Talk:Atheism/Archive 21

Let's break up the textual monotony!

What can we do to break up the textual monotony? Some images? How about a timeline in History? Some type of graph/chart in Statistics? Adraeus 03:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I have no idea if enough data exists to support such a thing, but I'd love to see a chart that graphs the waxing and waning of major religions over the millenia as percentages of the human population on the planet. I thinkit would be useful to show that (say) even though worshipers of Moloch were a big deal in the -2000s (I'm making my data up), they had trended away to nothingness by the first century. It could, of course, also show all the "unaffiliated" folks.

Otherwise, yes, some pie charts of the present situation would help, as might a photo or drawing of any famous atheist philosophers.

It would probably also help to archive a great deal of the debate on this page. Atlant 10:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

wow, that would be quite a different project. also almost impossible, since it is difficult to say when one "religion" ends and the next begins, not to mention the scarce population statistics of the Bronze Age :)

But how about an image of poor Löffler, my medieval atheist, being burned? There is an image of that by Diebold Schilling the Elder. But we may not want to emphasize an "atheists were burned at the stake!"-type statement visually. dab (ᛏ) 12:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But we may not want to emphasize an "atheists were burned at the stake!"-type statement visually.

I dunno; isn't that what we're headed for again? People might as well know. :-) / 2

And yes, I understood that my proposed chart would need a lot of data that's really not in evidence. Atlant 13:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Such a graph is, like dab said, nearly impossible; however, if you provide the data one of us can create the graph. ;) Adraeus 17:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, here's some data on Major religions Ranked by Size. Puts "non-religious" at 14% of the world population, some 800 million. Maybe we should make our own graph of it? Indefual 13:22, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

---

How about some photos of some atheists in charming native costumes, or doing some kind of traditional atheist dance? --BM 17:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eh? That's the first non-serious comment I've read from you... unless you're actually being serious? Adraeus 17:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I tried typing 'atheist', 'costume' and 'dance' into google, but was unable to find anything. Oh well. Aaarrrggh 09:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hilarious, this mini thread gets a thumbs up from me >8)--Lord Shitzu 18:28, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

---

If we are to use images of atheist-philosophers, who would we show, why, and where? Adraeus 17:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that Epicurus is an obvious choice; J.J.C. Smart would be another, as would Karl Popper or Bertrand Russell. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can ask John for a photo and for permission to post that photo of him in Wikipedia, if we decide to go with him. Bertrand Russel is a somewhat good option, however, his rantings and ravings about the lunacy of theism and Christianity don't bode well for those readers. Epicurus and Popper are definitely good options. Adraeus 18:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Epicurus is a good choice! [2] he almost looks like God himself, too ;o) Charles Bradlaugh is another obvious candidate. Maybe Loeffler and Bradlaugh's cartoon? dab (ᛏ) 17:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Voltaire? Naw, just kidding. Adraeus 18:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

not just a gallery of pundit's heads, please. ever resourceful google has a few suggestions. I particularly like this one, for example. Or how about this proponent of "Christian Atheism"? dab (ᛏ) 18:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't we have the invisible pink unicorn show up at some point? Aaarrrggh 09:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. A photograph of Richard Dawkins would be good, as he's a well-known and outspoken aetheist. He wrote a good article for The Guardian on September 15, 2001 about religion and 9/11, which I'd like to work into this article in some way. He writes of the hijackers: "Those people were not mindless and they were certainly not cowards. On the contrary, they had sufficiently effective minds braced with an insane courage, and it would pay us mightily to understand where that courage came from. It came from religion ... To fill a world with religion ... is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used." [3] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:32, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking about this before, and I think I may have come up with a fairly good idea. Why don't we use a few pictures of well known atheists, starting in chronological order as the article itself progresses? For example, we could start off with Epicurus, then move onto perhaps some enlightenment thinkers such as Paul Baron d'Holbach, towards more modern outspoken atheists such as Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins. Perhaps we could do something like this, where we follow the chain of outspoken atheist/rationalist types? I personally think this would be better than just adding a picture of one random atheist, and might help illustrate the continuity of the basic principles of the ideas associated with atheism quite well. Aaarrrggh 14:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is definitely the direction I think we should be taking.

