Talk:Irreligion/Archive 1

Dubious Comparison
Comparing census stats for some countries to survey stats for others is dubious. In many countries it is quite common for people to put the religion that they feel culturally associated with on the census, even if they don't attend religious services, get married in churches/synagogues/mosques, or even believe in a god or gods. These people are far more likely to answer no religion or 'do not believe in a god' on a survey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsynnott (talk • contribs) 02:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

England
Anyone who knows much about this topic, can you write the percentage amount of people in England who are irreligious. Thanks Sp0 (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. found the information here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3412118.ece - Anon 13th may 2008

Will people please stop altering the section on England, the above source is quite correct and recent. 72% is accurate.

The 72% is not accurate. The article states at the beginning that "a UN rapporteur claims the 2001 Census findings that nearly 72 per cent of the population is Christian can no longer be regarded as accurate. The report claims that two-thirds of British people now do not admit to any religious adherence". The number is therefore 2/3 not 72% are irrelgious. As 2/3 is an estimate can someone please find a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.47.220.118 (talk) 06:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Irreligion diagram
Map shown doesn't include data such as year published or even accurate source, hence removed until someone somewhere can provide further details. Bad science shown here.

UK 2001 census results
Per the only question about religion in the 2001 census was voluntary. It asked "What is your religion" with tick box options of: None; Christian; Buddhist; Hindu; Jewish; Muslim; Sikh; Any other religion, please write in.

I have therefore removed the comment about results relating to those that have attended a religious service. I have also removed the reference to the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey. This is published online. If what was stated was true, it should be possible to provide an internet link proving it. I have removed it as I have doubts about its veracity based on other details on the page being apparently wrong. jguk 20:32, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Per the link given, the statistics in your version are wrong. Also, the fact that the question was voluntary is irrelevant, since 92% of respondents chose to answer it. Per the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, the data is available online, if you care to do a simple search. Most people would quibble that someone not observing a religon is not religious, which is why the fact about the numbers attending religious services was presented. The Rev of Bru 15:50, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Where are my statistics wrong? I copied them from the website I cited. If I've gotten them wrong, I'm happy to change what I wrote. By all means add the comment that 92% of people chose to answer the voluntary question. But it would be wrong to make any sort of assumptions about the 8% who declined, so we must not do that. On the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, I have searched and I've failed to find the bit you are referring to. Since you're asserting that the statement should be in the article, the onus is on you to find the reference. jguk 17:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you are wilfully trying to detract from the real issue. 8% of the population, even if they had all answered the question, and even if they all voted the same way would not make any significant difference to the statistics - only a maximum of less than 8%. I provided a link in the edit text when I repaired your error as to the link you could find the information at. Since you are claiming that the statistics are wrong, feel free to find any other statistics from the last, say, couple of years that contradict it, to put in the article in their place. Since the only person claiming they are wrong is you, and then only because you don't like them, not because of any knowledge you have on the subject, I don't think its necessary. I should have put the link in, for which I apologise, but now I have lost my page history and would have to find it again, and it is not necessary. The Rev of Bru


 * I've started to add more data on irreligiousness into the article. Note: for New Zealand I have treated those who responded 'Don't Know', 'Object to Answering', 'Religion unidentifiable', 'Response outside scope' and 'Not stated' as not adequately answering the question. The New Zealand data include people who have identified more than one religion twice. I have assumed that those not adequately answering the question are only included once. jguk 07:26, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"nonreligion"
what nonsense: the article gives a link to the American Heritage dictionary, apparently in order to show that "irreligion" has hostile connotations, as opposed to "non-religion" which does not. Far from substantiating this, the AHD gives "hostility or indifference towards religion" for irreligion, while it doesn't have an entry for "non-religion". That's as it should be, because non-religion isn't a well-formed word. It does have "unreligious", otoh,, which simply treats "religion" as an English, not a Latin word. In order to keep this silly distinction between negative prefixes, please begin with substantiating that "non-religion" is even a respectable word. dab (&#5839;) 23:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The case against "irreligion"

 * Being in a dictionary doesn't earn "irreligion" a place in an encyclopedia. They're two different types of book.  For example "tired" gets a disambiguation page, and "Extremely" doesn't get an article at all.  Meanwhile "Richard Stallman" and "free software licences" have lengthy, well-referenced articles without being in any dictionary.  So is-in-dictionary is the wrong thing to look for.


