Talk:American Atheists

Gearing up for major overhaul

This will be my working version for the main page, just to keep everything nice. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 01:21, 1 October 2004 (UTC)

Suggested major categories

Affiliated groups

--metta, The Sunborn ☸ 01:21, 1 October 2004 (UTC)

POV tag, 6 April 2006

This smells of poisoning the well to me.

• "Ironically" to whom? WP:WTA.
• "...amid rumors that the O'Hairs had actually absconded with organization funds and $500,000 in gold coins and fled to New Zealand..." could use a citation/verification.
• "the acerbic Madalyn Murray O'Hair (once touted as the most hated woman in America,) who reportedly delighted in confronting and insulting "Christers" as she liked referring to Christians." verification, acerbic to whom?

--Christopherlin 02:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Ironically means something that one does not expect. The article says that society believed that a person who won a supreme court action would change their position 2π around after the fact. I don't know if we can do that, if you don't like it, remove it.
• citation/verification -->> ABC News, July 22, 1999
• removed There was only evidence to support the "Christers" as she liked referring to Christians. Which couldn't stand on its own, so I removed it. The location sentance belongs at the top anyway.

I await your removal of the POV tag

--metta, The Sunborn 20:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. I was going to look through the history of the article (when I had more time) to see if any users or IPs were pushing a particular POV. Feel free to check that out.

The thing with "ironically" is that it imparts and editorial POV. Maintaining NPOV is difficult. It makes you second-guess your usual writing style. In short, (ideally) your own personal biases should not be discerned from your edits. WP can include facts about opinions, but in a balanced context. Yeah. Kind of weird.

I'm not sure if it's "my job" to remove the POV tag, as I was the one to tag the article such. --Christopherlin 06:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the citations. GeorgeC 18:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering of the originally 3 statements made by Christopherlin, none have been resolved; and that not http://www.thetrog.com/mmohair/mmohair.html nor http://dunamai.com/ are credible, NPOV sources, (they should be viewed by those on this talk page) this article should definately retain its NPOV status. The article concerns John Kerry a little too much. Although the fact that he voted against the Newdow verdict should be included (and is sited very well), remember the article is about the Organization American Atheists, not Madalyn Murray O'Hair or John Kerry. Concentration on what the group has done, in terms of marches, fundraisers, protests, lawsuits, etc. would be much more apporpriate for such an article. 須藤 14:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Good call, the paragraph that reads:

Ironically, William J. Murray, on whose behalf Murray v. Curlett was filed, became a born again Christian, an evangelical Baptist and announced it on Mother's Day, 1980. It caused a lifelong, unresolved rift between Murray and his acerbic mother, who despised "dirty Christers." [1]. "One could call this a postnatal abortion on the part of a mother, I guess; I repudiate him entirely and completely for now and all times. He is beyond human forgiveness," she said. [2]

is completely POV (and unencyclopedic) and would have to be re-worded as it currently stands.--metta, The Sunborn 00:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

From the article :

William Murray has contradicted his mother (and some would say himself)

Who says this? What are their names? Is there a source for these comments? Serenaacw 02:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Jon and Robin who?

No mention is made of Jon and Robin before the statement that they disappeared in the article. Who are they? blahpers 18:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Jon is Madalyn's son (by a different husband than William's father). Robin is William's daughter and thus Madalyn's grand-daughter, and most of her later childhood, she actually was raised by Madalyn. (My source is William's book "My Life Without God." A Christian I met my first year in college asked me if I would read the book, and I did. I gave it a try and it actually turned out to be kind of okay. Now, a straight-forward narrative of someone who has lived an interesting life, and who lets their voice come through in the writing, you can't go too far wrong.) FriendlyRiverOtter 08:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Cutting both Madalyn and William some slack

People change. That’s okay. Just like someone raised in a religious family might become an atheist, someone raised in a nonreligious family might get religion. That’s okay, that should be accepted. From William’s book, he really did struggle with a drinking problem, and he also had unhappy relationships. What he didn’t talk about, and which later struck me as significant, was that the 1970s was a flat period economically (significant downturns at the very least in ’73 and ’75). So, many talented young people with a lot to offer, may have struggled to get jobs, and may have blamed themselves for lack of success. And this can make other areas of your life more difficult. And plus, although we might look at these kinds of reasons, what religion means to him intellectually, and in the heart, should not be discounted. If we’re really to have a conversation, we must strive to really listen, even if it seems like we’re heard it all before, and that’s the hardest part (or be willing to make such effort for someone we really care about).

