Talk:Atheism: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

Dannyno (talk | contribs)

1 user group
3,052 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
InelegantSolution (talk | contribs)
46 edits
Tag: Reply
Dannyno (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
3,052 edits
Tag: Reply
Line 77: Line 77:
::It's true that 1,2 and 4 of the cited references use words like "absence" and "lack" (though number 3, Ferm citing Runes, does not appear to support them), but this terminology is based on the assumption that religious belief is the default position. For an Atheist, it is not. Words like "absence" and "lack" are not used for belief in ghosts, fairies or Russell's teapot : for someone with no use for something, that thing not being present is the default position. Belief in it is neither absent nor lacking.
::It's true that 1,2 and 4 of the cited references use words like "absence" and "lack" (though number 3, Ferm citing Runes, does not appear to support them), but this terminology is based on the assumption that religious belief is the default position. For an Atheist, it is not. Words like "absence" and "lack" are not used for belief in ghosts, fairies or Russell's teapot : for someone with no use for something, that thing not being present is the default position. Belief in it is neither absent nor lacking.
::A change to "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is no belief in the existence of deities" would remove something that looks like bias from the opening of the article. [[User:InelegantSolution|InelegantSolution]] ([[User talk:InelegantSolution|talk]]) 19:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
::A change to "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is no belief in the existence of deities" would remove something that looks like bias from the opening of the article. [[User:InelegantSolution|InelegantSolution]] ([[User talk:InelegantSolution|talk]]) 19:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
:::I'll make three points. First of all, the definitions used here are based on the literature, including literature written by atheists. Whether "absence" and "lack" do or do not carry the implicit bias you claim they carry is strictly speaking irrelevant - we can only use the definitions found in the literature. Secondly, the use of "absence" or "lack" has in fact been adopted by pro-atheist writers for philosophical reasons to do with where they argue the burden of proof lies. Anti-atheist definitions tended historically to emphasise malice, hence the use of stronger words with potential theological meaning, like "denial". So your identification of a bias in those words doesn't fit the evolution of the definitions historically, nor the actual history of hostile definitions of atheism. Thirdly, if the bias you claim can be found in the literature, then perhaps there is room for it to be included as a note somewhere. But otherwise its just a debating point. [[User:Dannyno|Dannyno]] ([[User talk:Dannyno|talk]]) 18:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


== Irrelevant map ==
== Irrelevant map ==

Revision as of 18:45, 31 March 2022

Featured articleAtheism is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 8, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 31, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 29, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
April 28, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:Vital article

Template:Calm

See what you wrote; you are correct, and use it in the article Similarities and differences between naturalism and atheism

Impartiality

At least attempt to make an impartial article guys. I can easily tell this was written by a religious zealot and a lot of the things said here are completely wack. It's so passive aggressive towards atheism when being directly about atheism. How come we get treated like this when nobody really cares about burden of proof except religious zealots. IMPARTIALITY IS KEY TO INFORMATION SPREADING BECAUSE IT GIVES ACTUAL INFORMATION INSTEAD OF SPREADING BIGOTRY AND HATE. 2603:6011:3E06:BC00:798B:65F3:E7D:CDFB (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be a little more specific about which sections you think are out of balance or need closer attention? Platonk (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the historical descriptions in the article are accurate in reflecting Atheism having been seen - in those times - as aberrant behaviour, but I winced at the opening sentence which suggests that our shouty friend may have had a point.
It's true that 1,2 and 4 of the cited references use words like "absence" and "lack" (though number 3, Ferm citing Runes, does not appear to support them), but this terminology is based on the assumption that religious belief is the default position. For an Atheist, it is not. Words like "absence" and "lack" are not used for belief in ghosts, fairies or Russell's teapot : for someone with no use for something, that thing not being present is the default position. Belief in it is neither absent nor lacking.
A change to "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is no belief in the existence of deities" would remove something that looks like bias from the opening of the article. InelegantSolution (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make three points. First of all, the definitions used here are based on the literature, including literature written by atheists. Whether "absence" and "lack" do or do not carry the implicit bias you claim they carry is strictly speaking irrelevant - we can only use the definitions found in the literature. Secondly, the use of "absence" or "lack" has in fact been adopted by pro-atheist writers for philosophical reasons to do with where they argue the burden of proof lies. Anti-atheist definitions tended historically to emphasise malice, hence the use of stronger words with potential theological meaning, like "denial". So your identification of a bias in those words doesn't fit the evolution of the definitions historically, nor the actual history of hostile definitions of atheism. Thirdly, if the bias you claim can be found in the literature, then perhaps there is room for it to be included as a note somewhere. But otherwise its just a debating point. Dannyno (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant map

The map in Atheism § Attitudes toward atheism section is irrelevant to the concept of "atheism". Blasphemy ≠ atheism, since we cannot say all atheism are blasphemous, and in correlation with our faith (atheism) and our deed (blasphemy). It is very contentious map with stereotypical idea. The Supermind (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course blasphemy ≠ atheism, but a particular society's degree of tolerance or prohibition of blasphemy is an indicator of freedom of belief. (Atheism, by the way, need not be a faith.) I believe the map is useful and relevant in the context of this article, and will restore it. Please see WP:BRD and do not remove it again until there is consensus to do so on this talk page. Thanks, Just plain Bill (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FA status follow-up

@Wretchskull, Foorgood, and Jenhawk777: I am following up on this conversation from March. A quick glance through the article suggests that some citation needed templates are still present, there is some short sections that can probably be merged together or expanded upon (particularly in "Demographics" and the later sections in "Arguments") and some sources are producing a harv-error, suggesting that the source is no longer used as an inline citation. Are any editors still interested in improving this article? Z1720 (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do later. Wretchskull (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F1080348592