Talk:Atheism/Archive 18

Titanium denial

Titanium: Don't you think denial of deities and denial of the existence of deities is the same thing? To deny deities is to deny their existence, right? Of course, this may be true conversationally, but it may be a matter of grammar and definition. If the latter is the case, then you are most certainly correct encyclopedically. Pardon my poor choice of words. I'm in a hurry to get out of the house. Adraeus 06:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've done a light copy edit of the intro and the history section. SlimVirgin 01:59, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

No. Denying someone/something is not the same as denying their existance. There is a world of difference. Titanium Dragon 23:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV in Starting Section

It was represented in ancient times by the Epicureans, but then largely disappeared from the European intellectual scene as Christianity became dominant in Europe. It reemerged during the Age of Enlightenment, first as an anxiously-denied accusation against those who were questioning established religious views, then, starting in the late 18th Century, as the avowed position of a growing minority. By the 20th century, it had became the state-supported view in many Communist countries, and the dominant point of view amongst natural scientists.

Is it me or is this page becomming more biased and POV, not less, with further edits. I can't even begin to start describing what is wrong with the above, and the person who thought the above was a reasonable edit for this article, nevermind being placed into the first paragraph, doesn't really belong in Wikipedia. --Axon 22:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wrote the paragraph, and if it is biased you should edit it so that it isn't, or state your objections, rather than make snide comments --BM 22:39, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have to admit, I don't really see the point: my edits would only get drowned out in the sea of edit wars consuming this page. And, if there is one thing worse for one's dignity, it is a pointless edit war. If you can't see what is wrong with the above I refer you to my previous notes on this page and your own, internal censor. --Axon 22:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yup it should'nt be in the intro at all. If it should be in the article- and that's another matter, it shoud be in the history section.--Nick-in-South-Africa 15:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It does seem to spoon feed the reader that atheism = communism, and reworked, seems to better suited to the history section.--FeloniousMonk 02:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My internal censor does not have a problem with the paragraph. If you do, and you don't want to edit this article, then state your objections on the Talk page. Incidentally, there haven't been edit wars on this page for the past several days. People have been working quite cooperatively. The exception is the first sentence. Someone suggested we needed more than a one-sentence intro; so I obliged. --BM 22:45, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The clue is in this line:

By the 20th century, it had became the state-supported view in many Communist countries, and the dominant point of view amongst natural scientists.

Hint: Atheism != Communism --Axon 22:53, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But it's the state-supported view in many communist countries. I was going to tell you to see our article on Marxism and/or communism, but neither addresses the religion issue. But you know that "opiate of the masses" quote? That's something Marx said. See [1]. Andre (talk) 22:57, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

No-one disputes that the various Communist parties rejected religion, but singling out the link between Atheism and Communism in the starting paragraph is really POV. It would be like mentioning the Inquisition in the opening paragraph of the article on Christianity. --Axon 23:06, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Axon, dab suggested that we have a short introductory paragraph, summarizing the salient points of the article. You seem to think the point about Communism and atheism is not a salient feature and does not merit mention in the intro. I disagree. It is one of the most salient points about atheism, and it seems to me that it would be POV not to mention it. I say this with great regret as an atheist who realizes that atheism's association with totalitarian regimes is an unfair stain on atheism and is exploited by its opponents. However, this association can't be wished away. Hundreds of millions of people in the twentieth century identified themselves as atheists and the vast majority did so because they were living in Communist states where atheism was the state-supported view. This is not a trivial fact that should be neglected because of embarassment about the association with Communism. By the way, the Inquisition is indeed one of the more salient points about the history of Christianity, not to mention interminable religious wars, although I wouldn't expect to be able to get a mention of those into the intro of any History of Christianity article. However, the atheists working on the Atheism article are not as biased, I hope, as the Christians working on the Christianity article. --BM 23:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How is Communism's association with atheism salient? Sure, it's an interesting factoid but it is most certainly unimportant to atheism. Emphasizing its relation is like emphasizing Christianity's association of its cross symbol with the Roman mechanism for torture and death (the cross). The Communism/atheism association should be neglected mention in the introduction as it has no relevance to the underlying issues of godlessness. Adraeus 00:14, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I find it amazing that you consider this a factoid. First, as I said above, of the billion or so people who might identify themselves as atheists, most of them live in Communist countries, or did up until 15 years ago, and are atheists because of this factoid. Second, outside of Communist countries, one of the main problems with which atheists must deal is the fact that it is associated in its opponent's minds with Communism, as much as atheists might wish this were not so. Not mentioning this fact would strike a substantial number of non-atheists reading the article the same way that a non-mention of the Inquisition in an article about the History of Christianity would strike me -- as obviously biased. You might not like to see this in the intro, but it is not POV. For one thing, the person who wrote the intro is an atheist with no anti-atheist axes to grind. --BM 00:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, I should add that this article is not primarily about the philosophical issues related to Atheism. It is an overview article, and is primarily about the History and Contemporary situation of atheists. There are a couple of sections that deal with the philosophical issues (e.g. Types of Atheism); however, those issues are the subject of other more detailed articles elsewhere (such as "strong atheism", "weak atheism", the various articles on agnosticism, the several articles on the problem of evil, arguments for and against the existence of God, etc. The relationship with Communism is not irrelevant or a tangential issue given the emphasis of the article. --BM 00:42, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not amazed by your lack of comprehension since you consistently distort the truth, re-interpret things in a way which you think benefits your agenda, and proceed to introduce what is "sneaky vandalism" into the article. Read what I wrote again and perhaps my words will penetrate your thick head: Communism's relationship with atheism should be neglected mention i n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n. Adraeus 02:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I did understand that we were talking about the introduction, and I've explained why I think Communism needs to be mentioned i n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n. As for my "hidden agenda", I don't have one, but I'm curious what you think it is, and how this particular sentence relates to it. Your insults, by the way, need a little work in the "rapier wit" department. --BM 07:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

>> Your insults, by the way, need a little work in the "rapier wit" department.

