Category talk:Atheist Wikipedians

Template problem

Um, the template shown doesn't match the actual template (which is hideous). Also, it seems that it is almost completely unused. Everyone seems to use the following:

This user is an atheist.

Perhaps it should be changed -Deathregis 09:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I like that! *applauds* I would also like to see "Atheist" capitalized. GeorgeC 08:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It may be more aesthetically pleasing, but it's certainly less accurate, and certainly very possibly offensive (both to atheists and non-atheists). Use of a no symbol typically indicates opposition to or intolerance for something, not mere absence or rejection of it, which is how most atheists prefer to characterize their views. An image like that is more appropriate for antitheism-based stuff (and that userbox already has a better image) than atheist-based. -Silence 10:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Silence. GeorgeC 18:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

With the facts? To quote the first lines of no symbol: "The no symbol is a circle with a diagonal line through it (running from top left to bottom right), surrounding a picture used to indicate something is not permitted. The No symbol is usually colored red." Is this a template for atheists, or for people who think God should be outlawed? -Silence 04:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Have you seen the CelebAtheists site? How about a variation of the American Atheists logo; a full atomic model with an upper-case "A" for Atheists and a lower-case "a" for Agnostics? Better yet, why don't we ask other Wikipedians? If possible, put a notice or a poll on the front page asking for their input. GeorgeC 18:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be fine with a poll. I also would be fine with the creation of the above template, if enough users want to use it; I'm objecting to its potentially offensive content, not to its creation or use (I tolerate most things I'm critical of). -Silence 18:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it just seems like that's what everybody's already using. I count 183 users with this userbox on their page. Seeing as there are 354 users in Atheist Wikipedians, more than half of them are using that template. -Deathregis 20:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What about all the people who have not added themselves to the category, or who have removed themselves from the category, but who still consider themselves atheists? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-3 20:30

I would like to be added to the list of Atheist. It says that I am within the category on my user page but my name is not listed. I was automatically added to all the other categories that I am included in. Ace Fool (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Spiritual and religious Atheists?

Silence, I see you revised my edit. You seem to be confusing Atheism with Agnosticism or possibly some flavor of New Age philosophy.

What makes you think that an Atheist can be religious, much less "spiritual" ? They are nowhere similar. GeorgeC 00:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Religion is about a community of people who believe in a common idea, and who come together to strengthen and discuss their beliefs. It doesn't necessarily have to deal with a spiritual belief. Likewise, it is possible for one to not believe in an almighty god(s), but still believe that there is an afterlife, or that there are higher states that people can achieve in life or death. I don't agree with them, though, but they're free to believe what they want. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-1 00:33

