RationalWiki talk:FAQ for the Newly Deconverted/Archive1

About this article
I want to turn this page into a resource for anyone questioning their faith. While many who walk away from religion have sound intellectual reasons for doing so, there's quite a few who do it for purely emotional or selfish reasons. The point of this document is to give those and all who fall away the resources to examine their faith and make informed decisions about the future of their beliefs. We need information, and more importantly we need solid references. Any RationalWiki editors who want to, feel free to add something, and even get outsiders in to review it. EVDebs 20:13, 18 November 2007 (EST)
 * All I can say right now is "wow!" - nice work. I want to add more, raised as a good Anglican boy, with prayer in school, etc. - but nice job!!! human  00:25, 19 November 2007 (EST)

On deconversion
coincidental timing? Susan ... miaow ...  17:58, 18 November 2007 (EST)
 * Seriously. Awesome. Article. Too bad there were so many of the commenters that missed the point -- I know now that my religious faith was dead on its feet for years before I walked away from faith, but I understand that it's a very hard thing to leave behind. EVDebs 20:13, 18 November 2007 (EST)

I can't recall where I saw it, but there was a very good interview that Salon or someone did with a group of religious scholars, who'd made studying the ancient texts their life's work, and by and large, most had utterly lost what most would consider a Christian faith. One had turned to Judaism, I think, and I think one was still nominally a Christian, but the other two if memory serves had simply stopped believing. And all agreed that this was a natural outgrowth of really taking a close look at all this stuff. Wish I could find it again, you guys would love it. --Kels 07:16, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Are waffles an atheist doctrine?
Personally, I prefer pancakes myself. In fact, I may go make some now. --Jeeves 09:30, 19 November 2007 (EST)
 * Hey, I never said you had to have waffles. Only that it's always good to have the option. EVDebs 12:38, 19 November 2007 (EST)
 * Maybe what he's really saying is he still wants the wafer? Poor, deluded fool! It's waffles way or no way! KILL the heretic I mean ah, death to the infidel er...nevermind. 14:17, 19 November 2007 (EST) CЯacke ®

WAFFLES TASTE GOOD! YAY! 24.227.2.106 17:02, 19 November 2007 (EST)
 * Yes, but should they be round or quadrilateral? human  17:23, 19 November 2007 (EST)
 * Atheism doesn't prescribe any food choices. Whoever added the part about waffles was a secular waffleist. --GastonRabbit (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Waffles are decidedly secular. See here. 03:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Google "blue waffles." Click first result. 04:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * are we talking american or Belgian waffles, round, rectangular or those odd heart shaped ones ? with butter and syrup, or with berries and cream ? Hamster (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As a struggling Keto diet advocate I find the article's blatant bias towards waffles and repeated attempts at trying to seduce the reader with crispy brown syrup-laced propaganda extremely distasteful and irresponsible. I believe we all have a responsibility to uphold political correctness in nutritional matters. Nullahnung (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

title
Does this article really need the word "RationalWiki" in the title? human  15:11, 19 November 2007 (EST)
 * Mmmm. I think you make a good point there. For various reasons probably better off without.--Bobbing up 15:18, 19 November 2007 (EST)
 * Maybe it was supposed to go in the rationalwiki namespace?15:20, 19 November 2007 (EST) CЯacke ®
 * I think it belongs in the mainspace, but maybe that is what the original titler intended. And yes, Bob, for several reasons - one, this is RW, so it's obviously ours.  Two, it sort of makes it sound like site policy rather than just another intriguing article. human  15:23, 19 November 2007 (EST)
 * I would vote Essay namespace to answer forum concerns.- 16:28, 19 November 2007 (EST)
 * I would say change the name and keep it in mainspace.--Bobbing up 16:37, 19 November 2007 (EST)
 * I don't really see a problem with it. It's not "promoting" atheism per se, it's just a colorful guide for anyone who is losing their religion.  See my forum post, we can have other guides to balance it out (ie, guide for the recently saved, etc.) human  16:40, 19 November 2007 (EST)
 * I think it's pretty much fine as it is now. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 16:56, 19 November 2007 (EST)
 * Now that I read the gfdl disclaimer in the intro, I can see it making sense, with the idea that others will publish it elsewhere, so RW should be in the title. human  17:26, 19 November 2007 (EST)

I like this
I love this page!

Also, two great blogs:

Evangelical realism

Deconversion
 * As I said up top, it's a great article. As I read more of it, I am truly impressed. It's funny, it's straight, it's well informed and informative, it's gentle and kind spritied.  Who the heck stayed up all night and wrote the first draft? I think it should be in "best of religion" soon.  human  17:43, 19 November 2007 (EST)

I guess its an EV Debs joynt.17:59, 19 November 2007 (EST)


 * Wow, this article may be one of the most awesome things I have ever read. I'm very, very impressed. Its not pushy and evangelical, and it helps explain my beliefs to not only others, but to myself as well.
 * It's also has the just-right amount of humor, like mentioning buying waffles, and porn (although maybe not a the same time...) May I suggest Waffle House? (for the waffles, not the porn) Prices are amazing and the food is greasylicious. VonShroom 17:36, 7 March 2008 (EST)
 * Hi VonShroom, glad you enjoyed it. How, if I may ask, did you happen to find it? human  19:54, 7 March 2008 (EST)

In the absence of dissent, I am going to add this to the cover story list. human  16:01, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

To thine own self be true
What does this really mean? That you should act according to your nature? That’s fine with some people, but suppose you’re Jeffrey Dahmer, or Karl Rove? Still, it’s easier to follow than the advice Polonius gives a few lines earlier: “Neither a borrower nor a lender be….” !!

There is reason to believe that Shakespeare was portraying him not as a wise man but as a silly old fool.

Tony 08:46, 22 December 2007 (EST)

philosophersnet.com
Those links from philosophersnet.com are quite good. Thankfully, I got a consistency score of .8 and only two direct hits, so I guess I'm mostly on the safe side. :D -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 10:20, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 * Cool. My consistency score is 1.0.  However, "We suspect that your God is not the traditional God of the Christian, Jewish or Muslim faiths."  No kidding... human  16:27, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Someone send a copy
Jonathon Edwards (UK ex-verychristian athlete) might like to receive a copy of this. Such a loverly convert! 193.113.235.173 10:25, 24 December 2007 (EST)

cover story
(please do not archive this section)


 * I nominate this to be a cover story. I think it is a very good article, and deserves occasional "space" on our main page. human  13:34, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Strangeness
In the "meaning of life" section, it seems like Hitler's actions aren't condemned so much as "not recommended." And why not? Well, according to the article... Because people in the future will laugh at you? /shrug GrandSoviet 15:58, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Looking at it again, the whole section needs reworking. "Just do what you will" sounds like some sociopath wrote it. Would anyone object if I made a few tweaks here and there? GrandSoviet 10:27, 28 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Or Raskolnikov ...--מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
 * Quick! Bring in Sonja! -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 10:48, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

I made my changes. If anyone doesn't like them, feel free to revert and we can discuss it here. GrandSoviet 17:10, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Missing Link
Ok, it's not missing, I just like the sound of that phrase. The link is really broken. The page I go to is http://walkaway.aimoo.com/ and there's nothing there. I did just walk away from Fundamentalism, and I would like to share in others' experiences. TheNerd 17:48 EDT 1 May 2008


 * I see a forum there?  What browser are you using?  DogP  21:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Works for me (Firefox on XP Collector's Edition). human  22:27, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Scrutiny or not
Mr 24 makes an interesting point here. Why should this "tenet of rationalism" not be "fair game for scrutiny," just like everything else? If for no other reason, then at least because of the many opportunities for delicious cake paradox that such a scrutiny would lead to. -- AKjeldsen Cum dissensie 03:47, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, but BoN got it wrong.
 * BoN: "That means everything -- everything -- is fair game for scrutiny, except for this fundamental tenet of rationalism itself."
 * Correct: "That means everything -- everything -- is fair game for scrutiny, including this fundamental tenet of rationalism itself.
 * JMHO, since obviously the philosophical basis of rationalism/science (etc.) is always open for debate, discussion, and... scrutiny. human  13:01, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh shoot, I read the diff backwards. BoN truncated it (removing the "except" part), should have edited it as I did. human  13:02, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Group selection? Really?
''Biologists have proposed a mechanism called group selection whereby the individual prospers because of developments that benefit a whole group of individuals. Social behavior comes directly from that''

Am I the only person who understands the manifest irony of this FAQ endorsing group selection on a website dedicated to defending evolution? Group selection is totally at odds with biological fact, was debunked decades ago, and it's Dawkins' second-favorite thing to make fun of. --76.217.94.92 18:57, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, you learn something new every day. (it could till be true though: "Biologists have proposed ..."). I leave it to those who know to change it. 19:01, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't know anything about the biological theory, but it seems a bit off topic for a FAQ on atheist morality.  Comparing human societies to animal ones is problematic & not really necessary.  It kindof takes the long way round to say that morality is pragmatic rather than god-given.   w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 19:24, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Yea, group selection is pretty iffy, and as originally proposed been shown to impossible. There are some people who are trying to championing it back in, not the least of which is E.O. Wilson, but I remain...skeptical. tmtoulouse 19:35, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Group selection meaning favoring your reasonably close relatives, or those who are just superficially similar? (I should read the article againz, I learn so much while trying to write this book!) <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  03:29, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Well favoring altruism for relatives is not group selection, that is inclusive fitness. tmtoulouse 16:01, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I've rephrased it without mentioning the theory of group selection but still covering the sociological stuff about reciprocal ethics. On a separate issue, should we be giving as much prominence to the Wiccan Rede?  It seems like a bit of a double standard in a guide for atheists.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 11:36, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

suck balls atheist faggots &mdash; Unsigned, by: 68.197.173.216 / talk / contribs

