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?  Azure Fury  (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.  Azure Fury  (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.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 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,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Just sigh. Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. It holds no ideology, no belief system, no rituals and no unified rules other than they lack belief in deities. The Supreme Court decision has ROUTINELY and SPECIFICALLY detailed that freedom OF religion means freedom from religion as well, which is how atheism and non-religious are covered under the constitutions protection. Describing religions that don't have deities, which are called atheistic religions, does not magically make those religions the religion of atheism. They are religions that lack deities, which is why they are atheistic. The adherents lack the belief in deities, making their adherents atheists. Everything else they do? Completely unrelated to atheism. Which is why the religion of Satanism has the same atheists as atheistic Buddhist religions.

Those religions are covered, as is specified by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court NEVER stated that atheism was a religion. In fact specifying on numerous different cases that non-religion and atheism is protected under the same amendment because it guarantees freedom FROM relgion, which flat out refutes the claim they are religious. 220.253.208.228 (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Sutter Cane

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, others do not relate to the subject , and none are reliable sources. Most of these are random blogs - - 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. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 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.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In the spirit of keeping discussion open, I'd like to note that I reverted this addition, which added [churchofatheism.webs.com/otheratheistchurches.htm as a ref. Webs.com is not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], and this particular page appears to be an indiscriminate collection of links collated by an unknown author. We should be adding quality sources to this section, with the ultimate intent of removing some of the weaker sourcing provided by the three (primary) church pages. I appreciate the interest in backing up the assertion, but adding even more weak sourcing doesn't achieve that goal. Aaron, do you know of any media coverage (which would qualify as secondary sourcing) regarding any of these churches? That sort of thing would be terrific to add.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 07:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You are the least qualified person to be making changes to this section if you are not already aware of tons of secondary sources for the Church of the FSM, and you are BLIND if you cannot see that a secondary source is provided already in the section dealing with the adherent of the parody religion in Austria who wore the strainer on his head on a liscense photo. The Church of the FSM has it's own published book and has made news all over. As far as the Church of Atheism of Eau Claire, yes, a secondary source would include the following: http://volumeone.org/magazine/articles/451/Reverend_Aaron.html I'll also note that YOUR links relating to the texas groups do not have secondary sources supporting them, yet you choose to retain them. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronwayneodonahue (talk • contribs) 07:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want secondary sources for the Church of the FSM, take your pick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 07:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There are also TONS of other atheist parody religions out there that have already made it to wiki and yes many have secondary sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody_religion But I would like to not how ABSURD it is to find secondary sources to affirm the existence of a website, when you could just link to the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronwayneodonahue (talk • contribs) 07:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Aaron, I'll ask you again not to make personal comments like this about other editors. You are correct that the volumeone.org is a secondary source, but the link itself is a blog, which is generally not considered reliable. They call themselves a magazine, however, so if this was published in their magazine, we could use that instead. I'm not sure if you're reading what I'm writing or not, but I've repeatedly pointed out that the Texas church and First Church of Atheism refs are weak (due in part to being primary) and should be removed, but they at least minimally back up the statement, and so should stay only until we have better sourcing. To answer your question, we need secondary sourcing "to affirm the existence of a website", because that demonstrates that the organization is notable. We can't simply link to Joe Nobody's 5-person study group he holds in his basement, regardless of whether he has a website, because it doesn't meet our notability requirements. When his organization grows, and he gets an interview on CNN discussing it, then we can.


 * The Church of the FSM and the Church of the Subgenius are probably not appropriate here, since they don't directly back up the statement in question. The FSM is now claiming to be a legitimate religion (and is not in any case "an atheist church"), and the Church of the Subgenius was at one time a truly legitimate religion. This article is not about parody religions, for that you should stick with the Parody religion article. This article is explicitly about "atheism and religion", and neither are explicitly tied to Atheism. If we get quality sourcing which ties, say FSM, to atheist activism, then I think a short paragraph describing the ties would be warranted.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:59, 29 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 tag be placed instead to back up our current wording. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 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.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 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.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 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.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 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.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 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,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronwayneodonahue (talk • contribs) 07:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Aaron, I actually explained my revert already in the section above (which is the one I set aside for discussion of the churches sourcing). That said, however, I would kindly ask that you not make personal comments such as this to other editors, as it isn't constructive, and is against policy. Thank you.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 07:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Article
This article rarely has any views and the information contained in it is available under wikipedia's article on atheism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronwayneodonahue (talk • contribs) 22:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "the article rarely has any views"? You're welcome to pursue WP:AfD, however, I think the topic is probably notable.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Atheists and Church attendance
According to a review of GSS data:

Where would this fit best? un☯mi 07:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting but relates only to a very small if powerful minority of humans. maybe a cut down version under American law?Timpo (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Al-Kafirun?
Doesn't this relate to this topic: 109th Sura (chapter) of the Qur'an, the Al-Kafirun (also called Atheists, The Unbelievers) 99.109.127.141 (talk) 07:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Alain de Botton: Religion for Atheists
I inserted this as the introduction is a bit confusing, and it seems to encapsulate the spirit of religious atheism ofer the ages Timpo (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite Lead
The Lead section needs to be rewritten to be a concise summary of the article. Editor2020, Talk 01:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Atheism and Islam Section
Kafir does not mean atheist. It means disbeliever, and not disbeliever in God, dis-believer in our god. In the Qur'an it's used for non-muslisms, almost always as a metaphor totum pro parte, for the alleged polytheists of Medina who serve as the antagonists in the Meccan suras of the Qur'an (1, 2, 3). Today, in a casual contexts kafir can be used for anyone who isn't Muslim with no ill intent or feeling behind it. The most common word for atheist is mul7id. Dahri also exists, meaning temporal minded. Historically and religiously, zindiq (heretic) and murtad (apostate) are used. They are derogatory.

The section in general is of low equality. I suspect the editor who wrote it made it for the sake of coverage rather than providing anything accurate or insightful. It's also original research since it depends on no secondary sources. It needs to be rewritten.

This is not an invitation for POV white washing. -- 94.174.73.195 (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Atheism and religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110109031643/http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris-Interactive-Poll-Research-While-Most-Americans-Believe-in-God-Only-36-pct-A-2003-10.pdf to http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris-Interactive-Poll-Research-While-Most-Americans-Believe-in-God-Only-36-pct-A-2003-10.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150628151746/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0015/__P7E.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7E.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081122075528/http://www.uua.org/news/011205.html to http://www.uua.org/news/011205.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615213106/http://atheist-community.org/library/articles/read.php?id=742 to http://www.atheist-community.org/library/articles/read.php?id=742
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100717164617/http://sentientonline.net:80/?p=1213 to http://sentientonline.net/?p=1213

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Atheism and religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160115132325/http://fowid.de/fileadmin/datenarchiv/Religionszugehoerigkeit/Religionszugehoerigkeit_Bevoelkerung_Deutschland_2014.pdf to http://fowid.de/fileadmin/datenarchiv/Religionszugehoerigkeit/Religionszugehoerigkeit_Bevoelkerung_Deutschland_2014.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://sentientonline.net/?p=1213

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Islam Over Emphasized
I just happened by and I observed that the various religious views of atheism are discussed, but only the views of Islam are quoted from religious texts. And extensively so. It's completely unbalanced. I feel that someone is using this page to promote Islam on this issue. No one would use Wikipedia to promote their own interests, would they? Try simply citing the relevant sections instead of using Wikipedia to promote one religion over all others. That's my impression and proposed solution. I could be wrong, of course. --Lawfare (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)