Talk:Religious satire

Why is this part of the 'atheism project'???
Religious satire is not just conducted by atheists, but also by believers in one religion or sect against other believers or sects. For instance the Martin Marprelate tracts were a satire on the Church of England by Nonconformist believers. Colin4C 17:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good question. As if in order to satirize religion one has to believe in no God or gods.  You should pose the question at the atheism project page, that is where they decide what to include in their scope.PelleSmith 17:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I know its nasty to do it, but I'm going to answer your question with a question. What category is more appropriate for the religous satire page that atheism? comedy? I dont think so. Especially considering an even more practical matter...there isnt one wikiproject better lnclined to steward this article than the users at WikiprojectAtheism. The reason this is attached to the project is because WE created this article, hence the idea that it is by far more common for religous doubters and reformers to satirize religion than those who are religous. simple common sense. VanTucky 18:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Religious doubters and reformers" are not necessarily or even usually "atheists"--what gives with this insinuation by the way? The fact that members of a wikiproject created the article, or that many or most members of said wikiproject have an interest in religious satire says nothing about the appropriatness of the categorization.  And where does this self-congratulation come from?  I'll certainly take your "opinion" into account.  The issue isn't, by the way, that members of WikiProject  Atheism are interested in this entry (I think that fact is fantastic), but it is the fact that the templete on this talk page insinuates that the entry is an "atheism related article" and moreover makes it seem that it has more to do with atheism than any other wikiproject or category.  "Comedy" and "Religion" come to mind quite logically as the two most related categories.  How would this not be the case?  "I don't think so" and "we're the best" aren't exactly the answers to that question either.  So keep in mind that this has nothing to do with how interested your members are in the article, or how kindred you feel yourselves to those "doubters and reformers" who involve themselves in religious satire, but to the appropriateness of the categorization.  Thanks.PelleSmith 18:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And isn't 'atheism' itself a form of belief, which could itself be satirised? If you were a real free-thinker then you would be an agnostic, doubting the truth claims of both theism and atheism...Colin4C 19:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In fairness, this is a strawman of the actual views of most atheists. Most atheists seem to define atheism as simply the absence of theism (making it synonymous with nontheism), not as a distinct belief or ideology in its own right. They therefore see agnostics who don't actively believe in God as being agnostic atheists; likewise, agnostics who lean towards there being a God are agnostic theists. Only some atheists make "truth claims" a part of their atheism; most simply reject the truth claims of theism, and go no further (even if their rhetoric sometimes implies otherwise). Moreover, even if atheism is a belief, it's not a religious belief, so satirizing atheism doesn't qualify as "religious satire" any more than satirizing capitalism or materialism or aleprechaunism does. -Silence 05:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an argument that goes no where because different sides of it depend upon different pressupositions. So people can argue past each other as much as they want, but it is rather pointless.  And by the way there are several people who also argue that capitalism is a religion, certianly that Republicanism (as in the form of governance not the political party) is, and even the more broad notion of Secularism (the atheism is a form of "religious faith" argument is quite old as well).  I'm not particularly convinced by most of these arguments, but dismissing this point of view based solely on our own is not in our best interest (again there is a vast difference in pressupositions here).  Also if I may appeal to that horribly ambigious and un-empirical notion people call "common sense", I think it rather odd to argue for the inclusion of religious satire under the wikiprojectAtheism and then deny the idea that satire about atheism is related to "religious satire".  It makes total sense in my mind, for instance, that John Safran includes a rather hilarious rant in his show "John Safran vs. God" criticizing uninformed atheism.PelleSmith 19:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe this article could be more thematic, with separate sections for satire on, Christians, Moslems, Methodists, Catholics etc. See Anti-Catholic satire and humor for instance. Colin4C 11:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is part of the atheism WikiProject for the same reason criticism of religion is. "Atheism" is a very narrow topic on its own, so WPA deals not solely with atheist articles (of which there would only be a handful), but with religious criticism and skepticism in general. It also deals with agnosticism, naturalism, freethought, etc. In any case, to fall under a WikiProject, an atheism doesn't need to solely be relevant to that project, merely to be relevant to it at all; one of the primary historical contributors to the rise of atheism was the rise of religious criticism, much of it in the form of satire (e.g., Voltaire), following the Renaissance. -Silence 05:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That explanation does clarify some things (for which I'm grateful) but it doesn't justify the ends--ends which make religious satire a subcategory of atheism. I do agree as well that linking it to the wikiproject doesn't mean that it is solely related to it, so maybe my issue is with the category conventions set up by Wikipedia.  That is what shows up on the entry page because of the inclusion in the wikiproject.  I do not, however, agree with your assertion about the importance of satire in the birth of "atheism".  Certainly satire has been imporant in the criticism of religion, and certainly many satarists who have tackled religion were agnostics, freethinkers, doubters, etc., but how many were really "atheists"?  My own understanding of the intellectual growth and even possibility of atheism, does not prompt me to believe that comedy or satire played as large of a role as you are suggesting (e.g. see James Turner "Without God Without Creed").  Was Voltaire even an "atheist"?   I think part of the problem here is quite related to the fact you point out ... that atheism itself is a rather narrow topic.  Maybe, and my appologies if people feel this is the wrong forum for this suggestion, but it goes to my present problems indirectly, the actual problem is with WikiProject Atheism.  Maybe, what you really want is a broader category (secularism, religious criticism, ect.), within which atheism would be a subcategory, instead of taking on subject matters that are actually only related to the "narrow topic" of atheism.  Then entries like this one wouldn't be part of WikiProject atheism, and all of my personal issues would be resolved.  Though I doubt I'm going to get support for that suggestion.PelleSmith 19:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Inter alia, it is also a VERY BAD article with no historical, cultural or thematic focus: it is just a rag-bag of disconnected bits of information. Colin4C 11:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Colin if you think the article needs expansion then, as we say the real world, quit bitchin and get to it. and by the by, that earlier comment about atheism...wikipedia talk pages are not the appropriate forum (if there is one) to attack my personal convictions. take it elsewhere please, and concentrate on actually improving the article. VanTucky 19:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Where exactly did I attack your personal convictions??? By the by: if this article is meant to be a promotional service for atheism, rather than about its ostensible subject of 'religious satire' I will have nothing to with it: I will create a new article myself. Colin4C 20:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)