Jimaginator
Added a new section to ask a question. I have moved it here: <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  14:14, 10 November 2008 (EST)

"==If everyone were atheist, wouldn't people just do whatever they wanted, no matter who was harmed?==

Really hoping for an answer here, since I am wrestling with atheism. Didn't feel the morality section covered it. Thanks." - Jimaginator


 * As a lifelong atheist I find that empathy suffices for "God's rules". I don't need some prehistoric priest's ramblings to tell me what to do, or the fear of hellfire to stop me being nasty to others. TOAST and butter 12:40, 10 November 2008 (EST)
 * I would add, check out this section: "What about morality? I've always heard that to be a moral person, one needs a higher power" <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  14:14, 10 November 2008 (EST)


 * But Jimaginator says he read that section & found it inadequate, & I'm inclined to agree. It's long-winded & says a lot of vague stuff about anthropology & sociology without getting down to the point directly, then finishes with the Wiccan Rede, a religious motto!  I'm not surprised that it's unconving to people who are trying to deal with moral issues related to atheism.  I suggest we either rewrite it, or add in the other question Jimaginator asked.  I was about to write a response to it before it was cut.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 15:21, 10 November 2008 (EST)
 * Make it so, O Stoat! TOAST and butter 15:31, 10 November 2008 (EST)


 * Done. I added Jimaginator's question & my answer to it.  I guess we might be able to amalgate both sections into one q & a, as they're kinda covering the same ground, but I don't think we really need to.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 16:48, 10 November 2008 (EST)
 * I missed where J. said that (was it in the edit comment?). Anyway, I like the new section, nice work!  Now to fix up that section that ends with some religious slogan that isn't even a nice "modern English" thingie. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  16:54, 10 November 2008 (EST)


 * I already took it out. Left the rest of that section as it is.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 17:00, 10 November 2008 (EST)
 * I would actually prefer to restore the Rede. I'm by no means Wiccan, but I think it really does sum up humanist ethics very effectively. EVDebs 03:19, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Yes, what **about** morality?
What do you folks think of the view that says that, without some "higher power", then man becomes his own higher power, with the greatest power belonging to the most powerful among us. And then, without resort to a "higher power" than the strongest man, it is those "strongest men" that are able to impose their version of morality on everyone else? And unfortunately, there are many historical examples of that morality *not* being "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Thatemailname 15:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)
 * Hmmm, I'm not convinced the question has very much to do with theism/atheism, since, as you say, there have been examples throughout history of leaders or oligarchies imposing their version of morality on people, and I think that happens with or without belief in a "higher power". Humans are adept at hypocrisy, so tyrants can always believe that what they are doing is right & not feel like they're sinning against God.  As for the question of morality being dictated by the "strongest men", in the modern world it wouldn't really work like that.  People's morality is usually determined by their upbringing & by the values of the society they live in.  They won't just change their views by being told to.   17:35, 22 February 2009 (EST)
 * I take the point that you're not convinced it's germane, but my section heading was taken from the heading of the section in the main article which dealt with this very topic.

I feel that you've proved my point to a large extent. Yes, tyrants can believe that what they're doing is right. And without any "appeal" to a higher power, and a higher "morality", who among men can say they are *not* right? But when man can point to a higher morality and say "what he is doing is wrong", man now has a rational basis on which to fight tyranny. Best example - the American Declaration of Independence. And while I agree that people don't change their views because they're told to, that wasn't my point - the "strongest man" (who claims to be the higher power) will impose views, not ask people to change them. Thatemailname 15:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)
 * I can't honestly see a problem with someone being their own higher power. People certainly won't respect or just appeal to the "strongest man". Take the declaration of independence, if they just sat and appealled to that strongest man, it would never have happened. Basically, the ones who fought the war appealled to their own standards, not the ones imposed on them. As most of the people who drew up and signed the declaration were either deists or freethinkers, they really were just appealling to their own sense of morality with it. <font color=red face="Tahoma"> A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 10:31, 23 February 2009 (EST)
 * Well, okay, but don't "deists" and "freethinkers" believe in a higher power? And didn't "their own sense of morality" come from that belief? I just cited the Declaration as an example, and I think you may have proved my point. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Thatemailname / talk / contribs
 * Given the number of incredibly immoral things done by people inspired by/loyal to/in the name of/in order to appease or curry favour with divine authority, I'll take moral codes created by my fellow human beings over those devised by a "higher power" any day of the week...TheoryOfPractice 10:35, 23 February 2009 (EST)
 * Admittedly, there are good and bad people of all faiths, and of no faith. That's not relevant to the issue I raised. And could please provide an example of moral codes created by fellow human beings that have no connection to any religious belief. Thatemailname 15:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)
 * Hmm. What do you folks think of the view that says that, without some "higher power", then man becomes his own higher power, with the greatest power belonging to the most powerful among us. And then, without resort to a "higher power" than the strongest man, it is those "strongest men" that are able to impose their version of morality on everyone else?

I think that this statement is utter balls, quite frankly. The day I think it's true is the day I see God (or any other deity) directly involve himself with the overthrow of one of these 'strongest men'. Zmidponk 10:36, 23 February 2009 (EST)
 * I was going to ask if "utter balls" was a good thing or a bad thing, but I think I figured it out from the rest of your post. I don't think most people who believe in a higher power, believe that it's that higher power's job to constantly intervene our daily lives for a protection, but if that's what you'd be looking for in a higher power, then you are much better off as an atheist! :) (or am I presuming?) Thatemailname 15:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)
 * Can you please sign your comments. Type ~ at the end.   17:59, 23 February 2009 (EST)
 * Sure, sorry about that. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Thatemailname / talk / contribs
 * No, you're not presuming - just utterly missing my point by such a wide margin that you even managed to underline it.  If a 'higher power' specifically does NOT intervene in such a way, who is it that overthrows such a 'stronger man'?  The 'weaker' men.  Who is it that did so in the past?  The 'weaker' men.  As such, it completely disproves the idea that only a 'higher power' can overthrow such a 'stronger man', as they can also be overthrown by a sufficient number of 'weaker' men.  What's the fastest way of getting a large group of people to turn against you and start contemplating overthrowing you?  Imposing yourself as a ruler or dictator of them, then doing unto them the sort of thing you wouldn't like to be done unto you. Zmidponk 19:48, 23 February 2009 (EST)
 * Well, we may to agree that we're missing each other's points. :) To try and clarify - I never claimed that the "higher power" overthrows the stronger man. What I said was, when morality comes from that "higher power", then the "stronger man" loses his claim to the so-called "moral high ground" when he is in conflict with that morality.
 * When morality is not defined as coming from a "higher power", but rather from some altruistic or noble property of man, then inevitably it will be the "stronger man" gets to define what that morality is, and the "moral high ground" is always possessed by the strongest man. This in no way precludes the weaker men from pooling their strength and overthrowing that "stronger man", in an attempt to impose *their* view of "morality". Thatemailname 15:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)
 * I'm afraid it's still not clear what you're getting at, since you keep using these odd phrases like "strongest man" without any examples of what kind of situation you're talking about. Also, you seem to be presenting a scenario where we decide whether morality comes from a """higher power""" or not, & that doesn't make a lot of sense.  Either moral standards must genuinely be defined by God (in which case theists' beliefs are the truth), or they are a human creation (the atheist perspective).  So we can't decide where morality originates, only what our own beliefs or opinions about it are.  As for morality being dictated by the "strongest man", can you cite an example?  My opinion is that shared morals are largely defined by society (i.e. a large number of individuals with differing opinions & morals, but with many fundamental views in common) rather than imposed by leaders to any great extent.  Of course, a teacher's or politician's views on morality can influence their work which may influence the views of others to some extent.  But I don't see why that would happen any more among atheists than theists; if anything, maybe even less.   17:51, 24 February 2009 (EST)
 * To add my two cents, there are many examples of "stronger men" making their own moral codes and then claiming that they were of divine origin. Hitler is a prime example of this; you also often see it when present-day politicians invoke religion in support of a political program. 18:49, 24 February 2009 (EST)
 * Right, but that's the difference between *man* imposing his own beliefs, and a moral code that truly comes from a higher source. Of course, one must first accept that there is something higher than man, before accepting that a moral code could come from a source higher than man! &mdash; Unsigned, by: Thatemailname / talk / contribs
 * There is no proof that any moral codes are of divine origin. Absent this proof it must be assumed that they were made when prophets ate a little too much rotten rye for dinner, because as Hitler's example shows, believing in Something Higher than Man is no block to regarding moral codes of human manufacture as being of divine origin. 15:43, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Well, we may to agree that we're missing each other's points. :) To try and clarify - I never claimed that the "higher power" overthrows the stronger man. What I said was, when morality comes from that "higher power", then the "stronger man" loses his claim to the so-called "moral high ground" when he is in conflict with that morality.
 * Well, hang on, when you first proposed your argument, you were seemingly advancing the idea that, if there is no 'higher power' a 'stronger man' can impose his ideas of what is moral on everyone else, and nobody can stop him, and that some of these 'stronger men' in history have not had the idea of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Now you're merely saying that he loses the 'moral high ground' if there is a 'higher power'.  Those are two very different things, but both are wrong.  If a man has a very peculiar sense of morality that allows him to justify, at least to himself, torturing and killing people merely because they disagreed with him, for example, as I have pointed out, this is incompatible with most people's sense of morality, and this will therefore cause them to overthrow this 'stronger man'.  If there is no 'higher power', he still does not have the 'moral high ground' because what is really meant by 'moral high ground' is that a particular person or group have a reputation for having views that are regarded by the vast majority of people as being moral.
 * When morality is not defined as coming from a "higher power", but rather from some altruistic or noble property of man, then inevitably it will be the "stronger man" gets to define what that morality is, and the "moral high ground" is always possessed by the strongest man. This in no way precludes the weaker men from pooling their strength and overthrowing that "stronger man", in an attempt to impose *their* view of "morality".
 * Hmm, contradiction ahoy. If the 'strongest man' always imposes his morality, how can a GROUP impose their morality?  Which one of the group gets to decide what this morality is?  In addition, if the group in question is, basically, everyone he was imposing his morality on, who do they impose it on?  One possibility you seem to have overlooked, as well - maybe, just maybe, that group may take steps to avoid history repeating.  Zmidponk 10:32, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Something else as well - if morality does, indeed, come from an 'altruistic or noble property of man', then the only way that this 'stronger man' can 'impose' his morality on people is if it's not really an imposition at all - and everyone agrees with his idea of morality. Otherwise, this 'altruistic and noble property of man' will cause people to object to what he's saying or doing, and here we are back at that idea of the 'weaker men' uniting to overthrow him. Zmidponk 10:39, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * There's no contradiction in the idea that without a morality that comes from somewhere 'above' mankind itself, man will simply struggle with himself - whether "individuals" or "groups" it matters not - for supremacy, for the moral high ground. It doesn't stop with the weaker men uniting to overthrow the stronger, since the overthrown will eventually regroup and attempt to regain control. Far from any group taking steps to prevent history from repeating itself (I'd believe that when I see it!), there is no progress, no movement towards a higher goal, just eternal struggle. Thatemailname 15:02, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Parody of this article warranted?
I am working on it at here. Please improve on it or let me know whether we want one. 04:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the point is there. Is it done or still being worked on?  What is the "joke", the point of the parody?  04:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe an FAQ from this point of view (not necessary to be rational even) would be fun.  11:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

