Talk:Atheism/Archive 7

Non-atheist links?

Someone recently added links to such websites as ex-atheist.com, rationalchristianity.net, and christiananswers.net under the heading "Other side of the coin" under "External links." I find this ridiculous due both to the sources and the precedent it would set. First, the sites listed clearly have an agenda not supported by any objective facts whatsoever. Whereas the atheism links all appeal to what can be observed, or not observed, leaving theism up to faith, these sites are advocating based precisely on faith. I cannot see how this can be perceived as NPOV, given the article in which they appear. For an article on theism, particularly Christianity, given the sources, such links might be acceptable, but certainly not in an article about atheism. This leads to my second point, which is the precedent allowing such links would set. Should then an addendum of links to sites advocating skepticism or atheism be added to all theism-related articles? I imagine that most would agree that such a course of action would be absurd. The point of the articles is to address the topic at hand. Addressing all alternative viewpoints is not only not the intent of each article, but would be incredibly impractical. Thus, I have removed the links, and would appreciate it if anyone contemplating re-adding them provide a rationale that addresses my points made here before doing so. Cheers. User:Davin (usurped) 23:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I didn't add them, nor do I intend to re-add them, but I notice that there are numerous antithetical links posted on most Christian related pages, so why not here too? I mean in terms of NPOV sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Respectfully - DavidR 01:10, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In none of the articles concerning religion have I found any links or arguments whatsoever advocating disbelief in that religion. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and, more specifically for Christianity, Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Lutheranism, and others: none provide any sort of atheist or agnostic perspective. None argue for disbelief or question the idea of faith. This is exactly as it should be. The only thing remotely related to "antithetical links" among those surveyed were sections involving issues concerning the relationships between different faiths. This is to be expected, given the intertwining history of various religions and also the fact that they are, after all, "philosophies" or rules to live by. Atheism, however, is no such thing; it is simply absence of faith and has no tenets or dogma. User:Davin (usurped) 22:40, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

back this up, or back off

"In modern usage as reflected in most dictionaries, atheism is the disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of any and all gods." Sam Spade 03:19, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How about [1] [2] [3]? :) Bryan 03:24, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Those are great references. I think I'll use them to place an accurate definition into the article, thanks. Sam Spade 03:28, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, since you apparently didn't recognize them, those are the three references you kept using earlier in this talk: page that I had to point out several times are actually the exact same source. I used them all now mainly in jest, including all three URLs in the article itself is silly. Bryan 05:08, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thats just the same as a naturalist, what then is the word for someone who specifically doesn't believe in gods

You misunderstand, the point is to break down the definition itself, so as to make atheism more palatable. Sam [Spade] 01:27, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're right, I don't understand what you mean by that. But the definition is identical to Philosophical_naturalism and would therefore make having seperate articles for the two subjects (rather than a redirect) completely pointless. Its only "backed up" by three completely identical internet sources, that does not prove that most dictionaries and encyclopedias define atheism as a synonymous with naturalism. In fact here are three (non-identical) sources that don't [4] , [5] , [6]. And on top of all that atheism has already been defined earlier in the article making this line redundant anyway. -- anon

There are several, significantly differing definitions of atheism. The most common view is that it is denial of the existence of God. Pick up any dead tree dictionary or encyclopedia, and that's what they'll say. Go to the six internet sources noted above, and you can see that they are in complete agreement. There is no justification for wikipedia's article to omit the most common usage by far. Since atheists themselves prefer a more uncommon definition ("lack of belief") the article opens with that one, and I can live with it, but to omit the mainstream view does not make sense. -- Yath 17:22, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes God, not "God or any supernatural existance", just God. Call it a-the-ism or a-theism, whatever, but there are other supernatural concepts besides gods.--anon

Sorry for misunderstanding the nature of this discussion. Looks like some earlier comments have been lost? I agree. --Yath 04:46, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Legalities