 * A good thing to look for is whether or not the topic is coherent.   So there will be an article about GPL, MPL, and the X11 licence, because they are all part of a coherent set.  They are free software licences.  And there will be an article about Richard Stallman's programming work, political work, and his lifestyle, because those three things are also part of a coherent set.  They go in the Richard Stallman article.


 * Non-religion, IMO, is a pretty coherent topic: those who don't align themselves with any religion. However, "irreligion", does not seem to me to be a coherent topic.  It talks about atheists, "general secularists" (whatever they are), heretics (despite the possibility that religous people can commit heresy).  Having an article about "irreligion" is like having an article about "carrots and railway tracks" or an article about "sleep and pencils".


 * So I think a "non-religous" article should be written, and much of the data from this article should be move there. Then the rightful existence of this article should be reconsidered. Just my 2c. Gronky 04:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedias are very different books from dictionaries, but encyclopedias should, as a general rule, use words that are common in dictionaries in preference to words that are not. And clearly there is no reason to have articles on both irreligion and nonreligion, as they are barely sufficiently noteworthy to merit articles as one topic, and clearly fail to meet encyclopedic standards if their articles turn into only being about the word, rather than being about irreligious/nonreligious people and ideas in general. So common usage outweighs. Feel free to revamp and rewrite this page, but I don't see any basis for forking it. -Silence 18:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course encyclopedias should use words from dictionaries. Nobody's discussing that.  The point is that encyclopidia's have article about topics, not about words.  "History of Belgium" is a coherrent topic (but it is not a word, but like "non-religous", it is given a title which is made of words).  "Irreligion" is not a coherrent topic.  "Non-religous" is.  Wikipedia should have an article about "non-religous" people - and this should not be blocked by the existence of an article on a different topic, and it particularly shouldn't be blocked by the existence of an article which shouldn't exist due to the incoherrent nature of it's claimed topic. Gronky 09:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

3 meanings
Irreligion (or irreligious) has at least 3 meanings
 * lack of religion (with 2 forms - simple lack or deliberate lack)
 * hostility to religion
 * behaving in such a way that fails to live up to one's religious tenets

Only one is given in the article - although the third is discussed indirectly.

See http://ctlibrary.com/4150 and http://www.bartleby.com/68/30/3430.html

The article could also mention SCOTUS' usage of the term - though which of the 3 it meant is not completely certain.

--JimWae 06:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * JimWae: You're right that the other two definitions ought to be mentioned in the article, just as long as it is made clear what sense is meant in the table (I believe the sense is the same as "non-religious" in the table). Rohirok 05:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Are we talking about someone who is actively atheist such as Stephen Hawking, or someone who actually believes in "more the merrier" in going to all places of worship to seek good lucks, and who reads all the star zodiacs for advice? Both could be classified under "no religion". --JNZ 04:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Norway?
In Norway 89 % of the population is atheists...

And in other countries many people may have been baptized and registered as for example Christians, but see them selves as atheists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.108.215.195 (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Sweden
how can sweden be that non religious when in all articles about sweden say that the country is 87% Lutheran


 * That number refers to membership in Svenska Kyrkan (Church of Sweden). Until a few years ago all babies born by Swedish parents (by citizenship) were automatically members of Svenska Kyrkan.Skrofler (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

this article is pretty incorect the only correct bits I could find is about china —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gon4z (talk • contribs)
 * Swedes have a complicated relationship to religion. While most Swedes wouldn't describe themselves as having a Christian faith most Swedes are still members of the Church of Sweden, the former state church. Very few Swedes attend the church services, still church weddings, infant baptism, church funerals and priest-led summer celebrations in the schools are very important for many Swedes. In fact, a common opinion is that "Church is nice, but why do they have to talk so much about God?" /213.226.72.40 19:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not surprised by this. It brings to mind friends who claim to be "culturally Catholic" but do not believe in Catholocism.  They grew up Catholic, it's a part of their heritage, family and traditions.  They go to church and celebrate holidays, and it's important to them because it's a part of their life and how they were raised, but when it comes down to it, they have their own beliefs about the divine and if you ask them if they believe Jesus is the son of God they will say "no, it's just a myth".Rglong 19:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is similar in all of the north-Europe countries Bambinn (talk) 05:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and speaking as a Swede, the reason behind the large percentage is that we're usually born into our religion, largely due to the tradition of baptizing our children, not because we love Jesus Christ, but the tradition itself. The same reason behind our church marriages. The tradition is often/usually stronger than our faith, given polls on religions appearing every now and then here, and it's not uncommon our greatest involvement with the church is at birth, marriage, funerals, and the taxes we pay to it for their services to us. It's common among Swedes to believe in an abstract, but undefined, "Force" though. &mdash; Northgrove 18:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Table
I'm not so sure about the blue colour of the table. What is wrong with good ol' grey? -- Alan Liefting- talk - 08:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Iran
Just because agnosticism/atheism is illegal in Iran, it doesn't mean that the people's beliefs are determined like that. --134.83.1.233 12:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a sourced reason to change something, or a suggestion for better wording? WLU 14:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Morality section 2007-12-22