GFDL?
Shouldn't it be Cc-by-sa 3.0 or both? Nx (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Abortion
I humbly suggest that the section on Abortion could be neutrally improved.

I'd like to do this carefully. It is not my intent to start a big rage fight on abortion, but simply to improve the section.

The suggestions that atheism doesn't dictate one position or the other seems unobjectionable. The suggestion that atheists are generally pro-choice seems unobjectionable too.

The section then attempts to rationalize the pro-choice position, without rationalizing the opposing position. The rationalizations provided seem unnecessary, one-sided, and generally poor.

We could try to improve the section by providing careful secular rationalizations for each side, but I worry that would take up far too much space.

We could instead refer the reader to other resources, as was done with evolution. I think that's a good direction to take these special topics, refer readers to better experts and more thorough discussion than we can provide here. Abortion is a big topic. It deserves more than a simple paragraph on an unrelated website.

For secular arguments on the moral permissibility of abortion, I recommend Judith Jarvis Thompson, 'A Defense of Abortion.' For secular arguments on the moral impermissibility of abortion, see Donald Marquis, 'Why Abortion Is Immoral.'

Textbooks on ethics and on abortion will tend to include these essays, as a philosophy grad student, I can't tell you who wins, but I can at least vouch that these authors and articles are well regarded in the field, even if they each have their detractors.

I'm also very concerned about the suggestions in this section that no one can appreciate dilemmas outside of experiencing those situations. Extrapolating from experience to other hypothetical situations is quite simply how ethics is done. (e.g. - You know it's wrong to go on a mad shooting rampage downtown even though you've never gone on one nor been the victim of one.) One can appreciate the special difficulties of those in some particular situation without resorting to such a radically anti-rationalist position.

tl;dr

Recommend replacing the second paragraph of the Abortion section with a pointer to better secular literature on the subject, as follows:

''While atheists often argue for the permissibility of abortion or euthanasia, there are secular arguments against each as well. Here are two well regarded essays from opposite sides of the abortion debate, each from a secular author: ''
 *  Donald Marquis, "Why Abortion is Immoral" 
 *  Judith Jarvis Thompson, "A Defense of Abortion" &mdash; Unsigned, by: 70.189.74.94 / talk / contribs 03:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree to a point. Although I'm not convinced it's that biased. All the paragraph does is explain "pro-choice" which isn't really the same as "for abortion" or "against abortion" it's just "let people decide themselves and don't infringe on their rights to do so". Thanks for the references. 08:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You are smug charlatans
Get over yourselves and stop grouping Atheism into an activist based religion. Get lives and blowjobs and leave the adults to live in the real world, you fucking kids.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 86.40.210.144 / talk / contribs
 * Thanks for your input.  11:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I prefer giving blowjobs. And weaseloid, that is the best response to a troll in history Tweety (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, this was. 12:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha, agreed Tweety (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Title
Why does it start "RationalWiki Atheism"? Is it supposed to be in RationalWiki space? Can we change it to something a bit less clumsy? Having three nouns (RationalWiki Atheism FAQ) strung together without punctuation seems rather cluttered. 07:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do agree the title is a little wordy. I do like "for the newly deconverted", it's an interesting and reasonably poetic title compared to many purely functional titles, although it does presume too much about the reader. But I would say to drop the "RationalWiki" bit, and maybe even the "atheism" bit to leave it as "FAQ For The Newly Deconverted". 14:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * +1. I'd keep "Atheism", but either way is fine - David Gerard (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The title was picked to be fully descriptive. "Rationalwiki" in case someone wanted to post it somewhere else like Usenet, "Atheism" for obvious reasons, and "Newly Deconverted" because it's specifically geared towards people who can't believe but don't know where to go with it. Unless you can condense all that into a couple of words, I'd just as soon leave it as is. EVDebs (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While I do agree, I think the reasoning for it is a few years out of date now. 01:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In what sense? It's still the main mission for the document. Only reason I didn't post it on Usenet or anything is because I wouldn't know who to ask -- if you want to post it somewhere else, go ahead. EVDebs (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The title has never bothered me, although I get the weasel's point. This is RationalWiki, so surely putting that in the title is redundant.  Trouble is, "Atheism FAQ for the Newly Deconverted" is really clumsy, whereas what we have now is clear and makes sense.  Also, what are the chances there are links out there by now to this title?  I know, redirects heal all wounds, but still.  If I see a better title proposed I would take it seriously, but I don't see one offered yet.  02:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Drop the RW & throw in a colon: "Atheism: FAQ for the Newly Deconverted".  06:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I could live with that. Elsebodies? 06:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Prefer without the colon, but tolerable with it - David Gerard (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a question: where could we post it, if only to get people to read it and justify the title? EVDebs (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Get 🇰🇪 to read it as a ten-part series on utube? 03:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Colon is good for me. Having someone read it on YouTube would be interesting, actually. If anyone thinks they can act and orate well (i.e., not just mumbling to a webcam, although I'd avoid "trendy jump cuts from your living room"), I think transferring some of the stuff to YouTube would be a good idea. 13:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Having just recommended this article to a theist I'm wondering again about the title. It's not really just for those who have just changed their minds is it? It's also for those who are questioning their situation and may be thinking about changing their minds.  It's possible that the existing title would dissuade those in the second category from reading it as it assumes their decision has been taken.--BobSpring is sprung! 05:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, the only title that would cover all bases would be "Atheism FAQ" and drop any other things. Besides, long titles are less convenient to wikilink to. 12:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Why?
Why do you make atheism so activist based? It is only a lack of belief, not a fucking religious organisation. This kind of evangelicism is most distasteful. 86.40.96.239 (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Some people do find it distasteful. However, consider the number of indiviudals who find their religion annoying, abhorrent and just don't want to believe but are essentially forced by family and social pressures. In the 80s and 90s we had "it's OK to be gay" and now we have "it's okay to not believe". The ubiquity and normative nature of religious belief makes "activism", discussion and information sharing not just useful, but a sheer necessity. 19:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * EC. Some people may have questions about the more positive aspects of athiesm. This article explores those aspects. If you find too distasteful or disturbing then perhaps you shouldn't read it.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Atheism shouldn't have any organisation. Take Dawkin's atheist free schools. This is a dangerous development and its blurring the line between a lack of belief and an organised lack of belief. I question the need for people to organise themselves according to their lack of belief. It makes the same mistake as organised religion. Furthermore, my agnosticism is a tiny part of my identity - I am infinitely more interested in history, politics and literature than I am in any kind of fart sniffing atheist organisation. 86.40.96.239 (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lemme splain. Yes, we are a minority of choice. But it's a choice that really has no measurable effect on society, not very different from being gay or polyamorous despite that. And yet the overwhelming message from our culture is that not only is our faithlessness unwelcome, but an active danger to society. We're not keen on being told to keep our mouths shut when we can show that our existence is at worst of no consequence. The only thing that makes people like you uncomfortable with activist atheism is that you're not used to people explicitly saying that we believe that we're being lied about, especially when most of us know enough to back up our positions to a reasonable degree of certainty. If you don't like what we're saying, then engage us, don't dismiss us. That's what we've been doing with obnoxious evangelical Christians for years. EVDebs (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)So you're saying that a young teenager, unhappy with the religious faith that they were born into, instilled into believing that it's their fault for not feeling God's presence, subjected to sermons by priests, friends and family alike that atheism is the work of Satan, panicked and stressed that something that forms a major part of the lives of people around him that he cannot fully comprehend and enjoy, fearful of the repercussions if he voiced his concerns (from being forced into Bible Camp to being put to death in some countries)... this person doesn't have a right to seek out an organised group for help and we shouldn't be allowed to form such an organisation? I'm sorry, but until the death penalty for apostasy is consigned to the books of ancient history, I am going to make no apologies for being an "activist" for atheism. 20:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * FUCK SAKE. SAY THAT LAST SENTENCE IN 100 CHARACTERS OR LESS SO I CAN SEND IT VIRAL ON TWITTER. - David Gerard (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is too much 'us' in all of this. Its unsettling. You are an individual who happens to lack a belief in God(s). This is no basis on which to organise yourselves and fight the good fight. By all means engage theists as individuals, perhaps embrace humanism, but this atheist evangelicism is frankly dull and is repeated the same mind nummingly frustrating inanities of religious organisations. 74.63.112.138 (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. If it bores you then perhaps it's not for you.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bob, you know that is not a satisfactory answer. My criticism is perfectly valid. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of atheists banding together (Or in other words, organising themselves politically) At what stage does atheism become a homogenous religious organisation? Militant atheists are highly boorish people and 'believe' in their atheism as fervently as the most obnoxious fundamentalist. Truly a world without organised religion would be a blessing. If only atheists would stop playing the game by religion's rules. 86.40.96.239 (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Got to say I agree with the horrible dickless troll. I have always been wary of atheist campaigns. I don't mind the billboards but when atheists start wanting to remove the mention of god from everywhere and in every way I get a little mad because, as an atheist, why should we care? As long as it isn't being taught it shouldn't matter. AceX-102 21:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But I assume that you have no objection to this article?--BobSpring is sprung! 21:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do sympathise with Ace's position, and I have to say I agree. But I suppose my limits are in a different place. I wouldn't join an organisation like the Brights, but I don't see problems with them, they all have their place. I find some of the more gratuitous attempts at removing the word "God" from everything a bit face-palming, but some of it - such as challenging tax-exemptions - is perfectly valid. Religions have a lot of political pressure power, so where is my voice to counteract them when I completely disagree? Also, I don't see what the other options are when you have people in very difficult circumstances, being extremely unhappy in their position and afraid of going against religion, and I'd certainly love to hear an argument that gets around this quite major problem. 21:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"Some are agnostics" line
I'm an extreme novice at editing, so I want to put this here before actually changing anything and let the "experts" decide without having to revert later if I'm wrong. I think the line "Other contributers from RationalWiki take different opinions; some are neopagans, some are Christians, many are agnostic or more overtly atheist."

