Talk:Atheism

Template:WP1.0

Added information on atheist symbols

I couldn't find information on atheist symbols on any other wikipedia article, so I added it here. Other articles discuss individual symbols, but there was no compilation of symbols relating to atheism. I'm new to wikipedia, so hopefully I'm not offending anyone by messing with an important page. The information seems to fit here and add something to the article.by doovie 06:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the symbols do add to the article. I particularly like our good friend The Flying Spaghetti Monster! FriendlyRiverOtter 08:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the entire section. With the exception of the atom, which is specific to American Atheists, all the symbols described are actually mocking theistic symbols. This problem has been previously discussed (see the archive), and it was thought best not to mention any symbols at all. -- Scjessey 13:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you are trying to keep this article as non-confrontational as possible, but information about atheist symbology is relevant. If not in this article, then I would welcome a suggestion as to where. I have tried to wade through the archives to find the related discussion, but I can't seem to find it. The reason I added this section is because I came here specifically looking for a list of symbols that various atheist groups identify with. I found articles related to individual symbols, but no clear list of these symbols. The question should not be "are the symbols offensive to someone," but rather, "is this information relevant to a discussion of atheism." Also, a certain portion of atheist thought IS mocking theist beliefs. I am not trying to introduce POV here, just to report something.

I could write an article on atheist symbols and then link to it in the "See also" section. The only problem is that there currently is no "See also" section.by doovie 06:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You have to understand that there are no atheist symbols. There are only the symbols of certain atheist organizations, and the symbols and characters that mock theists. Atheism is not a movement or a religion, so it doesn't have the necessary "branding" that such things require. It would be a bit like having a symbol for "not being a pilot", or "not being a person who likes cheese". Any symbol for atheism would have to be negative image to represent the absence of (or the opposition to) belief. The symbols you are looking for belong on the articles for the organizations or movements they belong to. -- Scjessey 11:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Scjessey, that's ridiculous. Atheists are much more unified and motivated by their status than say, people who are not pilots. For most people, not being a pilot is not an intellectual position, and there is no social animosity towards not being a pilot. Atheism is a much more significant status than not being a pilot (significant enough to have an encyclopedia article, for instance). And also, you acknowledge yourself that there are major groups of atheists. All of this unwinds your assertion that atheists are not identified as a group. The symbols should be in the article. --JmalcolmG 17:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so my analogy doesn't work in that context. That doesn't alter the fact that there are no "atheist symbols". Any symnbols used relate to particular atheist groups, and so are only appropriate in the articles that cover those groups. There is no generic symbol for atheism, nor should there be. The symbols should not be in the article. -- Scjessey 18:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly asserting that there are no atheist symbols does not mean that there are no atheist symbols. For example, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs symbol for atheists' headstones can be found here: "Available Emblems of Belief for Placement on Government Headstones and Markers." I'd say that's a pretty clear example of an "atheist symbol," and as such should be perfectly acceptable in the article. I don't know why you'd assert that there should be no generic symbol for atheism either. The question isn't whether there should or shouldn't be one anyways, the question is whether there is one or more notable ones, and that example seems notable. -- HiEv 03:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

About two months ago, I went to a talk on evolution vs. ‘intelligent design.’ Afterwards there was a conversation between an atheist and a creationist, in which I participated a little bit, but mainly just listened to, for it was a fascinating conversation. And the Flying Spaghetti Monster did come up. I thought it was maybe something they had made up previously, or something a philosopher or critic had said on TV, similar to the invisible (and non-active!) gardener example I had read in a philosophy book years ago. I had no idea there was actually a picture of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that the whole thing had gotten so much traction! So, yeah, I learned something and I’m glad it was in our article.