Madalyn was pretty hardcore ideologically. I don’t know if I would have liked to live with her. Even if he was rebelling, that’s okay. It sounds like she may not have been with him at times he needed her. Or she took too much just the intellectual aspect of life, to the exclusion of the emotional aspect and everything else.

(For parents who don’t think much of religion, I think a good way is to kind of innoculate your kids. Go with them to visit a variety of churches, and even mosques, synagogues, and Buddhist temples. You might even tell them, ‘Some people believe these stories are really true, other people believe they’re made up . . .’) FriendlyRiverOtter 09:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages exist for discussing changes to their associated articles, not as a general forum for comments about the articles' subjects. Please try to stay on topic. Thanks. -- Schaefer (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I ask you to consider that we may be hindered by misplaced formality. How could Madalyn disown her son, and in such a harsh, public way at that? The article doesn’t discuss this at all. It just kind of clunks it down there. And then it clunks off to another topic. And our article is not bad, ours is a thoroughly average wikipedia article. So, the problem is kind of the wikipedia context. Instead of viewing the rules as guidelines in service of clear communication, we seem to take them much too literally.

If a half dozen of us were talking in any kind of casual context, say on vacation taking a long afternoon walk along the beach, or on a work project and then having a fun pot luck evening and a movie night at someone’s house, we could really have a discussion. And I think we could really hash out the topic and make some progress. Gee, did Madalyn and her son really have some history? Or, maybe it’s an example of someone making great humanistic statements in public and then treating their family like shit, and there’s a lot of examples of that!

A good movie with a good screenplay is taking the human storytelling ability and making it even better, the conventions of the art are working in our favor. The same is true for a good documentary. But in wikipedia, the conventions seem to working against us. We need to tell the human story, and we are letting things stand in the way, we are letting things clutter the process.

I like the concept of narrative arc. Once you look at a bunch of facts, you find the narrative arc and you tell it in natural storytelling fashion. Someone else might find a different narrative arc and tell it in a different section. That’s fine, that will make for a richer article. FriendlyRiverOtter 08:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Atheist "believes"?

GeorgeC editing this page back on 10:16, 1 March 2006 and added text:

"Your petitioners are atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows:

An atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An atheist thinks that heaven is something for which we should work for now — here on earth — for all men together to enjoy. An atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, subdue and enjoy it. An atheist thinks that only in knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to 'know' a god. An atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death.

He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He knows that we cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter. He knows that we are our brothers' keepers in that we are, first, keepers of our lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now."

This doesn't jive with what is on the American Atheist web site. It's similar but not quite. You'll find the word "belief" and a lot of the word "believes" in this version but not found in GeorgeC's version:

(from http://www.atheists.org/Atheism)

“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

This needs to be cited in light of the differences. Is there a court doc to cite?

GeorgeC's or American Atheists web site? G Goldring 04:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that not all atheists would agree with the above statement and reject any definition of atheism beyond the rejection of belief in the supernatural, and that beyond that, atheists do not necessarily hold any other beliefs in common.Bostoner (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A technote

Reflists with 3 columns give 74 lines of references, but reflists with 2 columns "contraintuitively" gives 65 lines of references. That is of course because a 3 columns reflist gives more newlines per word, and thus shorter lines. In case someone wondered why I made a "testing" change from 3 columns to 2, that is. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 18:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

POV?

"American Atheists is an organization in the United States dedicated to defending the civil liberties of atheists and advocating for the complete separation of church and state."

Definitely POV in my view; the words "dedicated" and "defending" should be reworded, and to talk about the "complete seperation of church and state" is to imply that the current seperation isn't good enough, and that the church is part of the state.--86.179.212.200 (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Almost all political organizations define themselves in terms that are subjective and which could be disputed by a neutral party. Perhaps it would be better to phrase it "defines itself as an organization that is dedicated to..." Many Americans, esp. atheists, do not consider the separation of religion and state to be complete because of such things as prayer in Congress, "In God We Trust" on the coins, and a host of other issues. Most atheists I have known agree with this position but consider these transgressions to be so minor that they are not worth pursuing.Bostoner (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Goals

Is one of their goals to undermine the credibility of Christianity? I added a quote, which is cited by Don Batten and Jonathan Sarfati in an article called "How Religiously Neutral are the Anti-Creationist Organisations?" [1]

These writers claim that atheists are using Evolution to promote a materialistic framework of thinking so that rejection of Biblical Christianity will logically follow.