This line makes it seem as if being agnostic and atheist are mutually exclusive, which isn't the case since agnostic/gnostic speaks to knowledge and atheist/theist speaks to belief. For example, you can technically be an agnostic theist. It's very likely that someone who defines themselves as a "weak atheist" would also be an agnostic. I think this is an important distinction, but I didn't want to change it without putting it out there in the talk page first.

Just a quick description of how agnostic and atheist are not exclusive (not a perfect analogy, but the gist is there): If I flip a coin and cover it with my hand, whether it is heads or tails is unknowable (heads being "god exists" and tails being "god does not exist" as the truth values). A person who recognizes this would be agnostic. The "theist" in this situation can recognize that it's unknowable but, for whatever illogical reason, believes it is heads anyway. An atheist does not NECESSARILY say "No, it's tails" (although a strong atheist would), they just say "there's insufficient evidence to justify the claim that it's heads". Therefore, I don't believe we should include agnostics as a seperate belief category here since agnostic/gnostic isn't about what you believe.

Thank you for the time, and if this has been fleshed out elsewhere and I missed, my apologies. SuperAtheist (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi SA. The place to make that point (if necessary) would really be at the atheism article and its talk page.  This article really serves a different function. :-)  But, thanks for joining in and if you think I'm wring please say so. :-) --BobSpring is sprung! 20:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that the change is valid here too. In its present form, the article is making a distinction between "agnostics" and neopagans and Christians. As I said earlier, you can be an agnostic Christian..a Christian who says "I know there's no real great evidence but I just have faith in God/Jesus" is a good example.  I think the question of whether God exists or not is currently unknowable, with no supporting evidence for one and therefore belief in one is not justified and that makes me an agnostic atheist.  I guess it makes sense if people think of "agnostics" as just people who say "hmm well I don't know if one exists or not...could be" or "I don't know either way", etc, but that is not technically correct.  Those people, whether they want to admit it or not, are atheists lol.  They do not make the claim "I believe God exists", therefore they are atheists. I'm not gonna make the change or anything if people don't agree, but this distinction is a small pet peeve of mine I guess; I think I'm right, but I'm not gonna raise a big stink if people don't want it changed :)  Thanks for welcoming me in, I'm looking forward to contributing more :) SuperAtheist
 * I don't think this statement is really saying that the atheism & agnosticism are mutually exclusive. If it's a big deal, change the wording to "many are agnostic and/or overtly atheist".  As for theistic agnosticism, this isn't really the place to go into it (I'm not sure whether we even have any editors who identify as agnostic theists, agnostic Christians, etc.)  We could probably do with an article on it, if there are good examples of theistic agnostic movements and individuals.   16:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, any theist who says "God is beyond science and logic" and/or "you just have to believe" qualifies as an agnostic theist. I'm not saying it needs an article, but that it points to the fact that you can be an agnostic, but not an atheist.SuperAtheist (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how this fits in

 * "Consider a variant of the question: if the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph did not create the universe, then which god did? This makes explicit the presumption that the universe was necessarily created by a god.  One approach to answering the question is to consider alternatives: Zeus,  the god of Homer? Brahma, the god of Romaharshana?  That Which Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived, the god of Anselm?  Another approach is to challenge the presumption: it was created by no god, perhaps because it was not created, perhaps because universes like our universe are net zero energy and can be created by anyone with the equipment.  We don't know, and until the possibility that the universe is a simulation is ruled out, we cannot know with certainty, that the universe has physical existence requiring explanation."

Was ist? And does it belong in the article? Totnesmartin (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It (or something like it) may have a home somewhere - but I don't think this article is that home.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It fits in as a more comprehensive answer to this particular FAQ.
 * The FAQ uses "God" instead of "a god," which masks that Yahweh is but one of many characters who are claimed to have created the universe. The newly deconverted, especially those who think in terms of "God" instead of "a god," will benefit from having a few of the contestants listed using the same form as appears  throughout both the Hebrew and Greek Testaments, starting with Yahweh himself in Genesis 28:13.  (I wrote "Joseph" by mistake; the correct patriarch, when mentioned, varies between Jacob and Israel.)
 * I separate Anselm's god because it is useful for the newly deconverted to distinguish between Yahweh, the war god of a dominant tribe, and the deist's nameless unmoved mover. Yahweh creates the universe, then authors menstruation rules and intervenes in sporting events; whereas the deist's entity determines the physical constants, then creates an implementation to observe.
 * I think "We don't know" is more of a dismissal than an answer. Contemporary cosmologists have developed answers which are subject to experimental confirmation.  One aspect of deconversion is moving from a belief system grounded in certainty to one grounded in Bayesian confidence levels adjusted by evidence.  The phrase "people are working on it" in the first paragraph benefits from a link to an example (Guth).
 * At the top of this Talk page, EVDebs writes "The point of this document is to give those and all who fall away the resources to examine their faith and make informed decisions about the future of their beliefs. We need information, and more importantly we need solid references."


 * For these reasons, I believe this contribution (with the correction of the third patriarch's name) belongs in this article. :BetweenTwoParks (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * At the very least, "universes like our universe are net zero energy" should be improved grammatically, and should have a link to an article here explaining why this might be the case. The assertion that anyone can make one is pushing it a bit, too, isn't it?  There should also be a link to an article on Anselm here.   19:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but that section's terrible. It starts with some difficult questions ("how did things come to be? What's before the Big Bang? If God didn't create the universe, how did it happen?") then instead of answering them (beyond "we don't know") it replaces them with a facile one (which god created the universe?) which has an easy answer (probably none).  This doesn't help.  The starting point of the question "If God didn't create the universe, how did it happen?" is an assumption that the universe wasn't created by any god, so backtracking from here to make an assumption that the universe was created by a god, only to refute that assumption, just brings us back to that starting point: it does nothing to answer the initial questions.   20:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How good or bad it is isn't really relevant to this article. As far as I understand it this article is for giving advice to those who have already make up their minds. Burdening it with more arguments in favour of atheism doesn't really help.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On some level I have to agree. The theme here is "What now?" No point in hammering the reader. EVDebs (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well put!
Thanks for this nice text and the whole wiki. I normaly use it as a portal for CP crazyness, but i like your content aswell! &mdash; Unsigned, by: 78.53.39.114 / talk 04:21, 21 November 2010‎ (UTC)

Agnosticicism FAQ
Could there be an equivalent FAQ for Agnostics - including the uncertain, the 'lapsed whatever', pantheists/God is everywhere so enjoy the universe-ists etc. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not really needed, given what's in the FAQ as written. An alias link and a comment about how most of this applies to agnostics should be sufficient. EVDebs (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see where it would differ, really. If you're agnostic you'd have the same attitude towards religion as an outright atheist, you're just more acknowledging (or at least more concerned about) of a lack of information and direct evidence rather than actively siding with the probability of the non-existence of God. Because the FAQ deals mostly with the questions that religion tries to answer, the answers and conclusions would be equally applicable to an agnostic. 18:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Argument from authority.
I haven't read this for a while so I started going through it. In the second section where we talk about people who have spent time studying religion we dismiss their opinions  as an  argument from authority. But the logical fallacy "argument from authority" applies to authority figures who are making statements outside their field.

