Template talk:Irreligion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Like it![edit]

Gregbard 23:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's Ok I would change some things about it but it ok- Jane Doe


Since many classify atheism and agnostism as religions isn't it POV to claim they are irreligious? Shouldn't you just have one atheism and one agnostism template. And could we please delete links to groups which are not belief systems, since beliefs are thoughts and groups are bunches of people, as well as jokes like FSM, which is not a belief system, since people don't actually believe in it. Roy Brumback 08:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people think that Creationism is a science or Iraq isn't located in the Middle East, but that doesn't mean they are right. NPOV doesn't mean we can't say anything because someone somewhere might disagree with accepted definitions. I agree though that it doesn't seem right to link to FSM etc. Mdwh 13:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Why not? Parody religions are expressions of irreligion. In any case the template isn't called Irreligious belief systems anymore, it's simply called Irreligion.  – ornis 13:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Calling all these belief systems is a misleading misnomer. Many involve non-belief or disbelief in something, rather than belief in something. Also several are not "systems" but single positions on certain purported propositions. I have the same objection to including atheism in the belief systems template. How about "irreligious perspectives" or "irreligious viewpoints"? --JimWae 17:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've renamed it Irreligion. It's short, to the point and covers everything on the template while remaining focused.  – ornis 16:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It is also offensive to some. -- Avenue (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
It has been relabeled Secularism. That is plainly ridiculous. One is perfectly able to be religious and still be a strong supporter of division between state and church. You don't have to be a non-believer to be in favour of secular law (ie no legal status for church law or sharia law). Arnoutf (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Summary of defs for IRRELIGION[edit]

SUMMARY from http://www.onelook.com/?w=irreligion&ls=a and http://www.onelook.com/?w=irreligious&ls=a


  • lack or want of religion
  • hostility to religion
  • neglectful of religion
  • lacking religious emotions, doctrines or practices
  • impiety, impiousness
  • unrighteousness by virtue of lacking respect for a god
  • Contrary to religious beliefs, practices and morals


  • absence of religion
  • Describing a conscious rejection of religion.
  • Having no relation to religion; non-religious.


