Talk:Belief system

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Religion

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles

Redirect to religion[edit]

I redirected this article to religion because it was a weird, out of date fork of that article, with American Dream thrown in. If this article is going to be re-created, it should leave detailed discussion of religion to that article and not simply copy most of its content. Feel free to cross-reference non-religious belief systems from there, as appropriate. -- Beland 00:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bit of a problem with the redirect to religion. All religions are belief systems, but not all belief systems are religions, e.g. communism. This article should briefly list all belief systems apart from all the religions. This article should not digres on religion. Andries 12:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change from dab to (short) article ?[edit]

WP:Disambiguation is for when a term refers to more than one topic (e.g. Nail (fastener) and Nail (anatomy)), which is not the case here. This would be better as a short article rather than a dab page - i.e. something like: "A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs may be religious, philosophical, ideological or a combination of these. See also Life stance, World view." DexDor (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed this into a normal article - anyone like to improve on the wording ? DexDor (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There must be more to this[edit]

I believe Stephen Law's comment is a nice antidote to the New Religious movement tolerance, such as that cults are really sucker-suck-up-s-movements, but there must also be sane belief systems, such as for example ethics of reciprocity, science and some well-behaved religions. I think the topic deserves its article, only just larger and more extensive. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is very relevant and the article is disappointing because it is based on a single source (Glover) and does not include science as a belief system. Knowledge beliefs try to find evidence and justification that support the beliefs. Science is a good example of how belief systems work. Otherwise to leave science out, it would be misleading and rather cynical to suggest that people build belief systems and yet can think of no supporting evidence. Beyenklu (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glover[edit]

Why did this article suddenly become an article about Mr Glover? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing useful has been added since One source|article|date=February 2012. The lead of the article was and is tautologically jejune: beliefs are beliefs and belief systems are belief systems. That tells us practically nothing. An abbreviated version of the body could be presented as itself an example of a certain type of philosophical belief system. It is little more than an abstract or blurb of the work of one man, which if anywhere should be moved to his article. Qexigator (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right that's why I've tagged it for merge, more or less as is into a § in the parent topic article. I'm afraid any attempt to do anything here will run aground on the reef of OR or a vulgarization of content in other articles such as epistemology, ontology, doxastic attitudes, etc. 108.183.102.223 (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]