Clearly, if somebody has a degree is theology they can't be dismissed on the basis of "argument from authority" if they are talking about theology. They can be wrong, talking through their hats or under the influence of non-existent beings - but I don't think we can dismiss them under "argument from authority". I'll be very happy to be wrong though If somebody else has another idea.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Except having a degree in theology doesn't make you any more qualified to answer questions such as whether god exists or whether there's an afterlife. That's the point of that section, but it should probably be phrased better. -- Nx  / talk 19:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The fallacy also covers people who do have the relevant background, the second condition is that they sound off "on a topic on which the authority is not disinterested (i.e., is biased)". Theologians and especially priests derive all of their authority from people who share their basic assumption about god's existence, but leave it to the "experts" to work out the necessary doctrines and specific commandments. In this case, I'd simply say that the "expertise" of people who have never managed to show that the central subject of their work even exists can be dismissed. For example, if some physicists were still working on the assumption that aether exists, we wouldn't pay attention to their claims. Röstigraben (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK - but I think a bit of re-wording might be in order to clarify the point.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How about just mentioning the Courtier's reply? That's the best response to this kind of argument, IMHO. Röstigraben (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the the Courtier's reply would be for more relevant.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ECs)I agree it should be rephrased & made more specific. The way it reads now, that question & answer could just as easily come from a creationist site's FAQ about teaching of evolution as it could from a FAQ on atheism.   19:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While perhaps that entire bit might need some more detail, I've changed the first sentence as I agree with Bob's first post. The gist should be to question what makes someone an authority, and not to accept it blindly. I accept a PhD physicist working at CERN will know their stuff about quantum physics because I don't have the experience or the mathematical ability, but what does a qualified theologian have that I don't that lets them say God exists? I think the problem is that the section tries to go off on a tangent to talk about woo merchants without being clear enough about it. 00:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that Röstigraben just made it better.--BobSpring is sprung! 09:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit
If this bullshit were true, then why has evil been on the rise ever since it became socially acceptable to be atheist? Why more crime? Why more hate? 89.149.244.238 (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In the unlikely case you're not trolling, please understand that correlation does not equal causation. And how on earth do you quantify "more hate"? 01:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To which "correlation" are you referring, exactly? 01:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And what "evil"? ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 01:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @LX: More atheism and more evil. 01:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am merely disputing that there is more crime or hate in the world now than there was when atheism became socially acceptable. 01:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, but I was pointing out that bon's argument is fallacious even before considering its actual substance. 01:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Crime rates in the US have been steadily decreasing since 1991 . Wait, that can't be right, more atheists should mean a higher crime rate... damned atheist statistics.  ThunderkatzHo! 01:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Um, much of scientific method involves correlation, and while it's not absolute, it's a pretty good indicator. Atheist or not, people don't care about each other anymore; you can deny that all you want but it's true. People these days only care about what they can get out of others, or how they will benefit from helping others, except for a small few. I'm not trolling, I'm just an open minded individual in Germany who is disgusted at closed minded atheists (which is not all atheists) who are attacking religion. 89.149.244.238 (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * People have been spewing that dreck for centuries; notable examples are St. Thomas More and Karl Marx. 02:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet you blame atheism for the world's ills. How open-minded. 02:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In reply to the "golden rule" thing, the "golden rule" has its origins in the Bible. It goes out the window really without God, because if I personally wouldn't give a shit if someone stole something from me because I'd just steal the same thing from someone else if I didn't have to answer to someone. Truth be known, many people would naturally be the same way, and it would be survival of the fittest. Really, atheists can be nice, they just fail to recognize the reason that they're nice. To have a truly secular government you must have no government at all since most of the world's laws are based on religious morals. 89.149.244.238 (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nearly every religion has some variant of the golden rule. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 02:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And a great many religions are at least somewhat similar in nature. 89.149.244.238 (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So the only reason you don't steal things is because you are afraid of your giant sky daddy? Ace of Spades 02:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder how Estonia functions as a society with over 80% atheism. Or Sweden, with 75%. Your position is untenable, bon. 02:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (e/c)The reason you don't steal things is because of my giant sky daddy. The reason you don't kill people at own discretion is because of God. Whether you believe or not, shouldn't you understand that humanity as a whole has built its morals around religion? Heck, I believe most species of intelligent animals (not sponges, for example) base their behaviors around religion. Ask yourself, if it weren't for religion, why wouldn't people kill anybody that got in their way? That's not me being crazy or violent, I would never kill anybody, that's just my take on survival of the fittest, a theory that a very intelligent man named Charles Darwin came up with. 89.149.244.238 (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I submit that my morality does not come from a fear of god. Prove me wrong. Where do I get my morality? 03:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If I might take a guess, the BoN will say that you obtained them out of a zeitgeist that was heavily influenced by the fear of God. 03:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, most likely. But he is attaching especial significance to religion there; that zeitgest was also influenced by millennia of cultural and social development. Religious morals are not the end-all, be-all. 03:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Laws. Heard of them? They have been around since before religion started presuming to legislate on interpersonal matters. 02:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the laws are influenced by religion. In fact, in early governments, the people often saw some link between their leaders and the divine, as in Egypt, Israel, China, and Rome, for example. 89.149.244.238 (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are confusing the chicken and the egg there. 02:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Prove it. 89.149.244.238 (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, those religious laws are pretty great aren't they. Stoning, raping and death. Ace of Spades 02:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In the case of Rome, the State was in charge of setting religious policy. It is well-documented that said policy was set according to the temporal whims of the rulers. Also, a good deal of Roman law found its way into Christianity. 03:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (e/c)And besides, throughout history it has not been uncommon for there to be laws against atheism and differing religions, homosexuality, abortion, premarital sex, etc. All of those were considered immoral at one time, and still are by some people. I would assume, based on what I've read on this site, that most of you wouldn't want to see those laws in place today in the country that you live in. So then why is it still so taboo to, say, kill others, hurt others, steal from others, have sex with children, have sex with animans, etc? Not saying that I advocate any of those, just questioning why you don't. 89.149.244.238 (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * have sex with children Wasn't all that bad in the Bible now was it. Ace of Spades 02:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it was. 89.149.244.238 (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Prove it. 03:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, life was so much better back in the old days in the good old US of A. Back when it was acceptable to lynch people because their skin was a different color, you could beat your wife senseless without having to worry about getting arrested, and children spent 12 hours a day in factories and lost various appendages in the machinery. Man, those were the days. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (e/c)The Bible prohibits premarital sex, and it also requires children to be loyal to their mother and father. It also does not allow people to divorce and remarry, so children wouldn't be able to marry their parents. You can look it up for yourself. 89.149.244.238 (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Moving the goalposts; we were not talking about incest. 03:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Children couldn't have sex with anyone considering they have to remain loyal to their mother and father. Furthermore, since marriage is to be between a man and a woman (not a man and a girl, a boy and a woman, or a boy and a girl), children could not marry. 89.149.244.238 (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart from Adam and Eve's children of course. Oh, and Lots. Ace of Spades 03:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ...children could not marry... 03:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like god was just fine with child sex slavery. 03:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The UK is far less religious then the US yet has proportionally less crime and far less murders. Why does the religious US have a higher murder rate than the far more secular UK?--BobSpring is sprung! 07:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'm pretty sure godless Scandinavia and the militantly secular France fair even better. Meanwhile, the Middle-East, dominated by theocratic Islamic governments, is tearing itself apart with violence. We can talk specific examples and counter-examples all day, of course, but it's quite clear that "evil" is not on the rise anywhere because of atheism. 11:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember once trying to find data on religious belief and prison populations to see if it was possible to correlate crime to religious belief (or lack of it). I couldn't find any good sources or studies though. I found a number of debatable ones, but nothing solid.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you could get that data reliably enough as crime figures need to be adjusted to the effectiveness of law enforcement. Prison population is also highly unreliable as some nations (*cough*America*cough*) incarcerate at a massively skewed rate. You'd also have far too many confounding factors including social mobility, wealth, attitude and so on. Besides pointing to Sweden (which has a lot of other things going for it, not just secularism) there's not much you can say on religiosity and crime. 14:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "If this bullshit were true, then why has evil been on the rise ever since it became socially acceptable to be atheist? Why more crime? Why more hate?" Because it hasn't. All crimes are down and the world is much better now that it has ever been. In fact, believe it or not, we are transversing one of the most peaceful periods of mankind that has ever been. The reason to some people doesn't seem so is because:
 * a) they secretly wish it to be so.
 * b) the population increased. Less crimes per capita can still be more when your "capita" is bigger. Some people appear surprised when they are told that the population of the Europe wide Roman Empire was smaller than the population of, say, modern Germany.
 * c) Because of the much greater access to information and news, pretty much every single crime from everywhere gets reported and people are aware of all of them. This is confounded by the media (especially conservative ones) having a habit of reporting only the bad news knowing that gore porn sells to those stroking their misrably worldview, while good stories of people being awesomer and better than them... not so much.
 * c) Because of the much greater access to information and news, pretty much every single crime from everywhere gets reported and people are aware of all of them. This is confounded by the media (especially conservative ones) having a habit of reporting only the bad news knowing that gore porn sells to those stroking their misrably worldview, while good stories of people being awesomer and better than them... not so much.


 * As a result, in the middle ages you were never made aware of the rape and murders and the bodies thrown in the ditch (hell, to go outside a city was practically a suicide!) you were never aware of the rapes and murders the "crusaders" and all other little nationalist/tribal armies did. The child prostitution in the middle of London in filthy mass brothels in the open, the good "knights" hacking and slashing through the entrails of society in order to create their little "feuda", the gangs that were practically unchecked due to the non-existant modern police force and forensics, the corruptions which was practically a way of life. The murder rates in 13th - 14th Germany/Europe were around 20-100 per 100.00, today they are around 2. In "old" Amsterdam there were 47 per 100.000, in today's liberal Amsterdam 1 per 100.000. That's the kind of difference I am talking about. Now extrapolate the same for rapes, thievery and kidnapping. (and that excludes wars, which are basically nothing more than a lot of crimes all happening at once. A conquering army for example is morally no different than a big band of thieves) The middle ages, and pretty much any age before the modern one were an abyss of misery, crime and violence (not to mention poverty and disease) and anyone that would pick those over today's world is nuts.


