Talk:Douglas Adams

Atheism/Religion

I feel that the section should be called Religion because:

• Atheism is arguably a type of religion; i.e. a system of beliefs.
• Even if it is not a religion, it is what took the place of religion in Adams' life. By putting religion in, we imply a 'or lack therof', which atheism would fall into if the above does not hold.
• Finally, it makes more sense to use a generic term, rather than something highly specific. We wouldn't put a section titled 'Roman Catholicism' in the article on the Pope; we'd just call it 'religion'. --Scott Wilson 23:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. -Releeshan 23:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Atheism is not a "system of beliefs", it is simply a lack of one particular belief, and the section already falls under the higher heading "Personal beliefs", which is already a generic term, so another is not needed. Under this logic the other subsections, "Environmental activism" and "Technology", would also need more general titles. Or we could simply acknowledge that Adams was an atheist, and environmental activist, and an enthusiast of technology, and title the subsections accordingly. --Nicknack009 23:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Atheism is (at least in Adams' case) belief that there is no god, rather than a lack of belief - uncertainty if you will - that a god exists. Your other examples, in my opinion, only serve to strengthen my argument; technology is a generic title; the corresponding title to 'atheism' would be something like 'enthusiasm about technology'; the title shouldn't state his position; that's what the body's for. --Scott Wilson 00:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In DNA's own words (from memory, so not word for word), he didn't believe there isn't a god, he was convinced there isn't. He didn't think belief had anything to do with it. (It's in Salmon of Doubt somewhere - I don't have my copy with me.) --Tango 20:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct, he said, in his American Atheist interview (cited on the page): "I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don’t see what belief has got to do with it." --Dannyno 15:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't care how the section is called. Either Atheism (because that what he was/became) or Religion (because that was what he rejected).

I do want to add that I disagree calling atheism a religion. A person who thinks that there is a probability that there may or may not be a God, but he just hasn't got the evidence to decide is not an atheist but an agnostic. Atheism is just the opposite of religion. At least that is how the terms are used in Dawkins book, which seems appropriate here. I think the term religion should be reserved for people who believe in supernatural phenomena. Calling any believe system a religion hollows out the term. Sander123 08:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think what you are describing is "Weak atheism" rather than agnosticism. Being agnostic means you are undecided. Being a weak atheist means that you don't know for sure, but on the balance of evidence you don't think there is a god. Strong atheism is being absolutely sure there is a god. Strong atheism is somewhat religious, weak atheism isn't. --Tango 20:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The old "is atheism a religion" argument is always good pointless fun, but actually irrelevant here - the section talks as much about Adams' opinions on religion as it does about his atheism. --McGeddon 09:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see a big problem here, you could add to the beginning that he had strong views on religion to avoid implying that radical atheism is a religion, but personally this doesn't bother me as I think the title is relevant to the full text of the section. Oh, and what a nice article you guys have here! I enjoyed reading it very much, thanks! --Merzul 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is true in this case that Adams had a positive belief that there are no gods, this does not make it a religion. Belief is not equal to religion. I believe that I exist because of evidence. That does not make it a religion to believe that one exists. Even if you re-define atheism to mean a positive belief that there are no deities this by itself would not be enough to make atheism a religion, any more than it is a religion to believe that the earth is not flat. /Benzocaine 20:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to emphasize that atheism is not a system of beliefs. I'm an atheist, what beliefs do I have? Can you tell from the mere fact that I'm an atheist? For example, do I believe in free will or not? I know several atheists who disagree on that. Is there an objective morality? You'll find literally hundreds of thousands of atheists who believe there is and hundreds of thousands who think not. There is no set of beliefs that are common to all atheists. The only thing we all have in common is the lack of belief in deities, and this is not a belief but an unbelief. Many atheists do not have a positive conviction that there are no gods so the active disbelief is not a common attribute to all atheists. If lack of faith is a set of beliefs and a religion, only then can atheism adequately be described as a religion, but it's not. /Benzocaine 20:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm an atheist, too, and I consider myself to be "not religious". To me, it sounds a little strange to place atheism under "religion". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.250.183 (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If atheism is a religion, not playing chess is a hobby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.147.34 (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

More like "If atheism is a religion, being really stupid is a level of intelligence." - SummerPhD (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Er... no. "Really stupid" is, indeed, a (low) level of intelligence, just as "really cold" is a level of heat or "one inch above sea level" is a measure of altitude above sea level. Possibly you've missed the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.147.34 (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Section on Dawkins' book

I changed a couple of things, and lost the page reference because it changes from publication to publication (duh). The previous wikipedian wrote that it was on page 117, but the quote is on page 142 on my paperback edition. The quote is from the chapter "Why there almost certainly is no God", about two pages into "National selection as a consiousness-raiser" just after the first block-quote from the Salmon of Doubt. Matt Tait.

DNA

Douglas is often referred to as "DNA" but there is no mention of his middle name in the wiki article - how did he get the name DNA / what does the "N" stand for? I know it's trivial, but it's so common should it be mentioned (at least in passing) in the article? 180.92.211.33 (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC) (xQx)

A mystery for the ages... "Douglas Noel Adams (11 March 1952 – 11 May 2001) was..." - SummerPhD (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference Cleanup

The following reference was removed: Douglas Adams, BBC, 21 April 2005, accessed 1 June 2009; H2G2 is a wiki-like site, and inappropriate as a reliable reference. Many other references were updated with cite templates. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 20:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)