Atheism is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 8, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 31, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 29, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed April 28, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion FA‑class Top‑importance This article 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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Atheism FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite: If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page. Quick help Project's main talk page Article layout Links to atheism-related information · List of free online resources Writing about religion · Article development Citing sources · Verifying sources · About original research Assume good faith · Be civil Recent activity Core articles the "Atheism" article Articles recently added to Category:Atheism To do edit history watch purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold. Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members. Help with articles. See this month's adopt-an-article. Help out with this to-do list. Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles). Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box) Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it. Maintenance, etc. Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references). Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process). Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly. Always write for an encyclopedia. Articles to improve Agnosticism Create Articles on notable atheists Expand an atheism stub Immediate attention State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments. False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes. Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century. Philosophy: Religion FA‑class High‑importance This article 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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of religion Theology FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

The last sentence in the first opening paragraph reads: "Atheism is contrasted with theism,[5][6] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists."

The sentence structure seems to convey the idea that theism itself asserts the existence of one deity while allowing for the possibility of more.

I recommend it be changed to "Atheism is contrasted with theism,[5][6] which (in its most general form) entails belief in the existence of one or more deities." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synaptic Elucidation (talk • contribs) 08:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why "entails" rather than "is"? How about "belief that a deity or deities exist", to not unduly emphasize an irrelevant matter of quantity? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a note vaguely related to this (since it has to do with the opener) - it might be helpful to reframe the line about the first people who described themselves as "atheists", so that it's clear that the terminology emerged then, rather than the idea. The information about classical India and so on later in the text makes it clear that this line refers only to the term itself, but only in retrospect for those who continue reading. So, perhaps a better phrasing would be "the first people to identify themselves by the term 'atheist' lived in the 18th Century." ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massivereptile (talk • contribs) 02:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. To some degree, I had thought that was clear from the quotation marks around the word "atheist", but I made an edit similar to what you suggested, which I hope will remove any lack of clarity. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According this study, Evans, "Epistemological and Moral Conflict Between Religion and Science", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 50, Issue 4, pages 707–727, December 2011[1], "After controlling for important variables such as education level, income, age, ethnicity, and gender, Evans found that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that religious believers rejected science across the board. In fact, he found that evangelic Protestants had actually taken more college-level science classes than the average non-religious respondent, and that mainline Protestants were more scientifically literate than ordinary Americans! Even conservative fundamentalist Protestants were no less likely to understand important scientific concepts and methods than non-religious Americans with comparable education levels."[2].
I don't know if this is the right WP article for this study but as I read in the article in the Demographic section that "An international study has reported positive correlations between levels of education and not believing in a deity" I could suppose that Evans study could find place in the same section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.169.142 (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand, I would think that Relationship between religion and science might be the best place for that information. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand, the author is clearly attacking a straw man. Also, I'd hate to see his definition of "science". Yet more evidence that our education system is failing miserably. :( Kevin Baas^talk 14:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2.40.169.142, thanks for your comments. I agree with User:Tryptofish in stating that the study can be added to the Relationship between religion and science article. In the near future I can help you add it if you are having any difficulty in doing so. Additionally, I agree with you in that this section needs balanced because the claim that "An international study has reported positive correlations between levels of education and not believing in a deity" is only the finding of one study. A while ago, a notable study that was discussed in CNN showed the converse relationship. When I get some time, I will add it in the article. Thanks for your willingness to improve Wikipedia! With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize when I made my suggestion above that there would be anything controversial here. Let me just make sure to also point to WP:NPOV, and encourage everyone to be aware of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the study in the article but was reverted by User:Abhishikt here, who stated in his/her edit summary that "rv unverifyable content addition. the sources doesn't seem to be fully accessible, reliable or peer-reviewed." The references are clearly given in the article, including the peer reviewed journal (here) as well as a secondary source (here). User:Abhishikt is asked to state his reason for edit warring and removing the information in the article. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 05:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism is not just the rejection of a belief in a deity, atheism is the rejection in the belief of any religious claims, including a soul. For instance, Buddhists are not atheists because they believe in the existence of a soul. This article seems to be saying that atheism is only the belief that God does not exist, which is only part of what atheism is. The first sentence should read "Atheism is the rejection of all theistic claims, including but not limited to the existence of a deity and soul." --Schicagos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

