Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Atheism

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Atheism and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2

Goal

I think one of our goals should be to try to open people's minds about Atheists and Atheism. Not to "convert" people, but more to teach people about it. I think too many people have a very negative view of the subject, and this wikiproject can probably go a long way to change that. --Kbdank71 10:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how does one help out here? I'm interested in helping as much as I can, but I haven't found the todo list.Crystalattice 18:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this project should do either open people's minds as such or jion people to convert, this is an encyclopedia, we should inform be creating good articles that become featured. By doing this we show sence of things and a contrast in belief. JMcD 13:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How To Help

For one, we need a template to put on all atheism-related articles. For example, we need something like this:

Userboxes

Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism is part of WikiProject Userboxes. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as part of the userboxes system. WikiProject Userboxes itself is an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles and templates related to the userbox system, used on many users' pages. We need all your help, so join in today!UserboxesWikipedia:WikiProject UserboxesTemplate:WikiProject UserboxesUserboxes

, except it needs to be for Wikiproject Atheism. Thanks! Hezzy 02:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in: Can I recommend changing the icon for the user box. It's pretty tacky. I'll post if I can think of something better. --Jade 04:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or one of those bad boys as the logo. Something easily recognizable by both atheists and many theists.--Jade 09:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Vote goes for the Flying Spaghetti monster, i have been touched by his noodely appendage--Goatan 10:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Participation

Is anyone free to join this project? Also, might I suggest the inclusion of Secular ethics on the related article list? Starghost (talk | contribs) 05:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a look, I say go for it. Looks totally fitting to me. I took the liberty of adding an atheism link and the atheism category to the Secular Ethics page. --Jade 09:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC) * Hmm, I just noticed your sort of that pages parent. Hope I didn't step on any toes. :) --Jade 09:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, in fact, I wanted people to help write the article since I ran out of ideas long ago, which is also one of the reasons I nominated it for AID. Anyway, thanks. Starghost (talk | contribs) 16:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Unicorn - v - other "religions"

I noticed the Invisible Pink Unicorn as an Article on Atheism. I wonder if we want to go so far as to list all other related "Religions" or if it would be preferable to list the categories instead: Category:Fictional deities, & Category:Joke religions. Thoughts? --Jade 09:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx whoever added the pink unicorn user box, I like that one better than the red/black A, put it on my talk page. Thanx again. --Jade 04:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image choice

Very, very poor job selecting an image to represent the WikiProject. The no symbol currently in use is a horrific and bizarre misrepresentation of what atheism means, and propagates the misconception that atheism amounts to antitheism (opposition to God). A black "X" in place of the no symbol, or a variety of other images, would be vastly preferable.

I'm also surprised by the choice to use the ominous color arrangement of an apocalyptic red A on a midnight-black background for the "Atheism WikiProject member" userbox; the sort of coloration in use on {{atheism}} and

ath

This user is an atheist.

is much less potentially offensive or provocative (and also much prettier-looking), though this is obviously a less pressing issue than the inflammatory image. -Silence 14:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loved it. I support its addition to the project templates

Starghost (talk | contribs) 16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, although I don't think the black X is an improvement. PLEASE lets change the image. I would be mortified to have that image on my personal page and don't care to see it on any I visit. --Jade 22:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found two that we can consider. The first is simply a black circle, which seems to have some circulation and semi-prevalent use. The other is an atom with an A inside of it, or just an atom. I'm not sure if the A/Atom is 'owned' by anyone. Therefore I vote for the simple black circle. Links: Circle and Atheist Symbol search where you can see various forms of the atom image --Jade 00:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The atom symbol represents American Atheists, let's not use it. They seem overly militant. Gary 00:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of like the circle on that website, but it says it is a Wiccan symbol. Maybe we could go with a fatter circle, like a donut? Here's an MSPaint example I whipped up:

