Talk:FAQ for the Newly Deconverted/Archive2

Name
The name is "RationalWiki Atheism FAQ for the Newly Deconverted". Why do we need all of these words? We know it's on RationalWiki. "Atheism" and "Newly Deconverted" are redundant, and the FAQ isn't just relevant to those who've just deconverted. Why not just shorten it to "Atheism FAQ"? (I know it's a cover page and widely linked to, but is this at least theoretically valid?) 16:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "newly deconverted" isn't really redundant, that's its target audience and a group it's been useful to - David Gerard (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Then "FAQ for the Newly Deconverted". 17:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Previous discussion on this here. I would say atheism is more important in the title than "newly deconverted".   20:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it needs all of "Atheism", "FAQ" and "Newly Deconverted" - David Gerard (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it needs "Newly Deconverted", because I don't believe that the article is tailored to people who've just left their religion. 01:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The way the headings are written make it look more like a guide for those who are on the edge of losing faith than actually already deconverted,, being a lot are "But X said Y about irreligion!" and us going "X was wrong about y, Irreligion is perfectly fine", but those aren't unhelpful for the newly deconverted either. -- Mie kal  01:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe you are factually incorrect, because that's precisely who it was targeted to and who it's proven useful for - David Gerard (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Miekal. The article deals with many topics that are relevant for pre-deconversion. Furthermore, the article deals with many topics that are useful even a while after deconversion. Changing the title won't change who reads the article, but it will make it more accurate to the contents of the page. 14:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's a terrible idea. It's specifically help for that target audience - the newly-atheist who are wondering what the hell to think about the world now - and if it helps others that's nice, but it is a thing with a purpose that it has been actually useful to people for. Changing the name does not actually help anything whatsoever - David Gerard (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression this was to help both people on the fence about their religion make an informed decision as well as those that have already made the decision to leave; don't worry, non-religion isn't as scary as you have been taught to believe! CorruptUser (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * *cough* ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 11:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hasn't changed fronm being a terrible idea - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Shorter title is better. This is pretty much the definition of titlecruft. "Atheism FAQ" works so much better. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 22:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Shorter title AND more accurate. What's to lose with "Atheism FAQ"? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 19:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Answered above - David Gerard (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fuzzy, you don't seem to cope with the whole mobocracy thing very well. Hint: if nobody agrees with you, you should let it go.  01:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Er? Only David Gerard voiced upport for the current name. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 09:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The name is just fine the way it is. See David's remarks above, about the target audience. Nobody's voiced more than tepid support for changing it, except for the prime instigator, that being you, Fuzzy. Beyond that, tumbleweeds as far as the eye can see. Time to let it go. Alec Sanderson (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tumbleweeds, as in Miekal, CorruptUser, and everyone in the previous thread? FrothyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 19:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fine the way it is. The name also has a relaxed tone to it, which coincides nicely with RationalWiki's theme. LEFTY  GREEN  MARIO 20:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Atheism FAQ" is unrelaxing? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't mean to imply that. To clarify, the long name and the words "newly deconverted" has a more relaxing tone. "Atheism FAQ" is more concise and to-the-point. I don't mind either change, to be honest, but I slightly prefer the long one because of its tone. LEFTY  GREEN  MARIO 20:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The restructure
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki_Atheism_FAQ_for_the_Newly_Deconverted&oldid=1552042

I tried to was move sections around to make more sense -- a section on what atheism is, on how science works, on whether the claims of religion are true, on morality, and on finding a community. Right now, it feels a bit disjointed. No good? 13:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ehh fair enough. (Sorry for delay in responding.) - David Gerard (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Defining atheism
Given the status of this article I'm hesitant to make a change without raising my objection here first, so I shall raise it here first! This sentence: "Atheism" is nothing more than the mere negation of the belief in the existence of any gods." I lack a belief in god(s). Why don't we define atheism as simply a lack of a belief? The strong connotation of the word "negation" is the the contradiction or denial of something. It can have the meaning of mere absence, but that's not how the word is generally used and understood.---Mona- (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I support. 20:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Coming out
I like the guide at /r/atheism. Thoughts on incorporating parts of it? 20:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * They also provide a surprisingly awesome flowchart. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)