Talk:Atheism and religion

Spiritual atheism and rationalistic churches

granted you mean well with an intro, could we imply these are ideologies as opposed to atheists being religious or spritual? Perhaps we could include humanism and materialism, etc. Just a thought? Somerset219 02:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm.. after some thought, I guess you could add another section in this article about Ideologies that involve atheism.... or maybe atheism and other belief systems. Monkey Brain_(untalk) 03:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good! Somerset219 09:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Where do things like the Religion of Humanity, Church of Humanity, Universal Humanism, and Fellowship of Reason fit?--T. Anthony (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There are atheist New Religious Movements such as Raelianism, atheistic schools within established eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism, several explicitly atheist "churches" already listed in this article, and atheist versions of Christianity and Judaism.66.188.228.180 (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC) You can find a lot of information about these things under the wiki article about atheism. Also, secular spiritualism information can be found under wikipedia's spiritual article.66.188.228.180 (talk) 06:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Statistics

Well, I started a section on non-religious ideologies. It would be really splufty if there were some statistics about adherents to those philosophies. For that matter, it would be nice to have stats on overlap between atheists and religiousness, if there are any surveys which have data showing people declaring themselves to be religious and atheistic. -- Beland 19:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Point of this page

I'd like to know the point of this page before I make any major edits. What can be achieved here that can't be done on each religion's respective pages? 139.102.241.40 00:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's basically a reference article. What can be done on a list article that can't be done on each item's page? Nothing, of course, but they're still useful. This is like a short list with expanded content UndZiggy 01:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Bias

The Christianity section, at least, seems pretty obviously biased against Christianity. I'd rewrite it, but I'm afraid I'd only move the bias around, not actually remove it. Perhaps we could get a Christian, agnostic, or particularly level-headed atheist to rewrite it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UndZiggy (talk • contribs) 02:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not so good

"Marxism tends to be atheistic because of Marx's philosophy of nature that matter comes first and mind comes second, there is no design and this is all an accident. Marx even argued that "Religion is the opium of the masses", that it was used by the bourgeoisie to control the people. The Communist parties in the Communist countries only allowed atheists into their party, in fact some went far by persecuting religions, like Albania under Enver Hoxha where it was declared the world's first atheist state. However, the Communist party in Cuba, since 1991, has allowed theists and people of all other religions into their party."

This needs to be re-written, seriously —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.130.128 (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Scientology

The first sentence in the Scientology section is noteworthy in relation to large or well known atheistic "religions", however the latter part is completely pointless in relation to the article. The recognition or objection to the idea or belief in a "soul" has no place in relation to atheism. The section addresses it as if the concept of a "soul" as Scientologists would understand it somehow creates a vagueness or debate whether or not Scientology is atheistic at it's core.

Scientology claims to accept all faiths, even those believing in a higher power. However it flatly rejects the existence of any higher power. In fact specifically claiming that the belief in a higher power, God, god, gods and deities are the result of "brainwashing" and are in fact false, put there in order to blah blah blah, so on and so forth.

I'm removing the latter and suggesting someone else re-write it, or merge it into another section, so it doesn't remain a space taking blurb. 203.206.17.120 (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Legal status of atheism as a religion

The only example here is from the United States. There must be other countries where this has come up. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 02:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not any with Wikipedia editors who care. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Atheism is not a religion in the United States. It is only secured under the laws that allow for religious freedom, which include freedom from religion. Try again. 124.169.44.127 (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Legal status of Atheism as a religion

Atheism, is a religion and philosophy in the United States, it is protected under the United States Constitution as a religious practice. The United States Supreme Court when deliberating on First Amendment rights has said a "religion" need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being or deities.