http://imagesocket.com/view/atheismcircle2c6.png Gary 01:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, well a circle is a pretty prolific shape. But I feel that the way in which it is being displayed is as important as the shape itself. The plain black circle on the plain white background is not a symbol used, at least commonly, in any witchcraft related religion. Circles will be in use everywhere we look, but crosses are used by more than just Christians, and pentagrams by more than just Wiccans. It's largely how it's used and what it looks like. I prefer the thinner lined circle, I think it's esthetically nicer and since it is already in use by the Atheist community it is preferable. But I think the thicker circle has merit too. --Jade 22:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may be in the minority here, but I'm ok with the no symbol and the red/black color scheme. I saw that pink thing and even after reading the talk page, I still couldn't tell what it was. The no symbol and "god" is a no nonsense descriptor of our beliefs. I'm also ok with the Atom symbol. I use that in my atheist userbox. I don't think there's a problem with it representing American Atheists, because the text says "This user is an Atheist", not "This user is a member of American Atheists." Just my two cents. --Kbdank71 19:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for the atom symbol. I know the American Atheists are rather militant, but their sybol gives a recognizable representation of atheism. Hezzy 18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But atheists are already one of the most distrusted of all minorities in the United States. It makes things worse to use a symbol that lumps them together with an organization as annoying as American Atheists.

I guess this discussion started with a symbol with a no sign over the word "GOD". I haven't seen that one yet, it would be helpful if someone posted it. I have another idea, though. How about we modify it to use the word "GODS" instead? This shows that atheists believe in no gods at all, rather than implying disbelief solely in the Christian God.

Here's my MSPaint example: http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/4347/nogods2xw0.png

Gary 21:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another possibility: A Times New Roman asterisk, as suggested here: http://intepid.com/2005/05/ Gary 21:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about using a stylized version of the Humanist symbol, but using an "A" instead? I know not all athiests are Humanists and vice versa, but many people equate them as the same. Crystalattice 17:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you maybe draw an example? The whole idea behind the humanist symbol is that it looks like a human and the letter H. I think a similar atheist symbol would look like someone with no arms. Gary 13:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "GODS" might be more palatable to most than "GOD". With the plural, we aren't singling out the reader's faith. Then again, I'm ok with an "A" also. --

Kbdank71 13:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

god(s) would be better than gods, as christians, for example, don't believe in gods either, they believe in a god.Tuesday42 14:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a lot of people like my idea, maybe someone skilled in graphic design could make a more polished image. Mine looks kind of crappy. Gary 18:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article requests

I have been slowly adding citations to List of atheists, and have requested help on the article's talk page but it simply has stalled. If every member above just added 3 references we would have a sourced list in no time. A list of this nature without sources is useless as a source of information. Any help greatly appreciated. Just googling the name of and entry in quotes with the word atheist will often find a good source.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiccan Atheism = Atheist Witchcraft

Just a peep-peep to note that I moved (renamed) the Wiccan Atheism page and added further details. If anyone has an interest in the subject, please update what I've done, but it's about 5 times bigger than it was yesterday and it's now listed under a term used by the general population when they discuss the topic. So I consider it successful.--Jade 08:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

joining

How do I join? Do I just sign in?Tuesday42 16:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Tuesday42[reply]

Just sign the list and start helping out. Thanky you! Hezzy 18:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question. A previous post here states: "I think one of our goals should be to try to open people's minds about Atheists and Atheism. Not to "convert" people, but more to teach people about it. I think too many people have a very negative view of the subject, and this wikiproject can probably go a long way to change that." How are these goals being achieved, and how does one take part? JBIdF 08:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, informing people about things is the purpose of Wikipedia.Tuesday42 17:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People who have found their way to Wikipedia and who are interested in learning more about atheism will go to atheism. Read that article, and if you see anything wrong, anything that needs clarification, or anything that's confusing to people unfamiliar with the subject, edit it and fix it. The page on atheism should be the biggest focus of this project, but it should lead people to other areas that they may become curious about. Right now, it is a very good article, but I'm sure you can find some way to improve it.

Once the atheism page is to your satisfaction, go to some other page related to atheism, and work on that. I've noticed that a lot of philosophical concepts on Wikipedia are difficult for people unfamiliar with philosophy, myself included, to wrap their minds around. Maybe you could work on a plain English explanation for something you find. Gary 19:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Atheist Conspiracy?

Is the article on the Evil Atheist Conspiracy worth keeping? Looks like an inside joke from a usenet newsgroup...any objections if I nominate it for deletion? SnaX 01:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say we keep it, altough I don't feel all that strongly about it.Tuesday42 02:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call me pedantic but

I'm not sure that nihilism belong's in Wikiproject atheism. There are religious forms of nihilism and nihilism related work ( in the old testament for example in Ecclesiates and in eastern religion) so it's not clear that atheism has any real link to nihilism. Further more why should we take the bad rap associated with nihilism when we don't have to?