Talk:Implicit and explicit atheism: Difference between revisions
Magioladitis (talk | contribs) m clean up, replaced: {{wpa| → {{WikiProject Atheism| using AWB |
No edit summary |
||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
**Nagel should stay. --[[User:Dannyno|Dannyno]] ([[User talk:Dannyno|talk]]) 17:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC) |
**Nagel should stay. --[[User:Dannyno|Dannyno]] ([[User talk:Dannyno|talk]]) 17:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
Krishnadas Kaviraja Goswami described in Chaitanya-charitamrita Adi 6.38: |
|||
‘chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana |
|||
seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana |
|||
If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala (previous name for Shri Chaitanya-bhagavata), he immediately becomes a great devotee. |
|||
So all the great atheists which comprise of 99.99% of the world’s population can become maha-vaishnavas if they get the supreme good fortune of reading this book. Thus in my personal opinion, when this book is published and distributed in mass quantities all over the world, it will break open the gates of the flood of the love of Godhead brought by Lord Chaitanya and His associates and will hasten the advent of the predicted Golden Age in all its glory. |
Revision as of 01:23, 9 August 2010
![]() | Atheism Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||||||||
|
The merge proposal
A merge was suggested in April and recently updated. However, there has been nothing on the talk pages. The topics are distinct & cannot be properly merged into either article. If a merge is to happen, it would have to be to an article titled Types of atheism or something similar. Such an article is likely to become quite a hot topic among editors. I think there is too much "labelling" going on already, and labels have replaced clear definitions and descriptions. Also the labels keep slipping around (especially the loathsome weak-strong labels)--JimWae (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that some consolidation would be appropriate, a new article at Types and typologies of atheism might be suitable. I think this would be to the benefit of our coverage of Atheism. Implicit and explicit atheism in particular seems to have suffered from lack of attention in comparison to the entry in Atheism covering that aspect. Unomi (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Implicit atheism
Implicit atheism is not really explained clearly anywhere in this article, is it? Perhaps something like this:
- Implicit atheism is meant to include all forms of non-belief in deities without any explicit rejection of belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, adults who have not given the idea any real consideration, and agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists). Depending on the author, it may or may not include young children, including newborns.--JimWae (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
An implicit atheist is a person who does not believe in a god, but who has not explicitly rejected or denied the truth of theism. Implicit atheism does not require familiarity with the idea of a god.
George Smith. Atheism, The Case Against God. p.13
- Although the lede is correct. It leaves one confused as it doesn't say that it's an absence of belief without explicit rejection. In other words: One is an Implicit Atheist until one take an active rejection or active belief. -- Muthsera (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Critical atheism
Propose we leave out Nagel as a source for this concept. He does not use the layering and distinction of Atheism as Smith. Nagel is in opposition to calling the position of unaware and ambivalent as Atheism and he use an entirely different reason for why Atheism is to be understood as an opposition.
"I shall understand by "atheism" a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism."
Ernest Nagel
It is a position of claiming Atheism as a denial of Theism. -- Muthsera (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree strongly about removing Nagel. He must be in article to maintain NPOV. But the article does need reworking - with a section on explicit and one on implicit
- Nagel should stay. --Dannyno (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Krishnadas Kaviraja Goswami described in Chaitanya-charitamrita Adi 6.38:
‘chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana
seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana
If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala (previous name for Shri Chaitanya-bhagavata), he immediately becomes a great devotee.
So all the great atheists which comprise of 99.99% of the world’s population can become maha-vaishnavas if they get the supreme good fortune of reading this book. Thus in my personal opinion, when this book is published and distributed in mass quantities all over the world, it will break open the gates of the flood of the love of Godhead brought by Lord Chaitanya and His associates and will hasten the advent of the predicted Golden Age in all its glory.