From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon atheism.svg

This atheism related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes
  • Main article on a wider topic
Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Conservapedia[edit] No, no, it's too much Tabula Rasa (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tabula Rasa So true! In fact, here's one comment that explained why CP's atheism article is the steaming pile of bullshit that it is- and of course, it was reverted, because Andy's blog just can't stand opposing views, or, according to their parlance, "liberal censorship". --Goatspeed. Watch meCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my latest prototypes 23:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Balance and Wikipedia[edit]

Ok, so, first off please see the article on the balance fallacy, as calling for "balance" generally translates to "remove stuff that makes me feel uncomfortable whether it's true or not". Second, rather than poach Wikipedia's sources (a legitimate option) you're sourcing to the Wikipedia article itself is a bad move, given wiki articles are in a constant state of flux. Third, if you encounter resistance to an edit do not accuse others of being dishonest, as there may be multiple reasons why they may rejected to disputed edit. I hope you will discuss these matters on the talkpage (you can't edit the article, it's locked) like an adult, rather than throwing around insults and playing tug-of-war like a child. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Trying to be "balanced" by saying that discrediting Christianity because of Falwell is like trying to discredit Atheism because of Mao\Hitler is just a terribly flawed analogy. I really hope I don't have to explain why. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario I hope that was aimed at the edit warring BoN and not myself. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Apparently you've never heard of liberation theology. Go figure. Palaeonictis Fossil beds 15:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Not at you, I was the first to revert it, after all. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The honest rationalwiki user[edit] (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Sam Harris[edit]

Why must we have a picture of that bigoted shit-stain on this article? Oxyaena Harass 13:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

So, Stalin is okey-dokey by Harris isn't? Bongolian (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
@Bongolian Where did I say Stalin is okay? Oxyaena Harass 12:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
It's implied. Also, you use Stalin emojis on Discord. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 13:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, I use my goofy Mussolini emoji on Discord. It's not serious. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 14:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah? — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 14:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
No, it really isn't "implied," Raven. Oxyaena Harass 15:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Why didn't you then have any issues with Stalin there? (not to mention you use Stalin emojis on Discord) — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 15:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe that there's any need to continue this discussion--Hastur! (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
True. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 15:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, as GR said, it's implied by your wanting to remove Harris but not Stalin. Bongolian (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't imply anything, you're reading too much into what I wrote. As for the point about Stalin and not Harris, that's a whataboutism. Oxyaena Harass 17:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
It is not whataboutism because at the time that you started this section, there were photos of both Stalin and Harris on the page.[1] Whataboutism is a distraction method of referring people to a different bad situation to try to get them to forget about one's one's own bad situation. Bongolian (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Section stuff[edit]

So.... the section was "What do atheists look like?". It probably supposed to show atheists come in all shapes, sizes, and dickishness. It was removed for being dominantly white and male. There was a suggestion earlier (see section "What do atheists look like?" to add more women and people of color to try to combat that notion that atheism is a white bro club, but the entire section ended up getting removed. What's wrong with Harris being on there? You and I might not personally like him but he's still representative of atheism and I'd even try putting the likes of thunderf00t on there just to show bigotry is also prevalent here. This complaint that's just a strong opinion on Sam Harris and just Sam Harris is unhinged, frankly. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
That's basically correct, LGM. I don't think that the two sections are actually connected. It's not the first time that Oxy has complained about transphobes being on RW pages that are not about transphobia. Anyway, that section could be restored by adding more diversity. Looking through Lists of atheists § Lists by surnameWikipedia could offer some help to someone who wanted to restore it. Bongolian (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
My personal suggestion of non-(white male) atheists is to include people like Hemant Mehta, Sarah Haider and Neil deGrasse Tyson. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 01:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
it can be restored at the click of a button. but what for? even with a more diverse roster it adds nowt but an ugly lump of pictures at the bottom of the page. a more useful discussion of demographics than a gallery of celebrity atheists is found elsewhere on the page. AMassiveGay (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I think reinforcing the text with a gallery of human faces helps visually imo. At least when I see it, it's supposed to be encouraging. There are comments by people of color, a person called "James White". In a reference, Mark Hatcher talking about his experiences. You probably don't immediately think of a black person especially outside of that context. I don't think the gallery is ugly myself. However, there's no other article showing "what do trans people look like", "what do gay people look like", and so on, if I'm correct, so I need to think a bit more about the benefits and drawbacks and wonder if it's excessive if there's a consistent hypothetical application. I do think there should be probably one image of maybe Mark Hatcher, as featured on a reference. Mario Huh.png --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 09:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
It could be a gallery of of famous atheists. But if it's a representative gallery of famous atheists - then it may well be pictures of old white males. Or it could be a gallery of unknown atheists - but then we will be left with both "so what" and privacy issues. The idea of having this thing is always going to better then the implementation.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Actually I got that wrong. In the US at least it would be young white males.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Sam Harris is bigoted?--Libertarianandy (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

What do atheists look like?[edit]

We should probably get more women and poc in there imo. Fair amount already, but it won't hurt to have more. (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

What published stats do you have about the current situation?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
im kinda left with impression from this section that atheism is a white people thing. whats the purpose of this section? if its to show the atheist can look like anyone, it fails because it only has white people, if its just an inane these are some famous atheists, the whiteness is still glaring and gives the wrong impression. can we just delete that part? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah! Now I understand the question! I would guess that the idea was to show that atheists could look like anyone - but it ended up suggesting that atheists were predominantly while males. (A fair number of them being dead.) So I think it fails in what I assume was it's intention.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
unless someone can come up with a decent enough purpose, im gonna go ahead and remove this section. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Why not ask the person who wrote the section instead of just undoing it? — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 15:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks like it was added by an editor who hasn't been active since 2015.[2] IMO it's not worth keeping--Hastur! (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 15:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)