Atlant 15:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:15, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins' atheism is controversial considering his overt overly negative conception of theism, religion, especially of Christianity. I think using his photo would be more of a "slap in the face" to theists. Because theists are part of the readership, we don't want to do that. Moreover, while Dawkins is a popular atheist, he's primarily involved with zoology, and associating his image perceived by theists with atheism would only further their negative perception of atheism and its adherents. Can we not find a less-abusive and civil figure in philosophy or the philosophy of science that can represent atheism fairly? Adraeus 02:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I personally think that Richard Dawkins should probably be included in this article. He is certainly a very high profile atheist (possibly the most high profile living atheist at the moment??), and I don't personally think that an article on atheism should necessarily be tamed in order not to offend certain people and certain sensibilities. It is true that many find his style aggressive and perhaps confrontational, but it is also true that he is a very high profile atheist who is as respected by some as he is abhored by others. The fact that he is practically evangelical with his atheism and such a controversial figure makes his inclusion more necessary, not less, in my opinion. Aaarrrggh 16:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right, of course Dawkins should be mentioned (I say this through gritted teeth, because though I like him as a person, I find his approach to atheism alternately embarrassing and infuriating). He's nothing to do with zoology, incidentally. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nothing to do with zoology? Is that why he has a BA degree in zoology, was an assistant professor of zoology at UC Berkeley, and was a lecturer and reader in zoology at Oxford University? Because he has "nothing to do with zoology, incidentally"? Adraeus 22:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Photos of the Invisible Pink Unicorn

Aaarrrggh sugests:

Couldn't we have the invisible pink unicorn show up at some point?

Putting up a photo of the IPU (which, of course, would simply be an empty box, or a background with nothing in the foreground, or what-have-you) would actually be very funny, and exactly on point. However, it would probably royally tick-off those Wikipedians who seem to have a near-fatal allergy to humor.

I think we should go for it!

Atlant 12:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've put one up. I used the standard logo, but there's a nicer looking one, which is actually a picture of a pink unicorn (see left). It's just not as common, though I'd prefer it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:59, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I guess I'm one of those people with the near-fatal allergy to humor; but I wouldn't like a picture or non-picture of IPU to be associated with this article. Atheism isn't a very visual concept, I guess, and actually I don't feel a great a need to break up all that "textual tedium" with images or pie-charts. --BM 13:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the IPU is "internet atheism" and shouldn't be featured in the intro of a serious article on atheism. But we can put it under "contemporary atheism" somewhere. If we must have an image in the intro, it should either be Epicurus' mugshot, or a relevant title page, e.g. of Holbach's book. dab (ᛏ) 13:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

File:Invisiblepinkunicorn.gif

The Invisible Pink Unicorn, a logo of the atheist movement. [1]

It seems a pity to have an article on aetheism with showing the aetheist logo. This is a visually dull page but anything other than the logo is going to be relevant only indirectly. No one is known for being a famous aetheist and nothing else. I suggest we have some sort of poll here, first to decide whether to use the logo, and then, if the answer is yes, to decide which one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

while I'm familiar with the IPU, I'm not familiar with the logo. It is an emerging meme, at best, and it's certainly preimmature to call it "the atheist logo" (immature is used adverbially here, btw, no personal attack implied; just in case). I'm happy to have it in the article body, somewhere, just not in the intro. dab (ᛏ) 13:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean "premature"? I called it "a logo of the atheist movement" for that very reason. The more common logo (right). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

doh. apologies. You didn't, though, you said "It seems a pity to have an article on aetheism with showing the aetheist logo."dab (ᛏ) 13:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I meant in the cutline. See right. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:02, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