We'd talked about this a couple months back. Our sources say quite clearly that atheism is simply the rejection of theism, and that theism deals only with the god claim. We'd need strong reliable sources to change that definition. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that an editor has concerns about my having deleted the definition of "atheist" from the lead. If I understand correctly, the reason for those concerns is that Atheist redirects to this page. The relevant considerations here are, I think, those given at WP:R#PLA. We already have a hatnote stating that Atheist redirects here, so I think that fulfills the principle of least astonishment. Beyond that, we really don't need to define the word; see also WP:NOTDICT. On one level, it's obvious to anyone that "atheist" is to "person" as "atheism" is to "concept" (or something like concept, let's not argue that, please). It's not difficult to understand, and we don't have to explain it. On the other hand, once we start going down the road of providing a more precise definition, we'll be looking at the same never-ending talk page ride that the definition of atheism has yielded. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find something in the contribution that could survive - because 1> it was "OK" 2> I do not think this article is yet complete, and 3> we should try to overcome the opinion that established editors make it impossible to add anything to this article. ALSO, the sentence

Whether this non-belief needs to be explicit in order to qualify one as an atheist depends on which definition of atheism is used./ref name= Nagel1959/

made some reference back to the three definitions, at least suggests that different people "choose" different definitions, and does not just leave the (probably unexpected) 3 definitions hanging in the air. We have spent many, many hours days on the definitions & the only one in the body that gets extensive treatment is the absence one. The section on definitions has more of a focus on categorizations. Btw, the section "Definition as impossible or impermanent" is not about definition at all but about "actualization" (for want of a better term).--JimWae (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I wasn't in any way finding fault with your edits, trying to make the definition more encyclopedic after the definition was first added by the editor whom I addressed above. I'm sorry if you thought that I was. And it has nothing to do with "established" editors. I would still have reverted it no matter who the editor was, and I would not have reverted it if I thought it was improving the article, no matter who the editor was. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of Atheism seems to have been debated thoroughly, however, the current definition displayed in this article does not follow from the sources cited. The definitions displayed by the sources seem a indicate a definition that would paraphrase the following: "The definition of atheism is controversial. Definitions include a lack of belief in the existence of a god or deities, or an affirmative belief in the nonexistence of a god or deities." The sources do not directly indicate a narrowing of definition and thus this article, to be accurate, should not either. --Michael 23:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Introduction to article: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4][5]" 184.74.137.131 (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Different sources discuss different definitions of the term, and so we have to accommodate each source in some way. Per WP:NOTDICT, we can't begin the article talking about the definition of the term. This article is about the concept, not the definition. It's a subtle nuance, but one you'll hear a lot on this page.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "analysis" in observing that the competing definitions have differing ranges of applicability is pretty trivial; a comparative source would of course be nice, but probably not strictly necessary. I suppose explicitly stating that definitional controversy exists could be an improvement. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see some back-and-forth editing of the demographic data in the lead, about the relative value of two different sources. As is so often the case, this issue has been discussed before. Please see Talk:Atheism/Archive 43#Atheists in EU, Talk:Atheism/Archive 43#Atheism range in EU, Talk:Atheism/Archive 43#2.3% of World Atheist Statistic, Talk:Atheism/Archive 43#Number of atheists in Japan, Talk:Atheism/Archive 43#Japan, Sweden, and Atheism, Talk:Atheism/Archive 43#, Talk:Atheism/Archive 43#Italy most religious EU country?, Talk:Atheism/Archive 48#"Between 64% and 65% of Japanese are atheists, agnostics, or do not believe in God.", and Talk:Atheism/Archive 48#Relevance of Eurobarometer 2005 on strict/non-strict. I don't care a whole lot either way, but editors new to the discussion who do care ought to see what the consensus was then. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the change that was made, not because it used one source over another, but because it was misrepresenting the source. User:LeeMcLoughlin1975 added people who answered "I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" to the number of atheists reported by Eurobarometer. Neither Eurobarometer nor any credible source considers such people "atheists." Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the three definitions given in the lead paragraph of this article, an atheist can believe in spirits and life forces. Atheists can also believe in ghosts, the tooth fairy and the devil simply because atheists are defined by their non-belief in god! 90.200.220.93 (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not saying that they can when you report those figures you're saying that they are. Big difference, especially when that "can" is extremely unlikely. You also cannot extrapolate things like that from sources in general, especially when definitions are contested. Eurobarometer is clearly not considering those people to be atheists. Now stop sock puppeting during your block.Griswaldo (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Eurobarometer poll 2005 it's clear that the theists and deists are marked in dark blue. The atheists are marked in yellow and the agnostics are marked in grey. That leaves just the light blue section 'I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force'. All theists and deists would be in the yellow section so the light blue section has to be made up of atheists and agnostics. The atheist:agnostic ratio of the light blue section can not be determined so the Eurobarometer poll can't provide accurate atheist percentages. It provides a minimum number of atheists (yellow) and a maximum number of atheists (yellow + light blue). 90.192.121.150 (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot say whether people who say "I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" are atheists or not, as that would be synthesis not supported by the source. Therefore we cannot add them to the "atheist" total. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that's what I was saying. The Eurobarometer poll doesn't give accurate atheist percentages and should not be used. 90.192.121.150 (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, so you're opposing LeeMcLoughlin1975, who added the "I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" respondents to the atheist count, and you're therefore not his sock? My view is that we can use the poll, but only to state what the poll said - we can include no interpretation of it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the report in a bit more detail, I agree that we cannot use the Eurobarometer poll to determine the number of self-professed atheists in the countries surveyed, because it does not include that category. For example, for the UK (that's where I am, so it'll do as an example), the results are...