 * Secular humanists tend to base their moral systems on what it is felt is good for themselves, their families, other human beings, other sentient beings in this world.'

This is quite an oversimplification - it would probably be better to leave this topic to an article that can deal with it more completely. This ignores those who use reason (rather than "feelings") to justify morality - such as murder, theft are wrong by their definition as unjustly killing, taking - Also ignores virtue ethics. Section should be deleted, perhaps leaving a pointer to article that deals with topic appropriately--JimWae (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

As of 2007-12-25
 * Secular humanists base their moral systems on reason, deriving values from an awareness of evidence and consequences of their actions. Humanist Manifesto 2000< /ref>

As least we have a ref now - and a mention of "reason". However, Utilitarianism is not the ONLY way non-religious people reason ethically, One sentence sourced from one magazine cannot begin to deal with this topic adequately. I will try to find some wiki-articles that make a decent start, anyway --JimWae (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

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

NEGATIVE
 * 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

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

NOT CLEARLY NEUTRAL
 * quality of not being devout

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) 06:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the original source of this attempt to neutrally redefine "irreligion" was a SCOTUS decision pertaining to the First Amendment. The word has not yet, and given its etymology may never, become neutral --JimWae (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Something else
Hmm I'm not sure how accurate that data is. It lists Australia being more religious than Chile?? I've lived in both countries for a long time and I can tell you that probably 2 out of 3 people you meet in Australia are not religious whereas most people in Chile are quite fanatical Catholics that worship the Pope and they go crazy for him like he was Elvis or something. Chile isn't even a secular country, the archbishop of Santiago has a lot of power and governments often have to consult him and other leading priests on many issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.62.20 (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Finnish value way off.
If you look at Religion_in_Finland, you can immediately see that 16% of Finns have no belief in supernatural what-so-ever, so you can see right away that the 11% or so for Finns who are irreligious is way off. Practically we're a secular country. The real percentage is somewhere near to that of Swedes, maybe a little lower. This can change w/time thou, because there's a comparatively large muslim population in Sweden.

SuurMyy (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Here's a link the real values in Zuckerman/2005. Finnish stands at 28-60%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuurMyy (talk • contribs) 01:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It being a "secular" country means next to nothing. Countries like Turkey and the U.S. have strong secular traditions and yet believers are the overwhelming majority. What I know of Finland leads me to think it would be closer to them than a countries like Estonia, the Czech Republic, or China. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Dentsu
Almost all the stats are from the same source - Dentsu. Everything at their site is in Japanese & I cannot confirm anything at all. Doesn't anyone have a source in English??? --JimWae (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous Wording
In the introduction: Irreligous people of that type Of what type? --ThorstenNY (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Translation of the Dentsu source
Hi! I did a quick translation of the text at the dentsu site and I'm working on the translation of the graph. Do you think uploading it(especially the graph, the text says what is seen) to wikipedia constitutes fair use? the graph is the result of a study conducted in 2000, with many universities and researchers participating worldwide. and this graph is from the Japanese Research Center. help people Gangerli (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You know Japanese? Then explain what's up with the Dentsu research? If it truly cites people who adhere to no religion from different countries then you would conclude several ridiculous conclusions such as:

1) China has more Christians than Buddhists

2) Over 1.7 milliard people don't believe in any religion, this is higher than Islam and it rivals Christianity( note that high populous countries like Brazil weren't included, so who knows what would happen if they included every country)

3) The UK has no atheists(when in reality it should be at bare minimum 20% atheist)

4) Sweden and Denmark don't even make it to the top 20 most irreligious countries(Despite the fact that they top the list in the other 2 researches)

