Template talk:Belief systems

message: *Since when is it NPOV to characterize agnosticism and atheism as belief systems?
*A more appropriate title might be: Positions on Existence of Deities OR Theological Positions
*not sure monism should be here either--JimWae 00:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Atheism is clearly a belief system about God, albeit a null God.  Agnosticism is similarly a null belief system.  Both belong in any list of belief systems, else this is equivalent to saying zero is not a number. — Randall Bart (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Tomato or tomato; It is just semantics. The name of the title is fine, but religious belief systems should probably be changed though. It seems that atheists trys to be elusive, so that no one will actually understand what atheists believe and thus be able to criticize it; like atheism has some magical ability to not be characterized with other belief systems. It is ridiculous that atheism actually considers itself a non-belief. Even weak atheism requires a belief in what is the "natural" position or what I would consider it the "default" position to take in such matter. Templates are not places to argue the finer points of philosophy; most people recognize atheism as a belief system and it thus belongs on a template with the rest.--Jorfer 17:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Monism is not always relating to a theological position just like you say atheism is not necessarily a belief system, but I would say it merits this template so the argument could go both ways. Your seem to think that it is axiomatic that Atheism is not a belief system. The evidence is not sufficient to support belief in a higher power, that the negative is true until the positive is proved, there is no ultimate authority in the universe, truth can only be subjective, no one can save us, we must save ourselves, etc. It sounds like a system of beliefs to me.--Jorfer 19:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The non-religious ones were included before I ever touched the template. From looking at it, it appears this template is supposed to be the most notable belief systems from that list.--Jorfer 19:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That is actually a good idea then. We will still have a problems with people including Pastafarianism or Conservative Judaism for example, but it won't be as broad. Monism and dualism do not necesarilly relate to theology, but it is fair then to include it here as the theological side as it is already included in the philosophy template. I support the name change then, but you should wait for one more supporter to establish a consensus.--Jorfer 20:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Should the Flying Spaghetti Monster really be here?
As I understand it, it is a joke, not an actual belief, and further, is a single belief, rather than a belief system, as the template seems to intend.
I'll remove it, if somebody disagrees you can put it back, and respond to the two points above. --71.192.116.43 22:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FSM? 

message: Why is deism  under theism? --212.247.27.81 19:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deism isn't theism 

message: Since this template isn't the atheism template, but the general belief systems template, it seems inconsistent and in my opinion POV to have tons of links to atheism articles such as demographics, list of, criticism, ect., and not have links to for instance demographics of theism, list of animists, criticism of pantheism ect.  I however think it's a little much for all that in the template, so it should just have links to each basic article and then the reader can go from there.  Otherwise to avoid inconsistency and POV the template will become too large and burdonsome.  If the atheists are bummed that they are not getting their proper due, then just reestablish the general atheism template seperate from this one, or should we merge all religious templates into this one to have it be consistent and NPOV?  As I have said, I don't think that's a good idea. Roy Brumback 05:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine: there is no undue weight vio, it's a template, not an article. •Jim62sch• 21:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you saying this template can be unbalanced toward one belief system because it's a template, and that thus a general belief system template can have a POV stacking it with tons of articles about atheism and only one link each to all other belief systems? Roy Brumback 22:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heads up to the WP:3RR. Please stop reverting non blatant vandalism. Tiddly-Tom 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't vandalism at all to make good faith edits over content.  Atheism and agnosticsm were not deleted, only scaled down to be consistent with the other links on the template. Roy Brumback 22:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not the title, it's the sprawling content.... why do Binitarianism and Gnosticism and Pandeism need a template with links to Demographics of atheism? If the content of the template is not made sane, then the alternative is that the template should be removed from articles where those links are not necessary.... //// Pacific PanDeist * 23:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not call that sprawling by any stretch of the imagination. It's not that they need the links, but that it would be helpful for anyone researching the subject of belief systems to be able to easily find what Wikipedia articles are available without having to jump to multiple closely related templates or searching through unorganized query results.--Jorfer 15:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's definitely more logical now.... if you want all different concepts, then make different templates and put as many templates as you want on pages where they make sense.... Pacific PanDeist 17:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight given to agnostism/atheism links

message: I think we should have a little cooling off period. Roy has made a good compromise in my view. I was a little heavy handed in proposing protection so this is a conciliatory acknowledgment. It looks consistent as is. Gregbard 06:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with it as is after this reasonable trim.... //// Pacific PanDeist * 12:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This version looks good to me.

message: No mention of theism or atheism, and despite the fact that determinism is mentioned (I've never heard of it described as religious) it's opposite (libertarianism, not the political thing, but the philosopical belief) isn't mentioned.
--RucasHost 02:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with readding atheism back in - as people say above, it's not a belief system (either that, or we rename to something like "theological positions" as suggested above). Given that Template:Irreligion has now been created (presumably to solve this dispute), I don't see why we need to start adding the entries back in here as well. I presume the intent of the earlier edit removing atheism  was to get rid of all the entries that are now covered in the new templates. Mdwh 13:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template isn't very good 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Belief_systems&diff=prev&oldid=176921648
There is strong disagreement that all those entered into Religious beliefs group truly belong there, tho' I agree with moving Deism. I have removed the group label - because there's no point in having a single group AND because many are NOT "religious beliefs". I do think it serves a function to have 2 groups & a revert of the above edit may be in order --JimWae (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'd say this edit has ignored this talk page 

message: Panentheism should be added to the following Template:Belief systems  list. 193.255.108.20 (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Panentheism

message: Haqq-Muhammad-Ali and Tawhid should be added into your list.
 68.100.175.30 (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Haqq-Muhammad-Ali]] and [[Tawhid]] 

message: democracy and sufism are also religion
Jonas123~trwiki (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2015