Talk:Atheism
(→Atheism as an organized religion) |
(move new section to end of page, unsig, and minor response) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
|archive = Talk:Atheism/Archive%(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Atheism/Archive%(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
| + | |||
| + | == In the interest of accuracy == | ||
| + | |||
| + | The first paragraph endds with a questionable sentence. | ||
| + | "Most atheists also do not believe in anything supernatural or paranormal." | ||
| + | I would prefer a citation here to a study, since as much as i would like it to be true, i don't think it is. The confusion here is stemming from passive atheists who simply don't believe in god because meh, and active ones who typically reach the conclusion that it's right and proper not to believe for logical or scientific reasons (ignoring the validity of those reasons at the moment.). | ||
| + | So, in essence, while i'd LIKE this statement to be true, i dont think it is. And arguing it's self-demonstrating wont cut it either. | ||
| + | Without a link to a study, i suggest this be cut, or clarified upon. | ||
| + | |||
| + | EDIT: | ||
| + | It could keep with the spirit of the sentence by switching most to many, as this is more true but also skirts around an issue the rational community does need to face up to at one point or another... | ||
| + | May post if i find others. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Second Fault - | ||
| + | 3rd/4th paragraph in Atheism Throughout History, toward the end of the paragraph calls nick clegg the current co-prime minister. | ||
| + | He is the deputy prime minister, not co-prime minister. He cooperatively leads a coallition government, but to call him co-prime minister would be to afford him powers he does not have. <sup>— Unsigned, by: [[User:86.150.59.244|86.150.59.244]] / [[User talk:86.150.59.244|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/86.150.59.244|contribs]] </sup> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Other Suggestions - | ||
| + | A link to an article on Antitheism could be placed in the "Hate god" lines found in Fundamentalist Views Of Atheism <sup>— Unsigned, by: [[User:86.150.59.244|86.150.59.244]] / [[User talk:86.150.59.244|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/86.150.59.244|contribs]] </sup> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | I checked the study referenced under 38. The conclusion drawn from it in the Demographics section: "A recent study published in the Annals of Family Medicine suggests that irreligious physicians are more likely to care for the underserved compared to religious ones (35% vs 31%)." | ||
| + | I would assume comes from this, as quoted from the study: | ||
| + | "The proportion who reported practice among the underserved (31%) did not differ significantly from that found among those with no religious affiliation, however (35%, P = .48). " | ||
| + | It specifically says "did not differ significantly". Furthermore, the overall conclusion for the study conveys that religiousness does not appear to have a noticeable effect on caring for the underserved. Thus saying that "irreligious physicians are more likely to care for the underserved" is ... a bold and unwarranted conclusion on the grounds of the study and IMO reduces the credibility of the Demographics section. | ||
| + | I would suggest a change towards what the conclusion of the study is actually trying to convey (religiousness does not appear to have a noticeable effect on caring for the underserved). [[User:Nullahnung|Nullahnung]] ([[User talk:Nullahnung|talk]]) 09:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| + | :Well, since nobody else appears to care, I'll try and perform the edit I suggested above myself. [[User:Nullahnung|Nullahnung]] ([[User talk:Nullahnung|talk]]) 05:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Not sure where to put this == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Didn't want to do a Proxima and shove it in any old where: [http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/10/us-religion-atheists-idUSBRE8B900520121210 Report shows Atheists persecuted worldwide] [[User:Sophie Wilder|<span style="color:#008080">'''Sophie'''</span>]][[User_talk:Sophie Wilder|<span style="color#FF9933"><sup>''Wilder''</sup></span>]] 10:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | :The [[Atheophobia]] article perhaps? [[user:Tyrannis|<span style="color:Grey">Humorless fascist</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tyrannis|<span style="color:grey">sociopath</span>]]</sup> 13:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::Good idea. [[User:Sophie Wilder|<span style="color:#008080">'''Sophie'''</span>]][[User_talk:Sophie Wilder|<span style="color#FF9933"><sup>''Wilder''</sup></span>]] 14:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Bush Sr's atheism quote == | ||
| + | |||
| + | The accuracy of this statement is questionable. It was supposedly said at a press conference and literally '''one''' journalist thought to write it down and report it, and even then he didn't publish the quote until almost a year later. It reminds me of those fake Einstein quotes: put something in someone's mouth that you wish they said, and because it's almost impossible to prove someone ''didn't'' say something, it'll survive forever. It's shoddy at best and downright dishonest at worst. [[User:CowHammer |Cow...]][[User Talk:CowHammer |Hammer]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/CowHammer|time!]]</sup> 16:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| + | :Hmm.... [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_H.W._Bush_and_the_Atheists I'm not so sure]. What he has definitely said is {{Cquote|I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you're not equally as patriotic if you're not a religious person. I've never said that. I've never acted like that. I think that's just the way it is.}} | ||
| + | :Which implies that he never said it but definitely thinks it. Maybe we should replace the original with this properly sourced quote (well, [http://web.archive.org/web/20050113054524/http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050111-101004-3771r.htm Washington Times], at least) [[User:Innocent Bystander|Innocent Bystander]] ([[User talk:Innocent Bystander|talk]]) 16:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == definition == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I have just returned the definition to: | ||