The article's statement that atheists are legally protected from discrimination in the US isn't accurate, or at least isn't complete. To begin, several state constitutions (around 7 or 8) contain clauses saying things like "no person shall be discriminated against because of religion, provided he or she acknowledges the existence of a deity." It is debatable whether these clauses pass federal constitutional muster--but that's the point, it's *debatable.*

Justice O'Connor's opinion in the recent Newdow case seems to suggest that while the government must remain neutral *between religions,* it need not remain neutral on the question of theism vs. atheism--that is states may, if they choose, adopt "ceremonial deism" as their official religions. And even if they can't officially prescribe ceremonial deism as a state religion, they may nonetheless call upon citizens to recite deistic oaths like the Pledge of Allegiance. Refusal to speak the oath, or refusal to speak any part of the oath, may not *technically* be the basis for academic sanctions, denial or employment, or other bad consequences. As a practical matter, though, there is no way to enforce such a technical provision, so long as those imposing the consequences are clever enough to remain slient as to their motive to punish atheism.

Given the existence of several state constitutional clauses mandating theism as a condition of freedom from religious discrimination, coupled with the opinions in the Newdow case, the article's statement that atheists are legally protected from discrimination in the US should be revised. To avoid controversy altogether, the line could be omitted. Alternatively, it could be replaced with "The legal right of U.S. atheists to be free from assorted forms discrimination on the basis of their lack of theistic belief is an open question."

Or I could just paste this clarification right into the article. :) Bryan 05:47, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Supreme Court overrides state constitutions, and it has said on many occasions that there cannot be any preference of religion to irreligion. The Newdow case was thrown out because Newdow didn't have standing, thus it as if the case never occurred. As such, any opinions are meaningless. [7], [8] Important bit from the first reference: The court pointed out in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) that after the Fourteenth Amendment made the First Amendment applicable to the states, the Establishment Clause means that neither the federal government nor a state "can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." And in Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the court said governments may not show a preference for "religion to irreligion." I will edit the article accordingly, since I have these references. Andre 06:26, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I used a few different references that were better in my edit. Andre 06:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Problematic addition to Definition and scope

I found the following added recently by User:Brian Kendig:

Among people unfamiliar with this distinction, "weak atheism" is often misunderstood to be agnosticism, and "strong atheism" is thought to characterize all atheists. However, strong atheism is not a very tenable position, because it is very difficult to prove a negative: an assertion that there are no gods would seem to require an intimate knowledge of the entire universe so as to be certain that there aren't any gods hiding anywhere. Critics of atheism often say this assertion cannot be proven and requires faith, and therefore they characterize the entirety of atheism as a "belief system." This is incorrect because weak atheism makes no assertions and is simply a lack of belief.

(Emphasis mine.)

The second sentence is POV, and an outright straw man fallacy. This is especially glaring when, immediately above, it states that strong atheists base their stance "on logical a priori arguments which indicate the monotheistic conception of God is self-contradictory or internally inconsistent." Since the entire paragraph seems to have been created as pro-weak-atheism POV, yet does reflect a train of thought among some weak atheists, I've reworded it as follows:

Some critics of strong atheism contend that its positive assertion cannot be proven, and requires faith, because it is very difficult to prove a negative: an assertion that there are no gods would seem to require an intimate knowledge of the entire universe so as to be certain that there aren't any gods hiding anywhere. Strong atheists counter that this is a straw man fallacy, since strong atheism is based on a priori, rather than a posteriori arguments.

Among people unfamiliar with the distinction between the types, "weak atheism" is often misunderstood to be agnosticism, and "strong atheism" is thought to characterize all atheists. This leads to arguments against strong atheism being incorrectly levied against weak atheism as well.