I could go on, and I would check more behind it if I could but reading Japanese is still my weak point. But from what I see this study cites official figures, and if this is correct then it would definitely explain a couple of things like why China tops the list, not many are assigned at Buddhist temples, but over half of China is Buddhist and a third adhere to the Taoic religions. Dr,A,Smith reported that 50-80% of China is Buddhist, according to a 1990 census 91% of China is Buddhist, according to the world Christian encyclopedia only 8% of China is atheist and around 394 million adhere to the taoic religions So right off the bat it's clear the the 93% "no religion" figure for China can't be true. It would also explain why estimates from Sweden and Denmark top the list in Zuckerman's research and the Gallup poll while in the Dentsu research they don't make it to the top 20 and have less than 26% people with "no religion"(most people are assigned at churches merely because their ancestors associated with it, but church attendance is very low)

So if someone has a better explanation, I would like to hear it. What's up with the Dentsu research? Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

English sources please
WP:RSUE --JimWae (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * According to, Dentsu's report was based on World Values Survey Project. So, you can verify the source data and publications... --Masao (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Brazil
I am atheist and i don't understand why my country in the map is gray.The brazilian census says that more than 7% of the brazilian population don't have religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.160.122 (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe in god, and for that matter the first diagram
The first diagram on the page is very, very suspicious to me. There's no information about what data it was derived from, and the image is not attributed to anything. There's no title on the map, it could be a map of anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.111.177 (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm leaving a message for the uploader to give him/her an opportunity to add the source. It is labeled however, just as the other map is.  The only difference is the lack of a source.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Religion in Iceland
alot of these numbers make no sense.. i for one live in Iceland, and 90% of the country is by no way religious, on the contrary i would say 90% of the people are irreligious, so i think someone should check that out (Bambinn (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC))

Definition?
A more prominent source would be nice, as Dictionary.com isn't as reliable as some other sources. Almost all of my English teachers have said to use other definitions, or to use the American Heritage/M-W one's/Oxford English Dictionary on D.com. I'm not even sure if the word is correct as there are discrepancies across multiple dictionaries.

For one, merriam-webster.com lists irreligion as (after redirect to irreligious):


 * 1 : neglectful of religion : lacking religious emotions, doctrines, or practices 


 * 2 : indicating lack of religion

While Websters Revised says(via Dictionary.com):


 * The state of being irreligious; want of religion; impiety.

American Heritage says (via Dictionary.com):


 * Hostility or indifference to religion.

Also, coupled with the negative connotation of the word (the prefix), I feel like the category accompanying it should be renamed entirely. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  04:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Atheism being illegal in Iran
I have seen nothing in our articles about Religion in Iran and Religious freedom in Iran about this and when Googling I find nothing. The soruce used does not say this either form what I can see, and even if it did I doubt the quality of the soruce. Futhermore the inclusion of this fact here, instead of in Religious freedom in Iran, seems quite much like using Wikipedia as a soap box. Perscution of atheists should be in other articles where that information is missing. Jeltz talk  20:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Great Article
Keep up the good fight. Especially glad that it shows China, where belief in "spirits" began to be isolated to the ignorant and uneducated 2000 years ago, as the densest region of fundamental groundedness on the planet. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * An encyclopaedia is not an appropriate place for keeping up any sort of fight, whether or not we might personally believe it to be a good one. This is not an article about 'fundamental groundedness' (interesting choice of words, by the way).  It is an article about irreligion, however the editors collectively choose to interpret that term.  Personally, I have no concerns about this article (aside the obvious problem of the wide variation in statistical data), but whether it is a good article or not depends on more than whether a reader feels it proves any particular point about religious belief.  There are numerous forums available online for those wishing either to support or attack religion. - Laterensis (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Gallup data
The data from the Gallup survey gives figures that differ widely to the other surveys and seem to be suspiciously high. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Gallup data should be removed and replaced with data from census figures (where available). Census figure should be more reliable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at Azerbaijan. Ridiculous. (Mttll) (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC))