I agree. They reflect poorly on you, master. Adraeus 10:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page seems to be editwar-torn not so much because of pov but of pedantry. I don't really see why Axon is so dismayed about BM's intro, because he chooses 'not even to begin' stating the issues. Of course the wording can be adapted, and words like 'salien' are not graven in stone. The changes could be discussed in a less venomous tone, or even, gasp, in friendly exchange. Adreus, your insults do, in fact, not reflect poorly on BM, but rather on the insulter, and they would indeed be more rapier-like if they didn't sound like the teenage frustration that all the world is too stupid to understand the plain obviousness of your brilliance. dab (ᛏ) 11:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you were not so biased, you would understand that BM has contributed much to the incivility of this discussion. By the way, technically, you're not addressing me since you refer to some user named "Adreus"? Please, spell my username correctly when you address me. Sam Spade liked to write my username "Andreas" (a female name) in order to convey his ever-so-delightful opinion of me from his anti-atheist Christian fundamentalist POV. If your intent is not similar to that of Sam Spade's—to belittle—you will at least make effort to spell my username correctly as I do yours regardless of our increasingly pointless, although useful, confliction. Thank you. Adraeus 14:32, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I still don't see how atheism's association with Communism belongs in the first paragraph. It did not originate with Communism, and articles such as Christianity and Islam don't seem to talk about forcible conversion (by the mandate of the Roman Emporer in the case of Christianity, by conquest in the case of Islam) in their opening paragraphs. I don't see why it really deserves placement there. Atheism may be associated with Communism, but given that neither grew out of the other I don't really see why that association needs to be put in the first paragraph. Titanium Dragon 08:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned it was that it seems to me that the most important aspect of the history of atheism in the West is that over the course of about three centuries, it developed from being an accusation, to which nobody would admit, to being the belief system of a major part of the world's population. But you cannot mention this without also pointing out that this was in large because Communist parties made it the established view in the states they governed. The association is a historical one, not a logical one, and it is true that there are critics of atheism who try to discredit atheism as a philosophy because of its historical association with Communism (a point mentioned in the article), but the NPOV response to this is NOT just to neglect to mention this important historical association. --BM 12:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The suggestion wasn't to remove mention of Communism's relationship with atheism from the article but to remove its mention from the article's introduction where it does not belong. Atheism is primarily a description of a state of being and then a philosophy. Since the aforementioned relationship is irrelevant to atheism as a description, mentioning Communism in the introduction only serves to negatively conflate. The NPOV response is to remove the mention of Communism's relationship to atheism to an appropriate section such as within History. Adraeus 23:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please, stop this dicussion between you both BM and Adraeus (I really don't care who began with this nor who is right). Everyone of here is doing a great job helping here. Remember that only ten days ago (Dec. 9th), this talk page was a battlefield where POV and incivility ruled. Don't turn this discussion back to a mess with your arguments. If you want to discuss each other, use your talk pages, but not this. --Neigel von Teighen 22:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm more-than-willing to satisfy your request, Neigel, if BM and Dbachmann are also so. Adraeus 01:22, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IMO the Communist stuff doesn't belong in the intro. (though it does in the body of the article) If it stays, we should mention in the Christianity intro the various unpleasant regimes that have supported Christianiity. Exile 19:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

After rereading it, I agree. It will appear to some, as your observation here has demonstrated, as an attempt at "poisoning the well". Relative to the introductory summary, the atheism/communism link is a non sequitur. It is more appropriate for the section on "Atheism, morality, and religion."

Also we should note that atheism was embraced by Marx and Soviet communist leaders as little more than a political expedient to loosen the church's grip on power and it's control of the people, rather than a central political doctrine. Chinese communists, most having come from an already atheistic Bhuddist tradition, viewed atheism as useful adjunct for lessening Western or colonial influences.--FeloniousMonk 01:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it seems like "poisoning the well". But, so what if it does seem like this? We aren't supposed to be writing this as advocacy for atheism, even if we are almost all atheists editing this page. The indisputable fact is that, so far, the development of atheism is from being a view that had effectively vanished from pre-Enlightenment Europe, and was denied by anyone accused of it, to being in the 20th century the dominant, state-endorsed, "established" position in much of the world, as well as the dominant position amongst certain groups in the West, although still a distinct minority view relative to Western populations as a whole. That is an extraordinary development, from which we have now somewhat receded. The fact is that countries where atheism became overwhelmingly dominant were ruled by Communist parties. How is this a minor little non-sequitur detail which ought to be buried? The fact that some editors of this article are Western atheists and want atheism to be put in a positive light, and don't want to mention that atheism achieved its greatest adoption in Communist countries because they feel this puts it in a negative light, is completely irrelevant. We aren't here to push the atheist POV. We aren't here to put atheism in a positive light, a negative light, or any other color of light -- only the harsh white light of the truth. --BM 00:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you ARE poisoning the well. Unless you consider it would be appropriate to in the INTRODUCTION to Christianity to mention the appalling regimes that have had Christianity as the state religion, or to kick off the Islam article with mentions of Osama Bin Laden. Bear in mind that the only Communist country which was officially atheist (rather than secular) was Albania. We aren't here to push a theist POV either. The place for debates about the connection between atheism and communism is in the BODY of the article. Exile 20:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me at the basis of your objection are two clear POV's:

1. that communist regimes were/are "apalling". This POV has become so near-universal in the United States that you might not recognize it as a POV. Personally, I find many apalling aspects to these regimes, but I am not under any illusions that this is a point of view of mine, and that other points of view have existed, and still do exist.
2. that, therefore, mentioning the association of atheism with communism puts atheism in a poor light, and that mentioning anything that puts atheism in a poor light is something the article shouldn't do. This reflects your POV as an atheist; a non-atheist would not particularly care whether a fact puts atheism in a poor light or not.