sorry, I may be confused. I parsed your sentence as "It seems a pity to have an article on atheism without showing the atheist logo." (since "It seems a pity to have an article on atheism with the atheist logo." seems to be BM's, not your, position), but you may have to spell it out for me again. dab (ᛏ) 14:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a very obscure "logo". Nobody who is not familiar with IPU would recognize it, and not even most of them. As for IPU, her celebrity status on alt.atheism to the contrary notwithstanding, most people are not familiar with her either, even atheists. In general, I don't think we need to be so deferential towards a satire that has expanded a bit beyond alt.atheism to become a very, very minor Internet meme. I think it trivializes atheism to associate the main article in the Wikipedia about it with IPU. Anyway, Wikipedia already has an article on IPU, and we don't need to drag her into this article except, at most, as a "See also" link. It doesn't bother me at all that the page is "visually dull", as long as it is accurate and informative. I don't think we have to bend over backwards to find images to tart it up. --BM 14:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's as obscure as you say. It gets around 5,000 hits on Google, 13,000 on Google groups, and it's notable enough for its own Wikipedia entry. It would be somewhat obtuse to have an article on atheism that doesn't mention it and show it, especially as the point of the article is to educate people, not just to tell them things they already know. Anyway, we can have a poll. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:16, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Are you talking about IPU or the logo? IPU is not obscure on the Internet, I would agree, although if you don't hang out in alt.atheism, you might not have come across her. I would say her notability is borderline, and it would be more trouble than it was worth to nominate the Wikipedia article for VFD. (I thought about it, before spending a lot of time improving the article.) For an Internet phenomenon, those Google hits aren't that many, by the way. As for the logo, until I was involved in the editing of the IPU article I was unfamiliar with it, and I knew about IPU. The present article is about more than two thousand years of the history and philosophy of atheism -- not "Atheism on the Internet". Please write Atheism on the Internet, if you want. It might be interesting. For example, it might cover various Internet atheist phenomena as alt.atheism, IPU, the Evil Atheist Conspiracy, and the many atheist web sites. Why, I think "weak atheism" is mainly an Interet phenomenon, and you could throw that in, too, along with IPU and EAC. But that is not this article, and I think it is a bit narcissistic for an online encyclopedia to give various Internet manifestations too much prominence in serious articles about philosophical topics, and tends to trivialize them. --BM 14:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and "strong atheism" is merely a phenomenon originating from arrogant ignorance. Quit trivializing "weak atheism" as some sort of trend. Weak atheism has been in existence far longer than your beloved "positive" atheism. Adraeus 02:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had heard of it, and I don't post on or read Usenet. The present article isn't called History of Atheism. Of course, its history and philosophy will make up the bulk of article, but that's no reason to exclude other aspects that may be of interest to readers, and this is one of them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:38, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of the Invisible Pink Unicorn until I came to Wikipedia. With that said, I don't think mentioning the IPU is encyclopedically significant. The IPU logo is also without any decipherable, relevant, and useful meaning to a so-called "atheism movement"... other than it being a logo with practical uses. Adraeus 02:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

em rules and en rules

the dashes. see Talk:Atheism/dashes. dab (ᛏ) 18:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request peer review?