 * I have added the description for the poll data. Question "is religion important" fits the definition of irreligion as "indifference to religion". Azerbaijan (74%) for instance is a former Soviet Union country, where "atheism has been a state religion" for over 70 years. At the same time data for Tajikistan (also FSU) shows only 21% irreligious population. So the poll shows the diversity, and is not based on assumptions. The removal of the data is inadequate. But considering possible errors due to small population samples the census data for all countries could be provided as well. The year and the question should be indicated. Keep in mind that census data is usually in line with "government opinion" and does not represent the "truth" as well. The more data is provided in the list, the better it fits WP:NPOV. Emilfaro (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would imagine that most Western democracies would have reliable census data that is not massaged to be in line with "government opinion". I will add a fourth column that includes census figures. Not that a poll is only a limited subset of a countries population. A census is pretty close the the whole population so it would be more accurate. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately imagination has nothing to do with NPOV :-) Take the CIA Factbook as an example: birth rates minus death rates are not equal to population growth, and if you add net migration this divergence gets even worse. Population counting is a trivial matter, but I was quite surprised to see this in the CIA data, which I have previously considered a very reliable source :-) And if you look a the situation with religion percentages calculation - it is much more complicated: it is based on polls, and any census differs from the Gallup Poll only by the size of the population sample. But the main drawback remains the same: which question is being asked, you ask population the correct question, you change the result. And in each country a different question can be asked. And censuses appear in different years. So it is not very correct to compare this information, isn't it? So better add it to the list, not replace the Gallup. Regards! Emilfaro (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is interesting: with the 23 April 2009 update, the CIA has corrected all the mismatches, but Afghanistan. The population growth rate strangely does not include 2.1% of population immigration (relative to present situation; this makes almost 700'000 people a year). What the hell they go there for? To grow poppy or to fight the troops? (The mistake for Montenegro of 1.1% could be simply, because they have forgotten to include it in the migration list. Mistake for Niger of -0.06% does not include emigration, and the one for Western Sahara of -0.02% is again because it's not on the migration list.) For all other countries the mistake is 0.00%, so it makes the Afghan misrepresentation look really strange... Emilfaro (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Zuckerman data
There is a problem with the Zuckerman data - it doesn't mention "irreligion", it talks about "atheism and agnosticism/non-belief in god". They are not the same thing. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 03:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice try :-) One of definitions of Atheism is the absence of belief. One of definitions of Irreligion is the absence of religion. Not the same, but close. Emilfaro (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

strict definition(?)
The article says "Dentsu Communication Institute provides data for respondents, who stated they have "no religion". And Zuckerman gives the most strict definition citing "atheist and agnostic" proportion numbers."

Why is Zuckerman's definition more strict? This is not necessarily so. I think that actually "no religion" is a more strict category that "agnostic". Look, for example, at Greece, Austria, Iceland, and other countries where the percentage is much higher in Zuckerman's survey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allinthebrain (talk • contribs) 06:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the Dentsu gives the higher numbers, sometimes Zuckerman does... You could try to formulate that phrase differently. Emilfaro (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Was page move appropriate?
On January 29, 2009, User:Orhan94 moved Irreligion to Irreligion by country. I do not think this is appropriate. I would suggest reverting the move and then cutting the section titled "List of countries by Irreligion" (which should have a lowercase "i" in "Irreligion" BTW) from Irreligion and pasting it to a new article titled Irreligion by country. Thus the page history is preserved at Irreligion, and the "by country" list is split off to its own page. The Irreligion article would only be a stub-class, but it should have its own article and should encourage expansion. Support/Object? --64.85.215.122 (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should be Irreligion and Irreligion by country articles. I am ambivalent as to whether it is acheived by the above method or some other means. The page history is preserved regarless of method used. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that move was silly. That's like moving religion to "religion by country". NathanLee (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Renamed. By the looks of that author it was a drive by renaming effort. No consultation or prior input on the topic.. NathanLee (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Believers - Religion map 2005.svg
This map has been introduced to the English version of the Irreligion article on the 9 February 2009. It has peacefully existed among the other maps almost two months until 7 April 2009, when a Romanian user acting as 86.121.8.32, 86.121.8.94, 86.121.8.144, 86.121.9.74, who mainly edits articles on prostitution, started to fiercely remove the map from the article. The map itself has a clear source - the World Christian Database, which is a database open for scientific studies. The database itself is based on the World Christian Encyclopedia (ISBN-13: 978-0195079630) and the World Christian Trends (ISBN-13: 978-0878086085). It is clear that the map has a good source. Moreover this map is the only one, that provides a christian POV on the matter, when all the other maps provide a secular POV, which is determined by a broad definition of irreligion. So, if this map is not included in the article, the article becomes biased and violates WP:NPOV, being anti-religious. Could the above-mentioned Romanian user explain, why he is trying to ignore the complexity of the subject and hush up the fact, that there is no social consensus on the matter of religion, and the factual number of religious believers is disputable. I would like to say, that I have added the Gallup poll data for irreligion, which are quite high estimates. My only interest is for the article not to violate WP:NPOV. Emilfaro (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Map is not reliable/colour of Norway, Denmark and Iceland
I am not the only person who has removed this map. It was also removed by user 203. 59. 240. 226. He/she explained "the provided source doesn't contain stats that match the map, and there's no way a country like Norway is more religious than the US..." (revision 293464483 on 31 May). I think that says it all. So unless you offer a direct LINK to a source which states that Norway, Denmark and Iceland are some of the most religious countries in the world (when all the present imformation from this article and from all the other Wikipedia articles shows exactly the opposite-that they are some of the most secular countries of the world-) this map should not stay. So please don't add this map again, unless the majority of the other editors agree. Discuss this first with all the other editors. As I said above, and as 203. 59. 240. 226 said, it's pretty difficut to convince anyone that this map is correct, when it shows Norway, Denmark and Iceland to be as religious as Saudi Arabia (and more religious than countries such as the US or Italy). I didn't remove this map because I'm biased, and neither do I want to create a POV article, I removed it simply because it it not reliable and it does not offer a link to a source which shows this stats so we can all see them. I am not trying to ignore the complexity of the subject, and you can add a Christian source to the article, but it needs to be a reliable one and we need to see the exact stats from the source.