• • "They are nowhere similar." - Neither is having blond hair and being a vegetarian, yet there are vegetarians who have blond hair. To argue that there are no religious or spiritual atheists is as absurd as arguing that all people with blond hair yet meat; irreligion, secularity and atheism are entirely distinct concepts.
  • "It doesn't necessarily have to deal with a spiritual belief." - Bullshit. There's your New Age philosophy, GeorgeC; you missed your mark dramatically.
  • "it is possible for one to not believe in an almighty god(s), but still believe that there is an afterlife, or that there are higher states that people can achieve in life or death." - That's more sensible. Deities are not the only supernatural or religious beliefs in existence. I'd have thought that was blatantly obvious. =.O -Silence 04:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • I get the point. I think you're wrong. What you described is not Atheism. You're using strawman arguments. Atheism is the lack of belief in deities, and, by definition, that also covers things associated with them, such as miracles, a negative opposite (satan, for instance,) or an afterlife. GeorgeC 07:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
      • This is just completely incorrect. Denying that there is a governor of the supernatural is not a denial of the supernatural. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-1 08:06
• We don't know either. GeorgeC 18:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • • • • Very much so, Brian; GeorgeC couldn't be more wrong, and only he has thus far used strawmen here (by incorrectly characterizing the correct definitions of atheism as "New Age", when they're just the opposite). Clearly there is a Western-centric bias confusing his understanding of the broader meaning of "atheism"; there is a rich and long-standing atheistic tradition in Buddhism, for example (though there are certainly also theistic Buddhists; Eastern religions tend to be less black-and-white on such issues), and animistic spirit reverence is certainly not inherently theistic, by any but the loosest and least meaningful uses of the terms theism or deity. Either you have a remarkable lack of cultural awareness, or you are using an unsustainably obscure definition of atheism. Your shocking disrespect for any but your definition of atheism is completely unacceptable; atheism is a heavily disputed and nuanced term, and all common definitions for it must be permitted for the use of Wikipedians in this category, not just the specific one you personally happen to favor. Not every person with spiritual, mystical, or religious beliefs has a theocentric, or even theistic at all, world-view; that's not New Age nonsense (which I despise), that's just a fact. -Silence 18:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have no disrespect for other definitions of Atheism or what other people think it is. It's my opinion that one cannot be either spiritual or religious and an Atheist at the same time. I define Atheism as: "lack of belief in the existence of omnipotent, omniscient deities and the rejection of unsupported claims of such." "Cultural awareness" is irrelevant. However, I will concede that Buddhism (and possibly Animism) fits the model of Atheism. The "supernatural" is a catch-all phrase; sheer speculation concerning events for which there is no scientific explanation. And just as you accuse Atheism as being a "heavily disputed and nuanced term," the same can also be said, even more so, of "spiritualism." GeorgeC 09:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• • "It's my opinion that one cannot be either spiritual or religious and an Atheist at the same time." - And I'm sure that you aren't alone in that opinion, but since you're in the minority, you shouldn't expect this category to conform to your views—especially when you haven't substantiated them with evidence, reasoning, references, etc. so we can discern its reliability.
  • "The 'supernatural' is a catch-all phrase; sheer speculation concerning events for which there is no scientific explanation." - Sort of. Almost. Not quite. Not all speculation is supernatural, and, as can be shown by modern belief in the supernatural, a huge, massive supply of supernatural beliefs persist and flourish even where there are scientific explanations. You'll have to dig a bit deeper for a more accurate definition of "supernatural". It has more to do with belief in the existence of forces beyond the natural world (which is a contradiction in terms, of course) than with whether or not the beliefs are scientifically verified or verifiable.
  • "the same can also be said, even more so, of 'spiritualism.'" - I agree entirely. Why do you think that Category:Spiritual Wikipedians is even more vague and general than this category? -Silence 18:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • GeorgeC, while that is your opinion, you have not backed it up with reliable sources, nor could you ever, I suspect. I don't understand the need to state your belief, either. Wikipedia is not supposed to be written based on the opinions of its members, but on the opinions of reliable sources. So, even stating your religious belief/non-belief on a talk page (unless it's the User talk page) shows a failure at neutrally conveying the opinions of reliable sources. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-3 18:21
    • Are you responding to me, or to GeorgeC? I wrote up a whole, multi-paragraph response to this before considering the possibility that you were answering GeorgeC's comment, not mine. You really should have said the name of your addressee. :f -Silence 21:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • My response was at the same indentation as your 3 responses. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-3 21:09
• Suddenly the Atheism and Evolution tags are under attack? This is highly suspicious. What the hell is going on? I go away for a few months and everybody goes crazy? Leave the category alone. Basique 17:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for a sub-category for the non-spiritual atheist

There are all sorts of userboxes for Christians and other religious groups, and I'd like to identify myself as a non-religious, non-spiritual (I think the latter covers the former) atheist rather than a page that says I could be religious. Can someone please do the dirty work and put a new userbox together? Thanks! Xiner 03:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This kind of saves me time. I came here to ask of the criteria to add a new userbox because I created this. It's for those who are strong atheists. --Philo 03:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A sub-category for non-spiritual atheists is unnecessary for the same reason that a sub-category for spiritual atheists is. Spiritual atheists should simply put themselves in both Category:Atheist Wikipedians and Category:Spiritual Wikipedians; in the same way, non-spiritual atheists should simply put themselves in both Category:Atheist Wikipedians and make a new category, Category:Non-spiritual Wikipedians. An alternative, if your main intent is to show that you reject all forms of the supernatural more so than that you reject spirituality alone, is to make a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by philosophy for Category:Naturalist Wikipedians, since naturalism is the philosophy that the supernatural does not exist, which includes both deities and other religious entities (like the soul). On the other hand, if you want to show that you are non-religious, we already have a category for that (though it doesn't necessarily preclude being spiritual): Category:Irreligious Wikipedians.

Also, Philo's userbox has absolutely nothing to do with Xiner's request. Xiner requested a userbox for non-spiritual, non-religious people. He did not request a userbox for people who are certain that God does not exist; you can be a strong atheist and still be religious (heck, if you're talking about the Christian God, you could still be a Jew or Hindu or Scientologist while being a strong atheist!), and you can certainly still be a strong atheist while still being spiritual (see Sam Harris (author), for example).