| + | *'''Atheism''' is the absence of belief in the existence of [[god]]s. | ||
| + | If there is debate about this fundamental question then it would be better resolved here before the article is changed.--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."</sup>]] 15:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Article == | ||
| + | |||
| + | "Five atheists who ruin it for everyone else" [http://www.salon.com/2012/08/04/five_most_awful_atheists_salpart/] "Many notable atheists believe in some powerfully stupid stuff, thereby eroding the credibility of all atheists ..." [[User:Pashley|Pashley]] ([[User talk:Pashley|talk]]) 18:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
| + | :proxima centauri could wreck anything she or he came near. '''[[user:human|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"><big>ħ</big>uman</font>]]'''{{User:Human/sigtalk|}} 03:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
== Atheism as an organized religion == | == Atheism as an organized religion == | ||
| Line 74: | Line 128: | ||
| − | While it may seem this way, this is not an attempt to equalize religion with atheism. It is only an attempt to bring atheism to the plain of real life. | + | While it may seem this way, this is not an attempt to equalize religion with atheism. It is only an attempt to bring atheism to the plain of real life. {{unsigned|109.131.4.141}} |
| − | + | :Have you seen our article on [[doxastic voluntarism]]? [[User:Sprocket J Cogswell|Sprocket J Cogswell]] ([[User talk:Sprocket J Cogswell|talk]]) 15:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC) | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
Revision as of 15:14, 20 July 2013
Contents |
In the interest of accuracy
The first paragraph endds with a questionable sentence. "Most atheists also do not believe in anything supernatural or paranormal." I would prefer a citation here to a study, since as much as i would like it to be true, i don't think it is. The confusion here is stemming from passive atheists who simply don't believe in god because meh, and active ones who typically reach the conclusion that it's right and proper not to believe for logical or scientific reasons (ignoring the validity of those reasons at the moment.). So, in essence, while i'd LIKE this statement to be true, i dont think it is. And arguing it's self-demonstrating wont cut it either. Without a link to a study, i suggest this be cut, or clarified upon.
EDIT: It could keep with the spirit of the sentence by switching most to many, as this is more true but also skirts around an issue the rational community does need to face up to at one point or another... May post if i find others.
Second Fault - 3rd/4th paragraph in Atheism Throughout History, toward the end of the paragraph calls nick clegg the current co-prime minister. He is the deputy prime minister, not co-prime minister. He cooperatively leads a coallition government, but to call him co-prime minister would be to afford him powers he does not have. — Unsigned, by: 86.150.59.244 / talk / contribs
Other Suggestions - A link to an article on Antitheism could be placed in the "Hate god" lines found in Fundamentalist Views Of Atheism — Unsigned, by: 86.150.59.244 / talk / contribs
I checked the study referenced under 38. The conclusion drawn from it in the Demographics section: "A recent study published in the Annals of Family Medicine suggests that irreligious physicians are more likely to care for the underserved compared to religious ones (35% vs 31%)."
I would assume comes from this, as quoted from the study:
"The proportion who reported practice among the underserved (31%) did not differ significantly from that found among those with no religious affiliation, however (35%, P = .48). "
It specifically says "did not differ significantly". Furthermore, the overall conclusion for the study conveys that religiousness does not appear to have a noticeable effect on caring for the underserved. Thus saying that "irreligious physicians are more likely to care for the underserved" is ... a bold and unwarranted conclusion on the grounds of the study and IMO reduces the credibility of the Demographics section.
I would suggest a change towards what the conclusion of the study is actually trying to convey (religiousness does not appear to have a noticeable effect on caring for the underserved). Nullahnung (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, since nobody else appears to care, I'll try and perform the edit I suggested above myself. Nullahnung (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Not sure where to put this
Didn't want to do a Proxima and shove it in any old where: Report shows Atheists persecuted worldwide SophieWilder 10:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- The Atheophobia article perhaps? Humorless fascistsociopath 13:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Bush Sr's atheism quote
The accuracy of this statement is questionable. It was supposedly said at a press conference and literally one journalist thought to write it down and report it, and even then he didn't publish the quote until almost a year later. It reminds me of those fake Einstein quotes: put something in someone's mouth that you wish they said, and because it's almost impossible to prove someone didn't say something, it'll survive forever. It's shoddy at best and downright dishonest at worst. Cow...Hammertime! 16:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm.... I'm not so sure. What he has definitely said is
“”I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you're not equally as patriotic if you're not a religious person. I've never said that. I've never acted like that. I think that's just the way it is.
|
- Which implies that he never said it but definitely thinks it. Maybe we should replace the original with this properly sourced quote (well, Washington Times, at least) Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
definition
I have just returned the definition to:
- Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods.
