Atheist Entry

[Brimshack]

The Atheist entry in the Wiki is absolutely awful. I believe it was pasted from a outside website, and frankly the source is less than brilliant. I have no objection to seeing an advice section on how to approach atheists, but the comments in that section are hardly conducive to good dialogue. The categorical description of atheists as condescending is so hypocritical, it's amazing. If us Heathen were allowed on the Wiki team I would have been happy to slash away at it myself, but as it stands, I can only ask that someone here take an honest shot at it.

Also, won't it be problematic to edit and re-edit an article written by someone else. I really do think it would be much better if PLS were to write the whole thing himself. Not saying I wouldn't still have criticisms, but at least it'd reflect a more honest attempt than that made by the outside source. As it stands, the article is prefabricated tripe. Y'all can certainly do better than that.

[Brimshack]

Draft of an alternative Suggestion, and/or partial Response. I don't like it, but it contains a few of teh points I would want to make if I could get my thoughts in order.

...

Apologetics Appoaches to Atheism: Realize that atheists and Christians are advocating very different propositions about the question at hand. A distinction is commonly made between weak atheists and strong atheists. Strong atheists are sometimes described as believing that God does not exist whereas weak atheists are described as simply lacking a belief in God. This distinction may seem a bit technical, but what it generally boils down to is the fact that some atheists will attempt to prove that God does not exist, and some will not. The weak atheist position can be very frustrating to Christians, and with good reason as well.

Weak atheism place the primary responsibilit for proof squarely on the shoulders of the believer, and that may very well seem to be an unfair expectation. But it is important to realize that weak atheists are themselves responding to a difficulty which occures if they accept the burden of proof themselves. It is inherently difficult to prove a negative proposition, especially one whose key terms (such as God) may be defined in a variety of different ways. For that reason many atheists will prefer to respond to the position of a believer rather than to try and directly prove their own position correct. You may find it frustrating to deal with such a position, and that is perfectly understandable, but the frustration is most likely mutual. It seems that the nature of the debate itself is destined to place unequal burdens on each side of the debate.

Whether you accept the weak atheists terms of debate and proceed accordingly or challenge those terms is your decision. One thing you may keep in mind though is that the more reasonable your own approach, the more reasonable your interlocutor is apt to be. Anybody can demand that the other guy goes first. Those who make headway in these discussions will be the ones who do not take make unreasonable demands, and who make an honest effort to understand when the other fellow does make his own reasons known.

As suggested in the article, you will most certainly find quite a few atheists who are condescending (as well as a number who are rude, sarcastic, mean-spirited, dumb, dogmatic, hypocritical, and generally painful to interact with). If you engage in apologetics, you will most certainly have be given reason to feel this way about a number of unbelievers in a very short time. What you may wish to bear in mind is that the unbelievers you deal with have probably been given reason to believe the same thing about Christians too. Each side tends to view the other with suspicion, and that is after all one of the reasons we enter into these discussions to begin with.

It is at least possible that the more outrageous behavior from either side is motivated partly out of frustration at the most outrageous behavior of the other. This is by no means a certainty, but as a general rule you are less likely to enounter such mis-behavior if you do not exhibit it yourself. Contrary to the implications of the article above, it is not inevitable that atheists will become condescending over the course of the discussion. And if you yourself enter apologetics without assuming such a thing (in effect, Poisoning the Well), then you will be far less apt to come accross as condescending yourself. You may or may not convert anya theists, and you may or may not learn anythig from them, but whether or not the experience is enjoyable and productive for the both of you will depend at least partly on your own ability to approach the topic with a reasonable and respectful demeanor.

[Lel]

I've looked at it and started a little bit on adding weak/strong atheism idenitifiers. As at this point we are a bit hesitant to remove information, I'm going to wait for more input before making changes to the apologetics area of the article itself.

I did go ahead and take out the part about condescension. It can always be restored, but I honestly don't think it detracts from the article to delete those two sentences, and probably aids slightly in finding an NPOV.

Link to atheist entry in wiki (http://www.christianforums.com/t2647058-atheism.html#post22196933)

My three cents, adjusted for inflation.

[Brimshack]

Thanks Lel.

[Lel]

Hey, good suggestion. :)

Of course, it may be edited in a multitude of ways at any time.

[Brimshack]

I know.

I was thinking this would be better than the last paragraph:

"Whether or not you will encounter misbehavior from atheists is beyond your control; whether or not, they encounter it from you is completely under your control."

But really dropping the whole condescension theme as you have is a far superior approach.

[PapaLandShark]

The Atheist entry in the Wiki is absolutely awful. I believe it was pasted from a outside website, and frankly the source is less than brilliant. I have no objection to seeing an advice section on how to approach atheists, but the comments in that section are hardly conducive to good dialogue. The categorical description of atheists as condescending is so hypocritical, it's amazing. If us Heathen were allowed on the Wiki team I would have been happy to slash away at it myself, but as it stands, I can only ask that someone here take an honest shot at it.

Also, won't it be problematic to edit and re-edit an article written by someone else. I really do think it would be much better if PLS were to write the whole thing himself. Not saying I wouldn't still have criticisms, but at least it'd reflect a more honest attempt than that made by the outside source. As it stands, the article is prefabricated tripe. Y'all can certainly do better than that.
It will change Brimshack...most everything in there at the moment is a "stub". Until a lot of people wander through it's going to have good and bad articles. :)

[Kahalachan]

I agree. I PMed that one guy to be a part of the Wiki team but not sure what I need to do to be part of it.

I disagree with this wording "1. Ways to Attack Atheism" as it seems to imply a more confrontational method of witnessing.

If I saw an atheist site, I'd appreciate it if they worded it more professionally and didn't see "Ways to attack Christianity". I think maybe "Common Criticisms of Atheism" or something like that. More subjective and less standoff-ish. Or even "Ways to witness to an atheist"

[Windmill]

It sounds dreadful.

Ways to witness to a atheist?

Pssssshh.

Thats not the wikis are for. The wikis are there to have a record of christian people, places, history, practices, etc, not to tell people how to witness etc.

[Solent]

I do agree with Brimshack: if you want to mantain objectivity it is necessary not to impart any partial view on the subject you are dealing with.
For example, the use of terms like "false doctrine" or "false idea" in some entries is not objective.
You could, if you wanted to point out who believes what, add that 'so and so group' is opposed to this doctrine.
And if it is something recognized as false by all Christians you could then say: "Christians oppose this view".
But to describe a doctrine or a belief as "false" right from the start it's already giving to the reader a biased view.
I'm not criticizing: I admire you for the effort you are putting into this and found the whole thing really helpful.
I'm just trying to help.

[aigiqinf]

I agree. I PMed that one guy to be a part of the Wiki team but not sure what I need to do to be part of it.

I disagree with this wording "1. Ways to Attack Atheism" as it seems to imply a more confrontational method of witnessing.

If I saw an atheist site, I'd appreciate it if they worded it more professionally and didn't see "Ways to attack Christianity". I think maybe "Common Criticisms of Atheism" or something like that. More subjective and less standoff-ish. Or even "Ways to witness to an atheist"
I think you might have to be a Christian.
Pax et bonum,
James Crowe

[Debi1967]

Any ideas to make the CF wiki are encouraged here. CF wiki has a Neutral or NO point of view Policy which it has enacted even though it is a Christian based Wiki.

Thank You all for suggestions.

Brimshack I will make sure that the Atheism article is looked into...

RaggedRobin
Wiki Editrix

ETA BTW if you have anymore problems with the structure of articles and their editing then I am the one you have to contact in the future.

[Nadiine]

Oooopsi