My question, as it relates to improving this article, is whether this imputed goal is an actual goal. In particular, I am wondering whether this imputation should be added to the present article ... or to some other similar article? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that claims they seem to have that as a goal, then include it. I would think that promoting atheism necessarily means undermining the credibility of all religions, so it wouldn't surprise me if that's one of the goals of American Atheists, but I can't speak for the organization. Note that American Atheists isn't specifically an anti-creationist organization, and it has never claimed to be "religiously neutral". thx1138 (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

David Silverman

Pretty sure the link to David Silverman in the presidents section is wrong. 60.160.78.236 (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

AronRa

"AronRa" redirects here, but is not mentioned in the article. He is apparently a real person. Should the redirect be deleted? —Torontonian1 (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That is merely a nickname, which may eventually redirect to an actual biography here, but so far no one has found him notable enough (aka wiki standards), nor found the time to make such an article to see if it would "stick". The editor who only had the strength to create the re-direct, probably based it upon Mr Nelson being listed on their State Directors listing for Texas, but it is without indication of term instantiation, nor term(s) served, nor currency of said term ( honorary ? for life ? expired ?). WurmWoode^T 09:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

American Atheists Announces Inaugural ‘EVOLVE Awards’winners include Doctor Who, The Good Wife, Mythbusters, Friendly Atheist, Symphony of Science

• American Atheists Announces Inaugural ‘EVOLVE Awards’ May 30, 2013.84.152.54.148 (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Jennifer Love Hewitt is not an Atheist

As I said on the Jennifer Love Hewitt talk page, she has said on several interviews that she is spiritual and loves god. She has also stated that she is Roman Catholics. Therefore, I'm going to remove her name from this articleTim Correll (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)10:31 Eastern Standard TimeTim Correll (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Problem with the title

As it is called the American Atheists Organisation, should it be moved there? Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

They seem to mostly refer to themselves as "American Atheists", as well as most sources. Should be kept where it is. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I can find little reference to "American Atheists Organisation" with a capital O. Do you have a source for this alternate name? --2600:1008:B04D:71D5:5980:1AD4:B2A9:E1B9 (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

'Court cases' bias

The section on court cases currently lists those which AA won, not those which were lost. For the sake of objective balance, both should be included. --2600:1008:B04D:71D5:5980:1AD4:B2A9:E1B9 (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The American Atheists' logo controversy

These religious pseudo-atheists deified a mistaken logo used by the United States Atomic Energy Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency who also based their designs on the archaic and erroneous Rutherford Model. Some paleo-atheists care about mimicking influential institutions more than being analytical. Probability is crucial for the actual atheist, studying it is a major atheistic value. Guaranteeing that a mistake remains eternally, not only isn't an atheistic value, but the exact opposite of atheism, especially when that MAJOR mistake takes the place of a Probabilistic symbol. Logotypes are crucial for a movement, and true atheists accept the evolution even of their ideas, if better data occur. Our atheoleaders don't evolve to accept officially the probabilistic orbitals. Some artists depict the probabilistic density via the usage of raster, others vary the weights of parallel lines etc. There are many ways to depict probabilistic density. The future non-metaphysical mental battle will be amongst paleo-atheists who don't evolve, and probabilistic atheists. Rejecting a Probabilistic symbol and putting instead in its place a famous - used by great others - archaic mistake, is the most religious thing an old fellow can do, even if (s)he farts atheism in you face! Don't fart, atheistically! ACT atheistically! Old people are boring... but they rule.... The article doesn't reveal that issue(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4115:CA00:881C:D36A:1128:44BA (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Nick Fish is now president of American Atheists

Nick Fish was named the president of American Atheists, Inc. as of September 6, 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XaurreauX (talk • contribs) 23:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I added this to the article.Knox490 (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I used the American Atheists website as a source. After the David Silverman firing, the atheist Ed Brayton (co-founder of Freethought Blogs) expressed disappointment that American Atheists didn't choose a woman to replace him.[2]. If a reliable source could be found regarding some various notable atheists being disappointed regarding the choice of the new president, perhaps this could be added to the article.Knox490 (talk) 08:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Static, non-evolving religious symbol based on fame and not on being correct (there are ways to stylize orbitals with curvy raster of changing weighted lines)

non-American atheist or American Atheist but not part of the anti-quantum scam = orbitalist = one who supports quantum theory and the atomic orbitals = against the updated Rutherford model of the atom which is stylized as the essence of the non-profit organization "American Atheists" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:9438:BCC4:C02A:A71C:6BC2 (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)