of self-avowed disbelievers referring to themselves with the English word atheist (or similar European words) is from late 18th century Europe.
--BostonMA talk 16:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the very meaning of "self-avowed" necessitate that it be used as a self-description? It is meaningless to speak of "self-avowed use" of a term being prior to the term being used by people to describe themselves, and it is thus redundant to speak of "self-avowed [X]... referring to themselves [as X]". -Silence 16:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good question, and one that I think helps to illustrate the confusion wrought by the paragraph.  Prior to late 18th century Europe, there were individuals who asserted the non-existence of gods.  See for example Carvaka.  There is no attestation that the followers of Carvaka used the English word atheist (or any similar European word).  It is conceivable that they they were at some point familiar with the Greek equivalent for atheism, but again, that is not attested.  However, Christians who referred to "godless" people as atheists, would undoubtedly, to the extent to which they were aware of this school, have referred to the followers of Carvaka as atheists.  It is important to bear in mind the distinction between the etymology of a word and the history of an idea, which may or may not be expressed in the language of that word.  I hope this helps to clarify.  --BostonMA talk 16:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Mimamsa school of philosophy.  --BostonMA talk 16:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But surely the etymology section of this article should be discussing the history of the word, not of the idea. Consequently, what is significant is the first "self-avowed atheists" as in the first people to describe themselves as atheists, not as in the first people to openly hold beliefs which we would today recognize as atheistic (which relies to a certain extent on our interpretations of various figures and their beliefs). -Silence 01:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology section 

message: I've made a number of major revisions to the article recently, and only a few have generated much comment. As such, I'd like to ask if anyone here has any comments, criticisms, suggestions, or observations regarding the atheism makeover. My hope is that, once this article is a bit better-referenced and the remaining patchy parts (such as the bloated "external links" section) have been fixed, we can submit it to Peer Review and get some good ideas to help eventually bring this article up to Featured quality. -Silence 03:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall I like the revisions you made. -Axlq 03:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major revisions

message: Also, since we haven't had any vandalism or disruption in a while, I'm unprotecting the page for now. -Silence 03:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me, there hasn't been vandalism or disruption because the page was semi-protected. I could be wrong. All I know is, nearly all the vandalism I revert on Wikipedia comes from anonymous IP addresses, and semi-protection prevents that. Semi-protection should be standard policy for controversial articles that attract vandals. -Axlq 03:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, and so does our official policy at WP:SEMI. Semi-protection runs contrary to our principles and interests as an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone; it should never be used, as WP:SEMI points out, "as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred" or "to prohibit anonymous editing in general". Furthermore, vandalism is exceedingly easy and simple to revert, whereas an anonymous editor's productive contributions might be invaluable (they might never have occurred if not for that specific user), meaning that it is worth it to have to revert 9 (or even 29) anonymous vandals if it means that 1 anonymous contributor will improve the article, resulting in a clear and significant net gain for the page, even if it takes more work than simply prohibiting all anons from editing. -Silence 04:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotection

message: So, let's start going through the external links section and determine which links are necessary, and which are not, and trim off the latter. Our goal should be to have no more than 10-15 external links in the "external links" section of the article. Things to keep in mind are: many of these links can be moved to daughter articles; many contain redundant information; and Wikipedia's job is not to popularize our favorite atheism sites, but to provide the most important and necessary ones. Also, we don't need to provide links to most of the ones that are already linked to from references, like the BBC site. -Silence 23:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing wrong with the quantity of links, as long as they are well-organized and not a hodge-podge list. And they are well-organized, so my inclindation is to leave them alone. As a first cut, however, I would eliminate or drastically reduce the "Miscellaneous" and "Web communities" sections and leave the rest alone. Many of the sites mentioned in those sections aren't notable enough to warrant a link. =Axlq 03:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia convention is to use absolutely as few external links in an article as possible. Note that if this article is ever submitted to become a Featured Article anytime in the future, it will be summarily rejected if it has more than around 15 external links; I have seen dozens of articles (such as Jesus, which used to have as many external links as atheism does before it was forced to be trimmed down in order to meet Wikipedia's general standards; now it only has 14 links) be rejected on exactly the same grounds in the past. This is strongly indicative of the general consensus of Wikipedia editors: having a well-organized linkfarm does not resolve the essential problem of linkfarms, which is not that they are disorganized, but that they link to an excessive number of non-Wikipedia sites, even though Wikipedia should only link to outside sites when absolutely necessary. That certainly applies here. -Silence 11:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Comment re Reasons for atheism: Pointless, and a misunderstanding of what atheism is - it does not need reasons.  Do we need 'Reasons for not believing in fairies'? Reasons for belief in god might be needed. Emeraude 22:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV. It is not our job to prescribe whether people should have reasons for not believing in deities, merely to describe what reasons people do use for it. -Silence 22:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons

message: why do you ppl make everything sound so complicated all u have 2 write is an atheist is someone who doesnt believe in god done.  y do u have 2 make it sound lyk a super scientific article i cant understand it at all.  it reminds me of this guy who used to go according 2 my calculations he was the biggest nerd ever
: because this is an encyclopoedia, not a dictionary
:: i think u hav a valid pt.  2 much of the articl is Rguing over defns of weak/strong/explicit/implicit (which makes it read like a dictionary not an encyclopoedia). Speshly the top section should be kept simple. As it stands it makes us atheists seem like a bunch of pedantic nerds! Poujeaux 14:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Leet]] guy 

message: What do people think having a mention that the logic used as a reason for Atheism can be inductive or deductive. Possibly under the "Philosophical and logical reasons" heading ... "While explicit Atheism uses inductive logic, implicit Atheism uses deductive logic as the basis of belief or non-belief." ... and with the logic references linking to the relevant wikipedia article. Just thought it might be good to mention as it explains the process of reasoning and it might be good to put a more formal name to it. Jarryd Moore 18:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons For Atheism (Types of Logic) 

message: why do you ppl make everything sound so complicated all u have 2 write is an atheist is someone who doesnt believe in god done. y do u have 2 make it sound lyk a super scientific article i cant understand it at all. it reminds me of this guy who used to go according 2 my calculations he was the biggest nerd ever —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeansandtshirtsux (talk • contribs) .
:If you dislike indepth commentary on philosophical subjects, may I suggest that you head over to simple.wikipedia.org? 
:Otherwise, yes, this article does need to be simplified a bit, without removing any pertinent info on the subject. What's that word again? Oh yeah, clarification. -FrostyBytes 10:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SERIOUS IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED

message: Well, I'm not sure who to thank for the rewritten intro, but I love it (bonus points for knowing why). So whoever did it, thanks! Xiner 03:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that was User:Silence - someone please correct me if I am mistaken. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I thought so too after (trying to) read the discussions since I was last here, but I couldn't really keep up. So thanks, Silence. Xiner 22:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaints vs. Congrats 

message: "including most atheistic philosophers and groups"
The statement above appears in the first paragraph.  If there is any convincing statistical evidence to show that greater than 50% of "atheistic philosophers and groups" accept that particular usage of the term then please cite that source.  If not then perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that "...'A' claims that most philosophers and groups..." rather than a blanket statement of fact.
GuyIncognito 15:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a clarification