Also, you might want to keep in mind, Philo, most strong atheists would consider your userbox to be a straw man of their views. Most strong atheists do not claim that deities are impossible, only that they are unlikely enough to warrant positive disbelief (rather than merely the absence of belief). I would advise renaming the userbox from "strong atheist" to "closed atheist" or "gnostic atheist", since those are more accepted terms for denoting people who reject even the possibility of being wrong; a "strong atheist" is someone who believes that no God exists, not necessarily someone who believes that no God can exist. -Silence 03:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hubble Deep Field image?

"{{User atheism3}}, which includes a Hubble Deep Field image to depict the vastness, emptiness, promise, and beauty of the physical universe"

Huh? What's that got to do with atheism? If anything it seems like a deeply theist image to me. Angr 14:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Many atheists do use that as a symbol, I've seen them do so. I think the message is "this image shows the Universe as vast and fascinating on its own without God" as the image does not contain a representation of God. (Unless you take the Pantheistic or Panentheist position that the Universe is God or is a conscious being equivalent to God or is just inherently a representation of God) Not being an atheist myself I don't really get that, I mean an image of a beautiful unoccupied house doesn't mean houses are better off without people or that no one owns it or whatever, but I've seen it.--T. Anthony 09:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I really fail to see how this could be a "deeply theist image." Looking far into space is like looking back in time. Images such as the Hubble Deep Field prove to us the universe is billions of years old. This clearly contradicts the age of the universe inferred in many of our religious texts, but even if one weren't to interpret these texts quite so literally, it still begs the question--if our universe is so so old, why were we only created now? Did God make the universe 13.5 billion years ago but wait until just recently (on a relative scale) to make us? meinsla ^talk 17:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No self-referencing categories

This category has itself as a subcategory. I think that this should be changed. --Propower 06:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How? I have no idea how you fix it and I've tried.--T. Anthony 00:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Subst the atheist templates, then remove their categories. -Silence 03:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny

It's funny how the number of Wikipedians who list themselves as atheistic currently exceeds the number of Wikipedians who list themselves as Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and theistic combined. :) --Alexc3 ^(talk) 01:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you counted? Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

These are rough numbers, but here's the count I got: Okay, I was bored so I actually took the time to count them all:

• Atheists: 2399

• Christians: 1446
• Muslims: 396
• Jews: 436
• Theists: 291

Non-atheist total = 2569

So perhaps the atheists aren't the "winners" after all. Though, it is worth noting those who consider themselves Christian/Jewish/Muslim may also list themselves as a theist and therefore be double counted. And as long as we're counting theists be might as well include Nontheistic Wikipedians along with the atheists as well... meinsla ^talk 07:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does it matter? Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, uh, well it doesn't really, to me anyway. meinsla ^talk 11:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters. It's just "funny". In real-life aren't we in the gross minority? Perhaps we are drawn to wikipedia because we care about spreading knowledge? NickCT (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason it matters should be obvious if people are influenced by their beliefs. Since consensus determines content and guidelines, Wikipedia will more and more be perceived as having a secularist bias if some secularists (not all) band together to remove content about religious phenomena that make them feel uncomfortable. Jzsj (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand this...

My userpage says I'm in the category "Atheist Wikipedians" even though I'm not listed. I was wondering if it was because I added a bunch of anti-religious/non-theist userboxes, but I don't see any of my userboxes in the list. I don't want to be on the list but I was interested in why this was happening or if it had happened to anyone else. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your userpage has this template, which places your username into the category "Atheist Wikipedians". Abdullais4u (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone look at my page and see why it is saying I am an atheist. No offense to those of you who are, but I'm just not, and cannot figure out why it says I am. Thanks Deaghaidh (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion?

What is causing this category to be in Category:Miscellaneous pages for deletion?

It is telling

…as to the depth of thought that goes into such things, that in an apparent attempt to use an allusion to science for support, many of the tags presented include a nonsensical image more relevant to spirographic art than to science (in particular, the science of atomic structure). Perhaps wait until you have thought about matters as much—and as deeply—as Christopher Hitchens or Stephen Hawking (or Francis Collins or Clive Staples Lewis or Fritz Schaeffer for that matter) before grandstanding a mis-illustrated persecutive before a thinking world. Just a thought. 50.129.227.141 (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)