 * First, I would expect you to think in terms of trust, assuming that a person capable of making maps would not misinform you (which is basically a Wikipedia policy), as the creator of this map did not misinform you. Second, a web link is not a requirement for a good source. Third, you could do your own research before removing something. World Christian trends, AD 30-AD 2200 (p.412) says in Christianity (church members): Denmark - 89.8%, Iceland - 94.4%, Norway - 94.2%. Now, as you have not done of anything from the above, I shall assume you being biased, and the next most obvious step for you should be - claim that a church member could be an irreligious person. But, that is a secular POV. Christian POV would be, that such person is religious until he "goes out" of the Church. The WP:NPOV lies between those POVs - and both numbers should be mentioned, or at least the map should be included. But I am not interested in this stupid fight with you, and just feel sorry for your stubbornness. Good luck! Emilfaro (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Religion in Norway, Denmark and Iceland-map
As you said, simply claiming that a church member could be an irreligious person, is not enough and is POV. However, most church members from Norway, Denmark and Iceland are irreligious, this is not just a "claim", it is a statement supported by evidence. Do some reserach on Wikipedia: Religion in Norway: the article reads "(...) Kevin Boyle, a professor of history at the Ohio State University says, "Most members of the state church are not active adherents, except for the rituals of birth, confirmation, weddings, and burials. Some 3 per cent on average attend church on Sunday." ". The same article also reads: "In 2005, a survey conducted by Gallup International in sixty-five countries indicated that Norway was the least religious country in Western Europe, with 29% counting themselves as believing in a church or deity, 26% as being atheists, and 45% not being entirely certain. " Religion in Denmark reads: "In general, Danes are not very religious, with church attendance being generally low. According to a 2005 study by ZuckermanDenmark has the third-highest proportion of atheists and agnostics in the world, estimated to be between 43% and 80%, as many do not practice their faith". Religion in Iceland reads : "In total, some 90% of the population are registered as some form of Lutheran. However, these statistics are by some considered misleading since most people are automatically registered as members of the Church of Iceland. Estimates indicate that 11% of the population attend religious service regularly and 44% never attend". Being automatically registered as a church member at birth does not make a person religious. Norway, Demark and Iceland are some of the most secular countries in the world, this is common knoledge to everybody, there are dozens and dozens of studies showing this, you sholud do some research. These people might be church members in name, but they do not attend church servicies, they do not practice their religion, and many of them are (as all polls have shown) agnostics or atheists. The fact that most people from these countries are not religious is not a "claim", it is a fact supported by overwhelming evidence.

A map showing these countries to be some of the most religious countries in the world is simply innacurate. And by the way, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you or to push any POV, I simply want this article to be reliable and to reflect the objective situation from these countries. And I am not the only editor to have removed the map.

false information
The Gallup list contains different numbers from the actual Gallup site (e.g. Azerbaijan mentioned to have 74% irreligiousness but the number in the Gallup site is 47% ... a very big difference). Actually most of the numbers in the list are wrong. And there are even some countries left out like Syria, which actually has the highest percentage of irreligiouness in the Arabic-speaking countries. This list is, like many articles in Wikipedia, pathetic.