Furthermore, an article like this is going to tend to be analytic, logical, left-brain. I think it’s perfectly okay to add some fun and frolic and right-brain. It makes for a fuller, richer, better article. FriendlyRiverOtter 04:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the article on antitheism is the place to mention satire and satirical symbols aimed at theism. These are part of the recent rise of antitheism activism that is beginning to be documented. _Modocc 06:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that an extensive discussion of these things is not required here - there needs to be a sentence that mentions at least the flying spag monster and the invisible purple unicorn. These are rapidly becoming places of refuge for atheists in an increasingly (for them) hostile religious world. These are organisations created by and for the use of atheists. It's a mistake to omit them. However, I can quite understand the desire to postpone such changes until the hoopla over FA and front page status dies down. Great work though - and congratulations to those who pushed the article to this degree of polish - I know how hard it is! SteveBaker 00:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I still maintain that atheist symbols do exist, and there is such a thing as an atheist movement and an atheist community. An accepted dogma is not required to form a community. All that is required is that people identify themselves as a community. I'm not trying to start an argument here. I think I'll take some time this weekend to write a real article about atheist symbology. It is a more interesting topic than I initially thought, and there is a little bit of history there. You guys can check it out and decide if it warrants a link on the main atheism article.by doovie 09:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the section on symbols to our main article. I included the qualifier "Even though many (most?) individual atheists belong to no official organizations, and even though the active organizations tend to be on the small side . . ." I hope this addresses the main issues. FriendlyRiverOtter 08:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that, of the symbols suggested, only the American Atheists logo and the Invisible Pink Unicorn (a parody of religions in general) are "atheist". The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parody related to the "Intelligent Design" movement (opposed my many who are not atheists), and the Darwin Fish is an "evolutionist" symbol (again, not specifically atheistic). --Robert Stevens 13:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No sources, poorly written, nothing in the way of detailed information (basically a list in sentence form), biased toward the last few years and the internet only, and these aren't even atheist symbols, they're parodies of religion/creationism. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-13 13:27Z

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a direct frontal attack on religion, much more so than I am comfortable with. Yeah, it may have started out as a parody of “intelligent design,” but boy, has it blossomed. It has a name (Pastafarianism), followers (Pastafarians), a gospel, a version of heaven and hell, the eight “I’d Rather You Didn’ts,” the quirky belief of pirates being good guys, and on and on. How much more do you want? And at one point, the founder is saying “If there is a god and he's intelligent, then I would guess he has a sense of humor." Now, the founder is also saying that he doesn’t have a problem with religion, but sometimes things take on a life of their own. And it certainly seems to have in this case.

And this is the whole debate. The argument from design, and the presence of a human conscience, are the two arguments that really resonate with people. The other arguments for a deity make might for interesting philosophical discussions, but I don’t really see them carrying much weight with people.

And, as far as how I’d like to see us win people over, if we can help build nonauthoritarian schools that respect the fact that students have different learning styles and paces. Do the same for work places, address the shrinking middle class in American society (and elsewhere?), channel economic growth so that it also preserves a healthy and appealing (and beautiful!) environment, build a foreign policy that is genuinely democratic and humanistic, etc, etc, then people will say, ‘Wow, those atheists are pretty practical people . . .” Yes, indeed, we certainly can be.

And about the section being poorly written, hmm? You mean it’s . . . not formal? FriendlyRiverOtter 05:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Symbols parodying religion != symbols for philosophical views against belief in God; there is a difference between organized religion and theistic belief; there is also a difference between opposing X and supporting Y. As for the rest of your rambling, this is an encyclopedia, not a blog; you're not even describing atheism - atheism has nothing to do with politics, economy, etc - you're describing your set of beliefs (which seems to simply be a series of popular catch-phrases devoid of any underlying content), one of which is atheism. You still have provided no sources, and the section lacks anything in the way of content. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-14 15:58Z

Now, besides all that, is there any area that is an area of disagreement between us?  ;)

Actually, I kind of agree with you. I’m just skimming across the surface, right? And that’s how I feel about many wiki articles, that we’re not really getting in depth on anything, that I’m not really learning anything. Now, I am kind of laying out my big three, I do kind of have in mind the advice Democrats often receive these days of responding to wedge issues in a matter-of-fact way and then bringing the conversation back to the bread-and-butter economic issues (and we atheists ought to do the same, except with a considerably broader range of practical ethical issues), and I wish non-authoritarianism was widely enough known and agreed with that it could be called a popular catch-phrase (but it just isn’t!).

What we really need is a longish quote from someone who has actually done something to make the world a better place, and is explaining the whys, wherefores, and/or hows, and perhaps only in passing says that they are not a believer in religion and/or a hypothesized God. Maybe a quote from Bertrand Russell talking about his protest of his government’s participation in the First World War. But I’m thinking of something even more practical, for in speaking out against a governmental policy, you’re never quite sure whether you’re accomplishing anything at all. So, I’m thinking of maybe someone who has directly helped the conditions of poor people, or built a progressive business, something like that.