• "I believe there is a God" = 38%
• "I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" = 40%
• "I don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force" = 20%
• "Don't know" = 2% (No figure shown, but 100-(20+40+38)

There is no "I do not believe there is a God" category, and the best we can say is that the poll suggests at least 20% of respondents are atheist. On the subject of belief in God specifically, the 40% in the "I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" category will almost certainly include some agnostics, and it might even include some polytheists and pagans, etc, depending on how they interpreted "a God". The makeup of that group is simply unknown, and we can't categorize its members as theist or atheist - and we certainly can't go to the absurd extreme of calling them all atheists and claiming 60% of UK citizens are atheist. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the John Templeton Foundation a reliable source for the statement "Although in Western culture atheists are often irreligious, some consider themselves spiritual"? source: http://www.templeton.org/templeton_report/20110601/index.html . The actual survey does not mention anything any questions about spirituality [3].IRWolfie- (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The John Templeton Foundation seems to be a controversial organisation, and there has apparently been numerous accusations of it espousing a hidden agenda, so for general statements like that I think we need a better source. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are summarizing a paper published in the journal Sociology of Religion which is itself eminently reliable. The Foundation is also very well respected in academia, though I have personal reservations about their agenda. Their president, John Templeton Jr. donated money to Rick Santorum's superPAC and has all kinds of other ultra-conservative culture wars credentials. However, that does not mean they can't reliably summarize the scholarship of their grantees. It would be better if someone could read the journal article itself. I'll have a look if I can access it.Griswaldo (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the actual paper they are referring to [4], but I do not have access to the last two years of this journal. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems they used the survey I linked to and rang some of the people and asked them open ended questions (their words) and then interpreted those answers. (most of the paper you linked just contains different quotes) IRWolfie- (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what they did, but the paper I linked to is the source for the report on the Templeton website we are currently using as a reference. Do you have access to the paper in Sociology of Religion (I don't)? If our information is accurate I would replace the source with the journal paper, however I'm not sure it belongs in the lead either way.Griswaldo (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's fine for referencing the initial text. It appears to be the definition of spiritual not of an an alleged immaterial reality but of a sense of wonder or similar (pantheism?): For example, from the paper: "I consider myself in one sense a spiritual person, wondering about the complexity and the majesty of existence as I understand it." IRWolfie- (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I misunderstand, but it looks to me like the source is currently deleted from this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Templeton funded psuedoscience with extra propaganda found and deleted. You'll never guess who added it in the first place. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That text was undue nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it "nonsense" or "psuedoscience." It's from a study published in a well respected journal, Sociology of Religion. That said, I agree that it didn't belong in the lead. However, the idea that some atheists may still be spiritual, particularly in the sense that IRWolfie describes above is not only of interest, but it's also nothing new. Just look at the history of the American Secular Humanism. There are plenty of Humanists who have a "spiritual" experience of the grandeur of nature. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes it appeared the description was in the sense of pantheism, since there appear to be two meanings to spiritual it may be misleading; the definition of spirtual in the linked article appears a bit vague. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimwae, you recently added a part about some atheists believing in an afterlife. But the source says atheists often do not believe in an afterlife. Can you explain yourself? Pass a Method talk 04:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the source you added isn't it? If you have read the bottom of the page, you can see it says some atheists do NOT reject an afterlife. If you insist, other sources could be found that say specifically some actually believe in it - as do some belive in reincarnation. The idea is that there it could still be some kind of "natural" process -- i.e. not divinely designed, but still somehow in the "natural laws of the universe" that we do not know about. --JimWae (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. From the source PassaMethod provided...