I share your atheist POV, as it happens; but I don't share your desire to have this article reflect it. To repeat what I said above, even if it is true that the mention of Communism in the intro puts atheism in a poor light, so what? We aren't here to present atheism in a good light, a poor light, or any kind of light. Our business is to report the facts about atheism which are notable. Your Osama Bin Laden example is not apt. In the overall context of Islam, which has a fourteen hundred year history and a billion or more adherents, the fact that one particular person (OBL) is a Muslim is far from being important enough that it should be mentioned in the introduction. Doing so would be gratuitous POV-pushing, I would certain agree. It would be like mentioning in the introduction to an article about dogs that Hitler loved dogs. Though true, that would be obvious anti-canine POV pushing. However, in an article which is mainly about the history and contemporary situation of atheism, the fact that probably 75% of all twentieth century atheists are or were residents of Communist and former-Communist countries is not gratuitous detail mentioned with the sole aim of pushing anti-atheist POV, and which should be buried in the article. It is a significant fact. If you find this association embarassing, the way to deal with it is not to try to prevent it from being mentioned prominently in this encyclopedia article about atheism, but simply to point out that there is no inherent connection between the views of atheism and communism, and that the association is a historical one. The truth or falseness of a position has nothing to do with who holds the position. --BM 17:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The way I see it, this article has things the wrong way around. Atheism could be mentioned as a notable aspect of communism, but communism is clearly not an aspect of atheism. In an intro to an article about atheism, what should be included are facts about atheism, not about who is atheist. It could include notes on there being types of atheism, as covered further down in the article. As we all seem to be explaining by example, here's mine. Should Theism be headed by a description of which political systems support it? I feel that it's well put together as is:

Theism is the belief in one or more gods or goddesses. More specifically, it may also mean the belief in God, a god, or gods, who is/are actively involved in maintaining the Universe. This secondary meaning is shown in context to other beliefs concerning the divine below.

It's a description of theism. It doesn't get into who is theist, and I think that's how it should be. - Vague | Rant 01:42, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

The historical summary is out of place in the introduction. To put it another way, the choice of history as something to summarize and put in the intro seems arbitrary. It isn't the most important part of atheism. --Yath 02:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is consensus that the first paragraph should summarize the article. The bulk of the article is the definition, and the historical account, those are the two things that are summarized. If you think that there is something else that should be summarized in the first paragraph, please do so (in summary fashion), but do not remove the summary. --BM 03:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is consensus that the first paragraph should summarize the article. -- fine, but that isn't what it does. It summarizes the history section. It shouldn't be there. --Yath 04:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are two issues: (1) Should the first para summarize the article? You seem to agree that it should. Good. (2) Does the current first para adequately summarize the article containing, as it does, a summary of the definition and the history section? You say that this is not an adequate summary. So, its easy: show us how to make it an adequate summary; don't just delete it. --BM 04:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(1) I don't have time to do a proper job of summarizing the article. (2) The current introduction is worse than nothing, and should be removed. --Yath 05:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know of the "consensus" BM refers; however, I supported a brief summary of the article within the introduction per Wikipedia guidelines as well as to placate BM. I agree with Yath regarding the poor organization and composition of BM's summary. The summary says nothing of the two dominant forms of atheism and nothing of the topics below the Statistics section. I think the summary's focus on history downgrades the quality of the article and I suggest BM improve it. Adraeus 05:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade Edits

Don't revert non-vandalism. I worked on that edit for about 20 minutes, removing original research and postulated opinions, and clarifying the atrocious sentance structure. Point by point my edits were improvements, most obviously in the first sentance, which was nearly unreadable in its lack of inelegance. Featured article status should be our goal, and cited, readable information should be our method of achieving such, as with all articles. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 17:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BTW SS - "sentance" should read "sentence". But keep up the desire for "readable information". --Mrfixter 17:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sam, your recent effort to rewrite the atheism article to suit your well known POV undoes months of consensus and good work by earnest, responsible editors; only accomplished I might add after you ceased your many months of disruptive obstructionism. Rewriting a accurate and serviceable article to significantly change its tone and meaning to reflect your personal POV and against consensus is vandalism personified. You hold yourself up elsewhere to be an allegedly responsible and trustworthy editor, yet you pull stunts like this? Protecting the page again may be the only option to prevent Sam from rewriting it with his POV. That would make it the eighth time in 12 months that Sam's vandalism results in the page being protected.--FeloniousMonk 17:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

while I don't call it vandalism, Sam cannot seriously have thought that his "overhaul" would go unreverted. This article will only progress in very small steps and by balanced compromise. Any major "rewrite" is doomed to wholesale reversion. dab (ᛏ) 17:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sam's engaged in this sort of behavior and obstructed progress here for exactly one year now. Only after Sam swore off editing the article in December(?), after being nearly being banned for 3rr violations, has any significant progress been made. His method here smacks of vandalism to me.--FeloniousMonk 17:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

