User talk:Marshill/Atheism ID Discussion

3. Stop refering to atheists. In fact, I'm done. You're on your own. I've asked you at least three times to stop doing this, and other editors have done the same. I don't think its too much to ask. Please stop calling all opposition atheist, especially when several editors have specifically told you they are not. As far as I'm concerned, I'm sorry, but you're being disruptive, uncivil, and rude. No-one need answer to you. -- Ec5618 01:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"Please stop calling all opposition atheist" I didn't. But the article numerous times calls ID proponents either "christians" "fundamentalist" or "neocreationists". "you're being disruptive, uncivil, and rude" I'm sorry you feel that strongly about me. "No-one need answer to you." No they don't. I agree. -- Marshill

Perhaps he means your first entry here, where you say Now, I have no problem with atheists creating a REBUTTAL PAGE to ID, but that belongs in either a critique section, or a page of its own.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Or maybe he means the first entry you made under the "I have a right to dispute this article" section, where you describe what found when you read the article: I got nothing but a huge atheist rebuttal to ID.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Or later in that section, where you say I only see atheistic slanting. or where you complain FeloniousMonk and fellow atheists hovering over this page under the "POV tags" section. That was in the post which you end: I got only one perspective in this article: atheistic. If you recall, I followed that with this post:

Please restrict your edits here on the talk page to the article, and refrain from disruptive behavior, including spurious conjecture about other editor's religious beliefs. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Which was followed by similar pleas from JPotter, Lovecoconuts, and Jim62sch.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

and which one of those said ALL opposition is atheist? If it would make you happier I can use the term atheist/agnostic/naturalist/skeptic. I'm quite confident that one of those words would apply to the vast majority (i'm using the term 'vast majority' in the spirit of the new definition of ID) of those who oppose ID. But i appreciate you concern, I'll try not to simply use the word atheist, but instead use atheist/agnostic/naturalist/skeptic. I could say "anti-ID" but I don't like using 'anti' terms. Besides, and this is another subject, atheism is not a belief, nor a religion right? So why the constant comparisons to religiosity judgments for using the term? Anyway, I dont want to offend people, I can see there is sensitivity on this issue. But for your info, i dont mind if you call me a 'creationist'. thats just an FYI. thanks. -- Marshillmarshill

It is innapropriate to make blanket assumptions about editors beliefs, and "atheist/agnostic/naturalist/skeptic" is merely longer without being any more germane. Please avoid these terms, unless on the talk page of the Atheist, Agnostic, Naturalism, or Skepticism articles, or specifically germane to the sentence, paragraph or section of the article. Your information that you do not mind being called a "creationist" is merely trivia about you so far as I can tell. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

While the term atheist is not an insult, it is an insult to call people who disagree with you atheists, because what you are doing is say, to me at least, and probably to others, that because I do not subscribe you your philosophical view, I am somehow less of a Christian. So, you're use of the term atheist is an insult. In addition, claiming that ID represents the religious/Christian viewpoint is also deeply insulting. For one, by relegating God to the gaps, by reducing God into something that can measured, ID denies the omniscience of God. By making God directly and intentionally responsible for terrible diseases like malaria, it makes God responsible for evil. And by misrepresenting the facts and trying to use ID as part of "the wedge", the proponents of ID have made deceit a central tool in their promotion of their agenda. As a Christian and a Methodist I find my pro-science stance to be far more compatible with my understanding of Christianity. Guettarda 21:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not call people who disagree with me atheists. I call the article atheistic. Additionally, I question whether the bias of the author(s) of the articles are atheists, without empirically labelling them as such. There is a big difference. The article as it stands would look nice on the secular web at www.infidels.org. Honestly, someone should submit it for contribution there. yes, it is *that* slanted. This is my opinion. You need not be insulted by that. I find that people here are very sensitive, more than I would have expected, as offense is taken too easily and too quickly without allowing someone the opportunity to explain themselves. I mean no personal offense to anyone. I maintain that the article is heavily slanted towards atheism. Someone should not take that statement and make it into a personal attack. We must dissasociate ourselves from a document. If criticizing a document equates to criticizing a person, then that person has too great an emotional attachment to the document and should not have written it to begin with. As every edit page states: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. " "In addition, claiming that ID represents the religious/Christian viewpoint is also deeply insulting" Try not to be so offended all the time. These topics are heavily wrapped up in philosophy and religion. You should not take things so personally, as people are not out to insult. If you are looking for an insult while engaging in philosophy and religious debate, I assure you...you will find it. But dont ascribe malicious intent on someone when its not there. THank you. Marshill