The idea that nothingness follows death is often associated with atheism. However, it is possible to be an atheist—someone who does not believe in the existence of God or a supreme transcendental Being—and still be open to the possibility, even the hope, that we might survive the death of the body and continue existing in some kind of afterlife. Such atheists still don't believe that there is any kind of theistic Supreme Being that can interact with the earthly world or otherworldly realm, or that there is any kind of deistic God who has created everything but does not interact or intervene with its created world, either earthly or super- natural. There is simply the reality of our human experience, which may be able to continue once our physical bodies have ceased to be viable vehicles for such experiencing.

Handbook to the Afterlife. p. 18.

Nice try. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't actually say that such atheists exist. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... "The book includes practical techniques for opening up communication with those who have passed on to the other side. While of interest to anyone seeking a general overview of the subject, Handbook to the Afterlife is particularly useful for those dealing with spirits who have not moved on, such as ghosts."

Nothing like playing on other editors assumptions of good faith to make a point. Deleted. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, unreliable source, I should have checked out the book. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be putting what are fringe/minority positions amongst atheists into the lede, especially with vague words like "some". IRWolfie- (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well its better than nothing. Atheist opinions about what happens after you die are very important because it is one of the core things that differentiate them from non-atheists. Pass a Method talk 15:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is very important according to who? Do we have any reliable sources that show it is a very important issue? Adding fringe views because it is better than nothing is not a good rationale. If it's not discussed in reliable sources we don't mention it in the article. Especially not in a featured article. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its very important to many religious charts who usually tend to include "afterlife beliefs" regarding any religion or belief-system, e.g. [5]. Also "atheist afterlife" gets 5,000,000 hits on google [6], so its obviously a notable topic. Pass a Method talk 16:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The self-published source doesn't state it's important for them, rather you have declared it to be important (it also lists none under afterlife for atheism). It's irrelevant though as the article isn't about religious charts, it's about atheism and nothing that gives WP:DUE weight for the WP:FRINGE position to be mentioned in this article has been shown. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has no relation to article content, WP:DUE weight does. Also WP:GOOGLEHITS is a poor demonstration of notability or due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irwolfie, Lets agree to disagree then. Im going to start an RFC below. Pass a Method talk 16:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you starting an RFC? You have no sources to back up the text you want included and are ignoring policy and guidelines because they disagree with you. This page is also watched by many others but you haven't waited for a reply from them either (i.e it is premature, the first post in this thread was only 12 hours ago). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily find sources for any of the material i post if you just ask. Since we clearly disagree i see no other option but to start an RfC. You are free to post your opinon below in more detail. Pass a Method talk 17:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also fail to see the point. Atheism is not a belief system. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be relevant if I asked or not? You should be showing sources for any suggested content. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the point of showing sources if we cant even agree on notability. First we establish notability, THEN we can move to reliable sources m'kay? Pass a Method talk 17:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already pointed out that notability is not relevant to article content. I suggest you read WP:NOTABILITY. Here is the very first line: On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. Specifically check this section entitled Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article: WP:NNC which has the line The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop teating me like a newbie please. I am probably more familiar with wikipedia policies than you Pass a Method talk 17:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to insult you, can you please just read some of the links I've posted in this discussion before you comment further. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@PM, how long you've been on WP is irrelevant. You're trying to add content to the article, but have failed to provide any sources to back up that content. That's a problem, not just on this article, but every article on WP. First, we examine sources, then we assign weight, then we include content. Notability, google hits, and personal experiences don't influence article content. Please provide sources first, then we can have a discussion about the content.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you check my last edit, you will notice that i DID provide sources for my edits. See [7] Pass a Method talk 18:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those were unreliable sources as noted earlier. (Also note that the lede summarises the article). IRWolfie- (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number 1 and 3, in particular, are awful sources. The description of #3 begins "The "Calling Card" is a challenge to atheism..." That's not the type of quality source we'd want to describe what atheists believe. The second one seems okay at first glance, but it's not particularly weighty. Also, if no one has said it yet, the lead reflects the body; we'd need to include this content in the body first before even considering summarizing it in the lead.