Iron Chariots Wiki:Neutral point of view
You know that thing on Wikipedia about having a neutral point of view? Well forget all about that. This is an atheist wiki: of, by, and for atheists. Its intent is to promote robust atheist arguments and counter-apologetics.
We're not going to be bound by the standard Wikipedia "neutrality", but that doesn't mean we're not going to try to treat issues fairly. Wikipedia has, in a way, fallen prey to what the religious right would like to do with public schools and education — competing views get equal time and consideration, even when they don't deserve it.
We're not just about spouting off competing opinions. We're here to analyze and respond to issues fairly, and often there is no reason to remain neutral. This site will have an inherent bias toward truth, honesty, reason and reality. We will try to fairly present the best examples of opposing arguments if any exist, and listen to Christians in our forum if an article is lacking something important or unfairly characterizing the opposition with straw men.
Fixing flawed articles is at the discretion of all members. However, the site admins reserve the right to make executive decisions on whether an article adheres to our standards or not, and we will be the final arbiters on this matter. Rarely, we will revoke memberships of repeat offenders. Sorry, but if you don't like this position then edit Wikipedia instead of Iron Chariots.
Iron Chariots' Point of View
Ask any atheist what "the atheist viewpoint" on a particular subject is, and they will probably tell you that there isn't any such thing. Atheism is not a unified world view; it is a stance on one single issue: disbelief in gods. Every other position is open for discussion, and atheist opinions on any other subject range all over the place. One can be an apatheist or a Raelian and still technically be considered an atheist.
Iron Chariots is not a purely atheist site. Our focus is on counter-apologetics, and we assume that our audience is the type of person that is interested in that subject. It is further assumed that our editors will have most of the following traits:
- Rational and interested in thoughtful argumentation
- Skeptical towards supernatural claims
- Somewhat materialistic (in the philosophical, not consumeristic, sense)
- Somewhat humanistic
- Recognize science as a reliable approach to acquiring knowledge
If atheists and secularists meeting those conditions are strongly divided on an issue, the associated article should mention this and try to provide arguments for and against each position. Acknowledging disagreement among atheists should not be treated as threatening, since we are opposed to dogma.