calm down. it's reverted. nothing happened. Maybe SS will discuss, now. dab (ᛏ) 20:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Seven months of Sam pulling this very stunt will do that to you. The last two months without Sam were very productive and peaceful. Exactly how many chances are we to give someone before declaring they're acting in bad faith? How long do we have to wait for them to edit responsibly in an NPOV manner? Twelve months is very long time.--FeloniousMonk 20:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I reverted Sam's edits not because I disagreed with all of them. In fact some of them amounted to copy-edits. However, others were more substantial and should be discussed here first. In general, Sam, it seems a better policy when making a large number of changes, some of which you know are apt to be controversial, to make them piecemeal in increasing order of size and/or degree of controversy, waiting a bit after each one to test (and/or obtain) consensus. This might seem tedious, but you know from personal experience that being bold won't have good results on this article. By the way, if you don't proceed in this manner, I think you will find that this article has quite a large cadre of editors now who will simply revert your work. --BM 17:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I strongly concur that "when making a large number of changes, some of which you know are apt to be controversial, to make them piecemeal in increasing order of size and/or degree of controversy, waiting a bit after each one to test (and/or obtain) consensus." I think that is suggestive of one possible way to proceed here, if it is clear which edits are more likely to be controversial. Certainly any that are simply improvements of grammar, etc., should come first and should be uncontroversial. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:44, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I've asked for admins to have a look at Sam's actions and protect the page (again) if Sam insists on not playing by the rules. Thanks Sam for making this a place of bitter contention again.--FeloniousMonk 17:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I think protection would be excessive. As far as I can tell, most of the edits consist of moving material around. Sam, I think it would be very useful for you to be explicit here about what your edits are, other than simply moving material. I'd also suggest that moving material without consensus is probably not the greatest idea in an article where consensus has obviously difficult to hammer out. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:44, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion, though I'll point out Sam's edits are far more than just "moving material around". Consider: [2]. Sam completely changed the meaning and tone of the introductory paragraph, and went on to do the same to the 'Types of atheism' paragraphs. Those two sections alone were the result of months of negotiation and compromise.--FeloniousMonk 20:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, I generally third your seconding of my comments. However, I would point out that unfortunately in this article apparently trivial wording and grammar changes can trigger edit wars, since in some places the consensus has been hammered out word by word. It may not be obvious where these trip-wires are, but Sam should know, having spent a lot of time on this article. Whether he decides to deliberately trip them anyway is another question. --BM 21:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sam, as for some of your specific edits:

1. I've never been completely happy with the content of the first sentence, and leaving content aside, I also find the syntax and word-choice to be infelicitous and "clunky". HOWEVER, there are other editors here who feel very strongly that it should be retained, word for word. Since most of us can live with it, the consensus seems to be that it isn't worth having an edit war about.
2. The remaining few sentences of the intro were a summary which I added. The general view is that the intro of the article should be more than one sentence and that it should include a short summary of the article, as do other articles. Those sentences are a summary of the history section, which is now the bulk of the article. The last sentence is still controversial, and when you moved almost the entire Talk page to the archives, you moved an active discussion on that point. I have moved it back, as you see. This controversy is at this point confined to the Talk page, and the people disagreeing with that sentence so far have not attempted to change or move it in the article. Incidentally, where you tried to move this (the Etymology section) didn't make a lot of sense.
3. The edit in the paragraph about the monotheistic "god": you have a bee in your bonnet about this, Sam, and you should just let it drop, since people either don't understand what you are driving at, or consider it POV.
4. I will have to look again at your other edits. As I recall they were small changes, but I can't recall if there was anything controversial about them.

--BM 18:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MacGyverMagic's response

Yes, Sam's editing without discussing the changes on the talk page are bad judgement on his part, but I agree with BM and dab here. A lot of these changes were mere copyediting. Try to discuss the merits of his edits instead of attacking him. I also consider this:

your recent effort to rewrite the atheism article to suit your well known POV undoes months of consensus and good work by earnest, responsible editors; only accomplished I might add after you ceased your many months of disruptive obstructionism.

a personal attack to Sam Spade. It implies he isn't a "earnest, responsible editor". Let's not hold past actions against someone assume good faith. That's what we do to vandals too. Put yourself in his shoes and take in what has been said to him. Would you attempt to discuss changes?

I'll wait out a protect and see how things develop. Mgm|^(talk) 18:29, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

MGM, thank you for your quick response. I understand your point that my choice of words may, by implying that Sam isn't a earnest, responsible editor, be construed as an oblique personal attack. But I disagree that it is a personal attack. Sam's actions today were neither earnest nor responsible. Sam knows the rules and the situation in this article; hell, he created the situation. Acknowledging that publicly is not a personal attack, but a statement of fact. Hopefully calling out this fact will result in modified behavior on Sam's part. His recent actions, taken with the knowledge of his past obstructionist behavior and POVism here over the last year, constitute a very clear pattern of irresponsible and disruptive behavior, not to mention his own vulgar personal attacks sent by email. Responsible editors should not have to tolerate obstructionism from anyone for 12 months, or abet and facilitate it by remaining silent or avoiding the subject for fear of being accused of making personal attacks.

As I mentioned to Sam on his Talk page today, he can choose to walk the walk of a responsible editor anytime he chooses. If he's going to contribute further here, I for one will insist on it.--FeloniousMonk 18:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade is not an "earnest, responsible editor." That's demonstrable. That's factual. That's an observation. That's science. Administrators and Arbitrators both seem to have major problems with comprehending a) the differences between observations and ad hominem comments, and b) why prosecution of perceived verbal offenses is irrational and undesirable. I dislike this increasing feminization of Wikipedia policy. If I wanted to be accused of and punished for "harassment", I wouldn't be self-employed. Read Perception: Coexistence with Cognitive Conflicts. Adraeus

Reply

I took a vacation from editing this page because the talk page is, was, (and probably ever shall be) a train wreck. I began editing again because after having one of wikipedias worst trolls banned, I thought progress might be possible. It looks like it is. The majority seems to be reasonable. Listen here gents:

Of course I'm not going to discuss all my edits here prior to making them. Firstly that would lack the clarity that my edits provided. Secondly that would bog us down w the non-stop trolling this talk page is so rightly famous for. And third, the bias against me from those lacking rigour is so extreme that there is no way in hell they are going to be convinced by anything I say. I could predict next weekÍs stock prices, and they'd still do nothing other than vomit forth the bile that has earned godlessness its infamy.

But you, good sirs, are something different. You understand the purpose of an encyclopedia, and the joys of citations and neutrality. With you, I will discuss every last punctuation sign, if you feel a need... after I place it correctly within the article, of course ;)

In conclusion, I will speak to anyone who is civil, intelligible, and at minimum curious about intellectual honesty. The others can incriminate themselves as long as their able, but I havenÍt the interest to provide them with pearls.

Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 22:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sam, first, not everyone interested in this article is a man. Second, your statement about "the bile that has earned godlessness its infamy" hardly gives one confidence that your editing will be neutral. You seem to be trying to make a case against atheism, which is why your edits are being reverted, and that's unlikely to change unless the tone of the edits changes. SlimVirgin 22:15, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

What about my edits distresses you? Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 22:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say your edits distress me; I simply disagree with them. For example, your intro: " Atheism is the rejection of God , or alternately , the absence of belief." (a) The absence of belief in what? (b) You capitalize "God" and refer to it in the singular, whereas atheism is the absence or rejection of belief in deities, which is what the intro already said, so why change it? And (c) your intro is too short. It's good to have a brief description of the history of the position. SlimVirgin 22:29, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I left what was not believed in vague intentionally, as an alternate for rejection of God, which is the most common definition. Atheism is a broad catagory, and not every atheist rejects every deity. For example, some worship Sage, but do all atheists reject sage? Does every atheist disbelieve every unknown entity? Every "supernatural" or paranormal entity? Of course not. I left things both open ended, and focused on the most commin definition, both precise and inclusive. As far as the history, its better in the history section. Oh, and without a cite, those "most scientists" quotes are absurdly unencyclopedic. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 22:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Atheists do not believe in deities, which is what the intro said. We either say that, or we try to give a list of the names of the deities that atheists tend not to believe in, which would be absurd. Others disagree about the summary of the history being in the history section: most editors prefer to put a brief description of their subject matter in the intro, which is what Wikipedia recommends, and which is what had been done. Regarding your claim about "most scientists," that's a fair point. Perhaps it should be changed to "many scientists," though I'd say it's true that most rationalists (or even all, as a matter of definition) and most humanists are atheists. SlimVirgin 22:53, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Considering the article prior to your edits was accepted by all regular particpants here, represented months of negotiation and compromise, and was factually accurate and NPOV, your "overhaul" as you called it was unwarranted.

Don't start up again with the claim that the rejection of god is the most common definition. We put that to bed months ago, and your edit rejected consensus and reintroduced the claim again. Abide by consensus or drop it.

"...vomit forth the bile that has earned godlessness its infamy"? You're not going to find much support here for your views and contents with rhetoric like that.

Labeling Adraeus a troll, much less one of the worst, is hardly fair particularly considering it was his responses to your goading and misbehavior that resulted in his temporary ban. Mighty hypocritical of you too, considering the insulting personal attack I recently received from you.--FeloniousMonk 23:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The intro says it's the dominant position among scientists. That sounds right. Do you have a reference that suggests otherwise? SlimVirgin 23:09, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sam, concerning the scientists point, there is a reference in the article to a study that was done about a century ago, concerning American scientists. The exact same study (same question and methodology, not the same researchers, of course) was done again, IIRC, in 1996. The results on both occasions are discussed in the article; viz already a century ago, atheism represented the majority view amongst American scientists. A century later it represents the overwhelmingly dominant view. The intro understates it, actually. These studies did refer to American scientists, so perhaps it is stretching the point to say just "scientists" in the introduction, although I think this is nevertheless valid, and I would leave it, unless someone has a good reason to challenge the generalization to scientists, which implies scientists world-wide.

Concerning your point about God. First this is old ground, as you know, and you acquiesced on this already before you quit the article in December, after I added the long paragraph concerning it in the Types of Atheism section. Second, while you argue that atheism is the denial of God, and spent arid months in edit wars to capitalize and "de-pluralize" 'gods', the consensus is that atheism is not the denial of God only, but the denial of gods. At one point, mention was made in the article that atheism can also be relative to a particular god, that Christians are theistic with respect to God and atheistic with respect to all gods. IIRC this is still in the article. The long paragraph I added addressed what I thought was your issue about how the denial of God is different from the denial of a god, or even all gods, and that denial of gods did not encompass the denial of God. I thought you were satisified with this compromise. Please, lets not start the one-letter edit war -- "G" versus "g" -- again. --BM 23:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been participating in the discussions here lately, but I have been following developments. The pre-SS state of the article seemed quite acceptable. Perhaps there was some room for minor improvements here and there, but on the whole pretty solid. I find both Sam's revision and his present attitude entirely objectionable. older≠wiser 23:16, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I second Bkonrad. dab (ᛏ) 23:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And I. I've been taking a vacation from this article too, thinking it had finally at long last settled into a stable and NPOV state, but blink at the wrong time and the same old tiresome debate erupts again. I'm prepared for another round I guess, but I really hope we don't have to. It's been going on for over a year now. Bryan 00:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like an AOL poster on usenet, me too. I quit the talk page a while back because it was stressing me out, but I was watching the article and I thought it was good before the most recent disputed edits. Andre (talk) 01:27, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Like I'm sure many other editors of this page, I let out a slow sigh when I realised sam had started editing again. I will be keeping a close eye on this page from now on to make sure he doesn't get his way in promoting his anti-atheistic christian fundamentalist agenda. With vfp15 being banned from editing the Charles Darwin page for a year for adding an irrelevant factoid, I have to admit it seems a little odd that Samspade is still able to position himself to once again cause headaches for us all. Aaarrrggh 07:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Clearly I don't agree with any of you, the article as it stands now sucks. That said, some of those who disagreed with my edit are reasonable, respectable editors, and I choose not to defy your consensus. Rather I will hold off, and come back at some point in the future, when either the demographics of this page, or the wiki policies relating to NPOV enforcement vrs. Majoritarianism have changed. I know it’s a disservice to our readers, but I don't see the cost/gain ratio being worthwhile, at this juncture. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