If there is debate about this fundamental question then it would be better resolved here before the article is changed.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 15:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Article
"Five atheists who ruin it for everyone else" [1] "Many notable atheists believe in some powerfully stupid stuff, thereby eroding the credibility of all atheists ..." Pashley (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- proxima centauri could wreck anything she or he came near. ħuman
03:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Atheism as an organized religion
I would like have a word about the paragraph "Atheism as an organized religion"
This paragraph explains an argument often used by atheists in discussions. Namely that atheism can not be associated with any bad acts because "evils done throughout history are not inextricably fused with the values of atheism in reality." This is the case because;
- it is a lack of beliefs
- atheists are not an organized group.
Therefore blaming them of evil would be an association fallacy.
It is implied that religion however can be associated with bad acts because:
- it does shares beliefs
- religion is organized
Therefore its actions can be explained as resulting from these beliefs and from the organization.
I'm thinking this method is too scholastic and disconnected from reality. To me it misinterprets both religion and atheism.
A religion like Christianity does indeed share some beliefs. Belief in the trinity, a moral code, the importance of scripture...
At the same time, there are many different Christianities. They have different interpretations of the trinity, disagreements on what moral rule is most important (compare liberation theology with fundamentalism for example), different opinions on how to interpret scripture (allegorical vs literal),...
Christianity also comes in many different structured organizations and less structured movements. However, one is also able to believe in the shared beliefs of Christianity but refrain from joining a church in the same way an atheist does not need to be part of a structured organization to call himself an atheist.
Blaming Christianity for a bad act is therefore only possible when it is either the logical result of the small set of shared beliefs or that all organizations are doing the same thing. Which will on practically all accounts lead to a fallacy of association as well.
It still remains possible to blame certain Christian organizations or movements for doing something wrong. Or to disapprove of a religious tenet brought into practice in some way or another by certain Christian groups. For example, robbing homosexuals of certain rights by fundamentalists.
Atheism it is said is merely a lack of belief. Like not collecting stamps is a hobby. I claim it is not like that at all, but rather like not believing in communism in the Soviet Union. Because society doesn't care about your hobbies, it does care whether you believe in God. What I'm trying to say is that the difference between a lack of believe or a believe essentially does not exist, when it has consequences as a result. To not believe is most of the times an active thought, an active choice. Unlike the choice of not collecting stamps. Unless you're part of a stamp collecting cult.
The second point, claims that atheism is not a structural organization. Still, atheist organizations do exist. Many even feel the need to actively spread atheism. (Something that btw can't be explained if atheism is merely the lack of belief in something). The only way this argument rings true is in the same way Christianity isn't one organization that comprises all the Christians. There is indeed no organization that comprises all atheists, and which can be blamed for actions done by atheists. Of course unlike Christianity, the majority of atheist are not part of a structural organization. But the only difference it seems, is the ratio.
Throughout history, atheism has been composed of different movements that add moral, political, social and cultural implications to this simple lack of beliefs. In the same way these has been added to the Christian shared beliefs by Christian movements.
For example:
- Certain ideas are shared by a majority of "New Atheists" like evolution and generally a pro science attitude.
- Atheists during the French Revolution shared anticlerical, liberal, revolutionary ethics
- Atheists during the Russian revolution shared anticlerical, Marxist, revolutionary ethics.
Their atheism inspired these ideas and these ideas in their turn inspired atheism.
Therefore, in my view, the killings of priests during the French Revolution (Though the French Revolution was mainly Deist) and the persecution of the Orthodox Church in Soviet Russia can as a matter of fact be blamed on an atheist movement bound in time and space (so not atheism as a whole). The deaths under Stalinism, or the French terreur can of course still not be blamed on an atheist movement. These deaths had many, many different reasons. To blame these on atheism would indeed be the same as to blame them on Stalin's mustache or Robespierre's wig.
But the idea that atheism is some kind of purely rational disbelief disconnected from the real world should be put in the trashcan.
In fact, I think an atheist movement would be useless without an ideology connected with it. If it didn't had that, it wouldn't even matter if there was indeed no God.
While it may seem this way, this is not an attempt to equalize religion with atheism. It is only an attempt to bring atheism to the plain of real life. — Unsigned, by: 109.131.4.141 / talk / contribs
- Have you seen our article on doxastic voluntarism? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)