The United States happens to be the leader in civil rights and usually set the bar for others to balance on. This page description is incorrect and misleading, there is also a "First Church of Atheism" in case you guys didn't get that memo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelostmachine (talk • contribs) 03:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

So what. When you have overwhelming primary sources showing that it is a religion, then you can have your edits. Until then: you're straying into vandalism. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

well I am new here and it took me forever how to figure out how to get to talk or discussion (wiki needs an easier method for that) My edits are accurate to reflect this page, you have basically left the same exact thing for the definition of Atheism. Are you a human? then stop trying to be something else or align yourself with something... it is a human condition though so I understand. My edits will be approved eventually and I have presented accurate "fact" it is only your refusal to accept the truth of the facts. Thelostmachine (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

here it is in black and white, it's not so hard to comprehend and it surely does not take as much mental concentration to actually try to make sense of the definition of Atheism. This page is reserved for "Atheism and Religion"

take note...

The United States Supreme Court when deliberating on First Amendment rights has said a "religion" need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being or deities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelostmachine (talk • contribs) 03:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

@Thelostmachine, please take a look at WP:V. As stated there: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". All we need in order to include that content are reliable secondary sources which explicitly state that atheism is a religion. Once we have those, we can discuss where that content will be included. Can you track down some sources for your proposal? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

the supreme courts ruling is not verifiable? the first church of atheism is not either? they even have ministers now. If one subscribes to a philosophy it can basically be a religion, for instance I an a theist but I am not a church attender... on the other hand Music is my religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelostmachine (talk • contribs) 03:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

@Jess - thank you... I will get the hang of this eventually and I will return with my verifiable sources but with an added bonus (they happen to actually be truth and fact) I don't care if people are atheist, people are people ya know, but what I do care about is atheist attacking everyone and being pretty militant towards the general population.Thelostmachine (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Terrific! We can discuss it further then. Once you find sources, I'd suggest listing them here before you add them to the article, just to make sure we have all our ducks in a row, so to speak. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Absence definition

How is it that the absence definition has snuck its way in here as not only primary but singular. Atheism as a the absence of theism is not commonly used by scholars and when used is controversial and contested. Can someone please explain? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed it. It doesn't make sense to define atheism in the first sentence anyway. A link to the entry suffices.Griswaldo (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Atheist Churches

Please note this revert, and subsequent re-revert. Aaronwayneodonahue, edit warring isn't constructive. I checked every single link I removed, and as I specified in my edit summary, some of them are dead ([1]), others do not relate to the subject ([2]), and none are reliable sources. Most of these are random blogs - [3] - which do not in any way back up the article content. Please read through WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:EL. References are not "external links" tangentially related to the subject. These 18 random websites have to go, per policy.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, with the possible exception of the broken links, which shouldn't always be removed on those grounds alone. If they were at one time used to support information, do not have an alternative, and were not broken when placed in the article, they should not removed per WP:DEADLINK. However, if they were simply external links (or otherwise not verifying any information), or were broken from the start, they should not be in the article. This is also of course assuming they are otherwise reliable sources (which don't appear to be the case). - SudoGhost 16:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, you deleted nearly every atheist church listing there originally, and twice if I recall. With the exception of a couple of churches in texas. That is just organization promotion, pure and simple. You stated that it was because there were dead links, yet only 2 of them were dead. Why not just delete those? So, I went and deleted the dead links. I also changed the wording to your revision in the process of keeping the active links. You are just trying to plow through this issue. I am the only one taking the other's edits into consideration. You said some where "not reliable." What the heck does that mean? They were online churches (with exceptions), those are their online links. You don't have any secondary sources supporting your churches in texas, so why keep those and not the others? I can support the church of atheism with secondary sources. Can you do that with the texas churches? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.228.180 (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(I moved your response up one section, since it was placed in the wrong one) When an editor says a source is not reliable, they are referring to our policy regarding reliable sources, here. To be frank, the two texas church sites need to go as well, but I kept them because they at least discussed starting an atheist church to "secure equal rights". In other words, they're the only ones I could justify by any stretch of policy. Even so, they are a primary source of no notability, so they're less than ideal. Regardless, their presence in no way speaks to the appropriateness of the other links. If you can provide a secondary source for the church of atheism, please do so and we can cut out all the rest.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