well, I don't see the article as beyond improvement. I suggest you just set your aim a little bit lower, and suggest minor changes first, and argue why you think they are an improvement. I am sure some will be accepted as actual improvements. Just don't try to fix everything you don't like all at once. dab (ᛏ) 12:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am in the habit of being bold, and I don't intend to change that. If you like some of my edits, reinsert them. I'll do just as I said, and come back someday when my improvements might not be reverted out of hand, and opposed by consensus. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not really so much about setting 'aim[s] a little lower', as it is about not allowing bias and agenda setters to get their way. Sam Spade has stated publically that he despises atheists in the past, and works quite blatantly towards enforcing his christian agenda. As he has just stated above, he intends to come back and troll here when he thinks he will stand more chance of getting away with it. As such, it is the responsibility of people with integrity, such as myself and many others who have worked well to edit this article, to make sure he simply doesn't get his way. Sam, I will come back to this page often :) Aaarrrggh 12:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quite. I've always had it watchlisted, even while I was taking a break during the October-November argument, and if none of the ten other editors who popped up in the last day had fixed Sam's POVing I would have certainly done it myself. Sam still edit-wars [1], but with the 3RR in effect and Sam apparently following the letter if not the intent that's no longer as tiresome a tactic as it once was. I think the article will be fine. If he tries to start another seemingly endless argument like he did last year, we can ignore him or if all else fails see what the arbitration committee thinks. Bryan 16:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade as a POV warrior aint got a chance this time, not a hope, too many folks watching, it took a long time and wastes too much time, there must be a better way! --Nick-in-South-Africa 19:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC).

In Buddhism and Chinese religion

I moved a paragraph added to the beginning of the History section, related to Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism, to the end of a retitled section near the end of the article. The sentence,

Confucianism and Taoism are atheistical in the sense that they do not posit or assume a higher being or beings (the common Western translation of Tao as God in some versions of Lao Tze is highly misleading).

is a slightly reworked version of the original sentence, now moved. However, I'd like to see some sources on this, since I don't know if this statement is true. The original paragraph also claimed that Buddhism is atheistic. We've been over that ground before, and we touch on this already in the section. I have removed this claim in the moved material, but if someone cares to reopen that discussion and provide sources, please go ahead. --BM 13:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BM We went through this before, back when god was a boy :-).... In Therevadan Buddhism no deity is poisited in the Dhamma (teaching) or any thoughts or invocation of any deity whatsoever required for it's pracitice, it is indeed without theism, it is thus by the 'weak' definition atheistic. That said many Buddhist also when specifically challenged on the point deny that Buddhism is atheistic, but I posit that this is because of misunderstanding of the meaning of atheism and/ or them being more concerned about the negative connotations many ascribe to atheism rather than the Buddha Dhamma requiring any deity belief. http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/beliefs/atheism.htm

"Buddhism" by Christmas Humphreys (1954). C.H. was President of the Buddhist Society, London, from it's foundation in 1924 until it's Silver Jubilee in 1954. On page 79 under title "No God, No Soul" he writes "As between the theist and atheist positions, Buddhism is atheist".

Buddhism without Belief by Stephen Batchelor a former Bhikku (Theravadan Buddhist monk) is a book predicated on Buddhist atheism http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573226564/104-6802718-8299168 --Nick-in-South-Africa 05:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Some Buddhists are atheists, some aren't. Many beieve that though there's a god or gods, they're irrelevant to human beings. As with so many religions, Buddhism is too complex to be neatly pigeon-holed as one thing or another. As for Confucianism and Daoism, they both went through massive changes; neither started as religions, but both Confucius and Lao-zi were being worshipped as gods by the time of Wang Ch'ung (Lao-zi for longer). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes but large chuncks of Buddhist teaching posit no deity and require no deity beleif for its practice. I would even say that most of Buddhism requires no deity belief. Its a bit like plumbing, you can be a theist or an atheist plumber, the teachings of plumbing dont touch on theism and it's irrelevent to it. --Nick-in-South-Africa 07:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

deletions

Other German 19th century atheistic thinkers were Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900).

Probably the most famous (and aggressive) atheist of the 19th century, however, was Friedrich Nietzsche, who coined the famous aphorism God is dead. Nietzsche argued that the belief system of the West was in fact a metaphysical system based, (explicitly or implicitly) on theological (Christian) foundations. With the death of God (i.e. the collapse of Christianity as a serious belief system) the whole system of Western thought therefore crumbled: hence Nietzsche's call for a re-evaluation of all values.

Neither Nietzsche nor Schopenhauer were atheists or "atheistic thinkers". They never claimed to be; it's fallacious to assume that they were. In all, Nietzsche thought atheism to be a form of nihilism--a denial of the will to live. He stated in Jenseits von Gut und Böse, paragraph 53:

Warum heute Atheismus?— “Der Vater” in Gott ist gründlich widerlegt; ebenso “der Richter,” “der Belohner.” Insgleichen sein “freier Wille”: er hört nicht,—und wenn er hörte, wüsste er trotzdem nicht zu helfen. Das Schlimmste ist: er scheint unfähig, sich deutlich mitzutheilen: ist er unklar?— Dies ist es, was ich, als Ursachen für den Niedergang des europäischen Theismus, aus vielerlei Gesprächen, fragend, hinhorchend, ausfindig gemacht habe; es scheint mir, dass zwar der religiöse Instinkt mächtig im Wachsen ist,—dass er aber gerade die theistische Befriedigung mit tiefem Misstrauen ablehnt.

[Why atheism today? — 'The father' in God is thoroughly refuted; likewise 'the judge', 'the rewarder'. Likewise his 'free will': he does not hear — and if he heard he still would not know how to help. The worst thing is: he seems incapable of making himself clearly understood: is he himself vague about what he means? — These are what, in the course of many conversations, asking and listening, I found to be the causes of the decline of European theism; it seems to me that the religious instinct is indeed in vigorous growth — but that it rejects the theistic answer with profound mistrust.] Hollingdale trans.

Schopenhauer stated in his Parerga and Paralipomena that he essentially believed in truth and reason as precedents to religion. I don't see how that makes him an atheist. Dan Asad 13:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sign your comments with four tildes, please: ~~~~. This helps others keep track of the discussion.

The section you quote merely exposes Nietzsche's thoughts on why atheism was on the rise. It doesn't amass either proof or disproof of Nietzsche's own beliefs. Could you find more relevant sections that expose Nietzsche's personal beliefs, as opposed to his explanations of others'? The "atheism as nihilism" angle would be particularly relevant. Nietzsche was rabidly anti-Christian, but of course that doesn't make him an atheist. I must admit I'm not very familiar with his work, though.