  • quality of not being devout
  • indifference to religion

I think there has been an attempt to persuasively use this term as a neutral term. I do not think it is clearly such. People (Brights, Deists, Agnostic theists) are objecting to being included in the { {Template:Irreligion} }. I can see why. Otoh, non-theistic Buddhists ARE religious & it is unclear where they go. All the positions in the Irreligion Template are THEOLOGICAL positions - but there is already a template { {Template:Belief systems} } which is TOO broad & has the working title, theological positions. Perhaps we need a merge. --JimWae (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "irreligion" certainly has negative connotations. It is therefore not a suitable name for this template; witness the attempted deletions, apparently by an offended Bright. I think the topics listed here are a sensible grouping, so I don't support a merge, but something needs to be done. Would "Non-religious theolological positions" be acceptable? -- Avenue (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-theistic positions could even include nontheistic religions --JimWae (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we must also include UFO religions like Raëlism in the template because it is a non-theist religion. User:PGbright1 make comment like 'The Brights' Net is not an "irreligious" organization', which is simply incorrect. If you call yourself a cultural Christian and don't believe in the religious aspect of Christianity, you are still an irreligious guy. People call themselves 'irreligious Christian', 'irreligious Jews', etc. Even Richard Dawkins describes himself as a "cultural Christian" [1]. I think the name should be changed to irreligion. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the name. If you disagree, feel free to discuss. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You have not addressed the offensiveness of the term. You say it's incorrect to say the Brights are not irreligious, but I think their organisation would object to being painted as hostile to religion. The ambiguity of the term "irreligion" is the problem here. But I agree "non-theistic positions" isn't a great alternative, because it's too inclusive. -- Avenue (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think we have to find a new term. If we change the name to 'Nontheistic postions' or 'Nontheism' we must include UFO religions like Raelism. Raelism is a non-theistic religion. However, if we include it, it will offend atheists, agnostics, and rationalists. I think we should removed 'Bright' from the template. Brights may not be hostile to religion, but they are non-religious. We have a problem! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Passing comments:
      1. Has "Nonreligion" been considered? (Sorry if I've missed it above or the point.)
      2. If "irreligion" is potentially derogatory/offensive/etc to a "significant" number of people, perhaps that should be mentioned in Irreligion's opening section. Otherwise, if not, it could remain this template's name/title.
      Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, Nonreligion is a redirect to the article Irreligion. Nonreligion sounds more polite. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Only one reference work has an entry for nonreligion. Guess which? http://www.onelook.com/?w=nonreligion&ls=a. It is doubtful nonreligion is even a word. Nonreligious qualifies better as a word http://www.onelook.com/?w=nonreligious&ls=a . Non-religious perspectives would also include capitalism and communism. The situation with Raelism & Nontheistic positions is quite different from the problem of Brights & Irreligion. Brights object to being labelled as irreligious. Raelians do not object to being included among nontheistic perspectives. The issue with nontheistic perspectives seems to be that some nonreligious peoples do not want to be in any grouping that might also include UFO religions. (I think a consideration of UFO religions sheds light on both theism & religion, however) Why is there a presumption that members of the same category share anything more than a label that includes both. Cannot German History include both Nazism and Reformation without implying that one somehow is responsible for the other? Cannot History of Christianity include the Crusades? We need *something* other than irreligion - asap. Even a non-word is better than the staus quo --JimWae (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Non-religious theological positions seems a bit long - but just about anything is better than irreligion. I suspect Brights movement people might still have objections, tho. And Secular Humanism is not necessarily a theological position. For that matter, some agnostics ARE religious - even theists. At some point, most categories start to leak --JimWae (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am thinking the only real solution is to have a Philosophy of religion NAV box - but I do not wish to delay SOME change here (asap) --JimWae (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for new names for the template have been invited at Talk:Brights movement, so I'd like to put forward "non-supernatural beliefs" or "rejection of supernatural beliefs" as suggestions for discussion. SP-KP (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Looking at the definition I found online (and added as ref to Irreligion) and the Spanish, French and Portuguese interwiki links at Irreligion (perhaps the others too), I'm wondering just how offensive/undesirable/etc the word really is. Trying to contrive some many-syllabic/multi-worded alternative seems weaselly and perhaps misleading. I'd suggest the choice is made from "Irreligion" or "Nonreligion" (see Irreligion's opening sentence) and be done with it. And add a note directing any future queries to this part of the talkpage. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Irreligion has more negative connotations than neutral ones (summarized above from http://www.onelook.com/?w=irreligion&ls=a and http://www.onelook.com/?w=irreligious&ls=a ), and has been found unacceptable by several editors here & by the Brights movement. If we must KISS, I suggest we reconsider nontheism and secularism as titles --JimWae (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Flying visit - will return - just as a quick comment the Irreligion table doesn't match the Irreligion article, as the table only talks about Atheism, Agnosticism and Nontheism, while the article says you can be theist and irreligious. Also I would agree negative aspects of irreligion are not necessary relevant to the non-religious. Irreligious is a religious term for the non-religious. Be back soon, maybe on the weekend. Cheers Stevebritgimp (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

See discussion on creating a sidebar template comparable to this footer template[edit]

Discussion at: Template_talk:Atheism2#See_discussion_re_other_related_articles. --Noleander (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Militant atheism[edit]

I've removed the militant atheism link from the template. The article is generally redundant with state atheism and new atheism, and is being used as a coatrack. General usage today is derogatory, and including it here appears to be an attempt to pursue a negative pov toward atheism. aprock (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This is your opinion and the term is notable. We should wait until the RfC closes, which may take some time. Furthermore, even if the article is split, the article will still delve into discussion of the term. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
If you'd like to address the concerns I noted, you are free to do so. If you have no interest in addressing them, I will be removing the links to militant atheism in due course. aprock (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Your concerns are being discussed at the talk page for the main article. Also, it has been demonstrated that the term is used in scholarly discourse as demonstrated by the references in the concepts section of the article. The term does not have use as a pejorative term exclusively. As such, we should wait before relinking any terms in the article until the RfC is closed. I would appreciate if you could honour this good faith request. With regards, AnupamTalk 06:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
My concerns here relate to the addition of militant atheism to the template, not to the RfC. If you are not interested in discussing the concerns relating to the template, I cannot compel you to do so. aprock (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You stated that the general usage of the term is derogatory and that's why you removed it from the template. I informed you that this is not the case and provided several references for you to study. You cannot respond with a legimate reason for removing a relevant term from the template but instead, appeal to personal dislike of the term. As such, the wikilink will remain on the template. In the event that the RfC closes to delete the article, it might be helpful to remove the link from the template then. Thanks for your cooperation in this matter, AnupamTalk 06:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I did not say "general usage", I said "general usage today". I appreciate that some sources do use the term when discussing state sponsored atheism. The significant overlap, and the low quality of militant atheism is why the link is not only unnecessary, but also problematic. Given the discussions at the talk page of that article, your addition of that link to the template is at best questionable. aprock (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest leaving the template in whatever is The Wrong Version for now. Perhaps the Militant atheism article will eventually go out of existence, in which case the argument become moot. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)