Talk:Religious belief

message: The sections on reasons for adherence/rejection should be referenced in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability as well as Wikipedia:Citing sources, which reads, "The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words such as, 'Some people say…' Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion." I don't think we need to cite individuals by name, but each claim should have at least one reference, even if it seems obvious. Citing sources will help us avoid straw men, and the process of looking for sources should reveal which aspects of religion most influence the respective stances of believers and unbelievers.
Also, I think we should try to find sources dealing with religion in general, keeping in mind that the religion English sites will tend to focus most on is Christianity ("why I am a Buddhist" gives me 64 hits on Google, compared to 42,800 for "why I am a Christian"). And we should probably focus on the deciding factor(s) of adherence and rejection (while mentioning lesser factors as the article currently does). — Elembis 04:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tagged the article accordingly, though the tag implies that original research is acceptable, since it is ambiguous. Mike0001 (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and the adherence/rejection sections 

message: Four of the five images in this article are related to Hinduism.  That seems a little out of wack given that the page talks about all religious belief..  I will be replacing some of the Hinduism pictures with those of Christianity and Buddhism. -- Jeff3000 17:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, now we have a single image for Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism.  Much better representing different religious belief. -- Jeff3000 17:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Under "Modern reasons for rejection of religion":
"Childhood indoctrination and ethics": Many atheists, agnostics, and others see early childhood education in religion and spirituality as a form of brainwashing or social conditioning, essentially concurring with the Marxian view that "religion is the opiate of the masses", with addiction to it fostered when people are too young to choose. 
There's a lot wrong with this. 
First, religion is the opiate of the masses should not be in quotes -- this is a misquote of Marx. 
What Marx actually wrote is: "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
Second, from that quote, it's clear that by the phrase "the opium of the people," Marx meant that oppressed people turn to religion because it relieves their pain, not that religion is an addiction.
Third, neither the correct nor the incorrect version of Marx here have anything to do with the topic at hand, which is "Childhood indoctrination and ethics." What's being addressed here is the view that religious belief is sustained, at least in part, through childhood indoctrination rather than rational choice. It's a real stretch to call this a "Marxian" view.
Fourth, to call this idea "Marxian" is not NPOV. The call this a "Marxian" view is to call those holding it "Marxists." Given the unpopularity of Marxists, and the fact that the application of the label is so strained, it's hard to see this as anything other than a smear.
I plan to remove this reference to Marx from this section. I may add a section under "Modern Reasons..." about Marx's critique of religion. I wanted to document my reasons in advance, and to hear any counter-arguments offered.
216.162.196.34 08:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Reasons/Childhood Indoctrination 

message: I've removed this quote, attributed to GHW Bush, as a blp concern, in response to comment on Talke: Separation of Church and State about its dubious sourcing.  -- Vary | Talk 08:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "'I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens" 

message: I removed the link to IsGodReligious.com because it seems to be the Facebook or MySpace of creating your own religion.  The link is to a website with no established resources on faith; it seems to be marketing and was added by someone not logged in.  If anyone thinks it's relevant, please note why here rather than simply restoring it without explanation. Tiresias BC (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IsGodReligious.com - Link-marketing? 

message: The article makes no or a very weak attempt at distinguishing religions belief form adherence or religions faith in general. These concepts are very different indeed. Belief is an intellectual performance found in "literate", codified book religions, diametrally opposed to "pagan" religion where adherence is defined by the performance of rituals. Even in Christianity, you can easily be a practicing Christian (essentially, attend mass, take the eucharist) without any intellectual belief whatsoever. The article needs to be much more explicit about this distinction, and much material that is at present included is in fact offtopic. Many examples given concern religious worship, not belief. --dab (𒁳) 09:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: article scope

message: I remeber reading in an interview of Bill Gates that he said something about having better things to do on a Sunday than attend the church.  Would it be appropriate to link to Bill Gates in the Opportunity cost bullet of the modern reasons against religion section with a reference? NerdyNSK (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be best to provide a citation quoting Gates making this statement. Sunray (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Gates 

message: who have what this article calls "religious belief" do not "believe" as such. we KNOW GOD IS REAL PRAISE THE LORD JESUS. 
reference to "religious belief" is tolerated as a polite courtesy to heathens. there will be no such politeness on wikipedia. we will tell the truth about our savior for all to hear. glory glory halleleujiah. Codigo'll aka Huh? 15:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  people 

message: On religious pluralism the article states: "People with pluralist beliefs make no distinction between faith systems, viewing each one as valid within a particular culture". 
I removed quote from Koran, al-Baqara verse 62, as it cannot be interpreted as endorsement of other religions existing after the message of Islam appeared. Islam claims exclusivity of religious truth for all time after the revelation of Koran cf. Sura al-Imran verse 85 and al-Maidah verse 3.
Aksel89 (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam & pluralism 

message: ne how  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.6.13 (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  life in tajikistan 

message: I fail to see any points, under the section "Modern reasons for rejection of religion", which are modern in any way. All of them are old. Ancient. About as old as religion, I'd say--213.113.53.188 (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern reasons for rejection of religion? 

message: The adherence/rejection sections seem to be heavily biased in favor of atheism/agnosticism. The adherence section seems to talk about the adherents in the third person and what they believe (but the author does not necessarily) while the rejection section seems to argue its points in the first person as if they are absolute truth. It even directly accuses believers of discrimination (with respect to homosexuality and speciesism). The rejection section also gets much more space to argue its points and is far too wordy (especially in the last section). There's even a bullet point repeated verbatim in both sections ("Crisis of faith"). The formatting isn't even up to snuff: the title of each bullet point is just placed in quotation marks instead of set apart (by bolding it or something) from the rest of the text. I wholeheartedly agree with the tags above those sections: they need to be rewritten.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.227.77 (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't looked at this but first impression is probably belongs in apostasy. Lycurgus (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias anyone? Adherence/Rejection sections 

message: The discussion for this was apparently automatically set to the merge target. Appears small enough to go, intend to carry the current tagging into the target unless whatever the issue(s) are are also addressed with the merge. Belief is belief, doubtless there are faith and other distinctly religion related article spaces too, not looked closely at content here, am familiar with the target. I think the norm is for the discussion to occur in one place but wanted there to be notice here. Lycurgus (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed my mind on the tagging, after looking a little closer. They are probably stale and rather not carry downlevel text into the merge target, the bulk of the article can merge unchanged. The last §§ may have issues. Thinking they maybe should be dropped or go to apostasy, other titles. Lycurgus (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually last two §§ should be OK with a reduction in size of the second one moving some of the text to footnote. Lycurgus (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Tagging