 * Similarly, with warface. When the fuck has Europe ever been more peaceful? You have never been able to drive from one side to the other, doing shopping and having fun, ever before. Not when there were 100 year wars, and Charlemagne was "expanding" his territory or the Holy Roman Empire (not to be confused with the Roman one), or Prussia was vs "Saxony" vs "Habsburg dominions" vs Teutons vs Macklenburg vs Brandenburg vs Hesse vs Trier vs Lorain vs Venice vs Gorizia vs Bavaria vs Pomerania vs Brabant vs fuck all. 9/10 of those places don't even exist anymore and yet in the past used to be seperate political units hacking, slashing and fucking with each other in ways that would make Marines in Iraq cry for their mommy. And those were the good Christians periods when every nation had a pretty cross on their flag and everything and the political units were at least composed of more than one city. Before that there were the goths and the ostrogoths and the visigoths and the gauls and all those lovely people that begun every battle by throwing the heads of prisoners towards the other guy's direction. In Greece alone there was Sparta vs Athens vs Crete vs Macedonia vs Aegean federations vs Phoenicians, Persians, Egyptians whatever. This is warface down to individuals cities. Are these the peaceful periods you speak about? And in Asia, in China there were equally tons of mini-armies and mini-nations fucking each other up which would talke too long to explain, and another bunch of them in india, and dozens of native American warface and Inkas and Aztecs conquering and pulling hearts out of people in the S.America and so on. The entire planet was in constant war.


 * In comparison, today not only gigantic landmasses are technically in peace (all of N.America, the EU, all of Siberia, all of India, all of China, most of Africa, Most of S.America), we literally refer to our wars as "hotspots". The entire planet is literally classified as a potential tourist destination and there are a couple of red dots here and there you don't go. Some gangs are shooting each other in Colombia, and there is a proper civil war in Sudan, and some more para-military shooting in Indonesia, and a bunch of IEDs in Iraq, compared to the past this is Huge Success. This is spectacular success, which, of course, so happened to coincide with the rise of memes like humanism, secularism, industrialism, progress and human rights. (Because remember, the christian nations in Europe were so and completely failed). Is that the "rise" of evil? Only if evil means "getting impaled through the stomach and your guts hanging out less" for miserable past romanticising *beeps*.


 * And money? Don't get me started about money. We are rich. We are filthy, fucking, rolling in it, rich. Those king etc guys? They were washing (if they did so), in a bucket someone else warmed up over a bunch of coals. I have a f-ing power shower. I have so many entertainment and information avenues, it hurts to choose. (that's a good thing btw). Everything, from shoes, to clothes, to electric light is better, cheaper, more of it, for more people. Places like modern china (assuming a household that can buy its daily rice and has water, electricity and a radio) would actually seem richer than the average "middle class" European in the middle ages. Are those your "superior" societies? A teenage with an iphone today has in his hands more information and processing capability than entire nations had in the past. (Because books were rare, while the internet today already contains more unique information than a fuckton of them). We (not prayer of course) have practically wiped out tons of disfiguring, painful, disgusting illnesses, we live better, we live longer (even the fat ones), we even have the best obesity rates because of all the food around. And that applies to entire Continents.


 * Morality? Oh sure. Let's talk about morality. The morality of arranged marriages, the morality of not being able to love the one you love. The morality of not being able to have a free market of skills, personalities and individuals, rather being "forced" into it. Is that your morality? Because that was the morality of most human civilization before the modern ages. Divorce rates are not a bad thing. It is a symbol that individuals can finally choose to break apart something when it doesn't work (no different than capitalists dismantling a company when it is not profitable). You want zero divorce rates, go to fucking Afghanistan or something and realize why they are so.


 * In the classical times, the average life expectancy was 30. (Which at 15 made you "middle aged", that certainly puts some things into perspective). In the middle ages the average life expectancy was 40 to 50. You know what was the average marriage age? 14 for boys and 12 for girls. You know what was the age of concent? Let's say "less than that". The first time a concrete age of concent was set in most European countries was in the 19th century and it was 13. This makes the majority of western civilization before than a bunch of pedophiles compared to the modern age and even the 19th century was below today's standarts. Are these your superior moral societies? A world of arranged marriages between children who of cource never had a "American teenager" period or "College kids" period or "20 something, professional" period? And similar was the case in the rest of the world. Middle east? The ancient jews were getting married between 12 and 13, giving a good chance than God did something to the virgin Mary that would get him into a federal prison in Texas. How about you google "virgin mary age", and find out?


 * Frankly, I'd say that any age before the 19th century, if not the 20th century, is not even worth looking at our eyes regarding "morality". Short, brutish, poor, miserable, unfair, disgusting lives in filth, illness and poverty whereas merely having clear skin made you a target. If thats your definition of "moral societies" (as opposed to today's rise of evil) you need to quickly get out of the west like, right now. There are more worthy persons in favelas in Rio or something that would appreciate modern civilization more.


 * And those are the bad things. Let's not get started about the good things. There are huge charity organisations and programs going on right now. The World Food Program alone apparently feeds/saves a population about the size of Iraq every year. There have never been so many rape/abuse/whatever hotlines, so many people willing to help, such big institutes (like the Melinda & Gates foundation, or the 1 laptop per child program) doing such large scale projects. Entire carrier battle groups and fleets of charted airplanes with tons of volunteers every time a disaster like Haiti or Japan happens. Rotary which funded the Polio Free World, decided to do it and did it. A completely willful and a targeted planetary extinction of a biological agent "cuz we can", with millions of lives improved/saved. (In comparison in the middle ages the rich parts were dieing because they were too puritan to wash. (Unlike the Greco-Romans if I may note)). If someone picks up a magazine like popular science, new scientist etc, he will see dozen of "good news", inventions, projects, programs everywhere. If someone goes online in a site like behance he will see tons of amazing art and cultural production in an unprecedented scale (as opposed to the old times where only a couple of rich guys protected by kinds could do it).


 * To sum up, it's time to stop stroking your miserable worldview by reading only the murder articles in the news (which gives you the chance to play the noble warrior on the internets, in a not very difficult to do way) and start having some PRIDE in your age. Sen (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 22:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * [[File:Goodpost.gif]] Lol, how it works. Nice rant, Sen, should be an article somehow!  04:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dude it has been many a year since I've seen you rant or rave like that. Awesome. 12:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Make it an essay so that it will be easier to comment on it.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Secondeddx (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Bible Bibliography
Can I recommend Thomas L. Thompson's The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past; The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David; and the forthcoming 'Is This Not the Carpenter?': The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/carp358009.shtml) Also Niels Peter Lemche's Prelude to Israel; The Old Testament Between Theology and History: A Critical Survey. Like Finkelstein and Silberman's work, they're considered radical by more conservative scholars (like William Dever), but, are probably the way the scholarly world's going (see http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/).
 * Go right ahead -- either that, or put it on the appropriate links page, or both. EVDebs (talk) 00:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There is not just a single "atheism"
Our introductory section: Okay, what is it that I'm supposed to believe now? has the folowing paragraph:
 * There is not just a single "atheism". There are various secular (i.e., "no god/religion") philosophies around. The most common are humanism and naturalism, but there are lots of others.Most of them are pretty similar however. What we all have in common on this wiki that we're rationalists. This is the principle that belief systems, philosophies and worldviews, particularly those that inform your behaviour towards others, should reflect what can be observed and tested, not what someone or something tells you to accept as true without evidence. That means everything - everything - is fair game for scrutiny, including this fundamental tenet of rationalism itself.

I think, first of all, that there is "single atheism" which is represented by a disbelief in the existence of God. The reasons for this disbelief may vary but it is the only belief (or lack of belief) held by all athiests - be they rationalists, communists, libertarians or whatever.