 * I've checked. Leaving aside the unpleasantness, it does look like the data now available from Gallup for 2009 is signficantly at variance with the data on the table for last year.  So much so that surely the table is wrong.  I don't want to update on my own without comment from other editors. --Dannyno (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It needs a logon which I don't have. Can you post the data here or if that is too hard should I get a logon to help ? We could just add a new column for this new poll so we can show "trend", though 74 > 47 looks like a transposition error or a radical change to the collection methods. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If I get time, I'll try and do it, but maybe others can do it quicker. Registration for this particular information is free, so anyone could get a logon, no problem. --Dannyno (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason for the numbers to differ, is the new Gallup poll for 2009. For the "Religion Important" thing - 42% say "No" for Azerbaijan now. Numbers should differ so much either because of the bad samples of 2008 or 2009 editions, or because of a recent brainwashing campaign, which tries to make religion more important all over the FSU. Free limited access to the database is still easily obtainable with no fees. Emilfaro (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Original research
Basically, sources have to clearly mention 'irreligion', it's not up to us as editors to decide what sources match our chosen definition. Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You guys will soon make Wikipedia an uninhabited place with no editors, but only users. Emilfaro (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Amoralism?
I'm going to remove the See Also pointing to Amoralism, as I see no logical connection between amoralism and irreligiosity other than someones bias. If there is no trustworthy source pointing to a connection between them, then I see no reason for it to stay here. Kvintessents (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is the list gone?
It seems like a very important list, given the fact that religions have each a list with adherents. Non-religious should also have a list with an amount of adherents. Instead of deleting the list, the name of the article can be adapted to the list. Or, a clear description can be made of the difficulties of making such a list. What about making several lists with low and high estimates.

There appear to be problems with China and Sweden. I think both countries have a similar attitude to religion. The main religion most people adher to is very moderate. So, a majority officially belongs to a religion but when they are asked to will respond not having a religion. That is also my situation, since i am officially roman catholic, but i don't believe in god. Apperently this figure is 93% in China. So be it. Just mention the number and than apparently 1.6 billion people are non-religious. I am counted as roman catholic, but i prefer to be counted as well as non-religious.Daanschr (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you've illustrated the problem. You'd be counted twice. We can't write our own 'clear description of the difficulties of making such a list' as that would be original research. As Barry Reay wrote in Popular culture in seventeenth-century England‎ - Page 101 "Normally it is better to talk of anticlericalism and scepticism, or irreligion, none of which is quantifiable" . There's plenty of scope for expansion of the article, but numbers, I doubt it. Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Research and writing an article based on original research are two different things. Wikipedia can't be an encyclopedia entirely consisting out of quotes. And it isn't. Nearly 100% of the texts on Wikipedia are written by users. We use facts from outside Wikipedia, and we discuss these facts on the talk page on whether they are important enough to be in the article.

Gallup and Zuckerman are respectable sources and can't just be deleted for being original research. A compromise could be that the table is being replaced to the article irreligion by country and that the redirects to that page will be fixed. I got the Cambridge Companion to atheism at home so i can add aditional sources to the list.Daanschr (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The article in the Cambridge Companion on the number of atheists is from Zuckerman.Daanschr (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Zuckerman uses multiple researches to come to his numbers, so if Dentsu is only one kind of research, than Zuckerman should be seen as more important.Daanschr (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Gallup and Zuckerman don't contradict each other. Zuckerman only mentions atheists and agnosts, while Gallup mentions all those he think that religion is not important. A third option would be to add all those who are not officially religious, and than we got a good list, i think.Daanschr (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

To respond to your quote from Barry Reay, apparently there are those like Zuckerman and Gallup who do seem to think it is important to count the amount atheists, agnostics or non-religious. There are those who deny the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide, should these articles be deleted as well for no original research according to your view?Daanschr (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You can of course find polls that count the number of people saying they are atheist or agnostic. Can you provide me a link with the Gallop poll you are referring to? Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's in the old article Daanschr (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You have to register and then you don't go to a specific poll, so that's not very useful. Do you know the name and date of the poll? Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That is the problem of Wikipedia. Now we have to find the editor who put this on. What i don't understand is that you don't see the importance of the subject. You focus too much on the rules, while you can also focus on whether a subject is important to be covered. This article was started in 2003 and has been changed numerous times. What gives you the right to singlehandedly delete the work of a lot of editors in the past years?Daanschr (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)