A teenager comes to our site considering and exploring whether he or she might be an atheist. Let’s have something to offer.

An older person who used to be involved with a free thought organization is considering getting re-involved and wants to know what has been happening. Let’s have something to offer.

So, longish quotes, yes, a variety of them, and I think at least five different ones. But also some of the fun stuff, which is where I include the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But that’s not the biggest thing, and it certainly isn’t the only thing. I’d almost rather have a good Bertrand Russell quote, and he did have an absolutely delicious sense of humor. Maybe something from "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish.”

And in general, I want to see us take more chances. For example, I’ve been a member of three different free thought organizations and I’ve been vaguely disappointed with each one. If that is talked about somewhere on the web (or off the web!) that might be extremely valuable to include. It might be legitimately helpful to people who come to this site with a new or returning interest, helpful in that people could then have more realistic expectations. In that and in many other ways, more chances please.

Like so many wiki articles, it’s as if we’ve built the skeleton and connective tissue of a good screenplay, but we haven’t yet added the really good stuff. Let’s don’t merely mention that people such as Sam Harris find that religion promotes authoritarianism. Let’s include a juicy quote. Or two, or three! FriendlyRiverOtter 09:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not an advocacy forum. Atheism by itself has nothing to do with politics, and trying to say what "we atheists" collectively believe about anything but the existence of a higher power doesn't make any sense. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-27 12:53Z

I'm sorry, but there is a world of difference between atheism (which the article is about) and antitheism (which is what Sam Harris is about). All the "juicy" stuff is better suited to Criticism of religion, if anywhere at all. Too many articles of this nature suffer from a sort of "scope creep" where the addition of extra material actually weakens the article. -- Scjessey 12:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Antitheism is distinct from atheism. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

To me, antitheism is just a terrible name, clumsy, clunky, directly negative. I’m going to go with my gut on this one, and my gut tells me to stick with the term ‘Atheism,’ which also has the advantage of having a nice long history.

Now, I do agree with Brian that “we atheists” do not collectively believe anything. And I also agree with Scjessey that “scope creep” is a risk. However, I think it’s a risk worth running and I would like to see our article include a variety of views from a variety of different atheists!

The only limitation I see is that our article must be downloadable for people with slow speed. That is, they get the text pretty quick, and they get the photos one by one, and as long as they can see visible progress being made that’s acceptable.

And, regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster, just like we can argue philosophically that the “first cause” argument does not necessarily lead to a deity, well, Flying Spag is just another kind of argument, instead of a step-by-step logical argument, it's more of a story argument, or a whole picture conceptual argument (a right brain argument, if you will) taking the position--showing the position!--that religion is ridiculous. FriendlyRiverOtter 05:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I found a symbol and an explanation of its symbolism, that seems to represent the views of atheists of most kinds:

The American Atheists Symbol

The same symbol is the only one allowed on American government headstones if one wants an atheistic symbol. It is number 16 on their official list:

Available Emblems of Belief for Placement on Government Headstones and Markers

Should we mention and show a picture of this symbol, and add the two references I mentioned in this comment, to the article? Tommy 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This symbol is too American-centric, and only represents one particularly-organized, secular-ideals-promoting form of atheism. I suspect the reason that the government uses this symbol is because there is nothing better, they'd prefer to have something unified, and they don't want to be accused of discriminating. johnpseudo 02:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