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A functionalist, reductionist argument" for "resurrecting the dead" (back cover blurb) is "ok at first glance"? I think not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Yep. You're right. If it says that, it's certainly not a quality source for our purposes either.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Andy: great edit summary!) I think it's time to say some parting words for this proposal to modify the lead, may it rest in peace. I've looked at the three sources. They are simply too WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE to be included in the lead here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about these sources? [8], [9]. Are they okay? Pass a Method talk 21:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These just seem to be memoirs (one looks definetly self published) from random people. They don't even appear to support the text you mentioned. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked, the other is self published as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop wasting everyone's time with random results from Google, and instead find a reliable source directly on the subject of atheism, that directly discusses the beliefs of atheists regarding 'the afterlife. Without this, there is nothing further to be said on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anupam,the quote you restored is not in the link, it appears to be an accidental copy paste from the ref below it. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upon looking at the revert, I noticed that the link was incorrect, which is what caused the confusion in the first place. Here is the correct hyperlink, which contains the appropriate quote. I hope this helps. Have a nice day! Thanks, Anupam^Talk 15:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is something very odd about these books: the two quotes are virtually identical. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out they are the same because Rodney Stark wrote the chapter. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article accordingly. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anupam you have inserted a study which has no citations in peer reviewed journals. This is undue in comparison to the statements above it which uses over 40 studies in a meta-analysis, secondary sources like a meta-analysis is preferred to original research articles like the one you added. (I also notice that, bizarrely, the study doesn't explicitly ask for their religious views). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:IRWolfie-, with all due respect, this is ridiculous. I never removed the original information. In fact, in the article, there are FIVE sentences which support an inverse correlation between education and religion. I inserted ONE study from an academic journal (which actually is peer reviewed) that shows a proportional relationship and you revert me? WP:NPOV states that "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The study is also a very notable one as it appeared in CNN, The Telegraph, and CP, among other forms of mass media. Writing one sentence among a total six which discuss the subject does meet WP:DUE. In fact, without this statement, it seems like the paragraph has been written to prove a point. I request that you kindly self revert or I will start an RfC here. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 15:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly your reasoning for re-inserting the text makes no sense, notability isn't a reason to insert text, due weight is. You inserted a single study to try and "balance" a meta-analysis of 43 studies, 39 of which gave the connection. That is completely undue. You also added citations to the daily mail of all things to back up this interpretation. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Schwadel's study only looked at one single aspect of atheism versus higher education level: Does higher education level give a person greater tolerance for public expressions of atheism, people speaking out against organized religion? Schwadel found that yes, it does. Educated people are more tolerant of atheism. I cannot support any pop culture (Daily Mail, etc.) conclusions supposedly taken from Schwadel as they wander away from an examination of atheism. Schwadel did not upset the applecart; he found the same sorts of things that previous researchers found, especially that educated people are more tolerant. Anupam would have us believe otherwise, that the Schwadel study was a game changer. Anupam misrepresents Schwadel, taking quotes out of context. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the source is not being used as some sort of counter to 39 other studies then this is ok. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizing Schwadel(2010) as a "study" in the same sense of the word used by other references in the section is misleading. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Schwadel's analysis of the General Social Survey data", I suppose since he didn't actually perform a study. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, whether Schwadel collected his own data or used previously published data has no bearing on the validity of the survey. That it has not been cited by anyone else, though, strongly suggests that the results and conclusions have not been widely accepted in the scholarly community, and have not become an important element of scholarly discourse on the topic. Using a cherry-picked single study of dubious significance to balance 39 studies critically examined in a meta-study is a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me that there is bluntly mis-use of WEIGHT.Reality and facts are being ingnored,while there are Reliable sources,and NPOV has been put under the minority?. Justice007 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]