The paragraph then goes on to - in my opinion - conflate atheism with rationalism and humanism. Not all athiests are rational humanists. Not all people who maintain that they are either rationalists or humanists maintain they are athiests. I would re-word the paragraph but, as this is an important article I wanted to raise the point here first.--BobSpring is sprung! 16:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But the point of the article is to go beyond the mere negation that is atheism, and to present people who have rejected their faith with an alternative to all of the ethical and social beliefs that they may have had to reject as well. Like the first section's title says, it's an attempt at answering the question "OK, I'm an atheist - now what?". Humanism is simply the most common denominator for all belief systems that that put the human being in the center, displacing god in process. In that sense, communists and libertarians are also humanists, it's just that they propose radically different visions of how human happiness is to be maximized - the former through extreme collectivism, the latter through extreme individualism. They're still humanists, though maybe we could have a section discussing these variations. Röstigraben (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the thrust or the intention is wrong but that it is misleading. Atheism is one thing and Humanism is another and rationalism is something else again. I also sort of doubt that Stalin and Ayn Rand were any sort of humanist that most people would recognise.  :-) --BobSpring is sprung! 16:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead-in does mention that "atheism by itself only means that you don't believe in god." and "This document is to put you on a somewhat better footing, a rationalist one...", although I guess the distinction could be made more prominently and earlier. As for non-religious extremists, well, I'm always cautious about avoiding no-true-Scotsman arguments. Mainstream adherents of a given ideology or principle will always reject the fringe variants and deny any connection between them and the basic tenets that they share as well. I don't know about Stalin, but from Rand's writings, I think she was firmly convinced that only the "producers" have a capacity for happiness anyway, and they're also the only ones whom she considers to be fully human. Röstigraben (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm making two points.
 * The statement - There is not just a single "atheism" is, in the best of cases misleading, and in the worst of cases wrong. It's like saying there is more than one way of not believing in Santa.
 * The paragraph goes on to conflate atheism with rationalism and humanism. This is a mistake.
 * I don't understand your "no true Scotsman" reference. I am not denying that Rand and Stalin were athiests. My point is that they were both atheists they believed in Objectivism and Communism respectively. While rationalism, humanism, objectivism and communism may be compatible with atheism they are not compatible with each other. They are - pretty self evidently - different ideas.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I got that. I quoted these two statements to show that the entry section as a whole does not actually conflate atheism with any of the alternative ethical systems; it's just that one expression about "no single atheism" that muddles things a bit. If it were to be replaced by, for example, "Atheism as such is nothing more than the mere negation of the existence of any gods, and, hence, a very limited statement in and of itself. However, for most atheists, this position is merely the starting point to establish alternative, non-religious theories about ethics and social life. There are various…" - I think the whole misunderstanding would be solved.
 * And about Rand and Stalin, you did not deny they were atheists, but you said they were not any sort of humanist that most people would recognize. Again, I've got no clue about Stalin's ethics or if he even had any, but Ayn Rand's humanist convictions are strongly evident from her writings. It's just that she has a very limited notion of what constitutes a human being, and nothing but hatred and contempt for those who don't live up to her ideal. Rand is a radical ideologue who draws the boundary of "humanity" around her class of producers, while the rest of her characters are exclusively motivated by an animalic instinct for consumption and, ultimately, destruction. And although communist notions of class warfare take the opposite side, they follow a similar path in that they essentially deny the humanity of capitalists and the burgeoisie.
 * Humanism is an extremely vague concept that is, at its core, also nothing more than the basic affirmation of the centrality of human happiness to any ethical doctrine, the desire to maximize human freedom and self-expression, and rejecting any inhibitions that are based on supernatural beliefs or traditional moral doctrines that cannot be justified rationally. The specific strand of Secular Humanism is a little more specific (though still vague) in that it explicitly stresses equality as desirable, something objectivists would reject unless it is interpreted as the most basic equality of opportunities. It is definitely compatible with (modern) rationalism and arguably with the ideal, but unfortunately not the reality of communism. Röstigraben (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's the intent of this document as I originally conceived it. It's a bait and switch, meant to drive home the point that atheism in and of itself is irrelevant without a logical belief system behind it. As far as Ayn Rand goes, you seem to be bending "humanism" further than it's really meant to go -- Ayn Rand's fundamental positions are fundamentally anti-humanist because they assume that all people are isolated sociopaths like Rand herself. Stalin, on the other hand, may have been atheist, but given that his "philosophy", such as it was, was all Uncle Joe all the time, any religion he did or didn't profess was likely irrelevant except to the extent that his beliefs stoked his own ego. Rand in particular was also profoundly anti-rational (though she'd have thought otherwise) -- you'll notice how many Randroids (and libertarians in general) subordinate science to their philosophy, and this is pretty explicit -- IIRC Leonard Peikoff even got involved in some kind of movie claiming that there was a crisis in physics because scientists insisted on following the evidence or some horseshit like that. (Come to think of it, Stalin did exactly the same thing.) Ultimately, atheism and agnosticism are conscious decisions (people who don't believe because they never gave it any thought are probably better characterized as apatheist). The point here is to understand why we believe there is no God -- if you go the rationalist route for epistemology and the humanist route for morals, belief or lack thereof won't be nearly as important. EVDebs (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Bob, I recently added a section to atheism RE. the various "forms". Though in that edit I tried to get home a point that they're not prescriptive types of atheism, as such, but more models to represent what people's attitudes are. Would there be a way of switching the "there's not just a single atheism" line to agree with that? As I agree it is slightly misleading in some respects, but it is still required to show that it's a little more complicated than what is implied when people describe Atheism with a capital A. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll fly your air conditioner! 01:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ayn Rand's fundamental positions are fundamentally anti-humanist because they assume that all people are isolated sociopaths like Rand herself. No, that's not quite true. Most forms of humanist ethics stress empathy, consideration and charity for your fellow man, because they acknowledge and try to manage the conflicts of interests between us, as well as the fact that people can end up in horrible situation through no fault of their own. However, a key part of Rand's ideology is to deny that such conflicts could ever arise. She posits that the use of reason is what makes a human being, while those who fail to do so are mere animals in human skin. Reason, in her view, will lead everyone to accept the single correct moral principle of self-preservation - that's why it's called objectivism. Those rational beings can then go on to ensure their survival by being productive, harnessing and improving natural resources, and because they all steadily increase their wealth, there's no reason to cheat or steal. In a nutshell, non-objectivists are animals, and the real humans will get along just fine. That's obviously a pipe dream, but it's the core of her philosophy. Objectivism embraces a very positive image of the human being and asserts it against all of the ethical systems that, in Rand's opinion, put humanity in shackles by telling people how evil and depraved they were. Röstigraben (talk) 06:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Armondikov+Röstigraben
 * Röstigraben proposes:
 * "Atheism as such is nothing more than the mere negation of the existence of any gods, and, hence, a very limited statement in and of itself. However, for most atheists, this position is merely the starting point to establish alternative, non-religious theories about ethics and social life. There are various…"
 * Which is better, but I still personally don't like it because it implies that a belief in atheism comes from somewhere and atheism is then the basis for some subsequent beliefs. I would argue that for many athiests (at least those on this site) atheism is a consequence of something like rationalism - and a pretty minor intellectual one at that. (For some I agree there may be profound social consequences.)  So I would suggest:
 * "Atheism as such is nothing more than the mere negation of the existence of any gods, and, hence, a very limited statement in and of itself. However, for many atheists, this position is often held along with other non-religious theories about ethics and social life. There are various…" --BobSpring is sprung! 09:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a starting point in the sense that it's the rejection of certain ideas regarding morality and knowledge. Divine influence, revelation and absolute morality from scripture for instance. So declaring non-theism (just to differentiate this from atheism for now) means that you have to seek naturalistic models to explain morality. As this non-theism limits your options for choosing a philosophy and/or morality from "everything including god(s)" to "everything excluding god(s)" it does have an influence of some sort. I am somewhat torn as my sympathies lie with Bob's definitions here, that "atheism" simply (as possible) means "don't believe in gods". But I can't deny that it can act, as stated above, as a starting point for determining other things about the world, like morality. Purely because declaring disbelief in god(s) means that you, almost by fiat, can't accept Biblical standards or divine standards. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll execrate your cutting board! 11:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK - but speaking for myself I'm an atheist because I'm a rationalist (or naturalist). It's the reason for my being an atheist - I'm not a rationalist as a consequence of being an atheist.
 * I have the same reason for not believing in Santa, fairies or homoeopathy. Having said that I fully accept that - having reached the no-god decision after a process of rational thought then people may cast around for other moral systems.
 * Incidentally, I also maintain that not all athiests are rationalists (though I imagine most athiests on this site are) - which complicates things a bit more. Of course this is the "rationalwiki" FAQ so we might not need to make too much of that.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, but than could be easily included as well: right the next sentence goes on to define rationalism/rationality and its principles, so we could just add something like "If you renounced your faith and became an atheist out of a lack of evidence for god's existence, then you have already implicitly accepted the tenets of rationalism. If you'd like to find out more about it, keep on reading and explore the wiki." …at the end, no? Röstigraben (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounding good to me. :-) --BobSpring is sprung! 15:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a Christian!!
I'm a Christian, go hide in a cave, Bouahahahaaa! (I just happen to be rational, mostly)! Rursus dixit (yada³!) 16:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good on you. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll swirl your okra! 17:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