Anyone want to do this? Wikipedia:Peer_review Adraeus 09:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Asking more people to bring gasoline to a fire rarely helps extinguish the fire. This article is simply about one of "those" topics and it will NEVER be successfully completed to everyone's satisfaction using the Wikipedian collaborative-editing model -- sorry.  :Atlant 11:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What issues require peer review, in your opinion. It might be helpful to write them down. I don't suppose it is the use of en dashes versus em dashes. --BM 12:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Peer review is a step towards featured article status, not some sort of cry for help. Try Wikipedia:Articles in need of attention or RfC, if its not already listed there. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I din't interpret the question as Adraeus proposing that the article be put through the process for Featured article. I could have been mistaken. By the way, the article has been on RFC forever. I guess we should leave it to Adraeus to clarify what he meant. --BM 13:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is there to clarify? My question only requires clarification if you're assuming my intent is something other than good faith. Now with regards to the actual topic, rather than BM's insinuations, I thought Wikipedia:Peer review was a more formal version of Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but now that I've actually read the introduction to Wikipedia:Peer_review, I guess not. Considering that atheism is already listed for RfC, nevermind. (Wouldn't featured article status be nice though?) Adraeus 02:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heck yeah, thats my goal w every article. The way to it w this page would be writing for the enemy so as to achieve a page everybody can live with. All reasonable parties anyhow. Get that done and the filling in the blanks and minor details (like an image) is all thats left. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 19:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BM's question has yet to be answered. What are thought to be the substantial areas of dispute in the article? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BM's question is not answerable since his question was asked based on his misunderstanding and reinterpretation of the original question. Adraeus 22:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well try my question then. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What constitutes a "substantial area of dispute"? Adraeus 09:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anything other than bickering about punctuation and asking for clarification when none is needed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The introduction is probably the most substantial area of dispute; however, that's probably because we haven't cleared up several issues. For starters, the introduction barely summarizes the article. The article's summary is focused on the History of atheism. Adraeus 14:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is getting a little tangled, and we are talking past each other. When Adraeus asked whether this article should be submitted for peer review, I assumed he intended it as a form of dispute resolution. Naturally, I asked him to clarify what he thought the dispute was about. We've had so many disputes over the months, but it seems like most of them have settled down and we've all compromised our way to relative harmony (or maybe it is exhaustion). I didn't think there were any remaining hot disputes, and that we were down to arguing about dash length, and the like -- just, you know, to keep ourselves in arguing trim. Then, Sam raised a possibility that hadn't occurred to me, which was that Adraeus wanted the article peer-reviewed as a prerequisite to a Featured Article nomination. So, at this point, I'm a bit lost, since Adraeus still hasn't said why he thinks the article should be peer-reviewed. --BM 11:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, SS raised that possibility after Adraeus had said that he'd thought that Peer review was "was a more formal version of" RfC. In other words, your assumption about his intentions was correct; I admit that his later comment doesn't make sense (BM's "question was asked based on his misunderstanding and reinterpretation of the original question"), but there you are. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, his assumption about my intentions is DEAD WRONG. Maybe now my later comment makes sense, eh? Fitting that you would assume the worst. Here, I'll outline my intent with the initial question: bring more people to the party. There you have it! Nothing wildly mysterious. Nothing you can possibly imagine—apparently. My objective for the initial question was that simple. When I discovered that peer review was designed for featuring an article, I said NEVERMIND. Does the emboldened text help CLARIFY issues for you? I sure as hell hope it does. Adraeus 14:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Putting it on PR will most probable only be useful if we request community comments on a particular topic. If we want to raise this to FA quality, we have quite a long way to go. I do not think it can be done, since too many editors are phrase-hugging and uncompromising. Never mind, it's a fair article, even if not brilliant or accomplished, and as such a good resource on the topic. If you do want community input, put it on FAC anyway and see what objections are raised. dab (ᛏ) 11:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In general I agree. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

dab, I also agree that changing this article is a lot of work and that some changes that I would consider improvements are currently impossible. (That said, changes which others might regard as improvements, but which I would consider a loss of ground, are also impossible.) However, I wonder what YOU think still needs to be done to the article to make it FA quality -- regardless of whether that is achievable, or not. --BM 12:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since I introduced myself to editing this article, I've made my objective clear to all who wouldn't deafen their ears: increase the quality of this article so that one day it may be a featured article. I've said this on numerous occasions, which is why I am distraught when some editors (namely, BM and Mel Etitis) dare to accuse me of acting contrary to good faith. READ Wikipedia:Assume good faith BEFORE YOUR EYES FALL OUT FROM THE EMBOLDENED TEXT. Adraeus 14:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't really know what you're talking about, but it would be very useful if you could answer the question that BM and I have asked.

On the question of featured articles, I must admit now that I never think about them, I don't look at them, and I've no interest in the process. I'm only interested in making Wikipedia better, and more specifically in making the articles on which I'm working better; if that happens to result in a featured article, fine. I don't have any objection to the featured-article process (well, a faint feeling that it can turn into a bit of an ego thing if people aren't careful), I'm just not interested personally. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You don't know what I'm talking about? Heaven's me, that's typical! What would be more useful is if you could not ignore the answers I give to your questions. Yes, that would certainly be useful. Even more useful would be you leaving Wikipedia but you're not that productive. I hope the sarcasm isn't lost on you. After all, sarcasm is useful. =*( Adraeus 18:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to interject that boldfacing or h1'ing comments does not particularly increase the likelihood of my paying attention to them. dab (ᛏ) 19:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)