Talk:atheize

RFC discussion: November 2012–August 2017
The definition is moronic because it implies that atheism is a faith. Does this pisshead learn from The Way of the Master? --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, not moronic. It might be the best possible wording in fact. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Many argue that atheism is a faith, in contrast to agnosticism, which is more of a conditional disbelief.
 * In any event, we are a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. The word is clearly used in the sense given. DCDuring TALK 12:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, anybody who isn’t dense can identify what this website is, you don’t need to insult my intelligence like everyone else does. Whilst some atheisms could be based on faith, it does not follow that all of them are. Are all disbeliefs based on a lack of evidence based ultimately on faith? --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Never heard that one before. In my local atheist group's meetings, we generally like to say people “deconvert” to atheism.
 * Anyhow, Æ, do try to assume good faith. You could've politely pointed out the problem without baselessly calling a fellow editor a drunkard. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Baselessly? He already admitted that he was being a drunken idiot at one point. And then you oblige me to follow a fake rule. Pathetic. --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @Robin: I would expect that this would be used by those view atheism as a kind of faith as a kind of a mild put-down. Thus the last I would expect to use it to be atheists. DCDuring TALK 17:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @Æ&#38;Œ: Your objection to a rather well-worded entry suggests that you must have some standard other than the lexicographic one of conformity of the definition to usage. The wording of your objection to this term did not reflect any awareness of the implications of this being a dictionary. Your dismissiveness further confirms it.
 * Finally, your gratuitous insult is simply uncalled for. There is hardly a long-term contributor here who hasn't had some behavioral lapse. Your current behavior seems to indicate that you are no exception. DCDuring TALK 17:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Everybody on Wiktionary is allowed to be a prick except for Æ&Œ. History confirms this. And if you are going to scorn me instead of addressing my point, then I’m sorry that I wasted time making this topic. --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I am not a ‘long‐term contributor,’ nor shall I ever be. --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see what is or was wrong with it. Is long-term contributor Pilcrow objecting to "convert to atheism"? That doesn't imply that atheism is a religion, only a belief. You could convert someone to nihilism, or utilitarianism. (P.S. I'm an atheist!) Equinox ◑ 20:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Why are you calling me ‘Pilcrow’ and why are you calling me a ‘long‐term contributor?’ Is it revenge for my insulting you? Did you not care to read the entry for convert that says ‘To induce (someone) to adopt a particular religion, faith, or belief[,]’ the latter noun which also has religious implications? (P.S. I'm an atheist!) I don’t care. --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see you try to define without using, , or . --WikiTiki89 21:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How about ‘The absence of a mental acceptance in any deities?’ --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would call that agnosticism. --WikiTiki89 22:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sigh…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_atheism --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright call it whatever you like. The terminology is arbitrary and common usage is random so the definition should be pretty general. --WikiTiki89 22:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I changed the definition of convert to “To induce (someone) to adopt a particular religion, faith, ideology or belief.” — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been a drunken idiot on many occasions. So what? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you actually saying that being an idiot is acceptable? --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto. . I think even persistently argumentative behavior needs to be tolerated to a certain extent. Bad contributor behavior can have consequences adverse to the contributor's continued participation, as various contributors have experienced, but some quite outrageous behavior has been tolerated with few adverse consequences. We take the bad with the good of the contributor.
 * Is there anything more to be said about [[atheize]]? DCDuring TALK 00:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, goodness, no. Please let the topic die. It was badly executed to begin with, that is certain. --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's fine, already. And Equinox shouldn't be slated for his pissheadery. It's an illness like any other. --WF on Holiday (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)--WF on Holiday (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)