[Moved to proper place] As a Christian, I agree with Guettarda. ID-ers don't think carefully about the examples they use. Behe keeps citing "the flagellum" as evidence for a designer. What does he think pathogenic bacteria use flagellae for, anyway? See this cartoon for enlightenment (you may need to view an ad to see this). Bill Jefferys 21:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

An atheistic article about Intelligent design. While I don't agree with you, assuming for the sake of argument that it's true I'm not sure I see the problem. ID is not theistic, officially. -- Ec5618 23:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

My point was to agree with Guettarda's point that "By making God directly and intentionally responsible for terrible diseases like malaria, it makes God responsible for evil.".

ID may not be "officially" theistic, but Marshill's calling objections to the article "atheistic" seems to imply that it (ID) is actually theistic. I'm not sure why he uses this sort of language, since it undermines the "official" position. The only other reason I can guess is that he means to use "atheistic" as a perjorative, applying to anyone that disagrees with his position, including theists such as Guettarda and myself. I find this profoundly insulting. Bill Jefferys 00:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Repeatedly playing the 'atheist' card falls under the category of ad hominem, though it's vague, oblique sort. Nonetheless, its use is inappropriate here, it is one of but a number of missteps Marshill has made in his few short days at wikipedia, and it needs to stop. It's continued use betrays a particular pov the he is pushing, and assume good faith will only carry him so far before his objections start getting dismissed as mere ideological ax grinding. I'll have a word with him. FeloniousMonk 00:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think most ID proponents would oppose Marshill's wish to strengthen the ID ties to Christianity is this article. --JPotter 02:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

There really is no reason for determining, pointing out, assuming, asserting or otherwise mentioning the religious beliefs of opponents, proponents or the undecideds on a discussion page. Just because someone holds an opposing viewpoint does not give anyone the right to engage in ad hom attacks.

The only portion of the ID article that goes into faith deals explicitly with the ID movement, and how religion and the ID movement are tied together. That usage is appropriate as every pro-ID site I have seen exhibits at least a theist, if not pro-Christian, slant. This correlation, however, is not why so many people oppose ID; it is opposed because it presents itself as a science, rather than a philosophy.

Finally, Jason is correct -- if the ties between ID and Christianity are strengthened in the article, ALL pretence to science goes out the window and ID's theories are immediately discredited from a scientific standpoint.

Jim62sch 14:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Once this article (which it does) introduces religion into ID, making specific mention of christians and fundamentalists, suddenly religion and belief becomes valid topics of discussion. Atheism at this point, is absolutely not exempt. Any discussion where religion and science are mixed makes atheism and agnosticism valid points of discussion. to those who are very sensitive and easily offended at the mention of atheism/agnosticism in a debate that includes religion and science, please consider not participating as you will be sure to find offense at something. religion, science and philosophy, when combined in one discussion, require some backbone. We must not easily fall into playing the "i'm offended" card in a discussion regarding science, philosophy, and religion. At the same time, we must be careful not to personally attack. while its ok to say "I believe christianity is irrational" its not ok to say 'YOU are irrational'. Debates of religion, science and philosophy can be naturally intense. Given the subject matter at hand, I will continue to use terms like "atheism" because it is pertinent to the discussion, whether you agree with me or not. I mean no personal insult on anyone, and if you take it personally, this topic just might be too heated for you. Marshill

? Okay... I think I have just found another person to ignore.Lovecoconuts 06:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that Marshill's reference to athiestic slant arises from the implications ID has for the logical watershed question, 'Did a god create us or are we a result of natural laws?'. Please excuse me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that because of these implications, Marshill expects ID to be credible or perhaps the only credible theory for those who believe in a god, and conversely, incredible only for those who don't believe in a god. So he's not trying to antagonise, just phrasing what appears to be the obvious to him.