creator god

If one reads the tipitaka, one would see that all gods in Buddhism are actually personal. But none are a creator god such as Allah or christian god-concept. THe following is a book written by a buddhist monk on this issue: Buddhism and the God-idea. Of course there are people who say tht Buddhism says there are no gods. You have to go to the traditions though, to see what Buddhism teaches. Not to individual western atheists. Greetings, Sacca 08:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to echo Sacca's concern (I just attempted to tweak the language in the intro)- the "atheistic" character of Buddhism tends to be over-depicted in the West, often by Westerners who are fans of Buddhism but would prefer to sweep it's "supernatural" features under the rug. Gods with fully developed personalities abound in the Pali Canon (which features some of the best candidates for the title of 'earliest Buddhist scripture'), and a wide variety of deities and spirits abound in popular Buddhist practice, including the deities of the Vedic pantheon (Indra, Brahma, etc.), various Vajrayana tutelary and protective deities (Tara, Dorje Drakden, etc.), and a variety of others. So while the introduction is correct to note that Buddhism is sometimes characterized as atheistic, that characterization typically is either using atheistic in a narrower form (as in, deities are not the ultimate goal of the religion, regardless of statements regarding their existence) or is depicting a subset of Buddhist belief and practice as representative of its entirety. --Clay Collier 12:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted that last edit because it completely changes the meaning of the sentence. Buddhism is being used an example only, so the altered version "breaks" the definition. If the use of Buddhism as an example is incorrect, it needs to be replaced with an alternative example. -- Scjessey 12:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that may be best- providing the qualifications necessary to make the remark about Buddhism factually correct might unduly burden the intro. There are versions or interpretations of Buddhism that don't believe in a personal deity, but to say that is true of Buddhism as a whole is an incorrect generalization. I would tend to say that Buddhism is called an atheistic religion based on the views of Buddhism embraced by the person calling it that, which, as they say, would look lousy on a billboard. The about.com citation, by the way, is built almost entirely off of a blog posting. I'm tempted to offer Philosophical Taoism as a better example, but I have very little understanding about the relationship of Taoism to the traditional Chinese pantheon. Maybe the better thing would be just to state that Buddhism and the like are sometimes called atheist, and then discuss why in a separate section --Clay Collier 12:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted 'creator' back to 'personal' a while back because I was thinking of Deism, which has also been called atheistic, but which holds that god did create the universe, although a 'personal' relationship with god is not possible/meaningful. I don't know enough about Buddhism to know if it is an appropriate example. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that either term can apply for both- Deism clearly has a creator but no god with which a personal relatioship is possible, while Buddhism includes the possibility of chatting with Indra but declines to comment on the existence of a creator. --Clay Collier 12:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Scjessey, you say, if the use of Buddhism as an example is incorrect, it needs to be replaced with an alternative example -- but it's hardly the responsibility of the Buddhist experts who are pointing out the problem here to provide the alternative example! The example is incorrect or, at least, extremely ambiguous as currently worded. I can't think of a way to phrase it that doesn't litter the sentence with "some"s -- some religions, like Buddhism, of which some sects have sometimes been identified as atheist by some outside observers -- I wouldn't want to make any stronger generalization about Buddhist beliefs (which are extremely diverse) and atheism. This is about the best I can do:

Atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, but need not be; for example, many practicioners of Buddhism might be characterized as atheistic because of a lack of belief in a personal God.

Are there any other examples of religions we might characterize as "atheist" and which might be better examples? bikeable (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, in the meantime the wrong information is still present in the introduction of this article. I think the reference to about.com should be deleted as it refers to a blog-entry. I worked a bit with Bikeable's suggestion:

: Atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, but need not be; for example, some practicioners of Buddhism might be characterized as atheistic because they do not belief in gods, which in Buddhism is not required - even though Buddhism recognizes the existence of many gods. Greetings, Sacca 11:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done. May I play with it some more?

Atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, but need not be. For example, some practicioners of Buddhism might be characterized as atheistic because they do not believe in any gods; while Buddhists in other traditions may recognize the existence of many gods.

bikeable (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that's all very well, but it would be better if it was struck out completely if it is wrong. The article is about atheism, not Buddhism. -- Scjessey 19:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

List of atheists in see also section

I added the List of atheists who support evolutionary theory back to the see also section. It is related topic. Spa toss 03:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed - article doesn't exist. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 07:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it did exist when added. The AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheists who support evolutionary theory. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 07:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Who knows all information?

If humans understand 0.0000000000000000000000001% of ALL information in the universe. Why would there not be any creater information in the 99.9999999999999999999999999% of unknown information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.188.213 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Atheism article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."

Do you actually have a suggestion to improve the article? ornis (t) 09:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Of interest

I figure that people who edit this article might be interested in religion, so check out what's going on at Christianity. ThAtSo 20:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

False quote

The view of theism as a political fiction dates at least as far back as Seneca, who wrote in 1st-century Rome that "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful".

Well, looks like it is a meme. Take a look here. Lantios 20:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

False quote removed. Lantios 20:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

infobox

every article is better with an infobox! anyone have any ideas for an infobox for this article? Connör ^(talk) 20:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Something like this? ornis (t) 12:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That is perfect. Im going to put that infobox in pace of the first pic. Connör ^(talk) 20:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)