Talk:Christian atheism

Unencyclopedic
"We will come to better understand Christian Atheists by discussing this list of their beliefs." This statement doesn't seem very encyclopedic, and this doesn't really read like an encyclopedia article. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed. Next time be bold and edit it yourself. :) - kk tor 23:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The entire article "doesn't really read like an encyclopedia article." 98.221.133.96 was likely just giving an example of this. --Alexc3 (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An example of what? 98.221.133.96 (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * An example of the article not "really read[ing] like an encyclopedia article", obviously. What else would I be talking about? --Alexc3 (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're saying my statement is giving an example of itself? 98.221.133.96 (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that you were giving "an example of the article not 'really read[ing] like an encyclopedia article'". Is that really so difficult to understand? --Alexc3 (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it now. You were referring to the example which I quoted in my post.  You were a little vague. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really considering that was the only example you gave and thus the only example I could have been referring to. --Alexc3 (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't cite my example, you cited my comment about the said example, that's why it was a bit vague. It seemed like you were saying "the entire article doesn't really read like an encycolpedia article was likely just giving an example of the entire article not really reading like an encyclopedia article."  You meant what I quoted was the example.  But I'm being semantical. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, some people... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.33.97 (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

98.221.133.96 is insane. MrBook (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move
Move Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Should this article be moved to Christian atheism to be in line with other article titles, such as Christian anarchism and Christian pacifism? Describe the practice, rather than the individuals. nirvana2013 (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Tevildo (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. - kk tor 23:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Srnec (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Radical Christians
Is it true that Christian Atheists are often called Radical Christians? I see that this statement in the introduction lacks a citation. Christian atheism may well come under the umberalla term of radical theology, but the term'radical christian' could just as easily refer to other Christian groups who claim they are radical in some way. Anyway, I would say this sentence adds very little in terms of info about the subject. I will remove for now. Calindreams (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Christian Atheism or Christian Atheists?
The introduction begins by giving a brief explanation of Christian atheism, then it suddenly starts referring to 'their beliefs'.

'Because of their beliefs, most of them advocate a separation from the orthodox Christian church. Generally, their goal is to remove divinity from Christianity. Many of them put a humanistic spin on Christianity; they believe that man alone is responsible for mankind’s advancement. Christian atheism is about rejecting a belief in God in order to become better, or more “Christian,” human beings.'

This passage makes it look like it's describing some group of Christian atheists with 'beliefs' and goals. The word 'spin' seems something like a weasel word. As well as these particular problems, the info lack any citations. I am taking it out for now. Calindreams (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Arianism
The title of this article is itself problematic, but eventual authors researching into this social phenomenon might be interested in drawing comparisons with the theology of arianism, which denies the divinity of the Christ-God while asserting simultaneously his perfect humanity and historical existence. On the contrary, monophysitism does the opposite and tends to put aside the humanity of the Logos.

Nestorianism is also a parallel mentality which refuses the title of Theotokos, which in a modernistic fashion may lead believers into a kind of atheistic thought-pattern, where Jesus is a  great man, but in no sense a Creator and Savior. Nominalism and deism can be also be atheistic, because they create a pseudo-separation between God and Trinity, which in Christianity are entirely the same. ADM (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Spirituality
It would be interesting to hear what views Christian Atheists have on spirituality and an after life. From what I've read, some atheists believe that there is a spiritual dimension to life. Some atheists also believe in a after life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.131.131.175 (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose merging, with a redirect, Catholic Atheism here. It would fall under the scope of this article and would probably only require a cut-and-paste move to be integrated here. If the material on Catholic atheism ever develops beyond a stub, it will be easy enough to split out again. I'll wait a week or so to allow for comments before acting. --Gimme danger (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Presume editor above distracted, with 2 months of no other response, and it being a rather obvious case, am proceeding on the above action. Lycurgus (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Tone complaint
Just stubbing this thread for tag now a year old as I don't see any discussion of it, excluding the Unencyclopædic, above. There was no discussion page for the Catholic Atheism article so there was nothing to move here. Lycurgus (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Performed section by section inspection of the merged article and don't find an issue other than the sentence I fact tagged. Have not followed up to verify the given sources are actual support. In any case, the article presents the subject matter from a point of view that is subjective with respect to it, which is not in general unencyclop&aelig;dic, and on the contrary is in the best tradition of same. Since the subject matter is itself a POV this is a classic case where the expression of a POV is a good approach to composition of the article text. Lycurgus (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, pulled the following in its entirety"To a Christian atheist, God is no longer a part of today’s society. They know that humanity’s problems cannot all be solved by people, but do not expect God to help them in any miraculous way. They believe that mankind must solve its own problems.". which includes the tag referenced above, from the "Credo" &para; of the God's existence &sect;. Lycurgus (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did someone delete the link I put in?
why did someone delete the link to the TBQ Christian Atheism investigation? Alicianpig (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to learn to add an WP:Edit summary explaining your edits. And to look at the history tab to see what other people are saying about theirs. Your link was reverted with an edit summary saying 'low quality link'. I agree with that and would have removed it myself. WP:EL is our guideline what should be linked and what shouldn't. We rarely link to wikis and I don't think that in any case that page was substantive enough for a link. You can discuss issues about links at WP:ELN but I expect others would agree with me. It takes a while to get used to Wikipedia. :-) Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining Alicianpig (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 11:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing of Mitchell Farley from "Notable People"
In the above referenced section the following was removed as "not notable":


 * Mitchell Farley (1994): Article 32 Former Navy Cadet, Former Australian Senate Candidate and Germanic Pagan. Has described himself as a renewed Catholic upon the destruction of the Notre Dame cathedral, having his excommunication lifted in order to fulfill his desire to save the Western World.

How can we prove that Mr. Farley is indeed a notable person, considering his interesting background?203.47.46.75 (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The easiest way would be if there were Wikipedia article about him, based on a significant number of reliable sources. Please see WP:BIO. Jayjg (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)