Even if Nietzsche was not an atheist, he is very much associated with it in the public eye. If this should be a profound misconception, it's profound and widespread enough to mention (of course, the full exposure belongs at Friedrich Nietzsche, but there's no reason we can't spend a sentence on it here). 82.92.119.11 22:08, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course, there's no problem mentioning him or Schopenhauer in the article, (and that also applies to any particular individual or school of thought), but erroneously characterising him or his philosophy atheistic, whether out of misconception, misinterpretation, or ignorance, simply does not make it true. There are some people who do this, but only because they take his work for face-value (as from encyclopaedias). And I also find that many well established encyclopaedias make the error of dubbing him a nihilist, which in fact was what his whole philosophy was in opposition to. Nietzsche did indeed believe in the concept of l'etre suprême, otherwise his Übermench would be an impossibility--but it's important to remember that when Nietzsche speaks of the death of God, he does so in the philosophical sense--essentially his sense. And it's up to each man--each individual--to determine the extent and meaning of this, as it were, experience. This is the whole objective of his Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A book for all and none.

The section you quote merely exposes Nietzsche's thoughts on why atheism was on the rise. It doesn't amass either proof or disproof of Nietzsche's own beliefs.

Both you and I know that's just an attempt to gain at argument. Jesus opposed the Pharisees and never explicitly stated, "God exists!". Does that make him an atheist? Of course, not.

Are you implying that Nietzsche was belitting himself, as his intention here was to ascribe the religious instinct to atheism/atheists? Dan Asad 13:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear: I neither believe nor am I arguing that Nietzsche was an atheist. The section you quote, however, explicitly talks about "den Niedergang des europäischen Theismus". Maybe I'm misreading things, but Nietzsche doesn't seem to be talking about himself at all. I fail to see how it establishes anything on Nietzsche's theism, or lack of it.

The comparison with Jesus is fallacious — unless you really want to claim Jesus talked about God as a topic of study, rather than as his own Holy Father. Similarly, I am not claiming Nietzsche was belittling himself, and I think we're talking past each other, here. If you say Nietzsche was no atheist, I believe you. The quote you gave just doesn't seem to establish that, that's all I'm saying. Maybe I misinterpreted your intent. 82.92.119.11 08:45, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is true, he didn't specifically refer to himself--but if he is an atheist, as this article implies, why would he denigrate himself?

Here's an article from a Prof. Eric Steinhart of the William Paterson University: http://www.wpunj.edu/wpcpages/sch-hmss/philosophy/COURSES/NIETNET/God.htm

Although I don't like his rhetoric, he nevertheless conveys what I'm trying to point out. Also, there is no mention of Nietzsche being either an atheist or theist in any other encyclopaedia I have come by, including the article here on Wikipedia. Dan Asad 13:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can't we just say that both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were important figures for 19th century atheistic thought, and leave it to their respective articles to figure out exactly what their personal beliefs were? dab (ᛏ) 14:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It's fine to mention that they had an _influence_ on atheism/atheistic thought. --Dan Asad

Works for me, too. Good catch, Dieter. 82.92.119.11 17:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

"'God', 'immortality of the soul', 'redemption', 'beyond' — Without exception, concepts to which I have never devoted any attention, or time; not even as a child. Perhaps I have never been childlike enough for them? I do not by any means know atheism as a result; even less as an event: It is a matter of course with me, from instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questionable, too exuberant to stand for any gross answer. God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers — at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think!" — Friedrich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, Walter Kaufmann transl.

Is Nietzsche not saying that he is an atheist by condition of being? Regardless, most professional philosophers would agree that Nietzsche and Schopenhauer are important figures in atheistic thought; however, realize that self-identification as an 'atheist' is not required to be an 'atheist' by definition and behavior. The term 'atheist' carries a stigma which many people do not want to associate with. To say that Nietzsche or Schopenhauer were not atheists because they failed to self-identify is patently ridiculous. Adraeus 02:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I gave that passage plenty of thought when I initially brought the subject up. There's no doubt that atheism was a matter of course with him. He said that's what lead him to Schopenhauer:

"Nothing written about this essay and its author was more thought-provoking or longer than what an old disciple of the philosopher von Baader said, a Professor Hoffmann in Würzburg. On the basis of this essay he predicted great destiny for me—bringing about a kind of crisis and ultimate decision in the problem of atheism whose most instinctive and relentless type he divined in me. It was atheism that led me to Schopenhauer." Ecce Homo, 2. The Untimely Ones

However, it was not the result. You have to rememeber, what mattered to Nietzsche was the world of idea and concept. In his autobiography, he reveals that the nature of his epistemology was a progression of overcoming [of ideas], which embodies the core subject of his philosophy.

He states in Ecce Homo: "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming." Why I Am So Wise, 8

And because of this, I truly think it's a real misnomer to denote him an atheist, when he in fact went beyond mere atheism, into the depths of thought and knowledge itself. It's really more of a problem of hermeneutics than it is anything else. Unfortunately, we don't have Nietzsche here to tell us what he was, but to characterise him or his philosophy merely as atheistic, is simply a gross understatement. Dan Asad

Atheism in the Czech Republic

Originally, it read "The state with the highest percentage of atheists is the Czech republic which, at 59%, reflects the influence of both Communism and the campaign against Hussites in the 17th century."

The last part was replaced by "due to various historical reasons" by Pavel Vozenilek, with the summary "the reasons are more complex than listed". This may be so, but I don't think an encyclopedia should resort to a handwave of the form "various historical reasons"; it makes us sound uninformed.

