Difference between revisions of "Talk:Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic"
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
There seems to be a taboo against stating one's position clearly. I hope we as writers will simply ignore this taboo. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:55, 29 August 2007 (EDT) | There seems to be a taboo against stating one's position clearly. I hope we as writers will simply ignore this taboo. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:55, 29 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
| − | : good work, ed! Love it! | + | : good work, ed! Love it! [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 22:08, 3 September 2007 (EDT) |
Revision as of 02:08, September 4, 2007
Because the words can be used so many different ways, I propose that when we write an article for this encyclopedia we always give the precise definition of every usage of atheist or agnostic and stick to that definition consistently.
In biographical articles, we must report what each person called himself, or what he was called by others, but we still have to be clear about how each person used each term. I'm sorry that this will take us more work, but I don't see any way to avoid it.
Terms are convenient, if we agree on their meanings. When we don't agree, then we have to use the definitions themselves, which is cumbersome. Instead of saying, "Jones was an atheist", we must say:
- Jones believed that God does not exist; or,
- Jones was uncertain whether God exists or not
There seems to be a taboo against stating one's position clearly. I hope we as writers will simply ignore this taboo. --Ed Poor Talk 09:55, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
- good work, ed! Love it! Ungtss 22:08, 3 September 2007 (EDT)