Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Atheists"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(reply to Ed) |
(time off) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
::well... I think CP these days tends to conflate the two, and to label all atheists (and a few other categories) as "liberals", and vice-versa. Hence my recent comments on the [[Richard Dawkins]] talk page, and at [[Template talk:Liberal]], for example. I think this broad-brush approach does not do the project any good, and ends up looking like a series of cheap and unfocused shots at all sorts of "enemies" regardless of what they have actually done wrong. "Liberal" is becoming a meaningless hate-word. The imprecision of this approach is in danger of letting the project down and making it a self-parody, as if the intention was to get in as many anti-X (choose your own target here) comments as possible rather than to produce a well-reasoned and well-documented case against X. I think ''liberal'' and ''atheist'' belong in two different areas. They describe different facets - one is about religious belief, the other is about political viewpoint. Maybe there is a an overlap, and perhaps even a very large one, but the categories as such are completely distinct. The sort of labelling that applies the "Liberal" template to all sorts of not-specifically-liberal topics suggests muddled rage rather than clear analysis. So I think it is not correct to have an "Atheists" template with a heading that refers to liberals. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:25, 3 April 2008 (EDT) | ::well... I think CP these days tends to conflate the two, and to label all atheists (and a few other categories) as "liberals", and vice-versa. Hence my recent comments on the [[Richard Dawkins]] talk page, and at [[Template talk:Liberal]], for example. I think this broad-brush approach does not do the project any good, and ends up looking like a series of cheap and unfocused shots at all sorts of "enemies" regardless of what they have actually done wrong. "Liberal" is becoming a meaningless hate-word. The imprecision of this approach is in danger of letting the project down and making it a self-parody, as if the intention was to get in as many anti-X (choose your own target here) comments as possible rather than to produce a well-reasoned and well-documented case against X. I think ''liberal'' and ''atheist'' belong in two different areas. They describe different facets - one is about religious belief, the other is about political viewpoint. Maybe there is a an overlap, and perhaps even a very large one, but the categories as such are completely distinct. The sort of labelling that applies the "Liberal" template to all sorts of not-specifically-liberal topics suggests muddled rage rather than clear analysis. So I think it is not correct to have an "Atheists" template with a heading that refers to liberals. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:25, 3 April 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Your reply had nothing to do with my comment. I asked how much overlap there was, and you responded with an attack. Come back later in the week, if you have any intention of helping this project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:36, 3 April 2008 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 13:36, April 3, 2008
A much better template than "liberal" for the likes of Dawkins! Thanks, Ed. But should it still be headed "Liberal characteristics and traits". Seems to me that it clearly shouldn't - a heading like "Atheism" would seem more appropriate - but I hesitate to edit it in case it is your intention to retain that heading. (Are all atheists liberals?) Humblpi 08:22, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
- I don't know how much overlap there is between the Category:Liberals and Category:Atheists; you tell me. --Ed Poor Talk 08:34, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
- well... I think CP these days tends to conflate the two, and to label all atheists (and a few other categories) as "liberals", and vice-versa. Hence my recent comments on the Richard Dawkins talk page, and at Template talk:Liberal, for example. I think this broad-brush approach does not do the project any good, and ends up looking like a series of cheap and unfocused shots at all sorts of "enemies" regardless of what they have actually done wrong. "Liberal" is becoming a meaningless hate-word. The imprecision of this approach is in danger of letting the project down and making it a self-parody, as if the intention was to get in as many anti-X (choose your own target here) comments as possible rather than to produce a well-reasoned and well-documented case against X. I think liberal and atheist belong in two different areas. They describe different facets - one is about religious belief, the other is about political viewpoint. Maybe there is a an overlap, and perhaps even a very large one, but the categories as such are completely distinct. The sort of labelling that applies the "Liberal" template to all sorts of not-specifically-liberal topics suggests muddled rage rather than clear analysis. So I think it is not correct to have an "Atheists" template with a heading that refers to liberals. Humblpi 09:25, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Your reply had nothing to do with my comment. I asked how much overlap there was, and you responded with an attack. Come back later in the week, if you have any intention of helping this project. --Ed Poor Talk 09:36, 3 April 2008 (EDT)