'Lack of belief'?
Atheism is not "no belief in God"; rather, it's "belief in no God". Almost all modern dictionaries define atheism as a doctrine or belief that there is no God. Please update the FAQ to support this fact.66.213.107.194 (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Or from Routledge's Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "atheism" is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>moral  21:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are various historical definitions. My impression is that ours is the one preferred by the majority of modern rationalist/athiests.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not least because to "define" it as a positive belief would defy the point of the etymology and also discount the notions of strong/weak and implicit/explicit which serve to add precision to the term. Anyway, pray tell what non-positive disbelief would be termed as? Apart from being undefined in the same way that not stamp collecting doesn't have its own word, which would be nice, but neglects the ubiquity of religion and the entire historical context. This is why you shouldn't cite philosophical terms from bog-standard dictionaries. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>pathetic 21:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Condescending, tongue in cheek tone
I'm really curious what the goal of this is. right now, it reads like "the funny things about religion" by atheists for atheists, and is quite funny and witty. But i'm curious if this has any intention of being *also* or specifically targeted at the truly newly deconverted, or more importantly, the nearly deconverted. If it is for them as well, we might want to take a bit of this more seriously. There are some amazing works written by ex christians and jews who are either atheist or "not quite atheist but certainly not religious" that we might want to consider and highlight. I enjoyed the article, so i'm not saying it should be changed, just asking who we are writing for. <font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot What is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 20:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know about you, but as a newly deconverted atheist, I found this page to give me just the answers I need for all those stupid "But what if you find out there's a Hell when it's too late?" and similar questions. Good username (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this
Had it not been for this page, I would not have been captivated by this website. As a member of the newly de-converted, I found this page informative and important. Good username (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Enormously pleased to have helped :-D Your opinions on the page, how well it does the job it claims to, the value of any given section, etc. would be most welcomed - David Gerard (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a tad long-winded, but given how many questions you are bound to encounter, that's only natural. Other than that, I'll jaunt down my critiques and accolades and let you know. Good username (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want some more resources I suggest you go look at the QE! pages by kennyboy, that'll turn you off for life. Naca (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The what? Good username (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, also as a little FYI, I found this here website after having googled "Atheism FAQ" so that I could find a way to help answer some of the silly nonsense people ask me when I announce that I'm now an atheist (though I wasn't really part of a religion for a while before that). Good username (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The QE blog is basically a steaming pile of shit run by an obese, Young earth creationist, closet homosexual, search engine optimization magnet called Ken DeMyer‎. If you want to debate him he will more than happily agree to it but then say you chickened out because you lack machismo. Ole! Ole! Ole! Naca (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh. Sounds to me like a waste of my precious time. The whole reason I look for places like this on the internet is so that I don't have to put up with those types of people if I don't want to. I get enough of that nonsense with my co-workers (many of whom are teabaggers who don't understand me when I ask them if Mitt Romney wore his magic underwear to the debates.) Good username (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome! I'm happy this resource worked for you. I didn't work on it, but I am fond of it and I have referred it to several of my friends who came to my school SSA for help about where to go next in their newfound apostasy. <font face="MS Sans Serif" size="3">±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR more at 11 13:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Incest
This FAQ seems to lump all kinds of incest together as an unanimously bad thing. This is probably going to be an unpopular opinion here, but what's wrong with consensual incest that doesn't lead to reproduction? - LucidFox (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Read the article again. A quick search for 'incest' reveals Well, you've heard preachers and politicians complaining that if you allow gay sex, then you'll allow incest, and polygamy, and man-on-dog, yada yada. It's the preachers and politicians who believe that incest is a Bad Thing. The only moral point the article makes in this area is about informed consent. Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there actually isn't any lumping of any sort in there, or any judgement on it. I wouldn't say it needs "hey, consensual incest is cool!" explicitly said, but it doesn't call anything unanimously bad. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>d hominem silverbrain.png 17:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Even consensual incest is a hornet's nest of ethical issues -- power imbalances are the big one, as well as the risk of amplifying genetic defects. The latter can be mitigated with birth control, but the power balance issue is something entirely different because it's very hard to determine in such a situation if consent is freely given or manufactured. You could also bring the "if everyone did it..." argument that some people use against gay people, but I suspect realistically that isn't a concern any more than it is about gay people. I'd argue that ethical incestuous relationships are sort of like recovered alcoholics -- we know they exist, but the issues involved are so complex and so fraught with risk that you can never really know whether that's the case except in hindsight, and they're certainly rarer than people who support them want to believe. EVDebs (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Move proposal
Since we now have a FAQ on radioactivity and nuclear technology, I propose the following two changes: I'll do point 2 on my own, but would like some opinions on whether a move is OK. --Tweenk (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Move this article to "FAQ on atheism for the newly deconverted" or even "FAQ on atheism"
 * 2) Edit the section titles so that each question is understandable on its own, rather than only making sense in the context of the "conversation" between the deconverted person and "us" that's running through the article.
 * Regarding the section titles, those were a stylistic choice from the beginning, to be intentionally conversational, so please don't mess with that; there are other FAQs that follow the scheme you suggest, but as it happens we must be a pretty popular one because this comes up third on a Google search for "atheism faq". (Trust me on this one; I started the document, and the conversational tone was quite intentional, in the spirit of if not exactly in line with SPOV.) As for the title, it was also chosen fairly specifically. If someone passes on the document (in PDF format or whatever) to someone else, the "RationalWiki" mention in the title is meant as a quick way of giving someone an idea where it came from. It's basically a branding for people who want to go looking for further info. EVDebs (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is one of the oldest & most popular mainspace pages. It shouldn't be disrupted just to fit around a format used in another page that has only one author.  As for the title, it's maybe a bit cumbersome (& this has come up a couple times before; see above) but nothing should be done too hastily.  Before any move, we should look at other possible titles & what impact it's likely to have on search engine visibility etc.  01:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If gratuitous consistency were so important, Tweenk's new stuff would sensibly be titled in this format - this article is way more popular than the new thing. Of course, it isn't so important. If Tweenk just gets an overwhelming sense of wrongness, he is of course welcome to create a redirect from his preferred format, redirects are cheap - David Gerard (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I admit that changing my page is a better solution. --Tweenk (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Eusebius and the gospels
As of this writing, the article states:

"The Gospels ... were picked out of a much greater number of books by a Catholic bishop named Eusebius around 250 years later."

Eusebius was not the picker. The four gospels were already widely accepted (among orthodox Christians) long before he was alive, probably by the end of the first century. By the end of the second century (c. 180) a Christian apologist, Irenaeus was arguing (using numerology and other arguments that would be obscure to a modern reader) that the number 4 was the divinely-ordained, correct number of gospels and no one should think of there being more or fewer.

It seems more likely that cultural processes selected these 4 works out of the field of competitors than that they were chosen by administrative fiat. In this case, the higher-ups merely ratified what had long been tradition. Those higher-ups were Athanasius in his festal letter of 367 and later the Council of Carthage (397).

The article also states:

"At least one Gospel of unquestioned early provenance, the Gospel of Thomas, was lost entirely until the 20th century and never made it into any known New Testament canon."

Thomas is not of unquestioned early provenance. There is still debate on whether it is a first or second century manuscript. It probably did not have wide early acceptance because it did not fit with the beliefs of the community we now call orthodox. And the early writers we do have roundly reject it.

The quoted section might be more accurately replaced with: "Many of these other gospels never made it into any known New Testament Canon. For example, the Gospel of Thomas was lost entirely until the 20th century."

Finally, the article mentions that Luther doubted Revelation. You might also mention that Eusebius recorded divided opinion on Revelation in his day. The appropriate quote is: "Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also ... and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books." (the Apocalypse of John is another name for the book of Revelation)

DuckBook (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds about right. Feel free to have a hack - David Gerard (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Wellhausian Theory of the Origins of the Bible
The section of the article labelled "What about the Bible?" essentially states the Wellhausian Theory of the Bible's creation. This theory is long discredited by secular and religious scholars.

As for evidence, not a shred of the supposed documents from which the Bible was drawn has ever been found. This view of the Bible's authorship is speculative, as it relies solely on a modern man being able to look at a document and figure out purely through speculation what the original sources were, even though there was no reason other than that same speculation to believe that it came from multiple sources. The theory is entirely built up from hyper textual criticism and has been altered in huge ways time and again, showing the inherent weakness of their methodology. Whenever passages fail to meet the criteria they establish for separating sections of the Pentateuch, they claim that it was cleaned up by some redactor putting together an elaborate hoax. Of course, this response only further discredits the theory, as it is entirely based on textual evidence of diverse traditions, which would have had to have been overlooked by the redactor, who so carefully removed evidence whenever it conflicts with the proposed theory.

Writing as early as 1950, the British scholar HH Rowley states: “That it [the Graf-Wellhausen theory] is widely rejected in whole or in part is doubtless true, but there is no view to put in its place that would not be more widely and emphatically rejected. . . . The Graf-Wellhausen view is only a working hypothesis, which can be abandoned with alacrity when a more satisfying view is found, but which cannot with profit be abandoned until then” (The Growth of the Old Testament [New York: Longmans, 1950], p. 46).

This is a secular scholar admitting that despite the fact that we know that Wellhausen was wrong, we don't have anything better so we may as well keep teaching it as fact. By doing so on this page, atheism is made to look, at the very least ignorant, if not downright deceptive. If we can offer nothing better than a discredited conjecture with no evidence, it is likely better to remain silent on the subject.

-Jason Bray &mdash; Unsigned, by: 76.181.73.0 / talk 21:41, 29 April 2013‎ (UTC)

FAQ for the Newly Deconverted: Conservapedia Edition
A little off-topic, but someone should totes make a deconversion guide for ex-acolytes of Assfly Schafly after they've been banned for questioning his greatnessTheTalkingToaster (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, although purely on the basis that I can't tell if that use of "totes" is ironic or not. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>pathetic 15:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That has not happened since the homeschoolers were a regular feature. Everyone who has edited CP since at least 2009 has no delusions about the fact that Andy is a mean-spirited idiot. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 15:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hitchhiker's Guide
I've loved RationalWIki from afar from ages, this is my first official edit. Goodness. Anyway, I feel like this page should have a great big piece of reassurance right at the top for the nervous or ashamed, along the line's of the Hitchhiker's Guide, that simply says "DON'T PANIC". It would make this guide more inviting for those who are genuinely deconverting, much like the constant reminders that it's ok not to believe. Pascal yuiop (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Good idea - David Gerard (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "DON'T PANIC" is also the tagline used by the Christian Union when they're trying to pray/prey on new students. I realise that connotation won't be universal, because not everyone has encountered UCCF/CU stuff before, but it does make me slightly uncomfortable to use that wording exactly. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>sshole 12:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, I dunno, that makes it sound like it's well worth reclaiming! - David Gerard (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sloppy writing
About the section: 'Is atheism a religion?' I've got no major complaints, really. I just think it's a bit sloppily written, and since the article as a whole appears to be very refined, I thought I'd post in talk before editing the article itself.

Specifically the second mention of 'orange peels' I think is very sloppily written. To quote the text: "If you were to consider 'religious' as being anyone who was passionate about an idea [...] Combine this with the existence of implicit atheism and now the aforementioned orange peels have their own atheistic religion!"

I fail to see how orange peels or implicit atheists can be passionate about an idea. I mean ok, you could potentially, far-fetchedly, say that an implicit atheist can be "implicitly passionate" about the idea, but certainly orange peels don't even qualify for that.

Additionally, that doesn't mean I have no issues with the first mention of orange peels, which makes its jump of "anyone unaware of religion is atheistic, but only implicitly. According to this definition, of course, even orange peels are atheists".

That jump includes a personification of an inanimate object by setting 'orange peels' to be under the heading 'anyone' instead of 'anything'.

I suggest a bit of a re-write. (sorry if I'm being painfully pedantic) Nullahnung (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * An easy fix. I'll take a look. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>sshole 10:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, looks good now! (I think) Nullahnung (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is project blue bean evidence for god?
You said that. That implies you claim Lucifer is God. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 70.210.153.83 / talk 09:43, 26 January 2015
 * Hey BoN, if this isn't just a nonsensical drive-by comment, why not take it up on Talk:Project Blue Beam (note spelling) instead? ScepticWombat (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)