Marshill, I think that some of the people here who object to ID do not reject God as well: they reject ID because of what they see as flaws in it, and believe that there are other theories that are in accordance with their religious beliefs. They may feel insulted because you are overlooking their rational disagreements, assuming thir religious beliefs, and implying that they find ID incredible because of a so-called atheistic position.

Can we all leave this side-topic now? ant 13:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Bless you, ant, well said. Marshill, please read what ant said and take it to heart. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you, ant. Pax rationis tibi sit semper. (May the peace of reason be with you always)Jim62sch 15:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

My principal use of the term "atheistic" is in my summary of *my opinion* regarding this article. It is my opinion and I stated it as such, because it forms a partial basis of why I believe this article is POV. I have read the disagreements, in fact I have read everything. I have meticulously read the article and provided a thorough explanation as of why I believe it is heavily POV. No one should be taking that personally, and if they are, they should reconsider their emotional attachments to the source. While I am more than willing to retract any personal attacks i make against someone, asking me to retract my opinion regarding the neutrality of this article and my belief that it is atheistic in slant is something I refuse to do. Its easy to resort to 'i'm offended' remarks in a subject as controversial as this. maybe that tactic works for some people? I can't speak for anyone else, so I am speaking simply how i percieve the article and my reasons as such. I apologize to anyone who is personally offended by my opinion. I agree that we should stick to the source material, and ease off of religious debates, which is why I created this specific section in regards to the use of the term atheistic. I use the term only to describe my opinion that the POV in this article is such. Marshill

Where in the article is there any atheistic statement? If there is such a statement, we should certainly address that, because this is not Atheism. I have looked and failed to find anything. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If we define atheism as 'not dealing with a deity', then ID is atheistic. Cutlery is atheistic. Most vegetables are atheistic. What on earth is your point?

'It is my opinion that people that call themselves 'Marshill' are liars.' Would expressing that opinion be a personal attack on you? I would be more than willing to retract a personal attack, but this is a general observation, surely. -- Ec5618 16:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, I have a strong personal attachment to the name "Marshill". By stating that I believe the article is atheistic, if you have an equitable personal attachment to the article such that you would take similar offense, then you have not considered this text on every edit page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Furthermore, such a strong personal attachment empirically verifies a POV. Those who get personally offended at my statement that I believe the article has an atheistic POV have too strong of a personal attachment to the article, proving my case in point that it is POV. I am absolutely NOT making any personal statements against any individual. If I do, I retract them and apologize. And don't worry, I do not take your statement personally, I know you were only trying to make a point.

See, that's exactly the problem: ID requires theism, whereas evolution can take it or leave it. ID is fundamentally religious, which is why it's not scientific. Alienus 17:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

All the reasons for my belief of such a POV are found in my explanations at the top of the page. I believe this article is POV. Along with several other people. What I did in my summary, was simply attempt to answer the question "Ok, this is POV. But what POV then?" And here is where I may diverge from many of those that agree it is POV. My summary is entirely my opinion and beliefs and I do not claim they represent others. Even those who signed "is not NPOV" may not agree with my belief as to "What POV, then, is it?" While identifying the POV in this article, in my summary, I stated my subjective answer to the question "What POV, then?" No one need to agree with it, of course, and I am not demanding as such. I'm sure that several people who agree that the article is POV, do not agree with my answer as to "What POV, then?". That answer is my opinion, as I explained. thanks. Marshill 16:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Marshill, your clinging to the term "atheist" has an oblique reference to a point I think is under-represented in the article. Many ID proponents seem to conflate scientific methodological materialism with atheistic materialism, and conclude that science in general and evolution theory in particular is the atheistic enemy. This ignores theistic evolution which is an approach held by a large proportion of Christians, even in the US. As it happens I've just been watching a programme about God and science by a Jewish academic, who finds both his faith and evolution theory to be completely compatible. This difference in mindset between ID / creationism and other faiths or approaches makes mutual understanding difficult. ....dave souza 21:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)