- Korpios 15:37, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Korpios, your edit is good and needed, but it goes just a little too far. Theists are not monolithic; there are varying concepts of "God" among theists. For example: glossing over the problem of a priori/a posteriori distinction for now, the a priori arguments against the mainstream Christian concept of God could not be applied successfully against the Mormon concept of God since that conception of God is logically consistent by definition. The omnipotence of God in Mormonism differs significantly from that of mainstream Christianity such that Mormonism could also assert that proving that "God" (in the Mormon sense) does not exist would require a sort of god-like omniscience AND such an assertion would not be a strawman. From a Mormon POV, strong atheism is still untenable and not self-honest despite a priori arguments against mainstream concepts of "God". —B|Talk 01:09, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I redited that section in line with my comments above. Note that some more sophisticated Mormons would agree with strong atheists who assert that the mainstream Christian concept (or any transcendent concept) of God is incoherent. —B|Talk 01:50, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It could be said that one can be an atheist on three levels, for each proposed definition of a deity: the weak "lacking evidence" level, the strong "asserting incoherence" level, and the level of disputing that a given definition deserves the definition of being a "god". I'd maintain that many atheists are two or all three, depending on the definition they're refuting. For instance, I'm a strong atheist for most monotheistic definitions, and a combined one of the weak and/or "third" types for all others. (Examples of the latter: I dispute the value of labeling the universe itself as a "god" (i.e., pantheism), even though I may not dispute that it exists; I don't believe an alien race created us, because I have no proof of that and much evidence to the contrary, yet even if it were found true I would dispute that they deserved the title of "god".)

Strong atheism, however, does not merely dispute transcendence (i.e., existing "outside" of the universe); it can also dispute omniscience, omnipotence, etc. I'm going to tweak the article a bit to highlight this; while I agree that strong atheism doesn't dispute an entity merely due to non-transcendence, it can dispute one which claims those other "godlike" attributes (and, from what I can tell by reading various Wikipedia articles, the Mormon conception of deity is claimed as omnipotent).

- Korpios 18:20, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I did not intend to imply otherwise only to suggest that strong atheism's strongest argument is against "transcendent" gods. Whether a strong atheism argument can successfully dispute a claim of other godlike attributes depends upon how those godlike attributes are defined. The Mormon conception of deity is omnipotent, but as I stated above "The omnipotence of God in Mormonism differs significantly from that of mainstream Christianity" and from alot of other religious conceptions too. Given the Mormon conception that "God" does not transcend logic, etc, this makes it considerably more difficult to "prove" that there is no such god because the conception is not incoherent such as the mainstream Christian conception and others. —B|Talk 00:05, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd argue that any claim of omnipotence instantly renders any conception as incoherent, and does transcend logic. - Korpios 22:37, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(continued thread block moved below re: definition of "god")

I am curious, Korpios...what definition or characteristics of a being would you find deserving of the title "god"? BTW, I pointed you to my comments on transhumanism only because I saw on your user page that you identified yourself with that ideology. —B|Talk 00:05, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Only what I already view as logically impossible — a being that is omnipotent/omniscient. So, from my point of view, "god" is really a nonsense term. - Korpios 22:37, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

BTW, I wanted to make clear why I was separating the concepts of omniscience and omnipotence from transcendence.

1. One may argue that it is possible to claim omniscience and/or omnipotence within the boundaries of logic/physics (which many strong atheists would dispute).
2. One may argue for a transcendental deity which does not claim omnipotence or omniscience.

While I understand that the second reason above isn't cause alone to separate the concepts (as transcendence would subsume omnipotence/omniscience), such separation does add clarity. The first reason, though, is just cause IMHO.

- Korpios 18:39, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Continued thread re: definition of "god"