I have (suboptimally, as I see now) copied a sentence from Czech Republic that essentially says the Communists did it. Is there a main article discussing this topic in depth that we may refer to? (Something more specific than Czech Republic, obviously). Demographics of the Czech Republic has nothing. Likewise History of the Czech Republic and History of Czechoslovakia. Pavel, if you know more about it, could you elaborate? We should get some clarity on this. Maybe even Atheism in the Czech Republic. It seems notable enough. 82.92.119.11 22:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reference to "discrimination" by the Communists begs the question a bit as to how they discriminated, etc, which carries us a bit far from the topic of the article. This is, after all, a short section about statistics concerning atheists, and I think it would start to unbalance the article if we went on at length in this short statistical section about the policies of the Communists concerning religion in the post-War Czech Republic. The fact that Communist regimes favored atheism is mentioned elsewhere in the article anyway. I think the original text before Pavel Vozenilek's edit was the most succinct and best. --BM 22:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the record: I am not advocating anything beyond a sentence-level mention with a reference to an article that has in-depth information. If no such reference can be constructed, I'd prefer to not have anything at all (i.e. just "the state with the highest percentage of atheists is the Czech republic, with 59% percent of the population claiming to be atheist"). If we have no attributed explanation, then best not give any at all. Pavel's edit was unfortunate, but obvious: if you're going to allude to something, then be prepared to point to the full story, or else handwaves and disproportionate expositions ensue. 82.92.119.11 23:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree with you. --BM 00:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Explanation: the number 59% (2001) comes from office responsible for statistics details in Czech. Estimates of people attending church services regularly are only few %, mostly in rural areas in Moravia, but these are just estimates.

The reasons are many (there was even book in Czech trying to explain the trend). I'll give very basic overview:

1. The most often named culprit is communist regime. This is only partially true: the trend was visible before and after rule of communist party.

The repression by communists was active and very hard in 50s. Later churches were weak, without resources or influence and got more less ignored.

2. Historically the most religious people in Czech Republic were peasants. Workers, intelectuals and city inhabitants much less. Number of people working in agriculture dropped dramatically to some 2% today.

3. Church (this means catholic church) was not "church of nation". Its official structures were tied with Austro-Hungarian monarchy and with nobility. Czechs had almost no nobility and defined themselves by language and in definance to the monarchy. The church largely failed to attach itself to Czech nationalistic movement and instead become easy target of resentments for growing nationalims since second half of 19th century.

This is different from say Slovakia where many more priests were active in defense of Slovak language and minority rights.

4. Support for World War I by church authorities: this resulted in relatively popular movement after Czechoslovakia was created: to establish "national church" independent from catholic one (it didn't succeed ultimately but created large rift in then homogenous structure).

5. Czech countries were largely protestant until Thirty Years War and were subject to forced re-catholisation later. It dragged until 18th cetury. Lot of protestant elites (and later even common people) were forced out of country.

Lot of foreigners were brought here to help with re-catholisation and the fact was stressed during nationalistic movement.

The time was named as "period of darkness" by very popular writer Jirasek (second half of 19th cetury) and the name stuck.

6. Hussite movement of 13th century was complex conflict of differing interests. Final result was wast devastation of the country. It was the last large scale civil war in this area (I do not count Thirty Years War - it was much wider conflict). Religious fanaticism is rather unpopular here, possibly in light of this event.

7. During last 150 years the church failed to provide model roles for people - no saints, no priests dedicated to a good cause got popular enough. On the other hand, mistakes and failures were popularized and generalized and this picture persists until now.

8. After communism fell (1989) the church hoped to reverse secularisation trend. This failed. Among reasons was (a) inability of (catholic) church to get rid of agents of former secret service among priests and mainly (b) church insistence on returning assets grabbed by communists. Question of assets was very sensitive to people who (being universally poor after communism) saw this as proof of greedy nature of the organized religion. All in all, the initial sympathy church got was lost. There was 40% of self-claimed atheists in 1991 and 59% in 2001.

So this is what I mean by "various historical reasons". I don't know how to compress it better into one sentence. Pavel Vozenilek 01:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The link you gave doesn't work (and even if it did, it would be in Czech :-). You're quite right, however: the reasons cannot be compressed in one sentence, and "the Communists did it" is definitely insufficient. If you can attribute this material, consider putting it in one of the articles on the Czech lands, so we can link to it from here. Until then, it's best not to have anything at all — "various historical reasons" is, IMO, worse than nothing at all. I've rewritten it to something non-committing. We should remove "probably" if we're certain, and preferably provide a working link to a survey claiming this percentage. 82.92.119.11 08:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The direct link is [3]. It is Czech (I coudn't, coudn't find English equivalent). First line of the table is total # of people associated with one of the churches.

The word "probably" relates to methodology of statistics. Once in 10 years every household gets questionary: whether they have central heating and how many TVs own. One of these questions is religious affiliation: people can check one of boxes available. In 2001 59% of people checked "none", 9% ignored the question. These data should not be compared with other countries unless they use the same method, thus the "probably".

I woudn't put much of faith in the number itself: until half of 20th century official documents (e.g. identity papers) have item "religion". People filled in the church they got christened in (vast majority were christened). Originally, in Austro-Hungarian monarchy, this information served to find documentation abot a person in proper parish. Even now old people are used to put "catholic" in such questionaries - that's what they did for whole life (my gradmother, born in 1918, did so even when she didn't visit church in last 20 years). My guess is that the number of people saying "catholic" (27%) is much inflated due this reason. Pavel Vozenilek 18:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Why is this part of text still so untrue? Czechs are not atheists for communist repressions. Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Yugoslavia, Romania etc... from all post-communist states is Czech republic the only one, where is so high rate of atheism. In other countries is this rate approximately same as in western countries. We must search reason in historical reasons such as anti-reformation and Husittes and traditional czech skepticism and racionalism. There is no nation where is more than 10% of atheists. This phenomen is really complicated and I think also important in the light of religious ploblems of our world. So if you are saying, that the reason is communist tyranny, you are lying and changing the reality.

Are you sure you are talking about current article? The issue had settled, unless I am missing something. And please sign your posts with ~~~~. Pavel Vozenilek 21:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

quotes

the quotes section is entirely too long and should be exported to quote: or. dab (ᛏ) 16:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quotes should go to [4]. I'll export them right now. Bryan 17:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)