ACA Article

I'll also point out this revert, based on an edit made by Aaronwayneodonahue earlier. I'm a little disheartened by the edit warring that's taking place instead of discussion. The content being removed is an article by the ACA, written by Matt Dillahunty, which explicitly discusses the court case in detail. This appears to be relevant, and I see no basis to deem articles from the ACA as being unreliable. It was claimed in an edit summary that this is a personal blog, but I see no foundation for that claim. It appears to be an article written by a member of the ACA, and presented on their site as such, which qualifies it to be used as a source here. I'll note that we also don't have any other reliable secondary sources which discuss the case, save this one, and so removing it would require a {{cn}} tag be placed instead to back up our current wording.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Comparing the contribs, the IP appears to be Aaronwayneodonahue. I'm assuming the user simply forgot to log-in, however that placed the user at 3RR (unless there's another revert I'm missing), so I've warned the user, and hopefully the user will come to the talk page and discuss the edits before reverting again.

However, concerning the edit itself, I wouldn't say it's the strongest source, if a better one can be found, I certainly wouldn't object, but the ACA source is itself citing the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which (unless I'm misreading) is what is supporting the information in the Wikipedia article. However, if I'm misreading it, I'd appreciate the explanation of why on this talk page, not in an edit summary. - SudoGhost 17:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The sourcing could be improved, and I'd definitely welcome that. However, the article appears to be a reliable secondary source discussing the court case, so removing it without a secondary source to replace it doesn't appear to be an improvement. The ACA article includes an explanation of the court's decision, which is useful for supporting our current wording, rather than relying on the primary source of the court record. A secondary source which received some external coverage would be ideal, but until we have that, I don't see any major faults with this one.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason it is not acceptable is because it is a biased blog. He is not a law scholar so his legal opinion does not matter. If you're going to allow Matt's article, you might as well allow any random conservative Christian news media on the issue, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Net_Daily You are trying to advance an agenda. Pure and simple. The lack of a good secondary source is not justifiable support for picking any random biased blog article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.228.180 (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not a blog, as far as I can tell. It is an article written and published by the ACA. WorldNetDaily has been repeatedly deemed an unreliable source at WP:RSN, but (AFAIK) the ACA has not. I'd welcome a better secondary source discussing this case, but as it stands, the ACA article seems to provide sufficient coverage.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The ACA is just as biased and just as unreliable as Worldnet. That's my whole point. Neither of them are reliable. Both of them are biased. ACA is biased and so is worldnet. With them both, at least it's balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronwayneodonahue (talk • contribs) 19:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:RNEUTRAL WP:Verifiability Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that's your point. Please see WP:POINT. As stated in our guideline, that sort of edit is unacceptable.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added a direct quote from the actual ruling. You can add whatever garbage citations you want to.Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not how wikipedia works. It's not "I'll add my garbage, then you can add yours, and it'll balance out". I have to assume you know that. If you want to remove the ACA link, you'll have to provide a compelling reason that it doesn't meet WP:RS. Adding an admittedly garbage ref to the section which has repeatedly been deemed unreliable by WP:RSN doesn't improve the article in any way, nor does it make any case for the reliability of the ACA article. Simultaneously violating WP:POINT and WP:EW is also not helpful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Aaronwayneodonahue was blocked for edit warring, but I'd welcome him back in 24 hours to respond to the queries above. In the meantime, he made a few changes in clear violation of WP:POINT and other policies, and as such, I'm going to revert to an older version of the page before the warring. If anyone feels this is pre-emptive, and that we should wait to restore this content, please feel free to revert me, and we can give it a few days for discussion. However, I don't feel these edits are particularly controversial, so I personally don't see a strong need to wait. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why will you not accept the online websites of online atheist churches? You won't even accept the Church of the FSM! The most famous online atheist parody religion that has ever existed! Church of the Subgenius is right up there as well, yet you won't accept that either. You are just trying to promote the texas churches. You make me sick.