I agree: "omnipotence" taken literally is incoherent. Why most Christians fail/refuse to recognize and be honest with themself on this very simple point is astonishing. Or why they would accept that it is rational to believe in a being whose characteristics are incoherent because they transcend logic is disappointing...they've built a modern, intellectual tower of babel. Anyways, in the case of Mormonism, some would say the Mormon conception of "God's" omnipotence makes that application a misnomer. And if omnipotence is only to be taken literally, then I suppose that is true, which is why I say "Whether a strong atheism argument can successfully dispute a claim of other godlike attributes depends upon how those godlike attributes are defined". In the case of Mormonism, "God's" omnipotence or rather "God's" power or ability is by definition limited within the bounds of logic. If this definition is a misnomer of omnipotent, so be it...however, the ancient Jews and early Christians never considered their description of "God", such as "the Almighty", to be in the same sense as the later Christian's description of "God" as "omnipotent". I assert that the Mormon conception of "omnipotent" is closer to the ancient Jews and early Christians conception of "God's" power. This lead me to the question I asked below to which your answer apparently is: there is no being whose power would be so awesome to you that you would deem that being worthy of worship, adoration or godly respect except that being which is by definition logically impossible. But isn't that somewhat odd to deem only a logically impossible being as god? Let me reframe this issue in a transhumanism way. Suppose mankind by process of evolution or by it's own technological progress improved upon the present human state. Is this an infinite progression? A progression that is limited by logical bounds? Presuming a limitation, and presuming that a being progressed fully to its logical limits, how far advanced would you consider such a being to be in contrast to a less developed human like we are now? exponentially advanced? If such an advanced being's primary objective was to assist lowlier beings of its kind to advance to the same degree, wouldn't such a powerful being of such goodwill merit the title of god? —B|Talk 03:55, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If an entity (be it a "god", ghost, spirit, fairy, demon, or otherwise) isn't technically omnipotent, or omniscient, or in claimed possession of any of the other strong-atheist-objectionable traits, I then fall back to weak atheism: essentially, "Okay, prove it!" There are plenty of beliefs out there which I dispute out of weak atheism, rather than strong atheism, simply because adherents claim traits onto their believed/worshipped entities which aren't necessarily outside of the bounds of logic. As for the other question, you hit the nail on the head: "worthy of worship, adoration, or godly respect". If that is the working definition of a "god", then I'm an athiest of the "third" sort across the board, regardless of claimed entity, except perhaps in the LaVeyan Satanist sense (viewing oneself as one's own "god"). I would never view any entity, regardless of power, as worthy of my worship. I might do what was necessary to avoid unnecessary trouble from said entity, but such is true of many entities in any given person's life (one's parents, one's employer, one's government, etc.) — and we would hardly call these "gods" (or, perhaps, they are for all working intents and purposes depending on how we define "god" in the first place). You certainly raise an interesting point regarding atheism — at what point in the definition process is someone an atheist merely because they don't share the same working definition of what constitutes a "god", regardless of whether they're a weak atheist for the god-definition in question? - Korpios 05:22, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well said, Korpios. Power, even awesome power, does not necessarily merit worship...a level of benevolence (if not omnibenevolence) would probably play a role in that equation too. But even presuming a being full of power and goodness exists why would it deserve godly respect? If the complete realization of a human's full potential were dependent on that being or being welcome into that being's society, that would require some acknowledgment of superiority or dependency and probably some degree of submission or conformity to that being or that being's society. But as you say, "prove it"! Prove there is such a being or society of beings and that complete realization of a human's full potential is dependent on such a society of beings. Positing these possibilities only within the bounds of logic, at this point modern analytic philosophy and philosophy of science inform us that there are no empirical propositions that are ever "proven" or that is to say "conclusively proven". All empirical and scientific conjecturing are subject to revision due to the "underdetermination of theories". Evidence can be marshalled to support competing theories and while one theory may at the time seem to be superior to another theory...that can always change. And the history of science since the ancient Greeks has showed us that this has happened again and again. In the end, belief or denial in such a being is a matter of faith/belief and personal values. There are many logically consistent possibilities...which possibility we commit to is more of a reflection of those values than anything else. —B|Talk 12:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The problem there is that benevolence, "goodness", is utterly subjective. As for "proving it" — we call those things "facts" which, based on our currently available evidence, we have very good reason to believe to be true. Does that mean some of these "facts" are never upended? Of course not — that's the thrust behind science, to discover all we can about our world. The problem is, from my point of view, that many posited "facts" do not in fact come from a preponderance of the evidence before us; rather, they are a result of our wishes and whims. While I very much like if certain things were true (e.g., that I am blessed with quantum immortality), that does not lead me to believe they are true. - Korpios 20:09, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Scientists pseudo data

"(...) and more common among scientists, particularly natural scientists, than among the general population (...)"

Please where is a precise source for this piece of English? This looks very much like proselytism (look, to be really smart you ought to be an atheist) and an Encyclopedia cannot state vague data without support. Pfortuny 17:41, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've seen this claim backed up with data before, so I wouldn't pull it just yet; I do agree that a cite is needed, though. - Korpios 18:22, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A 1998 survey of the National Academy of Sciences found that 72.2% of its members expressed "personal disbelief" of God [9].

A 1999 Gallup poll found that 87% of the American public believe either creationism or theistic evolution [10]. See also [11].

It isn't necessarily proselytism. It represents a significant difference in the way trained scientists and most other people think. Not everyone thinks that this is a point in "science's" favor; there are evangelists and pastors who will bring it up to point out that scientists may be on the wrong track. At any rate, it's an important factor in the cultural relevance of atheism, and has a place in the article. -- Yath 18:31, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What I wanted is exactly what you did: the references. I'll try to include them when I have the time, or could you :) ? Thanks. The "proselytism" was bc it had no references. Pfortuny 08:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Religions' view of atheism

Is a new section devoted to various religions' views of atheism a good idea for this article? I realize that the current section grew out of the "one can be Jewish and agnostic/atheist" addition from a bit earlier, but that seems to be rather unique among most religions. As such, I think it belongs where it was, as a simple statement along with others in the "Atheist religious organizations" section. At most, a subsection within that section describing the relationship between Judaism and atheism, possibly emphasizing this uniqueness due to the strong sense of Jewish cultural identity, seems appropriate. While recognizing the benign intention, I am afraid that beginning this new section for "views of other religions on atheism" would just be an invitation for any and every religion's opinion of atheists and atheism. That is not the purpose of this article at all, but rather to present atheism as it is. Thus, I think some other way of working this unique aspect of Judaism or Jewish culture into the article would be better than the current arrangement. Thoughts? User:Davin (usurped) 23:05, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Band at the bottom

Though I know it's not good to engage in revert wars, I've put the band called "Atheist" at the bottom again. My reasoning is:

• As far as I can tell, no official policy requires disambiguation to be on top, and I think that criteria of relevance and importance should play a role in this choice.
• The topic of atheism is of great importance to many people, as shown by the care and effort that has gone into the writing of this article. I think that putting the name of a pop music band at the very top of the article demeans this effort.
• One might usefully ponder if the heavy emphasis on ephemeral items of popular culture in the Wikipedia is an impediment to our being taken seriously.

If someone believes that the band called Atheist is genuinely important and their music will be remembered and listened to 100 years from now, then by all means say so and revert my change. I will believe you, and perhaps buy their albums. Thanks for listening, Opus33 19:42, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The band is in, and is unlikely to be deleted. This leaves us with approximately 3 choices: (1) Atheist is a disambiguation page; (2) The band is linked from the top of Atheism; (3) The band is linked from the bottom of Atheism. I would by far prefer the first, but that seems contentious. At any rate, the most important thing is to make it possible to find things. If someone is looking for Atheist (band), the likelihood of their scanning all the way through this article, and finding it at the bottom, is nil. You might as well pretend there is no such article. Option (3) is not acceptable. Perhaps we can, in order to keep trivial links off the main Atheism article, make Atheist into disambiguation. In the meantime, the band belongs at the top. --Yath 19:58, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that making Atheist a disambiguation page would be the best option. Yath made a good point about making sure that things are found easily by searching. As it stands, neither the band, at the bottom of Atheism, nor List of Atheists are easily found by searching for "atheist" or "atheists." I think a disambiguation page, Atheist, with Atheism, List of Atheists, and Atheist (the band) would work best. I'll leave it to Opus33 to make the change if he or she so chooses, as he/she made the revert, or I or I guess anyone else wouldn't mind doing so with Opus33's consent. User:Davin (usurped) 23:25, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Atheist (the band) is very good, I highly recommend them'. They are Death metal BTW, not pop. I'd prefer they be listed at the top, but I don't feel like reverting you, esp. w my history on this page :) Sam [Spade] 19:56, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. Yath suggested, with Davin's agreement, that Atheist should redirect to both Atheism and Atheist (band). I've implemented this, and, crossing my fingers, am simply deleting the band from Atheism. Surely no one will search for it here. Opus33 15:55, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No no no, Mr Penguin :) see special:whatlinkshere/atheist - several pages, all of which refer to atheism rather than the band. The band is such a relatively obscure topic that, someone linking to it is going to know to link to Atheist (band) rather than atheist; disambiging at the top of this page makes sense; it does not confuse or annoy me, it can easily be skim read and discarded as irrelevant. I think we should have a vote on this matter in accordance with Wikidemocracy. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is a concensus based dictatorship. I object to this vote. Sam [Spade] 18:03, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well let's have a vote whether to have the vote or not then, or ask The Emporer, though I suppose he's got more important things to do :) Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:40, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would like to raise the issue of how the Atheism article should be tied in with List of Atheists. Currently, searching for "atheists" leads to Atheism, which in turn has no link to List of Atheists. Thus, people searching, quite reasonably, for that list using the term "atheists" will not at all find what they are looking for. I liked the idea of Atheist being a disambiguation page because then it could accomodate both the band and list issues. However, I think that including a link to List of Atheists along with Atheist (the band) at the top of the Atheism article would also work fine. I do, however, think that the issue of a search for "atheists" in no way directing the user to List of Atheists should be addressed. User:Davin (usurped) 00:12, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Having come to understand a bit better how the different disambiguation and forwards work, I think a revert with disambiguations at the top is the best solution. Have anything similar to "atheism" ("atheist," "atheists") forward to Atheism, and disambiguate Atheist (the band) and List of Atheists at the top of the page. User:Davin (usurped) 00:27, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have put in the changes in accordance with the poll. This should be an ongoing poll so if the results change, we can change them back. Dunc_Harris|☺ 09:52, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Option 1

Atheist is redirect to atheism, with disambig at top of atheism.

Votes in favour:

1. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Sean Curtin 20:07, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Bryan 23:59, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. User:Davin (usurped) 00:27, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Also include a disambiguation link to the article List of Atheists so that searches for "atheists" are fruitful.)
5. please add your name here

Option 2

Atheist is a redirect to atheism, which disambiguates at the bottom of the page.

Votes in favour;

1. please add you name here

Option 3

Atheist is a disambig page.

Votes in favour:

1. please add your name here

"Permission" for adding a link?

Tajas1 recently added a link with the following comment:

External links -Added "Atheist Network" with permission from site owner

Since when do we need "permission" to add a URL to an article?

- Korpios 19:40, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the comment was a bit of a red herring. Either that, or Tajas1 is a newbie-to-the-www. In any case, the site really sucks. It's extremely slow; it has a tendency to make my browser (Galeon) lock up; and it seems to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. It reminds me of Adequacy; an atheist site written by a trolling theist. Some of the comments ("No Superstitions. No Delusions", "Those of us who have escaped the slavery of theism...") appear to be constructed to make atheists look bad to religious folk. And the liberal use of horrendous writing ("...the freedom that one experiences when one looses their god belief."), while not necessarily intentional, is not the sort of thing I like linking to. In short, I'm blowing the link away :-) For future reference, here is the link: Atheist Network --Yath 03:40, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have a friend that sets up a booth at the local university near all of the other religious fundies with very trolling remarks as well, such as "Freedom from superstition" and "Long on promise, short on delivery". He's a pretty intelligent individual and all, and he uses these trolling remarks because it gets people to stop by and discuss. I can't totally agree with his methods, nor can I totally disagree, since they do work. Just a little note.--Mylon 00:00, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)